Should Christians Fight In Wars ?

[Sissy]

Matthew 5
(39) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
​

I believe this is speaking of personal revenge.

We do have civil authorities authorized to resist evil.
And God has ordained the civil authorities to execute judgment on evil.

Romans 13
(1) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
(2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
(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.
​

The civil authorities execute the punishment, not the individual.
An individual would be a vigilante.


And the military would be part of the civil authority that is ordained to protect us from evil and execute judgment upon them.


Even within the church we have certain ones who are set up to execute judgment. They are to expel or admonish the offender.

So, we do resist evil, but through the system God set up, not as an individual vigilante.

 

[Drew]

Why war then? Of all the analogies He could have used, why war? And more than teaching the legitimacy of war, He's stating it as a given that wars happen. If He was against any and all wars being waged, He certainly wouldn't use this specifically, or He would have included condemnation of it when speaking about it.

No. The fact that he used the "war analogy" does not entail an endorsment of the legitimacy of warfare.

Jesus is using an illustration from the world of human activity to make a point about something entirely different - about how the Christian needs to give up everything to follow Jesus. Just because Jesus uses war as the metaphorical vehicle through which to make His point does not mean that he endorses war.

Consider the parable of the prodigal son. Jesus describes a scenario where the son goes and lives a life of wine, women, and song. Using your reasoning, Jesus is endorsing the pursuit of wine, women, and song.

 

[Sissy]

Why war then? Of all the analogies He could have used, why war?

No. The fact that he used the "war analogy" does not entail an endorsment of the legitimacy of warfare.

Jesus is using an illustration from the world of human activity to make a point about something entirely different - about how the Christian needs to give up everything to follow Jesus. Just because Jesus uses war as the metaphorical vehicle through which to make His point does not mean that he endorses war.

Consider the parable of the prodigal son. Jesus describes a scenario where the son goes and lives a life of wine, women, and song. Using your reasoning, Jesus is endorsing the pursuit of wine, women, and song.

Well, no.
The illustration of the wine, women, and song is used in a bad way.
The illustration of war was used in a good way.

 

[Strangelove]

We do have civil authorities authorized to resist evil.
And God has ordained the civil authorities to execute judgment on evil.

Romans 13
(1) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
(2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
(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.
​

The civil authorities execute the punishment, not the individual.
An individual would be a vigilante.


And the military would be part of the civil authority that is ordained to protect us from evil and execute judgment upon them.


Even within the church we have certain ones who are set up to execute judgment. They are to expel or admonish the offender.

So, we do resist evil, but through the system God set up, not as an individual vigilante.

Ahhhh my good friend Romans 13.

So by your thinking Sissy....if these "powers" and "rulers" which you interpret to be civil authorities decided to say to everyone on Earth that they must be good little Noahides and renounce Christs name then, I guess......you'd have to go ahead and do that then? Or you would be resisting the ordinance of God. After all, this is the system that God set up.

Correct?

 

[Mike]

No. The fact that he used the "war analogy" does not entail an endorsment of the legitimacy of warfare.

Jesus is using an illustration from the world of human activity to make a point about something entirely different - about how the Christian needs to give up everything to follow Jesus. Just because Jesus uses war as the metaphorical vehicle through which to make His point does not mean that he endorses war.

Consider the parable of the prodigal son. Jesus describes a scenario where the son goes and lives a life of wine, women, and song. Using your reasoning, Jesus is endorsing the pursuit of wine, women, and song.

Well, no.
The illustration of the wine, women, and song is used in a bad way.
The illustration of war was used in a good way.

And to add to what Sissy said, Jesus used the fullness of His parable to demonstrate the Father's Love for us when we have turned away. The verses I shared don't make up a parable. He was using "going to war", and the thought process in waging it, as an example of how people made decisions in that time. You would have a point if He spoke of a king that did this and then came to repentance for doing this wrong thing. But He didn't say anything about it being wrong. He just basically acknowledged, this is how kings make war-time decisions. Would this have been an opportunity for Him to denounce all wars?

 

[Drew]

Well, no.
The illustration of the wine, women, and song is used in a bad way.
The illustration of war was used in a good way.

Well forget the prodigal son. There is no simply no evidence that Jesus is affirming the validity of warfare just because He appeals to a war "metaphor" to make His point. You are effectively assuming that Jesus is going to render a moral judgement about every situation he either encounters or describes. That strikes me as highly unrealistic. Jesus is perfectly free to use a war metaphor to make his point. However doing so does not justify a conclusion that Jesus thinks war is OK.

 

[Drew]

But that's not going to distract from the fact that God not only allowed saints to be in wars, but actually commanded it at times.

It is clear that God did indeed command wars at certain times.

But it would be a deep fundamental misreading of the entire Biblical account to assume that God's use of war in the past means that its OK now.

Consider a history of Fred who gets cancer at age 65. For 6 months, the doctors inject Fred with chemotherapy. Does that mean that its "OK" to inject Fred with chemotherapy at any point in the future? Of course not. Same thing here: if a case can be made, and I think that it can, that God had a very specific need to call for certain wars in the past, then we should not conclude that it is some kind of "timeless truth" that its OK for Christians to participate in war.

God's plan of reclamation of His creation is an unfolding story - one cannot simply take events in that story and arbitrarily transfer them forward in time. Its more complicated than that.

 

[Drew]

When scripture tells us to RESIST evil, it's not saying to shrink back and lay down. RESIST means to oppose and defend against.

First, no one is saying that the response to evil is to "shrink back and lay down".

Second, you are stretching the concept of resistance a little too far - it does not necessarily entail a command to use force.

I will repeat - Jesus explains why His disciples are not using force: this non-violent approach is a feature of the kingdom that Jesus is initiating.

 

[Strangelove]

ROMANS 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Was it possible to NOT go to war in Afghanistan & Iraq.

Was it a possibility?

Or did we have no choice whatsoever?

Did the civil authorities have a choice?

Do soldiers have a choice? Actually.....Jason>>> if a soldier decides to read the NT and then go to his commanding officer can he say he refuses to go into action because he's been born again and doesn't want to kill?

Can he get out of his duties immediately on religious grounds? Probably not but I was wondering.​

 

[Sissy]

It is clear that God did indeed command wars at certain times.

But it would be a deep fundamental misreading of the entire Biblical account to assume that God's use of war in the past means that its OK now.

It would be fundamentally misreading of the entire Biblical account to assume that war was only OK in the past.

Revelation 19
(11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
​

Let's be clear.
No one is saying that all war is justified.
But to flat out proclaim that all war is unjustified is equally unsound.

 

[Drew]

It would be fundamentally misreading of the entire Biblical account to assume that war was only OK in the past.

Revelation 19
(11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
​

Let's be clear.
No one is saying that all war is justified.
But to flat out proclaim that all war is unjustified is equally unsound.

The Revelation text, like some other texts some have provided, speaks of God / Jesus engaging in "making war". That is simply not the issue - the issue is whether its OK for the Christian to engage in war-making.

 

[Strangelove]

It would be fundamentally misreading of the entire Biblical account to assume that war was only OK in the past.

Revelation 19
(11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
​

Let's be clear.
No one is saying that all war is justified.
But to flat out proclaim that all war is unjustified is equally unsound.

Sissy.....come on now,,,,,

This is just getting ridiculous.

That is JESUS waging war. He can do whatever He wants.

And anyway the language could well be metaphorical there because the way He makes war is with a sword coming from His mouth to smite the nations. What does that mean?

Seriously, to use that verse to justify Christian human beings to go to war and kill people...........

 

[Sissy]

Hebrews chapter 11 - commonly called the Hall of Faith



Hebrews 11
(32) And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
(33) Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
(34) Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

 

[Mike]

It would be fundamentally misreading of the entire Biblical account to assume that war was only OK in the past.

Revelation 19
(11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
​

Let's be clear.
No one is saying that all war is justified.
But to flat out proclaim that all war is unjustified is equally unsound.

+1

I'm not a "war monger", and I don't think anyone involved in this thread is. It should always be a last resort, after sanctions, negotiations, etc. Where does that end? With Drew living in Canada and Strangelove living in the far east of the globe, it might be a little easier to say you'd sit back and "talk" while we get pounded by planes and dirty bombs. Watching the destruction on TV is a lot easier than having it occur in your yard. I'm speaking specifically about world events as they are, but my point is overall, I'd be in favor of other options first. When they are rendered insufficient, you do what you need to do for the greater good.

I've never been in the military, but I'm not ashamed of them and I wouldn't condemn them for doing what they do - when they need to do it.

 

[LostSoul]

It would be nice if a discussion could be had about this topic...along with any other for that matter.... WITHOUT childish name calling.

 

[Lewis]

Ok here is the whole deal, if we have to go to war. Then we have to go to war, what is so hard to understand. Let me ask some of you something, say suppose America gets invaded, now we all have family here, what would you all do ?

 

[LostSoul]

Ok here is the whole deal, if we have to go to war. Then we have to go to war, what is so hard to understand. Let me ask some of you something, say suppose America gets invaded, now we all have family here, what would you all do ?

Hide my children and protect them with my life. Better me to go then them, if push came to shove.

 

[Strangelove]

Hebrews chapter 11 - commonly called the Hall of Faith

Hebrews 11
(32) And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

How many of these guys were commanded to fight by God Himself and how many were commanded by their civil authorities?

(33) Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
(34) Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

Does that sound like George Bush?

Is this the focus of modern "christian" warfare?

 

[Strangelove]

Ok here is the whole deal, if we have to go to war. Then we have to go to war, what is so hard to understand. Let me ask some of you something, say suppose America gets invaded, now we all have family here, what would you all do ?

WHO decides if we have to go to war though Lewis. Thats the point.

Partial quote of George Washingtons farewell speach:


Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.

There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

 

[Lewis]

Strangelove Wrote
WHO decides if we have to go to war though Lewis. Thats the point.

If America gets invaded by air and ground troops, especially the ground troops you do the math.