Distinguishing Mountains from Molehills

[Sudsy]

If I understand you correctly, your and my understanding of who is our neighbour is quite different. Those who killed for what they deemed to be a greater cause in war was not killing their neighbour, imo. Those verses you used I would not apply them to all people in wars as many have no real hatred towards those they are killing and if they surrender we read many stories of how they treat them well. And stories like on Christmas day when soldiers would take a day off and join the 'enemy' to celebrate together. Does this make sense to you of people who are supposedly hating and trying to stop each other from advancing their purposes? The good that those who fought against Hitler was to stop him from killing many innocent people. Yes, it was not good for those who get killed in the process but it can be good for all those who were saved from being killed, should the killing not occur. Sometimes called 'the greater good'.

Just saying your view of who is my neighbour, imo, is not relevant to participating in wars. My neighbour is someone I come in contact with throughout my life in my local area. But my main issue had to do with what is considered a 'mountain' issue and it would appear some, perhaps most, Anabaptists appear to make this a salvation issue, although most of professing Christians do not but do have some specific boundaries on when killing could be justified.

Sudsy, I realize you have repeatedly disagreed on this forum with the Anabaptist hermeneutic RE nonresistance as a direct outworking of Jesus' teachings and examples, but I find myself compelled to share a quote from Peter Reidemann (Anabaptist leader from early/mid-1500s) that I have on a sticky note here on my computer; it offers a good elucidation of what Anabaptist Christians have historically and (for the most part) contemporarily consider to be an absolutely foundational position (ie. a mountain, not molehill) for Christians committed to following the teachings of Jesus:

Someone might say, ‘It is necessary to use force because of wicked people.’ We have already answered this by saying that the power of the sword has passed to the heathen for the punishment of their evildoers. That is not our concern. Paul says, ‘What have I to do with judging evildoers?’ No Christian can be a ruler in worldly society. Peter Riedemann, Confession of Faith

I realize I've also said this before, but I believe it bears repeating here (even if only for others who may read this later) - the use of a "greater good" argument or logic to justify Christians engaging in violence and killing against others is abhorrent to us as Anabaptist Christians for a variety of reasons. It actually seems more honest to call it "the Lesser Sacrifice" rather than "the Greater Good", considering how often we fail to address the fact that in order to have a greater good situation, it means we are willing to sacrifice something (or someone) we consider lesser, in order to achieve that perceived greater good. That may be a post of its own, though...

I would regard that quote by Peter Reidemann also to be taken out of context. This 1 Cor 5:9-13 text, imo. is talking about about judging evildoers within the local church not evildoers in the world.

So, for examples, if you believe a Christian participated in wars and killed someone, if they did not ask for forgiveness they would be sent to hell ? Or if a person believed that they could be used as an instrument of God to stop up evil for the benefit of others and they killed someone (as we read happened often in the OT, sometimes written as God aiding them) and they did not see the need to ask forgiveness, would they be sent to hell ? What if a Christian was not sure about where God draws the line on killing in wars and they killed someone or thought they might have, if they asked forgiveness would they be saved ? Is killing someone an unforgiveable sin ? Is it a 'mountain' issue that repentance won't solve ?

And there are various other questions around this subject like when is one 'off the hook' when they are indirectly supporting killing in wars but not themselves directly doing the killing ? Is it the one who does the killing the only one guilty ? What about those who did not flee from killers and stayed and died with their family during war ? What about the scripture about knowing to do good and not doing it is a sin ? Could they not be guilty of not protecting their families when they could have or at least tried to escape ?

Are all 'mountain' issues in your belief, issues that will send people to hell ?

I don't really have a position on whether or not certain killing is ever justifiable and don't think I need to. But I do like to consider the arguments pro and con. To me, it is one of those issues like the Baptists and eternal security or the Pentecostals and speaking in tongues or whether one's water baptism is wrong and disobedient by the mode they use or whether women in ministry is permitable, etc, etc. These are all molehill issues when it comes to our salvation to me. I really see 'mountain' issues as being either one is born again or they are not. Period. And believe one can know when they are regardless of what others believe about them. At judgment day God's judgment will be all that matters.

[RZehr]

Do you think there is anything that will send anyone to hell?

[Sudsy]

Do you think there is anything that will send anyone to hell?

I do. The sin of rejecting Him and refusing His offer of forgiveness and new life in Jesus Christ. This is the unforgivable sin, because it means we are saying that the Holy Spirit's witness about Jesus is a lie.

Do you agree or do you have something else or a list of things that will send anyone to hell ?

[ken_sylvania]

I would regard that quote by Peter Reidemann also to be taken out of context. This 1 Cor 5:9-13 text, imo. is talking about about judging evildoers within the local church not evildoers in the world.

So, for examples, if you believe a Christian participated in wars and killed someone, if they did not ask for forgiveness they would be sent to hell ? Or if a person believed that they could be used as an instrument of God to stop up evil for the benefit of others and they killed someone (as we read happened often in the OT, sometimes written as God aiding them) and they did not see the need to ask forgiveness, would they be sent to hell ? What if a Christian was not sure about where God draws the line on killing in wars and they killed someone or thought they might have, if they asked forgiveness would they be saved ? Is killing someone an unforgiveable sin ? Is it a 'mountain' issue that repentance won't solve ?

And there are various other questions around this subject like when is one 'off the hook' when they are indirectly supporting killing in wars but not themselves directly doing the killing ? Is it the one who does the killing the only one guilty ? What about those who did not flee from killers and stayed and died with their family during war ? What about the scripture about knowing to do good and not doing it is a sin ? Could they not be guilty of not protecting their families when they could have or at least tried to escape ?

Are all 'mountain' issues in your belief, issues that will send people to hell ?

I don't really have a position on whether or not certain killing is ever justifiable and don't think I need to. But I do like to consider the arguments pro and con. To me, it is one of those issues like the Baptists and eternal security or the Pentecostals and speaking in tongues or whether one's water baptism is wrong and disobedient by the mode they use or whether women in ministry is permitable, etc, etc. These are all molehill issues when it comes to our salvation to me. I really see 'mountain' issues as being either one is born again or they are not. Period. And believe one can know when they are regardless of what others believe about them. At judgment day God's judgment will be all that matters.

It really isn't that complicated. If you stop trying to decide what all you can get away with without going to hell, and focus on what to do to best follow Jesus' teachings and example, it will become abundantly clear that shooting people isn't Jesus' way.

Jesus said "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

He couldn't have made it clearer that the OT time of hating and killing one's enemies was over, done, fini.

[Sudsy]

I would regard that quote by Peter Reidemann also to be taken out of context. This 1 Cor 5:9-13 text, imo. is talking about about judging evildoers within the local church not evildoers in the world.

So, for examples, if you believe a Christian participated in wars and killed someone, if they did not ask for forgiveness they would be sent to hell ? Or if a person believed that they could be used as an instrument of God to stop up evil for the benefit of others and they killed someone (as we read happened often in the OT, sometimes written as God aiding them) and they did not see the need to ask forgiveness, would they be sent to hell ? What if a Christian was not sure about where God draws the line on killing in wars and they killed someone or thought they might have, if they asked forgiveness would they be saved ? Is killing someone an unforgiveable sin ? Is it a 'mountain' issue that repentance won't solve ?

And there are various other questions around this subject like when is one 'off the hook' when they are indirectly supporting killing in wars but not themselves directly doing the killing ? Is it the one who does the killing the only one guilty ? What about those who did not flee from killers and stayed and died with their family during war ? What about the scripture about knowing to do good and not doing it is a sin ? Could they not be guilty of not protecting their families when they could have or at least tried to escape ?

Are all 'mountain' issues in your belief, issues that will send people to hell ?

I don't really have a position on whether or not certain killing is ever justifiable and don't think I need to. But I do like to consider the arguments pro and con. To me, it is one of those issues like the Baptists and eternal security or the Pentecostals and speaking in tongues or whether one's water baptism is wrong and disobedient by the mode they use or whether women in ministry is permitable, etc, etc. These are all molehill issues when it comes to our salvation to me. I really see 'mountain' issues as being either one is born again or they are not. Period. And believe one can know when they are regardless of what others believe about them. At judgment day God's judgment will be all that matters.

It really isn't that complicated. If you stop trying to decide what all you can get away with without going to hell, and focus on what to do to best follow Jesus' teachings and example, it will become abundantly clear that shooting people isn't Jesus' way.

Jesus said "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

He couldn't have made it clearer that the OT time of hating and killing one's enemies was over, done, fini.

And that is clearly your opinion on what is clear. And you are free to believe and express it. Still doesn't make it fact regardless of what scripture is used to try to support it. I could say the same with scriptural support on a variety of issues, for example, immersion water baptism. 'If one simply follows Jesus' teachings and example' they will be or do ------'. And I don't think it wrong to have personal convictions on what we believe and do because some day we will all give an account for what we have believed and done.

I believe there were many things Jesus did not make 'clear' and His followers often went away puzzled. Such as with this text. Was Jesus talking about our neighbours, those we come in contact with on a daily basis ? I believe He was. Can we stretch that to include anyone in the world to be our neighbour ? I'm not sure this is correct. Why didn't Jesus tell Peter to get rid of his sword as these are no longer OT days ? Seems like an opportunity to say that His followers should never kill or attempt to kill another person. Just throwing this in as some observations.

What puzzles me most about some nonresistant believers is their ways of resistance that often is in a very combatant manner. But then again some would point to Jesus interaction with the Pharisees and see an example there of how Jesus spoke to them.

[ken_sylvania]

I would regard that quote by Peter Reidemann also to be taken out of context. This 1 Cor 5:9-13 text, imo. is talking about about judging evildoers within the local church not evildoers in the world.

So, for examples, if you believe a Christian participated in wars and killed someone, if they did not ask for forgiveness they would be sent to hell ? Or if a person believed that they could be used as an instrument of God to stop up evil for the benefit of others and they killed someone (as we read happened often in the OT, sometimes written as God aiding them) and they did not see the need to ask forgiveness, would they be sent to hell ? What if a Christian was not sure about where God draws the line on killing in wars and they killed someone or thought they might have, if they asked forgiveness would they be saved ? Is killing someone an unforgiveable sin ? Is it a 'mountain' issue that repentance won't solve ?

And there are various other questions around this subject like when is one 'off the hook' when they are indirectly supporting killing in wars but not themselves directly doing the killing ? Is it the one who does the killing the only one guilty ? What about those who did not flee from killers and stayed and died with their family during war ? What about the scripture about knowing to do good and not doing it is a sin ? Could they not be guilty of not protecting their families when they could have or at least tried to escape ?

Are all 'mountain' issues in your belief, issues that will send people to hell ?

I don't really have a position on whether or not certain killing is ever justifiable and don't think I need to. But I do like to consider the arguments pro and con. To me, it is one of those issues like the Baptists and eternal security or the Pentecostals and speaking in tongues or whether one's water baptism is wrong and disobedient by the mode they use or whether women in ministry is permitable, etc, etc. These are all molehill issues when it comes to our salvation to me. I really see 'mountain' issues as being either one is born again or they are not. Period. And believe one can know when they are regardless of what others believe about them. At judgment day God's judgment will be all that matters.

It really isn't that complicated. If you stop trying to decide what all you can get away with without going to hell, and focus on what to do to best follow Jesus' teachings and example, it will become abundantly clear that shooting people isn't Jesus' way.

Jesus said "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

He couldn't have made it clearer that the OT time of hating and killing one's enemies was over, done, fini.

And that is clearly your opinion on what is clear. And you are free to believe and express it. Still doesn't make it fact regardless of what scripture is used to try to support it. I could say the same with scriptural support on a variety of issues, for example, immersion water baptism. 'If one simply follows Jesus' teachings and example' they will be or do ------'. And I don't think it wrong to have personal convictions on what we believe and do because some day we will all give an account for what we have believed and done.

I believe there were many things Jesus did not make 'clear' and His followers often went away puzzled. Such as with this text. Was Jesus talking about our neighbours, those we come in contact with on a daily basis ? I believe He was. Can we stretch that to include anyone in the world to be our neighbour ? I'm not sure this is correct. Why didn't Jesus tell Peter to get rid of his sword as these are no longer OT days ? Seems like an opportunity to say that His followers should never kill or attempt to kill another person. Just throwing this in as some observations.

What puzzles me most about some nonresistant believers is their ways of resistance that often is in a very combatant manner. But then again some would point to Jesus interaction with the Pharisees and see an example there of how Jesus spoke to them.

Jesus did speak about how the Pharisees used their tradition to make the word of God of no effect by creating workarounds and excuses to avoid doing what God had told them to do.

There are things that Jesus taught that can be difficult to understand, but his command to love our enemies is uncomfortably clear and direct. I'm not suggesting that the definition of neighbor needs to be stretched to include anyone in the world. Loving our neighbor was a command already in the Old Testament. Jesus said that we need to not just love our neighbor, we also need to love our enemy. It's really odd how it seems the only people who can't understand what an enemy is, are the people that want to make believe that it is ok to kill other people (I guess their friends, as they refuse to call them enemies). With friends like this, who needs enemies?

[Sudsy]

Jesus did speak about how the Pharisees used their tradition to make the word of God of no effect by creating workarounds and excuses to avoid doing what God had told them to do.

Yes the Pharisees developed their religion much like many of us still do today by cherry picking certain religious ways and taking them to extremes while at the same time ignoring the more important matters regarding mercy, justice and faithfulness. Tim Keller writes about the dangers of Phariseeism today, even in evangelical churches,

We tend to draw conservative, buttoned-down, moralistic people. The licentious and liberated or the broken and marginal avoid church. That can only mean one thing. If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners do not have the same effect on people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did. (Prodigal God, 15–16)

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/th ... n-pharisee

What kind of 'workarounds' is our church involved in today that is not resulting in the salvation of the lost ? What are we doing to make the Gospel of no effect and like the Pharisees also not 'doing what God had told them to do' ? I think we need to have a close look at our effectiveness and also quit making excuses.

There are things that Jesus taught that can be difficult to understand, but his command to love our enemies is uncomfortably clear and direct. I'm not suggesting that the definition of neighbor needs to be stretched to include anyone in the world. Loving our neighbor was a command already in the Old Testament. Jesus said that we need to not just love our neighbor, we also need to love our enemy. It's really odd how it seems the only people who can't understand what an enemy is, are the people that want to make believe that it is ok to kill other people (I guess their friends, as they refuse to call them enemies). With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Yes, I think it is odd that some 'people who can't understand what an enemy is' as they don't seem to believe we can have enemies that we can love. These would not be 'friends' either. But I think the argument for Christians to be involved in killing of people in war is when one does not have a hatred for those people but they must be stopped for the sake of others who they are trying to kill (i.e. the 6 million Jews in the Holocaust). Their way of possibly laying down their life for the sake of others as Jesus did. Is one loving their neighbour as themselves if they do not participate in stopping an aggressor who wants to kill them ?

Anyway, I think the point of this thread is to determine 'mountains' from 'molehills' and on this subject Christians do not agree. Some though seem to treat it as a 'mountain' issue in the sense of being a salvation issue where others do not. Myself I don't believe it is a salvation issue and am thankful that so far, I haven't been confronted with making a choice to stop someone and possibly killing them. I believe God will give me the right thing to do at the moment.

[Soloist]

How ridiculous is it that Christians on two sides can come together and exchange presents on Christmas… and then go right back to shooting each other.
That Christians from the same family can shoot each other in a Civil War…
The answer is obvious.

[Sudsy]

How ridiculous is it that Christians on two sides can come together and exchange presents on Christmas… and then go right back to shooting each other.
That Christians from the same family can shoot each other in a Civil War…
The answer is obvious.

And the obvious answer is ?

[Soloist]

How ridiculous is it that Christians on two sides can come together and exchange presents on Christmas… and then go right back to shooting each other.
That Christians from the same family can shoot each other in a Civil War…
The answer is obvious.

And the obvious answer is ?

Christians most certainly do not fight Christians. From there the question then is who is my neighbor. If your answer is “Christians” you miss entirely the point Jesus makes.
I’d find it hard to see a more clear teaching in Scripture without contractions or unclear sections.
I don’t expect to convince you, but the Spirit does not contradict itself and anyone truly Spirit led and not spirit led will see.