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

Nelta, listers, and all interested parties: Greetings. It is my hope that this debate 
has been fruitful for all concerned.

Let me, at the outset, summarize the problems with Nelta’s position:

There are two different laws, one for the Christian, another for the non-Christian.
That which is sin for the Christian is a ministry of God to thee for good to the 
non-Christian.
The Christian can scripturally expect the military or police to protect his home, 
family, life, and property, even if it involves killing, but cannot take one step in 
either doing so for himself or in helping others.
The Christian can expect of others that which he cannot do himself.

Let me take Nelta’s post point for point for clarity:

Love for neighbor (all other humans)
No-one would argue that we are to love our neighbor, but would that love prevent 
us from protecting that neighbor if his life were in danger?
The Golden Rule (taking someone's life when you don't want yours taken.)
Would the Golden Rule apply to the policeman or the military? Can we expect 
them to do for us that which we would not, or cannot, do for ourselves?
Not taking vengeance (leaving that up to God who said was His business.)
The appropriate passage is Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, 
but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, 
saith the Lord. Just a few verses later, Paul says, 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) What does the word revenger mean? It comes from 
the same root as the word vengeance. Here the hand of God carries out vengeance 
by the government. Similarly, God’s vengeance is carried out by the church in 
matters of discipline. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a 
godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, 
yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, 
yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this 
matter. (2 Corinthians 7:11) Clearly, as I stipulated before, God uses earthen 
vessels to do His will!

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?)

I, for one, would pray for him constantly. The question one would ask is, are these 
generalizations unconditional? If so, was Jesus sinning when He did not turn the 
other cheek? Jesus protested such treatment in John 18:22-23. Should love your 
enemy be the supreme love? One can love someone while, at the same time, doing 
that which would be considered evil by those involved. The modern term is tough 
love, which is never liked by the recipient, but has the greater good behind it. If 
we love our children, the Bible teaches that we should use the rod and rebuke on 
them. Do they enjoy this procedure? Does this cause physical harm? And what 
about the conundrum of conflicting love? Should I love my enemy more than 
God? Or more than my neighbor? Or more than my family? What if my enemy is 
harming my neighbor or my family? Is love of my enemy the mitigating factor? 
Was Peter showing love for the soldiers he escaped from in Acts 12:6-19, 
knowing that the penalty for losing a prisoner was death, or was he loving himself 
more?

Turn the other cheek

See answer above. Jesus did not intend for anyone to accept unnecessary abuse 
for no purpose, and He, as well as Paul, used what legal means were at their 
command. 

Return good for evil

It seems I must constantly remind Nelta that the revenge with the sword done by 
the governing authority is a ministry for good, so this argument is invalid.

Nelta says: 
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.

Here Nelta has given up the argument. She has admitted that governing bodies 
have the obligation to use the sword and protect those who do good. The real 
difficulty comes when she then has two laws; one for the Christian and one for the 
non-Christian. Who can believe it?

Those who argue one law for the Christian and another for the non-Christian also 
argue that one can marry and divorce at will any number of times and then has to 
keep the wife he has once he becomes a Christian. This is absolutely false. Why 
then make a similar argument on this issue? There are NOT two different laws in 
the New Testament for two different groups of people, only the perfect law of 
liberty.

Nelta has failed to see that there are many things the Christian does that are 
incidental to his Christianity. I will not argue that HOW a Christian conducts 
himself in everything is based on his Christianity. I believe that with every fiber 
of my being. Paul said, To live is Christ, to die is gain. I agree. Where we 
definitely do not agree is over the idea that ANY good work is not something a 
Christian can participate in. On the contrary, when the Bible says something is a 
good work, and then tells the Christian to be fully equipped for every good work, 
then how can anyone believe that such is not true? Again, I remind Nelta that 
Romans 13:4 says, For he is the minister of God to thee for good. A minister is a 
worker and derived from the same word as the word for deacon, and the work that 
he does is good. Tit 3:1 says, Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and 
powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,. This suggests that 
we are to be subject to these same governing authorities, and to be ready to do 
every good work. Thus, this would have to include carrying the sword in service 
of that authority.

Nelta says: 
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. 

On the contrary, the true follower of God will participate in anything that God 
says is a good work, as God has so stipulated. Further, the Christian who mentally 
divorces himself from what his government is doing is being foolish. A Christian 
should be more aware than most what is going on in his world and country, else 
how does he speak out against evil?

Nelta says:  
Skip brought up that Paul's purpose was to teach the gospel and that did not 
include his tent-making. I disagree with this. 

I will not belabor this save to say that we go through life doing many mundane 
things that bear little resemblance to preaching the gospel. We are involved in 
families, employment, civic groups, PTA, and a host of other endeavors, which 
may result in preaching the gospel but are not necessarily for that purpose. Such is 
the same when called upon by our nation in war time. This may not have the 
ultimate intent of preaching the gospel, but since the scriptures say it is a ministry 
for good then it is as acceptable as the many things I mentioned above.

Nelta still did not answer my questions regarding Peter and Cornelius. What I 
have always done in my study is apply the rules of hermeneutics to understand 
what applies to me today. In so doing, one important rule stands out: use the clear 
to understand the obscure. When there is a clear passage on a topic it cannot 
refute another passage and only clarifies the meaning. Such is the case with 
Romans 13 in this topic. We have a clear and unequivocal statement by the Lord 
that governing bodies are ordained by Him, and are performing a ministry for 
good, even in using the sword. Without a clear statement that it is sinful for a 
Christian to participate in such (which I have asked Nelta for) then the conclusion 
must be that he can. A generalization will not do as even the Lord violated 
(actually mitigated) some of His own generalized statements (i.e. turning the other 
cheek). Paul also, though Jesus said to resist not evil (Matthew 5:39), did just that 
in his various defenses before governors and kings, even using the soldiers to 
protect him when his own life was in danger.

I have asked why, given ideal opportunity to make a CLEAR statement regarding 
these issues, they simply were not addressed, whether by Peter or the Lord. These 
situations would have been cleared up IF, of course, they were as important as 
Nelta has assumed they are. The other matter that I failed to mention is why the 
Lord never mentioned the two swords already worn by disciples who attended the 
Passover meal (Last Supper), that is IF this was a matter of importance, as Nelta 
suggests it is.

Nelta says: 
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,

I disagree in one sense: we use the Old Testament to learn how God works. One 
important lesson we must learn is that God does have different teachings on how 
to punish evil doers than He obviously does on personal revenge and retaliation. 
This must be understood. What we are talking about in this debate is not personal 
revenge or retaliation, but the punishment of those who have violated the laws of 
man. There is a vast difference in the mind of God over these issues. My 
assessment from the Old Testament was to show that this is how God viewed 
these issues in the past, and He has said, For I am the LORD, I change not; 
therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.  (Malachi 3:6).

Nelta says: 
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.

All the same above would apply to this issue as well. Further, it is a major 
misconception that the Christian may not defend himself or others. Jesus plainly 
taught the apostles to carry swords with them when they went into unfamiliar 
territory. This has never been satisfactorily answered by Nelta. The most telling 
was when she suggested that the swords were for use against wild animals. If such 
were the case, then you are suggesting that there were no wild animals in Israel 
(not true!), since He commanded them not to take provisions when they traveled 
there (Matthew 10:7-13). There must have been many wild animals where He was 
sending them in Luke 22:35-38, because he told them to go out and buy a sword. 
The obvious is that there now existed a much greater danger than they had 
previously faced, and it wasn’t wild animals. You have to be very attached to a 
false view not to see this! 

The Christian is taught to suffer for My name’s sake, but not to put up with 
robbery, rape, arson, or murder just for the sake of sin and riot. Further, the 
Christian is commanded to protect his own family, as in 1 Timothy 5:8 But if any 
provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied 
the faith, and is worse than an infidel. A man’s responsibility is to take care of his 
own family, as priest, provider, AND protector. 

Nelta says: 
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 is true, but remember it was God who said that He had ordained the work of 
the civil authority in wielding the sword, and told us to be subject to that 
authority. Not one passage of scripture has been shown that clearly and 
unequivocally shows that the Christian is precluded from such duties.

Nelta says: 
He didn't give His children the responsibility to take care of the evil-doers....He 
gave that to the worldly civil governments.

This is true, but again, to assume that the Christian cannot be involved in this 
activity is to say that there are two laws, one for the Christian and another for the 
non-Christian. Further, the Christian would sin while the non-Christian would be 
doing the ministry for good. What a contradiction!

Nelta says: 
It is unlikely ANYONE will change his/her mind during this debate. And actually 
they shouldn't. 

Though I am certain that this is what Nelta would like, it simply is not true. 
People NEED to change their minds when shown that which the Bible clearly 
teaches, and the clear statement is that the work of the civil authority is ordained 
of God, they are a minister of good, and this includes bearing the sword and being 
an executer of wrath. Further, the Christian must be subject to that authority, must 
support that authority, and, at times, take an active role in that authority if deemed 
fit by the governing body.

The Bible shows that the Christian may:

Defend himself against slander, robbery, murder, arson, rape, and similar acts 
of lawlessness, sometimes to include killing.
Defend his family in similar circumstances.
Defend his neighbor.
Be a policeman.
Be in the military.

The Bible shows that the Christian may NOT:

Take revenge on another
Exact retaliation.
Murder.
Strike those who persecute them for the cause of Christ.

I want to thank Nelta, the listers, and all involved. We have both aggressively 
pressed our points in this debate with love and respect. I hope these discussions 
are fruitful to all who read them, especially in consideration of the present danger. 
I look forward to Nelta’s responses to my posts when I have the affirmative.

Yours in Him,
Skip