There is no doubt that God raises up evil governments to judge and to punish us. We can’t resist those situations. We will fall to His judgement. That doesn’t mean every bad person in the world should be allowed to abuse whoever they choose.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Live by the sword?
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
If the USA provided material support to Britain and the USSR to get the war going (as they did), and then did not step in and fight when Japan came into the war, then this is correct.
However, if the USA did not give material support to either in the first place, the war could never have got to that point. That is my point. A purely pacifist position - refusing to support war even when waged by others - would have resulted in peace as far back as 1940.
And those things you refer to as "pure evil" were not going on at that point, that came later in the war and largely as a consequence of the war. Lack of war would have prevented much of that also. There had been comparatively few military casualties to 1940, and essentially no civilian casualties.
Last edited:
Hitler was going to war no matter what. That was the lesson Neville Chamberlain was so brutally taught.
What was Cain’s problem then? No one threatened him.
Armed conflict was not the first thing they tried to bring resolution.
The Declaration of Independence was passed by the Continental Congress, made up of representatives of the various colonial republican governments.
The one about swords is not the only verse to condone defense of ones self and ones country. I posted another one. There are many others, especially in the OT.
I have not yet been able to reconcile the pacifist message and the war message in scripture. Both are there and sincere Christians take both sides.
Just war theory is a nice attempt. Isolationism probably isn't far off the mark either. I don't know. But wars of foreign adventure to 'defeat evil' and 'spread democracy' not so much. They look more like financial colonialism or international communism than any righteous self defense.
That didn't happen until later in the war, AFTER we entered. But Stalin has murdered some 7 million Ukrainians BEFORE we allied with him not to mention millions of Russians. Stalin's regime would ultimately murder 10 times the number Hitler would. Not only that but by our help he conquered half of Europe and spread communism throughout the world.
We clearly chose the side which committed far greater atrocities, whose ideology still plagues us to this day and threatens to destroy us.
That's grade school Allied propaganda. The truth is much more along the lines what Samuel laid out. The American perspective on war and foreign policy was laid out by Washington and involved avoiding foreign entanglements and war. But 20th century propaganda has remade America with a new founding story in WWII with us going overseas to defeat evil. And that laid the justification for the next 70 years of wars of empire.
Has God raised up this impending government takeover by Woke radicals and Commies to judge the US? I have my suspicions that it may be.
Bad person, as in tyrannical leaders? Which ones do we choose to end abuse? Does that mean we invade every two bit dictator's country in Africa and Asia?
But, we're digressing into foreign policy. What of domestic oppression? What do we as individuals do?
If Christianity was outlawed tomorrow, would an armed insurrection be the solution? What's our response?
I have found the website www.rivalnations.org personally challenging. I do not agree with them on many issues, do use discernment when reading. However, the general thrust of their description of what the Kingdom of God is I find simple, clarifying and challenging.
They have an excellent article that collates the teachings of early Christians on the Kingdom of God, and violence. It is well worth reading. A couple of quotes from it:
But do read the entire article. It's all just quotes from early Christians, organised by category.
Interesting supporting point I ran into just now: In a 2015 speech, Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Hitler had no intent of killing the Jews prior to November 1941 - when he met with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
If correct (and it is disputed by various scholars, but aligns with what I have come to understand from other sources), this simply reinforces the point I made earlier: Had the war ended in 1940, these atrocities would not have occurred. Pacifism would truly have brought peace and saved lives.
I disagree.
The Japanese or Nazis would not have stopped their invasion of other countries. The fact that so much of the genocide happened after the United States was involved does not mean it wouldn't have happened without our involvement. Remember the Japs attacked us first. And in many ways their atrocities were worse than Hitlers. Most only talk about the Nazis but both were horrific.
Oh and the other thing is that forcing people from their homes and lives is also wrong and was something to be stopped as well. Apparently the threshold for going to war is when they are committing mass murder. That is ridiculous and I it means you waited to long...
Last edited:
Yah will have the entire world under the governance of His son by the end of the Millennium.
Slewfoot has attempted to pre-empt that by establishing his own world government multiple times by using a leader/nation to conquer the other nations.I don’t see how pacifism would have blocked him from accomplishing his goal.
It was not used to establish nor protect Israel in the promised land, although it was used in bringing them out of Egypt.
Joseph’s life was definitely an example of pacifism, but Mordecai wasn’t afforded that option when Haman made his play.
Slewfoot has attempted to pre-empt that by establishing his own world government multiple times by using a leader/nation to conquer the other nations.I don’t see how pacifism would have blocked him from accomplishing his goal.
It was not used to establish nor protect Israel in the promised land, although it was used in bringing them out of Egypt.
Joseph’s life was definitely an example of pacifism, but Mordecai wasn’t afforded that option when Haman made his play.
Wow! Some interesting stuff.
Now, the question remains: Were these early saints forging their own path based on their own preferences, or were they following in an apostolic norm established with Jesus?
True. Most are dead now, but ask any survivor of the Japanese occupation of Korea, China, or the Philippines, and they will have stories to tell.
There is a third option:
Act to overthrow and defeat the forces of oppression and with the Grace of God prevail!
America prevailed against the world's #1 empire...TWICE.
The Romanian people rose up, overthrew, and executed the vile dictator Ceaucescu. Many of them were quietly Christian and in the aftermath of the overthrow of communism Romania has seen a rebirth of faith and family.
The Italians rose up and overthrew Mussolini and the Fascists.
And if we need to then we not only must be willing to rise up against tyranny we must be willing to stand and look the forces of evil in the eye and say, "Here I am you SOB, come get me!" and then meet them with the same unmerciful judgment and force that Samson unleashed on 10,000 Philistines!
As for me and my family we trust in the Lord but we will not sit idly by while others fight and bleed for us and we will not bow down and lick the boots of tyrants.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams
The Japs were far worse than the Nazis. However, they only had the opportunity to try and take over the Pacific because the British Commonwealth was busy in Europe. The Royal Navy, and virtually the entire militaries of Australia, New Zealand, and various other places, had gone to Europe. There was an enormous power vacuum, and they sought to take over. Those of us in the Pacific will forever be grateful for the USA for stepping in and preventing this. NZ ended up in the strange position that our own troops were in Europe, while US troops were based here.
However, if the Commonwealth had NOT been busy in Europe, there would have been no such power vacuum, and this Pacific war would not have started. Had the USA not supported Britain in 1940, they would have made peace with Hitler. Without a power vacuum to exploit, there would have been no Pearl Harbour.
And if I'm wrong, and the Pacific war had started anyway, it would have been stopped much faster, as the USA's full resources could have been devoted to that genuinely defensive theatre and they'd have been fighting alongside a full-strength Royal Navy and Commonwealth also. The Japanese could have never got past the Philippines.
Please, patriotic Americans, note that I am NOT blaming the USA for the Western war in Europe. I am blaming Britain and the Commonwealth - including my own country. The USA just aided and abetted them, and could have forced them to give up this foolish venture by choosing to withhold support.
The Japs may still have tried to take over continental Asia of course. Covering all the what-ifs could become a very long discussion but it's getting too off-topic so I'll stop.
The more I've looked at WW2, the more I've come to believe that Hitler had no designs in the West other than reclaiming German territory lost in WW1. The evidence cited for Hitler having wider plans for the USA, Britain etc can often be traced back to Allied propaganda agencies, they are not necessarily real.
Hitler certainly had greater plans in the East - because he saw communism as a grave threat to Europe, and wished to knock out the USSR before they became unstoppable. The USSR certainly had very well documented plans for global domination - their ruling committee was explicitly called the "Communist International". The USSR was very overtly an attempt by Satan to establish a world government, and Germany was standing in opposition to this. To counter the USSR, Hitler would certainly have conquered much of Eastern Europe, all the way to Moscow, had he been left to his own devices. But given the extreme evil of Stalin's regime, and the obvious fact of their one-world-government intentions, I am not convinced that Hitler would have been worse. It may well have been better for Britain and the USA to have left the two dictators to fight each other, rather than helping the USSR take over all of Eastern Europe. Or even help Hitler defeat the USSR in exchange for receiving control of those countries in Eastern Europe they wished to keep free from the Nazis and negotiating provisions for the Jews in Germany - ie directly countering the evils of both Stalin and Hitler simultaneously (though that would not have been a pacifist position).
A lot is said about the Allies commitment to Czechoslovakia and Poland - but they clearly had no real commitment to either nation as they willingly handed both to Stalin. Britain declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland, but did not declare war on the USSR when it also invaded Poland days later. They were happy for both to be taken over by a dictatorial regime - they just wanted it to be the Communists rather than the Nazis. So the Allies actively supported Satan's world-government communist expansion plan.
Ultimately I think "Slewfoot" was at work directing the actions of all major parties involved in that war. Not just Hitler. Everywhere you look in that history you find evil.
------------------------------------
BUT
I'm not actually trying to debate the details of WW2. I have only one point I am actually trying to make, and I'll say it clearly:
World War 2 does not prove that a pacifist position is wrong. The details are debatable, and there is at least a reasonable possibility that a pacifist stance would have resulted in better outcomes. Which means that the "but what about the Nazis" argument does not disprove the pacifist position.
In answering the core question, we should stick to scripture, while paying strong attention to the opinions of early Christians who were more experienced in persecution than we are in interpreting that scripture. We cannot assume that the wars of our immediate past disprove the position taken by the early church.
Last edited:
Just going to add to what you said here.
One thing to keep in mind is that chapter and verse dividers were added later, so romans 13 should be read as a continuation of chapter 12, and in the last verse of chapter 12 it says
So my question would be, where does that admonition stop, just with evil brethren, or with anything that is evil, whether that be brethren, or evil government? I think it's the latter.
The other thing I would like to point out is the word "continually" in Romans 13:6,
So if the government we have is not "CONTINUALLY" carrying out those aforementioned tasks (praising good and punishing evil etc. With "good" and "evil" being defined by the bible!) then it is NOT, and can never be, the government that is mentioned in Romans 13!
Last edited:
I can't quite see how I'd describe choosing to passively let your head be chopped off without resistance being "their own preference". I can't see how anyone would prefer that. Taking up arms to defend yourself is so much easier psychologically, so much more attractive. Complete passivity is so unnatural I can't see how anyone would choose it without an extremely strong religious reason to do so.
This is an excellent observation. This would mean that we are to overcome evil governments - with good. Not with weapons of war, but with righteous deeds.
In a democracy most obviously, but ultimately in any system, the government somewhat reflects the mood of the people. The leaders are just some of the people. If the majority of the people are godly, the people in government will tend to be godly. And if the people are ungodly, their leaders will tend to be ungodly.
The way to change a country in a manner that is truly lasting, is to change society from the bottom up. To change individual people to be more godly, through personal good actions and ministry. The error of both political movements, and violent revolutions, is to try and change society from the top down.
On a personal level, if your neighbours all value you, you'll be a whole lot safer. You'll have more protection from threats from individuals. And even if the threat is from an evil government, your neighbours aren't going to report you to them. It may be that our focus should be on building our individual community reputation, and the reputation of Christians in general, through good deeds.
A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches,
and favour is better than silver or gold. (Proverbs 22:1)
Governments do "attend continually" to a whole host of different matters simultaneously. For instance, every government "continually" attempts to prevent and punishes murder and theft, through provision of police and court systems. This is continual attendance to enforcement of righteous laws that reflect scripture. The government doesn't stop opposing murder for a few days, then start again - they continually attend to this task of punishing evil.
Obviously, at the same time, every government also does evil acts of its own. And refuses to support good acts it should support. But I don't think that changes the fact that it is still "continually" opposing at least some important subsets of evil, those aspects of evil that it is the government's explicit role to oppose.
I have to disagree with you here because many governments support and promote murder, sanctioning it in hospitals and specialist abortion centers. More defenseless people are murdered in those clinics every day than have died on the worst day of covid deaths. Governments around the world are now promoting euthanasia which is just murder by another name. But take heart, it's not as bad yet as it's going to get.
I agree - but I'd say that's a separate promotion of evil. It happens alongside the fact that they actively work against murder in the general population.
I'm just commenting on the word "continually". If the government said "from Monday to Friday murder is illegal, but over the weekend you can murder all you like", they would not be opposing murder "continually". But if they said "it's always illegal to murder people between the ages of 0 and 70, but legal to murder the unborn and the elderly and anyone with red hair", they would be continually opposing murder of the majority of the population. Their omissions would be obviously unjust, but they would not contradict the word "continually". And it would be right for the government to collect taxes to fund the opposition of murder of the majority of the population - even though they should do more than that.
This is crazy, Hitler has already invaded Poland, Austria and France. There was no making peace with that guy. The Soviets tried and he attacked them too.