.That's not "dealing with it," Bos, it is ignoring it. Your answer begs the quesiton, which I already asked, why would Jesus not then advise His disciples to "throw away" their swords, rather than simply "put away," and why would He want to them to own a sword if He never intended for them to use it?You miss the point. Strife is anathema to your viewpoint, yet Jesus specifically states that strife is all that He will bring. "Peace" is not just the absence of violence, it is also the absence of strife, and yet He identifies circumstances in which families will be in conflict. That's not the pacifist way, now is it?That makes the mistake of codifying everything from the Old Testament as being part of the Law. Obviously it was not. Jesus did not command war as an ordinance or rite, but He definitely commanded it in response to the enemies of God and of Israel who would work violence against the people. And the fallacy that the covenants between God and Israel and God and Christians is disproven in that faith is always the deciding factor in salvation. It was not by the Law, but by faith, that justification has always occurred. He never gave the Law to justify. He gave the Law to condemn. That pretty much renders your chart ...... irrelevant to the thread.If what you say is true, then making what you call "the new covenant" with the church also defies God's immutability. Your error lies in your perception of salvation being different for Old Testament saints than it is for New Testament saints. It is not.2 Corinthians 10:3-5 does not deal with actual warfare, but spiritual warfare, against which weapons such as swords and slings are not effective. Your passage doesn't deal with the issue of pacifism and non-violence.
Violence
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by RLBosley, Jul 14, 2014.
Page 3 of 5
-
-
Luk 6:29 NASB - "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.
Totally different word. Hit not slap, and there is no reason to think Jesus is only referring to an insulting slap here (I would argue that isn't in Matt 5 either for the record).
-
-
Second, where does Jesus tells the disciples to use the swords "to defend themselves". I'll be waiting.
-
Think of the man that stopped the consequences of the Ark falling. He was killed. He didn't allow others' consequences to come to fruition, and instead bore the brunt of the consequences. Sometimes you have to let the Ark fall. In this case, it's allowing the consequences of their decision to break and enter and threaten, instead of shielding them from the consequences, and allowing yourself or others you love to bear them.
-
And yes I do believe Jesus changed the Law in a sense. I believe the OT Law was a temporary law that was intrinsically tied to that covenant. Jesus fulfilled that Law and it's Covenant thereby removing it, and brought in his Law and Covenant. In the antitheses in Matt 5 I can see where on some points he would only be giving spiritual exposition, but there are other points where he really does overturn Mosaic Law - the Lex Talionis for example. The books of Galatians and Hebrews really solidify that for me. Here's a couple verses that I think agree with my interpretation:
Gal 3:17-19 NASB - What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
The Law (Clearly referring to the Mosaic Law) came 430 years after Abraham, therefore it couldn't have been eternal. It was "added...until" Christ came. So the Law and it's Covenant had a specific beginning point and termination point.
Heb 7:11-12 NASB - Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
The writer clearly brings the Law, the Covenant and the priesthood together as one, as a unit. If one is changed then the others must as well. The topic here is the priesthood, so he concludes that if the priesthood had changed, and it had - from Levites to Christ as High Priest - then there must also, "of necessity" be a change "of law." So I believe yes Jesus changed the Law when he changed the Covenant and the Priesthood. We are not under Moses' Law but under Christ's Law.
Also from a practical stand point I don't know how we could always reliably differentiate between a religious enemy and a normal criminal.
-
I never said that we should allow them to do evil unopposed. As I have said, restrain the attacker, take the attack instead, try to get away, all those are options.
I'm still not sure how I feel about things like tasers or pepper spray. I go back and forth on those. On one hand I see them as violent, on the other I see them as a way to stop an attack without causing permanent harm which would be loving I think. Something I'm still struggling with. -
-
Second, this is probably the best argument I have seen against my position. However, my main objection is that I don't see this rationale as overturning what I believe to be clear commands in scripture, to love my enemy and do good to him, not returning his evil with evil. In the end it really sounds like you're saying "I see what Jesus was saying, but it's just not practical enough in the real world."
Also, the situation presented, of taking the violence on myself, would be an absolute last resort. I would prefer to restrain him or get away first. Obviously that wouldn't always be possible though.
But you've given me more to consider. I will think about this more, but I am still unconvinced that this adequately counters the non-violence position. -
padredurand Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
When I saw their fear, I rose and spoke to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people: "Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses." -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
He seems to be an appropriate intersection between the two basic positions. But I hesitated to mention him. Aside from wanting to keep the points of discussion top-level (Biblical), York's story is not as compelling at a closer look IMO.
York was a pretty interesting individual. He is mostly admirable for his WW1 exploits and his later endeavors to build and maintain his school. I also admire his not willing to so quickly cash in on his fame, though he did cave somewhat in the 40s when the Cooper film was made.
Less known - certainly not to me - were his occasional distinctly non-pacifist comments. Your source said that York "questioned the failure of United Nations forces to use the atomic bomb in Korea." These were the generals who wanted to unleash on Korea - and old Manchuria, the very section of China where I live now - an "atomic necklace". Incredible overkill! Millions of innocent civilians, many of them quite pro-Western - would have been annihilated. Such a beastly response, and yet one advocated by ones held up as examples (MacArthur and York) in our Christian schools.
And also, pushing for the US to nuke Russia in the late 40s, York said:
"If they can't find anyone else to push the button, I will."
This is hardly the Sgt. York from the A Beka textbook I taught from back in 00s. I wish I would have known this.
We both know bottom line is that the best proofs for or against a view is Scripture. I still believe that Christians as a whole - especially American Christendom - is less on the side of the angels than we think. Both as a nation and as individuals we tend to equate non-violence with mere pacifism, cowardice, fatalism - unbelief, even.
But I believe that non-violence is part of the very nature of the spiritual Kingdom of God, and the earnest proof of our faith.
Concerning Ecc: This doesn't necessarily teach that all of these "times" were not to have an end. In fact, I believe that we are now in the time of "beating swords into plowshares".
But I can't bring myself to say that we do not need soldiers or armies at all. Like I said, I still need to work parts of this equation out.
This is all I have time for now. -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Uh oh. I inadvertantly left out a phrase. I meant to write:
"But I believe that non-violence is part of the very nature of the spiritual Kingdom of God, and should be an integral part of our faith." (The "earnest proof" sentence I had deleted.)
Sorry for the confusion. I don't at all mean that those who disagree with me on this are not spiritual. -
-
What do you think about Aaron's application of 'corban' on this topic? -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
You keep making statements without proving them. That's not debate. I'm sorry, but I do not accept you as a teacher.
Secondly, I don't believe in a "universal church," so your point here is a non-starter with me. If I on my own defend my family, that is not ergo, my local church committing violence (something I would oppose).
But your first paragraphs in your OP remainsoffensive in that you compared self defense to fornication, etc. And then you think yourself righteous for mocking my posts and saying they are not worth answering. That makes you above me, more righteous and intelligent than I am, right?
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
One interesting thing on this thread is that we who are posting against non-violence are using quite different arguments (all equally valid). My point here is that if non-violence were valid, why would there be so many different Biblical and logical ways to argue against it?
-
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If one chooses to be "non-violent" under ANY circumstances, that is their prerogative. "Getting even", is, I agree, an act of vengeance, and prohibited by scripture; but defending self and/or others is not "vengeance".
If "YOU" (whoever that may be) are so against "violence", and I am aware of it, I will consciously refrain from intervening should the occasion arise, in accordance with "YOUR" beliefs.
However, "YOUR" refusal to physically protect your own family will not dictate my action if/when necessary.
If a man will not protect his family, well, I'll let you create your own adjective for such!!!! :tear:
Oh, getting a perp to focus on "YOU", in no way guarantees that future violence against your wife/daughter or other family members is negated; it could be merely delayed for a few minutes, in which case what have you accomplished????
Also one must STRONGLY consider whether the impetus to reject violence en toto is coming from God, self, or satan. -
In no way construe what I've posted to be 'against' non-violence, I am very much for non-violence as far as it is possible and rational.
Anyone so far mention the violence done to others through words, or speech? You know, as in young children not physically but verbally abused, or ridiculed, made fun of, mocked, etc.. Verbal violence can have lifelong effects on another human. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
A man that does not protect his family by any and all means needs to be taken out back of the wood shed. I have no use for them. Shameful
-
padredurand Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Nehemiah 4:14 NAS77
When I saw their fear, I rose and spoke to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people: "Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses."
Page 3 of 5