Jesus says no to war.

[laiddownhislife]

This would depend upon how one defines the term "brother."


ANSWER.As pointed out by LionovJudah above many wars are fought where Christian fights Christian.
.




Well, yes; He laid down His life in a Spiritual war in order to win it on behalf of His own.


ANSWER. Therefore we should do the same.



Are you saying one should not protect one's neighbors when other neighbors wish to do them harm? Why should we show preference to one neighbor over another and how should we determine which neighbor we should show preference to?


ANSWER. This idea did not originate with me, but with the greatest teacher of all time. He told us how to behave. These ideas are found in Luke 6 too.



Christ says the greatest love is the laying down of one's life for one's friends,eh?


ANSWER. Lay it down the way Jesus commanded, yes.



Christ died for such as these.


ANSWER. Who do you mean by 'these'?



So, on the other hand, do you think one can do better than God by being a missionary? Aren't missionaries showing a complete lack of faith in God's ability to sort out His world? God uses means to spread the true gospel and God uses means to keep the peace (you still haven't answered the post with the verse where Christ tells his disciples to sell what they have and buy swords,eh)--or do you not believe that God ordains all things according to His purpose for the good of the elect (even war--and those that fight them)? Again, which neighbors get shown preference?


ANSWER. Firstly God commands to go out in His name, so this is HARDLY lack of faith, or are you trying to make a mockery?
My point I'm making is; keeping the peace is by the gospel, and NOT by the gun. If you go back and read, you will see I answered the 2 swords issue way back.

God is in command, I have never showed I doubt this!
My point I'm making is Jesus says no to war. Jesus gives commands for His followers to follow. If you and others choose not to , what can I do , but just keep pointing to the Saviour.

*If one reads Matt 5, and Luke 6, it seems as if preference is shown to the evil person. How do you read it?





There is a difference between the spiritual and the carnal and between nations and individuals.
ANSWER. I agree.
So does this mean one should disobey Jesus?

If one "neighbor" attacks another (especially a defenseless one), it is not possible to live peaceably with all men, is it?

ANSWER. I explained above in this post *
To add to this-Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

We are called to be peacemakers.
Mt 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
For some of us it may be easier than for others.

(BTW; Paul reasoned at length with the Jews and Gentiles of his day; I would have loved to hear those arguments back and forth!)

ANSWER. Me too.

2 Pet 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

[lionovjudah]

I don't equate "thinking God is on our side" with being elect--even the Islamists think God is on their side,eh?

Who is talking about elect Roger? My point is simple, there are examples of professed believers waring against one another. Is this possible in light of the writ? I do not know if it is.

[Toplady]

Who is talking about elect Roger? My point is simple, there are examples of professed believers waring against one another. Is this possible in light of the writ? I do not know if it is.

We all have temporary (mortal) lives at the moment, so why would there be a difference if a person who is elect dies fighting in an earthly battle, or in a car wreck....or of old age? We have an appointed time to die, and we are to continue doing the things that happen in this world:

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

We do not know when the end of our life will be, and it's true that it is possible there could be God's elect on both sides of a war, and may return to be with the Lord while in that battle, so why again would that be against God's will?

[Robert R. Higby]

The most BASIC question in this context is whether human government is strictly the realm of the devil (the kingdom of darkness), as in the pacifist theology of the radical reformation, or whether human government is part of the good created order of God that is shared by both elect and reprobate. Most of us here believe the latter view. Only to the pacifist is ALL taking up the sword by believers a sin.

The New Covenant is a promise of God to believers only; therefore its reality is strictly related to the kingdom of light. The question of how government should function in the Old OR New Covenant era is one related to the shared created order of BOTH light and darkness, not to the kingdom of light exclusively.

I think we are mostly agreeing (except for laiddownhislife) that a government has the right to defend itself against barbarism, terrorism, foreign attack, and foreign invasion. Also that a gospel believer may participate in the military branch of such government just as he/she may participate in the police force or any such occupation.

The question about 'brother against brother' wars is a deeper one. It is important to realize that virtually any just war might be engaged against an enemy that potentially has an elect believer in its midst. In the case of the Revolutionary and Civil wars, many with biblical convictions avoided them AT FIRST on the basis that they would be 'brother against brother' wars with significant numbers of elect on both sides--that is completely understandable. But as generally happens in such conflicts, the brutality of the reprobates on the opposing side ultimately dragged almost any initial non-participant into the war. In those times especially, the losing army would do ANYTHING to turn their fortunes around--including the most brutal torture and murder of women, children, non-military men, and soldiers. Once that happens, the perspective of an objector usually changes! All of a sudden, it becomes apparent that the grand majority of the enemy is composed of reprobates.

[rlhuckle]

Who is talking about elect Roger? My point is simple, there are examples of professed believers waring against one another. Is this possible in light of the writ? I do not know if it is.

I guess we were talking about two different things. Yes, professed believers have been warring against each other since Cain. This still doesn't answer the question of whether regenerate elect has ever warred against regenerate elect. Have unregenerate warred against elect? Yes, they obviously have in ignorance--Paul being a great example. Have elect gone to war and laid down their life for their families and countrymen (and fellow elect, needless to say)? Yes.


As an example; part of the reason the Revolutionary war took place was because England had mandated the establishment of Anglican churches in the colonies. This was part of what the British soldiers were fighting FOR. Would a regenerate elect one EVER fight for the establishment of false churches? The only scenario I can see is that one became regenerate AFTER enlisting or being drafted and discovered they were fighting for an unjust unScriptural cause.

Compare this with Gideon's acts in warring against the false worshippers. Is it Scriptural to war against those? Did the Centurian stop being a Centurian AFTER he and his house were regenerated at Peter's preaching? We do not know.

Christ said blessed are the peacemakers; a case could be made for America's Armed Forces as fulfilling this function (much as the Roman legions were charged with keeping the peace)? I don't think any can argue that one of the main reasons the Gospel spread so quickly in Christ's day was because of the safe conduct insured by the Roman Army over the many roads they constructed from one end of the empire to the other.

[rlhuckle]

The most BASIC question in this context is whether human government is strictly the realm of the devil (the kingdom of darkness), as in the pacifist theology of the radical reformation, or whether human government is part of the good created order of God that is shared by both elect and reprobate. Most of us here believe the latter view. Only to the pacifist is ALL taking up the sword by believers a sin.

The New Covenant is a promise of God to believers only; therefore its reality is strictly related to the kingdom of light. The question of how government should function in the Old OR New Covenant era is one related to the shared created order of BOTH light and darkness, not to the kingdom of light exclusively.

I think we are mostly agreeing (except for laiddownhislife) that a government has the right to defend itself against barbarism, terrorism, foreign attack, and foreign invasion. Also that a gospel believer may participate in the military branch of such government just as he/she may participate in the police force or any such occupation.

The question about 'brother against brother' wars is a deeper one. It is important to realize that virtually any just war might be engaged against an enemy that potentially has an elect believer in its midst. In the case of the Revolutionary and Civil wars, many with biblical convictions avoided them AT FIRST on the basis that they would be 'brother against brother' wars with significant numbers of elect on both sides--that is completely understandable. But as generally happens in such conflicts, the brutality of the reprobates on the opposing side ultimately dragged almost any initial non-participant into the war. In those times especially, the losing army would do ANYTHING to turn their fortunes around--including the most brutal torture and murder of women, children, non-military men, and soldiers. Once that happens, the perspective of an objector usually changes! All of a sudden, it becomes apparent that the grand majority of the enemy is composed of reprobates.

I agree Bob; at that point, it becomes a personal matter (for the elect one) of defending one's loved ones against marauders and ceases being an ideological conflict per se.

[laiddownhislife]

The most BASIC question in this context is whether human government is strictly the realm of the devil (the kingdom of darkness), as in the pacifist theology of the radical reformation, or whether human government is part of the good created order of God that is shared by both elect and reprobate. Most of us here believe the latter view. Only to the pacifist is ALL taking up the sword by believers a sin.

The New Covenant is a promise of God to believers only; therefore its reality is strictly related to the kingdom of light. The question of how government should function in the Old OR New Covenant era is one related to the shared created order of BOTH light and darkness, not to the kingdom of light exclusively.

I think we are mostly agreeing (except for laiddownhislife) that a government has the right to defend itself against barbarism, terrorism, foreign attack, and foreign invasion. Also that a gospel believer may participate in the military branch of such government just as he/she may participate in the police force or any such occupation.

The question about 'brother against brother' wars is a deeper one. It is important to realize that virtually any just war might be engaged against an enemy that potentially has an elect believer in its midst. In the case of the Revolutionary and Civil wars, many with biblical convictions avoided them AT FIRST on the basis that they would be 'brother against brother' wars with significant numbers of elect on both sides--that is completely understandable. But as generally happens in such conflicts, the brutality of the reprobates on the opposing side ultimately dragged almost any initial non-participant into the war. In those times especially, the losing army would do ANYTHING to turn their fortunes around--including the most brutal torture and murder of women, children, non-military men, and soldiers. Once that happens, the perspective of an objector usually changes! All of a sudden, it becomes apparent that the grand majority of the enemy is composed of reprobates.

The most BASIC question in this context is whether human government is strictly the realm of the devil (the kingdom of darkness), as in the pacifist theology of the radical reformation, or whether human government is part of the good created order of God that is shared by both elect and reprobate. Most of us here believe the latter view. Only to the pacifist is ALL taking up the sword by believers a sin.




To Robert the most BASIC question is as above.
To me the MOST basic questions are asked through out this thread, that I don't remember one of you in here attempting to answer.
Here are some of them.

1]Is it good for a Christian to stand on either side of in any war,( but for the moment this Iraq vs mainly the U.S.A.) AND TRY AND KILL EACH OTHER?14
2]Is killing my enemy and wounding innocent woman and children at the same time God's call on the Christians life ?
3]To me being gracious is to tell anyone committing such violence in the Name of Jesus, needs to repent, surely?
4] Are you choosing to ignore that Jesus changed;
Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.?
5]Are you interested in this love? Referring to Mt 5:44
6]Did He lay down His life in a war? Referring to Jesus.


7]Makes me wonder ,which gospel do most of the Calvinists follow who are in this site?
The New Covenant is to believers and does not only contain promises, but CLEAR commands for believers.

"The question of how government should function…" is avoiding the issue. I never posted a thread about how the government should function, but how the believer should be obedient.

"There must be a clear distinction drawn between the kingdom of Christ as advanced by the gospel and the kingdoms of this world. The kingdom of Christ is NEVER to be advanced by the power of the sword but only by the Holy Spirit; that is what Jesus refers to when He spurns war". 5

In reference to this quoted from post 5, I'd say that killing both innocent woman and children and the 'guilty'[which happens in war] is clearly not in line with Jesus' command of how we are supposed to love. A Christian should ONLY be doing things for the advance of the gospel. Clearly fighting a war in Iraq for example is NOT advancing the gospel!
Mt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

To us all, and those who are trying to avoid the issue, by saying it's different in a personal situation and a war situation, let's pay attention to the below.
Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Can a believer say they are going to war in His Name, when He instructs clearly
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour.?

According to Calvinism:
Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel

[Highlyfavored]

1]Is it good for a Christian to stand on either side of in any war,( but for the moment this Iraq vs mainly the U.S.A.) AND TRY AND KILL EACH OTHER?14

First of all I would like to not use the tern "Christian" but instead use the term "Elect". Is it good for the elect to stand on any side of a war?

Yes!!! David was elect and said:

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Obviously he is elect and a believer in the Christ and he went to war.

2]Is killing my enemy and wounding innocent woman and children at the same time God's call on the Christians life ?

Are you inferring that there are actually innocent people?

3]To me being gracious is to tell anyone committing such violence in the Name of Jesus, needs to repent, surely?

I think it is you who needs to repent for being a legalist and treading on others liberty and God's decrees by thinking you know best.

4] Are you choosing to ignore that Jesus changed;
Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.?

Whatever.

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

5]Are you interested in this love? Referring to Mt 5:44

Context, context, context.

6]Did He lay down His life in a war? Referring to Jesus.

This is a stupid question. Yes he did.

7]Makes me wonder ,which gospel do most of the Calvinists follow who are in this site?

Who said any of us are "Calvinists"?

The New Covenant is to believers and does not only contain promises, but CLEAR commands for believers.

It is clear that you are a legalist, therefore, it's not surprising that you are stuck on the commands idea. BTW is your favorite new testament book James?

"The question of how government should function…" is avoiding the issue. I never posted a thread about how the government should function, but how the believer should be obedient.

No, it's how you think the "believer" should, should, should behave.

Don't should on me.

Tearing the rest of this apart at the seams would be just a waste of time.

We believe in ditching the churchian dogmas/garbage at every turn and embracing God's pristine grace. What you look to as the visible church many here see as the whore. The paradigm put forth from those organizations is both antichrist and anti-elect.

[Toplady]

Hi Gav,

Your questions were answered, but maybe not the way you wanted them answered.

Yes, God is in control...

and...

often we cross-interpret what Jesus said to apply to secular matters when He meant something deeper and eternal (as opposed to mortal and temporal)

I hope this is something you have discovered for yourself to be at peace with Jesus about, not being something you think you need to bludgeon into other people's heads....the elect hear from God Himself as to what we are to do, and the non-elect....they're not going to listen to anything you have to say even when they pretend that they agree with you....hence my signature

[MCoving]

I think it is you who needs to repent for being a legalist and treading on others liberty and God's decrees by thinking you know best.

It is clear that you are a legalist, therefore, it's not surprising that you are stuck on the commands idea. BTW is your favorite new testament book James?

Yeah I've noticed this too.. Laiddownhislife you are stuck on works and not on grace. You think that just because an elect fights in say this Iraqi war that he/she is sinning and should repent. That really upsets me!!! There are elect over there fighting for justice. We cant just go imprison all the bad people that killed lives here. And dont you believe in our prison system too? That there should be justice for murderers.. they should be punished? If someone came and murdered your child wouldn't you want justice on them? That is what initially this war was about... punishing those who planned on killing people here in the US... families that is. Opposing the war completely would upset many families, even elect families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. You're ultimately saying that those elect families must let their enemy go without any due punishment for killing their wife or children for example. That's ridiculus! Its nonsense... God is a just God, and He wants to punish murderers and it is just for elect to take up the sword and fight against those who did wrong. And sometimes we put people in jail and not kill them, but they will kill the enemy if the enemy is shooting back at them.

I think you should really think upon what you believe, and why you believe what you do. Is it because your pastor tells you so? Because that is tradition? Or do you really research out Gods Word and what it says? Do you really put yourself into the elects shoes who lost loves ones in 9/11 or who are maybe in the military themselves right now. Do you think about them??? Because I know they would be outraged to hear you say what you do.. that they should repent!? They are doing nothing wrong by fighting this war or supporting the war. If someone came and murdered your child or husband wouldn't you want justice and have them caught and put in jail for the rest of their lives? According to what you say, one shouldn't even do that it would be a sin and the person should repent. Instead should show that enemy love and do nothing. Could you do that? Please answer.. could you just sit back and show love, no punishment to someone who murdered your family???

I've already given numerous passages in Scripture to support this.. you are just blind and theres no reason to keep discussing this with you. I also wanted to say that I really liked what Bob wrote and agree 100%!!! Was very well said.

[MCoving]

War was an Old covenant command. Jesus changed this command;
Matt5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
.Jn 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Is the Christian loving his brother by fighting a war against him? No.


How did Jesus love us?1 Jn 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Did He lay down His life in a war? No.

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore Love is the fulfilling of the law.

Whatever most of you are saying, this word from Rom 13 is as clear as all the others.

A CHRISTIAN CANNOT INJURE ANOTHER AND SAY THEY ARE DOING SO IN THE NAME OF CHRIST. CHRIST COMMANDS US TO LOVE.[see Rom 13:8].

Anyone who disobeys will be held accountable.

This is the foolishness of the gospel.
War is a COMPLETE lack of faith in God's ability to sort out HIS world. If you think you can do better than God by going to war, then you are a fool.


1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

2Tim2:
3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

2 Cor 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds


Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

You know when you say these things you are literally slapping the faces of the prophets who went to war.. .and Gods Word itself when he says they had faith in what they did. It was NOT wrong of them to make war in the OT.. just like it is not wrong of elect today. That has not changed! There is no verse that says do not punish murderers or do not go to war. You take verses like love your enemies and think God is saying that fighting in wars have stopped that you cant do that anymore, and if you do you sin. But that is a HUGE STRETCH! You cannot get that from that sentence... you show me a verse in the BIble that says going to war is a sin.. then I may believe you.. but I bet you wont find it.

As Highlyfavored said... CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT

[laiddownhislife]

First of all I would like to not use the tern "Christian" but instead use the term "Elect". Is it good for the elect to stand on any side of a war?

Yes!!! David was elect and said: Obviously he is elect and a believer in the Christ and he went to war.

Are you inferring that there are actually innocent people?

I think it is you who needs to repent for being a legalist and treading on others liberty and God's decrees by thinking you know best.

Whatever.

Context, context, context.

This is a stupid question. Yes he did.

Who said any of us are "Calvinists"?

It is clear that you are a legalist, therefore, it's not surprising that you are stuck on the commands idea. BTW is your favorite new testament book James?

No, it's how you think the "believer" should, should, should behave.

Don't should on me.

Tearing the rest of this apart at the seams would be just a waste of time.

We believe in ditching the churchian dogmas/garbage at every turn and embracing God's pristine grace. What you look to as the visible church many here see as the whore. The paradigm put forth from those organizations is both antichrist and anti-elect.

"Is it good for the elect to stand on any side of a war?

Yes!!! David was elect and said: Obviously he is elect and a believer in the Christ and he went to war."

I wonder if you read any of the thread up to now ?
My emphasis is on what Jesus commanded in Matt 5 , and Luke 6.
I'm not addressing David, I'm addressing you, and by the things you've said it seems to me you may be elect, but a disobedient "elect."

Go ahead and answer the questions I posted in post 67 and we can debate more.
No matter how elect you think you are, you thus far have not encouraged obedience to the King, which is discouraging, and if you decide not to answer those questions, I may conclude that you have an unhealthy interest in arguing for the sake of arguing, not sticking to the points.
Thanks

[Toplady]

You know when you say these things you are literally slapping the faces of the prophets who went to war.. .and Gods Word itself when he says they had faith in what they did. It was NOT wrong of them to make war in the OT.. just like it is not wrong of elect today. That has not changed! There is no verse that says do not punish murderers or do not go to war. You take verses like love your enemies and think God is saying that fighting in wars have stopped that you cant do that anymore, and if you do you sin. But that is a HUGE STRETCH! You cannot get that from that sentence... you show me a verse in the BIble that says going to war is a sin.. then I may believe you.. but I bet you wont find it.

As Highlyfavored said... CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT

Right, there's a problem when you try to slap spiritual truths on secular problems that include non-elects and try to broadbrush the entire situation with what doesn't apply to the secular situations....yes God is in control over all, but we as elect of God, are still having to still involve ourselves with secular circumstances, and that does not mean we are being "disobedient" and "unfaithful" elect, although that may be true (God knows that one for sure ) ...fighting in a war doesn't necessarily follow that you are doing it for the reason of carrying hatred in your heart, the two are seperate issues

[Highlyfavored]

I wonder if you read any of the thread up to now ?

Yes I have, how about you?

My emphasis is on what Jesus commanded in Matt 5 , and Luke 6.
I'm not addressing David, I'm addressing you, and by the things you've said it seems to me you may be elect, but a disobedient "elect."

Perhaps you should clean your own house before telling me how dirty mine is.

Go ahead and answer the questions I posted in post 67 and we can debate more.

I could care less about debating you, I think you start from a false premise to begin with. We have no common ground when it comes to you telling me how I should be obedient. You are a legalist and are not who I have to answer to.

As far as answering questions go, there have been a few on this forum that you haven't answered, maybe you should worry more about measuring up yourself then tallying up my points and deciding how disobedient of an elect individual I may or may not be.

No matter how elect you think you are, you thus far have not encouraged obedience to the King, which is discouraging, and if you decide not to answer those questions, I may conclude that you have an unhealthy interest in arguing for the sake of arguing, not sticking to the points.
Thanks

Whatever.

[rlhuckle]

Okay, I'll give it one more try for the sake of the truth.

1]Is it good for a Christian to stand on either side of in any war,( but for the moment this Iraq vs mainly the U.S.A.) AND TRY AND KILL EACH OTHER?14

This is a loaded question (as are most of the following) similar in genre to "Do you still beat your wife?" However, I will attempt to give you answers as one who enjoys freedom in Christ and walks by faith........To answer your question simplistically, YES-- if they are convicted by the Holy Spirit to do so (although I do not believe elect individuals stand on both sides in this particular conflict). Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers and I view all elect soldiers as peacemakers.

2]Is killing my enemy and wounding innocent woman and children at the same time God's call on the Christians life ?[/quote]

This is another question that has a whole lot of implied nonsense in it. God's call on His elect varies. God engineers ALL things. As I said above, I view an elect soldier as a peacemaker and when the enemy shields themselves with innocents, it is all part of God's plan and purpose. The elect soldier soldiers on.


3]To me being gracious is to tell anyone committing such violence in the Name of Jesus, needs to repent, surely?

You have learned the left wing media's style and bias very well--another question loaded with falsely generalized implications.

There is a difference between comitting violence in Jesus (or any God's) name and defending against such violence (whether it be by offensive or defensive maneuvers).

Do you remember Jesus throwing out the moneychangers from the temple with a whip? America has thrown the like out of Iraq and is attempting to restore peace and the freedom that accompanies it-- in my opinion. There are some here who do not concur with that opinion of the war and that is just fine by me.

4] Are you choosing to ignore that Jesus changed; Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.?


Again (and this has been answered), Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. There is a difference between nations and individuals. Jesus did not REVOKE or CHANGE the Law; He fulfilled the Law. One must discern particular applications according to context. Your broadbrushing of these commands reveals a certain immaturity of understanding--which is one of the reasons this forum was founded in the first place. I have learned and continue to learn very much here.

5]Are you interested in this love? Referring to Mt 5:44

Yes, very much so; however, some people have different opinions as to what IS best for those who are blind to the truth and attempt to murder and maim individuals. Sometimes the most loving thing to do is to put a rabid dog out of its misery.

2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. 12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;



6]Did He lay down His life in a war? Referring to Jesus.

Again YES! (I think this is the third time this question has been answered in the affirmative.)

[MCoving]

As far as answering questions go, there have been a few on this forum that you haven't answered, maybe you should worry more about measuring up yourself then tallying up my points and deciding how disobedient of an elect individual I may or may not be.
Whatever.

Very true Laiddownhislife never answered mine or from my perspective taken any effort to look at what you're teaching.. you are quick though to be harsh with Greg saying he is disobedient... but have you looked at yourself? Maybe it is you that is wrong? I always ask that question.. maybe instead of them being wrong its me? So I go in search of Gods Word.. I pray you do the same..

[Robert R. Higby]

I will add this one thing in case anyone missed it: I will never oppose anyone who objects to fighting in a particular war on grounds of conscience & try to get him to repent. I realize that in certain cases some regenerate souls may reason that it is not right to fight in particular conflicts. I'm also very glad that the U.S.A. does not currently have a draft and that the military is all voluntary--I think that speaks very highly for at least one aspect of government policy on war (in spite of a whole host of other awful government sins!).

[laiddownhislife]

All in " " are taken from MCoving;58958]
"Yeah I've noticed this too.. Laiddownhislife you are stuck on works and not on grace. "

So, because I ; " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Amen. this offends you?

You too are another that has not answered those questions. Go on , please, out of honesty and respect, answer them. Post 67

"You think that just because an elect fights in say this Iraqi war that he/she is sinning and should repent. That really upsets me!!!"

I'm sorry this upsets you, but it is what Jesus commands!

"There are elect over there fighting for justice. We cant just go imprison all the bad people that killed lives here. And dont you believe in our prison system too? That there should be justice for murderers.. they should be punished? If someone came and murdered your child wouldn't you want justice on them? That is what initially this war was about... punishing those who planned on killing people here in the US... families that is. Opposing the war completely would upset many families, even elect families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. You're ultimately saying that those elect families must let their enemy go without any due punishment for killing their wife or children for example. That's ridiculus! Its nonsense... God is a just God, and He wants to punish murderers and it is just for elect to take up the sword and fight against those who did wrong. And sometimes we put people in jail and not kill them, but they will kill the enemy if the enemy is shooting back at them.

I think you should really think upon what you believe, and why you believe what you do. Is it because your pastor tells you so? Because that is tradition? Or do you really research out Gods Word and what it says? Do you really put yourself into the elects shoes who lost loves ones in 9/11 or who are maybe in the military themselves right now. Do you think about them???"

I have thought about these words very seriously. I was never told them by any pastor, I read it in the scripture. Before I was born again I was trained in the military to teach people to kill other people, I know what war is about, I have seen war first hand.

Read the scriptures , it not what I have said, it is what Jesus has said. Please read Jesus' word again, and pray, and ask Him if you should be writing such violence in His name.

"Because I know they would be outraged to hear you say what you do.. that they should repent!? They are doing nothing wrong by fighting this war or supporting the war. If someone came and murdered your child or husband wouldn't you want justice and have them caught and put in jail for the rest of their lives? According to what you say, one shouldn't even do that it would be a sin and the person should repent. Instead should show that enemy love and do nothing. Could you do that? Please answer.. could you just sit back and show love, no punishment to someone who murdered your family???

I've already given numerous passages in Scripture to support this.."

Here I answered your scripture quotes in post 39:

Hebrews 11 is about faith. These men were commended for their faith, the faith they had under the law that allowed ; 'an eye for an eye'.

The reason why I ask the questions on page1, is because if we don't agree on the words of Jesus, we might as well give up going back and forth.
Please go ahead and answer these questions.

Jesus is the rock of our salvation. He is also the rock of the church.

If you think that the Old Testament and the New Testament are the same, then continue there in. As I said before , I'm encouraging folk to obedience to the King.

The O.T. was about killing.
Jesus changed those laws, but if you are not willing to read and accept Matt 5, and Luke 6, along with the rest of the N.T. teaching,


"you are just blind and theres no reason to keep discussing this with you. "

You have not been discussing this with me, as my questions you have not answered, but I have answered yours, every time.

I trust that in any given situation, I will obey the King in every thing and in the things I have written in this thread. Now I ask you again, to go and answer those questions,

[laiddownhislife]

Ok, it seems like folk are becoming overwhelmed in here.
Some people are struggling to answer 7 questions like adults, answering questions with
" Context, context, context.' and "whatever" and;" This is a stupid question". for example.
And such answers coming from a Co Administrator, elected to that post I guess, well maybe it's time to have a new election, for it seems to me that such behavior is not at all seasoned with grace.

Let's just start with one question for you pro war folk, and we can go from there .

Are you choosing to ignore that Jesus changed;
Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.?

I will diminish the questions for now to just one, and we can go from there.

If you answer this question, then I will debate further with you.

Please realize that those like myself who are not paying members have to wait a number of hours in order to read your posts. posts 74-77 are unreadable to me right now.

[Highlyfavored]

Ok, it seems like folk are becoming overwhelmed in here.
Some people are struggling to answer 7 questions like adults, answering questions with
" Context, context, context.' and "whatever" and;" This is a stupid question". for example.
And such answers coming from a Co Administrator, elected to that post I guess, well maybe it's time to have a new election, for it seems to me that such behavior is not at all seasoned with grace.

Let's just start with one question for you pro war folk, and we can go from there .

Are you choosing to ignore that Jesus changed;
Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.?

I will diminish the questions for now to just one, and we can go from there.

If you answer this question, then I will debate further with you.

Please realize that those like myself who are not paying members have to wait a number of hours in order to read your posts. posts 74-77 are unreadable to me right now.

Gav, maybe you and I started off on the wrong foot.
That being said I want you to know that I don't have a problem with you having a different opinion then mine, I however don't like it when you insult the way our forum is run and that we need change the way mods are appointed on this board because you don't believe that you have been treated gracefully enough. I don't care about it being me you are referring to, your opinion doesn't make me angry.

It appears to me that you have a very narrow view in regards to how others should view certain scriptures that you seem to have a very shaky understanding of, this is not meant as a put down to your character only that your views are somewhat skewed.

When I said: "Context, context, context.' and "whatever" and, "This is a stupid question" it was not to put you on the defensive but to get you to think. The scripture Matt 5:44 you gave out as some sort of a proof text for loving your enemy, and I said "context, context, context", was to get you ask yourself "what does he mean by context?

On the stupid question point, on more then one occasion in my life I have asked a stupid question and been called on it, and I'm sure there are a few more dumb ones I have yet to ask. Don't be so thin skinned.

When I said "whatever" I could see that you and I where starting from way different places and paradigms and that there was nothing I could have said at that moment that would have got you to see things any differently, so I thought "whatever".

I have given you a 10 point infraction for you violating our posting policies please read through them, if you want to talk more about them after that, Brandan or myself will be happy to do so with you. This has been addressed publicly because the infraction happened publicly, this is not personal.

Please feel free to continue posting here and don't take things too personally, this is an open forum and all kinds of people with different views come here, believers as well as non.