"It's Just War" - Should Christians Fight? Debate

On March 28, 2014, Anchor-Cross Publishing and Followers of the Way sponsored a debate on the subject of just war. We sought to bring leading thinkers together to discuss the issue in historic Faneuil Hall in downtown Boston. Speaking on behalf of just war were Dr. Peter Kreeft (professor of philosophy at Boston College) and Dr. J. Daryl Charles (Berry College). Speaking against just war and for biblical nonresistance were David Bercot and Dean Taylor.

[@TimMartinBlogger]

I wish they would've gotten another Presbyterian and not had a Roman. EDIT: They should've gotten two proper Reformed people.

[@fotwboston]

If you will find two proper reformed teachers I would love to try to set it up with them again.

[@SoundFaithChannel]

Followers of the Way that would be amazing!

[@TimMartinBlogger]

@@fotwboston I know one conservative reformed minister with his doctorate. Not sure if he's interested or not though. If we could get his father to do it it'd be legendary.

[@TimMartinBlogger]

@Miguel Cortez That is one of the stupidest things I've heard uttered. Are you applying to be the next schlub they have on? You probably have the same intellectual dissonance and that guy defending voting.

[@TimMartinBlogger]

@Miguel Cortez your comment seemed on an intellectual par with Josh Good's defense of voting.

[@gilgaidola7720]

This is extraordinary!! When I was 18 or 19 years of age I struggled with the idea of going to war and it terrified me to say the least. I feared of being killed..but what I feared more was killing another human being..I used to think I was strange because I didn't believe war was right. But years later I found a people who believe the things I did..I am deeply grateful to to God that He helped me discover the anabaptists. God Bless you all !!

[@peterrodriguez59]

I'm a combat veteran and served in Iraq and Afghanistan with Marines. I saw much death and violence, eventually leading to issues of PTSD, depression, anxiety and insomnia. I wasn't a believer throughout all of this. When I look back, I can say neither side was the "good" side. Psalm 11:5 reinforces that for me. I cannot reconcile any good from the violence I saw. What men say is good, God says is evil. Now that I believe, I believe in carrying my cross and following the path Christ provided by loving my enemy. Even if that means it's unpopular to men, or that my "enemy" will kill me. A true follower of Christ will understand this; death of the flesh is not the end of life. To endure and/or die because you follow Christ's word is not weakness. Christ says those that die in his name are blessed. Those that love violence likely can't comprehend this or understand a believers love for God, but we can't serve two masters. I choose to serve Christ and know that vengeance belongs to Him alone.

[@Peter-wp5vb]

Would you ever call the police if someone broke into your house, or tried to steal something from you, broke into your car?

[@edwardlake994]

Thanks for setting up this debate. I do find David Bercot and Dean Taylor's position to be more in line with Christ's teachings. I'm praying for grace to live out these commands.

[@SoundFaithChannel]

This video had so much influence on me. After watching it, my mind truly had no more conflict. War could no longer be justified. The two Kingdoms suddenly became obvious to me and that our warfare is not of this world. We bless those who persecute us and ask for forgiveness on their behalf as they are killing us.

[@therelocationmovingcompany2034]

This was an eye opener to me as well!

[@JohnSmith-kr2uh]

What do you mean by two kingdoms?

[@joshuashepard583]

AMEN.

[@tomasribeiro8127]

Such an ignorant and privileged perspective. If not for those who drew the sword and the blood of the enemies of Christianity, there would be no more Christians left

[@timothy6828]

@@tomasribeiro8127 Are you a Christian? Do you believe there is a God who is all powerful? If yes, you should overthink your statement in view of the sovereignty of God...

[@KOGmissions]

Well done David Bercot and Dean Taylor! Thank you for using Scripture to make your points, rather than Augustine, C.S. Lewis, other writers, philosophers, or family members and their jobs! You both clearly spoke the truth about love, in love. Thank you for representing the biblical non-resistance way of life with integrity. Jesus didn't lower the bar because of all the "what ifs," but still demanded complete and radical obedience. (And thank you for wisely addressing all the typical "what ifs" as you did! That has helped me many times when discussing this topic.) Amen! If to follow Christ, we must FOLLOW CHRIST!

[@StevenWilliams-yr7nr]

Amen to Dean and David! Our sole purpose on Earth as Christians must be to know Christ intimately, and to make Him known to others... or, in other words, to receive agape love, and give the same away...

[@LiesJohannes336]

Amen! Dean and David did a great job defending Non resistance!

[@ozymandias2178]

No they absolutely did not. They could not even answer simple hypotheticals.

[@georgeolo]

I think they did really well, and they certainly gave me some food for thought. There's still some things that confuse me though, that I didn't hear them respond to. One is why John the Baptist didn't tell the Roman soldiers to leave the military (like Dean did) or at least tell them to refrain from killing in their occupations, and the other is why didn't Peter tell the Roman Centurion in Acts that he also should leave the military and pursue a non-violent occupation?

[@Anna-ot4dj]

I have listened to this debate a year or two ago and once again today. I truly enjoyed it and I am convinced that the non-resistance way, is what Lord Jesus taught and wants us to follow. Thank you so much for this very informative debate. It has helped me a lot on my walk with Christ by learning about the Anabaptists way, and for that I am ever so grateful. May God bless you for your ministry and I pray it will continue to bless people around the world. 🙏❤️

[@PUAlum]

so glad to find this site and see the thoughtful engagement of the participants. Some took up too much time with lengthy examples and hypotheticals that didn't really add much....but I guess that can't be avoided. Good thinkers/writers may not have comparable listening/speaking skills. They sometimes resort to silliness ("....you would require that they remain unbelievers..."...."I don't own any guns"...etc.).. but on the whole, a great debate. I wish more faith leaders engaged in classic-style debates and faced questions.

[@rogerh.7576]

Amazing debate. I hope the every Christian in America gets a chance to watch it. Loved the interaction about Rwanda, and also the closing statements.

[@dustdriver115]

Yes they are more sound, but a good question is...why they were not in Rwanda to do missionary works long before the war? Instead to be in North America?

[@michaelalbertjr.3230]

If we are by ourselves and have to use deadly force to stop deadly force, then it’s biblical to do so. You may choose to die if you wish also, both options are righteous. IF however someone else is in danger, you are COMMANDED to help them. Please study and pray on these things so you are equipped and prepared for these situations. Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

[@jordanpermenter7515]

Thank you for posting this.

[@johnserrato9825]

Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent. Call Bible things by Bible names, and do Bible things in Bible ways! Thanks David and Dean for standing with scripture!

[@simonsaimeesamat4965]

The Pacificts duo sound like regular pastors of a local church. As a Christian I can relate well with them. the other two sounds like a typical philosophers and their arguments make sense from world point of view.

[@rapturecidal3756]

That's really interesting because to me the two arguing for war sound like pastors from a local church while the other two sound like two who are actually following Jesus.

[@RohannvanRensburg]

Relating well and having sound arguments are two separate ideas. The philosophers seemed to think through this more fully and to look at the context of scripture as a whole, which is a more sound way to exegete scripture.

[@georgeolo]

@@RohannvanRensburg Respectfully, I disagree. The philosophers tended to rely more on quoting other philosophers like C S Lewis and Augustine, rather than the sculpture itself. By comparison I saw much more attention to scripture on the non-resistant side, overall. Both sides have good points, but I believe the non-resistant side aligns more with scripture.

[@calvinpeterson9581]

Dean's closing statements are gold. Romans 8 simply does not sound like just war theory!

[@Bro_Coy]

Indeed!

[@holzmann-]

Neither does Matthew 5 :)

[@ezrajeremiah8631]

Thank you for setting up the debate. I thought both sides to be very respectful towards eachother, yet holding firm Philosophic positions.

[@harveyyoder6673]

Meeting with Cornelius was an act of love for an enemy occupier, not supporting one's own nation in some patriotic way.

[@steventylerplumlee5417]

I loved.. Bercot and Taylor's introductions and endings!

[@Bro_Coy]

Hi brother! It is nice to see your comment here. I just listened to this tonight.

[@Bro_Coy]

They were gold!

[@samtaylor3115]

Interesting debate, however I would really have liked to see a third position argued, which is the libertarian non-aggression principle position. I don’t agree with a pacifist position, however I’m also completely against the logical conclusion of what people most commonly refer to as just war theory. I think there is a huge difference between an individual right to self defense and justifying war. Also I think Romans 13 is the most incorrectly interpreted biblical passage especially in Christian vigorous defense of statism.

[@Hibernial]

Sam Taylor the NAP really just seems to be the echoing of the second part of the greatest commandment. Though from a Christian perspective a failure to follow and choosing to not behave accountably to the first consequently is what fails the second. Pacifism and actual self-defense which does not justify acts of aggression I believe are both equally allowable positions to the Christian who’s concerned of God’s approval. Both are examples of non-initiations of force. However at the heart of it God would probably point out to a concerned christian the first part of the greatest commandment for sake of the second. Peter probably had this issue, which wasn’t the issue of self defense but instead the issue of failing to love totally. I think it’s worth noting that after Peter cut off the ear of the soldier, when Christ healed the soldier’s ear he likely demonstrated to Peter that having civil independent authorities of men bow to Him wasn’t His issue. Nor was that something of any difficulty. That was in fact easy. The issue was that a person ought to be voluntarily accepting the Lord, and not merely acknowledging His power. It would have been easy for Christ to have Peter bow down at his knee through sheer authority as Lord. Yet instead what Christ asked of him was “do you love me?” One’s love onto God has to be volitional. That is Christ’s eternal will. Peter in not wanting any harm done to his Lord made himself susceptible onto Satan’s usurping will, since Adam made a similar mistake in abiding by the will of a lesser authority instead of the Highest Authority in an attempt to hold onto Eve. Peter was still fallen and in his Old man under Adam, whereas Christ as the New man rebuked Satan’s approach to act ahead of Him.

[@joshuas1834]

As a libertarian my standard for the secular world is the non-aggression principle but the more I have looked into it and prayed about it the more I have come to the conclusion that my standard for the Kingdom of God has to be proactive peace and Christ-centered non-violence.

[@holzmann-]

@@joshuas1834 I would classify as liberal also then

[@leonscott543]

I see no difference between those 2. The holy spirit would never allow me to beleive that my personal safety (as someone guaranteed everlasting life) is more important than someone else's

[@leonscott543]

@@joshuas1834 FACTS

[@greenbean9504]

Peter Kreeft will definitely steer clear of Rwanda in future debates. Rwanda was 95% Christian (58% Catholic) when the killing started. If we Christians (I'm Catholic) had remained faithful to the teachings of Jesus, the massacres don't happen. The same for Fascist Germany - no Christians to man the German armies or the concentration camps and WWII doesn't happen. The JW proponents were soundly beaten.

[@leonscott543]

Sam Dean EXACTLY!! And if you supported just war, which ever side you were on you would be suiting up for battle.... interesting how Satan cleverly gets Christians in a position to murder each other..... amazing....

[@greenbean9504]

No one gets off of planet earth alive. You have a choice of following Him or someone else.

[@greenbean9504]

+Mr. R You might be surprised. At the recent conference hosted by the Vatican on Nonviolence, the representatives from the more dangerous regions were more receptive to ridding the Church of the Just War doctrine than those from the US & Europe.

[@rapturecidal3756]

@Mr. R I was in the army and in Iraq twice. I am now non-resistance. And I think a lot of those in harsher conditions will agree with that easier than the more comfortably living situations like the US. Because they have less to worry about.

[@GoalkeeperzTM]

@Primitive Christian Catholicism believes Jesus is the saviour, how is it not Christian?

[@thomashummer7774]

The people who advocate for war in the name of peace do not see things in light of eternity. They only see the temporal.

[@marthasteiner9667]

This debate is very educational! In discussing the various countries to be able to fully discuss of enlisting in the military one would need to be familiar with each country's military structure. We have 2 of our children and their companions and families living in a church building area in southern Chile South America. The first native convert was a longtime MILITARY office worker. Mamager of many employees. (A centurion??!!) So as non-resistent believers they had a discussion with him and the division he worked for was what we in the US is known as the Army Corp. of Engineers. Groups responsible only for land conservation etc. So he was permitted to remain in his work as he is near retirement. All since have chosen other employments.

[@notaturnip545]

Smashed that replay button

[@user-jx9lz3tl3q]

Amazing video

[@Logosapologetica]

Great.

[@JonSherwood]

@Followers of the Way: I noticed that the video is cut at 57:43 after Dean finishes talking and cuts forward - do you mind me asking what was cut out there? I'm curious if there was a response from the Just War panelists there that was cut? Thanks so much!

[@fotwboston]

Good question I have never noticed that. Good eye! I will have to ask around and get back to you.

[@kateabraham5533]

@@fotwboston Any update on the cut out segment? Also curious if there was a response from the Just War panelists. Thanks!!

[@rm-hm7zr]

Very clean job!

[@fimacar1]

Listening to this debate you kind of get a feeling that the pro just war professors still need a life and mind changing encounter with Jesus Christ and his teaching

[@arturkvieira]

Dont defend your family, then

[@calvinpeterson9581]

@@arturkvieira For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Hebrews 10:34

[@chrisgibbs3141]

Defend my no resistant family for what? Death? Pfft. Death where is your victory where is your sting? My family and I would immediately be in paradise. This view is completely internally logically coherent. The stronger ones faith then the easier it is to see. The weaker ones faith then naturally the fear of death to yourself and family becomes an issue.

[@antonypotsiar5565]

My conclusion, pacifism is a moral option for the christian not a moral obligation. Holy/just violence is a moral option but not a moral obligation.

[@stealthspoon1]

Very good. OT has no teaching of just war, and the just war teaching was absent for the first 300 years of Christianity. Non resistance was the original teaching. Good comment by Dean, "Can someone be a follower of Christ without following Christ?"

[@CatholicK5357]

lol have you read the old testament? It is full of war.

[@rickmonty128]

Look into the Jewish Midrash to better understand Jewish literature. The war metaphor's in the Hebrew bible will be more interesting, and easily understood as embellished storytelling.Godspeed,

[@Hebrew42Day]

@@CatholicK5357 it's full of war - because Christ (God) had a *theocracy* to preserve the Torah through the generations, and to get rid of the idolaters, showing the coming final judgment. It's also full of God's grace. The Ninevite nation was spared, and Jonah _KNEW_ that God would gracefully preserve them by the lamb that was sacrificed from the foundation of the world. Justice belongs to God alone, not to man. That is what the theocracy of God's kingdom through the Jews shows us. We do not have the authority to do that, and Christ told us our Kingdom is _NOT OF THIS WORLD_ The Jewish theocracy was a shadow of what will come, it is not what we live out through Christ in us. Christ will take His sword and destroy idolaters on the day of the Lord, Rev 21:8 - 22:15

[@Hebrew42Day]

@@rickmonty128 the Babylonian midrash is straight from Satan and should not be trusted or read.

[@CatholicK5357]

@@Hebrew42Day Yes mercy and justice are in both old and new testament. And if war is not immoral when justified in the old testament, then it is likewise possible to be justified in the new testament. Nations have the right and duty to protect their people.

[@jackbullock1724]

Using the early church to justify pacifists doesnt completely make sense to me. The apostoles died and justifiably so...for the faith, as we are all called to do if necessary. But standing for the innocent is just as much of a Christian value as dying for the faith.

[@D2023bm]

this. The former military man on stage turned conscientious objector surely understands the term "situationally dependent."

[@dr.wolf0025]

I met David Bercot once.

[@1699stu]

Seems as though this is one of those things that the individual has to determine for his own walk and thus bare the consequences whether good or bad,

[@dylanheidrich5243]

it’s amazing how a false teaching from a well meaning Christian teacher can prevent you from seeing truth. I used to think CS Lewis settled the just war debate until I discovered the early church writings thanks to David Bercot. Now the 2 kingdoms is so obvious I’m ashamed I missed it.

[@greenbean9504]

Can anyone provide scholarly research on the Council of Nicaea Canon 12 referenced by the GNV side? I can find very little on this canon beyond its contents.

[@jfreak77]

I'm looking for it also now after just watching this for the first time. I found this: www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

[@robertlotzer7627]

Interesting discussion. About a little more than halfway in and I am wondering if the pacifists will rejoice with the saints when God avenges on the prostitute the blood of His saints (Rev. 19:1-3) or will they join in the holy array of His army when He returns to judge the nations who have disobeyed His Word (Rev. 19:11-16; 2 Thess. 1:6-10)? Are they just temporary pacifists or is this how God always administers the New Covenant?

[@chrisgibbs3141]

That is God doing the judging and warring. It is completely consistent with their position. The point is what did Jesus command us to do and will we obey?

[@gwendamartin4977]

very good and quite thought provoking. But i was thrilled to see that the bottom line is really illuminated at the end. in essence: The Bible is the authoritative and literal Word of God. Sinful and finite man can and will do all they can to explain it away, but the Bible stands! Praise God they we don't have to go through philosophy and the works of mere men to determine Gods will! God has given us his Word; now lets read it, take it for what it obviously means, and then apply it to our lives!!!

[@CatholicK5357]

Sure. But what happens when people read the word of God and come to two or three or more different conclusions to what it means? There has to be some authoritative method of interpretation.

[@thetachmoniteb825]

@@CatholicK5357 The best method of interpretation is CONTEXT and other related texts which speaks on any given topic from the Bible.

[@CatholicK5357]

@@thetachmoniteb825 Well either those related texts would have to be authoritative, or else we would just have the same problem of different related texts disagreeing with each other.

[@jamedmurphy4468]

No greater love than that of laying down your life for others.

[@dheavenj.kelley3591]

For other Christians

[@ForrestS]

From the applause at the end of Dean's concluding statement, it doesn't seem like many in the room were persuaded of the validity of "just war theory." Neither was I.

[@trentonshuke3563]

Well the audience was mostly Mennonite

[@georgeolo]

I'm even more confused than before! Ultimately, I think the "non-resistance" side won this debate with altogether more cogent arguments, and I am personally erring on this side of the argument myself. However, one thing I still find confusing is why a) John the Baptist did not tell the roman soldiers he speaks with to refrain from killing and leave the army, as per Dean Taylor's actions, and similarly b) Cornelius the Roman Centurion is not told to cease being a Roman soldier and leave the army to enter into a less violent occupation. Do any proponents of the non-resistance have any responses on these instances? Thank you.

[@11irishjs51]

John the Baptist saw that what the soldiers needed to hear, wasn't that they should leave the army. He knew that first they needed to repent. They should still leave the army but that wasn't what needed imediate attention. Consider what the alternative argument impies. If John the Baptist not telling the soldiers to leave the army is an argument for just war, then the Romans must have been fighting a just war.

[@clarkweaver9543]

It is expected that when you put yourself under the Lord ship of Jesus that you will follow his teaching. The John the Baptist/soldier example was still in the old Testament era. The new covenant hadn't been ushered in yet by Jesus. However the Peter/Cornelius example was obviously after the new covenant, so what do we make of that? Just because it doesn't directly say the apostle told him to give up his occupation doesn't mean he was okay with it. Its worth noting that Cornelius asked Peter to teach him ALL things that the lord commanded(Acts 10:33) so it's probable that Peter addressed it in his teaching to him but its not recorded in the bible. Either way its an argument from silence. And we do have very clear teaching in scripture that makes it clear that it is not okay to fight! In Luke 7 Jesus heals the Centurion's servant and Jesus told him behold I haven't found such faith in Israel and yet Jesus is silent in this account of addressing his occupation. Does this mean Jesus was okay with it,No. Again its an argument from silence and we do know that when Jesus did teach on it that He was very clear it is not for the Christian to fight. And its probable that this Centurion did sit under Jesus teachings on this subject and he then would have had to make the decision do I reject Christ or submit to him. If ye love me keep my commandments Jesus says!

[@Birdylockso]

Wasn't Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works in Romans 16, that Paul greeted, in the government? Does the Pacifist camp not allow Christians to be in the government? Didn't Tertullian also prohibited Christians to be teachers, on the account of them teaching about mythology and stuff? So, you can't be teachers or civil workers? Pilgram Marpeck, an influential Anabaptist of the 16th century, was working for the government as well. (If one wants to talk about Anabaptist roots.) Maybe we should designate "Extreme Pacifist" and "Moderate Pacifist" in this debate. I agree with the guy with the nice beard, that most issues are not either/or, but more complex. This is where Christian conscience and freedom come in, as opposed to legalism, in its black and white approaches.

[@josephgorscak5229]

:) "AMEN PACIFISM" :) TRUE BIBLICAL TEACHING :) “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” ‭‭2 Thessalonians‬ ‭3:18‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[@antonanneosoinach832]

It was very interesting, I was very impressed with Dean Taylor whom I had not heard speak before this debate. To bad the "just war" side wanted to talk about something other then nonresistance and kept returning to pacifism, some what of a red herring in this debate.

[@RohannvanRensburg]

What is the meaningful difference between nonviolence and pacifism? How is it different in practice?

[@Greasy__Bear]

@@RohannvanRensburg pacifism thinks it will lead to peace. Non resistance is willing to suffer the terrible death they know may come.

[@RohannvanRensburg]

@@Greasy__Bear Ah, I see. More difference in belief than practice, then.

[@Greasy__Bear]

@@RohannvanRensburg yup the idea of the lamb set for the slaughter is taken very seriously by the non resistant crowd. In order to do that you have to believe in the slaughter. However in debates like this beliefs are just as important as practice and it does make a difference philisophicaly.

[@holzmann-]

I came to the same conclusion.

[@annieenns4195]

What is gonna make the difference anyway about the arguing

[@talkradiohead1]

It would have been nice to see an Evangelical perspective in this debate. It was also frustrating that the Just War proponents weren't aware until halfway through the debate that their opponents didn't hold to "Christian Pacifism" but to Non-Resistance. Interesting debate nonetheless.

[@hmgodwin]

Why do you not consider Dr. Charles to be Evangelical?

[@CWRardin]

What is Christian pacifism? How is that different from biblical non-resistance?

[@CWRardin]

Thank you, I can see the clear distinction.

[@munch15a]

***** I can not can you explain more sorry ?

[@Bro_Coy]

It is apparent that Dean and David's position is what Christ taught. They do not need to quote CS Lewis or Augustine. They only need to stick with the Bible.

[@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15]

True.

[@yoshkebenstadapandora1181]

Jesus told His own disciples to take a sword to defend themselves against private evil not for active rebellion against the state. Why do you think Peter had a sword on him at the Mount Olive incident?

[@11irishjs51]

@@yoshkebenstadapandora1181 We do not ultimately know God's will, but God always gives us free will. If Peter wouldn't have had a sword, he wouldn't have had the option of defending Jesus. Jesus made a statement by telling Peter not to defend Him, even though he could have.

[@remnant.watchman]

Thanks

[@Angstrom1776]

How did nobodyy reference Ecclesiastes 3?

[@yoshkebenstadapandora1181]

It bothers me Bercot isn't distinguishing between self defense against a private evil versus resistance to an evil state actor. Jesus after He left this planet told His disciples to bring their sword. Their sword wasn't for rebellion against the state, but a private evil.

[@LinusWeber1997GER]

Resistance is permitted, but not to the point where thy enemy suffers

[@Greasy__Bear]

I would be interested in the early christian decsent against non resistance.

[@D2023bm]

Does a farmer allow the coyote to eat his chickens at night? Does a shepherd watch as wolves eat his lambs? what is a shepherd's staff for?

[@joshuashepard583]

The confusion is SPECIFICALLY because so many Christians are taught that they are still a part of the World that we have actually died to. Many believe that Biblical statements such “we have died to the World,” and that “we are no longer a part of the World,” are simply very strange ways of saying “we are the World’s moral superiors.” NO! EVERY Christian is a pardoned convict.

[@followerofjesus248]

This was a great debate. The full debate page (with recommended follow-up reading) is here: www.followers-of-the-way.org/justwar2014.shtml The nonresistance side clearly won but they did not answer the "homocidal maniac" question as well as they could have. Here is what they should have said: - Peter Kreeft kept posing counterfactuals as if one knew the future perfectly, i.e. "shoot this person or he murders your family." But one never has such perfect foreknowledge. Maybe the invader isn't intending to kill your family but you think he is and, being nervous, shoot and miss. Now enraged, the invader does kill you and your family when he never so intended. - Practically speaking, the "gunfight" approach is more likely to get you or your family killed (many studies have shown this), so the objection fails on purely practical grounds. - The earliest advocates of just war theory, Ambrose and Augustine, both said that based on the Sermon on the Mount, you were not allowed to defend yourself from personal assault. Modern just war advocates have abandoned even that position and have left the Sermon on the Mount evacuated of any application. They don't think Jesus was talking about governments and they don't think he was talking about personal behavior. It's tragic to see how they eviscerate Jesus' teaching. Read John Howard Yoder's book "What would do?... if a violent person threatened to harm a loved one" for a definitive answer to this question. Finny Kuruvilla's "King Jesus Claims His Church" chapter on nonresistance has more on this as well. Real life stories from people like Pablo Yoder and others show that this is not only possible, but can transform communities. Finally, Kreeft raised the question about lying to potentially protect others. It's a classic case of "do the ends justify the means?" The historic Christian answer to this is no. Christians are supposed to obey God and trust that He will work out good according to His wisdom. By Kreeft's logic, if your child needed chemotherapy but you couldn't afford it, and a gangster offered you money to kill an bad person, you're allowed to kill that bad person that to save your innocent child. Beware of this kind of slippery thinking. Overall, this was a great debate and clear victory for biblical nonresistance, but there were some unfinished threads that should be further addressed.

[@Fent1231]

In 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; That doesn’t describe a person teaching pacifism. Ephesians 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children Now I am not suggesting we get whips and start beating them if we see people in the church conducting what’s not proper within the church, but we shouldn’t just sit idly by and do nothing about it. Mathew 5:39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. Obviously to be imitator of Christ as he did not sin. But if someone starts beating you have every right to defend yourself. Here are examples of self-defense in The Bible. 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. Romans 13:1-14 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ... As we see resisting authority can occur judgement and by using force against them they have the right to use force to subdue you or Kill you in self-defense if necessary... If authority has right to self defense So do Gods people. Does God lie? Romans 3:4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED Esther 8:1 Saying that the king allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, children and women included, and to plunder their goods Ecclesiastes 3:3 A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up. We see in Ecclesiastes that it says, “There is a time for killing”. And when is a time for killing? A time in war and in self-defense. I don’t think God looks kindly if somebody is being attack and you could do something about it like stepping in and using the necessary force to help/save that person from injury or death. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. If you did nothing and did not step in and the person was killed and it happened to be somebody who never knew God, so his life is spiritually lost. So, he is now in eternal Torment because he never knew or had a chance to except him. Where if you being a person of God stepped in to save him, could witness to him and give him the chance to accept Jesus and be saved from eternal Judgement. So it seems to be the bible does not preach of Pacifism.

[@georgeolo]

Very interesting, thank you for your comment. It's interesting how even Ambrose and Augustine opposed personal self-defense. Could you by any chance summarize what Yoder's book mentions on a violent person threatenting loved ones?

[@texangentlemen3115]

Pacifism simply means to refuse protecting the weaker from the stronger. It's my personal opinion that Jesus was not a pacifist as he went to "war" with the devil to protect us weaker ones from the stronger, that is, the devil. This can apply to several things such as just war, abortion, and stopping a bloodthirsty criminal from killing the ones you love in your home, including the one is "one flesh" with you. (Genesis 2:24)

[@PatristicArcana]

Nonresistance, on the other hand, means to make the world better than violence ever could. Violence begets violence; wars perpetuated without end, as has been the case in the middle east long before the United States existed.

[@johnd1025]

@@PatristicArcana sooo, a child christian should not resist the pedophile that is pinning him down? The woman should not resist the rapist who won't let go of her? No fighting back?

[@LightDragon777]

I don't agree with the pacifist position on all points, but one thing I will say for their side that I see as a common thread they keep looping back to: they try to take Jesus' commands at face value and try to live them in faith. Many of the Gospel's teachings are hard, and I think it can be easy for us to try to come up with "what-if's" or make up scenarios in which we would be exempted from them. But really, the question shouldn't be "Well what if this" or "what if that". The question should be, do we believe Jesus meant what He said? Do we believe that God is sovereign? Do we believe that the next life is infinitely better than the present one? As Christians, we are not responsible for outcomes, only faithfully following Jesus' commandments in each moment that is given to us.

[@paulcohen6727]

Peace will always be more popular than war for obvious reasons and not because of anything Jesus said. But I’m sure that the peaceniks are glad for us veterans who defended our country from Nazis and Communists so that they could freely practice and proclaim their emotion-based beliefs.

[@marthasteiner9667]

To be clear tho ... The gentlman in the debate that his father-in-law was a car switcher in the railroad ( he didn't clarify which kinds of train service but suspecting for the Nazi army) we would believe that is actively involved in the loss of life so should not be done.

[@Trivdgun-]

John 10:11:"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." John 10:14-15:"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." Hebrews 13:20:"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant." 1 Peter 2:25:"For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." Psalm 23:1-4:"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." Ezekiel 34:15-16:"I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God. I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment." Psalm 80:1:"Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth." Isaiah 40:11:"He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." Micah 5:4:"And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth." 1 Peter 5:4:"And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."

[@yoshkebenstadapandora1181]

Was this Roman Catholic a Jesuit? I find it disturbing his ignorance of the holocaust and the eagerness to defend Talmudic Judaism.

[@workwithbrandt]

A great debate. Here's one without taking a stand on either side for sure - so many wars are fought for immoral reasons these days, that is it practical to fight in wars driven by ulterior motives than simply "helping" another nation? The military industrial complex kind of really is another whole factor to look at as well...

[@Greasy__Bear]

Yes. Most wars are messy compared to history. A bomb is much more likely to kill innocents than a bow, or even a catapult.

[@christophersnedeker2065]

What if I believe you can both love your enemies and fight against them even to the death. What if I admit the nessesity of killing to protect others and hope that the enemy makes it to heaven or sees the error of his ways and lays down his arms? You say he that lives by the sword shall die by it, I grant it, my question is are somethings worth dying by the sword over?

[@BP-sk7lp]

I would imagine loving one's _innocent_ neighbour should take pre-eminence over loving one's enemy. If, for example, an evildoer is on a murderous rampage, loving one's neighbour would likely demand killing the murderous evildoer. Any alleged 'Jesus ethic' which places the lives of sexual predators, murderers, and swine and dogs above the innocent is seriously defective and, in my judgement, disgusting. The lost amongst humanity are not all equally sinful.

[@johnd1025]

@@BP-sk7lp well said. So many on here seem to only think of the enemy, above their neighbors, their family.

[@11irishjs51]

@@johnd1025 It still stands that we are not given the authority to kill others. Even if it makes perfect sense to us. God is the judge and He will repay. It is our job to obey and trust Him, not to take matters into our own hands.

[@LennyHorowitz17364]

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” John 18:36 NASB

[@christophersnedeker2065]

Yes, Christianity is not a country.

[@biggbirdopensesame6762]

A gust a wind wars.

[@enrico759]

Here are two important early Christian writings that support a solid pacifist dogma: Here is an important epistle from Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus who at the end Justin Martyrs 1st Apology; gives us an important insight of how Early Christians dealt with Rome’s wars through prayer in a spirit of pacifism: Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate, in Which He Testifies that the Christians Were the Cause of His Victory.152 The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Germanicus, Parthicus, Sarmaticus, to the People of Rome, and to the sacred Senate greeting: I explained to you my grand design, and what advantages I gained on the confines of Germany, with much labour and suffering, in consequence of the circumstance that I was surrounded by the enemy; I myself being shut up in Carnuntum by seventy-four cohorts, nine miles off. And the enemy being at hand, the scouts pointed out to us, and our general Pompeianus showed us that there was close on us a mass of a mixed multitude of 977, 000 men, which indeed we saw; and I was shut up by this vast host, having with me only a battalion composed of the first, tenth, double and marine legions. Having then examined my own position, and my host, with respect to the vast mass of barbarians and of the enemy, I quickly betook myself to prayer to the gods of my country. But being disregarded by them, I summoned those who among us go by the name of Christians. And having made inquiry, I discovered a great number and vast host of them, and raged against them, which was by no means becoming; for afterwards I learned their power. Wherefore they began the battle, not by preparing weapons, nor arms, nor bugles; for such preparation is hateful to them, on account of the God they bear about in their conscience. Therefore it is probable that those whom we suppose to be atheists, have God as their ruling power entrenched in their conscience. For having cast themselves on the ground, they prayed not only for me, but also for the whole army as it stood, that they might be delivered from the present thirst and famine. For during five days we had got no water, because there was none; for we were in the heart of Germany, and in the enemy's territory. And simultaneously with their casting themselves on the ground, and praying to God (a God of whom I am ignorant), water poured from heaven, upon us most refreshingly cool, but upon the enemies of Rome a withering153 hail. And immediately we recognised the presence of God following on the prayer-a God unconquerable and indestructible. Founding upon this, then, let us pardon such as are Christians, lest they pray for and obtain such a weapon against ourselves. And I counsel that no such person be accused on the ground of his being a Christian. But if any one be found laying to the charge of a Christian that he is a Christian, I desire that it be made manifest that he who is accused as a Christian, and acknowledges that he is one, is accused of nothing else than only this, that he is a Christian; but that he who arraigns him be burned alive. And I further desire, that he who is entrusted with the government of the province shall not compel the Christian, who confesses and certifies such a matter, to retract; neither shall he commit him. And I desire that these things be confirmed by a decree of the Senate. And I command this my edict to be published in the Forum of Trajan, in order that it may be read. The prefect Vitrasius Pollio will see that it be transmitted to all the provinces round about, and that no one who wishes to make use of or to possess it be hindered from obtaining a copy from the document I now publish. ecmarsh.com/fathers/anf/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3959_754048 Also we know that in the 12th Canon from the Council Of Nicea the Roman Church continued to require pacifism in its attendants: Canon 12 As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfil the whole time. www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicaea_canons.htm

[@alandela6330]

Henry Tetreault - Canon 12 cannot be read without reference to the historical context. Canon 12 is directed toward those that were in the army under Constantine's co-emperor Licinius. When the civil war started (or perhaps before), he required his army to sacrifice to the pagan gods. Some Christians left the army rather than sacrifice. Those who stayed and sacrificed were considered lapsed from the faith, just as all those who sacrifice under persecution are considered lapsed. Some, though, who left changed their mind and returned. Some of those even bought their way back into Licinius' army. After Licinius lost the civil war, those in his army wanted back into the Church. After all, it was the emperor who supported Christianity who won the civil war. Canon 12 deals with this situation, not Christians joining Constantine's army. www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-canons.html You can read the notes on ccel.org.

[@GTMGunTotinMinnesotan]

The unfriendly over-simplifying fellows on the left are pretentious. The older fellows on the right aren't great at arguing this case, not to mention they fell for the classical debating traps set for them by the unfriendly fellows on the left. Also, the narcissistic fundamentalist younger man called the other gentlemen 'unsaved' initially and then back-walked his statement back. Bad debate. Frustrating. The argument that no one can do something bad to stop something worse is sophomoric in philosophy. We do it all the time.

[@nolanl3343]

Everything David Bercot said is completely true and if you are frustrated by him you are frustrated by the ante-nicene church, the apostles, and God and are thereby most definitely not currently saved.

[@FreelancerLA]

What I find interesting is that the underlying question in this debate relates to the question of whether the Bible is the supreme authority (over and above any other authority) by which a Christian should live his/her life, or not. Just in perusing the comments, it seems to me that if you take a Sola Scriptura perspective, than the Christian Non-Retaliation P.O.V. won the debate. If you take the perspective that Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition hold equal merit under the authority of the Church, than the Just War P.O.V. won.

[@PatristicArcana]

How do you figure? The nonresistance side demonstrated that the early Christians were entirely in agreement with them.

[@keithstahley266]

You are right sir, thanks for making this point to a good but premature observation.

[@lbr3041]

If there ever were a case for just war it would have been the day religious people had a just and sinless man murdered-Jesus. But Jesus chose love, told Peter to put his sword away and even went a step further, healing the ear of the soldier Peter harmed.

[@christophersnedeker2065]

He told them to buy swords.

[@MarioLopez-iv2nw]

Answer the question when people are wrong you always see him divert to a different topic and active on topic

[@JohnJakeWilliam]

With love, faith comes by hearing God's word (Romans 10:17). And let us all come into the unity of faith (Ephesians 4). 1. Is the American government worldly or part of God's kingdom? -- Jesus says, "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth" (John 17:16-17). -- In the Hebrew language, the word "NATIONS" is identical with the word heathen -- Psalm 96:5; Psalm 2:1. 2. What are the weapons that Christians should use on their enemies? -- "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:4). 3. With love, should we give our enemies food and water, or should we kill them? -- "Let love be without hypocrisy [play-acting]. ... Repay NO ONE evil for evil. ... If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink ..." (Rom. 12:9-21). 4. I now have been born from above -- a new birth brings new citizenship. Where is our new citizenship? -- "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Philippians 3:20). -- Are there Christians in this nation? Yes, but ... Biblically, we belong to a kingdom, not a nation. -- Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight ... BUT now My kingdom is not from here? 5. What kind of mind are we to have? -- The mind of Christ (Eph. 2:5). 6. Do the Old Testament Wars come into play, NOW? -- Jesus says, "You have said, an eye for an eye ... BUT I tell you NOT to resist an evil person" (Matthew 38-48). Because ... --"The wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God" (James 1:20). The work of the Gospel is to make peace between men and God--not war. Wherever a heart surrenders to God the spirit of militarism and nationalism must go (June 21, 1898). The person who believes that the voice of the people is the voice of God may want to reconsider: "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb ... they loved not their lives unto death" (Rev. 12:11). 7. Does God regard it as less sinful to kill a thousand men than to kill one? -- "Though they join forces, the wicked shall not be unpunished; but the posterity of the righteous will be delivered" (Proverbs 11:21). blessings, John

[@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15]

💖💖

[@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15]

America is not even a real nation. It is a corporation.

[@christophersnedeker2065]

None of the Roman soldiers baptized where ordered to leave the army.

[@LinusWeber1997GER]

Art thou with excuse?

[@rtoguidver3651]

Our Government Met in church originally, that's where "In God We Trust" came from.. Now it's In "God WE No Longer Trust". Jesus told his Disciples to buy a sword for protection.. Thou shalt not kill, means Murder, not Self-Defense.. John 18:10 “Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.” ---- Why did Peter have a Sword ? Luke 22:36 “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” --- A Sword for protection . If I see 3 guys raping a little girl, I'm "Not" looking the other way.. . Romans 8:14 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” .. All of the talking from so-called men of God, and not one word from God ???

[@williamguertin8342]

1) God loves everyone. 2) We are to emulate our Father, Christ emphasized this point 3) God has killed people who have been disobedient Therefore it cannot be sinful, evil, immoral if you kill someone to maintain a greater good.

[@colson2225]

Clearly, our LORD JESUS CHRIST was/is against war. Did he not heal the ear of Malchus when Peter sliced it off with his sword?? Loving our enemies means to share the Gospel & respect every person that we encounter in this Worldly Kingdom knowing that we are citizens of our Heavenly Kingdom. When Jesus was slapped, spit upon, flogged, beaten, and kicked when he dropped his cross that he was forced to carry, did He not allow this, so that he may die for His enemies??? To "put on Christ," we have to understand that this Worldly Kingdom is NOT our home. We have to "die to our flesh." This is why He taught that we can only serve ONE Master. Our Master ought to be Christ. Whatever happens to our flesh by our oppressors ought not worry us. We will be hated, afflicted, cursed, and persecuted for being citizens of God's Kingdom, but it is still a small price to pay for all of our transgressions that we have committed against our Heavenly Father, while we are living on this planet, is it not? We must rejoice in our tribulations, Beloved.

[@wogeibe]

So do non-resistance types believe we should love our enemies more than our own families? If killing an enemy is the only way to stop him from killing our friends, why wouldn't we do that?

[@wogeibe]

@Naryan Kapil So the righteous thing to do would be to stand idly by while your friends and family were murdered?

[@wogeibe]

@Naryan Kapil That is worse than telling a starving person to be warmed and filled instead of helping them. Justice is just as much a virtue as kindness.

[@wogeibe]

@Naryan Kapil You're showing life mercy to the murderer, not their victims. To the victims, you're showing callousness. A society without judgement is a society of lawlessness.

[@wogeibe]

@Naryan Kapil God's will is evident in results or a tree is known by the fruit it yields. If all judgment was taken away, the result would be disaster. After the police riots in Baltimore, the police stopped doing their job properly and the murder rate spiked immediately. amp.usatoday.com/amp/744741002 Chaos reigns where judgment wanes.

[@sbeasley7585]

Because Jesus said don't do it. It's faith in the truths he taught. Faith in the kingdom hope he offers.

[@yoshkebenstadapandora1181]

The more I think about it, Bercot's position is ridiculous. When the Roman soldier became a Christian there is no record of the apostles telling him that he must quit being a soldier.

[@11irishjs51]

You didn't watch very far into the debate.

[@Hebrew42Day]

"He shoots one of those kids dead." That's tragic, but realize - He's now with the Father in Heaven. Those that justify violence love the world, not the word. (Jas 4:1-4 HNV) Where do wars and fightings among you come from? Don't they come from your pleasures that war in your members? You lust, and don't have. You kill, covet, and can't obtain. You fight and make war. You don't have, because you don't ask. You ask, and don't receive, because you ask amiss, so that you may spend it for your pleasures. You adulterers and adulteresses, don't you know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

[@matthewzbornak6880]

The quote does not properly relate to the question

[@Homerus]

Does anyone know a discussion like this on believers baptism v infant baptism?

[@FreelancerLA]

+Loving Christian Not that I'm aware of, but I'd be interested to hear it if their is one.

[@Fent1231]

To be baptized you have to be saved and to be saved you have to believe in Jesus Christ and Infants aren't old enough to believe in him or to even think.

[@FreelancerLA]

Yet Baptism, as a sacrament, is necessary for the remission of original sin (the sin of Adam and Eve). Withholding it from a child runs the risk of their dying in a state of separation from God. Baptism is also the "circumcision of Christ", according to Paul, and throughout the Old Testament, while adult conversions to Judaism required a belief in the God of Abraham *before* circumcision, children born into Jewish families were circumcised *in anticipation of* the faith they would be raised into by their family. So it follows with baptism, with parents baptizing their children in anticipation of the faith in which they will be raised . There is no lack of faith in either case. And through the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letter to the Corinthians we hear of entire households being baptized on the basis of the faith of one family member (Lydia, the Philippian Jailer, Stephenas). The early church fathers also attest to infant baptism being both common and accepted ("according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants"- Origen's "Holilies on Leviticus") or the Council of Carthage in 253 condemning the withholding of baptism from infants (and even then, it was only withheld for eight days, again mirroring circumcision). The Bible indicates that infants too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. The witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings agree with this. Infant baptism is a continuation of the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

[@Fent1231]

FreelancerLA You really shouldn't compare children to babies because babies aren't capable of coming to Jesus at that age. Infants are incapable of confessing Christ. You have to be able to confess Christ as savoir to be able to be saved. Know where does it speak of infant Baptism in The bible. Anything that Contradicts the bible is not of God. And the Bible is The word of God and no other book is.

[@FreelancerLA]

In Luke 18:15-17, we read "Now they were bringing even infants to him. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”" (from the Greek, "Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha", "brepha" = infant). Fundamentalists tend to claim that babies and young children are incapable of approaching Jesus on their own and accepting Him as Lord, yet Jesus said of them: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." I would also point out that circumcised children were incapable of professing their faith in the God of Abraham, yet they were still circumcised into His covenant. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19-20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Conversely I can ask, where in the Bible does it restrict baptism to those capable of making an act of faith? If "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation,", then does that mean that babies and young children who haven't been baptized are condemned to hell, no exceptions? And *if* there is some kind of exception for infants needing faith in order to be saved, then aren't you making an extra-Biblical claim as well? The Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s *idea* of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Furthermore, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings support this.

[@AABlann]

So I fully support the Anabaptist personal freedom to choose and argue for pacifism, but they are refusing to love their neighbor via protection from evil harm. David Bercot in particular shows a lack of love of neighbor in how he argues he can wash his hands of the problems of the world. Why would Jesus have told them to buy a sword if there was no possible reason to use one? Luke 22:36

[@1Timothy410]

Roman’s 13: 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will have his approval. 4For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer. 5Therefore it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience. Acts 10: 1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was called the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his household were devout and God-fearing. He gave generously to the people and prayed to God regularly. 3One day at about the ninth hour,a he had a clear vision of an angel of God who came to him and said, “Cornelius!” The man who had an Angel visit him which is a really big deal, and He was known as a devout and God fearing man, He was a solider

[@clarkweaver9543]

True, Cornelius hadn't yet got to the place of nonresistance, in acts 10:33 he asked Peter to teach him all things that the Lord commanded. Just because he was a righteous man doesn't mean he didn't have areas of change he needed to make. He obviously had a desire to do whatever the Lord commanded because he asked Peter to teach him!

[@FarmingWithYahweh]

We should resist evil. it is a command of Yah.

[@newbirth7616]

To the kingdom of the world (darkness) its impossible to understand the opposite Kingdom Of God. In the Kingdom of God citizens are Christian non-resistant. Not pacifists. They allow their enemies to kill them out of Love for their enemy and not themselves.

[@joehamilton9715]

Life is worth losing

[@proverbs3_5-8]

The Catholic Church has a history of war. They were very much apart of the Holocaust. They apologized for there part in the genocide in Rwanda.

[@biggbirdopensesame6762]

They have no ethics they attack all men even sons of men that served them them being Roma

[@biggbirdopensesame6762]

Correct Knights Templar hide behind a cloak of Christianity

[@holzmann-]

amen

[@JonathanGrandt]

No worries. We’ll fight for the pacifist too...

[@keithstahley266]

Fight for what? Lol

[@samuelkland6029]

Yes sir

[@nattybumppo4151]

Fight for what? Some corrupt government? A lie about “fighting for freedom”?

[@gordo13371]

Lord willing i become saved and a pacifist like Christ. Please pray for me.

[@ringthembells143]

No

[@thomasp.898]

With all due respect, what I see is two cowards refuse to protect their loved ones or admit that they would in times of danger. And two gentleman who are telling them the truth - if you are a christian you do not let evil hurt people around you!

[@samuelkland6029]

Apologia studios sermon on Jesus wepons and war Is a good video to wach if you found the defenders of just war to be inadequate in their argumentation and use of scripture in this debate

[@-moumou-]

The Sermon on the Mount is a good read if you find the arguments made by Apologia Studios in favor of just war inadequate.

[@samuelkland6029]

@@-moumou- the way you worded this makes it sound like the sermon on the mount makes a stronger case for just war than the video made by apologia studios. But something tells me that was not realy your intent...

[@Peter-wp5vb]

@@samuelkland6029It's indeed the person's intent

[@Hebrew42Day]

(33:00) Argument 1: What part of thou shall not kill do you not understand. Answer: It should be translated murder, God was for capital punishment. He was under His moral _theocracy_ which He did not reinstate. I wouldn't expect a Catholic to understand this difference with a distinction, but even the false faith alone Protestants believe we should push theocracy from the Old Testament. That's why they killed those that they claimed were enemies of the Christian state. (Calvinism, Lutheranism, Catholicism, etc) Jesus clearly tells us, "Those who live by the sword die by the sword." This is the radical form of Christianity - it's why the early Church didn't raise swords against the Roman state, but became sheep to the slaughter. Argument 2: deals with the same logical fallacy, He acknowledges that Christ called for _individuals_ to be martyrs but then pushes this idea of a Christian theocracy that is just in executing the laws from Torah. Christ has not yet returned to establish His kingdom, where, HE will mete out the justice. Christianity was _NEVER_ meant to be coupled to Government. Argument 3: He's again conflating the Justice Christ brings on the day of the Lord with something WE must do. This is a fallacy. Christ is the bearer of judgment, not man. [Rom 12:17-21 CSB] 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Give careful thought to do what is honorable in everyone's eyes. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Friends, do not avenge yourselves; instead, leave room for God's wrath, because it is written, Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord. 20 But If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink. For in so doing you will be heaping fiery coals on his head. 21 Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good. Do not repay _ANYONE_ evil for evil. ANYONE means ANYONE. Vengeance belongs to the Lord. (A quote from Deuteronomy) We are not going to be destroying people on judgment day, and are not _called_ to do so here. we are not of this world, we are not supposed to be part of the world. Cornelius didn't stay a Centurion and that's clear from the teachings of the early church! Argument 4: because these demons use flesh and blood does NOT justify violence. Paul was telling us to fight this battle spiritually with prayer, fasting and the word of God - NOT with sword, and fist. "If you don't understand me on physical things, how can you understand the spiritual things?" Argument 5: His counter argument here is incredibly weak. As I've stated, He's assuming (as many protestants do as well) that an encounter with Jesus doesn't _change_ a person fundamentally. Repent and sin no more, go an sin no more lest a worse thing happen to you. It's ludicrous to think that an encounter with the spirit of God doesn't drastically and fundamentally change you from the inside out. Look at Dean Taylor. I've seen the same thing in my life. I used to defend the act of self defense, and claim that it was okay for a Christian to do so. Than the Holy Spirit encountered me, and CHANGED ME. There is NO WAY I can justify taking another life, that is GOD'S ownership - not mine. The state is not of Christ - they do use the sword, but they are not Christians! Christ has not established His kingdom, and did not expect Christians to be part of this world. [Rom 12:2 CSB] 2 Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. [Jas 4:1-4 CSB] 1 What is the source of wars and fights among you? Don't they come from your passions that wage war within you? 2 You desire and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and wage war. You do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and don't receive because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. 4 You adulterous people! Don't you know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? So whoever wants to be the friend of the world becomes the enemy of God. What is the source of war? friendship with the world. Believing we can justify being married to Government and God. Man cannot serve two masters.

[@matthewzbornak6880]

The quotes you use at the end do not fall under the circumstances that allow defense (in general) under the Just War theory. They fall outside of those quotes.

[@holzmann-]

Amen

[@matthewmc2860]

2 Kings Chapter 9

[@bradyspace]

Pacifism is a straw-man argument. Taking up the Cross is not a passive en-devour.

[@sammybelskus1534]

Are you serious? Taking up your cross is perfectly peaceful on the Christians part. It is being persecuted for loving and sharing his gospel.

[@bradyspace]

Yes, I agree. Passive means to sit still. Turn the other cheek is not to sit and do nothing. It is offering the other cheek.

[@caesarprice3252]

Then God will not come back with the sword

[@joshharv6303]

I talked to dean taylor he liked my dog

[@randy-mw5dq]

This is what YASHUA "Jesus" said in the bible " if anyone comes to harm you do not resist them, for vengeance is mine."

[@RohannvanRensburg]

That's not correct. It says not to seek revenge or to repay, because vengeance is God's.

[@JonathanGrandt]

A true pacifist understands that force is not aggression and violence. To be against violence is not to be against force.

[@joehamilton9715]

Friend, we are not saying not ot bear the sword. We are saying not to use force for a crime, like people do through self defense

[@markgenn8967]

Timing - Transition from Old Testament Law Of Carnal Ordinances, to New Testament Laws Of Spirituality. Jesus knew the Theocratic Rulers of the Jewish people were the Pharisees, and he knew they were hypocrites. He also knew it is important to obey those in position of authority, but we see he also knew where to draw the line. Matthew 23:1-3 - Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying; The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. ------------------------------------------ Romans 13 - Apostle Paul was talking to Church members who had Already obeyed The Gospel. As It Was Preached By Jesus to the Pharisee Ruler Nicodemus in John 3:5. Apostle Paul was talking to the Church members who had obeyed the same Gospel of Salvation that Apostle Peter preached in Acts 2:38. They were were Truly Born Again Christians. Apostle Paul is talking about Church Ministers, Preachers, Pastors, Teachers i.e. Those with "Church Authority", Not Roman Secular Government. KJV Romans13 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers

[@LinusWeber1997GER]

AMEN!!!!

[@justinchamberlain3443]

1:10:45 followers of the way transitioning quickly out of the ww2 Jewish problem situation. That seems to be a point of discomfort 1:18:20 but bercot wins it right here & delivers the ko blow re the early church circa 150ad approx on tertullian/origen very clear overt pacifism and when they ask for a "universal source" he cites nicea which couldn't possibly be more universal or clearly conclusive. If we believe the patristic fathers carried the clearest form of the original apostles teachings, which they did, then that ends the debate right there-Christians were forbidden to serve in the military period 1:26:50 a decent rebuttal "the obvious change is when you have a transition from a pagan empire to a Christian one"; that could be a sound rebuttal

[@MarioLopez-iv2nw]

Did God ever command anyone to be stoned?

[@christophersnedeker2065]

Christ used violence when he drove the merchants from the temple. He didn't use deadly force but he did use violence.

[@BP-sk7lp]

Yes, and when he returns, at the Last Judgement, he shall cast all workers of iniquity into the lake which burns with fire and sulphur (Revelation 21.8).

[@LinusWeber1997GER]

@@BP-sk7lp Ditto 😎

[@LinusWeber1997GER]

@@BP-sk7lp Yes, he does. We do not

[@NicholasWongCQ]

"what if Jesus really meant every word he said?" As if to say if I don't agree with your position I somehow think Jesus is a liar?

[@nathanprice2656]

That's the challenge you're seriously being asked to consider.

[@michaelalbertjr.3230]

Jesus DID mean every word he said, and he also said this: Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

[@RohannvanRensburg]

@@nathanprice2656 Jesus also said we must hate our own fathers, mothers, wives and children. The issue at hand is correctly interpreting the universal command Jesus gave. It is only appropriate to take a passage literally if it was meant to be interpreted literally.

[@josephcalvin6877]

@@RohannvanRensburg And given Jesus' life of almost total pacifism, especially within the cultural context of an occupied Judea, it seems sensible to assume Jesus is being literal. It may be an ideal which we struggle to attain, but that does not mean that we shouldn't seek total non-violence even in our resistance.

[@RohannvanRensburg]

@@josephcalvin6877 I don't think that's a reasonable leap to make. Nowhere is it documented that Jesus faced arbitrary situations of self-defense, and he is totally silent on many contexts of violence. I'm not saying it's an easy answer, but I'm saying a lot of pacifist arguments are weak and simply take scripture purely literally where the rest of scripture is exegeted for the specific audience and context. I don't think one would be *wrong*, per se, to be a pacifist, but I do not think it's correct to turn that into a universal.

[@kimberlytroutner567]

Just War Theory has been around for a long time. It has been codified and implemented by combatants throughout history. For all its good intentions, there has yet to be a war in which those Just War instructions have not been violated by all sides involved. Nice Theory. But that's all its ever been.

[@JonathanGrandt]

The American Revolution... just or unjust?

[@kimberlytroutner567]

Nowhere, and let me calmly, but emphatically, repeat: Nowhere does the Bible instruct the Christian to engage in armed, violent rebellion against the State. Any State. How ever ungodly, or unjust that State may be. On the contrary, when the commands of God and the demands of the State come into conflict the Bible teaches what we now call Civil Disobedience; wherein the Christian honors the dictates of God, and then humbly submits to whatever retribution the State doles out. All vengeance is left to God. And He will avenge. According to His will, His timing, and His plan.

[@colinhussey9531]

Ww2.. Innocent Jews being slaughtered, Germany occupying innocent where God is the owner of all land. Global War on Terror.. thousands Innocents being killed because they are not Islamic. Many Islamic being killed because they are not the “right” kind of Islam. God applies Justice through his people because he presence Jesus’s presence is still here on Earth through our Christian spirits