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

Greetings, Nelta, our hosts, and all listers to these debates.

Nelta said: 
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.

What I have attempted to demonstrate is that the Christian does many things in 
this life that have little to do with preaching the gospel. He earns a living, repairs 
leaky faucets, changes diapers. Are these things a part of the Christian purpose? 
In my statement I alluded to the idea that there are many things which a Christian 
is authorized to do that are not a part of his regular service to God, though they 
may be controlled by the precepts of God. Nelta said, regarding Paul, 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. My contention is that his actions 
were controlled by the Lord, but the work itself was incidental to his Christian 
duty.

Nelta said, 
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.

Where Nelta and I disagree is in the scope of what Romans 13 teaches. She said, 
in her original post, that God allowed governments to do this. What I stipulated 
was that it wasn’t something that He simply allowed but it was actually a ministry 
of God. (Rom 13:4). 

The Christian gets authorization to do something not just by a direct command, 
but also by approved example and that which is necessarily inferred. What 
Romans 13 clearly shows is that governments are doing the work of God in 
carrying out their duties, even when those duties involve using the sword for 
wrath and revenge. Romans 13 is an approved example unless otherwise 
mitigated by passages that expressly forbid a Christian’s involvement in such. 
Though Nelta has demonstrated several general ideas, she has not shown one 
passage that forbids a Christian’s participation in government activities, even in 
the military.

This is where I get to the statement I made regarding her previous affirmation: 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. Romans 13 obviously 
does show that the taking of human life in war is authorized by God. That said, 
we do then require a negative that would offset this positive.

This is in response to Nelta’s next statement: 
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. Obviously we have the positive (Rom. 13), so where is the negative? If it 
is a work of God and Christians are required to be prepared for every good work, 
then we are positively instructed that our participation in such is authorized. 

My statements regarding those who die in war were not meant to be sarcasm, but 
simply to show that people die for all kinds of reasons. What is important is that 
they are prepared for the consequences of that death, regardless. Any participation 
by Christians in an act that results in that death is incidental to the issue. I’m 
certain that Nelta will disagree with that statement, but Romans 13 cannot be 
disregarded as showing that war is authorized of God and is even a ministry for 
good. Would you then also stipulate that God is responsible for those deaths? 

Nelta said: 
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. 

I am sorry to disagree, but I must. Your emphasis on ANY is problematic, since 
God obviously allows governmental authority to kill and in no way forbids the 
Christian from participating in that action.

Regarding taxes, Nelta said: 
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. 

The very point being considered here is if it is right to kill, or even to support 
killing. If one can logically, and without inconsistency, support killing (which we 
can based on Romans 13), then what is to prevent us from being involved in that 
act which is God’s ministry for good?

Regarding Paul getting military assistance, Nelta said: 
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. 

Are you saying then that Paul was not as responsible for any killing that may 
occur during that action as the men who actually inflicted it? Again, I used Paul 
previously to show that he considered himself at fault over the death of Stephen, 
even though all he did was consent to it.

Regarding Luke 22:36, Nelta said: 
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. 

Nelta, you are resting assured against all the Biblical and historical evidence. In 
this case, the Greek word machaira, translated sword, refers to a dirk, figuratively 
war, judicial punishment (Strong’s Concordance). Even in Romans 13:4 the same 
word is used. This kind of sword was not used against wild animals but against 
men in war, for judicial punishment, and protection against robbers on the road.

Even in the example I gave of Peter cutting off the ear of Malchus you have 
sidestepped the issue. I asked why Peter didn’t know, and why Jesus didn’t use 
that opportunity to remind him that he shouldn’t be defending himself or Jesus. 
Your mention of Peter being fallible does not address the issue that Jesus Himself 
had previously told Peter, and the others, to carry the exact sword that he now 
carried (Luke 22:36). Again, why did Jesus give such an order, especially in light 
of the fact that previously he had expressly told them not take anything with 
them? Simply put, the journey and the circumstances were different. They had 
previously gone to Galilee where they expected little hostility or opposition, but 
they were going into more dangerous territory at this juncture. What one needs to 
remember is this was not so much for defense of the gospel, as God and Jesus 
clearly taught that this was not how God’s kingdom would function, but 
protection against robbery and such on the road, a vastly different problem.

Regarding Cornelius, you failed to address the issue. I used this as one of many 
examples where either Jesus, or an apostle, could have plainly addressed what you 
believe to be an important doctrine, yet didn’t. Whatever else Peter addressed, it is 
clear that no scripture says he told him to get out of the Roman army. As a matter 
of fact, the passages referring to this Gentile, call him A devout man and one who 
feared God. Why didn’t he just know he shouldn’t be in the military? 

I said: 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. 

You answered, 
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."

The problem with this answer is it isn’t an answer. We do have to deal with moral 
and spiritual inconsistency. Frankly, were it my choice alone, I would rather that 
all police and military were Christians. At least then we would not have the kind 
of scandals our government frequently has to deal with. Who better to enforce the 
law than those who believe in the Supreme moral code? In your scenario, you 
have those who are worldly (and therefore evil doers) trying to keep the evil doers 
in check. This is like giving the fox charge of the henhouse! Who can believe it?

Your scenario simply won’t wash, or as they say down south, That dog won’t 
hunt. We are told to be consistent in every thing we do, and to expect the 
protection of a benevolent government without being willing to aid in that 
protection is morally inconsistent. Though the state is not the church, a Christian 
can and should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and there is a price to 
pay for our privilege which isn’t always monetary.

Nelta says, 
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. You can say that many times, and have, but it will not make it true. Romans 
13 still stands and no scripture precludes the Christian from being a part of any 
ministry for good. Further, as I will address when I am in the affirmative, we must 
be subject to that ministry.

Thank you, Nelta, and everyone interested in this timely and necessary subject. I 
respect Nelta for pressing the affirmative in a Christian manner and hope that I 
have done as well with my part.

Yours in Him,
Dennis (Skip) Francis
P.s. Call me Skip!