Should Christians be Pacifist?

[Hekuran]

If I were the enemy, I'd use pacifism against Christians and would have easily wiped them out.

For the first three centuries, the church was non-violent, endured waves of vicious persecution and continued to grow.

Perhaps a community living in God's grace and committed to embodying the gospel is even more powerful than the political might and the armies of the Roman empire. Just raising it as a possibility

 

[Butch5]

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.

Subjective opinion? 300 years of historical fact isn't subjective and it's not opinion. You can reject the facts if you choose to, however, that doesn't make them subjective or opinion. A simple look at the subject in the early church writings will confirm beyond any doubt that they did not use violence. It was one of the most compelling things about Christians, that they would not harm others under any circumstances, period. It's what made their enemies stand up and take notice.

Here is a quote from Cyprian. The battle he refers to is against the forces of darkness.


"But when beaten back as well by the faith as by the vigour of the combined army, he perceived that the soldiers of Christ are now watching, and stand sober and armed for the battle; that they cannot be conquered, but that they can die; and that by this very fact they are invincible, that they do not fear death; that they do not in turn assail their assailants, since it is not lawful for the innocent even to kill the guilty; but that they readily deliver up both their lives and their blood; that since such malice and cruelty rages in the world, they may the more quickly withdraw from the evil and cruel."

 

[MedicBravo]

Subjective opinion? 300 years of historical fact isn't subjective and it's not opinion. You can reject the facts if you choose to, however, that doesn't make them subjective or opinion. A simple look at the subject in the early church writings will confirm beyond any doubt that they did not use violence. It was one of the most compelling things about Christians, that they would not harm others under any circumstances, period. It's what made their enemies stand up and take notice.

Here is a quote from Cyprian. The battle he refers to is against the forces of darkness.


"But when beaten back as well by the faith as by the vigour of the combined army, he perceived that the soldiers of Christ are now watching, and stand sober and armed for the battle; that they cannot be conquered, but that they can die; and that by this very fact they are invincible, that they do not fear death; that they do not in turn assail their assailants, since it is not lawful for the innocent even to kill the guilty; but that they readily deliver up both their lives and their blood; that since such malice and cruelty rages in the world, they may the more quickly withdraw from the evil and cruel."

So?
That wasn't every Christian nor does it negate the verses I mentioned. You make Jesus into a hypocrite when you suggest as you do.
Again, let someone kill you while your loved ones are murdered, forbid. Their deaths will be on you.

 

[Butch5]

So?
That wasn't every Christian nor does it negate the verses I mentioned. You make Jesus into a hypocrite when you suggest as you do.
Again, let someone kill you while your loved ones are murdered, forbid. Their deaths will be on you.

It's a writing from an early Christian leader. So, it is Christian, as is the quote from Tertullian.

None of these negate any passage of Scripture. What they do is show that your understanding of those passages is vastly different from what was the Christian faith for the first 300 years of Christianity. Given that some of these guys knew and learned from the apostles, had the first teaching on this subject, and that this was the universal belief among Christians, suggests strongly to me that their understanding of these passages is the correct one and thus the one we should be following.

As I said, we don't have to wonder about this subject. We have 300 years of church history that shows us exactly where the church stood on this subject. It doesn't really matter how modern Christians may want to interpret these passages. The evidence is there and it's abundant.

 

[Butch5]

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.

The change came with the New Covenant. Israel as a nation did do battle. They also were the tool of God to administer justice. Jesus changed that with, 'you have heard it said an eye for an eye, but I say.' The old covenant showed one aspect of God, judgment and justice. The New Covenant shows another, grace and mercy. Jesus came here doing God's will. Just as in the Old Testament Israel was carrying out God's justice, there are times where Jesus will carry out God's justice. However, I don't believe that gives us license to do the same.

 

[KingJ]

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.

You make some good points, but high level your assertion of pure pacifism is false and unscriptural.

If God did not want Christians to defend themselves He would have to do so in a literal manner which is not what He wants to do. God does not want a generation looking for signs and wonders. This is completely against the purpose for placing mankind on the earth. You are thus in conflict with every verse that says a Christian must live by faith. This fact has to sink in.

A man who does not provide for his household is worse then an unbeliever 1 Tim 5:8. Providing security is a must for the man of the house. A man who does not do this is worse then an unbeliever.

 

[KingJ]

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

100% sound. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Dave M]

so much talk yet little scripture in this thread, it not a yes or no answered, we are to stand for God and do his will​

​

Matthew 5:39​

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

​

1 Peter 3:9​

Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.at you may obtain a blessing.

1 Thessalonians 5:15 ​

See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.

1 Corinthians 6:7​

To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?

Ephesians 4:31-32​

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

 

[KingJ]

​

Matthew 5:39​

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

​

1 Peter 3:9​

Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.at you may obtain a blessing.

1 Thessalonians 5:15 ​

See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.

1 Corinthians 6:7​

To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?

Ephesians 4:31-32​

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

If you consider the Geneva convention, would you say you disagree with that? That was punishment of the evil, but it was not repaying evil with evil. Repaying evil with evil is evil and a completely separate matter to pacifism.

 

[Brad Huber]

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

Luke 22:36-38 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

So we are not to go overboard in gaining weapons to hurt others with, but neither are we to be sheep, it surprises me that there are so many christians proud to be sheep and do their best to guilt others into bending their necks to the evil ones.

 

[Bill Taylor]

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.

Butch, you and Hekuran keep posting your opinions as "the" authoritative source. Medic Bravo and I are sold out to the Christ, making the Scriptures the Finale Court of Arbitration. This selling out is what brings the Indwelling of Ruach/the Holy Spirit. MB has proven his case and you stand there like the Lost Man I once was, pleading a pointless, unbase, tearful case. Being a disabled war veteran myself, I dispise war because the heart of man is revealed there. watch waThat does not mean that I will not drive my wheelchair out and watch, tearfully, as the captors march past, Then as their backs are to me I will snipe 1 to 6 before there send me into Eternity. We are called to defend.

 

[Hekuran]

@Bill Taylor it's not a matter of opinion that the church was non-violent for the first three centuries, it is a matter of fact. The great thinkers in the early church - Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen - were united in renouncing violence. There is no contemporary record of any debate about this. Here's a very well know passage from Tertullian -- better to be slain than to slay:

“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? . . . 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?” (Tertullian, Apology 38)​

 

[Hekuran]

Six principles of non-violence

• First, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

• Second, nonviolence seeks to win the friendship and understanding of the opponent, not to humiliate

• Third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

• Fourth, those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

• Fifth, nonviolent resistance avoids external physical violence and internal violence of spirit as well: The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot their opponent but they also refuse to hate them

• Sixth, the nonviolent resister must have a deep faith in the future, stemming from the conviction that “The universe is on the side of justice”

 

[Butch5]

Butch, you and Hekuran keep posting your opinions as "the" authoritative source.

On the contrary, Bill. What I have posted are historical facts. I haven't given my opinion on this subject. I realize that these facts are inconvenient for many Christians. However, they are historical facts nonetheless. I'm not sure why telling Christians they can't use violence draws such ire from so many. After all, we do serve the "Prince of Peace."

Medic Bravo and I are sold out to the Christ, making the Scriptures the Finale Court of Arbitration.

This isn't entirely accurate. It gives a false sense of authority to your "interpretation." While you seek the Scriptures for understanding, it is "your" interpretation that you actually hold as the final authority. The Scri[ptures are your final authority only when you correctly understand them. Since your understanding of them is not in line with the historical facts I would have to submit that it is your Interpretation that you're arguing is the final authority

This selling out is what brings the Indwelling of Ruach/the Holy Spirit. MB has proven his case and you stand there like the Lost Man I once was, pleading a pointless, unbase, tearful case.

Actually, he hasn't. His "case" does not align with the historical facts as presented.

Being a disabled war veteran myself, I dispise war because the heart of man is revealed there. watch waThat does not mean that I will not drive my wheelchair out and watch, tearfully, as the captors march past, Then as their backs are to me I will snipe 1 to 6 before there send me into Eternity. We are called to defend.

That's between you and God. Better hope you're right.

 

[joestue]

That's between you and God. Better hope you're right.

Why is this issue any bigger than many others that most christians rely on personal conviction to solve?

 

[Butch5]

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

Luke 22:36-38 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

So we are not to go overboard in gaining weapons to hurt others with, but neither are we to be sheep, it surprises me that there are so many christians proud to be sheep and do their best to guilt others into bending their necks to the evil ones.

Jesus' sword was that of division among the Jews. Some would accept Him, some wouldn't
Do you really suppose that the Romans who occupied Israel allowed the Jews to carry swords? That's not very wise when you're occupying another nation

 

[Butch5]

Why is this issue any bigger than many others that most christians rely on personal conviction to solve?

I don't know that any are left to personal conviction. However, in this case we have 300 years of evidence that tells us what we should do.

 

[Butch5]

You make some good points, but high level your assertion of pure pacifism is false and unscriptural.

If God did not want Christians to defend themselves He would have to do so in a literal manner which is not what He wants to do. God does not want a generation looking for signs and wonders. This is completely against the purpose for placing mankind on the earth. You are thus in conflict with every verse that says a Christian must live by faith. This fact has to sink in.

A man who does not provide for his household is worse then an unbeliever 1 Tim 5:8. Providing security is a must for the man of the house. A man who does not do this is worse then an unbeliever.

Then you also have to contend that for 300 years all Christians, including those taught by the apostles, were in conflict with every verse of Scriptures that says a Christian must live by faith. Are you willing to make that contention?

Also, I'm not sure how you see it as in conflict with a Christian living by faith. Depending on God for one's security is the very definition of faith. It's the one who defends himself that is not relying of God in faith.

I think the real issue here is that many Christians don't believe that God will defend them. If they truly believed it they wouldn't defend themselves.

 

[Butch5]

so much talk yet little scripture in this thread, it not a yes or no answered, we are to stand for God and do his will​

​

Matthew 5:39​

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

​

1 Peter 3:9​

Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.at you may obtain a blessing.

1 Thessalonians 5:15 ​

See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.

1 Corinthians 6:7​

To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?

Ephesians 4:31-32​

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

So, little Scripture because what we get are interpretations. There is nothing in Scripture that tells Christians to go out and defend themselves or to use violence. Since it's not stated in Scripture people try to infer it.

 

[Brad Huber]

Jesus' sword was that of division among the Jews. Some would accept Him, some wouldn't
Do you really suppose that the Romans who occupied Israel allowed the Jews to carry swords? That's not very wise when you're occupying another nation

So now you are the authority on what Jesus meant huh? Nah, its just a way for those like you to ignore obvious statements.