Supporting War vs Non-Resistance - Bible Questions with Michael Pearl - Episode 009

[AdstarAPAD]

In Acts 14 Paul and Barnabas where in Lystra and seeing a crippled man who had faith Paul through the power of the Holy Spirit healed him. The people of the town raised their voices and proclaimed that the gods hermes and zues had come to visit them. The reaction of Paul upon understanding what they where saying is telling. He and Barbabas tore there cloths and ran into the crowd to correct the terrible false impression the people had. We to must make sure people do not get a false idea today.

[AdstarAPAD]

One has to be true to their conscience to God. So a problem can come from appearing to support warfare. So if one does not support warfare one must find a way to let that be known when reaching out to people engaged in warfare. Otherwise a false impression might be had by those that are engaged in warfare that your reaching out to them indicates your support for warfare. I will post again and give some scripture showing what happens when people have a wrong impression of the message we give.

[betterpromises]

Michael, You may have misunderstood the question. I think he was referrning to the Mennonite teaching that it is not appropriate for *Christians to serve* in the military because of Jesus's teachings. I believe the Mennonite view allows for the secular government to wage war (Rom 13), but that Christians should not participate (Matt 5-7). Could you comment on that?

[ThirdRAILKink]

Why do all evangelists sound alike or speak with the same inflections?

[GorillaSamurai]

"Fishing line", classic

[jenglis9]

you ducked the question

how does Jesus' philosophy of non-resistance to violence (different than non-violent resistance) in which he says violence should not be resisted, relate in any way to our current world? If this philosophy was practiced, then America should surrender to the first country that attacks it. It should turn the other cheek, give the coat as well as shirt, it should carry the package 2 miles instead of one.

How can this philosophy be taken seriously?

[ACallToHoliness]

@jenglis9

The State is allowed to bear the sword, but not the Christian individual. Problem solved.

[jenglis9]

@ACallToHoliness

So, what you're saying is that Christians are encouraged to allow other individuals, non-Christians, to fight their necessary battles for them? They are supposed to stand back in pious pacifism while other men face all the danger, kill and be killed? This is the essence of cowardice, and the epitome of hubris. Two very undesirable sins, if your premise is allowed.

[ACallToHoliness]

@jenglis9

What I'm saying is to literally obey Christ's commands to not fight or resist evil.

Christians are ambassadors from another Kingdom and are not to engage in worldly disputations between governments.

[jenglis9]

@ACallToHoliness

so in order to enjoy the freedom to worship Jesus as you do, you must do so on the backs of other men who are forced to resist the evil in the world that would rather crush you under their heels. To be a Christian then, is to passively avoid confrontation, and by doing so inherently condemn those who choose to defend you by their resistance to evil.

I further challenge that you know you'd never let someone attack you or your family, taking goods and giving harm. You'd fight

[ACallToHoliness]

@jenglis9

May God help me be as Christ as never defend.

[jenglis9]

@ACallToHoliness

what about clearing the temple with a whip, or denying his mother and family, or condemning people to hellfire? Are not these acts of violence, one way or another?

[ACallToHoliness]

@jenglis9

No. Jesus was the God of the Temple and had the right to remove whoever he wanted. Note that he didn't KILL anyone in the Temple on that day either.

As for eternal damnation, that is the justice of God, and we do not condemn anyone to such damnation, God does.

And separating from our family if necessary has nothing to do with slaughtering others in the name of Christ.