Pacifism vs Just War Theory

[theInquirer]

On 5/22/2019 at 9:23 PM, Neighbor said:

I guess see things quite differently.  There is time before the Law a new there will be time after the covenent in blood of Jesus as well, but there is no change in the precepts and principles and commands of God. My lord returns on a white horse of a military commander.

 

... "Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.  His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.  He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.  And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses.  From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.  On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

How do you explain all the times, then, when Jesus would start out by saying, "You have heard. . . but I tell you. . ." (emphasis added)?  Or where He talks about giving us a new command?  How could these things be changed at all unless the principles were thus being changed as well?

I'm going to guess you'd point out that since God is the same and never changes, the precepts that flow from Him ought not to change either.  However, my answer is this: God's nature is the source of morals (how we ought to behave) which basically say in effect that for set A of circumstances, our response ought to be B.  But this is only the surface of morals;  we have not asked why A implies B.  Were we to do this, we might see that the principles, C, behind A do not demand B if instead of A we are placed in set D of circumstances.  Basically, what I'm saying is that the morals didn't change in the New Covenant, but the circumstances did, thereby demanding different responses/outcomes to situations.  The commander hasn't changed, but the battlefield has.

[theInquirer]

On 5/23/2019 at 8:56 AM, Billiards Ball said:

My argument stream is biblical:

1) Torah Law distincts self-defense as allowable from murder as a crime

2) Romans 14 and other passages teach following the government

3) Romans 14 is modified itself, following other passages, to follow conscience (I CAN fight in a just war if drafted, I CAN choose to serve as a medic/non-combatant, I CAN be a conscientious objector if legal or jailed if illegal, I DO follow my government but would NOT abort a child, even if the government proscribed forced abortions)

4) My conscience informs me/my faith informs me that fighting the Nazis was justified, indeed, born again leaders were convicted in plots to kill Hitler (!), but "whatever is not of faith is sin"

The four principles condense to "whatever isn't of faith is sin". If your conscience tells you not to fight, don't. That's biblical, not "pragmatic".

I will respond to each premise (I believe that's the correct term?) of your argument.

1')  I'm not talking about murder or crime, I'm talking about self-defense as well although I agree that in the Old Covenant one was allowed while the other was not.  

However, my whole debate on the topic comes from passages in the New Covenant such as in Matthew 5 where Jesus said we ought to turn the other cheek as opposed to what "you have heard." This would make the most sense to be interpreted as being a change of/from the Old Covenant, at least to the best of my understanding.  If I am misinterpreting this, please correct me.

2) Yes, they do teach to follow the government; however, this could be viewed in a couple of ways that both debunk certain aspects of this that support the just war theory.  

First, we ask whether government has any validity at all under the New Covenant?  Of course, we read about how God has established the government and uses it to His own ends. . . but this means He established all governments.  Including Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, fascist Italy, etc.  My point is that just because God uses government doesn't mean that God approves of government as such.  Why, God uses sin to accomplish good (Thomas Aquinas cited this in Summa Theologica where he pointed out that God only allows evil to exist so that He may bring good out of it)!  Clearly, then, just because God establishes and uses government does not mean that it is good.  We may submit to evil so long as we do not ourselves sin, which is the view that could be held in interpreting such passages in Romans.

Second, even if the above argument is false, there is another argument.  We ask where government gets its authority in the first place, and for what purpose(s)?  Naturally, its authority comes from God, and we shall assign all basis for government existing (e.g. to keep man from sinning against fellow man, to prevent evil, to promote liberty) to set A.  Therefore, the very basis for government is A, meaning that government may and shall function only so long as it fulfills A.  If it does not do so, it is overstepping its bounds into areas where it has no authority.  If it has no authority over an area, then any command it may give regarding such an area shall be null and void to us.  Take, for example, Roe vs Wade, which I believe to be absolutely outside any bounds God gave for government.  Roe vs Wade has no authority since the government never had the authority to make such a ruling in the first place; therefore, we ought to act completely as though it never existed and has no sway over us in any way.  (Essentially, civil disobedience; but this is a discussion for a different day.)  Therefore, to bring this back to pacifism vs just war, we realize that if war/violence is elsewhere prohibited in the Bible in a universal sense, then the government has no authority to make us practice it since it would be sin.  If violence is an inherent sin, and since the government derives its authority from the same source that commanded the former, the government has no authority to command violence in any form and thereby violate the very source of its authority.

3) I suppose I summarized above part of what you said here.  However, I confess that beyond that, I do not fully understand what you are saying in this premise.  Clarification?

4) First off, if something is explicitly identified as a sin, it cannot inherently be of faith, as such (take adultery, for example).  Therefore, if violence is explicitly stated to be wrong, then it cannot be of faith.

Actually, I believe that the whole discussion on things being right if they come from faith centers around what tempts one person over another.  If a certain style of inherently fine music or color or what have you, if this makes someone have wrong thoughts or causes them to want to sin, then it is sin to them.  This whole discussion essentially comes down to motives: you can do anything as long as your motives are good (i.e. if they are rooted in love of God and/or love of others).  Now of course, there are some things with inherently imply bad motives, such as adultery, murder, insulting others, blasphemy, etc.  When it says that some things are of faith for some people and that some of those same things might not be of faith for someone else, I believe that it is saying that there are some things that cause some of us to sin while not causing others of us to sin.  

Another interpretation which also could be true is that when it says not to do things that aren't of faith, it is saying that unless you know that something is all right, you shouldn't do it, i.e. that everything you do should be something that you believe is all right, something that you have good motives for doing.

[theInquirer]

On 5/24/2019 at 9:22 PM, JohnD said:

The Bible speaks to matters like this as personal choice.

What can you live with?

Which one will eat at you for doing or not doing?

All anyone else can do is give advice but in the end

you alone have to live with your choices.

God bless.

Well it's a personal choice, yes, but a choice to either obey or disobey the moral laws laid down in the Bible.  Morals aren't left up to us to determine.  If I'm understanding your response correctly; if I am not, please correct the error of my analysis.

 

[theInquirer]

23 hours ago, Adstar said:

Read the sermon of Jesus on the mount.. The beattitudes.. Matthew chapters 5 , 6 and 7 and believe it..   Thats the best advice you can recieve..

Certainly, and I have done so, but it is interpretation that perplexes me somewhat

[Adstar]

3 hours ago, theInquirer said:

Certainly, and I have done so, but it is interpretation that perplexes me somewhat

What does Jesus say to us in that speech in regard to how we are to deal with our enemies?

Are we to love them or are we do cut them down with an assult rifle?

[Billiards Ball]

12 hours ago, theInquirer said:

I will respond to each premise (I believe that's the correct term?) of your argument.

1')  I'm not talking about murder or crime, I'm talking about self-defense as well although I agree that in the Old Covenant one was allowed while the other was not.  

However, my whole debate on the topic comes from passages in the New Covenant such as in Matthew 5 where Jesus said we ought to turn the other cheek as opposed to what "you have heard." This would make the most sense to be interpreted as being a change of/from the Old Covenant, at least to the best of my understanding.  If I am misinterpreting this, please correct me.

2) Yes, they do teach to follow the government; however, this could be viewed in a couple of ways that both debunk certain aspects of this that support the just war theory.  

First, we ask whether government has any validity at all under the New Covenant?  Of course, we read about how God has established the government and uses it to His own ends. . . but this means He established all governments.  Including Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, fascist Italy, etc.  My point is that just because God uses government doesn't mean that God approves of government as such.  Why, God uses sin to accomplish good (Thomas Aquinas cited this in Summa Theologica where he pointed out that God only allows evil to exist so that He may bring good out of it)!  Clearly, then, just because God establishes and uses government does not mean that it is good.  We may submit to evil so long as we do not ourselves sin, which is the view that could be held in interpreting such passages in Romans.

Second, even if the above argument is false, there is another argument.  We ask where government gets its authority in the first place, and for what purpose(s)?  Naturally, its authority comes from God, and we shall assign all basis for government existing (e.g. to keep man from sinning against fellow man, to prevent evil, to promote liberty) to set A.  Therefore, the very basis for government is A, meaning that government may and shall function only so long as it fulfills A.  If it does not do so, it is overstepping its bounds into areas where it has no authority.  If it has no authority over an area, then any command it may give regarding such an area shall be null and void to us.  Take, for example, Roe vs Wade, which I believe to be absolutely outside any bounds God gave for government.  Roe vs Wade has no authority since the government never had the authority to make such a ruling in the first place; therefore, we ought to act completely as though it never existed and has no sway over us in any way.  (Essentially, civil disobedience; but this is a discussion for a different day.)  Therefore, to bring this back to pacifism vs just war, we realize that if war/violence is elsewhere prohibited in the Bible in a universal sense, then the government has no authority to make us practice it since it would be sin.  If violence is an inherent sin, and since the government derives its authority from the same source that commanded the former, the government has no authority to command violence in any form and thereby violate the very source of its authority.

3) I suppose I summarized above part of what you said here.  However, I confess that beyond that, I do not fully understand what you are saying in this premise.  Clarification?

4) First off, if something is explicitly identified as a sin, it cannot inherently be of faith, as such (take adultery, for example).  Therefore, if violence is explicitly stated to be wrong, then it cannot be of faith.

Actually, I believe that the whole discussion on things being right if they come from faith centers around what tempts one person over another.  If a certain style of inherently fine music or color or what have you, if this makes someone have wrong thoughts or causes them to want to sin, then it is sin to them.  This whole discussion essentially comes down to motives: you can do anything as long as your motives are good (i.e. if they are rooted in love of God and/or love of others).  Now of course, there are some things with inherently imply bad motives, such as adultery, murder, insulting others, blasphemy, etc.  When it says that some things are of faith for some people and that some of those same things might not be of faith for someone else, I believe that it is saying that there are some things that cause some of us to sin while not causing others of us to sin.  

Another interpretation which also could be true is that when it says not to do things that aren't of faith, it is saying that unless you know that something is all right, you shouldn't do it, i.e. that everything you do should be something that you believe is all right, something that you have good motives for doing.

1) In the Law, a self-defense killing isn't murder. That's my point.

2) Turn the other cheek is an individual not responding to an ungodly assault, to slap a man on his right cheek, I must backhand him (as a righty). A right cheek hit is a slap of insult. Me not responding to a fight provocation or an insult is different than me using a gun or knife to stop someone from raping me or my spouse (see 1 above). The commands to obey government are in both testaments. The Romans commands are nearby similar commands to obey my pastor, spouse, etc. I cannot in good conscience say "do I really have to defer to my pastor in the NT sense"?

3) Romans 14 says obey the government. It's modified to not do an overt sin (pay your taxes, don't abort children).

4) I have no problem with what is explicitly identified as sin nor do you (adultery, murder). But you are missing the "let your conscience guide you" where something is not explicit. I can fight against Hitler or not--do not judge a brother if he does. Hitler didn't "slap me on the cheek", he killed my brethren and had to be put down. By the way, the Bible does not say, "not to do things that aren't of faith", it says, "what is done not of faith is sin", which is different. I don't need to go into a deep time of prayer when I see a man raping a person, I can push him off his victim, and if I need to, use my fists.

[JohnD]

14 hours ago, theInquirer said:

Well it's a personal choice, yes, but a choice to either obey or disobey the moral laws laid down in the Bible.  Morals aren't left up to us to determine.  If I'm understanding your response correctly; if I am not, please correct the error of my analysis.

 

No, I think you understand them correctly.

I believe your conclusion that it means we are free to disregard any of God's commands is in error.

All humanity does have that choice.

But it means they are lost.

My point was within the frame work of faith (i.e. salvation).

And while it is very foolish to totally disregard God's commandments / admonitions,

the choices we make in the minor aspects of life have no impact on our salvation or our standing with God.

Thankfully, in Christ, who God sees in our stead IS Christ.

Do you believe we can somehow (by our choices) improve on this? Improve on Christ?

 

[Prycejosh1987]

On 2/14/2019 at 10:05 PM, theInquirer said:

So I come from a pacifist Mennonite family, but for the past couple of years I personally have not been sure whether I ought to believe the pacifism view or the just war view. . . any advice?

I say meet somewhere in the middle.