Brock/Francis Debate on Christians and War

 
 
Proposition:
The N.T. teaches a Christian is not to take the life of another human being, even in war.

Affirm: Nelta Brock
Deny: Dennis (Skip) Francis

Welcome to Nelta, the listers and all those concerned with these important issues.

It is my intent to aggressively press my side of this debate. It is not my intent to 
cast aspersions on my opponent, only on what they intend to affirm. I both love 
and respect my opponent, even when I believe them to be in the wrong.

Nelta said:
What this subject all boils down to is this: What is the purpose of a
Christian on this earth?

The purpose of the Christian is not the subject of debate. Christians are involved 
in many different activities on this earth separate from, though influenced by, the 
work of the church. Earning a living, for instance, is not primarily through the 
work of ministry for the average Christian. Paul, for instance, plied his trade as 
tentmaker. Was there something inherently wrong with this activity simply 
because it was not a part of his normal purpose on this earth?

Nelta says: 
God allows the civil government to control/punish the unruly. Again, I must 
disagree with that statement. Romans 13, which Nelta agrees allows for warfare, 
says, in verse 4, 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. In other words, God 
does not merely allow the government to punish the unruly, they are literally 
God’s minister and in that capacity, may bear the sword and execute wrath. 
Warfare serves a purpose as real in the eyes of God as the rain which falleth on 
the just and on the unjust.

I must remind Nelta that she signed to the proposition that The N.T. teaches a 
Christian is not to take the life of another human being, even in war. What she has 
not, as yet, done, is to show the New Testament passage that eliminates war, or 
shows in any way that it is un-categorically wrong (in every case) to take another 
human life. Though Nelta has demonstrated a grasp of many Christian concepts, 
she has not shown where the New Testament so teaches.

I would even mitigate part of what was said about the primary function of all 
Christians on this earth. Our primary function is to preach the gospel, not to save 
the sinner, though that is often the result. It is the gospel that convicts the heart 
and brings about salvation, but just as often (if not more often) the gospel 
condemns the sinner instead. 

If the non-christian dies in combat, and subsequently goes to Hell, it is not 
because someone has taken from him his chance to find Jesus, it is because he has 
sinned! 

As for the Christian losing his life in combat, he is going to the bosom of 
Abraham. Though this may cause some distress, it is a gain for the Christian, so 
why the concern? It is not that I am being cold hearted, just trying to look at this 
from the eternal picture, and not just the physical one.

Nelta said: 
Any command that would make void the command to preach the gospel to ALL 
men must be thrown out. You have not demonstrated how going to war has made 
void this command. There have been so many battlefield conversions that this 
circumstance cannot be discounted.

Many of the things you have said are fair assessments of the Christian character, 
but you still have not proven that ALL killing is disapproved of God and Christ, 
and that is what you must prove to show your point.

If Romans 13 is true, and we are to pay taxes to these governing authorities (vs. 
6), then how can we discount our involvement in the war that they prosecute? I 
fixed B-52’s during the Viet Nam conflict, so they could bomb the North. Simply 
because I did not pull the trigger, does not take away from my involvement in 
those deaths. Paul recognized the same circumstance in the death of Stephen. He 
was involved even if he only held the coats.

In a similar fashion, Paul elicited help from the military to turn aside a plot 
against his life (Acts 23:11-31). Was Paul being spiritually inconsistent here? He 
utilized the military, with the full knowledge that it could have resulted in loss of 
life. Was this wrong of Paul? The scriptures do not condemn him for it.

Was it wrong for Jesus to tell the disciples to buy swords if they had none (Luke 
22:36)? And what about Peter, who, having walked with Christ for 3 years, cut off 
the ear of Malchus with the sword in defense of Christ? If carrying the sword in 
self defense was wrong, why did he not know it? And why didn‘t Jesus use this 
opportunity to teach the premise you affirm? He simply didn’t want Peter to 
interfere with His mission.

And what of Cornelius? If it were wrong for the Christian to be in the military 
(which, as put by a radio commentator, serves the purpose of killing people and 
breaking things), then Peter sure missed an ideal opportunity to teach it and Luke 
missed putting it into scripture. Cornelius was told that Peter would tell him what 
he needed to do, and the only command that Peter gave in the entire discourse was 
for him and his household to be baptized. 

It strikes me as being morally and spiritually inconsistent to receive the benefits 
of the police and military, yet to deny that one may take part in those functions.

I look forward to your next affirmation.