|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 1:31:54 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: chrystar
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
Apologies for jumping in here. If it seems too rude please disregard.
quote:
Pacifists have a hard time existing without soldiers dieing for their freedom to be so.
Speaking as a pacifist, I am willing to die. I am simply not wiling to kill. I cannot someone that I love.
quote:
I wonder what this world would be like if not for us warmongering americans. Wow.
Jesus died for your spiritual freedom. Soldiers have died for your natural freedom
Would the world be a different place? It would be a very different place, that's for sure. Some people might be free who now are not. Some people who now are free probably would not be. And it would not be because of "American warmongering," whatever that might be - America is no more "warmongering" than any other great power, whatever that word might mean in this context, and it's a good deal less "warmongering" than a lot of such powers.
That said, I'm a little disturbed by this apparent connection between Christ and the kingdom of heaven on the one hand, and soldiers and the national state on the other. Ultimately I don't owe my allegiance to that state, and while I am grateful that someone would care that much about my freedom, ultimately my freedom might be worth my life, but it is not worth someone else's.
quote:
It was ok for God. It was ok for God to tell the isrealites to do. See...killing is not murder.
We are not the Israelites of the Old Testament. With Christ having come, we have a different relationship with God than they did before that. Christ tells me to love my enemy. Now this is a difficult command because it is rather difficult to "decide" to love someone. But at the very least I do not think I can kill someone that I love. Certainly not if my love for them means I am willing to lay down my life for them, as Christ taught and ultimately did.
Remember, Christ died for the lives of his enemies as well as his friends. Whereas the military would have us kill our enemies, for our friends.
quote:
I for one am glad not to have to speak german or japanese.
I am glad too, but this is not a discussion about what worldly ruler we'd rather accept, it's about how we'd rather go about dealing with other rulers than our own. How many people are you personally prepared to kill to retain your unbiblical "right" to speak English? Or - since I know that's being facetious - to live under a free, democratic government?
quote:
Jesus is gonna come back and slaugher billions.
That's his choice. But until he tells me to, I'm not going to slaughter even one.
quote:
By the way my son is a marine stationed in Japan, Okinawa to be specific. I could not be more proud of him, his free will choice to join the military, esspecially a marine, in time of war. That my friend...is a man.
That was a courageous choice for him and I don't mean to imply that he is not a Christian or anything like that. These are personal views. In the absence of an explicit teaching on Christ on this subject, I think ultimately we have to work this out between ourselves and our consciences and God, and in the short term some of us are going to come to different conclusions than others. I pray one day we'll know enough to agree on this, one way or the other.
Fiat-lux
this thread hss made me so angry at times, but i wanted to take a second to say that while I disagree with many ofyour points- I respect your viewpoint and i think this thread could use more " respectful" comments from people, like you.
I can understand your take on pacifism, while not agreeing. Other posters on this thread have had , in my opnion a lot less class then you in posting thier objections to the militray and service,and I think you post cuts really to the heart of the whole issue. In that ones belief about a certian aspect of our faith, should not disqualify your from the faith completely. I particular that while you personally have iseuse involving service you are not willing lump thoose that do serve as sinner and cold-blooded killers.
So again while I do not agree with your point,my hat off to you for a well though out post!
What about those folks who wave the flag of protecting one's right to disagree and dissent only to later hit them over the head with it when one has the nerve to simply offer an opposing view point?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 2:25:55 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
It wasn't the use of the sword, but the thought behind... Peter had a huge pride issue and thought he knew best... His faith wasn't in the right place like David's was when he tossed the rock at Goliath. I am sure you are aware of Peter's issue with Christ giving up His life. We can't dismiss the fact they carried a weapon and while I wouldn't believe it was for going after folks, I am sure it was there for self-defense... If not please point out another reason for them having and swords... Fashion statement?
Peter did have some pride issues - and I sometimes think Peter gets a bit of a bad rap (sure he's always the one sticking his neck out in the wrong place, but on the other hand, at least he's trying... which can't always be said for some of the other disciples...)
More to the point, and this speaks again to what I said before about the difficulty of drawing clear conclusions from the gospels on this issue, we have to look at what the disciples were doing with swords in the first place. And it's here that I don't think self defence is an obvious teaching from Jesus.
Jesus doesn't get around to ordering his disciples to find some swords until Luke 22, when he's clearly preparing for his arrest. In Luke 10, when he sent out the disciples to teach - when you'd think they might need self-defence, since they were only in pairs and were preaching an unpopular message - he sent them out without virtually anything - not even a purse or bag - and said they should preach the word, heal the sick, and live on the charity of others as they did so. Jesus was pretty clear here about sending them out as (unarmed) lambs among wolves.
In Luke 22, when Jesus tells them to get swords, he reminds them of this mission and said that even though they brought nothing with them, they never lacked for what they needed. "But now," Jesus says, "if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and by one."
Now, on the one hand we could take this as a guideline for self-defence - and I understand that people do that. But I prefer to base my interpretation more on what follows:
After telling them to go and buy swords, Jesus provides what seems to be a reason: to fulfill the prophecy that "he was numbered with the transgessors." This explanation would be in order because while he once sent his disciples out "like lambs among wolves" (hardly an image involving much in the way of self-defence), now he wants them to appear as "transgressors" - and in order to do that, they must be armed.
The fact that self-defence was not a major priority seems to be supported by the fact that the disciples quickly went out and found a pair of swords, and Jesus said that was enough. Surely if he meant that all the disciples should go and prepare to defend themselves, they would benefit from more swords than that. I conclude for myself that Jesus's instructions about the swords were intended to create an appearance, at that time only. Later, at his trial (in John 18), he explained that his servants did not fight at his arrest, because his kingdom was not of this world.
The problem with this story in terms of our interpretation is that I admit really it could be taken both ways. I've heard pacifists - including myself, I admit - argue that Jesus's statement to Peter to put his sword away applies to every Christian at all times. But I'm not sure that really follows. The same criticism that I apply to interpretations of the statement to buy swords could probably be applied to interpretations of the statement to put away the sword.
quote:
What about those folks who wave the flag of protecting one's right to disagree and dissent only to later hit them over the head with it when one has the nerve to simply offer an opposing view point?
I'm not planning on hitting anyone over the head here. Either way, I would agree that waving a flag isn't an excuse for being a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 2:41:55 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
The gyrations of folks who try and change Scripture to support their own heresy never ceases to amaze me.
And this is a fine example of such.
And calling me a heretic is a fine example of resorting to personal attacks in the apparent absence of an actual counter-argument.
Though I'd be happy to discuss other interpretations if you wish to propose one.
Bear in mind, though, that as I did note, I do not believe one can safely make a firm conclusion one way or the other from this one incident. I would also welcome correction if I have "changed Scripture."
< Message edited by fiat_lux -- 5/30/2008 2:49:25 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 2:46:26 PM
|
|
|
WalkingwithHim2
Posts: 2787
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((To all who have served or are serving in the military))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Thank you!
_____________________________
Jesus saves the soul not necessarily the brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 2:46:48 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6614
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
Peter did have some pride issues - and I sometimes think Peter gets a bit of a bad rap (sure he's always the one sticking his neck out in the wrong place, but on the other hand, at least he's trying... which can't always be said for some of the other disciples...)
But God did not condemn Cornelius' profession when he commanded Peter to go show him the things of Christ. This was well after Pentecost when Peter had been filled with the indwelting of the Holy Spirit.
Cornelius was a professional soldier - a centurian, a leader of soldiers. Yet, neither God nor Peter took the oportunity to correct him, if indeed there was a need to.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 3:22:37 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7691
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
In Luke 22, when Jesus tells them to get swords, he reminds them of this mission and said that even though they brought nothing with them, they never lacked for what they needed. "But now," Jesus says, "if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and by one."
Now, on the one hand we could take this as a guideline for self-defence - and I understand that people do that. But I prefer to base my interpretation more on what follows:
After telling them to go and buy swords, Jesus provides what seems to be a reason: to fulfill the prophecy that "he was numbered with the transgessors." This explanation would be in order because while he once sent his disciples out "like lambs among wolves" (hardly an image involving much in the way of self-defence), now he wants them to appear as "transgressors" - and in order to do that, they must be armed.
The gyrations of folks who try and change Scripture to support their own heresy never ceases to amaze me.
And this is a fine example of such.
Thankis
RC
Knock this sort of thing off or prepare to be banned.
Either stick to the topic and refrain from personal attacks or stay off the thread.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Messages which disregard the words in red will be removed without warning and the poster may also be banned.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 3:37:07 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
After telling them to go and buy swords, Jesus provides what seems to be a reason: to fulfill the prophecy that "he was numbered with the transgessors." This explanation would be in order because while he once sent his disciples out "like lambs among wolves" (hardly an image involving much in the way of self-defence), now he wants them to appear as "transgressors" - and in order to do that, they must be armed.
The transgressors were those on the crosses with Christ...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 3:50:59 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
Peter did have some pride issues - and I sometimes think Peter gets a bit of a bad rap (sure he's always the one sticking his neck out in the wrong place, but on the other hand, at least he's trying... which can't always be said for some of the other disciples...)
But God did not condemn Cornelius' profession when he commanded Peter to go show him the things of Christ. This was well after Pentecost when Peter had been filled with the indwelting of the Holy Spirit.
Cornelius was a professional soldier - a centurian, a leader of soldiers. Yet, neither God nor Peter took the oportunity to correct him, if indeed there was a need to.
His profession wasn't a problem but the group he belonged to had serious issues...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 3:53:06 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: chrystar
oh well I guess it is a free country.Thank God the militray secured that right for us to do that!, that is what free speech is about!
It seems free till one speaks their mind, respectively or not... Can’t be the champion of freedom and rail people for exercising that freedom…
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 4:02:34 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
The transgressors were those on the crosses with Christ...
Certainly those men were transgressors, yes. What I am saying is that Jesus justifies the purchase of swords in reference to the means of fufilling the prophecy regarding transgressors. This appears to suggest that he wished to strengthen the case against him as someone worthy of execution - or at least to make that case available to those who would punish him, because he understood what was meant to occur. At the very least, the fact that he was afterwards in an armed company would seem to strengthen a case his enemies would like to make against him - that he was in a band of rebels against Caesar and therefore should be executed by the Roman authorities.
I think you're right about the transgressors being on the cross and I may have been heading slightly off course in the last post. Thanks for the correction.
As I noted before, this story doesn't really seem to have an explicit teaching one way or the other. Jesus doesn't clearly say the purpose is that all Christians should be prepared for self-defence - and if it was, you'd think he would have brought it up the last time he sent out the disciples. But that time he went the opposite direction and specifically made them vulnerable to others. If we were going to be absolutely literal about this, the only conclusion we could safely draw is that Jesus said his disciples could buy swords, but he did not say whether they could use them.
quote:
But God did not condemn Cornelius' profession when he commanded Peter to go show him the things of Christ. This was well after Pentecost when Peter had been filled with the indwelting of the Holy Spirit.
Cornelius was a professional soldier - a centurian, a leader of soldiers. Yet, neither God nor Peter took the oportunity to correct him, if indeed there was a need to.
The point of that story as related to us in Acts is the importance that Gentiles are eligible for salvation just as Jews are - and the information that's related to us is related to that point. Whether or not Peter and Cornelius discussed the military in the "few days" they spent together we'll never know, nor will we know what Cornelius subsequently might have considered about the issue, one way or the other.
No offence, but an argument from silence is kind of flimsy. Certainly the story of Cornelius makes clear that a soldier can become a Christian - but I have not denied that, in fact I believe completely that soldiers can be Christians.
Ultimately, I derive my pacifism from my understanding of other, explicit teachings from Christ and to some extent from Paul and Peter (in the Bible, as inspired by God). Based on these I would not join the military because there is presently nothing - including my own security - over which I am prepared to kill those whom I am commanded to love. There are a number of secondary and related reasons, including problems about oaths, which I could go into, but the point is, the story about Cornelius doesn't really let us draw a conclusion about whether God approves or disapproves of the military as such. It does let us state with certainty that being in the military doesn't somehow exclude you from accepting Christ - and I accept that. I have my own views on violence and the military, and I trust a Christian brother who is in the military, or is thinking of enlisting, to act on his own views.
< Message edited by fiat_lux -- 5/30/2008 4:22:20 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 4:19:20 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
Certainly those men were transgressors, yes. What I am saying is that Jesus justifies the purchase of swords in reference to the means of fufilling the prophecy regarding transgressors. This appears to suggest that he wished to strengthen the case against him as someone worthy of execution - or at least to make that case available to those who would punish him, because he understood what was meant to occur. At the very least, the fact that he was afterwards in an armed company would seem to strengthen a case his enemies would like to make against him - that he was in a band of rebels against Caesar and therefore should be executed by the Roman authorities.
Given the charges against Christ from the idea that His followers having swords is a gnat on a elephants back... He claimed to be God, a King... I don't believe given the character of Christ that He would do something of this nature. As well He made the point that He wasn't guilty of anything, in that He told Pilate that the sin of others was greater than Pilates... Pilate knew He was innocent, yet to retain control he gave the mob what they wanted... Christ was innocent and His only "crime" was doing the will of the Father and acting in complete perfect truth... I don't believe that had anything to do with someone having a sword...
quote:
As I noted before, this story doesn't really seem to have an explicit teaching one way or the other. Jesus doesn't clearly say the purpose is that all Christians should be prepared for self-defence - and if it was, you'd think he would have brought it up the last time he sent out the disciples. But that time he went the opposite direction and specifically made them vulnerable to others. If we were going to be absolutely literal about this, the only conclusion we could safely draw is that Jesus said his disciples could buy swords, but he did not say whether they could use them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 4:30:41 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
I think you're probably right that it is a minor point. Unfortunately, it then returns us to the question of why Jesus wanted them to get swords. Two swords in a crowd of men isn't really all that useful for self-defence any more than it is useful in a charge of sedition, and even if it was, we'd have to explain why Jesus's views on the need for arms in self-defence had apparently changed from the last time he was preparing to send out disciples on their own.
My interpretation is speculative if not stretching, I admit, but it's not just because I'm trying to bend it to my own views, it's because I'm trying very hard to find greater meaning in a passage which is unfortunately somewhat vague, at least in terms of the question we're trying to answer here.
Edit: I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to jump in with the last word, but I'm worried that we're drifting this thread a bit, since the question of "Christians and self-defence" isn't quite the same as the question of "Christians and the military." At least in my mind, the two aren't the same questions and don't necessarily have the same answers.
< Message edited by fiat_lux -- 5/30/2008 4:39:10 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 4:33:24 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6614
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
quote:
But God did not condemn Cornelius' profession when he commanded Peter to go show him the things of Christ. This was well after Pentecost when Peter had been filled with the indwelting of the Holy Spirit.
Cornelius was a professional soldier - a centurian, a leader of soldiers. Yet, neither God nor Peter took the oportunity to correct him, if indeed there was a need to.
The point of that story as related to us in Acts is the importance that Gentiles are eligible for salvation just as Jews are - and the information that's related to us is related to that point. Whether or not Peter and Cornelius discussed the military in the "few days" they spent together we'll never know, nor will we know what Cornelius subsequently might have considered about the issue, one way or the other.
No offence, but an argument from silence is kind of flimsy...
You say "point of that story" as if it's fiction, a parable. It happened and Peter later used it to show that Gentiles could be saved, but it was a huge opportunity to make your point if it is valid. Where is the consistent command, "Go and sin no more" if Cornelius was sinning?
Even BEFORE Peter came, the Bible asserts about Cornelius, "He and all his family were devout and God-fearing," not grave sinners.
No offense, but there is more in the OT & NT than this one story, but they have been conveniently dismissed. Such as God ordaining governments to wield the sword. He is either sanctioning the military or else He is ordaining sin - the later goes against His nature.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 4:45:39 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
You say "point of that story" as if it's fiction, a parable. It happened and Peter later used it to show that Gentiles could be saved, but it was a huge opportunity to make your point if it is valid. Where is the consistent command, "Go and sin no more" if Cornelius was sinning?
Even BEFORE Peter came, the Bible asserts about Cornelius, "He and all his family were devout and God-fearing," not grave sinners.
No offense, but there is more in the OT & NT than this one story, but they have been conveniently dismissed. Such as God ordaining governments to wield the sword. He is either sanctioning the military or else He is ordaining sin - the later goes against His nature.
It's not that I consider it fiction, it's that I consider that the story was written in a way intended to make clear certain teachings and not others. Actually it would have been a useful point for Peter to make any statement on how Christians ought to relate to state military forces, and he says nothing about it one way or the other. The most we can take from silence alone is that Peter believes people can become Christians while they're serving in the military - and that is a position that I think you and I share.
I agree that there is a lot more in the Bible, which is why I've been trying to say regularly that it's tough to draw conclusions from specific stories like this one. So, let's move on from Acts 10...
You bring up Romans 13, which is a fairly commonly used text on government and Christianity. However, I'm a little skeptical about how that passage is oftenly used. For one thing, it's not clear that Paul has in mind to teach explicitly a philosophy on how we as Christians ought to participate in government - and by extension the military - here. If we take out the "13" and begin from midway through Romans 12, we have from Paul a set of teachings on loving those who would persecute and harm us, including enemies and the government. This makes sense because it would be very easy, both for a first-century Christian and particularly for a first-century Jew, to conclude that the Roman government was the enemy. Paul is saying that doesn't matter - we are called to love those who are in government the same way we love all human beings. (Thus he closes the passage in Romans 13:7 by saying we should "give everyone what you owe him.") Earlier in this passage, he makes two key statements which allow other interpretations: one that "as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" (12:18), and the other that we should "overcome evil with good" (12:21).
I'm sure we can agree that it is not morally right for a government to persecute Christians. Paul would presumably agree, yet he still wrote the passage Romans 13, at a time when the government was persecuting Christians, including him. God has permitted and established human governments, but that doesn't necessarily mean he thinks highly of everything they do. He has a pretty bitter rant about governments, or at least about monarchies, in 1 Samuel 8, for example.
The problem with taking Romans 13 as you have is that it means we basically can't criticize governments. Romans 13 says God established the governments of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, and Vladimir Lenin. Did they use the sword justly? He also established the government of the British empire. Was it therefore unjust to rebel against the British?
Edit for that last paragraph: at least, that's how it seems to me where the argument would logically lead. I invite correction if I'm wrong.
< Message edited by fiat_lux -- 5/30/2008 4:56:46 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 4:52:42 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6614
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
The problem with taking Romans 13 as you have is that it means we basically can't criticize governments. Romans 13 says God established the governments of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, and Vladimir Lenin. Did they use the sword justly? He also established the government of the British empire. Was it therefore unjust to rebel against the British?
This isn't about crticizing individual regimes, it's about the basic principle of God's ordaining governments. You can't brush that aside any more than an atheist has the right to brush aside Christianity because of hypocrites and fakes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 4:57:44 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
This isn't about crticizing individual regimes, it's about the basic principle of God's ordaining governments. You can't brush that aside any more than an atheist has the right to brush aside Christianity because of hypocrites and fakes.
All right, fair enough. What does it mean then, to you, when you say that God "ordains" governments?
What is this "ordination"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 5:01:34 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6614
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
quote:
This isn't about crticizing individual regimes, it's about the basic principle of God's ordaining governments. You can't brush that aside any more than an atheist has the right to brush aside Christianity because of hypocrites and fakes.
All right, fair enough. What does it mean then, to you, when you say that God "ordains" governments?
What is this "ordination"?
First explain how a government can wield a sword without military or police.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 5:10:46 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
One basic function of most states in this world is their military, if that's what you're after.
(Ditto with their police.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 5:21:25 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6614
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Then the general principle is:
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 5:39:00 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
Okay. With you so far. How then do you apply that principle to the current debate?
I will point out, though, that I think Paul must have more in mind there than what is in plain language. After all, he ended up in jail under the Roman government on the grounds of doing something we would consider right or good - preaching the word of God. At the very least being subject to the authorities clearly isn't the same as being obedient to the authorities, and being established by God clearly doesn't mean doing that which is morally right, so much as doing that which God permits them to do. In the same manner God caused, i.e. ordained (in my reading at any rate), various foreign nations to rise up and oppress the Israelites, but this did not make them just in doing so. The relationship between the sword-bearing ruler and God is particularly unclear in light of the temptation of Christ, in which Satan appears to claim - without any objection from Jesus - that he controls the governments of this world.
Second, people also claim frequently today that governments no longer possess the legitimacy of an institution established and permitted by God - people make that claim, for example, every time they advocate going to war to abolish one government and establish a new one. Does this square well with Romans 13? Paul doesn't seem to prescribe any limits or bounds on the authority of government here.
Third - and this one might be the most relevant to explore here, I guess - this doesn't seem to suggest how we as Christians ought to relate to the government and the sword in question, in the present context. Paul is writing as though Christians are outside the government: the authorities here are someone else, and that someone else holds the sword. The fact that we are Christian and they are not, Paul suggests, doesn't give us the authority to rebel against them. He doesn't really consider what should happen if - or when - Christians consider taking up the sword in question.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Christians and military - 5/30/2008 8:12:14 PM
|
|
|
David-West
Posts: 45
Joined: 3/11/2007
From: The State of Jefferson
Status: offline
|
I haven't had a chance to read through all of this thread yet, but as someone who ships off to Army Basic in less than 3 weeks, I'd like to reply to this post from the first page of this thread:
quote:
I would like to point out the sins that involves around the military.
First of all, you have to swear when you enlist, which God has forbidden His people from doing. Second, you may be killing Jesus' servants because His followers are everywhere in the world, including | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
