| Re: |
I decided to bump this thread because of the current news of an Anabaptist pastor (i.e., the Kenneth Miller case) who is possibly facing prison for his Christian faith, current U.S. government focus on gun control laws, Christians speaking against homosexual marriage, abortion, etc., as possibly being a hate crime, etc., etc.
I was going to start a thread titled: "Nonresistance False or True". However, since this thread was started I would like to continue on with it as I have been wanting to know the truth about this doctrine in relation to how we as believers are to respond to the possible coming persecution to the Western Church. Since my family nor I have never been threaten by our government or radical extremist groups to bear arms in anyway I have not been forced to come to the truth in regard to this doctrine. I could just say that when the threat against my life or family's life comes that the Holy Spirit would lead me; yes the Scriptures confirm this, however I am hard pressed to currently know the truth of this doctrine ASAP.
Many of my brothers and sisters are suffering for our Lord in Communist and Creative Access nations where the Gospel is restricted, so if I am to carry the burdens of my brothers and sisters then I believe it is my duty to know the truth.
Thank you for any thoughts and discussions concerning this important doctrine, which might soon become a major doctrine of concern in the Western church.
Seeking His fulness,
| 2013/1/25 13:50|
| Re: |
There is a long thread somewhere in the bowels of SI that deals with subject, titled "Let's Talk About Peace" by the late Pastorfrin. If you can find it you may find some answers there. He was ex-military who suffered from PTSD until the LORD delivered him. If you can find it, I think you would be blessed.
| 2013/1/25 14:04||Profile|
| 2013/1/25 14:18|
| Re: |
Yes, this looks like it.
I see I had the title wrong, maybe that is why I could not find it.
I loved the way Pastorfrin handled the topic. He was not combative, explained it as he understood it and did not allow his distractors to derail the topic.
| 2013/1/25 14:26||Profile|
| Re: |
no, the new testament does not teach non-resistance or not getting involved in the government. if it did there would be a commandment somewhere for those who get saved who are soldiers or politicians to stop being soldiers or politicians. there are none.
| 2013/1/25 14:58||Profile|
| Re: SkepticGuy |
SkepticGuy wrote ///no, the new testament does not teach non-resistance or not getting involved in the government. if it did there would be a commandment somewhere for those who get saved who are soldiers or politicians to stop being soldiers or politicians. there are none.///
One thing we must relize is that the old testament was directed toward a nation, the new testament is directed toward individuals,
We are blessed to live in a nation that was founded much on the example of the old testament and some principles of the new, for what better of an example can a nation use.
having said that,
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him,(John the Baptist) saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, ((Do violence to no man)), neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
It is difficult to be a combatant soldier if you are commanded to Do 'violence to no man'. But yet we also see that non combatant military participation is exceptable within the kingdom message, for he says 'be content with your wages'.
Even though many will carnaly argue, it comes down to this verse.
If this verse does not say (Do violence to no man) than Skeptic is logicaly correct, without argument.
| 2013/1/31 1:12||Profile|
| Re: |
In practically every other translation than the KJV, the "do violence to no man" is in the context of extorting money by force, not fighting in battle. Apparently soldiers were known for intimidating people to rob them or get them to pay them something, like a schoolyard bully.
| 2013/1/31 7:39||Profile|
| Re: |
It's important to discern what the phrase "do violence" means. Does it mean to cease being a soldier because you cannot carry a sword or does it mean to stop terrorizing people for no reason. Since there is no command that the soldiers resign their posts we can conclude the latter.
There is a big difference between assaulting someone and protecting yourself from an attack. It is a similar concept where God says, "You shall not commit murder," but also commands Israel to execute His judgment on wicked nations. God sees a difference between murder and capital punishment.
Also, consider what Jesus said to His disciple in the garden:
35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing." 36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS '; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." 38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." (Luke 22)
Grace and peace,
| 2013/1/31 8:29||Profile|
| Re: |
"38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." (Luke 22)"
And then what happened?
| 2013/1/31 8:45||Profile|
| Re: TMK|
TMK wrote ///Hey PP--
In practically every other translation than the KJV, the "do violence to no man" is in the context of extorting money by force, not fighting in battle. Apparently soldiers were known for intimidating people to rob them or get them to pay them something, like a schoolyard bully.///
I am well aware that to "do violence to no man" is almost in no other version than the King James version. that is the exact point that I have been making in several of these threads.
And I am well aware of why protestants and catholics
would decide to translate (diaseivw)(Diaseio) as 'to extort from one by intimidation money or other property'
But what I would like for those whom believe that the new testament kingdom message is a radical call and one that is calling men to be totaly nonresistant and one that disproves of Military combatant status.
For those whom believe this meditate on the fact that the King James Version is allmost the only bible to translate (Diaseio)as "do violence to no man" has God inspired this truth in the KJV ? or is the position of military nonresistant's without biblical fondation?
I have searched the Scripture for years up and down for the truth on this subject, being very indoctrinated in the protestant exemption doctrine. even though many will argue with me it comes down to this verse and as a Believer in Gods sovereign ability to inspire His Words in my own Language down to the jot and tittle despite the supposed contradictions and all of the educated nay sayers, I have to Lay down my exemption doctrine and believe that John was giving the soldiers a radical call to "do violence to no man"
One cannot logicaly make a case for nonresistance ,If John was just telling the soldiers Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages. Because if this is all he was telling them, when they asked him what they should do, than John was endorsing combatant status by not explicitly speaking against it.
| 2013/1/31 10:47||Profile|