Hello, this is my first time here. I am curious about the Church of Christ. I agree with their position on baptism and on eternal security. I don't agree with their stance on musical instruments, but it is certainly not an issue for me. Frankly, I hate the Church organ anyway...it drowns out the singing. However, I do have a question about the Church of Christ.

I was in communication recently with a minister of a Church of Christ and he claimed that the Church of Christ is the one true Church. This arguement was not on the basis of error of the other denominations. It was simply on the basis that there can only be one true Church since the Bible uses the singular for the word Church and the body of Christ. Therefore, since there is only one Church, all other groups must be from man and not from God. God is only going to save his one true Church. He even went further by saying that this one true Church must have a name that honors Christ (something like "Church of Christ" rather than Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc).

I think there is an error in this man's reasoning. From God's perspective, there is one Gospel, one Spirit, one Church body, one salvation, etc. But when the Bible talks about God's Church in singular tense (hence "one Church"), we cannot substitute the word "denomination" for the word "Church". There is one Church (the body of believers, wherever they are), and this has nothing to do with denomination.

If this minister had said that the doctrine of a certain denomination was wrong, on a point that was a salvation issue, and therefore people who followed that teaching would be lost, then I would understand his logic. But this is not what he said. His arguements had nothing to do with any error on the part of another denomination. By his logic, if I started a new denomination today and called it "The Church of the one and only True God," and I followed the exact same doctrine as the Church of Christ, everyone in my new denomination would go to hell because there can only be one true denomination (which is the Church of Christ according to him) and also because the name I chose does not specifically glorify Christ.

I would like to know if the arguement above is representative of all Churches of Christ, or if it is just the personal belief of this one minister. Does someone know?

Thank you so much!

Welcome to the forum!

I believe brother Jason is preparing a response for you, but I wanted to make a few comments too.

The minister is correct that the church belonging to Christ (also known as the church of Christ) is the one true church and there is in fact, according to the Bible, only one church, which consist of all the saved. The one true church is not considered the "one true denomination". If a congregation has erred and divided from the truth, then it becomes a denomination.

The church is the body of Christ which has many members (members being the saved)...

1 Corinthians 12:12-14 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many.

Ephesians 1:21-23 He is far above every ruler, authority, power, dominion, and every name that can be named, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. God has put everything under His feet and has made Him the head of everything for the good of the church, which is His body, the fullness of the One who fills everything in every way.

Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the church:

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call -- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.


Very true... as we've just read the passages to prove the same. This also proves that the church of Christ is not a denomination and has nothing to do with division. However, there are most certainly churches that are labeled "Church of Christ" that have divided from the truth and would be considered denominations today.

Let's not forget too that Paul scolded those who were trying to divide the church...

1 Corinthians 1:11-13 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:3-5 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

God, through Paul, instructs us to avoid those who cause divisions...

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

He also encourages us to all be of the same mind and speak the same things...

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.


Now consider this... some Baptist denominations teach salvation by faith alone, some by the sinner's prayer... both are false teachings according to the Bible. Baptist teach once saved always saved, immersion for baptism, although they teach baptism does not save us (contrary to 1 Peter 3:21 and many other passages). Yet the Methodist teach salvation can be lost, but baptism by sprinkling is accepted. Presbyterian, Calvinist and Lutherans believe we are predestined and elected as well as and like many others, they perform infant baptism. The Pentecostal believe we must speak in tongues to be saved. The Catholic pray to Mary and you can confess your sins to a man. Despite the Biblical fact that the one true church was started on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), they believe their Catholic Church, which was formed in 606A.D., is the one true church.

Now I ask you... are these not clearly divided? Are they not clearly denominations? Are they even close to speaking the same things and being of like mind?

This is the error of divisions (also known as denominations).

If it is merely a congregation of saved members who worship in spirit and truth, holding to the truth of the Bible, with a proper Biblical name, then they would not be a denomination.

Keep in mind too that a congregation would not simply have to teach error concerning only issues on how to be saved to be considered in error. Anything not taught in accordance with the truth of the Bible is false teaching and should be avoided, whether it is directly related to the process by which we are saved or not. How we continue in our faith after we are baptized into Christ matters greatly with our remaining saved. We must remain faithful...

Revelation 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

canadasgenius, I appreciate your curiosity and your honesty. The Bible teaches plainly that we are to seek authority from God in everything we do, including the names we use (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1, 2; 4:6; Colossians 3:17; 1 Peter 4:11, 16, etc.). "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus..." (Colossians 3:17). We are to speak as God has spoken in His Word: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11).

Without question, the Bible teaches that there is only one church, and it belongs to Christ: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). He is the Savior of that one body (Ephesians 5:23), and all the saved have been added to that one church (Acts 2:41, 47). The "church of Christ" is a Scriptural term for that one church, and there are other Scriptural names for that one church, such as:

- The "body of Christ," (Christ is the Head and owner of His body, Ephesians 1:22, 23).
- "The "church of the Lord," Acts 20:28 ASV (Christ is Lord of lords, 1 Timothy 6:15).
- The "church of God," 1 Corinthians 1:2 (Christ is God, John 1:1).
- The "church of the living God," 1 Timothy 3:15 (Christ is LIVING after death, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4).
- The "church of the firstborn," Hebrews 12:23 (Christ is the firstborn from the dead, Colossians 1:18).
- "The Lamb's wife," Revelation 21:9 (Christ is the Lamb, John 1:29).
- The "house of God," 1 Timothy 3:15 (Christ is God, John 1:1, and it is Christ's house).
- Christ's "own house" Hebrews 3:6 (The house of Christ)
- The "kingdom of His dear Son," Colossians 1:13, 18 (Christ's kingdom).

Paul said that the whole family of God is named after Him: "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Ephesians 3:14, 15).

Why is the whole family in Heaven and Earth named after God? To glorify Him! When we called ourselves Christians, we give glory to God: "but if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name" (1 Peter 4:16 ASV). If a man uses the name "Lutheran," who is getting the glory? Martin Luther is. If a man uses the name "Wesleyan," who is getting the glory? John Wesley. A Calvinist is glorifying John Calvin with his name. I think you see the point. Peter also said this in the same chapter: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (1 Peter 4:11). We speak as God speaks in the Bible that God in all things may be glorified through CHRIST (I am a CHRISTIAN; a member of the church of CHRIST). Do you see the pattern here? =) That is one reason we should use Scriptural names -- to glorify God.

Here are a few reasons why we should use Scriptural names:
1) To obey God (Colossians 3:17; 1 Peter 4:11, 16)
2) To follow the authorized Scriptural examples (Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16, Romans 16:16, etc.)
3) To glorify God (1 Peter 4:11, 16)
4) To avoid causing division (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:3-5). Man-made names cause division.
5) Names are important to God (He changed Abram's name to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, etc.). To say that names are insignificant and trivial is to accuse God of doing trivial things!
6) There are Old Testament prophecies about God's children being called by a new name that would come from God (Isaiah 62:1, 2 for example). That was fulfilled in Acts 11:26! Why would we want to use names other than the God-given names for ourselves, whether as individuals or as a group?

One might wonder if members of the church of Christ ever use any other name than the "church of Christ"? When speaking of the Lord's church I often call it different names without even thinking about it, such as "Christ's church," or "the church found in the Bible," "the one church," etc. But no matter what Scriptural way I describe it, I am still referring to that one church, and not a man-made denomination.

By the way, I am not a member of a denomination. I am simply a Christian. If one merely believes and obeys the Bible, he will be nothing more than a Christian. Agrippa said to Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" (Acts 26:28). Notice that Paul only persuaded people to be Christians -- nothing more, and nothing less. I only want people to be Christians -- nothing more, and nothing less. If a person merely had a Bible, with no external knowledge of man-made religions, he could obey the Bible, and he would be a Christian. You would never hear this man say, "I am a Methodist." It is impossible to get a Methodist from the Bible, because there are no Methodists mentioned in the Bible! Again, if one merely obeys the Bible, he will be nothing more than a Christian, a member of Christ's church. That is what I am. That is what God wants me to be, and that is what God wants you to be.

In your post you mentioned starting a new denomination. I realize that you were just using a hypothetical example, but the whole concept of God accepting denominationalism (religious divisions) is erroneous and foreign to the Bible. The word denomination means division, and God hates division! (John 17:11, 21-23; Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:3, etc.). To start a denomination is to create yet another division among those who want to follow Christ. Instead of us trying to come up with new denominations, we should be doing just the opposite! We should be removing divisions and striving for unity! The only way to do this is to go back to the Bible. Instead of coming up with new names, why can't we be satisfied with God-given names? Every new name not found in the Scriptures creates yet another barrier that must be overcome for unity.

When Jesus was praying to His Father (as recorded in John 17), His most frequent request was for His followers to all be ONE (John 17:11, 21-23). As a matter of fact, He repeated this request four times in one prayer! So how can we be one? He gave us the answer in that same prayer when He said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (John 17:17). "Sanctify" means to "set apart," and God's people are set apart from others by the Word of God! We follow the Word of God, and nothing else! We can all be one if we will all obey the Word of God, live by the Word of God, and drop names and teachings that are not found therein.

Now... What if a congregation has a sign with a Scriptural name other than "church of Christ"? Are they right with God? I would first ask if they are doing "the will of the Father" in other areas? (Matthew 7:21). Did they obey the one true Gospel plan of salvation, or some perversion of it? (Galatians 1:6-9). Have they continued in sound doctrine, or have they erred from the truth? (Romans 16:17; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 2:18). Are they worshiping God according to the New Testament Scriptures, in spirit and in truth? (John 4:23, 24; Colossians 3:16, 17). Do they live by the Scriptures (Matthew 4:4), and teach the true Gospel Plan of Salvation? (Galatians 1:6-9).

If they are truly following the Scriptures, then they are right with God, even if they use some other Scriptural name than "the church of Christ." How could I bring an accusation against them if there are no Scriptures that contradict what they do or teach? The church of Christ is not a denomination -- it is the one church consisting of all who are saved. Therefore, these people would be members of the one church of Christ, even if they called it some other Scriptural name.

You mentioned mechanical instruments in your post. You may already be aware of this, but we have discussed this subject on this forum; and if you read the posts and would like to discuss it further from a Biblical standpoint I would be glad to.

I hope this helped, and I appreciate your interest in God's Word!
Jason Hilburn

Thank you both for your kind replies. Sorry for my delay in answering, I was unexpectedly out of town for a while.
I am a still a little baffled about the Church of Christ. I visited one recently. They share the traditional teachings of the Churches of Christ: no eternal security, no "easy salvation" or "quick prayerism" but rather repentence, the necessity of baptism, no musical instruments. They had lovely brochures on some of these subjects. However, the Minister (this was a full-time, payed position), had no understanding of any other matter in the Bible whatsoever. He read a passage and then proceeded to twist every sentence out of context to suit his own agenda for his sermon. It was all nice-sounding rubbish. Also, everything he said was more along the lines of psychology than about spiritual matters. It was almost like a secular psychologist had opened the Bible, read a chaptre, and then, without having any understanding of what he read, tried to use it in some brainwashing agenda he had.
In the Church bulletin, there were little messages from various other Churches of Christ, mostly in Texas, Louisianna, Arkansas and Tennessee. Some of these were also a little scary, along the same lines as the minister's services.
I fear that many Churches of Christ know the few things that distinguish them from other "Christians," but are really completely spiritually dead. I don't want to waste my time travelling to a far-away Church that is going to be the same as the one I visited. I live in Ontario, in Canada. The Church I visited is the only one in my town. Is anyone PERSONALLY aware of a good Church anywhere in the province of Ontario? Or even in Quebec or in upstate New York?

Another perplexing issue for me, regarding the Church Of Christ, is the lack of pacifism. As I understand it, Campbell and Stone and the early "Church of Christ" congregations were strictly pacifist. However, I have read that pacifism is becoming rare in Churches of Christ. What happened? Any views on this? Are there any pacifists on this forum? On Wikipedia it says: "Some groups once containing a relatively large nonviolence faction are now almost devoid of one, such as the Church of Christ."

I am from an independent Baptist background (not that I agree with their doctrine). Several times, I've heard a preacher give his testimony and say something like this: "I was saved when I was 4 years old. Then I dedicated my life to the Lord when I was 18. I started Bible School, but then the Lord then led me to serve my country in the military for several years. Finally, the Lord led me to finish Bible School." This kind of testimony literally gave me nausea.

I find it very disturbing if it is true that most Churches of Christ no longer believe in pacifism. God alone knows, we can only guess, but I find it hard to believe that anybody who serves in the army, or encourages/allows others to do so, knows the Lord.

If, in fact, Churches of Christ are following only the teachings of the Bible (as they all claim), how did they go from being pacifist to being almost entirely the opposite.

I'm personally not aware of any churches of Christ in your area. If there is not one that is preaching and teaching the truth, you should start your own congregation. I can assure you, the Baptist, Methodist, and any of the donominational congregations will not be preaching and teaching the truth.

I think you may be still confused as to exactly what the church of Christ is. It is impossible for the "church of Christ" to be "spiritually dead". There is one thing for sure, they are "few", which may cause some people to think they are spiritually dead. There are no other "Christians" than those that are a member of the church of Christ. This is something that I believe you'll have to fully understand before you can proceed in truth. I'm not sure how much more it can be explained than above, but it may be helpful if you would re-read the posts above.

As far as pacifism... I've not given it much thought, but I'm not sure where the Bible states someone in the military cannot be a Christian. I know God has led several armies to war.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Canadasgenius, I am sad to say that some who wear the name "church of Christ" do not uphold the teachings of the Scriptures as they should. Such sounds like the case with the congregation you visited. I am sure you realize that in any group there will be "bad apples," but that certainly does not mean the whole group is bad.

If one bad apple makes the whole group faulty, then that would mean that the corruption of Judas proves that Jesus and all His followers were corrupt! Did Judas' conduct automatically make Jesus and His followers evil, or wrong in some way? Of course not! Jesus warned us that some will look like "good guys," when actually they are the enemy: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matthew 7:15). Paul said the same thing: "…Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (2 Corinthians 11:14, 15).

I will do everything within my power to help you find a sound congregation in your area. I have actually already sent out emails to some people I know.

Now in regards to pacifism, it should first be stated that we do not follow the teachings of anybody named Campbell or Stone. We follow the teachings of God, as recorded in the Holy Scriptures. Men like Campbell and Stone were making a plea for all to return to the Scriptures as our only authority and creed, and on this point we should all agree. However, if those men were wrong about any subject in the Scriptures, we should drop their teaching and cling to the teaching of the Scriptures. Agreed? With that being said, I do not believe that the Scriptures teach pacifism.

You said, "the early "Church of Christ" congregations were strictly pacifist."

As far as the "early church of Christ" congregations, and what they believed, those congregations go back to the time of the first century A.D.: "the churches of Christ salute you" (Romans 16:16); and in that same book of Romans we learn what the early churches of Christ believed in regards to pacifism. Romans 13 is an interesting chapter which begins by discussing civil government and its God-given authority to use the sword (Romans 13:1-7).

According to these words from the Holy Spirit, the person who punishes evil doers with the sword is called the minister of God: "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Romans 13:4).

All men are amenable to the same Law of Christ, whether they have obeyed His Law or not. If something is wrong for a Christian, it is wrong for a non-Christian. If something is lawful for a Christian, it is lawful for a non-Christian. If it is acceptable for a non-Christian to kill for his government, then it is acceptable for a Christian to kill for his government. If it is wrong for a Christian to kill for his government, then it is wrong for a non-Christian to kill for his government, because we are all under the same law from God – the law found in the New Testament Scriptures.

Capital punishment goes all the way back to Genesis 9: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Genesis 9:6). Somebody had to be the one to cause blood to be shed for justice's sake.

When Jesus was about to be betrayed, he told His disciples to get swords: "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. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough" (Luke 22:36-38).

He told them to do this for self-defense, not to offensively attack to secure His freedom. Christians, as a general rule, are not physical, earthly fighters: "Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:11-12).

Christians do not fight a physical war in the name of Christ for some earthly kingdom. We fight a spiritual battle for the spiritual kingdom: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36); however, the Bible does teach that "the sword" may be used under certain circumstances, as mentioned above.

Some bring up "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13), and say that it is never acceptable to kill. This obviously is not strictly universally applicable. For example, what about the God-given commands to kill animals after Exodus 20:13 was given? What about the killing of the enemies of Israel after this command was given? Was it wrong for God to command that certain pagan peoples be wiped out, such as the Amalekites? Was God contradicting His own commandment when He said, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***" (1 Samuel 15:3). I thought God said "Thou shalt not kill," so why did He command this? Because "Thou shalt not kill" is more accurately translated as "thou shalt not murder" (see NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc.).

You said, "I find it hard to believe that anybody who serves in the army, or encourages/allows others to do so, knows the Lord." I agree that being in the military must be extremely difficult for a faithful Christian, yet Cornelius was in the military, and we do not read of him having to leave that career behind after becoming a Christian. As a matter of fact, notice how Cornelius was described while he was still serving in the military: "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always" (Acts 10:1, 2); "And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee" (Acts 10:22).

Notice what Jesus said to another soldier of great faith: "And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour" (Matthew 8:13). Notice that Jesus did not say, "One thing you lack – leave the military if you want to inherit eternal life…"

Most of the time when centurions are mentioned in the Scriptures, it is in a favorable manner, such as the centurion at the crucifixion who said, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matthew 27:54).

The Philippian jailor carried a sword, and we do not read of him having to leave his job or get rid of his sword: "And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled" (Acts 16:27).

In the congregation with whom I worship we have a deacon who is serving in the military overseas right now. He actually worships every Lord's day by himself according to the Scriptures! He does this by Himself because there are no others who will do it with Him. I am really proud of his dedication and example. Could it be that this person in the military could be a "devout" and "just man" who "fears God," like Cornelius was?

I do not believe that the Scriptures teach pacifism, and even though some men wearing Scriptural names 200 years ago may have believed this, I am sure you understand that what they believed is totally irrelevant to our salvation today. Our only authority is what God has said in the Scriptures. While I have respect for their plea to return to the Scriptures, I do not look back to what those men believed as a standard of any kind.

If you have more comments on this, I would love to hear them. I am enjoying our discussion.

Jason Hilburn

I wasn't too clear, sorry. Obviously, Christ's Church cannot be dead. If Christ's Church were spiritually dead, Christ would have to be dead too. I was speaking of Churches which use the name "Church of Christ," share the doctrines that Churches named "Church of Christ" have traditionally held to (ie: refuting eternal security, the importance of baptism in salvation, a Gospel which includes repentence, no musical instruments, etc). Some of these Churches, which use the name "Church of Christ" do seem very spiritually dead. I am not saying that Christ's Church is dead, just that some Churches which use His name are dead. I guess my problem is finding one which isn't.

Regarding pacifism, there isn't a verse in the Bible that says not to join the military. But there are verses which tell us not to kill. Regardless of what army one is in, and in what position, an army is a "killing machine." Even an army that CLAIMS to be a "peacekeeper" kills people and is a "killing machine." The Bible is clear that the Christian is not of this world, and is not to involve himself in the affairs of this world.

Some might argue that the Bible says to work on the well-being of your community and to obey the government. This is fine. However, obeying can only go so far. Our first obligation is to obey God. If the government told you that you must disown God, you would not do it (I trust), because you would obey God's order not to disown Him. Similarly, if the government tells you to kill someone, you must first obey God's command not to murder. Many Christians have been killed for refusing to join an army. Yet, "Christians" from Churches of Christ volunteer nowadays to do so.

One might argue that just as God led Isreal's army in the Old Testament, He is leading us to go to war now. It is true that God is in control of everything; no army can do anything without God allowing it to happen. It is also true that in the Old Testament, God often used Isreal to bring punishment on other nations. But our instructions in the New Testament are clear. We are to live at peace with everybody, as far as it depends on us, and to turn the other cheek. We are not to repay evil with evil, or to even resist an evil person. This is a very tough doctrine, and one which wicked men often distort. We are from above, not of this world. God will not contradict himself by leading a Christian to join the army.

One might argue that he joined the army, but not to kill anyone. In this case, he is guilty of lying, and of defrauding the government. If he joins the army, there might come a situation where he is involved in or directly or indirectly responsible for the death of someone. If he doesn't fullfill his responsibilty to the army, he has defrauded the army. If he does do it, he is a murderer. Similarly, a Christian cannot be a policeman for this same reason. He may not intend to hurt anyone ever. But if his partener is wounded and about to be killed, it is his duty to shoot the assailant. If he doesn't, he has defrauded the police force. If he does, he may be a murderer.

I didn't mean for this to become a debate on pacifism. I know the above is poorly written (but true). Sorry, I don't have time to properly go thru it. I just recently learned that the Churches Of Christ have generally become non-pacifist and this has upset me greatly. The kingdom of Heaven is not one of murderers. In the book "Gulliver's Travells" the secular author Jonathan Swift, writing hundreds of years ago, stated:"For these reasons, the trade of a soldier is held the most honorable of all others; because a soldier is a Yahoo hired to kill in cold blood as many of his own species, who have never offended him, as possibly he can."

At my previous Church, an independent baptist, the pastor was urging us to distribute Gospel tracts (complete with no mention of repentence, a quick prayer "I'd rather not go to hell, hey thanks for dying for me, sure I believe you did" and then the promise of eternal security) comparing the sacrifice of a soldier in WW2 to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The tract ended with a poem saying we should "take up the torch" from the fallen soldier and finish his work.

Dear Jason, thank you for your kindness and effort to find a Church near me. Of course I agree a bad apple doesn't mean anything.

Regarding pacifism:

1.)Romans 13 is saying that God is in control and has allowed worldly authorities to have that authority, and Christians are to obey them. This doesn't mean that what a government does is right and is the doing of God. God has allowed them to have power and God allows them to do certain things. Surely, you would not argue that when someone is tortured by a government, that this is God's doing. God has simply allowed it. God allows many terrible things to happen, but you cannot say he caused them. Look at Mark 14:21:"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Quote from John832: " If it is acceptable for a non-Christian to kill for his government, then it is acceptable for a Christian to kill for his government."

It is not acceptable for a non-Christian to kill for his government any more than it was acceptable for Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus. God has allowed it to happen, it may be part of His plan, but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable. Woe to that man! In the Old Testament, we read somewhere that God hardened Saul's heart. God was using him in His plans, He has the right to harden someone's heart, but that doesn't make Saul's actions acceptable. And Saul was held accountable.

I realize that in the United States (and in Canada) there is a view that the army is fighting for freedom, morality, Christian ideals, and God is on our side. But this same view usually exists on the other side too. It must be pretty ridiculous to someone looking at the whole thing from above.

2.)When Jesus told his disciples to buy swords, He did not say to use them. Depending on a given culture, having a weapon could be a good form of protection in itself, even if the bearer resolved not to use it. In some cultures, such as in the Wild West, carrying a gun may have been seen as a provocation asking for trouble. In other cultures, perhaps if one carries a weapon, no one will mess with him. You will note that when one of Jesus' followers used his sword, he was rebuked by Jesus. Its one thing to carry a weapon and another thing to use it. At my home, I have a vicious guard dog, as a deterrent to a break-in. This dog is very much a lethal weapon if he senses that I am in danger. However, I would not let the dog loose to tear apart a robber. Notice how Jesus did not defend Himself, nor did He allow his disciples or angels to do so, when he was arrested. Earlier in His ministry, he similarly only ran away or slipped away from his attackers.

3.)Cornelius was in the military. We don't read that he left if after he was saved. We don't read that he stayed in it either. In fact, I don't think there is any mention of him whatsoever after he is baptised (please correct me if I am wrong).

4.)Regarding the Capernaum centurian, No Jesus did not say "one more thing you lack-leave the military if you want to inherit eternal life." In fact, there is no record of Jesus saying anything to this centurian about how to inherit eternal life. There is also no record of what happened to the centurian after this. Was he even saved? Or did he go away happy that his servant was healed and never heard of Jesus again. Not everyone who benefited from Jesus' miracles was saved. Read Matthew 12:45: "Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first."

5.)Similarly with the Phillipian jailer, we have no idea what happened in his life after he was saved. The last thing we hear of him is that he was baptised and he was happy about it. We do not read whether he left his job or not. We do not read if he ever stole anything from anyone or if he drank wine in excess. We don't read anything further about him, so we cannot assume anything.

6.)The centurian at the crucifiction said "truly this is the Son of God." This is no great feat. The devil often said the same thing. Demons sometimes identified Jesus as the Son of God. One demon possessed person even follow Paul around for days saying this untill she nearly drove Paul crazy.

Here are some challenging questions/dilemmas for anyone who believes Christians should not be pacifists.

1.) Suppose there is a Christian in England and suppose there is a Christian in France. Now suppose that these two countries are at war, and both these Christians are in the respective militaries. The one Christian will be fighting on one side and the other one against him. They might kill each other. Interesting. Can both countries be right at the same time?

2.) Now suppose a Christian lives in a country where the government makes it illegal to be a Christian and starts killing Christians and burning churches. Now suppose this Christian is in the military or the police force and is told to carry out this killing. If a Christian can participate in a millitary or police force without questioning the morality of anything, then he should go ahead and kill the other Christians. In fact, if his orders are to kill all Christians, he would have to go ahead and kill himself also.
There is only one scenario where he wouldn't have to carry out the order. If he didn't do everything he was ordered to do, but only those things which he agreed with, then he wouldn't kill the Christians. But then he isn't a soldier. No country wants a soldier with a mind of his own. Every country wants a soldier who is a pawn, who will do exactly as told. Suppose a soldier is in Irac, and is told to fly over a certain building and drop a bomb. He is in no position to ask: who lives there? What did they do to us? Did you evacuate the building? Are there civilians? etc. He must comply.

You can't have it both ways. Either a Christian in the army would have to follow the orders of his superiors without questioning them, or he would follow the Bible's commands and moral judement in all situations. So either he would kill the Christians in the above example or it would be impossible for him to be a soldier at all (if he is not following the orders of the authorities but of the Bible).

"In the Old Testament, we read somewhere that God hardened Saul's heart. God was using him in His plans, He has the right to harden someone's heart, but that doesn't make Saul's actions acceptable. And Saul was held accountable"

I meant to use Pharaoh not Saul as an example. It was Pharaoh's heart that we read was hardened.

Some of the congregations of the church of Christ may very well be spiritually dead, which is probably a sad reality. Keep in mind though, that any denominational congregation was never spiritually alive. I know they call themselves churches, but they are really congregations who are falsely teaching God's Word.

It could very well be a challenge for you to find a congregation that worships in spirit and truth. I pray that you will eventually, or that something will work out for you to start one.


I'm actually glad you brought this up because as I stated... I've never really given it much thought and I'd like to understand it better. I will follow the discussion between you and brother Jason.


This method of sharing seems typical of the denominational world... false teaching on par.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Thank you. I hope I find one. Don't look good. Don't know where to go.

You keep praying and maybe God will provide...

I hope to see Jason back around sometime next week to address the pacifism issue more. I'm eager to learn more about this topic.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Canadasgenius, I want to make it clear that I never said that "a Christian can participate in a military or police force without questioning the morality of anything." Acts 5:29 still applies: "We ought to obey God rather than men." There may be wars or other matters in which a Christian cannot participate, and certainly one should consider this before joining the military. I personally would not join the military, and I think it is overall a bad decision for a Christian to join the military. I say this mostly because the military is an environment that overall is not conducive to Christianity (whether killing were occurring or not). Paul warns us also that "evil companionships corrupt good morals" (1 Corinthians 15:33), and it is spiritually dangerous to place one's self into such a situation in my opinion.

It should also be stated that if any Christian considers it sinful to join the military, then by all means, he should not join. If he does, then he is committing sin because he is violating his own conscience: "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). Paul also taught in Romans 14 that some matters may be sinful to one brother, and innocent to another brother, depending on whether or not it violates his conscience. These are matters of personal judgment, and I know many who believe that the question of pacifism falls into the Romans 14 category. In other words, if it violates your conscience to join the military, then you absolutely should not join if you want to go to Heaven; but if it does not violate your conscience to join, then you may join as long as you do nothing to violate the New Testament Scriptures. On the other hand, Romans 14 also teaches that in matters of personal judgment, the person whose conscience is violated is not allowed to bind his judgment on others and condemn them for their decision to join the military. A person on either side of the issue would not be allowed to bind his opinion on others. We also should not allow matters of personal judgment to divide followers of Christ, which is why I was a little hesitant to even discuss this on this forum which Christians read, but if we can all walk away with a better understanding of the Scriptures while agreeing to disagree on matters of personal judgment, then perhaps it will have been worth the discussion.

As far as one "faithful non-pacifist Christian" killing another in a war in which they both believe their cause to be just, I do not think this happens very often, but perhaps Romans 14:5 applies: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Romans 14:5). In matters of judgment, as long as neither person is violating his conscience, and each man is fully persuaded in his own mind, they will both go to Heaven. In the end, Christ will have to judge them, and "shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25). "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10).

When we talk about "killing" and "murder," we also need to remember that death is not the end. The world sees death as a horrible end, but to all children and to all faithful Christians it is the most wonderful beginning, so the death of a Christian is really not that horrible of an event when one thinks of eternity. A murderer can go to jail, then become a faithful Christian, and then be put to death for his crime by the "powers that be," but He will be in Heaven. I guess all I am saying is that Christians should view death differently than the world does.

About Jesus and swords: If Jesus taught that it was always sinful to use a sword, then would not He and His followers have looked hypocritical by carrying swords? If a person can go to Hell for using a pistol today, would a Christian set a good example by carrying one on his hip? That violates many Scriptures regarding not causing your brother to stumble, not letting your good be evil spoken of, and abstaining from all appearance of evil:

Romans 14:13-16
(13). Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
(14). I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
(15). But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
(16). Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

"Abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

You said, "You will note that when one of Jesus' followers used his sword, he was rebuked by Jesus… Notice how Jesus did not defend Himself, nor did He allow his disciples or angels to do so, when he was arrested. Earlier in His ministry, he similarly only ran away or slipped away from his attackers." It was not time for Him to go to the cross yet, and He was not there to offensively fight for an earthly kingdom. I had previously explained that the swords were carried for self-defense, not for an offensive attack (See John 18:36). It is interesting that Jesus said that His servants would fight if He were there to set up an earthly kingdom. They were not to fight for his freedom, because it was the Father's will for Jesus to die on the cross for all of us and establish the spiritual kingdom, and Christ understood that.

You made a reference to being at peace with all men, and not repaying evil for evil. You may have been referring a passage such as this one: "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:17-19).

We are to try to be at peace with all men (if possible), and we do not go out looking to avenge some evil deed that was done to us. This context is talking about vengeance, but vengeance and defense are two completely separate issues! Vengeance takes place after the wrong has been done, while defense can prevent lives from being taken.

You mentioned turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). Slapping was a common form of insulting someone (1 Kings 22:24; Lam. 3:30; Matthew 26:67; John 18:22; John 19:3). Jesus is not talking about defense in life threatening situations in that context. He is discussing more trivial matters, for which the Jews would often seek their own personal vengeance. He is teaching against personal vengeance, not against defense in life threatening situations. I think Barnes explains it well in his commentary:

"Mat 5:38-41 - An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exo. 21:24; Lev. 24:20, and Deu. 19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles.
The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger, he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.
A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed, and that the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See John 18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life."

In regards to the centurions, Cornelius was called just, devout, one who feared God, etc. while he was still in the military.

I wanted to mention one conclusion of the view that being in the military is sinful. If it is sinful to be in the military, then faithful Christians who are not in the military have a responsibility to go to their military brethren to try to get them to repent and leave the military (Matthew 18:15-17; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19, 20; etc.). If they refuse to repent and quit the military, then we are required by the Scriptures to withdraw fellowship from every one of them, and treat them "as a heathen man and a publican" (Matthew 18:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, etc.). We would not be allowed to eat with them (1 Corinthians 5:11); and we would not be allowed to have company with them (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14). That is, if being in the military is sinful.

Canadasgenius, I am not sure if you are married, or have children, but here are some questions:

1. If someone were trying to abduct your child, and your only chance to save your child would be to fight the criminal, would you fight, or watch your child be taken or harmed? If you would fight, you are not a pacifist.

2. Would you watch the criminal take your child out the door while you merely dial 911?

3. What if the police officer shoots the criminal? Should you have avoided calling them so that this killing could have been avoided?

4. What about your wife? Would you fight to defend her, or would you watch her get injured, killed, abused, or taken away? "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25).

5. What about your mother?

6. What if all of our wives, children, and mothers were in danger? Should we as a nation fight to defend them, or let them be injured, killed, abused, or taken away?

7. Is the killing of people always sinful?

8. Pacifism teaches that all killing of humans is sinful, so did God sin when He killed Ananias and Sapphira?

9. You said, "The kingdom of Heaven is not one of murderers." Is God a murderer?

10. What about all the killing God did in the Old Testament? Was that wrong for Him to do that?

11. What about the killing done by God's people in the Old Testament? Should they not have done that?

12. Should we try to convert police officers and military personnel who are not Christians? If we converted them all to "pacifistic Christianity," who would be the "ministers of God" to "bear the sword" and punish the wicked?

13. You said that "Regardless of what army one is in, and in what position, an army is a "killing machine." Was God's army of the Old Testament a "killing machine"? If so, was that a bad thing or a good thing?

14. Has there ever been an occasion when killing someone was just and right?

15. When God said "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Genesis 9:6), why did He not say that the one to shed the blood had to be someone who was not one of His faithful followers? Obviously the followers of God had the right to kill in certain situations. As far as I am concerned, there is no indication that this is not also the case in the New Testament.

16. You said, "if the government tells you to kill someone, you must first obey God's command not to murder." Were not the Jews under God's command of "Thou shalt not murder" when they stoned the man to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? (Numbers 15). Were they in violation of the command "thou shalt not murder"? It seems that you may be misconstruing the definition of murder. Murder is defined as "Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being." Justice is defined as "The administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments." There is a difference between murder and just punishment.

17. Was God commanding the Jews to sin when He told them to kill the man mentioned in Numbers 15?

18. Should we withdraw from every brother in Christ who refuses to leave the military?

19. You quoted Swift, who called soldiers "yahoos." The word "yahoo" means "One of a race of brutes resembling men;" or "Not very intelligent or interested in culture." Was David a "yahoo"? What about Joshua, or Cornelius?

You said that "I didn't mean for this to become a debate on pacifism." I didn't either! – but as I said, hopefully we can benefit from this discussion.

Excellent information and questions...

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

John832, you said "Canadasgenius, I want to make it clear that I never said that "a Christian can participate in a military or police force without questioning the morality of anything." Acts 5:29 still applies: "We ought to obey God rather than men." This seems to make it impossible to be a soldier or police officer. A soldier is supposed to obey without questioning. If he joins the army, and then a war breaks out that he doesn't agree with for moral reasons, I don't think he can get out of it at that point. If his commanding officer says to shoot, he cannot refuse to shoot. When he signed up with the army, it was with the understanding that he will do as told. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he also signed a contract stating that. If he does not have this intention, he is lieing to the army and defrauding it. What country wants a soldier who makes his own decisions. How could the army possibly function if everyone made their own decisions what to do every day. They want a soldier who can follow orders. Similarly, a police officer who has sworn to do his duty cannot suddenly decide, for example, not to shoot the assailant if his partener's life is in danger. So I am not sure how well what you are saying would work.

John832, you said:"then you may join as long as you do nothing to violate the New Testament Scriptures"-Joining the army does violate the New Testament Scriptures. It is not a matter of personal judgement, when there is clear Scripture telling us what to do. Someone cannot ignore clear Scripture and use their personal judgement in matters where we do have a command from the Lord. One cannot, for example, say that his personal judgement tells him it is okay to be gay, when the Bible gives us a clear command. On many "Christian" forums, homosexuality is debated forever, and they find scriptures to "prove" their opinions by twisting the meaning. 2 Timothy 4:3 says of these people "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." In contrast to this, 1 John 2:3 says "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands."

Regarding the disciples carrying swords, it is possible, as you say, that it would be an "appearance of evil," if they were carrying them to discourage others from attacking them. Maybe it would be. There may well be another explanation than the one I suggested for why they carried swords. Perhaps it was to fight of wild animals, just like a Christian going in the woods might carry a gun nowadays too, without someone interpreting it as an appearance of evil. It doesn't really matter what the explanation is. We have clear directions from the Lord regarding pacifism, so it is really not our place to try to make a doctrine out of their carrying swords. We don't know why they carried them.

You said "It is interesting that Jesus said that His servants would fight if He were there to set up an earthly kingdom." I think he is talking about angels, since elsewhere He says He could immediately have a huge number of angels at his disposal to fight for Him. Its interesting that Jesus uses the words "My kingdom is not of this world." Consider also John 3:17"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him," and John 17:16 "They are not of the world, even as I am not of it." Our mandate (as was Christ's also) is to try to save as many people as possible, not to get involved with the twisted affairs of the world.

Please consider 1 Peter 2:18-25. Peter talks first about slaves submitting to their masters, even if they were harsh. He talks about their being beaten even, and enduring it. Imagine yourself, if you will, living somewhere in a far away land. Then suddenly, the Roman Empire comes and captures you and sells you as a slave in the marketplace. You work like a dog all day, get little food, and not much time to sleep. Your reward is being beaten every day by your master. Yet, you should submit, work as if you were working for God Himself, bless and not curse your master, pray for him, and not run away. Is this fair? Is it logical to our minds? Is it not a teaching of pacifism when Peter says for slaves to submit? Then, in verse 20 and 21, Peter starts to compare this to Christ's suffering. 21"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" Verse 23 says"Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: " Is this passage not telling us to be pacifists and that Christ set an example for us in this matter?

Obeying the government is also really a teaching of pacifism. Where there is any human authority on earth, God has allowed it. This doesn't mean that the government is not evil, but that ultimately, God allowed it, it is in His hands, and it is His will that we submit to it. This is easy in Canada or in America currently, because it is not a particularly oppressive regime. But suppose us brave Canadians increased our armed forces from 20 soldiers to 20 million, destroyed most of America, set up a dictatorship, and made everyone a slave, paying us 95 % taxes on their income. An American Christian would then have to submit to the new government, according to the Bible.

Regarding Barnes, he is basically saying that it is too hard a teaching to accept. That it could only apply to trivial matters. He doesn't have evidence for this, he just says it doesn't make sense. If we realize that we are in God's hands, that he keeps track even of the number of hairs on our head, and we place our trust in Him, then suddenly it does start to make sense. But no, to a human logic, it doesn't appear to make sense.

You said "Cornelius was called just, devout, one who feared God, etc. while he was still in the military." This was before he became a Christian. We are told that his prayers and gifts to the poor came up as a memorial offering before God. This does not mean that he was a Christian or that he obeyed all of God's commands. "Just and devout" is pretty relative. Human rightousness is like filthy rags and there is not one who does right, not even one. Christ is our righteousness, as Christians, but Cornelius was not a Christian at that point. Lot was called "righteous" too, yet he offered his daughters to be raped by every man in the city, not exactly a shining righteous moment on his part.

Matthew 18:15-17 is talking about a brother who sins specifically against you. 2 Thes 3:6 is talking specifically about a brother who is idle. 1 Cor 5:11 is talking about a brother who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. None of the verses you have quoted have any relevance, therefore, to our discussion.

On to your questions. For the first 6, the answer is I would let the person kill me/my wife/mother/kids, etc. We are allowed to run. If we could run, we would run. If you are persecuted in one place go to another. Running is ok. Your quote for husbands to love their wives as themselves has no relevance here. I would let myself be killed. I would let my wife be killed. This is not because I wouldn't give my life for her, but in obedience to the Lord, and trusting that the Lord's will will be done, whether it be to save us or to take us home.

Pacifism is a very hard teaching to swallow, especially if someone has a family. It is not logical (to the human mind anyway), and very difficult. But the Lord has promised that he is with us. He will not let a single hair fall from our head without His agreement. We must also "leave room for God's wrath." God is watching out for us. If we believe this, and trust Him even to the point of death, than suddenly the teaching is easier to follow. We have a lot of "mickey mouse Christians," but being a Christian is a complete commitment of one's life, not just going to Church sunday. This is a hard message to swallow sometimes, probably the hardest one of all.

Questions 8-11 and 13state that the pacifist doctrine would make God a murderer. God can give life and take life, as he pleases. He is also the Judge, we are not. He told US to not murder. He can kill and judge anyone He pleases. In the Old Testament, God commanded his people to kill other nations at times. God can give such a command, if he pleases. In the NT, we have our orders to be pacifists.

Question 12 is not realistic. Wide is the gate that leads to destruction and narrow is the one that leads to life. God also asks if He will find faith on earth when Jesus returns. The vast, vast majority of people (even in the "Christian" Churches) are not Christians. So there will always be enough people for the military, you don't have to worry.

In question 15, I am not sure what the verse in genesis means. This doesn't seem to be a command for man to kill a murderer, but rather a warning of what will happen to someone who sheds the blood of man.

In question 16, if God told the Jews in the OT to kill someone who did work on the sabbath, this was not murder, but God's judgement and decision. Your definition of "murder" seems reasonable to me ("Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being," but whose law do you mean in "unlawful?" The OT Jews had their orders from God to kill people in certain situations. We have our commands in the NT not to resist evil, and to feed our enemy if he is hungry. Who are we to decide what "just punishment" is? God is the judge. We are to "bless those who persecute us." The civil law of the OT is not for gentiles to enforce in the NT. When the OT says to stone someone who did this or that, this is not for us to enforce. If you enforce one of those laws, would you not have to enforce them all? If it is ok for a Christian to kill a murderer on the grounds of the OT civil law, would he not also have to kill a child who disobeyed his parents? Would any children be left in America if this were enforced? I'll bet that there is not one child, Christian or otherwise, in your country or mine, who would not deserve to be stoned to death according to the OT law.

Question 18, I don't know. The verses you quoted about withdrawing from someone who calls himself a brother but is caught in a sin only mention very specific sins. I don't know if there are other passages that would help us answer this question.

For your last question, no one is a yahoo, if a yahoo is a beast. If I were to define the word "soldier" I would substitute the word "man" for yahoo. If God led those people you mention to kill someone, that is fine. We, NT Christians, have different orders.


There is a whole other element also to this pacifism subject. Is one's country on the right side of a given conflict? Does not the country on the morally wrong side of a conflict also present the matter to its people such that its cause appears just. So is everything one hears true? How, then, can a "Christian soldier" know the facts to determine if something is morally right? When the Bible says that we live in a "crooked and depraved" generation, how can we allow the crooked and depraved people decide for us who to pass judgment on and go kill. Even if we claim to be deciding for ourselves, is it not mostly unsaved people who control our source of information (media, government, etc) on which we base our decisions. The Bible doesn't even allow us to pass judgement or to resist an evil person, how then can we let a crooked and depraved generation tell us that a given war is righteous and just? Would we not be "obeying God rather than man"?

Canadasgenius, I apologize for the delayed reply.

You quoted me when I said, "We ought to obey God rather than men," then you said "This seems to make it impossible to be a soldier or police officer." It is obvious that you personally have a scruple against being in the military (Romans 14:1 ASV), but the Bible does not teach that it is inherently sinful to be in the military. Notice what these "government employees" were told:

"Then tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, "Teacher, what shall we do? And he said to them, "Collect no more than what is appointed for you." Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:12-14)

They were not told to quit their jobs..

You also said, "It is not a matter of personal judgement, when there is clear Scripture telling us what to do. Someone cannot ignore clear Scripture and use their personal judgement in matters where we do have a command from the Lord. One cannot, for example, say that his personal judgement tells him it is okay to be gay, when the Bible gives us a clear command. On many "Christian" forums, homosexuality is debated forever, and they find scriptures to "prove" their opinions by twisting the meaning."

The Bible does not condemn people for being in the military (it tells them to stay in the military!), but it does explicitly condemn homosexuality (Jude 7 for example), so this is not a valid comparison.

I am convinced that the Bible does not condemn those who are in the military simply because they are in the military, and we should be careful not to bind where God has not bound.

You said, "Regarding the disciples carrying swords, it is possible, as you say, that it would be an 'appearance of evil,' if they were carrying them to discourage others from attacking them. Maybe it would be."

It definitely would be the appearance of evil, and would violate those Scriptures I mentioned. We should have enough faith in God to believe that He will take care of us while we do His will. You yourself said, "God is watching out for us. If we believe this, and trust Him even to the point of death, than suddenly the teaching is easier to follow." If carrying a sword could have caused someone to stumble and sin, then I am sure the Lord would not have done it! He and His disciples would have had enough faith to believe that they would be protected from dangers while they were doing the will of the Father (like in the storm on Galilee, Mark 4:40). Paul said that if something as simple as eating meat would cause his brother to stumble, he would never do it again! "Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble" (1 Corinthians 8:13). Surely the Lord would not have violated this extremely important Scriptural principle in which souls could be at stake!

You said, "God can give life and take life, as he pleases. He is also the Judge, we are not. He told US to not murder" Again, there is a difference between murder and just punishment for evil! Can a man who murders his wife be called the minister of God? No, but someone in the government who kills to punish the murderer can! As you said, "God can give and take life as He pleases," and He pleases to do it through the "powers that be," who are His ministers to punish evil doers. When you say, "He is the Judge, and we are not," you imply that nobody on Earth has the right to determine who deserves to die, and nobody on Earth has the right to take a life, but this totally contradicts Romans 13! The government is "an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

You said, "In question 15, I am not sure what the verse in genesis means. This doesn't seem to be a command for man to kill a murderer, but rather a warning of what will happen to someone who sheds the blood of man." It is a warning.. But who is going to be the one to kill the murderer? Someone was obviously going to be the one to cause this murderer's blood to be shed.. In the Law of Moses, people were put to death for murder: "the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation in judgment" (Numbers 35:12). The congregation had the authority from God to decide who deserved to die, and who did not, and God has given that same authority to those in government today! (Romans 13). Do you believe that those in the congregation who sentenced the manslayer to death were guilty of murder themselves? They were no more guilty of murder than those in the government today who sentence someone to death… Yet you say that the only person who can determine who is worthy of death is God.. That is not true. If we can understand law, we can understand consequences of breaking the law. What about the person in the congregation who killed the manslayer after he had been sentenced to death by the congregation? Was he a murderer? He was no more a murderer than the man who pulls the switch on the electric chair today.. There is a difference between murder and just punishment!

You said, "Your definition of "murder" seems reasonable to me," but it seems as if we disagree on the definition of murder. What definition of murder would you use?

You said, "We have our commands in the NT not to resist evil, and to feed our enemy if he is hungry. Who are we to decide what "just punishment" is? God is the judge." The government has been given the authority by God to determine what just punishment is for a given crime – they bear not the sword in vain… He has been given this authority from God. You again are talking about us not taking personal vengeance as individuals, but this is comparing apples to oranges!

You mentioned 1 Peter 2:18-25, which refers to servants and masters. You said, "Is this passage not telling us to be pacifists and that Christ set an example for us in this matter?" The passage is speaking against personal vengeance, not serving in the military as a minister of God to punish evil doers! Again, it seems that you are confusing personal retaliation with justice. We need to keep in mind the difference between personal vengeance and just punishment. We need to keep in mind also the difference between murder and just punishment, because they are not the same!

You said, "So is everything one hears true? How, then, can a "Christian soldier" know the facts to determine if something is morally right?" There are many situations in which a Christian may not know all the facts, but we must do the best we can with the facts we have. Those soldiers of Luke 3 had to do the best with the facts they had, and they were told to stay in the military.

You said, "Our mandate (as was Christ's also) is to try to save as many people as possible, not to get involved with the twisted affairs of the world." Again, those soldiers I mentioned earlier were told to stay in the military, and be content with their wages. It is also true that Christian soldiers in the military can convert people to Christianity while they are in the military.

I totally disagree with what you said about church discipline only being for certain sins, and I encourage you to study that subject further.

You said, "Pacifism is a very hard teaching to swallow." I believe it is a teaching that does not need to be swallowed, because of the lack of Biblical evidence that supports it. Should we seek personal vengeance upon someone who does us wrong? No. Is it acceptable in the sight of God for "His ministers" to punish those who do evil? Yes. Murder and personal retribution are totally different than just punishment by authorities put in place by God, and the Bible obviously does not condemn one for being in the military. Canadasgenius, I have nothing but love for you, but please be careful.. If we condemn where the Bible does not condemn, we are in violation of the Scriptures, and therefore in sin (Matthew 15:9; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Romans 14, etc.).

Jason Hilburn

Excellent Scriptural support brother Jason. It seems pretty clear now that the military is something approved by God.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

hi guys, glad to be here, looks very interesting, and i have enjoyed reading the posts. keep studying and keep up the good work.

Answer to Brother Jason, re pacifism:

1.)

YOU SAID:

"You quoted me when I said, "We ought to obey God rather than men," then you said "This seems to make it impossible to be a

soldier or police officer." It is obvious that you personally have a scruple against being in the military (Romans 14:1 ASV), but

the Bible does not teach that it is inherently sinful to be in the military."

MY REPLY:

I don't understand how you interpret this as a personal scruple. It looks like you missed my point here, so I'll post it again:
"John832, you said "Canadasgenius, I want to make it clear that I never said that "a Christian can participate in a military or

police force without questioning the morality of anything." Acts 5:29 still applies: "We ought to obey God rather than men." This

seems to make it impossible to be a soldier or police officer. A soldier is supposed to obey without questioning. If he joins the

army, and then a war breaks out that he doesn't agree with for moral reasons, I don't think he can get out of it at that point. If

his commanding officer says to shoot, he cannot refuse to shoot. When he signed up with the army, it was with the understanding

that he will do as told. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he also signed a contract stating that. If he does not have

this intention, he is lieing to the army and defrauding it. What country wants a soldier who makes his own decisions. How could

the army possibly function if everyone made their own decisions what to do every day. They want a soldier who can follow orders.

Similarly, a police officer who has sworn to do his duty cannot suddenly decide, for example, not to shoot the assailant if his

partener's life is in danger. So I am not sure how well what you are saying would work."

2.)

YOU SAID:

"Notice what these "government employees" were told:
"Then tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, "Teacher, what shall we do? And he said to them, "Collect no more

than what is appointed for you." Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not

intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:12-14) They were not told to quit their jobs"

MY REPLY:

Surely you are not claiming that all a soldier has to do to go to heaven is to "not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be

content with his wages." This is not the Gospel! It is not the way to heaven! Obviously, this is not the whole law of God or

the whole Gospel message. John the baptist came to prepare the way of the Lord, but he was not the saviour himself. Note that

those baptised only by John's baptism did not have the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in the Bible, as far as I know, to suggest

that disciples of John or those baptised by him were saved (unless they later accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, that is).
It would also have been premature for John to preach a teaching that Jesus introduced. John lived in OT times. Pacifism is a

teaching of Jesus for His followers, it is not something for the world. And, in reply to a comment you made at the start of this tread which I think I neglected to answer, what is wrong for the Christian to do is not the same as what is wrong for the world to do, necessarily. Pacifism is a specific command for Jesus' followers. It is, indeed, impossible for the non-Christian world.


3.)

YOU SAID:

"The Bible does not condemn people for being in the military (it tells them to stay in the military!)"

MY REPLY:

The Bible does not anywhere tell anyone to stay in the military. Saying "be content with your wages" is not a command to stay in

the military. It is dangerous to change wording ever so slightly. Furthermore, while the Bible does not specifically say not to

be in the military, other commands we are given would make it impossible for a Christian to be in the military (please read my

previous posts if someone doesn't know what I mean, as I can't repeat every point here again).

4.)

YOU SAID:

"It definitely would be the appearance of evil, and would violate those Scriptures I mentioned. We should have enough faith in God

to believe that He will take care of us while we do His will. You yourself said, "God is watching out for us. If we believe this,

and trust Him even to the point of death, than suddenly the teaching is easier to follow." If carrying a sword could have caused

someone to stumble and sin, then I am sure the Lord would not have done it! He and His disciples would have had enough faith to

believe that they would be protected from dangers while they were doing the will of the Father (like in the storm on Galilee, Mark

4:40). Paul said that if something as simple as eating meat would cause his brother to stumble, he would never do it again!

"Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble" (1 Corinthians 8:13).

Surely the Lord would not have violated this extremely important Scriptural principle in which souls could be at stake!"

MY REPLY:

Here is what I had said:"Regarding the disciples carrying swords, it is possible, as you say, that it would be an "appearance of

evil," if they were carrying them to discourage others from attacking them. Maybe it would be. There may well be another

explanation than the one I suggested for why they carried swords. Perhaps it was to fight of wild animals, just like a Christian

going in the woods might carry a gun nowadays too, without someone interpreting it as an appearance of evil. It doesn't really

matter what the explanation is. We have clear directions from the Lord regarding pacifism, so it is really not our place to try to

make a doctrine out of their carrying swords. We don't know why they carried them."

What you are saying might be "nice-sounding" to the reader skimming it, but really makes no sense, I am sorry to say. It is

perfectly reasonable to carry a weapon against wild animals (or as I said there may be another explanation of why they were

carrying swords). It is not reasonable to go in the woods with no protection if we know there are dangerous animals. "Don't put

the Lord your God to the test." According to your logic, it would be wrong for me to have a baseball bat in my hand, because if

another player upset me, I might be temped to use it to break his skull. Dido for a gulf club, hockey stick, etc. These could

all kill someone with a single blow. I could not drive a car, because if I saw someone I was angry at, I might be tempted to turn

the wheel in his direction to run him over. A car is a deadly weapon, they say. One could go on and on.

5.)

There are some things you said, in relation to Romans 13, that show that you don't understand what Romans 13 means. Here are some

of the claims you made:

A.)"When you say, "He is the Judge, and we are not," you imply that nobody on Earth has the right to determine who deserves to

die, and nobody on Earth has the right to take a life, but this totally contradicts Romans 13! The government is "an avenger who

carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.""

B.)"The congregation had the authority from God to decide who deserved to die, and who did not, and God has given that same

authority to those in government today! (Romans 13). "

C.)"He was no more a murderer than the man who pulls the switch on the electric chair today.. There is a difference between murder

and just punishment!"

D.)"serving in the military as a minister of God to punish evil doers! "

You misunderstand Romans 13, unfortunately. You claim that every military action is just punishment by God to punish evil doers.

This would mean that the army is always right, it would have to be infallible in fact, if its actions are as a minister of God's

just punishment. We don't have to look too far to see that this is not the case. In a military conflict there are always two

sides. If one is on the side of "just punishment," and the two are in conflict, then clearly the other side must be in the wrong.

(I would actually suggest to you that in wars, both sides are usually wrong, but that is for another day). You can see that at

least one side would have to be NOT on the side of "just Godly punishment." So if military action is always just punishment by

God, with the military as the minister of God, how can there be two sides like this? Another point to ponder is Christian

persecution, by worldly authorities, in history. Was that God's "just punishment?" When Steven was stoned, was it not the

authorities who allowed it? Then that must have been just punishment for what Steven did?! Jesus death even...was it not Pilate,

the government, military authority, who was ultimately responsible? Did Jesus therefore deserve "just punishment" by the

government authorities?! Here are my thoughts on Romans 13. Please note, that these quotes are not new to this post, I am

posting them again. They were in my previous posts, perhaps ignored:

"Romans 13 is saying that God is in control and has allowed worldly authorities to have that authority, and Christians are to obey

them. This doesn't mean that what a government does is right and is the doing of God. God has allowed them to have power and God

allows them to do certain things. Surely, you would not argue that when someone is tortured by a government, that this is God's

doing. God has simply allowed it. God allows many terrible things to happen, but you cannot say he caused them. Look at Mark

14:21:"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better

for him if he had not been born." "

"Obeying the government is also really a teaching of pacifism. Where there is any human authority on earth, God has allowed it.

This doesn't mean that the government is not evil, but that ultimately, God allowed it, it is in His hands, and it is His will

that we submit to it."


6.)

YOU SAID:

"The congregation had the authority from God to decide who deserved to die, and who did not, and God has given that same authority

to those in government today! (Romans 13). Do you believe that those in the congregation who sentenced the manslayer to death were

guilty of murder themselves? They were no more guilty of murder than those in the government today who sentence someone to death…

Yet you say that the only person who can determine who is worthy of death is God.. That is not true. If we can understand law, we

can understand consequences of breaking the law. What about the person in the congregation who killed the manslayer after he had

been sentenced to death by the congregation? Was he a murderer? He was no more a murderer than the man who pulls the switch on the

electric chair today.. There is a difference between murder and just punishment"


MY REPLY:

(again just cut and pasted from my previous post where this part appears to have been ignored):
"In question 16, if God told the Jews in the OT to kill someone who did work on the sabbath, this was not murder, but God's

judgement and decision. Your definition of "murder" seems reasonable to me ("Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a

human being," but whose law do you mean in "unlawful?" The OT Jews had their orders from God to kill people in certain situations.

We have our commands in the NT not to resist evil, and to feed our enemy if he is hungry. Who are we to decide what "just

punishment" is? God is the judge. We are to "bless those who persecute us." The civil law of the OT is not for gentiles to enforce

in the NT. When the OT says to stone someone who did this or that, this is not for us to enforce. If you enforce one of those

laws, would you not have to enforce them all? If it is ok for a Christian to kill a murderer on the grounds of the OT civil law,

would he not also have to kill a child who disobeyed his parents? Would any children be left in America if this were enforced?

I'll bet that there is not one child, Christian or otherwise, in your country or mine, who would not deserve to be stoned to death

according to the OT law."

The posts on discipline and disfellowship have been moved to their own thread (link below) to enable the topic to be followed more easily. The discussion on pacifism will remain in this thread and the thread topic has been edited to reflect the topic of pacifism. I apologize for any confusion this may or may have caused.

Church discipline and disfellowship.

...

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Canadasgenius, sorry for the delay in my reply. My reply is mainly regarding this text: "Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, "Teacher, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Collect no more than you are authorized to do." Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:12-14).

1. YOU SAID, "John lived in OT times." MY REPLY: You implied that since John the Baptist's teachings were during the Old Covenant they were invalid, but Christ and John the Baptist lived under the same Covenant! Christ's teachings were taught under the same Covenant as John the Baptist's teachings were.

2. If John's teachings were invalid after Christ began teaching His doctrine, were John's teachings on the coming kingdom and baptism of repentance for the remission of sins also invalid? Was John "in error" on just this one subject, or on many of the subjects he taught? Did all of his teaching become invalid after Christ began teaching?

3. John the Baptist was not teaching old doctrines; he was teaching new doctrine, such as the coming of the kingdom and baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. "And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight" (Matthew 3:2, 3; cf. Luke 3:3).

4. Jesus was also teaching this same "new" doctrine, so He and John the Baptist were teaching the same doctrine, not two doctrines that contradicted one another! Compare the words above of John the Baptist to these words of Jesus: "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17).

5. YOU SAID, "It would also have been premature for John to preach a teaching that Jesus introduced." MY REPLY: John was teaching the same doctrine Jesus taught, and John preached such subjects as the kingdom and baptism before Christ did!

6. Was John the Baptist inspired by God? If he were not inspired by God, where did he get his message and mission? He was compared to Elijah the prophet: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" (Malachi 4:5, 6). He was filled with the Holy Ghost (inspired by God) to teach the wisdom of the just: "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:15-17).

7. Why would the Holy Ghost inspire John the Baptist ("the preparer of the way") to teach doctrine contrary to Christ? How could John prepare the way of the Lord if he were teaching a doctrine contrary to the doctrine of Christ? "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (Isaiah 40:3). "As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:4-6).

8. Christ was already going to have to "unteach" many of the man-made doctrines of the Saducees and Pharisees -- would it not have been even more of a hindrance to Christ if He had to unteach doctrines of John the Baptist?

9. YOU SAID, "Pacifism is a teaching of Jesus for His followers, it is not something for the world." MY REPLY: All of Jesus teachings are for the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20). Whether they obey them or not is up to them, but all men are amenable to Christ's one law. Christ does not have one law for the sinner, and one law for Christians -- there is one Gospel for all men! If people in the world were not amenable to Christ's law, then nobody would ever have to obey the Gospel of Christ!

10. YOU SAID, "what is wrong for the Christian to do is not the same as what is wrong for the world to do, necessarily." MY REPLY: There is one Gospel, and all men are amenable to it. If Christ did teach pacifism, then all men SHOULD be pacifists. Whether they are or not does not change the fact that they are subject to the same law of Christ as Christians are!

11. YOU SAID, "Pacifism is a specific command for Jesus' followers. It is, indeed, impossible for the non-Christian world." MY REPLY: I disagree. There are many pacifists who are not Christians at all.

12. YOU SAID, "Surely you are not claiming that all a soldier has to do to go to heaven is to 'not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with his wages.' This is not the Gospel! It is not the way to heaven! Obviously, this is not the whole law of God or the whole Gospel message." MY REPLY: I never said this was the "whole Gospel message." Is your idea of pacifism the "whole Gospel message"? Obviously not. These people asked an inspired man of God a specific question, and he answered them. When Jesus taught us to pay our taxes, was that the whole Gospel? No, but it was a part of the truth that was necessary to know if they would be faithful children of God.

13. YOU SAID, "There is nothing in the Bible, as far as I know, to suggest that disciples of John or those baptised by him were saved." MY REPLY: John's baptism was "for the remission of sins" (Luke 3:3), which means that sins were remitted by his baptism (they were saved from their sins). We never read of anyone who was baptized before Pentecost who had to be re-baptized for the remission of sins.

14. John's baptism was valid for salvation, and so were his teachings! If he was teaching error on "pacifism," was he also teaching error about the Lamb of God, baptism, and the kingdom?

15. YOU SAID, "The Bible does not anywhere tell anyone to stay in the military. Saying "be content with your wages" is not a command to stay in the military. It is dangerous to change wording ever so slightly." MY REPLY: If the command to "be content with your wages" does not imply that they could stay in the military, then what does it mean? Does not the Bible often teach us by implication?

16. YOU SAID, "You claim that every military action is just punishment by God to punish evil doers. This would mean that the army is always right." MY REPLY: I never said this, or even implied this. I still do not understand your view of this: If it were a sin for any man to punish a murderer by the authority of government, then how could someone who pulls the switch on the electric chair be called the "minister of God"? Obviously someone who murders his wife cannot then be called the "minister of God," yet someone in the government who pulls the switch can, so there is an obvious distinction made within the Word of God.

I cannot understand your reasoning regarding pacifism, and I continue to disagree with your position.


I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter, and of course there is no animosity here.

Jason Hilburn

hey guys, this is my first message. wanted to say keep up the good work. also, thank you for keeping the attitude in this group - Christ like. Some groups are mean towards one another, and i am glad this one is not like that. Canadasgenius has some good questions, but i believe Jason is right in his use of scripture and also logic when it comes to explaining some difficult passages. I dont have much to add at this point. but, just keep up the good work.

hey guys, oops, that was my second post, now this is my third, just setting the record strait. PV