theologians and war

Re: Hey Bill

--

Thankyou, Chris. Blessings on you too my friend. How do you like Point Loma? Got any Arminians after your soul?

 

oops, rather I said Jesus and Paul preached the SAME gospel. Some at Western denied that as do some other dispensationalists.

 

Hey Bill,

no, no arminian poachers. it would be nice for a change. i mean, anyone who is theological at all here. i'm really a novelty, and i'm continually asking that question over and over, "who am I and why am I here?" the circumstances that brought me here are long and complicated, but God's divine leading has been very clear.

i'm very pleased with plnu. they are the very best credentialing program around. God willing, and along with some help from the degreeinfo forum, i may just graduate with two more degrees this august... both were begun last november.

Shalom!

Chris

 

Sorry to be so late in responding to this one...
we are in the process of moving to a new home, but here is my quick response.

Actually, in my earlier post, I was thinking of Romans 13. It appears that Paul there speaks of the responsibility that a government has. Without going into detail and not in anyway claiming to be exhaustive, he says that a government is there to protect the innocent, punish the guilty, etc. Now, we can argue the particulars there about whether a pre-emptive war is appropriate, etc. But the fact remains that protecting the helpless is a responsibility that any government should take very seriously.
As to the sermon on the mount being authoritative today, I would have to say that absolutely it is. I reject dispensational theology as being inaccurate. I know that some of you will want to speak about that some more, and I will be happy to oblige you, but give me a few days... I hope that doesn't sound to harsh. I don't mean for it to do so. Suffice it to say that anything Jesus said, I am taking to heart.

well, I could run on some more, but we are still moving, so better go for now.

later,
clint

 

clint,

Your rejection of dispensationalism makes you sound like a Trinity student or a Westminster student. interesting.

Thanks for including romans 13. Government is there to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. How does that apply to the discernment of "justice" in a pre-emptive war on Iraq by the United States?

Paul's context for Romans 13 is an oppressed sect of Christians ("sect" may not be the right word) under an oppressive and pagan government. Paul reassures them they are to obey the gov't as far as conscience allows. It would seem that Romans 13 applies to this situation in the case of the Iraqi Christians living under Saddam more than anything else. My question is mostly why, to you, the authorization of governmental justice in Romans 13 is a legitimation of George Bush's administration as opposed to Saddam? If you try to explain why, I think I would find you appealing to some other criteria that is more profound than a governmental structure to legitimate just action. If so, then your appeal to "the government did it, so it's right" would collapse.

I miss your point.

Chris

 

Some great questions Bill. Honestly, I have no real solution.

To permit my sounding "liberal" for a minute, some of the things that are said in Matthew's gospel just shock me. I mean, like in Matt. 23 Jesus practically tells the crowd to obey the Mosaic law "do what they do" because they 'sit in Moses' seat." I can't think of any other passage in Scripture that teaches Pharasaism to the extent that this one appears to.

I think the command to "be perfect" goes with the others. it's astonishingly clear and shocking.

Sometimes I wonder if Matthew included these things just because he wasn't afraid to shock people out of their skulls.

On your question about the "textual trail" behind Jesus' teaching in the SOM, what about the book of James? Doesn't that epistle have a lot of continuity with the sermon?

Chris

 

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Pacifists tend to live in liberal democracies or have died out. Christianity has never been pacifist to any significant degree for a very good reason - survival.

 

]

==


That's right! just look at Victor Mature in Demetrius and the Gladiators

 

What about the early anabaptists that didn't live in a liberal democracy and were drowned by other Christians as a parody on their baptism? Or, maybe the early Christians who were martyred for the faith? Isn't it a consensus that the early Christian church was a persecuted minority under Rome for three centuries before the conversion of Constantine?

cg

 

Apparently, you did miss my point - or else, I didn't state it clearly enough. I did not speak of the legitimacy of the current campaign (except to say that I supported it, but that was not included in any argument that I made. At least, it wasn't intended to be...). Rather, I simply said that the government's responsibilities were to protect the innocent, etc. I then stated that the current war and the legitimacy of it was another argument. My point didn't discuss the "justice" aspect, but rather the protection of the helpless. To quickly address the situation, I would say that from President Bush's perspective, he believes that the best way for him to protect the citizens of the USA is to engage in the current actions. You may agree or disagree, makes no difference to me. But as he views his responsibilities, he views this as the best way to carry them out. I know that is not a deep discussion, but does carry the main thought that I was intending to convey.

No, I am not a Trinity or Westminster alumnus, and I didn't realize that they were the only ones that rejected dispensationalism... Honestly, I didn't mean for it to sound as harsh as my earlier post did. My only excuse is that I am still in the process of moving and don't have time to elaborate. I have many good friends who are dispensationalists. I still love them and respect them. But I still think their theology is faulty. Of course, they feel the same way about me...

anyway, I hope that clears up my earlier comments. If not, then forgive me for my ramblings and we can proceed on to bigger and better things.

To Bill, I promise to get back to your discussion after things settle down here a little bit. I am behind on my Revelation course for my MA and really need to get caught up. I only have about 550 pages to read and two assignments to finish by Saturday. No big deal..ha

later,
clint

 

Clint,

Thank you for clearing things up. Honestly, it's okay to post things that aren't so "precise." Blessings on your move.

Chris

 

Chris,
Thank you for your kind reply. As I reread my latest post, it seemed a bit rude, so I apologize for that. I am fine with non precision, but had I been more clear in my first post, the second wouldn't have been necessary.

The move is great. Thanks,

later,
clint

 

heehee

great thread....a little fun below...it might be funnier if that were Bush instead of Saddam in the cartoon...

 

Re: heehee

I realize this is just humor but the meaning of the word does not negate all killing.

Bush & Blair are likely to have saved many lives (possibly even our own if the nuclear & chemical material proves true). It is sad to hear the stories of the murder & torture of women and children within the Iraqi regime. It is so easy for folks here within the self centered comfort of their well to do lifestyles to say we should stay out of it because it is not our business, and delude themselves into believing that it will not effect us, etc. To paraphrase Dickens, mankind is our business and that is global thinking.

My own feeling is that the war has proven Bush & Blair to have been justified and if and when they find these chemicals it will only add to this. The faint hearted do not save or help anyone. I would hope that if I were living under the oppression of an Iraqi like regime that someone would come to my aid.

Where this situation will eventually lead in terms of our global relationships I do not know or whether the post war situation will be mismanaged I do not know.

Incidentally, I remember hearing an Arab involved in terroism on a PBS program say that the USA's lack of use of military muscle by Reagan when the hostages were being taken in the middle east made terrorists bolder.

One way or another these are tough choices. Do nothing and more people die and oppression continues. Do something and it may be the wrong thing and people may die. Teddy Roosevelt had some saying about taking action and life.

At any rate it is late and I am rambling. Good night.

North

 

The word translated "kill" in the Mosaic prohibitions (Exod. 20:13;Deut. 5:17) is "resah"
and should be rendered"murder" not "kill" [ Theological Wordbook of the OT, 2:2208]. In fact even one who but slightly knows of the purported history of the Hebrew people referenced in Scripture in , say, the book of Joshua , knows that God, Himself, was said to approve of those wars. But the killing there is represented by a different Hebrew word.

Consequently the cartoon may succeed at humor , but it does so at the cost of misrepresenting a Scripture. The author of it made a buck and caused many a smile. So who cares if the Scripture is mishandled?

 

ditto Bill

 

My two cents:

(1) I can't imagine that anyone is waiting with bated breath for a Unitarian's biblical exegesis, but I second Bill on his interpretation of "thou shalt not kill." The OT/Tanakh undeniably includes a just war doctrine, and it is in fact a slightly more harsh just war doctrine than that of Islamic tradition (in that the Qur'an explicitly forbids slaughter of non-combatants, while in two cases--the Canaanites and the Amalekites--Deuteronomy affirms it as a divine commandment). Every major religion--including Buddhism--has a just war tradition. Even Gandhi has said that violence in self-defense, or in defense of others, is justified as a last resort.

(2) Jesus' statements about violence all deal with individual decisions to kill or harm; they are silent on the subject of war. It seems to me that the concept of war is prominent enough in the OT tradition that if Jesus were completely opposed to all war under all circumstances, he would have been recorded as saying so in clear and unambiguous terms.


Cheers,