Should Christians Fight In Wars ?

[Sissy]

I think he dilly-dallied around a little too much, and should have gone in with guns a blazing until they cried "STOP, we've had enough! We won't bother you anymore".

Do you really think Jesus of Nazareth would be for "going in guns blazing until they cried 'stop'"? I very much doubt it.

Doubt it all you want to.

Revelation 6
(16) And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
(17) For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
​

 

[Drew]

Doubt it all you want to.

Revelation 6
(16) And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
(17) For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
​

I trust you understand that I have never denied that Jesus has the right to incur
"wrath". If the title of the thread was "Should Jesus ever incur wrath", then that would be a different story. Jesus says what he says Sissy - the nature of the kingdom is such that the followers of Jesus are not called to use force to achieve what they think is right.

 

[Mike]

I trust that we all understand that just because God advocated war in the past, which He clearly did, this does not make it a "timeless truth" that war is an acceptable activity for the Christian.

Drew, consider the words Jesus used and notice how He even provides the prudent way in which a war is waged. (he uses the present tense in describing this)

Luke 14
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-25577">31</sup>"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-25578">32</sup>If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace."

Also consider Romans 13, speaking to our obligation to submit to authority. The key point I'm directing you to is verse 4.

Romans 13
" <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-28253">1</sup>Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-28254">2</sup>Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-28255">3</sup>For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-28256">4</sup>For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Now, I expect that you might say this is referring to the laws within a country or kingdom and/or this is not necessarily referring to war. I would submit that we need to key in on Paul referring to him as "God's servant" and that he will "bring punishment on the wrongdoer". Do these verses imply that every war is justified? No. But I believe they do demonstrate continuity from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Wars will happen, and the governing authorities are put in place by Him. In protecting the defenseless and oppressed, there are times when force is necessary to prevent a greater evil from occurring. War should be the last option, but it needs to be an option if it is required.

 

[Drew]

Romans chapters 13 & 14 deal with government, its’ purpose and its’ relationship to lawbreakers.

True enough, but Romans 13 most certainly does not endorse "just war", nor does it legitimate Christian participation in violence. Romans 13 is merely a treatment of the fact that evil, corrupt governments are better than chaos and anarchy. There has been no bigger abuse of scripture than to see Romans 13 as, for example, the legitimation of one sovereign state to take it upon itself to invade another sovereign state.

Now as for "just war": its at least a "better way" to decide when to wage war than other models. But we should not assume that this is indeed how God wants His kingdom people to act.

 

[Drew]

Drew, consider the words Jesus used and notice how He even provides the prudent way in which a war is waged. (he uses the present tense in describing this)

Luke 14
<SUP id=en-NIV-25577 class=versenum>31</SUP>"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? <SUP id=en-NIV-25578 class=versenum>32</SUP>If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace."

The fact that Jesus refers to this war image is simply not a basis for concluding that He approves of war as an acceptable form of activity for the Christian. This is decidedly not a teaching on the legitimacy, or even the illegitimacy of war. It is a teaching about something else, with the battle motif chosen as an appropriate metaphor.

Also consider Romans 13, speaking to our obligation to submit to authority. The key point I'm directing you to is verse 4.

Romans 13
" <SUP id=en-NIV-28253 class=versenum>1</SUP>Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. <SUP id=en-NIV-28254 class=versenum>2</SUP>Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. <SUP id=en-NIV-28255 class=versenum>3</SUP>For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. <SUP id=en-NIV-28256 class=versenum>4</SUP>For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

I have just made the claim that Romans 13 is not an endorsement of either war-waging or any other form of violence on the part of the Christian - it is, I suggest, an assertion by Paul that we are to follow the "rules" of the society we are in - bad rulers are better than no rulers.

 

[Drew]

When we are faced with this type of evil, we must first reason and then fight if necessary. We are commanded as Christians to get rid of evil.

James 4:21 says “Get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.â€

This is not a teaching that in any way legitimates force against others. Here is some context:

This <SUP class=xref value='(AO)'>(AO)</SUP>you know, <SUP class=xref value='(AP)'>(AP)</SUP>my beloved brethren But everyone must be quick to hear, <SUP class=xref value='(AQ)'>(AQ)</SUP>slow to speak and <SUP class=xref value='(AR)'>(AR)</SUP>slow to anger; <SUP id=en-NASB-30287 class=versenum>20</SUP>for <SUP class=xref value='(AS)'>(AS)</SUP>the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. <SUP id=en-NASB-30288 class=versenum>21</SUP>Therefore, <SUP class=xref value='(AT)'>(AT)</SUP>putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive <SUP class=xref value='(AU)'>(AU)</SUP>the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. <SUP id=en-NASB-30289 class=versenum>22</SUP><SUP class=xref value='(AV)'>(AV)</SUP>But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.

This is not a teaching about war - it is an instruction about dealing with your own issues.

 

[Mike]

The fact that Jesus refers to this war image is simply not a basis for concluding that He approves of war as an acceptable form of activity for the Christian. This is decidedly not a teaching on the legitimacy, or even the illegitimacy of war. It is a teaching about something else, with the battle motif chosen as an appropriate metaphor.

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.

 

[Sissy]

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

Right. Not surprising since our God is a man of war.


Exodus 15
(3) The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

 

[Lewis]

And also Sissy, there was a war in heaven and Michale fought.

 

[Sissy]

And also Sissy, there was a war in heaven and Michale fought.

Yep.

Folks sometimes forget that wars include both offense and defense.
Defense is just as much a part of fighting as offense is.

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

 

[Lewis]

I agree, and if we don't have to fight, GREAT, but if we have to fight, Fight.

 

[Strangelove]

i dont agree with the iraq war, but if we started it then lets ensure we win it.

There you have it.

 

[Strangelove]

I'm absolutely STUNNED from reading this thread. (But in another way not surprised at all)

Really....theres ONE Christian (Drew) opposing aggressive war here and upholding the words of Jesus. Amazing.

Interesting how some people say stuff like:

Would you let rape happen?

Would you not defend yourself?

Would you not help the weak and oppressed?

My friends....there is righteousness and unrighteousness. And EVEN if you used violence in righteousness its STILL wrong and goes against the teachings of Christ. We are to turn the other cheek.

But most of us would use violence to defend ourselves and our families because we are sinners and of this fallen world. But it is still wrong. We will be with Jesus in the end whatever happens.

Invading other countries and destroying their civilian populations is something COMPLETELY different. ESPECIALLY on the strength of the FLIMSY pretexts that our western governments did with Afghanistan and Iraq. How any Christian could endorse such a thing I just cannot fathom.

And then saying...."well.. we know the reasons to go there were wrong but ...hey...were there now so lets WIN IT!"

Wow. Just wow.

"oh but we cant just leave Iraq now in the mess that its in cos all the factions would start fighting and it would be chaos blah blah blah blah"

RUBBISH!

 

[Sissy]

Hey Doc,

Don't think this thread is about any specific war. Just war in general, and if any saints should ever participate.

Obviously saints of God have participated in wars. Sometimes as aggressors and sometimes as defenders.
And you have some who think that God was unjust for allowing such wars, instead of settling things in a more "diplomatic" way.

We could debate till the cows come home about any specific war and whether it was necessary or not.
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.

 

[Strangelove]

Hey Doc,

Don't think this thread is about any specific war. Just war in general, and if any saints should ever participate.

Obviously saints of God have participated in wars. Sometimes as aggressors and sometimes as defenders.
And you have some who think that God was unjust for allowing such wars, instead of settling things in a more "diplomatic" way.

We could debate till the cows come home about any specific war and whether it was necessary or not.
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.

Hi Sissy.

God also commanded people to follow his written OT laws but Christ came and changed all that didn't He? He changed everything. I'll look to the New Testament for my guidance thanks. I'll look to Jesus' words.

War......is........wrong.

Doc.

 

[Sissy]

God also commanded people to follow his written OT laws but Christ came and changed all that didn't He? He changed everything.

Changed the law?
No.
He didn't change any of it.

Fulfilled the law, yes.

I'll look to the New Testament for my guidance thanks. I'll look to Jesus' words.

I understand.
But don't begrudge those who also look the OT for truth.
All of scripture is the word of God.
It was the OT that spoke of Christ.

Luke 24
(44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
​

Paul commended the Bereans for searching scripture to see if what Paul (or anyone else) said to them was the truth.
The scriptures at that time was the OT.

Acts 17
(11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
​

War......is........wrong.

God was wrong in the past?
I know you don't mean that, but the way you state it could seem to imply it.

 

[Strangelove]

Changed the law?

You twist my words. I said He changed the fact that we FOLLOW OT written law.

But don't begrudge those who also look the OT for truth.

You twist my words. I said GUIDANCE is to be saught from the NT.

God was wrong in the past?
I know you don't mean that, but the way you state it could seem to imply it.

You twist my words. Except this time you acknowledge it. Thanks .

You seem like a very clued up woman Sissy but your avatar and sig always confused me.

Love Doc.

 

[Lewis]

Strangelove Wrote
But most of us would use violence to defend ourselves and our families because we are sinners and of this fallen world. But it is still wrong. We will be with Jesus in the end whatever happens.

You are kidding right, and you say it would still be wrong huh, are you kidding me.
It would still be wrong to defend yourself or your family, what is wrong with you man ?

 

[Strangelove]

You are kidding right, and you say it would still be wrong huh, are you kidding me.
It would still be wrong to defend yourself or your family, what is wrong with you man ?

Was Jesus kidding?

Whats wrong with THAT guy?

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.​

 

[jasoncran]

i of all these posters know the cost of war personally ,been there done that.

i hate war, but i hate seeing my family hurt or raped even worse. and my friends.

its been said that the vet leaves the battefield but the battlefield never leaves him. i now fully realise that as i may have ptsd.