[SPLIT] Christian pacifism

[ClaytonB]

SPLIT FROM: President Trump Outwitted Benjamin Netanyahu – The “12 Day War” is Over!

Nothing will happen.

Cry harder, Peacehawk.

Bookmarking for future reference.

Trump has used diplomatic deception which is possibly the most idiotic thing he has done yet. He lied to the Iranians and told the world "two weeks" then went ahead with an early strike, which was itself a war-crime. So, for a short-run tactical gain that had no strategic value, Trump sacrificed 100% of his diplomatic credibility not only on the world stage, but with the American public, as well. Not one word can be believed from the mouth of the Orange Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Adding the word "hawk" to peace cannot make it a slur. Peace is inherently good and is one of the fruits of the Spirit. No one can oppose peace unless they are a servant of the devil. Yes, the stakes really are that high. Choose your words carefully. No political objective you have is worth spending eternity in hell.

 

[familydog]

Peace is inherently good and is one of the fruits of the Spirit. No one can oppose peace unless they are a servant of the devil.

Were the Israelites servants of the devil when God commanded them to slaughter the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, etc.? Or, is it possible, that a fruit of the spirit is not something that should be employed in all situations and at all costs? Otherwise, St. Augustine must be burning in Hell.

 

[ClaytonB]

Were the Israelites servants of the devil when God commanded them to slaughter the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, etc.? Or, is it possible, that a fruit of the spirit is not something that should be employed in all situations and at all costs? Otherwise, St. Augustine must be burning in Hell.

Those are all superficial gotcha objections. The challenge of the Gospel to this fallen world (all of which is going to be destroyed by fire, 2 Peter 3:7, etc.) is that war is altogether repugnant to God. "Though they blow the trumpet and get everything ready, no one will go into battle, for my wrath is upon the whole crowd." (Ezekiel 7:14) Man loves warfare because he is carnal (sinful) and he loves that which gratifies the flesh, and there is no lust more gratifying to the flesh than war lust. In modern American churchianity, war is framed as some kind of high calling, some kind of noble thing. But war is so completely repugnant to God that he will not himself even engage battle with his rebellious creation, rather, he will simply destroy it in the flames, written down as a complete failure. Except for those who are in Jesus -- that is the only remnant that will be pulled from the flames. We can see this from Rev. 19:11ff, the great final "battle" where God finally lines up all those who hate Him to have their go. But there is no battle, it's just a slaughter, an unholy sacrifice given over to the birds. God hates war so completely he will not even give his enemies the carnal satisfaction of having one, he will just summarily destroy them in fire.

There is no "asterisk" to the fruits of the Spirit ... Galatians 5 explicitly says, "Against these there is no law", meaning, they are completely unlimited and unqualified, the fruits of the Spirit are eternal, absolute, universal and wholly without qualification or exception. They are so universal that even the pagans have never once made a law against them, that's the meaning of "against these there is no law". There is not and never has been a law made against love, joy, peace, and so on, because even the pagans know that these things are inherently good. Only those who are given over to the satanic mind can hate the fruits of the Spirit. And this present, evil world is architected -- top-to-bottom -- on the satanic mind.

As for Augustine, just war, and the Canaanites, the work of God in history cannot be reduced to simplistic truisms. God has the legitimate authority to take life because (a) he is the Creator and (b) he actually has the power to resurrect (undo death), unlike anyone else (Deut. 32:39). Thus, when God commands death, he does so with legitimate authority delegated to those who receive that command. Thus, the Israelites who were commanded to slaughter the abominable Canaanites did so with the plenary authority of the Creator himself, which he had delegated to them in giving them that command. And in the church Age, the work of the Son of God in the political order of this Age is on the same pattern -- where he has intervened in history to strike down the enemies of the church with violent force, he has done so with legitimate authority because he is the Creator (John 1:1ff, Col. 1:15-17, Rev. 21:5 etc.) Augustine understood this point, so there is no tension here. What God does through his sovereign decree cannot be resisted (Dan. 4:35, Is. 55:10,11, etc.), all that is left for us believers is to understand why he has done what he has done (if we are able).

 

[familydog]

Those are all superficial gotcha objections. The challenge of the Gospel to this fallen world (all of which is going to be destroyed by fire, 2 Peter 3:7, etc.) is that war is altogether repugnant to God. "Though they blow the trumpet and get everything ready, no one will go into battle, for my wrath is upon the whole crowd." (Ezekiel 7:14) Man loves warfare because he is carnal (sinful) and he loves that which gratifies the flesh, and there is no lust more gratifying to the flesh than war lust. In modern American churchianity, war is framed as some kind of high calling, some kind of noble thing. But war is so completely repugnant to God that he will not himself even engage battle with his rebellious creation, rather, he will simply destroy it in the flames, written down as a complete failure. Except for those who are in Jesus -- that is the only remnant that will be pulled from the flames. We can see this from Rev. 19:11ff, the great final "battle" where God finally lines up all those who hate Him to have their go. But there is no battle, it's just a slaughter, an unholy sacrifice given over to the birds. God hates war so completely he will not even give his enemies the carnal satisfaction of having one, he will just summarily destroy them in fire.

There is no "asterisk" to the fruits of the Spirit ... Galatians 5 explicitly says, "Against these there is no law", meaning, they are completely unlimited and unqualified, the fruits of the Spirit are eternal, absolute, universal and wholly without qualification or exception. They are so universal that even the pagans have never once made a law against them, that's the meaning of "against these there is no law". There is not and never has been a law made against love, joy, peace, and so on, because even the pagans know that these things are inherently good. Only those who are given over to the satanic mind can hate the fruits of the Spirit. And this present, evil world is architected -- top-to-bottom -- on the satanic mind.

As for Augustine, just war, and the Canaanites, the work of God in history cannot be reduced to simplistic truisms. God has the legitimate authority to take life because (a) he is the Creator and (b) he actually has the power to resurrect (undo death), unlike anyone else (Deut. 32:39). Thus, when God commands death, he does so with legitimate authority delegated to those who receive that command. Thus, the Israelites who were commanded to slaughter the abominable Canaanites did so with the plenary authority of the Creator himself, which he had delegated to them in giving them that command. And in the church Age, the work of the Son of God in the political order of this Age is on the same pattern -- where he has intervened in history to strike down the enemies of the church with violent force, he has done so with legitimate authority because he is the Creator (John 1:1ff, Col. 1:15-17, Rev. 21:5 etc.) Augustine understood this point, so there is no tension here. What God does through his sovereign decree cannot be resisted (Dan. 4:35, Is. 55:10,11, etc.), all that is left for us believers is to understand why he has done what he has done (if we are able).

Just because you state something is superficial, doesn't mean it actually is, by the way. These are real objections to Christian pacifism.

Galatians 5 is not a prescription for national policy. Peace can be determined to be inner peace, peace within your own sphere of influence or peace within your church. If we are to apply the fruits of the spirit to national policy, then it logically follows that we must support and expand the welfare state to abide by kindness and goodness.

Apostle Paul lets us know in Romans 13 that authorities have the right to bear the sword. In a fallen world, God allows us to use the sword to restrain evil.

Nowhere in the Gospel does Christ forbid military service, thus we can infer that military service itself is not contrary to Scripture. Christ Himself is referred to in Revelation as one who makes war.

Nowhere does God forbid His believers the taking of life to defend the innocent. Particularly since we live within a fallen world. Thus, St. Augustine's just war theory.

If pacifism is complicit with injustice, then pacifism itself is unjust.

 

[acptulsa]

If we are to apply the fruits of the spirit to national policy, then it logically follows that we must support and expand the welfare state to abide by kindness and goodness.

No it doesn't. I suppose you could say it logically follows that we must not tax earnings that are contributed to charity. But thou shalt still not steal.

The major problem with organized religion is, give most of them an inch and the devil uses them to grab a mile. And New Covenant era Christians who claim God told them to start wars are probably the biggest hypocrites of the bunch.

 

[familydog]

No it doesn't. I suppose you could say it logically follows that we must not tax earnings that are contributed to charity. But thou shalt still not steal.

The major problem with organized religion is, give most of them an inch and the devil uses them to grab a mile. And New Covenant era Christians who claim God told them to start wars are probably the biggest hypocrites of the bunch.

"Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him." -Mark 12:17

"For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." -Romans 13 6-7

God recognizes earthy authority. God recognizes righteous taxation and accountable governance. Thou salt not steal is not a prescription for national policy, obviously. God is not an ancap.

You're confused, by the way. New Covenent theology does not that teach that God tells us to start wars. You're quite clearly referring to dispensationalist theology.

 

[ClaytonB]

Just because you state something is superficial, doesn't mean it actually is, by the way.

And just because you state superficial objections as though they are not, doesn't make it so, by the way.

These are real objections to Christian pacifism.

"Christian pacifism" is redundant. Jesus is the Prince of Peace, the entire point and purpose of the Gospel is peace, eternally -- God's original order, restored. To be Christian is not only to be pacifist, it is to be pacifist on a dimension that the carnal world cannot even comprehend. Jesus gave his own life as the ultimate act of pacifism, and we are called to do the same (Matt. 10:39, 16:24).

Galatians 5 is not a prescription for national policy.

Nothing in Scripture is a "prescription for national policy"... the only policy that God has towards the rebellious nations and their governments is fire, 2 Pet. 3:7 and context, 2 Thess. 1:6-10, etc.

Peace can be determined to be inner peace, peace within your own sphere of influence or peace within your church. If we are to apply the fruits of the spirit to national policy, then it logically follows that we must support and expand the welfare state to abide by kindness and goodness.

No, that does not logically follow at all. The State is a wholly reprobate, incorrigible and un-redeemable entity whose very being and existence is rebellion against God of the highest magnitude. To create a State is to rebel against God. The only redeemable form of government is that which has proclaimed that Jesus is Lord and cast its crown at his feet. Everything else is rebellion against God and very antichrist. The State is incapable of being a vehicle of charity, kindness, peace or any other good thing because its entire raison d'etre is to rebel against God, cf the tower of Babel.

Apostle Paul lets us know in Romans 13 that authorities have the right to bear the sword.

Total nonsense. God has the legitimate authority of the sword and he uses his slaves in the State (whom he hates and will destroy in the flames at the end of the Age) as a coagulant to stem the hemorrhaging in this present evil world, in order to accomplish his redemptive plan. Republican churchianity State-worship is repugnant to the pages of Scripture and is antichrist. This is why they constantly promulgate warfare, because they are of the antichrist spirit and promote the diametric opposite of the work of the Holy Spirit from the robes of the clergy. Those who are given over to this are shameless apostates and damned.

In a fallen world, God allows us to use the sword to restrain evil.

Nonsense. God has given all creatures a capacity to defend themselves, including man (who uses weapons rather than his own body which is not suitable), but it's not our job to "restrain evil", that's a work that only God can do. Only luciferian pride could animate sinners to imagine they are "restraining evil" in other sinners, by the sword.

Nowhere in the Gospel does Christ forbid military service,

Acts. 17:30 -- "In times past, God winked at such ignorance, but now he calls all men everywhere to repent." Military service is honorable by virtue of God's common grace and his mysterious sanctifying work but the Christian belongs on no carnal battlefield, Scripture is explicit about this: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood" (Eph. 6:12) This world will fight its wars, but they are not our battle. The whole shebang is going to the flames, why would any Christian fight for this piece of charcoal-to-be, versus that piece of charcoal-to-be? It makes no sense.

Christ Himself is referred to in Revelation as one who makes war.

But what sort of "war" is it? Read Rev. 19:11ff -- there was never a war like that in human history. It will be a summary slaughter. Yes, he's a warrior in the sense that he defeats evil, but his defeat of evil is so supreme that it is a war without resistance, it is summary execution. And this is the very reason why we are to hate war and everything to do with it, because it is pure carnality. The entire struggle itself is blasphemy -- man hacking and shooting down the image of God is an act of blasphemy, in fact, it is a supreme act of blasphemy. That the devil baits blasphemy even from the children of God does not justify it... we are to recognize his baiting tactics for what they are: spiritual warfare.

Nowhere does God forbid His believers the taking of life to defend the innocent.

The one who truly acts to defend the innocent will not need my approval or anyone else's approval because he will have acted on God's own delegated authority, just as the Israelites did when they cut down the Canaanites. There is no general theory of war required for this case.

If pacifism is complicit with injustice, then pacifism itself is unjust.

The problem with the State is not that it has a sword, or that it could wield that sword for justice. The problem with the State has to do with its breakage of the chain of authority. If I am God's servant, then God's word is my command. If God commands me to cut down the Amalekites with the sword, then that is what I must do. The sixth commandment (or any other verse) has nothing to do with it, because God's will is living, it cannot be contained by written letters. But the godless State explicitly rejects God's authority and proclaims itself a luciferian authority to itself, it makes itself its own god. It is the statue of Nebuchadnezzar, incarnate. That is why the State is repugnant to God and why he will hurl it, along with the rest of this present, evil world, into the lake of fire. There is nothing the godless State could do to ever be acceptable to God... not even refraining from the sword. Its existence is repugnant to God in itself, by virtue of its being. There is no particle of the State that is not an affront to God and an utter blasphemy. God will destroy the State along with its master, Lucifer (compare John 8:44 to Matt. 23:1,2), as he has prophesied many times in Scripture.

 

[familydog]

And just because you state superficial objections as though they are not, doesn't make it so, by the way.

...

I guess the takeaway here is that any violent action not explicitly written about in Scripture was not ordained by God. Otherwise, you'd have to take someone's word for it that it was.

The problem with Protestantism in a nutshell. They traded a human pope for a paper pope.

 

[acptulsa]

New Covenent theology

I'm not talking about New Covenant Theology, just the New Covenant. And Romans doesn't even say to respect those to whom respect is not owed, much less help them do evil deeds.

But it's interesting you bring the verse up, considering how it illustrates the stark division between the ancient Israel and the government calling itself by that name.

 

[Invisible Man]

God recognizes earthy authority. God recognizes righteous taxation and accountable governance. Thou salt not steal is not a prescription for national policy, obviously. God is not an ancap.

Where in Scripture is any taxation ever referred to as righteous?

 

[ClaytonB]

I guess the takeaway here is that any violent action not explicitly written about in Scripture was not ordained by God. Otherwise, you'd have to take someone's word for it that it was.

Any act of violence which is not done to defend innocent life as a result of God's decree (meaning, circumstances out of your control, an "act of God" in legal terminology), is murder, Matthew 5:22.

The problem with Protestantism in a nutshell. They traded a human pope for a paper pope.

"Pope" is a made-up thing, Matt. 23:9, and a contradiction on its face. The word of God is not merely the words written on the pages of Scripture, it is God's voice speaking through all things (Psalm 19), including the church (yes!) and, as a final question of earthly authority, the pages of Scripture. If it contradicts Scripture, then it is surely another Gospel, and anathema (Gal. 1:9). If it contradicts the testimony of the church, her saints and martyrs, it is also another Gospel but these two can never be in variance, because God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Thus, whenever a church or any bishop-so-called attempts to contradict Scripture, they necessarily show thereby that they are teaching another Gospel, and anathema. That a church can be anathema (root, stem and branch!) is shown in Revelation 1-3.

Let me know whenever the churches of Orthodoxy acknowledge your "Pope", then I'll revisit the question with you...

 

[familydog]

I'm not talking about New Covenant Theology, just the New Covenant. And Romans doesn't even say to respect those to whom respect is not owed, much less help them do evil deeds.

But it's interesting you bring the verse up, considering how it illustrates the stark division between the ancient Israel and the government calling itself by that name.

I mean, yeah. The modern state of Israel is not even remotely the same as the Biblical Israel.

But any problems you have with organized religion is a problem you have mostly with Protestants. The Orthodox church us the church the Apostles gave us and has been largely unchanged since they created it.

 

[acptulsa]

But any problems you have with organized religion is a problem you have mostly with Protestants.

I know you aren't saying every Muslim sect adheres to the Koran.

 

[familydog]

Where in Scripture is any taxation ever referred to as righteous?

Christian ethics work on principles, not just matching terms and phrases. Both Christ and His Apostles affirm the idea of legitimate earthly and righteous authority. We can thus, logically conclude that taxation is required to support that authority. Any taxation used to go to a righteous earthly authority (or least a righteous action by an earthly authority) can be considered righteous.

The same principle works with tithing. God commands us to tithe, which is His tax. These taxes are to support the Church. These are the churches built by the Apostles.

 

[Invisible Man]

The Orthodox church us the church the Apostles gave us and has been largely unchanged since they created it.

This is not true, unless you're allowing for an awful lot of wiggle room in the word "largely."

 

[familydog]

Any act of violence which is not done to defend innocent life as a result of God's decree (meaning, circumstances out of your control, an "act of God" in legal terminology), is murder, Matthew 5:22.



"Pope" is a made-up thing, Matt. 23:9, and a contradiction on its face. The word of God is not merely the words written on the pages of Scripture, it is God's voice speaking through all things (Psalm 19), including the church (yes!) and, as a final question of earthly authority, the pages of Scripture. If it contradicts Scripture, then it is surely another Gospel, and anathema (Gal. 1:9). If it contradicts the testimony of the church, her saints and martyrs, it is also another Gospel but these two can never be in variance, because God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Thus, whenever a church or any bishop-so-called attempts to contradict Scripture, they necessarily show thereby that they are teaching another Gospel, and anathema. That a church can be anathema (root, stem and branch!) is shown in Revelation 1-3.

Let me know whenever the churches of Orthodoxy acknowledge your "Pope", then I'll revisit the question with you...

Who gets to have final interpretation of God's word? You?

 

[familydog]

This is not true, unless you're allowing for an awful lot of wiggle room in the word "largely."

Changes to the Church were made by Bishops who were given authority by Apostolic succession. This tradition is found in Scripture and continues on to this day.

 

[Invisible Man]

Who gets to have final interpretation of God's word? You?

Who gets to have the final interpretation of God's word in Orthodoxy?

 

[ClaytonB]

Who gets to have final interpretation of God's word? You?

God the Holy Spirit, its Author.

If you do not have the Holy Spirit, you can never "interpret" it, neither finally nor in any other way (2 Cor. 4:4). And if you do have the Holy Spirit, then we had better be coming to essentially the same "interpretation" -- that is, understanding -- because God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).

The serpentine view of Scripture as something that can "mean whatever you want it to mean, with enough interpretation" is repugnant to both reason and faith -- the Bible clearly and plainly says many things that are not open to any "interpretation" and all of the disputes over core biblical teaching regarding matters of faith derives not from any lack of clarity in the language of Scripture, but from the blindness of carnality (2 Cor. 4;4) of those who dare to pose as believers, while being no such thing. In short, those who do not have the Holy Spirit will have a million "interpretations" but all who have the Holy Spirit will have just one, univocal understanding of Scripture (Acts 4:32) because they are all taught by God (John 6:45). Those who do not hesitate to speak up loudly and proclaim their opinions on the basis of "apostolic succession", or "church tradition" or anything else, are not speaking from the Spirit, they are speaking from carnal pride.

God the Holy Spirit doesn't need any earthly assistance with enforcing order in the church, Acts. 5:1ff.

 

[familydog]

Who gets to have the final interpretation of God's word in Orthodoxy?

"Orthodoxy" is just the adherence to right belief or doctrine, especially as defined by the historic, authoritative teachings of the Christian faith rooted in Scripture and affirmed by the early church. I assume you're referring to the Orthodox Church. And yes, through tradition and Apostolic tradition, this is correct.