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

Dennis said: 
 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. 

The work of the church is not an issue of this debate. The issue is: Can a Christian 
go to war and kill other human beings. Dennis objected to my statement that the 
purpose of a Christian on this earth is the subject of the debate. Of course, the 
purpose of a Christian is the whole basis of the debate. When one understands his 
purpose as a Christian he will see that purpose does not include going to war and 
killing other people.

You asked the question of whether Paul was fulfilling his normal Christian 
purpose in his physical lifetime by making a living by tent-making. Yes, he was 
fulfilling his normal Christian purpose.  Everything he did as he gave his body as 
a living sacrifice to God was fulfilling his Christian purpose, through his actions 
and his words as he interacted with other people. The same goes for all Christians 
today.  I don't quite understand your objection to what I said about Rom.13. As I 
said before the civil government has a purpose directed by God. And yes warfare 
serves a purpose....that of using the sword when the government deems it 
necessary. No one who reads Rom. 13 would deny that. 

You say: 
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 will give an example here. If someone offered a challenge on this list to prove 
cornbread and beans could not be served as elements of the Lord's supper...we 
would ALL accept that challenge. Would we go to the scriptures and fine one that 
condemns such elements? No! We could look all day and never find one. What 
we would find is the scripture that tells what elements MUST be used in the 
Supper. That would prove the affirmative.

So in the case of proving a Christian cannot go to war and kill others, a certain 
verse stating that is not necessary. But Jesus' teaching and examples of what a 
Christian is and his purpose... answers well the subject...in fact, is the basis of the 
debate. 

Dennis said: 
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!

Yes, we are all sinners, saved by the blood of Christ. That isn't the point. The 
point is can a Christian take the life of one who has not yet found Jesus as his 
Savior. The other point is... can a Christian take the life of another Christian in 
war?

Dennis says: 
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? 

I'm not sure about the point Dennis is making here. Is he saying it is all right for a 
Christian to kill another Christian because he is sending him to Abraham's 
bosom? (Does this fit into, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto 
you?") Would Dennis believe a Christian would be doing HIM a favor by being 
killed in battle by another Christian?

Dennis said: 
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.

I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Christian character (developed 
by Christ living in us) is solid proof that ANY killing by a Christian is not 
justified.

Dennis said: 
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? 

We can discount it by the example of our Lord. He paid taxes from the fish-
mouth. He was not concerned nor did He question what was done with that 
money. That did not concern Him....as it should not concern us today.

Dennis said: 
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.

Absolutely! A good example of furthering the carnal war effort.

Dennis said: 
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? 

No, Paul was not wrong. Neither would a Christian be wrong today. The civil 
government is to protect those who do good. That is its job...given by our 
heavenly Father.

Dennis said: 
Was it wrong for Jesus to tell the disciples to buy swords if they had none (Luke 
22:36)? 

Jesus did nothing wrong. Why did He tell the disciples to buy swords?  To protect 
them against wild animals? We were not told. But we can rest assured it was not 
to go against His teachings.

Dennis said: 
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? 

The same reason Peter was rebuked by Paul when he treated other Christians the 
way he did. Peter was only a man (when not inspired in his teaching) as are we 
all. Remember Peter denied our Lord thrice.

Dennis said: 
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.

Did Peter tell him about the 5-acts of worship he would have to follow to be 
saved? Did he tell him ANYTHING except how to respond to the gospel of 
Christ? If you teach the gospel to someone today do you go over all the things he 
must give up before he can be added to the body of Christ.. by Christ? Or do you 
simply teach him the gospel of Christ, realizing as he becomes a mature Christian 
he will be able to understand the character of a Christian, that he will maturely 
develop as he follows our Lord's examples and teachings?

 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.

Yes, I understand this. What you say above is human thinking and feelings. We 
can't go by that. We should realize that we MUST live by "every word that 
proceeds from the mouth of God."

We should realize the different functions God has given. The civil government 
has a function and so do the Christians. The civil government was not given the 
responsibility of teaching the gospel to lost sinners. We were. The Christian was 
not given the responsibility to do the work God gave the civil government to 
do....to keep the evil doers in check and protect those who do good.

Thank you, Dennis, and all who saw fit to read this debate. This subject is taboo 
among many Christians...and it should not be. The fact that adhering to the 
scriptures on this subject will no doubt bring persecution to God's children. "All 
who live godly.....will suffer persecution." Are we suffering persecution? We 
better be.

Nelta