Brock/Francis Debate on Christians and War

 
 
Proposition:
The N.T. teaches a Christian must obey the call to war by his government..
which results in killing other people.

Affirm: Dennis (Skip)Francis
Deny: Nelta Brock

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. As we speak I 
have several friends and brethren who are actively involved in their duty to our 
nation in the war against terrorism.  I will begin by dealing with Nelta’s last 
rebuttal.

Nelta say: 
Using the O.T. to show how God works cannot be included in this debate because 
God dealt with His physical nation (Israel) in a completely different way than He 
does under the new covenant, which is a covenant of His love for all mankind. 
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son....."

Answer: Since when can we not use the OT to show how God works? The very 
thing is taught in Romans 15:4, that these things were written for our learning. 
The fact is, as God has also told us in Mal 3:6, For I am the LORD, I change not;. 
God Himself has not changed, though admittedly His methods may change. God 
has never expected His people to be the kind of namby pamby people that some 
have suggested. I am not saying that He has directed us to defend His spiritual 
kingdom with the sword, but then again we are not talking about the church here, 
are we?

Nelta says: 
There is no disagreement on whether Christians are to obey the government under 
which we exist, just as there is no disagreement that a wife is to obey her 
husband.....until or unless that authority exceeds the authority of Jesus. Jesus has 
all authority, given Him from above. His authority is first and foremost.

Answer: Unfortunately, Nelta is trying to paint me as one who believes that we 
are under absolute authority when under government rule, yet I made it clear in 
my first affirmative that I did not believe or practice such. What Nelta fails to 
understand, however, is that God has expressly given this particular authority to 
the governing authority.

Nelta says: 
If the government commands a Christian to go to war and kill other Christians or 
unbelievers must the Christian do that? Of course, not. That breaks
the law of our Lord. 

Answer: What law, Nelta? Where is this fictional law you keep trying to make out 
of some highly generalized statements? I asked in my negatives for such, but you 
failed to provide it, but still suggest it here. You still suggest that we are 
disobeying a law of our Lord by being involved in a ministry for good. How? 

Nelta says:  
To say that one must carry the sword of the civil government is saying one can 
hop in and out of the character of a Christian as developed and taught by our 
Lord.

Answer: It is NEVER out of character to do that which is good, and it was God 
who said that carrying the sword against the evil doer is a ministry for good. The 
true Christian character is one that will always do what God has said to do, and 
that includes every good work.

Nelta says: 
It has yet to be proven by an example, a command, or a necessary inference that 
someone is to go to war and do the work God gave to the civil government whose 
job it is to take care of the evils of the world which is *for good* for the 
righteous.

Answer: 
1. The command: Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. 
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 
2. The example: Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. 
3. The inference: Romans 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for 
wrath, but also for conscience sake. 
We are commanded to be subject to the higher powers IN THIS. We have their 
examples as a minister of God to thee for good. We must NECESSARILY infer 
that we, as Christians, are permitted to be a part of this ministry. Where Nelta 
goes astray in this particular area (aside from her assumption that hermeneutical 
rules had been abandoned by me) is when she expanded her allegation from just 
the Christian to someone. Who is to take care of those evils if someone cannot do 
it? She repeatedly tries to suggest that God has two different laws, one for the 
Christian, another for the non-Christian. This simply won’t wash. THE perfect 
law of liberty is SINGULAR. The gospel is singular. The New Covenant is 
singular. What is acceptable for one cannot be sin for another and vice versa.

Nelta says: 
It is easy to understand that God gave different directions to different elements of 
His creation.

Answer: She continues to have two different laws, leaving that which is sinful for 
the Christian yet not sinful when done by the non-Christian. Who can believe it? 
In her expansion of the system of authority, she also said However, all authority 
belongs to Jesus and His teaching stands above any earthly authority....even the 
civil government.  Though I agree with the statement all authority belongs to 
Jesus, she forgets that this would necessarily include the authority to wage war 
given to these same governments. Is it sin for Jesus to do this while not sinful for 
us to do the same? My Bible says we are to be Christ-like. 

In her discussion of the war situation, Nelta said, 
Would there be any reason a Christian over there might refuse to kill *our boys* 
during the war? According to the argument the Christian over there could not 
refuse to kill a Christian over here.

Answer: 1. Killing in war is a ministry for good. 
2. Christians are to be prepared for every good work.
3. Christians may participate in war, to include killing.
We have already recognized that, since war is a ministry for good and ordained of 
God, then God does sanction some form of killing. What needs to be recognized 
is that though a Christian might be the instrument of death for someone else, this 
does not make him necessarily responsible for that death. The entity responsible 
for such deaths related to war is not the Christian, even though he participates in 
such activity. The civil government prosecuting the war is responsible for any 
deaths relating to that war. Further, such casualties are acceptable to God in 
bringing to justice the evil doer.

Nelta says: 
What keeps being brought up in proposition #2 is the fact that because the 
government is a minister of God by divine instruction, the Christian must be 
under the control of the government to the extent of whatever the government 
tells the Christian to do he must do. 

Answer: Again, Nelta has put words in my mouth. I never said that the Christian 
must be under the control of the government for whatever they say to do. What I 
have suggested, yes averred, is that it was God who gave the government the 
authority over all its people to establish a military whereby war would be waged 
to punish the evil doer, and in this the Christian is also subject.

Nelta says: 
Summing up: If a Christian can/must engage in carnal warfare, the kingdom is 
subordinate to the human government. Human thinking is contrary to God's 
thinking. 1 Pet. 2:11 calls us aliens and exiles. Because of this the Christian does 
not become involved in the affairs of the secular government.

Answer: The kingdom IS subordinate to the human government in earthly 
matters, but in so doing they are still being subject to God, as it was He who 
ordained that government. Nelta is right that human thinking is contrary to God’s 
thinking, but her take on it is wrong. It is hard to understand, from a human 
standpoint, why God would allow people to spend eternity in Hell, yet He does 
exactly that. God also uses the sword to maintain a peaceful life for the majority 
of the world. Further, any Christian who does not become involved in the affairs 
of secular government is foolish. A failure to attempt to maintain as close to one 
nation under God as possible only makes our job of preaching the gospel that 
much harder to do.

Now I will attempt to address some additional material.

Is it acceptable for the Christian to defend himself? Is it acceptable for the 
Christian to defend others? Can the Christian protect his family from harm and 
still please God? How many others would a Christian defend before it would be 
considered a nation?

Luke 22:35-38 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, 
and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. (36) Then said he unto 
them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he 
that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (37) For I say unto you, 
that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned 
among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (38) And they 
said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

In the above passage, Jesus makes mention of the previous instruction not to take 
any of their needs with them, even a sword. This was because their sojourn would 
be done only in the region of Judea, among their own kinsman, and little danger 
was expected. In this passage, Jesus recognized that their coming tribulation 
would take them outside of the region of relative safety, and told them to purchase 
the sword. Of note is the fact that He did not even chastise them for bringing two 
swords to the Passover meal. There is little doubt as to the meaning of the need 
for swords in this passage. Even the word sword is translated from a Greek word 
meaning an instrument of war (machaira, from the root mache). In the subsequent 
event involving Peter cutting off the ear of Malchus, the Lord never chastised him 
for coming to His defense, only for preventing what He had previously told the 
apostles would happen (John 18:11). The sword was used for self defense, 
particularly when traveling.

In another example previously cited, we have one Cornelius, who was a centurion 
of the Roman band. He was not only a soldier, he was a leader of a hundred men. 
Not only is there no instruction for Cornelius to retire from this activity after his 
conversion, but the testimony regarding him prior to his conversion is telling. 
Acts 10:1-2 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of 
the band called the Italian band, (2) A devout man, and one that feared God with 
all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. 
The fact that the Bible records this soldier as being both devout and God-fearing 
is very important to this discussion. The word devout comes from the Greek 
eusebes, meaning well-reverent, i.e. pious:--devout, godly. How could his 
profession make this man God fearing and godly in the eyes of an inspired writer 
if such activity were sinful? And again, why not use such a prime example to 
teach against a Christian in military service if such were indeed sinful in the eyes 
of God?

We have numerous examples where Christians were either taught to defend 
themselves (to include with the sword), or taught to defend others. Part of the duty 
of a husband and father is to take care of his household. Though this applies to 
food and clothing, protection is also part of the package. And what does it mean 
for someone to give up their life for their friends? 

I demonstrated in a previous rebuttal that the arguments often given to refute this 
idea are given from generalizations relating to religious persecution and personal 
retaliation, but we are not talking about those issues. Such ideas as turn the other 
cheek, not returning evil for evil, not taking vengeance, and loving your enemies 
are not pertinent to the war situation as they involve what is done personally, not 
what is done against the governing authority. We have also seen in scripture 
where these have been mitigated, sometimes by the apostles and sometimes by the 
Lord Himself.

That is all I will address at the moment. I await Nelta’s rebuttal.