George W. Bush is an Evangelical Christian. His faith is apparent
in many of the policies that he supports. Looking at his stands on
Education and Immigration, the words of Christ spring to mind.”‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit…..

Yikes, mikeyboss 11:33: if you can’t say he’s morally inferior to you, doesn’t that open up a whole new issue? Moral equivalence and whether there are absolute standards or not?

I mean this in the sense that I don’t know that, given the same genetics and environment, I wouldn’t do much worse than anyone else. I do think there are right and wrong actions – no relativism there. But I don’t feel qualified to call another a “bad person” or whatever.

John Piper preached a good sermon on this:

I think I see your point. Thanks.

Well, first you are right, the Romans passage says nothing about forgiveness. Bit it is no hermenuetic trick to assume it…since it is all over the NT. And Paul makes no bones about it in 2 Cor. 2 and Col. 3:13.

Also, I would argue loving an enemy (which is called for in Romans)is complicated enough without forgiveness. If anyone assumes they need not forgive an enemy simply because all is asked for is love, they are reading the Bible with one eye closed.

I also understand that a propitiatory sacrifice must be made. But that is irrelvant to the discussion at hand about whether to forgive an enemy and what that looks like. The propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is the surpreme exhibition of forgiveness and justice being carried out…as well as love being manifest.

My guess is we are arguing the same point to a degree. I simply assume from Paul and Jesus’ exhortations to forgive and love your neighbor/enemy, one cannot be done without the other. A proof text is not necessary for such an assumption.

I wanted to make the point that the Christian life is a complicated one. It is not simply following a set moral codes. It is trustung in the sufficiency of Christ as he is given to us by God on the cross and risen triumphant. If we are satisfied in him alone and believe “to live is Christ and to die is gain” we will feel the pull of justice and the gravity of loving our enemy and forgiving so that God is glorified-shown to be the most valuable One in the Universe.

matt redmond
pastor to students
westminster pca
greenwood, ms
discerningthetimes.blogspot.com

Is it so unreasonable to think a man might forgive another who has done violence to him or his family and still want the perpatrator stopped so he is not able to harms others. The believer is to do nothing out of vengeance.

Matt,

I still don’t understand how Ro 12:14-13:5 is a call to forgive. Paul was clearly echoing our Lord here:

Matt 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

This still isn’t a call to forgive, just a call to “love your neighbor as yourself.” God just doesn’t unconditionally pardon the guilty without the propitiation for sins. There must be an antonement made first (Jesus).

My guess is you have moved away from this subject and others might have this point already. But the Bible is clear on how to treat enemies and then to “be subject to the governing authorities” beacuse they “have been instituted by God” and “do not bear the sword in vain.”

Historically Christians have understood there is a difference between seeking revenge for yourself and and a state establishing justice.

Is it so unreasonable to think a man might forgive another who has done violence to him or his family and still want the perpatrator stopped so he is not able to harms others. The believer is to do nothing out of vengeance.

From Romans 12:14 – 13:5
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.[h] Never be conceited. 17Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it[i] to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

1Let 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. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For 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, 4for 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. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

matt redmond
pastor to students
westminster pca
greenwood, ms
discerningthetimes.blogspot.com

[also, typo in the title of the article "Roots of THE Just War Doctrine]

Guess I’ll go get a cup of coffee now and wake up a little more. :)

In the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us “blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9). Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount he tells us “if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). From such verses some have concluded that Christianity is a pacifist religion and that violence is never permitted.

But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, “let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” (Luke 22:36). How are these passages to be reconciled?

In broad terms, Christians must not love violence. They must promote peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of arms. But they must not be afraid to do so when it is called for. Evil must not be allowed to remain unchecked.

Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that Scripture — all of Scripture — is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.

The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is “a time to kill” (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for. Thus the psalmist exclaims, “how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be achieved without force, force must be used.

In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist’s acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or “Peace of Rome,” could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul’s observation that the state “does not bear the sword in vain” but is “God’s servant for your good” (Rom. 13:4).

As long as Christianity remained a minority religion in the Roman Empire, it was not forced to put these insights together into a formal theory of when warfare could be used. But as Christianity grew predominant, more attention had to be devoted to this subject. By the time of Augustine (A.D. 354-430) the need for a theory of when warfare was just was keen, and Augustine provided one, crystallizing biblical principles into what is now known as just war doctrine. In the intervening centuries the theory has been refined, but its framework remains as he gave it.

JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* there must be serious prospects of success;
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

To answer: I was not very eloquent yesterday, and I grossly misstated what I was intending to imply. You correctly stated that it is a joy to help non-Christians understand the ways of God. I too welcome the dialogue that has occurred on this post.

What I should have said instead of what I did say is – I get frustrated by aethiests and the like who attempt to use phrases like “turn the other cheek” to imply that all Christians are or should be pacifists. The good result though – a dialogue is opened. Well, one is opened if the participants are open-minded. The non-believers have to be seeking knowledge, not just volleying an attack, and the Christians have to be receptive and teach with love, rather than taking offense and firing back.
I can gladly say that, at least what I have read so far, dialogue has occurred here and that is a wonderful thing.
ALL: forgive my seemingly “dissing” statement toward non-believers in my original post. I meant no ill-will, I was simply not waxing eloquent yesterday.
Now, if you want to really get me fired up, let’s talk about the drive-by-media pundits who spout off about Christianity’s hipocracy. We all know that the lamestream media is a one way conversation, no dialogue is sought, so it’s nothing more than a vicious attack on me and my Savior.
Thanks for the great dialogue all, keep it up!
Michael

In the case of Iraq, following MONTHS of demands that he remove his forces from Kuwait; we fought one “Mother of all battles” to kick Hussein’s ass out of Kuwait to teach him a lesson followed by massive restraint. If 12 years of UN resolutions after the coalition literally handed him his ass is not restraint, I don’t know what the meaning of “turn the other cheek” is.

This brings to mind another non-Biblical proverb from another famous philosopher:

“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

(video)

Okay, but if you know it’s a sin not to, then why don’t you start doing it? We’re seeing a lot of this “I know I should pray for Osama, but…” stuff here.

The truth is, Allah, as Christians (or more accurately, as people) we each have our individual weaknesses. For some, forgiveness, even of Bin Ladin, is an easy thing. And for some, helping the poor and sacrificing of yourself is easier.

Yeah, anyone who refuses to forgive Bin Ladin is sinning. It’s spitting in the face of Christ who even forgave his killers while on the cross.

If we don’t at least try, then we’re committing an even bigger sin and harming ourselves in the process, but I think your picture of Christians skimming through the Bible on 9-11 is inaccurate. If anything, when Christians are quick to anger, it’s because we’ve neglected to turn to our Bibles, or rather because we’re turning our backs on our faith.

The same is true when we engage in any other sinful behavior.

But as to the Golden Rule. I think that’s where the hawkish Christian makes the most sense. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s the only phrase of its nature said in the positive. Many others state “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you,” or some variation but always stated in the negative, or what not to do.

It’s an important distinction. It calls us to action. I mean if we see injustice in the world, it calls us to do something against the tyrants or murderers and not allow their deeds to continue.

If I were being assaulted, I would want someone to stop the assault, even if it meant violence.

If a man starts gassing Jews, it calls us to do something. And asking nicely clearly wouldn’t have been enough.

If the Goldren Rule had said “Do not do unto…”, then clearly it would indicate no action whenever possible, but as it is, stated in the positive, Christians are not allowed to just sit on the sidelines and stay out of affairs of the world.

But as has already been said, whenever possible, Christians are to try and avoid conflict. Like that woman who used The Purpose Driven Life and aparently crack or something to convince that man to turn himself in.

We shouldn’t seek out a fight, but we are also called to not run from them either.

Hussein’s continued support for terrorists during this period of UN resolutions was rather blatant. Funding to Palestinian homicide bombers’ families to kill Israelies (what was it? $35,000 to each family?), the “mock-up” of an airliner that turned out to be a “how to hi-jack” training ground, the terrorist camps in Northern Iraq that our special forces had to neutralize with the help of the Kurds (since the Turks proved themselves cowards).

Just wanted to add that everyone forgets about those handful (out of millions) of Iraq documents that were released showing Saddam’s contacts with AQ, discussions of working together, etc. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, I can dig up the links for you, just let me know. I can only imagine what the rest of the documents and thousands of hours of tapes show (if we ever can get them released)

Jesus did counsel turning the other cheek and going the extra mile. Going the extra mile was a specific reference to a law which said a Roman soldier could consript any passer-by and make them carry his pack up to a mile. Jesus said go the extra mile. Go farther than what law requires, even for enemies.

On the other hand, the Bible also says that civil authrorities often act on God’s behalf and that they “do not bear the sword in vain.” So God’s justice sometimes takes a very temporal form through the acts of rulers and of laws. Therefore the New Testament advice to individuals is to live simply, keep your head down, avoid getting into legal trouble and love everybody. Against these things there is no law.

It gets tricky today because in America we have a vote and ultimately we are the government. We can actually affect policy. So the line between individual (avoid trouble/love your enemies) and state (bear the sword) gets fuzzy somewhere around the ballot box.

Honestly, I’d rejoice to see OBL dead. That would be some small measure of justice. But I think you’re correct that there is a conflict there. We must love our enemies, even when it’s Nero (then) or OBL (now). Doesn’t mean I’d step in front of a daisy cutter if the Air Force has one with his name on it. But it’s not my job to kill him. Not me personally. That belongs to the state.

Touchy area here, but this applies to abortion. I’m against it. Worked at a CPC. Marched 4 times in DC, many times elsewhere. I give money, etc. I lobby the government to change the law, but it’s not my job to start throwing bricks at abortion clinics or worse. As a citizen I press my case through every legal means. As a Christian, I don’t take law into my own hands AND I have to try to love my neighbors even if they’re gung ho pro-choicers.

Same problem with illegal immigration. I’m against it as a matter of policy. I wish the feds would build a fence and keep the smugglers out (human and drugs). At the same time, there are a lot of Mexicans in my town. My wife tutors them once a week. My church is working on other programs to help this very poor community. I’m all for that. Even hope to contribute some time.

So I can be against something as a political issue, but shift gears when it comes to what I do here and now with real people living in my town. On that level it’s “love your neighbor” and “go the extra mile.” Real people trump political ideals.

There is ultimately a separation between church and state. Unlike the situation in 1st century Palestine, in this country today, that line runs right through every Christian.

Allah,

In regards to your questions on how folks of the Christian faith deal with war, I present the following:

How do American police deal with hostage situations or stand-off situations with no hostages? They ALWAYS try to persuade the perpetrators to surrender before taking action to resolve the situation which sometimes results in the death of the perpetrator. This is the epitome of the 6th commandment, “Thou shall not murder.”

Too many people (mostly leftists trying to twist the bible against believers of the faith who support defending America) try to hype that commandment as, “Thou shall not kill…ever;” and that is a very wrong interpretation. The 6th commandment does not instruct against justified killing.

I once heard a preacher tangling with the same question you are asking. His response was simple. “Killing to stop a crime is NOT wrong.”

Murder is a crime against God and against humanity. Killing to stop crimes against God and humanity is to be a last resort for sure; but it is sometimes necessary.

In the case of the Amish school murders, we already have a solution. He’s dead and no longer a threat to God’s word or humanity.

In the case of the 9/11 hijackers, the case is also moot. Forgiving them is up to each individual
Christian. I’m still struggling mightily with it, personally; but researching into the background of how they were taught hate, intolerance and death since they were kids brings me closer to it every day.

In the case of the Taliban/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we tried to passively gain control of the men who funded and/or whipped up support for 9/11. The Taliban repeatedly refused, so we embarked upon the last resort available to us…military action.

In the case of Iraq, following MONTHS of demands that he remove his forces from Kuwait; we fought one “Mother of all battles” to kick Hussein’s ass out of Kuwait to teach him a lesson followed by massive restraint. If 12 years of UN resolutions after the coalition literally handed him his ass is not restraint, I don’t know what the meaning of “turn the other cheek” is.

Hussein’s continued support for terrorists during this period of UN resolutions was rather blatant. Funding to Palestinian homicide bombers’ families to kill Israelies (what was it? $35,000 to each family?), the “mock-up” of an airliner that turned out to be a “how to hi-jack” training ground, the terrorist camps in Northern Iraq that our special forces had to neutralize with the help of the Kurds (since the Turks proved themselves cowards).

“Turn the other cheek?” We did. For 12 years he flipped us off and slapped us in the face more times than I can count by continually sponsoring and/or promoting murder. We finally got tired of it. Christianity is not a suicide pact. We are free to fight when we are pushed too far. 9/11 pushed us too far. We are now free to actively (instead of passively) engage any nation who state-sponors terrorism. We have no more cheeks to turn.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

I just want to go back to the article posted [...]
God Bless and receive his children.

Well said Texas Gal. Well said indeed.

Anyway, I’ve said all I think I can say about this. One thing though… I said this about AP

But you haven’t really said anything of what you think, except to point out logical errors in some of the arguments made here.

I was wrong about that. In some of his later comments, AP stated some of his own views and clairified his position. I missed those when I wrote that comment. Of course, in a 150+ post thread, that’s easy to do.

Good night all.

God Bless and receive his children.

How a child can ask an assassin to shoot her first is beyond my understanding or the killer’s forgiveness.

I pray God bring strength to the families and this community.

This tragedy is truly beyond any understanding.

There have been many good responses, but I think wardrobedoor probably summed it up the best, to my understanding.

Jesus was refering to personal relationships. If some one wrongs you, don’t exact retribution in kind. It also says in the Lord’s Prayer to ‘forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.’ Same principle, but with more ‘meat’ to it. The reason we should forgive those who harm us is because God has forgiven us for our sins against Him. Jesus forgave his murderers and prayed for them as he was on the cross. Is it easy to do? No, and I can’t think of any fellow Christians who don’t struggle with this.

However, it doesn’t mean that I have to try and forgive the killer of the Amish girls because it didn’t involve me. If he’d killed my children, it would be a different matter, and I’d try to be forgiving, though it wouldn’t be easy.

As far as our enemies in the war on terror: I don’t think the same principle applies, unless you happen to be a victim of a terrorist attack or related to a victim. However, they would kill me because of what I believe, therefore they are my enemy. When I pray, I pray that God will protect our soldiers and give them his strength and courage, and I pray for our enemies that God will show his truth to them. I truly feel that they are practicing a false religion, and that only by knowing Christ will they be saved, so I pray that they’ll become believers. The rest is in God’s hands.

I probably didn’t clear the mud much, but I hope it helps.

Justice in this context doesn’t equal punishment or vengeance. Turning the other cheek could mean, don’t exact revenge. It doesn’t seem to have meant (according to previous comments), don’t stop criminals from doing damage.

(Is Christianity a suicide pact?)

The Amish can concentrate on forgiving this guy because it’s over. They don’t have to fight him.

Bin Laden can’t be forgiven yet because he’s still trying to kill us.

Or rather, he probably can be forgiven, and probably should be (by Christians), but he still has to be stopped, and there’s nothing wrong with working on that, and rejoicing when it happens. Being happy he’s been stopped has nothing to do with forgiving him or not forgiving him.

Perhaps the Amish didn’t need wiggle room because by the time they knew what was happening, it was over. Perhaps they forgave seemingly-quickly because they think about their religion more than most people — so they’re sort of in practice. And as has been pointed out, they can live that way because they’re sheltered by rougher men. Not necessarily less-Christian men, but certainly men whose ‘defense’ reactions are quicker than their ‘forgiveness’ ones.

What if the killer had escaped, and was still at large? I suspect a devout Christian could hunt him down ruthlessly, all the while bearing him no grudge. Like you’d hunt a vicious animal. You don’t blame it, or you forgive it, but you do stop it, and you’re pleased when it’s gone. No contradiction involved. You can want someone dead without hating him. You can be sad that he required killing, without being sad that you ran him through.

On the other hand, maybe that’s a cop-out. Maybe his essential humanness has to figure in, in order for the forgiveness to count. In which case you’d have to deal with the question of how and why evil can exist in a creature created by the same guy who created all the Christians (or was he? Do people still believe in the devil, and what does *that* mean?), and how a good Christian is supposed to react to it, and in that case I’ll just stop here. :O

Anyway, yeah, if you want logic and consistency, religion is maybe not the place to look.

Yikes, mikeyboss 11:33: if you can’t say he’s morally inferior to you, doesn’t that open up a whole new issue? Moral equivalence and whether there are absolute standards or not?

I enjoyed the comments.