jaybird18c

Should a Christian go to war? by Matt Slick This question has caused a lot of division in the body of Christ. Should a Christian go to war where he might kill other people when the Bible says to "turn the other cheek" (Luke 6:28)? Is it right to do war against others or does the Bible forbid it? War is a state of declared, open, and armed conflict between two or more nations. It is sometimes undertaken in self-defense such as when the U.S. entered WWII as a result of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. Other times, however, nations unjustly go to war to take spoils from other countries. Murder, on the other hand, is an unlawful taking of life and is always wrong. When nations go to war, it is declared lawful by the countries going to war -- sometimes for moral reasons and other times for immoral reasons. Therefore, and immoral war could be considered a form of murder where a moral war could be in self defense. But not all war is wrong. It is difficult to determine when war would be a righteous endeavor given that leaders of nations are not Christian and could easily have ungodly reasons for going to war. Nevertheless, war is an unfortunate reality in this world and it causes great destruction, misery, and loss of life. It should be avoided if possible and undertaken only as a last resort. The Bible teaches that we have the right to self defense, Exodus 22:2: "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account." The Bible also tells us to protect the innocent, Deut. 19:10, "So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, and blood guiltiness be on you." Also, see "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin," (Deut. 24:16). If we were to apply these principles to war, I would conclude that war is justifiable when it is in self defense and/or when it is to protect the innocent. Therefore, a Christian could rightfully engage in war given those conditions. More on war We can see that war is not a sin in itself since in the Old Testament God sends people into war: •"Then the Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan opposite Jericho, saying, 51 "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, "When you cross over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 52 then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images and demolish all their high places; 53 and you shall take possession of the land and live in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it," (Num. 33:50-53). In fact, God uses war as a means of disciplining nations. • "I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, And I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; Yet you have not returned to Me, declares the Lord," (Amos 4:10). Also, the Lord is called a warrior. • "The Lord is a warrior; The Lord is His name. 4"Pharaoh's chariots and his army He has cast into the sea; And the choicest of his officers are drowned in the Red Sea," (Exodus 15:3-4). From this we can easily conclude that going to war is not a sin. That is, if it complies with the biblical instructions of self-defense and protection of the innocent. Furthermore, Christians are instructed to be in subjection to the governing authorities whose establishment is from God. This establishment has the right to declare war and to punish its citizenry, even by capital punishment. •"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil," (Rom. 13:1-4). •"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right," (1 Peter 2:13). Finally, notice that some soldiers approached John the Baptist and inquired about repentance. John did not tell them to stop being soldiers, but to do their jobs properly, honestly. •"And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages," (Luke 3:14). From all of this, we can see that going to war is not wrong it itself and that a Christian can go to war under the right circumstances.

Yes If my child grew up to be Muslim, it would trouble me greatly but yes. If you’re referring to another child other than my own, I would have to honestly respond with no. Again, I would have to say no. He did say that but I do not believe I could live up to that standard with regard to my own children. But, then again, that’s not the purpose of the Law. I fully admit that I cannot meet that standard or the one before it (Love God perfectly; which sum up the 10 Commandments). Therefore, I need God’s grace. The purpose of the Law is to point us to Christ. We try and keep it (speaking of the Moral Law, that is; the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ and the civil law mentioned in the OT pertained to the Nation of Israel only) not “in order to be saved” but “because we have been saved.” That does not mean that we can keep the law perfectly. That is impossible for anyone. Justification for submitting to governmental authority and even war is explained in scripture. Aside from that, however, I’d like to get to the more important point. Where is this “innocent” person that you’re referring to? And how do you define “innocent?” By who’s standard? I certainly don’t fall into that category. Do you?

While it is disturbing to see the plight of starving children in Africa or anywhere else for that matter, the context of your selected scripture is not addressing that. It is interesting that you left off verse 11, however, as that presupposes the doctrine of human depravity. It makes a comparison between God’s provision and the ability of even wicked men to provide for their own. It was explanation in terms they could understand. I think most of Africa is Muslim. However, many there are in fact professing Christians. But being Christian does not mean there will be no suffering. The promise of God is not that we will not suffer for His name, just the opposite. We live in a fallen world where there is suffering everywhere\. The promise of God is that those, who are His, are forgiven and will spend eternity with Him. In the meantime, Matthew 5:43-45 states that we should love and extend grace to our enemies. It explains that even God does this in that, during this lifetime, He allows good and bad to fall upon believers and unbelievers alike. “One” of the reasons God allows or even causes this is to bring unbelievers to faith and repentance. God is described as longsuffering/patient. He demonstrated his love for us in that “while we were yet sinning”, He died for us. Instead of extending immediate justice (which was demonstrated many times in the OT), He is now extending mercy. You graciously have time…but don’t abuse it. The wheat/tares, sheep/goats, etc are allowed to live together now but they will be sorted out on the Day of Judgment. You don’t know when your day will come.

So we agree that there should be generally accepted rules of interpretation and that we shouldn't just accept what a text "means to each individual" or use a text to demonstrate a person's point for which it was never intended by the author?

Obviously, there are some psychological issues with some of the persons you mentioned. However, assuming a situation where the person "hears from God" in some way and they're not insane, one needs to consider the message. If the message is inconsistent with the Word of God then the message probably is not from God. Just because a person says they think they've heard from God does not mean they have. Check everything against Scripture.

You shoud really try and understand the author's intent before ripping off verses and misapplying them. Do you think it's important to know what the author is trying to convey rather than making up your own meaning and applying it to their work? Don't you think that would be the more accurate and resposible way of handling a text? Added: I heard this example in a hermaneutics class. "Philadelphia Freedom" by Elton John. The song sounds very patriotic. It sounds like it must have some sort of American patriotic/Liberty Bell kind of theme. To be honest, I thought that most of my life. However, in reality, the song was written in a time when women didn't make nearly as much as men in the workplace. There was a lack of equality. Elton John's friend, Billy Jean King (Pro tennis player) was winning championships and making a lot of money. She was, in Elton John's opinion, a shining example of the way things should be. She was also a lesbian making it even more symbolic. Equality for both women and homosexuals. Who would have thought it would be about that? You wouldn't know necessarily unless you really tried to understand what the author, Elton John, had in mind.

My youngest son was born one week prior to my being deployed to Afghanistan in 2002. He was very sick the first couple months, could not eat or sleep very well, and suffered from severe projectile vomiting. The Pediatrician told my wife that he thought it was just acid reflux and they tried different things to make it better. Something just wasn’t right, though. Signs were overlooked and ignored. He was dehydrated, very underweight, pale, his hair wasn’t growing, and oddly even his fingernails/toenails weren’t growing like they should. Time went on and nobody slept. At two months old, he literally looked like he was going to die. The Pediatrician still insisted that it was reflux and was going to send my wife home with Jeffrey… again. However, an Intern who happened to go to Medical School with Ellen walked in and examined him. He talked the Pediatrician into doing an echo on Jeffrey. It turned out that my son actually had a congenital heart defect called Total Anomalous Pulmonary Venous Return (TAPVR). This is a correctable heart condition with a high success rate under normal conditions. It’s where the pulmonary veins, carrying oxygenated blood from the lungs, form a confluence and attach to the right atrium of the heart instead of the left, where it’s supposed to, so it can then be pumped to the left ventricle and out to the body. Instead, the only oxygenated blood transfer was taking place through a natural hole in the heart called the foramen ovale. That hole usually begins to close up on its own after the lungs begin to take over after birth. Therefore, Jeffrey was slowly suffocating. He was becoming very hypoxic and acidotic. His body was beginning to shut down non-essential functions. That’s why his hair and nails weren’t growing. Not long after being admitted, his kidneys were beginning to shut down. The normally high success rate in corrective surgery isn’t very high when the patient comes in under emergent conditions such as this one. The Physician gave Jeffrey only a 50% chance for survival. My wife was distraught and I was overseas. My team was in a rather isolated location but I received a message on our satellite communication radio. It told me that “Life expectancy was uncertain” and that I should return immediately. It took me two days to get back. I stopped at every phone I could along the way and fully expected to hear the bad news that my son was dead. My wife, on the other hand, was with my son who was literally dying before her eyes. The Surgeon gave her the permission forms to sign with these instructions. “You can either sign these now and we can go into surgery or your son will die.” She signed the forms. Surgery involved detaching and reattaching the pulmonary vein confluence to the left atrium so that normal blood circulation could resume. The scar tissue caused some irritability and he would have runs of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). He also had such a small chest cavity and there was so much swelling that they had to leave his chest open with just a drape laid across. His kidney function also didn’t pick up for a while. He was on ECMO bypass for a while and there was danger of blood clots. Recovery seemed as dangerous as the surgery. What I didn’t know at the time was that my Mother-in-law had spoken with my wife months before and told her of a dream she had. She said that her dream included a vision of Jeffrey who was sick and appeared to be very cold and lying in an adult sized hospital bed. My wife was furious when she told her. Ellen was already stressed beyond belief (she was still in Residency at the time dealing with all this and I was not there to help) going on no sleep and very little food. She hung up the phone on her and didn’t speak with her mother for some time. My Mother-in-law showed up at the hospital where Ellen was still waiting at my son’s bedside. Ellen had already forgotten the conversation. Her mother was stopped in her tracks as she entered the room. Since Jeffrey underwent cardiac surgery and was placed on full bypass, they had to greatly lower his temperature. He was very cold. He was obviously very sick with a bloody bandage draped across the opening in his chest that they had to leave open due to swelling. Several tubes circulating blood were coming out of his chest and he was intubated and on a ventilator. They didn’t have a pediatric bed available since it all happened so fast and they had to do emergency surgery. His tiny body was lying on an adult hospital bed. Her mother reminded her of the dream and their conversation. They both prayed to God for Jeffrey’s recovery. Then, as bad as everything looked, they both suddenly had a warm, peaceful, reassuring feeling come over them. No words were spoken or heard but it was impressed upon them both that everything would be alright. They both felt as though God was going to take care of Jeffrey. And He did! As it turned out, Jeffrey eventually made a full recovery with no long term deficiency or compromise. That should not have been the case given the situation. His acid levels were so extreme that he should have at least been mentally retarded. That did not happen and he’s one of the smartest kids in my family. He was accepted at a large private school several years ago here in Dothan and placed higher than any kid ever had in his grade. Now, was this a communication from God? I don’t know for sure but it seems that way. My wife and her mother are very convinced.

This started out as whether or not a principal could be derived from scripture that would apply to jclalor so that he could go out and kill his kid based on scripture. There is not. You've twisted it around to question Abraham's motive, I guess. Kind of retarded but we can talk about that also, if you'd like. I guess you'd say that the principal with regard to Abraham and his son is that the "wages of sin is death." "There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. The story of Abraham and his son (whom he did not kill, by the way) is really a type/shadow of Jesus Christ. It is a description of sin, it's cost, the unbelievable obedience of Abraham, and a substitute (the ram) provided by God himself. God preventing Abraham from sacrificing his son and killing the animal instead was really just the prelude to the story. Payment still had to be made on their behalf for those with faith to have a right standing before God. The Abraham story was fulflled much later in the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross. I guess the other principal would be that if you would repent and place your faith in him, the benefit from that sacrifice could be also applied to your account. The same could be said of the whole story of the Passover as well.

No. God telling "you" to sacrifice your child would be inconsistent with any principal you might derive from scripture pertaining to you. Dude, have you ever studied hermaneutics?

No. If he told "you", it would be inconsistent. The message God was speaking to Abraham was intended for Abraham....it can't be cut and pasted into a telegram to you.

Context Billvon. Abraham was a prophet. God certainly spoke in audible clear language to him. You can't pluck that from the OT and apply it to us today. Now, God speaks to us through Scripture.

I have a rather long story that I'm writing concerning this sort of thing. I will post as soon as I can. It concerns my wife and my son almost dying when he was two months old.

No...because that would be inconsistent with any principlal derived from scripture. Whatever voice you may have heard that told you that was not from God.

While there may be other ways God communicates with us individually (e.g. feelings/emotions/experiences), one can only be sure that He communicates to us through His Word.

We were talking about "flawed motives...?" Are you saying that his motives in prayer aren't pure?

Should we pray? Yes. Does God listen to prayer? Yes. Does He always answer prayer in the way that we want Him to? No. Again, we have to take this back to creation. Before the fall, Adam & Eve were in a perfect relationship with God. Their motives were in harmony with the holy nature of God and His will. Therefore, they had no need. They were provided for in every way. There’s a big difference between them and us. We, on this side of the fall, have been so radically changed by the effects of sin that our motives are flawed; even those we think are “good.” Therefore, all of our prayers/petitions are not fulfilled. Despite this, our primary reason for prayer is because God has instructed us to. Is God sovereign and has He ordained (doesn’t He already know?) what will come to pass regardless of what we ask? Yes. (Side note: Does that negate our free-will? No. But that’s another discussion). But we are instructed to pray anyway. The reason why is because it’s not all about “us” and the “things we want.” It’s about a “relationship” with our Father (speaking of Christians and not Atheists). If one is married but never speaks to his wife, that relationship will be very weak and unsustainable. There has to be communication for there to be relationship. Does that mean you always get what you want? No. Again, whether we realize it or not, our motive for asking is not always in harmony with God’s will. Does God answer prayers? Yes. Does God answer all prayers? No. Do we always realize why He does not answer prayers? No. But that’s alright because His promises are true. He will see those “who are His” till the end (even many of those children who drowned in the tsunami). The promises of God are not that there will be no suffering in this world; just the opposite. Christians are promised trials and tribulations in this life not only for the cause of Christ but also simply because we live in a fallen world. Your prayer, as an Atheist however, should be like David’s in Psalm 51 (After being confronted with his adulterous relationship and murder of her husband; he experienced conviction for his sin that he realized was primarily against God Himself; was granted saving faith and repentance). Either way (whether he grants you faith or not), however, God will be glorified.

[repl]I don't know about you, but I can't find any justification for the crusades in the Bible. The crusaders did not wage holy war, just another immoral war. Jesus said that many people would claim to do wonderful things in Gods name but Jesus said I will tell them plainly depart from Me, you evil doers. I knew you not. It began due to Muslim aggression. What it turned into wasn't anthing to be proud of. However, the focus and criticism, as usual, seems to always fall on the Christian Crusaders.

Like the writings of the ancient historian Josephus?

Yes...that's it...anything but the alternative. Anything but what the Bible says they did and for the reason they did it...based on what they saw, experienced, and refused to deny. We'll believe anything as long as it's not in the Bible.

Revelation 21 also talks about heaven being made of pearls and gold and other gems. It is clear that heaven works on the same rewards principle as Islam. Do good things, be rewarded with gold streets and beautiful cities of gems and be given riches. So the idea that Christians died solely to spread the message is no way supported by biblical promises. Heaven is not a place to be desired because of gates of pearl or streets of gold. Will there be rewards in heaven? Sure. No one knows exactly what that will be. However, even that is not the motivation for the Christian life. The motivation for the Christian life is to be in the presence of Jesus. Heaven is heaven because God is there. As Paul Washer often says, everybody wants to go to heaven. It's just that most people do not want God to be there when they arrive. They want the rewards and pleasure of heaven. However, they rebel against the idea of submitting to God's holiness. There are all sorts of movies/TV shows that depict this. In the end (e.g. "Ghost" with Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore; The Ghost Whisperer), the person sees "the light" and goes off to a "better place" "just over the hill." There is rarely an encounter with God. There's a reason for that. Again, as Paul Washer often says, if that unrighteous person stands in the presence of a thrice holy God who is perfectly and infinitely righteous and "just" and that person is found guilty, he/she will melt away as though they were standing in front of a blast furnace. The unrepentant sinner certainly does have much to fear. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. That is, "unless" that person is instead "seen as" righteous based on the work of Jesus Christ. God is also perfectly compassionate, patient, kind, loving, trustworthy, slow to anger, etc. One who repents and places his/her trust in Him, will in fact be rewarded. Maybe not in this life. This life may be consumed with suffering for His name. However, the motivation for the Christian life again stems from the fact that we have been forgiven by a very "good" God and we will get to spend an eternity with Him. One should be terrified of hell but that's not the reason to turn to God. One should turn to Him because He has been so kind to save you from hell. All this focus on rewards is very shallow thinking. Really, who wouldn't get tired of "stuff" and places after an eternity? Instead, the Christian can look forward to spending an eternity trying to fathom (which can never be fully accomplished) the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Question: "Does the Bible record the death of the apostles? How did each of the apostles die?" Foxe's Book of Martyrs

So, question... When the first Christians were penning their letters to each other, going back and forth about an event just a few years old, and they had to meet in secret, were stoned, crucified, torn apart by lions, lit on fire as human torches, stabbed, beaten, etc. do you really think the entire time they were talking they were like, "Man, this is the best power grab ever!" Very good point.

No contradiction. Just making reference to two different things. God has revealed Himself in different ways. One way is through “general revelation” which includes the creation and your conscience (e.g. the knowledge of God which has been made apparent through all that has been made). The other is “special revelation” which includes scripture (e.g. acts of Jesus, teachings of the Prophets, the Apostles, works of the Holy Spirit, etc.) Belief in God is established “generally” by what has been made (including us) and our conscience bearing witness to right and wrong (appeal to a moral standard; I would argue moral absolutes). However, that simple mental ascent to the truth cannot save you. Only through the “special revelation” of scripture can we know and understand what is required of us to have a right standing before God. That “right standing” before God can only come through faith in Jesus Christ which can only come from God. It’s not simply that a non-believer can’t come to “saving faith” in Christ apart from intervention by God. It’s that he won’t come because of his radically fallen nature due to the fall.

Of course you don't. Because if you did, you would be accountable to his laws. Instead, you want to live your life the way you want to live it according to your own rules. You want what you want when you want it. That's human nature and it keeps us from seeing beyond our own selfish desires. One will continue down that path (which ends in death) unless his nature is changed. That saving faith (faith which leads to obedience) is a gift (cannot be earned) and must originate from God. ***"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political." - Thomas Huxley

One's disbelief in something has no effect on its reality. Either it is real or it is not regardless of what one believes. You may not believe what the Bible says, however, either you or God is lying in this regard and the Bible says that God cannot lie. It would be against his very nature. So where does that leave us? That leaves us right where we started. Me not believing that the Bible is the "word of God" (seeing as I don't believe in a god), and you believing the opposite. Probably not much point in continuing the discussion. I agree.