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

Greetings to all.

Nelta seems to think she has already won this debate, yet nothing could be further 
from the truth! She tries to slip and slide around several obvious points of 
scripture by giving what are only GENERALISMS. To reply with such does not 
do justice to the Holy Writ. She also continues to try to make me say things I have 
not said, as you can see in several areas.

Nelta suggests that I am using the fact that several friends are in the military as 
justification for this proposition. I said, nor implied, nothing of the sort. I have 
friends who have become false teachers and are no longer in my fellowship. I 
simply suggested that information to explain the importance of the issue.

Nelta said: 
God's character does not change. His dealing with people does. Israel was His 
chosen nation and the way He dealt with the enemies of Israel does not affect us 
today except to show us His power. Today, God has no chosen nation except the 
spiritual nation that is made up of all who have been added to Christ by Christ. 
Therefore He does not give instructions on one nation getting rid of another.

Answer: God’s dealing with people has NOT changed. Where does the Bible so 
instruct? God still elevates the Saint and condemns the sinner. God still expects 
men to worship according to His precepts. God still expects men to repent, and 
God still has an avenue of approach to Him that demonstrates His mercy. To 
suggest that because God has not instructed one nation to get rid of another in 
some NT passage that He does not do such today is very naive, and violates the 
scriptures. As shown previously, it is God who establishes those very 
principalities and powers, and has ordained them (Rom 13:1). God also removes 
them, and uses the hand of man to do so.

Nelta also refuses to see how we are to learn from the OT. She repeatedly 
suggests we simply cannot and should not use it. Why? Rom 15:4 tells us such 
things were written for our learning and THIS passage is in the NT! If the NT tells 
us to use the OT, I will listen to divine revelation and not to Nelta!

Concerning how God has given authority over the waging of war to the governing 
authority, Nelta continues to miss the entire point! She says: 
On the contrary! I understand that thoroughly and have stated such. Rom. 13, 
makes it plain that God gave to the civil government all the authority it takes to 
take care of the unruly, whether they be *Christians* or the ungodly.

Answer: She says this but doesn’t even believe what she says! If God gave the 
civil government all the authority it takes, that would include the right to conscript 
even the Christian! And by the way, Nelta, the Christian would be ungodly if he 
becomes unruly!

Nelta did not correctly respond to my question: "Where is this fictional law you 
keep trying to make out of some highly generalized statements?" She says: 
In my first affirmative I gave the scriptures that show the Christian character 
developed by Jesus in the hearts of His followers. That should be enough. 

Though Nelta would like it to be enough, it simply is not. Again she fails to see 
the import of the question and continues to use highly generalized statements. 
One of the hermeneutical cautions is the use of care when one takes Bible 
instruction from the general to the specific. The Bible has given us several general 
instructions that have been mitigated by other instructions or were not intended to 
apply to every specific. In case Nelta has forgotten, I dealt with her previous 
generalisms in MY third Negative!

Nelta says: 
Of all of arguments in this debate, the one that surprises me the most is this: Since 
in Rom. 13, we are told that the civil government "is the minister of God to thee 
for good," that we must partake of war because of the word *good.* Compare that 
with a husband who leads for the good of the family, then the family should be a 
part in the leading because of the word *good.*

Answer: First let me express that Nelta is attempting to make a straw man here 
that I have not made. I did not say, nor have I suggested, that anyone MUST 
partake of war! I have suggested that a Christian MAY partake of defense of his 
country and his fellow man if so called upon. Second, comparing apples to 
oranges does not make them oranges! Her connection here is fallacious to the 
core! If she were even close with this comparison, it would only suggest that 
every HUSBAND should lead for the good of the family, not that the family 
should lead. How silly! 

My connection between the Christian being thoroughly equipped for every good 
work, as well as the one given in Tit 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to 
principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, 
was to show that everyone eligible to do a good work should strive to do so. Nelta 
has suggested that the Christian is ineligible for military service based on his 
character, but has failed to show anything but generalisms in support of her 
theory, many if not most of which are mitigated by situation or demonstration 
elsewhere in scripture (as mentioned in my third rebuttal).

I previously asked "Who is to take care of those evils if someone cannot do it?" 
Nelta responded: 
This of course, has been answered many times in this debate. The one who takes 
care of the evils of the world are those to whom God gave the authority to do so. 
This does not include God's children because they are to be the "light of the world 
and the salt of the earth," not the destroyer of the evil people. What does not seem 
to be understand is that God gave different roles. That is even seen in the physical 
family. It is also seen in the lives of the Christian and in the civil government. Let 
me again ask, How can someone be the light of the world...showing sinners the 
Master and at the same time...kill them? How can the Christian pray for them and 
at the same time KILL them?

Answer: Nelta still refuses to deal with the idea that Romans 13 shows that not all 
killing is disapproved of by God. She also attempts to make two different laws in 
the NT, one for Christians and another for non-Christians. Where does the 
scriptures so teach? Why could it be sin for the Christians to kill in the defense of 
his country but not be sin for the non-Christian? Where is this taught? Nelta, you 
seem to like generalisms, here is one for you to chew on. THERE IS ONLY ONE 
PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY! The other problem that she fails to get is Who 
are the EVIL people you are talking about? According to scripture, there is none 
righteous, no not one. Even the Christian has appropriated his righteousness 
through the blood of Christ. So what you have is the evil doer punishing the evil 
doer. Who can believe it?

No one argues, at least no Christian I know of, that killing is not abhorrent, or that 
it is anything but a last resort, but that does not alter the fact that God has said this 
kind of killing is NOT a sin, but rather ordained of God. Just like church 
discipline, no-one likes to remove someone from the fellowship of the saints, but 
there are times when you have no choice.

When I said that killing in war was the responsibility of the government, Nelta 
again resorts to her apples and oranges comparison, by relating that situation to 
the one of the Nazi’s attempt to exterminate the Jews. Again, this comparison 
does not hold water. The Nazi’s were not found guilty at Nuremberg for 
prosecuting a war, they were found guilty of an attempt at genocide. War is 
approved of God (ordained), genocide is NOT. 

When I said: "Any Christian who does not become involved in the affairs of 
secular government is foolish." Nelta anwered: 
This has been answered so many times it would serve no purpose to go over it 
again. Unfortunately, an ADEQUATE answer was never given. That is why it 
continues to be said. When we refuse to get involved in governmental affairs, we 
only risk losing the very peaceful life we pray for, and also allow our cities and 
countries to lead our countrymen into depravity. Is this what the light of the 
world..salt of the earth are to do?

I asked, "Is it acceptable for the Christian to defend himself.......?" Nelta side-
stepped this one. Could it be because she saw the logical conclusion? If a 
Christian can defend himself, or his family, or his neighbor, how many neighbors 
may he defend?

Concerning the carrying of swords, I said, "This was because their sojourn would 
be done only in the region of Judea, among their own kinsman, and little danger 
was expected." Nelta responds: 
Excuse me?? Where is ANY such thing mentioned in that scripture? 

Nelta does not seem to understand that there is both explicit teaching in scripture 
and implicit teaching. I have been careful not to mention this in the debate 
because I signed to express what the NT teaches, but every single scholar I know 
of, both in churches of Christ and in the denominational world who is in print has 
suggested these very meanings for the carrying of the sword: first when they did 
not carry them, and later when they were told to buy them. I am a lot more likely 
to look to them than Nelta, especially when that is the only explanation that 
makes sense of the passage.

Nelta says: 
We have no idea why they were told to take swords, yet we know Jesus never 
taught ANYONE to defend themselves with physical force against another 
person, but rather to turn the other cheek. 

Answer: Again a generalism. Does Nelta forget that I already dealt with this? Did 
Jesus turn the other cheek at every occasion? HE DID NOT! So what are we to 
understand from this? Nelta suggests that Jesus never taught the disciples that 
they should defend themselves, yet it was Jesus who told them to buy swords, but 
lets look at the reason Nelta gives for why He did this: Jesus was going to perform 
a miracle (the ear thing) and the sword was used for His being able to do that. All 
I can say is, Nelta must be getting desperate! She has Jesus allowing what she 
suggests is sin in order to perform a miracle! Again, who can believe it? When 
has Jesus ever supported sin?

Nelta says: 
In fact, didn't He say, that those who use the sword would perish by the sword? 

Answer: Yes, He said that in essence. But even in that He was talking about 
earthly vengeance. This does not support Nelta’s case but my own, that there are 
some offenses that are worthy of the sword.

Nelta continues to deal with Cornelius without really DEALING with Cornelius! 
What I have suggested, as with several other issues, is that we have some very 
specific opportunities for the Nelta doctrine to be given in specific, unequivocal 
instruction, yet it was not. Nelta, Bible silence is exactly that. It is SILENCE. It is 
NOTHING. The Bible has said something FOR the use of the sword against the 
evil doer, and NOTHING against the Christian being involved. Again, where is 
it? I won’t let you hide in generalisms.

Nelta suggests it is acceptable for the Christian to give up his life for his friends, 
as long as he doesn’t take the life of an enemy in so doing. Would he then allow 
his friends lives to be taken in order to not take another persons life? When does 
this logic begin to fail? How can I show the perfect love? If I cannot keep annoys 
life from being taken, then why give up my own? And if life were as sacred as 
Nelta would have it, why would I allow anyone to take mine?

Nelta says:  
Again, I would like to say that when someone goes to war/kills for the civil 
authorities, he is giving up his self-control to another.

Answer: Yes, exactly! That is what God means when He says to be in subjection 
to elders, to one another, wives to husbands, children to parents, and all to the 
civil authorities. You give up your own control for the control of others wherein 
God has given them that authority. 

Nelta says: 
To say the Christian is not responsible for the killing he does in the war says he 
gives up his self-control to the civil government.....which God never directed 
anyone to do. 

Answer: This is patently untrue, as previously indicated. God has clearly put us in 
subjection to principalities and powers. 5293. upotassw hupotasso, hoop-ot-as'-so 
from 5259 and 5021; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey:--be under obedience 
(obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in 
subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

I have shown in this debate that:
Not all killing is forbidden by God
God has put the war making authority in earthly hands
God has called this war making a ministry for Good
All Christians are to do that which God calls good which he is qualified to do
There is no qualifier which explicitly or implicitly condemns the Christian from 
participation in war.

As I prepare to end this final affirmation of this important topic, I challenge Nelta 
to present some non-generalism that clearly and unequivocally shows that there are:
two NT laws, one Christian, another non-Christian
the Christian is explicitly denied the right to participate in that which he gains 
from.
The Christian may expect others to do that which he cannot do
what is sin for one is not sin for another
Any teaching that, by direct command, necessary inference, or approved example, 
prevents the Christian from participating in this ministry for good.

I thank Nelta, all listers, and the moderator for the privilege of participating in this 
debate. Again, I look forward to seeing if Nelta can respond to these important 
issues.