tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post1193684697166113054..comments2024-03-28T13:07:51.025-07:00Comments on Winging It: Did Jesus Preach Pacifism?Stanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-66014240551248684122015-08-28T21:51:38.955-07:002015-08-28T21:51:38.955-07:00The Law has not been dissolved, adherence to it is...The Law has not been dissolved, adherence to it is still required, but since we can't keep it and Christ did, His keeping of the Law is attributed to us in redemption. Gentiles weren't excluded from the promise, but like Christianity, it is foolishness to those not in it. As was pointed out in another post, circumcision was not removed, it is a sign of an old covenant, and we are not beholden to that covenant. We now have baptism. However, changing from circumcision to baptism can hardly be equated to a changed view of violence. Commanding to be circumcised and then not isn't telling people to sin.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08443810898475961105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-5060975327686140102015-08-28T20:52:50.797-07:002015-08-28T20:52:50.797-07:00Josh, I was letting this go, but this last comment...Josh, I was letting this go, but this last comment confused me. When Scripture says Jesus fulfilled the Law, what do you think it means? I've always understood it to mean that He kept it all perfectly. You understand it to mean? And if you could, please point to some text that says, "Gentiles are not part of the promise" (No, I don't need those exact words.) Historically, there were <i>always</i> Gentile converts and biblically <i>Paul</i> claims that his ministry to the Gentiles was part of the original prophecies. I'm not getting your point. Except, apparently, to argue that God is <i>NOT</i> immutable and <i>does</i> change His mind, making corrections to earlier, apparently faulty plans. What He once considered wrong He now considers right. I <i>think</i> that's your position.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-52354142663000906902015-08-28T19:50:03.062-07:002015-08-28T19:50:03.062-07:00You mean schizophrenic like telling people they ha...You mean schizophrenic like telling people they had to follow a rigid set of laws, then saying Jesus fulfilled the law. Or telling them Gentiles were not part of the promise, then Jesus changing that up. Or maybe the whole circumcision thing. Jesus brought a different situation...you know, the Kingdom of God. Joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-59400989022073535302015-08-28T16:30:09.774-07:002015-08-28T16:30:09.774-07:00What is your take then on God commanding the execu...What is your take then on God commanding the execution of entire peoples by the Israelites if violence is sin? Why would He tell His people to sin and then turn around and tell us nonviolence is the only way? <br /><br />Again, we aren't saying that violence is the first answer, but nowhere does it say to let someone murder you or your loved ones. I'm pretty sure that goes beyond these snow of turning the other cheek. Don't confuse looking like Christ with being walked on. Jesus violently stood up for God's house, so there is evidence that there is a time for violence. (Whether or not he actually struck someone is irrelevant since the act of using a whip and overturning tables is in no context peaceful, and arguing from silence is rarely a good place to stand) <br /><br />Finally, how schizophrenic is God that He would on one hand command violence and on the other condemn it? Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08443810898475961105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-72875131521580487242015-08-28T12:40:45.776-07:002015-08-28T12:40:45.776-07:00I am trying to make this as clear as possible.
Go...I am trying to make this as clear as possible.<br /><br />God teaches Christians to love their enemies and has demonstrated his "preference", as Stan would say, for non-violence. <br /><br />God uses governments (ie Babylon to bring judgement on Israel, Persia and specifically Cyrus to allow Jews to rebuild Jerusalem in Ezra and Nehemiah) to exercise judgement, bring about justice, etc. <br /><br />Christians are not to consider themselves citizens of governments (ie USA), but citizens of the Kingdom of God. <br /><br />Therefore it is fine for God to use a government to judge Israel in the OT using the Babylonian empire, but I wouldn't say that the Babylonian's were the Kingdom of God, even though they brought about God's will in this specific way. <br /><br />I guess I have no problem with God strategically using the good and evil of governments to further his will, even if he forbids Christians from doing the actions these governments take part in. <br />Joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-73211738372891787562015-08-28T11:47:08.118-07:002015-08-28T11:47:08.118-07:00If God uses the government to do violence that He ...If God uses the government to do violence that He condemns, how is that a rational God? "It is sin to harm anyone ever... But you go ahead and harm people by my order."Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08443810898475961105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-67241608121725580182015-08-28T10:55:45.687-07:002015-08-28T10:55:45.687-07:00God can use government however he wants, and it wi...God can use government however he wants, and it will be good. It just seems that He doesn't want Christians to tie their horse to these governmental entities. He calls the members of His Kingdom to act according to love, even to the point of loving enemies as brothers. I think the atrocities done by Hitler, and Bin Laden, and ISIS are horrible. I trust that God will bring about their justice, either in this age or the one come. I am called to pray that they each get to know Jesus and experience the transformation power of the Gospel. Hopefully this helps to clarify my position.Joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-77379882121291205222015-08-28T08:33:04.329-07:002015-08-28T08:33:04.329-07:00I'm not understanding your position, Josh. God...I'm not understanding your position, Josh. God uses world governments to bring about His will ... got it. (Except for the problem of Libertarian Free Will, but that's not the point here. Moving along.) Paul <i>commends</i> their use of the sword in enforcing the law. But you're saying that God's use of government and Paul's commendation does not constitute a valid use of ... non-peaceful methods of dealing with people. Nor does God's use of violence in dealing with sinners constitute a valid use of violence in dealing with sinners. Because the <i>only</i> way (remember, that's my objection to your position ... that the <i>only</i> righteous method of dealing with people is in a non-violent way) is pacifism. God doesn't do it. He doesn't expect or required it of government. But that's your position anyway.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-65531310976169939722015-08-28T06:42:53.579-07:002015-08-28T06:42:53.579-07:00God's intention was never for a world governme...God's intention was never for a world government to be the Kingdom of God. This is where we are missing on most of these points. I believe that God uses world governments to bring about his will, but they are by no means Christian. As Christians we are to be aliens in foreign nations, we are not called to dual citizenship. We are to live out the Kingdom of God in whatever "kingdom" we find ourselves. Worldly kingdoms will war against worldly kingdoms, and some may seem justified, but our calling is to live to promote God's will on earth as it is in Heaven. I can't imagine people killing each other in Heaven. <br /><br />German pastor and author Dietrich Bonhoeffer tried to assassinate Hitler, and failed. The bomb blew up, and Hitler miraculously survived. According to Hitlers secretary, it was after this failed assassination attempt, that Hitler was convinced of his "divine" calling and re-emphasized his push to exterminate the Jews. Violence often has unforeseen consequences. <br />Joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-47994027858902063192015-08-27T21:34:33.761-07:002015-08-27T21:34:33.761-07:00Point 1: Yes, they did. On what basis? Hitler and ...Point 1: Yes, they did. On what basis? Hitler and Bin Laden were "brought to justice" by violent means. I wasn't saying they weren't in favor of stopping Hitler and Bin Laden. I was saying that a consistent pacifist would be. (It was not possible to terminate the escapades of either of them without violence.)<br /><br />Point 2: Why? You're saying that Jesus preached pacifism. I'm not saying that, instead, He preached going out and killing whomever you please. On the other hand, correlate "Kill no one" with "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man." (Gen 9:6)<br /><br />Point 3: Jesus said, "If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting." You say, "Jesus preached pacifism." This does <i>not</i> say, "If My kingdom were of this world, they wouldn't be fighting." That is, if violence is always wrong, then His servants would never fight.<br /><br />Point 4: Yes, it was talking about government. Are you saying that it is moral for governments to do what God flatly forbids?<br /><br />I'll stop there. Too tedious. When you say that faith in Christ need not be rational, we're done. I'm arguing based on biblical <i>reasons</i> -- rationale. If we don't have that, we have nothing to talk about. (Understanding that "rational" means "adhering to reason".) Thus, you're perfectly happy to condemn God's actions in the Old and New Testaments (see, for instance, Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5) on the basis that "Jesus has come to free us from violence." Perfectly acceptable ... as long as we aren't limited to being rational.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-33763264712571226652015-08-27T20:48:15.706-07:002015-08-27T20:48:15.706-07:00A few points. Pacifists were opposed to Hitler, an...A few points. Pacifists were opposed to Hitler, and desired Bin Laden brought to justice. <br /><br />Explain how you can "love" someone (selflessly desire the best for them) and kill them. <br /><br />Your use of John 18:36 is laughable. He is preaching to Pilate that his followers are non-violent, because their kingdom is NOT of this world. They have listened to his teaching, and are acting according to his will.<br /><br />The Romans passage you cite isn't even talking about Christians. It is talking about world governments. <br /><br />And once again, aggressive behavior (ie Temple clearing) and violence toward an image bearer of God (ie Human) are completely different. <br /><br />One question about the Revelation passage. How does Jesus kill all those people? Does it give an account of His followers joining the fight?<br /><br />I think your whole argument is summarized when you state "I don't think we can rationally..." Faith in Christ does not need to be rational by the world's standards. You know the standard cycle of retributive violence that has plagued our globe since Cain killed Able. Jesus has come to free us from the cycle.Joshnoreply@blogger.com