SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Will You Kill or Be Killed?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 Next Page )
PosterThread
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi ccrider,


About this,

"When you say that Jesus was talking about His Kingdom not being of this world or else His people would fight to prevent His arrest I fail to see this in the context you do, especially given the fact that this event was after the sermon on the mount and not long after His rebuke of Peter drawing a sword to prevent Jesus' arrest."


I don't understand what you mean.

Maybe I can try to rephrase the point I hoped to make:


It is my understanding that John 18:36 is sometimes made refrence to in suggesting that the Lord Jesus taught that His followers do not fight, and that a [b]portion[/b] of the verse is qouted to that end; the implication being, that only those who are of the world fight in carnal wars.


My suggestion was that by only qouting a portion of the verse, the statement is being misrepresented. The rest of the verse is a distinct qualification as to what fighting and for what purpose the Lord was speaking of.



No, His followers would not be allowed to fight in order that He be delivered from the very thing HE came into the world to accomplish!


The verses and events that you mentioned do correspond to this same context and demonstrate that this saying had a specific refrence in view(the accomplishment and entrance of the Kingdom of Heaven) and that [b]it is not a general statement[/b] about whether or not anyone that follows Christ [u]would ever[/u] be involved in a war.


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2009/10/1 21:53Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4519


 Re:

Hi appolus...

Quote:
Time and again you see this. My personal belief is that many Christians are afraid of persecution and standing up against the crowd. It is ironic therefore for people who follow the Biblical mandate as they see it, to be accused of cowardice. In WW11 men who served in the Merchant Navy in Britain were actually spat on in the streets because they were considered "cowards." Ironically they ended up having a greater casualty rate that the Royal Navy, but the point being that public sentiment was such, that there was no room for objectors of any kind.

Personally, I think that it takes quite a bit of courage and resolve to hold to a "non-resistant" view. In fact, I don't know that I have ever heard a true believer make such a claim (that "non-resistant" brethren are "cowards"). I don't know how it fits into the conversation, but I would certainly agree that no one should make such an unwarranted accusation toward any of the brethren who hold to a "non-resistant" viewpoint.
Quote:
True Christianity will always be found in the minority, the path is narrow and very few there are that find it.

Amen! And, of course, those of us who don't adhere to certain aspects of the "non-resistant" view but are still part of the "True Christianity minority" should hold our heads up as we, too, lift up our eyes to the Lord. None of us should worry about being pointed out, scolded or having our faith dismissed if we are wholeheartedly walking before the Lord with a clear conscience. This is true of non-resistance brethren and those who might disagree with such a position.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2009/10/1 22:41Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

"None of us should worry about being pointed out, scolded or having our faith dismissed..."



Yes Chris,

There is more than one way to assult our fellow man.


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2009/10/2 3:48Profile









 Re:

Anyone ever wonder why Peter still had a sword when he was with Christ?

EDIT:
First there was a time when he didn't need one, (Luke 22:35), then there was a time when he did need one (Luke 22:36).

 2009/10/2 8:29









 Re:

About this,

"When you say that Jesus was talking about His Kingdom not being of this world or else His people would fight to prevent His arrest I fail to see this in the context you do, especially given the fact that this event was after the sermon on the mount and not long after His rebuke of Peter drawing a sword to prevent Jesus' arrest."

I don't understand what you mean. Chris JD

I guess what I mean is if we talk about 'context' we can point to the sermon on the mount when Jesus ministered to potential believers. We can let scripture provide this context. He said:
.........................

Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[c] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
.........................

Subsequent to this event Jesus was arrested and Peter drew his sword and was rebuked by Jesus. And after His arrest, Jesus told Pilot the verse that we have been discussing concerning 'His Kingdom' verses the world and how if His Kingdom was here His folllowers would resort to wordly weapons to defend Him. To me the chronology of what Christ said and did provides some context. Sermon on the Mount, Peter's rebuke, Pilot's lesson on His Kingdom and His followers. These three events don't contradict eachother. In fact Jesus lived by example when He said 'love your enemies' by actually healing the ear of one of His enemies. Just because He was destined for the cross doesn't preclude what He said or make those who arrested Him any less of an enemy. Jesus was talking to 'would be believers' when He preached the Sermon on the Mount. And His followers from that point on, as in Apostles such as Peter (with the exception of Gesthemane when he was rebuked), Paul, John, etc.. were not involved in any violent acts that weilded a sword. It's just not there. Instead they were persecuted and lived out what Jesus preached to all those people on the Mount. I guess given this context I fail to see how this isn't an example to the church.







 2009/10/2 8:34









 Re:

Anyone ever wonder why Peter still had a sword when he was with Christ? old joe

So he could be rebuked? I would think God foresaw that he would use it and His Son provided a subsequent lesson. I never really focused on Peter too much here, just the response of Christ.

I find it interesting that scripture indicates that he was told to buy one but there's nothing about him being told to use it (although a sword can be also be used to defend against animals or to 'kill and eat'). Had Peter been told to use it on humans Jesus would have not been justified in His rebuke.

 2009/10/2 8:43









 Re:

HI Chris,

You write....

" I don't know that I have ever heard a true believer make such a claim"

Just interested on how you determine who is a true Christian and who is not, wouldnt that be a judgment call and who could ever refute such a statement? If someone who is is non-resistant were to say on this thread that they had never met a true believer who believed in war and self-defence, would you let that statement stand? .........Frank

 2009/10/2 9:20
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4519


 Re:

Hi appolus,

Quote:

You write....

" I don't know that I have ever heard a true believer make such a claim"

Just interested on how you determine who is a true Christian and who is not, wouldnt that be a judgment call and who could ever refute such a statement?


I say "true believer" meaning those type of believers who are much more obviously "true" than those who are often criticized by threads on this website. In other words, I mean "true believers" who are deeply passionate and hungry to know God more...and have had a "born again" experience...and who visit this website. Now, there are many more "true believers" than those on SermonIndex (of course). However, I used the words "true believers" selectively in order to emphasize the word "true" as opposed to the rhetoric that seems to dismiss the faith of those who disagree with someone's particular ideology.
Quote:

If someone who is is non-resistant were to say on this thread that they had never met a true believer who believed in war and self-defence, would you let that statement stand?


No, because your statement would point out one group who agreed with such ideology as being "true believers" and the other, by default, would be dismissed as being something less than that. My statement did not make any such distinction. In fact, I was very conscientious to clarify in each of my posts that those who embrace "non-resistant" ideas are, in fact, "brethren." Yet, there was some wording that seemed somewhat condescending and insolent toward those of us who do not embrace some of the specific notions of "non-resistance." I pointed out those statements in several of my recent posts.

I would also like to clarify that I don't know any believers who are thirsty for war or violence. Rather, the opposite is true! Personally, I have not fought anyone since I became a believer. I have never "shot" anyone. I have no desire to do any such thing! In fact, I seriously don't know what I would do if I were attacked (personally). Would I fight back...or resist in a sense to stop the man from attacking me? I can't say. I know that I didn't when I was in high school when I was being mocked for my [u]faith[/u]. However, if I was in a position where my wife or family was in danger, I feel quite confident that I would do what I could to "resist" such an attack in order to take care of their needs. In fact, I think that I would do this with a clear conscience before God. After all, I am called to take care of the needs of my family (or be considered worse than an infidel - I Timothy 5:8) even if he must concern himself with the "affairs" or "things of this world" (I Corinthians 7:32-36).

Now, I have never been in the military, although I prayed about joining as recently as last year. I never received the "okay" to join from God (or my wife). Would I ever shoot a man if I had ever been in the military? I don't know. This is one of those "hypothetical" scenarios mentioned earlier, but I really don't concentrate on it. I would still point out that there was not any direct call to military men in the Old or New Testament who were admonished for military service or who were told to get out.

An angel appeared to a devout, God-fearing Centurion who "prayed always" named Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. Ironically, he was called these things BEFORE he met Peter and before the Holy Spirit had fallen upon him. The angel told Cornelius in regard to Peter, "[i]he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do[/i]" (Acts 10:6). Yet Peter never told him to get out of the military. Rather the Scriptures say, "[i]Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him[/i]'" (Acts 10:34-35).

There were no words from Peter (or elsewhere in the Scriptures) that specifically forbade military service, defense of the weak, protection of your family, etc... In addition, God Himself is neither "pro-war" or "against war." Yet, at times in the past, God has told His people to go to war. In the future, our Lord will "make war" and lead the "armies of Heaven" against the remaining physical armies of the Anti-Christ (Revelation 19:11-15). Now, we all know that the weapons of our warfare are not "carnal" (or physical) in our spiritual war with the god of this age. Yet I have not seen a direct command in Scriptures to refrain from "resistance" or "involvement" in EVERY circumstance to the whims of this fallen world.

Regardless, I didn't write to necessarily share my views in any sort of attempt to persuade anyone. Rather, I am just concerned by some of the rhetoric that seems to dismiss the faith of those who don't embrace some or all of the tenants of "non-resistance." Like I said, many of us have prayed about this and studied the matter and yet still do not embrace all of the tenants of "non-resistance" teaching. And I think that we too have the Spirit of God.
Quote:
"Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? if any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's."
- II Corinthians 10:7


_________________
Christopher

 2009/10/2 12:39Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi again everyone,


ccrider,


"I guess what I mean is if we talk about 'context' we can point to the sermon on the mount when Jesus ministered to potential believers. We can let scripture provide this context."


I agree. These and other passages are giving instruction to believers about the Kingdom of Heaven. In the same way that the passage in John [b]is not[/b](as I see it) making a statement about how believers might act while serving in legitimate roles in earlthy institutions and goverments, I do not believe the Lord Jesus was giving instruction to earthly goverments or their agents/representatives on how to conduct their affairs or defend their citizens, in the Sermon on the Mount.


For instance, I don't believe He was instructing goverments to turn the other cheek when their citizens are threatened.


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2009/10/2 20:25Profile









 Re:

Quote:

ccrider wrote:
Anyone ever wonder why Peter still had a sword when he was with Christ? old joe

So he could be rebuked? I would think God foresaw that he would use it and His Son provided a subsequent lesson. I never really focused on Peter too much here, just the response of Christ.

I find it interesting that scripture indicates that he was told to buy one but there's nothing about him being told to use it (although a sword can be also be used to defend against animals or to 'kill and eat'). Had Peter been told to use it on humans Jesus would have not been justified in His rebuke.



Nope, that's not it.

Josh 11:12 And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded.

Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

That same Jesus slays with a sword, just as Moses the servant of that same Jesus commands Joshua to do. Moses, Joshua, David, etc. all kiled another man, yet each are accounted as children of God. Now Joab and Saul on the other hand also killed other men, but they are accounted as enemies of God. The reason is that they did it at a time not of God's commanding.

The point is that there is a time for war and a time for peace. Peter fighting at that time was an attempt to prevent the sacrifice of Christ, which was not a time for war, but a time to allow peace to be made. The warfare would come later, that's why having a sword was commanded. And yet at a certain appointed time, he was to lay his life down.

 2009/10/2 20:28





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy