Should Christians be Pacifist?

[MedicBravo]

Part of the verse he's talking about SO many misunderstand and take out of context.
Jesus used "justified force" at least once.

 

[Bill Taylor]

MB, if people can screw their heads on without cross-threading it they will remember the first passage in the Book of John and reconsider the dumb idea that Creator God in the Jewish Bible was mean and unjustifiably angry. That first paragraph explains that our Savior is the Creator/Law Giver and thoughtful, I believe so but never angry, just fair. I'm still a Ronnie Reagan Soldier, peace through strength.

 

[Brad Huber]

There are lots of sheep amoung christians, who want all christians to be sheep. They tend to think you are either a sheep or a wolf and no inbetween. There have always been sheep amoung God's people. But in the OT, which is still God's will, there were always those protectors of the sheep who were not sheep, David just the prominent one, but most of the hero's of the OT were not sheep, more so just the opposite. God needs those people, those protectors of His people as sort of a hired shepard, where He is the King shepard.

 

[MedicBravo]

God made us to be warriors in this evil world not doormat pacifists.

 

[Brad Huber]

God made us to be warriors in this evil world not doormat pacifists.

He wants us to be willing warriors. Not everyone is willing. Just because God says a LOT of times, "do not be afraid", doesnt mean that some ppl wont be afraid. And those that are warriors need to prefer peace and seek it if at all possible, and if not possible, then its the warriors duty to take the next step.... if they are sure that its God's will for said action.

 

[Butch5]

They should be pacifists if they want to follow the Christian Faith. I always find it odd how on this particular subject, which is crystal clear, Christians want to argue with the Bible. We don't have to wonder about this. History gives us a clear example. The early Christians would not use violence, period. Not even to save a life. One early Christian wrote, 'in our religion it is better to be slain, than to slay.' Note the words, "our religion". He wasn't stating his opinion. He was expressing the practice that was practiced throughout the Christian faith. They simply would not use violence. They had the same attitude that Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego, had. 'Our God is able to save us O king. But if not.'

Daniel 3:17–18 (KJV 1900): 17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

 

[Brad Huber]

They should be pacifists if they want to follow the Christian Faith. I always find it odd how on this particular subject, which is crystal clear, Christians want to argue with the Bible. We don't have to wonder about this. History gives us a clear example. The early Christians would not use violence, period. Not even to save a life. One early Christian wrote, 'in our religion it is better to be slain, than to slay.' Note the words, "our religion". He wasn't stating his opinion. He was expressing the practice that was practiced throughout the Christian faith. They simply would not use violence. They had the same attitude that Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego, had. 'Our God is able to save us O king. But if not.'

Daniel 3:17–18 (KJV 1900): 17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Obviously its not crystal clear. You just choose to not accept anything other than your prefered sheep status as the go to.

 

[Butch5]

Obviously its not crystal clear. You just choose to not accept anything other than your prefered sheep status as the go to.

You've got 300 years of Christian history. It's clear.

 

[Brad Huber]

You've got 300 years of Christian history. It's clear.

Again, obviously not.

 

[joestue]

ye shall not stand idly by while your brother's life is at hand..

that verse is often forgotten.

basically if life has value, then murderers and destroyers of life have negative value. so get rid of them by reasonable means.

 

[Bill Taylor]

I believe the issue is a lack of a complete, concise understanding of scripture. As explained in John 1, Yashua is Creator God and in this application it should be understood that He dictated the scriptures making everything from Genesis 1:1 through the last verse of Revelation to be of one context. There are no conflicts in scripture but without Ruach explaining it to a person there can appear there is.

 

[MedicBravo]

@Butch5
If we were to be pacifists as you suggest and that is the ONLY way to be a Christian then the early Christians would've been killed off and we wouldn't be having this talk.

Jesus showed use of violence and it was justified.
The Bible teaches us when and how to but also He warns of those who "live by the sword dy by the sword".
Clarification:
1. Those who seek out violence and as a way of life.
2. Those who's job requires it and puts them in much higher changes of violence and killed b/c of it.

Ex: Roman soldiers back in His day.
The military of any civilized country.
Police.

Gangsters (rappers).
Murderers.

The verses in context in-context in no way suggest a Christian is to NOT defend himself/herself.
You can't make that decision for others.
Who are OP or anyone going to leave behind at the mercy of such people and if not saved then what?

 

[Hekuran]

If we were to be pacifists as you suggest and that is the ONLY way to be a Christian then the early Christians would've been killed off and we wouldn't be having this talk.

The first followers of Jesus were non-violent. For the first three centuries until Constantine, soldiers who became Christians would leave their profession.

Christians were often viciously persecuted, and their refusal to retaliate with violence was one of the most powerful witnesses to their hope of salvation in God.

The Just War theory put forward by Augustine came later.

 

[B-A-C]

It's funny, sometimes Jesus was... ( at least when it seems the plan called for it ).

Isa_53:7; He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.

.. but other times He was not.

John 2:15; And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;
John 2:16; and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."

It seems at some point in the future...

Rev 19:12; His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
Rev 19:13; He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14; And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses.
Rev 19:15; From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
Rev 19:16; And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

Rev 19:21; And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

Now some say, the passage in Rev 19 is just metaphorical, it's not a literal sword. Perhaps, but even so... He will rule will a rod of iron, and kill people with this "spiritual" sword.

Rev 2:16; 'Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.

 

[B-A-C]

Matt 10:34; "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matt 26:51; And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.

( Yes Jesus rebuked him for doing this, but the fact remains... he did it )

Luke 22:36; And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

Over a dozen times in the Old Testament God told the Israelites to conquer or fight back against people. Take over Canaan, fight the Midianites, kill the priests of Baal, David killed Goliath and chopped head off.
It was prophesied that Israel would become a nation again. That happened in 1948, but not without a war.

 

[MedicBravo]

The first followers of Jesus were non-violent. For the first three centuries until Constantine, soldiers who became Christians would leave their profession.

Christians were often viciously persecuted, and their refusal to retaliate with violence was one of the most powerful witnesses to their hope of salvation in God.

The Just War theory put forward by Augustine came later.

The Disciples would be the leading example but Jesus showed violence at least once.
I'm sure becoming a Christian back then for anyone who truly believed, it was a life changing choice.
There is a difference between persecution, self-defense, and then attacked and killed for being a Christian.
God called us to be warriors among other things and the wisdom for all this is in the Bible.

 

[Butch5]

@Butch5
If we were to be pacifists as you suggest and that is the ONLY way to be a Christian then the early Christians would've been killed off and we wouldn't be having this talk.

Jesus showed use of violence and it was justified.
The Bible teaches us when and how to but also He warns of those who "live by the sword dy by the sword".
Clarification:
1. Those who seek out violence and as a way of life.
2. Those who's job requires it and puts them in much higher changes of violence and killed b/c of it.

Ex: Roman soldiers back in His day.
The military of any civilized country.
Police.

Gangsters (rappers).
Murderers.

The verses in context in-context in no way suggest a Christian is to NOT defend himself/herself.
You can't make that decision for others.
Who are OP or anyone going to leave behind at the mercy of such people and if not saved then what?

As I posted. There is three hundred years of Christian history that tells us that they would not use violence for any reason. I beleive it was Tertullian who said, 'in our religion it is better to be slain than to slay."

I'm not making the decision for others. I'm simply pointing out what was taught in the very beginning of the Christian faith, before things got off track.

I'm often puzzled by the Christian's response to this issue. Why is it that so many Christians seem to trust God in virtually every aspect of their lives except when it comes to self defense? Is God capable of defending the Christian's life? If so, why are many Christian often so quick to want to defend themselves?

Tertullian, First Apology, chapter 37

If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands? In regard to this, recall your own experiences. How often you inflict gross cruelties on Christians, partly because it is your own inclination, and partly in obedience to the laws! How often, too, the hostile mob, paying no regard to you, takes the law into its own hand, and assails us with stones and flames! With the very frenzy of the Bacchanals, they do not even spare the Christian dead, but tear them, now sadly changed, no longer entire, from the rest of the tomb, from the asylum we might say of death, cutting them in pieces, rending them asunder. Yet, banded together as we are, ever so ready to sacrifice our lives, what single case of revenge for injury are you able to point to, though, if it were held right among us to repay evil by evil, a single night with a torch or two could achieve an ample vengeance? But away with the idea of a sect divine avenging itself by human fires, or shrinking from the sufferings in which it is tried. If we desired, indeed, to act the part of open enemies, not merely of secret avengers, would there be any lacking in strength, whether of numbers or resources? The Moors, the Marcomanni, the Parthians themselves, or any single people, however great, inhabiting a distinct territory, and confined within its own boundaries, surpasses, forsooth, in numbers, one spread over all the world! We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum,—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. For what wars should we not be fit, not eager, even with unequal forces, we who so willingly yield ourselves to the sword, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay?

He makes the point that Christians are so many in number that if they did take up the sword they would be a formidable foe. But, he rejects the idea.

 

[MedicBravo]

I disagree.
If no Christian EVER defended themselves then it would've been wiped out. That is a fact.
The Disciples, as I've stated many times and others agree, they were the standard. A pacifist no-matter-what Christianity would NEVER have lasted long.
The Crusades (Catholic only) were a good example of this.
They only happened b/c Muslims invaded Christian lands stole, raped, beat, and murdered Christians. Even then some time passed before the first one happened.
In the OT, we know God used Christians in wars and other methods and to suddenly turn 100% pacifist no matter what is untrue and absurd.
We are also commanded to "defend self and others especially those who cannot for themselves." Not quoting scripture here just summarizing.
You can be a Christian pacifist but that's on you.

1. Exodus 22:2-3 “If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder. But if it happens in daylight, the one who killed the thief is guilty of murder.”

2. Luke 11:21 “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own mansion, his property is safe.”

We are warned against revenge. To NOT seek violence as a first option.
Truth is, this world is worse than people think. The optimal choice is to subdue and restrain on an attacker but 99% of the time it's not going to be an option.

16. Psalm 82:4 “Rescue weak and needy people. Help them escape the power of wicked people.”

17. Proverbs 24:11 “Rescue captives condemned to death, and spare those staggering toward their slaughter.”

18. 1 Timothy 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

 

[Butch5]

It's not a fact. What is a fact is the very opposite. We see that they would not use violence, period. And yet Christianity spread through out the entire region. As Tertullian notes. They didn't use violence and Christians were everywhere. Even despite the fact that they were mercilessly persecuted. The fact that they were so willing to lay down their lives is why Christianity spread so rapidly. Compare that to today when Christians want to participate in government, war, self defense, and law enforcement, where Christians and Christianity are hated in much of the world. Participation in these actions is one of the main reasons Christianity is dwindling in the West in both popularity and numbers.

It's clear that the Early Christians interpreted Scriputre much differently than Christians today since they utterly rejected violence and Christians today have no real issue with it. The question is who's correct. We'll, that's a pretty easy question to answer. It's obviously the Early Christians since they had direct teaching from the apostles. They're understanding is the very first teaching on the subject. They know the language and lived in the culture.

I think this teaching goes against the thoughts of many. For one thing it strikes hard at our pride. Especially for men who want to be protectors. But, the bottom line is that we have a multitude of evidence that says we can't use violence, and it's from the word of God. We have to choose what we will do with God's commands.

 

[MedicBravo]

Again, your subjective opinion.
If I were the enemy, I'd use pacifism against Christians and would have easily wiped them out.
I gave you several examples of self-defense and defense of others.