SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : "Killing on the battlefield is not a sin."

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Dear Tears of Joy:

God is the one who prophesized that Abraham would be the father of many nations. The concept of Nations is God’s idea. The concept of Nations being a bad thing is consistent with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trialateral Commission, the United Nations, and other socialist, one world leaning groups that do not believe in the God of the Bible.

Genesis 17

1. And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
2. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4. As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, AND THOU SHALT BE A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS.
5. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

15. And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

In the Book of Daniel, we see God’s plan for the “One World” Governments ("Nations" that will control the known world) that will control the earth for all of human history- 1). Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, represented by the head of Gold. 2) The Meads & the Persians, represented by breast and arms of silver 3) Alexander the Great, represented by the belly and thighs of brass 4) Rome, represented by the legs of iron 5) The Revived Roman empire, represented by feet of iron mixed with clay. All of these are history & have already taken place except the last prophecy of the feet of iron mixed with clay--this is future and refers to the Revived Roman Empire that is already in it's birth pangs- the European Union.

God is very much in the Nation business. God is in control of History, and knows the end from the beginning. He proves this by Bible Prophecy, prophesized thousands of years in advance as proof of his majesty and power and control of world events.

God bless,

Stever 8-)

Quote:

Tears_of_joy wrote:
Quote:
Why do so many, even Christians, see such little value in the spiritual armor of God – viewing it, essentially as impotent – just a form of pacifism.
[b]Is it because of unbelief?[/b]
Our God is too small?
We want to take matters into our own hands?
Maybe we don't understand the power of the invisible enemy - who tempts mankind to self-destruct.

It so happens that our history is written by the victors – and their beliefs come through their writings: namely: [b]unbelief[/b] in God and belief in nationhood.
Is that not a form of brain washing, a tool of the devil?



Quote:
Perhaps, in using scripture to justify killing, many do not see that whenever ancient Isreal did NOT obey God, they did NOT have victory. [b]It wasn't about their weapons but about their hearts.[/b]



This can be proven by the Scriptures:

Quote:
2Ch 14:2 [b]And Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God: [/b]
2Ch 14:3 For he took away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places, and brake down the images, and cut down the groves:
2Ch 14:4 [b]And commanded Judah to seek the LORD God[/b] of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandment.
2Ch 14:5 Also he took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places and the images: [b]and the kingdom was quiet before him. [/b]
2Ch 14:6 And he built fenced cities in Judah: for the land had rest, [b]and he had no war in those years; because the LORD had given him rest.[/b]
2Ch 14:7 Therefore he said unto Judah, Let us build these cities, and make about them walls, and towers, gates, and bars, while the land is yet before us; [b]because we have sought the LORD our God, we have sought him, and he hath given us rest on every side.[/b] So they built and prospered.



Thank you sister Diane for your thoughts.

 2007/3/8 19:47
Pilgrimsway
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 13
Lawton, OK

 Re: "Killing on the battlefield is not a sin."

"3. 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: 4. 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. 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing."

This is the verse that answers the question, and its also why almost everyone is wrong.

When an individual wears the uniform of the armed forces of his/her country, this verse applies to them...but in REVERSE. The person in uniform becomes the minister of God who bears the sword. If necessary, while in the employ of your government, then it is your obligation to act as God's agent for that purpose.

If you do not actively serve in a function that meets this criteria, then the point is moot. It only applies to those who actually hold that position of authority.

I served in the Army for 21 years. I was there because of the direct leading of God. Because I was obedient and went, many American soldiers heard the Gospel and were given a godly example to follow. I also took this verse, again in reverse, to mean that since I had been placed in a leadership position over other people, then I had an obligation to do the greatest good for them. I took care of my soldiers and was the best I could be because I owed my performance to God, not to man (Col. 3:22-24). And yes, if my superiors told me to do what I was trained for (which was to shoot artillery at an armed enemy) I would have done it in a heartbeat. Why? Because as a man in my position, I was subject to those over me. If I failed to do my duty, I would have been guilty of dereliction, and of violating the contract that I freely signed.

If you don't want to serve in the military, fine, don't. And like George Fox, that may be God's leading for you. But because of the fallen world we live in, and the nature of real life, it will be necessary at times to be in the military, police, corrections, judges...whatever occupation that has the legal authority from the government to act as the enforcement of rules.

I doubt highly that George Fox would have EVER suggested that Christians were to disregard law or the rules of society. I saw over and over people who were "Christians" and who claimed they did not have to follow regulation or the commands of superiors because they were Christians. The Army had a different view of these individuals: disobedient, failing to obey lawful orders, and criminal.

Being a Christian does not make you exempt from the laws of man. It is actually the opposite...we of all people are the ones who must obey the laws because we have a Scriptural mandate to do so, unless those laws require us to deny Jesus or to bow to another deity. Following the instruction of a supervisor does not meet either criteria.

Beware teaching personal preferences for the Word of God. They certainly are not edifying. Pacificist arguments cannot be supported from Scripture. To prove one point, you must nullify the Bible in another. And that is not allowed.

Also, you cannot use the Bible to support your own personal rebellious nature. Yes, you heard that right. Examine yourself as to WHY you have these attitudes. You may be unpleasantly surprised to find out that you have unknowingly accepted the ideas of the world...and these ideas are based on leftover 60s rebellion (which is another topic all together).


_________________
Jon Dewey

 2007/3/8 22:02Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi

 Re:

Pilgrim wrote:

Quote:
Examine yourself as to WHY you have these attitudes. You may be unpleasantly surprised to find out that you have unknowingly accepted the ideas of the world...and these ideas are based on leftover 60s rebellion (which is another topic all together).




Sir, this is the motivation many will not participate in the military:
Matt. 5:43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The OT commandment Jesus was referring to was the one where people were required to hate their enemies, the ones they went to battle to kill. Now he is replacing it with another one, quite the opposite: love your enemy.

This concept of refusing to particiate in the military is as old as the NT church. It is not of recent origin.

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2007/3/11 17:55Profile
CJaKfOrEsT
Member



Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 Re:

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:
Was it wrong for good people (many who were born again Christians) to use military might to defeat the Nazis? Whether or not it was a miracle of God that Nazi Germany was defeated is not the issue... was it wrong to use military might to defeat them, and put a stop to the atrosities?



One side comment on this question is to say that many of these soldiers that the allied forces were fighting were not Nazis. This is the equivalent to questioning whether or not it is okay for Iraqis to fight the republicans in the Iraqi war. I can cite one man, and that is enough, who surrendered the moment he can into contact with British forces. His name was Jurgen Moltmann, and while in the POW camp, he came to Christ.

People who say that fighting against Hitler was justified miss this point. There were many under his regime who were not in agreement with him, and were forced onto the battlefield under conscription, who didn't have the courage of Moltmann, and fought for a cause that they didn't believe in, just because they were following orders. These are often the ones who a dying, and not the "evil dictators".


_________________
Aaron Ireland

 2007/3/11 18:30Profile
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:
Ian... also, was it wrong for the Allies to fight against Nazi Germany? I challenge anyone to say that it was wrong. That we should have just let Hitler run amuck and done nothing.

Krispy



Krispy,

I'd say it was wrong for the Christians to fight. The early church didn't have a problem with the non-christians fighting, they had a problem withthe Christians killing even in war. They believed that it was their job to fight on their knees and when they did Rome wasn't in war, but when they started fighting with the sword Rome started to crumble.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

Jordan


_________________
Jordan

 2007/3/11 19:16Profile
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re: The Death of a Christian Soldier

Saints, while reading this thread I was impressed to interject this account of the dying of Stonewall Jackson, an American Civil War Confederate General who was killed by friendly fire. Stonewall Jackson was a man of God, a man of deep prayer, and very much loved by his troops. He would often spend all night in the woods in fervent prayer, pacing among the trees, shouting to the Lord. It grieves me to hear brothers and sisters argue whether or not a Christian can or should be in the armed forces. I myself spent 10 years in the United States Army, and know that there are genuine God-fearing, Spirit-baptized men and women serving in uniform. E.M. Bounds was a Civil War chaplain, and Ira Sankey served also. Stonewall Jackson, though not very well known by a younger generation of Christians, is a unique man of God to study. He saw the Lord move over the troops, and there are many, [i]many[/i] incredible war testimonies circa mid-1860's where God moved in opposite ranks to save both Union [i]and[/i] Confederate brethren.

In any case, I hope you enjoy this eye-witness account on how General Stonewall Jackson died:

"In the full tide of his splendid career, just as he (General Stonewall Jackson) was completing what he regarded as the most successful military movement of his life - with high ambition and bright hopes for the future - he was shot down by the fire of his own men, who would gladly have yielded up their own lives to have saved their loved chieftain one single pang.

He bore his sufferings, and the amputation of his arm with the utmost Christian fortitude, saying repeatedly that he was perfectly resigned to God's will and would not, if he could, restore the arm, unless assured that it was his Heavenly Father's will.

When he seemed better and expected to recover, he spoke freely of being so near death when first wounded, and expecting fully to die before a surgeon could reach him, and said that he "gave himself up to the hands of his Heavenly Father, and was in the possession of perfect peace."

Rev. Dr. B. T. Lacy relates that, alluding to this period of expected death, he said: "It has been a precious experience to me that I was brought face to face with death, and found all was well. I then learned an important lesson: that one who has been the subject of converting grace and is the child of God can, in the midst of the severest sufferings, fix his thoughts upon God and heavenly things, and derive great comfort and peace; but that one who had never made his peace with God would be unable to control his mind, under such sufferings, so as to understand properly the way of salvation, and repent and believe on Christ. I felt that if I had neglected the salvation of my soul before, it would have been too late then."

He dictated a letter to General Robert E. Lee, in which he congratulated him on "the great victory which God has vouchsafed to your arms." But before this note was sent, the following came to him from General Lee, in response to a previous note which had been sent by Jackson :

"General: I have just received your note informing me that you were wounded. I cannot express my regret at the occurence. Could I have directed events, I should have chosen, for the good of the country, to have been disabled in your stead. I congratulate you upon the victory which is due to your skill and energy.

Most truly yours,
R. E. LEE, General."

Jackson seemed deeply touched at the generous letter from his chief, but said, after a brief pause: "General Lee is very kind: but he should give the glory to God."

Afterwards, in talking about this great victory, he said: "Our movement yesterday was a great success; I think the most successful military movement of my life. But I expect to receive far more credit for it than I deserve. Most men will think I had planned it all from the first; but it was not so -- I simply took advantage of circumstances as they were presented to me in the Providence of God. I feel that His hand led me: let us give Him all the glory."

When he had been removed to the house of Mr. Chandler, near Guinea’s Station, and had so far rallied as to feel confident of his recovery, he talked very freely on his favorite religious topics. Dr. Dabney says (in his admirable biography of Jackson, to which I am indebted for several incidents given above):

"He requested his chaplain to visit him at 10 o'clock each morning for reading the Scriptures and prayer. These seasons were the occasions of much religious conversation, in which be unbosomed himself with unusual freedom and candor. He declared that his faith and hope in his Redeemer were clear. He said he was perfectly willing to die at that time; [i]but believed that his time was not yet come, that his Heavenly Father still had a work for him to do in defense of his beloved country[/i], and that until that was completed he should be spared. During these morning hours he delighted to enlarge on his favorite topics of practical religion, which were such as these: The Christian should carry his religion into everything. [i]Christianity makes man better in any lawful calling; it equally makes the general a better commander, and the shoemaker a better mechanic.[/i] In the case of the cobbler, or the tailor, for instance, religion will produce more care in promising work, more punctuality, and more fidelity in executing it, from conscientious motives; and these homely examples were fair illustrations of its value in more exalted functions. So prayer aids any man, in any lawful business, not only by bringing down the Divine blessing, which is its direct and prime object, but by harmonizing his own mind and heart. In the commander of an army at the critical hour it calmed his perplexities, moderated his anxieties, steadied the scales of judgment, and thus preserved him from exaggerated and rash conclusions. Again he urged that every act of man's life should be a religious act. He recited with much pleasure the ideas of Doddridge, where he pictured himself as spiritualizing every act of his daily life; as thinking when he washed himself, of the cleansing blood of Calvary; as praying while he put on his garments, that he might be clothed with the righteousness of the saints; as endeavoring, while he was eating, to feed upon the Bread of heaven. General Jackson now also enforced his favorite dogma, that the Bible furnished men with rules for everything. If they would search, he said, they would find a precept, an example, or a general principle, applicable to every possible emergency of duty, no matter what was a man's calling. There the military man might find guidance for every exigency. Then, turning to Lieutenant Smith, he asked him, smiling:

"Can you tell me where the Bible gives generals a model for their official reports of battles?"

Smith answered, laughing, that it never entered his mind to think of looking for such a thing in the Scriptures.

"Nevertheless," said the general, "there are such, and excellent models, too. Look, for instance, at the narrative of Joshua's battle with the Amalekites; there you have one. It has clearness, brevity, fairness, modesty; and it traces the victory to its right source, the blessing of God."

As he gradually grew worse, and his physicians and friends became alarmed about his condition, he was calm, resigned, even joyous, at the prospect.

Noticing the sadness of his loving wife, he said to her, tenderly: "I know you would gladly give your life for me, but I am perfectly resigned. Do not be sad. I hope I may yet recover. Pray for me, but always remember in your prayers to use the petition, 'Thy will be done.'"

When he saw the number of surgeons who were called in, he said to his medical director, Dr. Hunter McGuire: "I see from the number of physicians that you consider my condition dangerous, but I thank God that, if it is His will, I am ready to go."

When his wife informed him that the doctors thought his recovery very doubtful, he was silent for a moment, and then said: "It will be infinite gain to be translated to heaven." When later, on that beautiful Sabbath day, he was informed that he could scarcely live till night, he engaged for a moment in intense thought, and then replied: "Very good, very good; it is all right."

Dr. McGuire thus concludes a deeply interesting paper on the wounding and death of Jackson:

He tried to comfort his almost heart-broken wife, and told her he had a good deal to say to her, but he was too weak. Colonel Pendleton came into the room about 1 o'clock, and he asked him: "Who is preaching at headquarters to-day?" When told that the whole army was praying for him, he replied: "Thank God! They are very kind." He said, "It is the Lord's day; my wish is fulfilled. I have always desired to die on Sunday.'"

His mind now began to fail and wander, and he frequently talked as if in command upon the field, giving orders in his old way; then the scene shifted, and he was at the mess-table in conversation with members of his staff; now with his wife and child; now at prayers with his military family. Occasionally intervals of return of his mind would appear, and during one of them I offered him some brandy and water; but he declined it, saying: "It will only delay my departure and do no good; I want to preserve my mind, if possible, to the last."

About halfpast one he was told that he had but two hours to live, and he answered again feebly, but firmly: "Very good; it is all right."

A few moments before he died he cried out, in his delirium:

"Order A. P. Hill to prepare for action! Pass the infantry to the front rapidly! Tell Major Hawks --"

Then he stopped, leaving the sentence unfinished. Presently a smile of ineffable sweetness spread over his pale face, and he said quietly, and with an expression as if of relief, "Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees..." and then, without pain, or the least struggle, his spirit passed from earth to the God who gave it.


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2007/3/11 19:37Profile
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

I forgot to say that I'm very grateful for our troops and I'm glad they are protecting us. I just don't think that Christians should be killing others.

Jordan


_________________
Jordan

 2007/3/11 19:40Profile
pastorfrin
Member



Joined: 2006/1/19
Posts: 1406


 Re:

Pilgrim wrote:
"Also, you cannot use the Bible to support your own personal rebellious nature. Yes, you heard that right. Examine yourself as to WHY you have these attitudes. You may be unpleasantly surprised to find out that you have unknowingly accepted the ideas of the world...and these ideas are based on leftover 60s rebellion (which is another topic all together)"


I am going to break my own rule here, may the Lord forgive me.
Pilgrim, I have a question for you, have you looked at any history that goes back father than the 60s? You say you watched protest against the Vietnam war, well good for you. I left my blood there and many of my buddies lost their lives there. But history goes back much farther than the 1960s. May I suggest you study the writings of say the first, second, and third century.

Maybe this can help you get started.
Historical research on nonresistance is embodied in the monograph of Professor C. J. Cadoux of Oxford (The Early Christian Attitude to War, published by Headly Brothers, London, 1919; also in his later work, The Early Church and the World, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1925; compare Professor C. J. Heering of the University of Leiden, The Fall of Christianity, A Study of Christianity, The State and War, Allen & Unwin, London, 1930). The material relating to the early church, as well as to the Reformation era of the sixteenth century, is dealt with briefly by John Horsch in his two monographs (Die biblische Lehre von der Wehrlosigkeit, Scottdale, Pa., 1920, and The Principle of Nonresistance as Held by the Mennonite Church, Scottdale, Pa., Fourth Printing, 1951) and more comprehensively by Professor Guy F. Hershberger in two of his major books (War, Peace, and Nonresistance, Herald Press, Scottdale, Pa., Revised Edition, 1953; and The Way of the Cross in Human Relations, Herald Press, 1958).

It is a shallow answer to reply that the only reason the early Christians refused the military was that emperor worship was involved. Adolf Hamack, a most eminent authority on the history of the church, lists three major reasons beyond emperor worship for the nonparticipation of Christians in the military forces of the Roman Empire: (1) Christians absolutely renounced war and the shedding of human blood. (2) Military officers sometimes imposed death sentences, and soldiers were called upon to execute these sentences. (3) The soldier's oath of absolute obedience was offensive to Christians who felt that such obedience was owed to God alone. Harnack also mentions involvement with pagan cults, as well as the behavior of soldiers in times of peace. (See his book, Militia Christi, Tubingen, 1905. The later research of Cadoux went even beyond that of Harnack.)
Christian church is adequate and clear. One need here but consult the writings of Harnack, Cadoux, Heering, and Hershberger, where the evidence is summarized. Polycarp (c. A. D. 155) called the Philippians to obey the word of Peter, "not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing." Justin Martyr, also writing in the middle of the second century, refers to the pre-conversion participation of Christians in warfare, but he testifies that "we . . . have . . . changed our warlike weapons, our swords into plowshares, and our spears into implements of tillage." About 180 Athenagoras reported: "We have learned not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on the one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak." The very first evidence of a partial breakdown of nonresistance came in the year A.D. 174, when Tertulhan issued a loud and bitter cry against the participation of certain Christians in army service. "Shall it be held lawful," demanded Tertullian, "to make an occupation of the sword when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?" On the contrary, insisted Tertullian, if a soldier gets converted, he must immediately abandon the military (which he savs many have done) or he must be ready to die as a martyr.

Celsus and Origen
In the latter part of the second century the pagan critic of Christianity, Celsus, was keenly aware of the nonresistance of the Christians, and he did not hesitate to point out to them their duty to fight for the king. Celsus stated that if everybody followed this ethic of nonresistance the empire would be ruined. In the next century, Origen, the learned church father, attempted to reply to Celsus. It was about the middle of the third century when he admitted to Celsus, "We have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take sword against a nation, nor do we learn anymore to make war, having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader." But what about the fear of Celsus that if everyone were nonresistant the empire would be ruined?
In the course of his exposition Origen also got around to that charge. Origen's only security was in God. It was God who delivered helpless Israel from the pursuing Egyptians at the Red Sea. The same God is still mighty to deliver any nation who would put its trust in Him. Far from being parasites on the empire, Christians make a tremendous contribution to it. "For the men of God are assuredly the salt of the earth; they preserve the order of the world; and society is held together as long as the salt is uncorrupted. . . . And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings, than those who go into the fields to fight for them. . . . We do not indeed fight under him [the emperor], although he requires it; but we 'fight' on his behalf, forming a special 'army'-an army of piety-by offering our prayers to God . . . Christians are benefactors of their country more than others. For they train up citizens, and inculcate piety to the Supreme Being; and they promote those whose lives in the smallest cities have been good and worthy, to a divine and heavenly city. . . . And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a divine and more necessary service in the church of God-for the salvation of men."

Further Evidence
The godly and influential bishop, Cyprian, who died as a martyr in A.D. 258, commented rather bitterly that "if a murder is committed privately it is a crime, but if it happens with state authority, courage is the name for it., Cyprian insisted that Christians "are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves." He held that "it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death." Early in the fourth century, Lactantius of Bithynia, in commenting on the divine command, "Thou shalt not kill," insisted that it was not lawful for a just man to engage in warfare.
Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all. It is," he declared, "always unlawful to put a man to death." About the year 310 a writer named Arnobius implied that nonresistance had been the position of Christians from the beginning of the church. He added, "If all without exception . . . would lend an ear for a little to His [Christ's] salutary and peaceful rules . . . the whole world, having turned the use of steel into more peaceful occupations, would now be living in the most placid tranquillity, and would unite in blessed harmony, maintaining inviolate the sanctity of treaties."
In addition to the writings of various church fathers, we may also observe that a number of local church regulations-ancient church orders and canons -- officially forbade military service. The soldier, and the magistrate "with the sword," "let him leave off or be rejected [as a church member]." "Let a catechumen or a believer of the people, if he desires to be a soldier, either cease from his intention, or if not, let him be rejected." Actual cases of withdrawal or of refusal of induction are on record. Eusebius, the fourth-century historian, tells us, for example, of a youth of 21 from Numidia, Maximilian by name, who appeared before an African proconsul named Dion for induction into the army. Maximilian refused induction, however, stating simply, "I cannot serve [as a soldier], for I am a Christian." Dion replied sharply, "Get into the service, or it will cost you your life." Maximilian replied, "I do this age no war-service, but I do 'war-service' for my God." No amount of threatening could budge him from his simple confession, "I am a Christian and I cannot do evil. . . .I shall not perish, but when I have forsaken this world, my soul shall live, with Christ my Lord." The outcome was that on March 12, 295, this young "soldier" of Christ was put to death. Maximilian's father returned home, "giving thanks to God that he had been able to bring such a present to the Lord." Professor Cadoux reports that there were numerous cases like that of Maximilian, and ventures the suggestion that this may have contributed to the onset of the severe persecution which broke out in 303 and raged for a decade.

Fourth - Century About-Face
The climate of the church on the subject of peace and nonresistance changed extremely rapidly after the conversion of Constantine (312), and after he gave Christianity legal status in the empire (313). The amazing fact of Constantine being a Christian emperor and soldier caused the church to do a swift about-face. It is of course also true that from A.D. 174, there had been some soldiers in the Roman army who professed to be Christians. Yet as late as 374 Basil the Great still counseled that those who had killed in war should abstain from communion for three years, "for they were unclean of hand." On the other hand, incredible as it appears historically, the Council of Arles in 314 threatened nonresistants with excommunication! This action seems unbelievable! Harnack comments: "By this decision the church completely revised her attitude to the army and war, the attitude that had prevailed until now, at least in theory. The church had longed to win the emperor, and now flung herself into his arms. . . . She . . . relegated to the monastic orders her old views about war and the military calling." By the latter fourth century outstanding leaders were giving assent to the new position formulated at Arles. Athanasius (about 350) could write, "Murder is not permitted, but to kill one's adversarv in war is both lawful and praiseworthy." And twenty-five years later, Ambrose could declare, "And that course which either protects the homeland against barbarians, in war, or defends the weak at home, or saves one S comrades from brigands, is full of righteousness." It only remained for Augustine (354-430) fully and systematically to defend the right of Christians to participate in a just war.
Augustine lived in the age when the barbarian Goths took Rome, and later he was to see the Vandals penetrate even into North Africa. War, therefore, tended to become for him the struggle of a good state against malicious evildoers. He, therefore, held that "authority and power to wage war shall be in the hands of the ruler, and in carrying out war-decrees the soldiers really serve the cause of peace and the common good." Augustine could appeal to John the Baptist who recognized that soldiers were not murderous, but authorized by law, and that the soldiers did not thus avenge themselves, but defended the public safety." Augustine had to write a letter of counsel to a Roman commander named Boniface who contemplated laying down his command be-cause he was a Christian. Augustine assured Boniface. "Do not think that no one can please God who serves with arms." lie went on to state that it is indeed fine that some Christians withdraw from the world into the ascetic life, "yet everyone ... has his own gift from God. . . . Others, therefore, 'fight' against unseen foes by praying for you, and you work for them by fighting against the visible barbarians."
State Religion
As early as A.D. 380 the two emperors, Theodosius of the Eastern Empire, and Gratianus of the Western Empire, in a joint edict made Christianity the official arid obligatory [ ! ] religion of state. The total reversal of attitude on nonresistance came in A.D. 416 when the empire required that all soldiers must be Christians. It, therefore, required only about a century for a remarkable change of climate-from the time when Constantine had nails purporting to come from the cross of Christ made into a helmet for himself, and into a bit for his horse, until the time when it was required of all soldiers that they be Christians. This reversal of attitude from primitive Christianity's nonresistance to a full-orbed acceptance of warfare was a major aspect of what Heering calls the "Fall" of Christianity.
Copyright @ 1968 by Herald Press, Scottdale, Pa. 15688 Printed in the United States
From the booklet Pacifism and Bibical Nonrestance, by J. C. Wenger, © 1968 by Herald Press, Scottdale, Pa. 15688 Printed in the United States. All rights reserved.
<
You see your opinion and may I say it is your opinion fits right in there with the likes of Augustine and not at all with the teachings of Christ or the early Church. In your opinion the early Christians were committing sin by not following the command to be a soldier. I guess they should have been punished for their failure to obey the government. Oh that’s right they were, they were martyred for obeying the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. They loved not their lives unto death.
If we would follow the teachings of Christ, which is confirmed by the faithfulness of the early Church this question would be settled once and for all. Instead we look at history following The Council of Nicea and we base our beliefs on the emotional feelings of God and country.
Hebrews 11:13-16
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. [14] For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. [15] And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. [16] But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

May We All Be Lead By The Love Of Jesus Christ Who Loves Us And Gave Himself For Us

pastorfrin

 2007/3/11 22:28Profile
Burn4Christ
Member



Joined: 2007/2/14
Posts: 41


 Re: "Killing on the battlefield is not a sin."

When I was in China in 2005, I remember how the missionaries there were testifying about the freedom they had to evangelize in muslim nations. How that they were so thankful of President Bush and America, because of the religious freedom. How in times past it was hard for them to enter into certain areas of Iraq and Afghanistan, but now they were training up missionaries left and right to mission to dominate Muslim Middle East. Teenagers and young adults being called of the Lord to the mission field, and willing to die for the cause of Christ. They would testify about the muslims giving their lives for Christ and also of persecution that they faced. I heard of pastors who no longer walked the streets of Iraq in fear of their lives, but now openly preach and minister the Word of God. I remember them proclaiming to us how thankful and grateful they were and how much they prayed for America. I think it's a shame and a disgrace that I here more support from the Chinese than I do from Americans. These are they who bear the marks of our Lord in their bodies, something we in America know nothing about. I wander sometimes how many on here actually have a hearing of the Spirit of God and whether or not they are hearing and seeing what is taking shape in the Spirit. I question alot of people's walk with God and wander how spiritual it is.

In His Service
Christopher

Suffering: it was the way of the master, should not the servant tread it still (leonard ravenhill)


_________________
Christopher Cox

 2007/3/12 0:26Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4821
Savannah TN

 Re:

Brother Christopher wrote:

Quote:
These are they who bear the marks of our Lord in their bodies,



These who bear the marks of our Lord...who was responsible for these marks?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2007/3/12 0:46Profile





All sermons are offered freely and all contents of the site
where applicable is committed to the public domain for the
free spread of the gospel.