SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : This is War!!??

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 Next Page )
PosterThread
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

This is a good thread. I thank everyone for their input. I guess what's confusing to me is that I would never go to the military or war, but I don't see a problem with others doing it..

I guess I'm just searching to check my motives for that last statement. Why would I not go? Why does it not bother me that others go?


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2005/10/4 8:51Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

I can't help but think about how in the time of our Lord it seemed that some of the Roman cohorts served in both military and police type roles. A study of the Roman armies as they developed is quite extensive, but I think in the time of Christ the soldiers in those areas served a double function. Which leads me to ponder the passage:

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 13)

It seems from this passage that in the New Testament period God still expects order in the Earth as this is His ordinance and He has allocated authority to rulers to maintain that order. I key in on the portion... [i]For he is the [u]minister[/u] of God to thee for good.[/i] This has to denote some sort of protection of the public from [i]him that doeth evil.[/i] Minister of God that beareth not the sword in vain? Here minister is diakonos and the next time it is used after this passage is:

Now I say that Jesus Christ was a [u]minister[/u] of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: (Romans 15:8)

These ministers who weild the sword are called "God's ministers to thee [u]for good[/u]." I think this is a place where I would really have to use judgment and discernment. Is the role I am in in step with God's ordinance? Certainly the Nazi's would have had to say no to this (they are easy to point out). What about all police operations or military operations? If the particular one in question is walking worthy of their vocation and in harmony with God's ordinance- the question for me would be easier to answer. Although for me I have also had a hard time placing myself in either a police or military role hypothetically, as it seems to contradict all my conscience to kill people. However, if I were a police officer I am certain that God would equip me with the right understanding for that vocation. The officer probably could not imagine himself preaching? No?

It has always been my hope that I would never have to be in such a position. But if that time should come I have to believe God would give grace and lead in such a way as would harmonize with conscience.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/10/4 8:56Profile









 Re:


Zechariah
Chapter 4
6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

This is good enough fer me.

Bub

 2005/10/4 9:02
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re:

I was converted on my way to do military duty, and have put my service to my country on the altar more than once to see if God would lead me away from it. So far it is 'no' every time.

One thing you may notice about the New Testament, the most oft mentioned secular job, correct me if I am wrong, is the soldier (centurion, captain, officer, soldier, guard, etc). God clearly uses pagan and ungodly nations to bring justice today, just as he did in the Old Testament. So supporting your country's military doesn't mean you support all your that your country stands for, anymore than protesting your country's military makes you righteous. It is not ungoldy to desire the destruction of a wicked nation.

Yes, many of our own countries have their corruption, but we are also free to preach the gospel. It is not coincidence that countries where the gospel is not outlawed have prospered. There is much more to it than that, I know, and the judge of all the earth will do right. He will give justice to nations and individuals right down to you and I.

Nahum 1:2-3

[2] God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

[3] The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.

On killing. Remember God wrote on the tablets with His own finger in Exodus 13:20, "Thou shalt not kill." But God also told the same nation in Deuteronomy 20:16, "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth."

Is this a contradiction? Certainly not. God's rule of living is to not kill. However, there is as Ecclesiastes 3:3 says, "A time to kill." So does this mean that everyone God uses to bring justice is holy? No. Does this mean that everyone who is used to bring justice is evil? No. It is clear to me that a Christian can be a soldier, and can even kill given a particular situation. However, thirsting for death is evil. Remember David.

Would you kill a drug-induced rapist, who was beyond feeling pain while he was breaking into your home if you had a gun? People say, 'I would just shoot to wound him.' I won't gamble the safety of my family if I had one shot. My daughter and wife's lives are too precious. If I had the opportunity to tie him up and witness to him, of course that is the route of choice. But let's be real. What is the state of mind of someone like that? What is the state of mind of many nations today?

Applying that to the battlefield, I hope I never have to even shoot at anyone. However, I will obey the orders given to me, up to the point that I feel that my orders violate the commandments of God, via His Word or His Spirit. Someone says, "thou shalt not kill." Well keep reading through the Old Testament if you are going to stand on Old Testament.

Num 32:6b "Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here?"

Num 32:23 of going armed before the LORD to war "But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out."

In addition to Romans 13...

1 Peter 2:13-17

[13] Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
[14] Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
[15] For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
[16] As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
[17] Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2005/10/4 9:53Profile
Christisking
Member



Joined: 2005/7/20
Posts: 671
Los Angeles, California

 Re:

Quote:
“Christians have always disagreed on the topics of pacifism, the remarriage of divorcees, and what to do with repentant apostates.”

I believe you are mistaken on this point Ron. Although it is true that Christians have disagreed throughout the ages on pacifism and what to do with repentant apostates, it is very recent that the remarriage of divorcees has ever been called into question. It is only in the past 50 years that the remarriage of divorcees has ever been on the table as a debatable topic. (since the rise of feminism and the sexual revolution) Throughout the first 1950 years of church history every denomination in every country, during every historical age has agreed 100% on the issue of the remarriage of divorcees. This is one issue denominations have been universially united.

I know it seems that way Ron, but it is just not true. 75 years from now, if the church continues down its current path of compromise and weakness, someone will write on this forum. “Christians have always disagreed on the topics of pacifism, the marriage of homosexuals, and what to do with repentant apostates.” although in 75 years it very well may seem this way, it just simply won’t be true.


_________________
Patrick Ersig

 2005/10/4 11:09Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
It is only in the past 50 years that the remarriage of divorcees has ever been on the table as a debatable topic. (since the rise of feminism and the sexual revolution) Throughout the first 1950 years of church history every denomination in every country, during every historical age has agreed 100% on the issue of the remarriage of divorcees. This is one issue denominations have been universially united.


If you had our history you would have a different perspective on this. The Church of England came into existence in the 16th century as a result of disagreement on the question of divorce and remarriage.

Going back further the distinction between divorce and annulment was really part of the same dilemma.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/4 11:25Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
If you had our history you would have a different perspective on this. The Church of England came into existence in the 16th century



There is a really good documentary on all this that went on that is hosted by Ken Conolley (sp?). It is on the history of the English Bible from Moses until the landing of the Mayflower- as a video series of 4 tapes called "The Indestructable Book." It is a real good synthesis of a lot of history and it is quite interesting to watch even for those who don't like history.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/10/4 13:19Profile
Christisking
Member



Joined: 2005/7/20
Posts: 671
Los Angeles, California

 Re:

Here are some New Testament Scriptures to consider in regards to Christians and the military and/or war. We must remember that Jesus’ teachings changed a lot of what was taught under the Old Covenant. We are now under the New Covenant and many rules have changed. Hence we are not sacrificing live animals in church on Sunday. As New Covenant Christians we are to no longer perform ceremonial hand washings or shaving our heads in purification rituals under Old Testament law - also, many would argue that we are also not to be going to war according to the teachings of Jesus and the New Covenant. Before you pull out Old Testament Scripture to try to justify war, remember you could also pull out Old Testament Scriptures to justify polygamy. Polygamy is clearly forbidden in the New Testament and under the New Covenant - is not the same with war???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

If you can not justify fighting in defense of Jesus Christ, how could you justify fighting in the defense of country, self, wife, child???

Luke 14:25-27
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:33
In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew 5:38-42
Go the Second Mile
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Love Your Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

How is it possible to not resist an evil person and still be in a military that claims to resist evil people or nations? How is it possible to work in a military position and not in some way be supporting (as your full time occupation) the killing of the nations enemies? Can you support an organization in a full time capacity that drops bombs on and puts bullets in the heads of their enemies and at the same time claim to love, bless and do good to your enemies? In the case of the American military, unless they start loving the enemies of America, blessing those who curse them (the American armed forces) and doing good for those who hate them, they are in direct disobedience to the teaching of Jesus. How could you work for such an organization and still claim to be a Christian? A strip club would be no more disobedient to the teachings of Jesus then the USMC is - what would you think of someone who worked for a strip club and claimed to be a Christian? Would the argument that “I’m not a dancer, I just collect the money at he door, order the liquor and make sure the bar is stocked.” be an acceptable excuse?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 Cor 10:3-5
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,”

If the army you served or the war you were fighting was using earthly weapons and warring in the flesh, you would again be in violation to Scripture. Remember we are talking New Testament not Old Testament.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for Cornelius, the Bible doesn’t say one way or another if he changed careers. The Scripture also teach that many prostitutes believed in Jesus (Mat. 21:31-32) and is like wise silent as to whether they change careers or not. We rightfully and automatically assume that they left their profession since it was clearly denounced by and against the teachings of Jesus. Why do we not automatically assume the same of Cornelius since his profession was also clearly denounced by and against the teachings of Jesus?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ll end with some more words for thought from one of my favorite anti-war, anti-military Christian pacifists -

“Would we send our daughters off to have sex if it would benefit our country? Yet, we send our sons off to kill when we think it would benefit our country!” Leonard Ravenhill


_________________
Patrick Ersig

 2005/10/4 15:34Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Hi ChristIsKing,

Quote:
If you can not justify fighting in defense of Jesus Christ, how could you justify fighting in the defense of country, self, wife, child???



But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (I Timothy 5) It would seem in the case of wife and child at least (and other family members) that [i]security[/i] must be somewhere on the list of 'provisions' that those of ones own house would in fact need.

Quote:
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:33
In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.



I want to look at perhaps what [u]appears on the surface[/u] to be the most radical passage of scripture in all of the Bible- Luke 14:26;

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. The Greek word here for ‘hate’ is miseo and it carries a meaning that spans from the deepest “detestation” to a simple “loved less.”

Now, as a point of reference Jesus also told us to to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43). John the Revelator told us that a person who hates his brother is in darkness (I John 2:9) a murderer (v.11a) and we know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him (II John 2:11b). It would make no sense for our Lord to tell us to ‘detest’ our family and love our enemies. This is proven in the fact that the Prodigal Son has not repented until he came to himself and reunited with his family. So we see right off, that repentance for some will mean reconciliation with father, mother, sister, brother, etc. While others whose family would force them to choose between Christ and the family- they would have to choose Christ. This was the case with many families in the first century as hostilities grew against Christians until they were even being cursed by fellow Jews in the synagogues (birkat ha minim). This is not a matter of leaving home because of a conflict in personality or even a basic disagreement in religion. Jews who turn to Christ to this day often do it knowing their family will render them dead and perform a funeral for them.

We see then that the context determines whether our Lord means to “detest” or to “love less.” Let me give you two basic hermeneutical rules to always go by before we move on: 1) allow scripture to interpret scripture 2) a text without a context is a pretext.

Vines dictionary of New Testament Greek words gives us some insight into the full gamut of the meaning of ‘hate’. He also speaks specifically to its meaning in Luke 14:26. He writes that miseo is used to indicate a relative preference for one thing over another, by way of expressing either aversion from, or disregard for, the claims of one person or thing relatively to those of another. In Matthew 6:24, and Luke 16:13 it demonstrates the impossibility of serving two masters. In Luke 14:26, as to the claims of parents relatively to those of Christ. In John 12:25 it speaks of disregard for one's life relatively to the claims of Christ. We can simplify this by comparing two passages:

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37)

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

Notice Matthew 10:37 is saying essentially the same thing as Luke 14:26. In one passage we are told if we “love family more” we cannot be a disciple and in the other passage we are told if we don’t “love family less” we cannot be a disciple. This essentially means that you love everything less than Christ. It does not mean you ‘detest’ your family. An example of this is seen by comparing two more passages:

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? (Matthew 19:27) ‘Forsaken’ here is the Greek word afieemi and it essentially means “to let go.” It is translated as ‘forgive’ in some passages to indicate that the transgression was allowed ‘to drop.’ If we interpret the passage as thus it is seen how the next passage can be equally true without contradiction:

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (I Corinthians 9:5) We see here that the same Peter (Cephas) had a wife that he ‘lead about.’ The Greek word for ‘lead about’ meant that he took her with him whereever he went. This is not forsaken in the sense of leaving behind, but is afieemi or ‘letting go’ in the sense that he did not consider her a possession to be grasped (Philippians 2:6). He lived his life as though he had no wife, etc. (I Corinthians 7:29). To have forsaken his family in the sense of abandonment would have meant he denied the faith and become worse than an infidel. (I Timothy 5:8) Moreover we are told to Honor our father and mother which is the first commandment with promise, that it may be well with thee and thou may live long upon the earth (Ephesians 5:29). If any curse his father or mother let them die the death. (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10) Detesting the family also does not square with Paul telling the men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. (Ephesians 5:25)

So what did our Lord mean in these passages on hating family? He meant that we must love them less than we love Him and if it comes down to following Him or them- we follow Him. This does not mean we seek an occasion to be rude to our parents or leave our wives, but are to win them over as they behold our chaste conduct coupled with reverence (I Peter 3:2). [u]We are to serve and provide for them as much as is possible to fill their needs.[/u] Submission would be the most likely way to win those disobedient and unbelieving parents and family members who had rejected the word, or who attended to no other evidence of the truth of it than what they saw in the prudent, peaceable, and exemplary conversation of the child. Preach not so much with the precept of the mouth, but with the practice of reverential servanthood.

Use not your liberty in Christ as a cloak of maliciousness. As it is written; As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:. (I Peter 3:16-23) You, as a believer, have an obligation to your family to provide for their needs as much as is possible when they are unable and respect them all their days.



I'll leave off for comments...




_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/10/4 16:06Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Neither

This speaks to a whole host of subjects;

Quote:
Personally I cannot premeditate these things. I cannot answer the familiar question which begins 'but what if your wife...' God gives 'grace in due time' and I must trust him to make the way plain in 'due time'. In the interim, I want to give the widest liberty of conscience to every Christian. I will try to give an account of why I believe what I believe, but not to persuade another to change his mind. For myself, to use the language of that British spy, I would hope that I would have the courage to be a pacifist in 'due time' but to boast of such, ahead of the test, would be folly.



Patrick, think there is a lot here to consider, that which was written earlier. Personally am not fond of having to be forced into taking sides in these regards, Republican\Democrat, Pacifist, etc. Neither would be my response, not as a cop out but for the reasons already mentioned, it's just not that cut and dried. Example:
Quote:
If you can not justify fighting in defense of Jesus Christ, how could you justify fighting in the defense of country, self, wife, child???

Compare that with:

In I Timothy 5:8 is one of the strongest statements in the Bible: "If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever," (RSV). Or, as the King James has it, he is "worse than an infidel."


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/10/4 16:13Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy