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

Good evening, Skip and all:

I have pondered how to finish up my part of proposition number 1.  Instead of 
taking Skip's rebuttal point by point, which we have already done, I believe it will 
be wise to recap or summarize my points, which will also answer his questions to 
me.

Here again is Proposition #1:

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

My proof that a Christian *is not to take the life of another human being, even in 
war" was shown by the PURPOSE of a Christian, the said purpose being an 
umbrella that covers everything a Christian does/is in physical time. In my first 
affirmative speech I posted many scriptures which shows the character of a 
Christian....the character which shows Christ is working in and through the 
Christian. Some of those are as follows:

Love for neighbor (all other humans)
The Golden Rule (taking someone's life when you don't want yours taken.)
Not taking vengeance (leaving that up to God who said was His business.)
Love even your enemies...praying for them (a question I asked was..should you 
pray for him before you kill him, during the time you are killing him, or after he is 
dead?)
Turn the other cheek
Return good for evil

There is no use to again post Rom. 13:1-7, because we have done that already. We 
both agree that God gave the *powers-that-be* the authority and the obligation 
(they are His ministers) to take care of the unruly (use the sword) and protect 
those who do good. There is no disagreement between Skip and me on this point.

Our disagreement is whether a Christian was included in the authority God gave 
to the government. No, he was not included. The Christian who is a true follower 
of God will not have an interest in, nor time to devote to something God left for 
the worldly powers to do. There are many things the Christian is directed to do. 
Two being, "Pure religion and undefiled before the Father is to visit the fatherless 
and the widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." 
The umbrella of purpose of the Christian is all covered in, "giving his body as a 
living sacrifice to God."

Skip brought up that Paul's purpose was to teach the gospel and that did not 
include his tent-making. I disagree with this. Everything Paul did that worked 
toward his purpose was included IN his purpose. We, as did Paul, show Christ 
working though us as we go about our daily lives making a living... interacting 
with other human-beings. Our influence is shed abroad as the sinner observes our 
godly lives. As he sees the fruit of the spirit that indwells us he is brought closer 
to Jesus. The way we react to a rude clerk or an offensive driver shows the 
difference in Christians and those of the world.

Skip asked why Jesus didn't tell Peter he should not use the sword for protection. 
We don't know why Jesus didn't (if indeed He didn't) stop and preach Peter a 
sermon about not killing someone. However, we can rest assured that Jesus didn't 
go against His teaching concerning turning the other cheek and the numerous 
other ways a Christian is to react to threats....etc.

Skip asked me again why Peter didn't tell Cornelius to get out of the Roman army. 
Actually, we don't know what all Peter told Cornelius.  Again, I asked why Peter 
didn't tell Cornelius about the 5-acts of worship he must partake in to go to 
heaven. And why didn't Peter tell him to remember to place membership in a 
Church of Christ so he could put himself under the authority of an Eldership. And 
why didn't Peter tell him about putting money in the common treasury on the 
Lord's Day.  Peter's interest was to teach Cornelius how Christ would add him to 
His body....where salvation is. 

In this debate I believe Skip and I both understand that we cannot go back to the 
O.T. to prove our points because God had His OWN nation, the nation of Israel. 
Today the only nation God has is the body of Christ, God's spiritual family. That 
family is made up of Christians in every nation on God's green earth. When there 
is a war there are Christians on every side. Hence......Christians killing Christians 
(which was done in our Civil War) and Christians killing those who have not yet 
come to the our Lord Jesus, sending them into an ever lasting burning hell of fire.

Skip asked me about Christians being police officers. To be consistent one who 
believes it is wrong to kill in war would also be against a Christian being a police 
officer.

He also mentioned (as I did in my first affirmative) that we are to render unto 
Caesar what is Caesar's. I totally agree with this (since Jesus said it) but notice 
Jesus also said "unto God what is God's. This sums it up well. God did not give 
the civil government the power nor authority to bring the sinners to Jesus. He 
gave that responsibly to His children. He didn't give His children the 
responsibility to take care of the evil-doers....He gave that to the worldly civil 
governments.

In closing I would like to say a few words about debating. All two people are 
doing, whether it is public debating or formal writing, as Skip and I are doing, is 
to present two sides of a subject. In our case the subject is "Christians going to 
war." It is unlikely ANYONE will change his/her mind during this debate. And 
actually they shouldn't.  What you read here will go into your minds and interact 
with the private study you do on the subject.....and then God will give the 
increase. We are answerable to our Father on how we handle *aright* His Holy 
Word.

One more thought! There are people who do not like listening or reading a debate. 
That is unfortunate because they are missing a great opportunity for a study of 
God's word.

So ends my final affirmative speech.

Nelta