Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[Sudsy]

And for the record, just because someone or some church identifies as Anabaptist, Church of Christ, Slavic Pentecostal, etc., does not make me think that they are probably born again, following Jesus, still have their candlestick, etc. I won't make that deduction until I have seen what kind of fruit is coming from their lives.

To whoever cares to respond as I am curious as to how far a pacifist Christian regards how God will judge professing believers who were and/or are involved in killings in acts of war.

Have you determined then that those professing believers that participated in wars and killing people in wars and believed they were instruments God used to stop evil, are lost ? Is this a kind of fruit that you believe forfeits one's salvation ?

Some believers understand scripture to say that war is justifiable when it is motivated by a desire for peace, or done in self-defence, or to protect the innocent, and when it is done in a just way. Under these conditions a Christian could go to war as an agent of his country.

I think we can be very wrong in our judgments as fruit inspectors regarding who is saved and who is not. The Matthew 7:15 text regarding fruit inspecting has to do with false prophets. Are all non-pacifist preachers, false prophets and believers on their way to hell if they have and/or are now involved in killing others during war times ?

I don't judge such matters. I believe that I am on my way to heaven and if Jesus believes the same thing, I will be glad to spend eternity with anyone else Jesus decides to let in.

But while we are still here on earth...
Jesus tells us how we should live.
Jesus tells us that we will know people by their fruits.
Both Jesus and the Apostles tell us who has eternal life and who does not.
The apostles tell us who we as Christians should be separating ourselves from.

The rest I let up to God/Jesus.

The reason I asked these questions is trying to understand what this post meant when you posted 'I won't make that deduction until' as it appeared to me you were making a 'deduction' (which I took as a judgment) that included a person 'probably born again'. One could take those phrases you listed here and believe they can make judgments on who is qualified to be saved and who is not by their understandings of these. And I believe this does occur and to some, I am not saved. And likewise, if Jesus saves them in their understandings, I certainly won't argue with Him when we get there.

[Sudsy]

To whoever cares to respond as I am curious as to how far a pacifist Christian regards how God will judge professing believers who were and/or are involved in killings in acts of war.

Have you determined then that those professing believers that participated in wars and killing people in wars and believed they were instruments God used to stop evil, are lost ? Is this a kind of fruit that you believe forfeits one's salvation ? ....

Are all non-pacifist preachers, false prophets and believers on their way to hell if they have and/or are now involved in killing others during war times ?

I am not the judge and I am quite content to let God take his rightful place. You are asking questions that hold little interest for me.

A better question would be are they following Jesus as closely as they know how? If they aren't interested in living in Jesus kingdom now, when will they start? To be "saved" means to be delivered from the kingdoms of this world and their values to becoming a citizen of the heavenly kingdom and welcome it's values. Why would one whose eyes are turned to Jesus want to keep one foot in worldly values like waring and struggle.

Can you offer a scriptural understanding of one who is "saved" but does not accept the values of Jesus and his kingdom.

Romans 10:9 - 'that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved'.

If one does this, I believe, one will then desire and pursue learning and following Jesus and His Kingdom. I also believe we all now 'see through a glass darkly' and only 'now know in part' as to what Kingdom life is all about. Some disagree and think they have Kingdom life all figured out.

To the underlined - because they believe warring and police work are ways that God works out His purposes in this world and these are not 'worldly values' and He uses believers at times to carry these out as He did many times in the OT. They could be considering they are living as a Kingdom believer now in warring against evil. I don't believe, for instance, a believer in Russia today should engage in war if they are not convicted in their heart that they are fighting against evil. They are being mis-guided but God knows their heart and I believe God will judge us by what is in our hearts. I don't believe Ukraine believers involved in defending their country and they kill someone, should they be killed or die, will be eternally lost.

Some make getting into heaven (part of being saved) a very difficult, almost impossible, way to live as a Kingdom citizen. They understand Jesus as preaching as very few will ultimately be saved. Others make salvation an 'easy beliefism' way. And between these extremes there are all kinds of beliefs on where God draws the line. I agree with you that this is up to God and not us to decide who has saving faith.

I believe those who are born again of the Spirit (saved) are those who believe in what Paul says is of first importance in 1 Cor 15 which creates in us a desire to follow Jesus and be guided by the Spirit. Within that family there are infants, who may remain as such for years, and those more mature and those who are very mature in their following. This new life is Kingdom living as we grow to understand and experience it. These are my understandings todate.

[Sudsy]

So your understanding of candlestick removal is not based on a scripture text regarding candlestick removal as used in Rev 2:5 written to the church in Ephesus ? This candlestick removal was about them leaving their first love for Christ. They were to remember what their life once was when they lived in close relationship with the Lord. Nothing is said here about taking up the sword or not.

If you believe that regaining ones first love and close relationship with the Lord Jesus, is consistent with taking the lives of others and/or condoning those who do,(including the lives of others who profess faith in Jesus), then I am sorry but I don't have anything further to say.

Any natural reading of the teachings of Jesus, and any reasonable conclusions from the legacy of his witness, cement one to the suffering love ethos. I am convinced everybody knows this at one level. Only clever theology and cagey Biblicism result in anything else. Some people probably are genuinely misguided, but few coming back from war with actual combat experience romanticize it. I know that is strong...but also painfully obvious.

As Obama noted years ago to the Christian right-wing nationalists, wouldn't the teachings of Jesus pretty much do away with the defense department and military spending. What did they do...gnash their teeth. He was right though...they knew it and he knew it. Too bad nobody followed through on it.

And if someone goes to war as an act of love that could very well be giving their life for a right cause and protection of others, this is not suffering love ?
John 15:13 -

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

I know I'm challenging perhaps most here regarding their pacifist views but this is an area where the Church is divided and it is interesting, to me, to read the rebuttals.

Some may not know this but my background in Pentecostalism was originally pacifist in belief and practise from 1906 until sometime into the 1950s, where most Pentecostal denominations had official or unofficial expectations that their members would not “bear arms” but serve as non-combatants if drafted. I personally don't recall any sermons about being a pacifist through the 1950 - 1970 period when I was in that group. One of many things that have changed in Pentecostalism during my lifetime.

[Heirbyadoption]

If you believe that regaining ones first love and close relationship with the Lord Jesus, is consistent with taking the lives of others and/or condoning those who do,(including the lives of others who profess faith in Jesus), then I am sorry but I don't have anything further to say.

Any natural reading of the teachings of Jesus, and any reasonable conclusions from the legacy of his witness, cement one to the suffering love ethos. I am convinced everybody knows this at one level. Only clever theology and cagey Biblicism result in anything else. Some people probably are genuinely misguided, but few coming back from war with actual combat experience romanticize it. I know that is strong...but also painfully obvious.

As Obama noted years ago to the Christian right-wing nationalists, wouldn't the teachings of Jesus pretty much do away with the defense department and military spending. What did they do...gnash their teeth. He was right though...they knew it and he knew it. Too bad nobody followed through on it.

And if someone goes to war as an act of love that could very well be giving their life for a right cause and protection of others, this is not suffering love ?
John 15:13 -

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

I know I'm challenging perhaps most here regarding their pacifist views but this is an area where the Church is divided and it is interesting, to me, to read the rebuttals.

Some may not know this but my background in Pentecostalism was originally pacifist in belief and practise from 1906 until sometime into the 1950s, where most Pentecostal denominations had official or unofficial expectations that their members would not “bear arms” but serve as non-combatants if drafted. I personally don't recall any sermons about being a pacifist through the 1950 - 1970 period when I was in that group. One of many things that have changed in Pentecostalism during my lifetime.

Sudsy, the timing of this discussion has been interesting to me. The message in our congregation last Sunday centered around the idea of Two Kingdom theology and Nonresistance as one aspect of its practical outworking. I have included a link below for anybody who might be interested. Disclaimer: the recording is a bit longer than usual, the message began with the reading of Matthew 5, so it's a bit over an hour of run time.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1INGC_B ... p=drivesdk

Anywho, I'm curious as to the shift you mentioned in your Pentecostal background regarding military involvement. Was this just something that shifted quietly, or was there a denominational movement to embrace the new position (or at least relinquish the old one)?

[ken_sylvania]

If you believe that regaining ones first love and close relationship with the Lord Jesus, is consistent with taking the lives of others and/or condoning those who do,(including the lives of others who profess faith in Jesus), then I am sorry but I don't have anything further to say.

Any natural reading of the teachings of Jesus, and any reasonable conclusions from the legacy of his witness, cement one to the suffering love ethos. I am convinced everybody knows this at one level. Only clever theology and cagey Biblicism result in anything else. Some people probably are genuinely misguided, but few coming back from war with actual combat experience romanticize it. I know that is strong...but also painfully obvious.

As Obama noted years ago to the Christian right-wing nationalists, wouldn't the teachings of Jesus pretty much do away with the defense department and military spending. What did they do...gnash their teeth. He was right though...they knew it and he knew it. Too bad nobody followed through on it.

And if someone goes to war as an act of love that could very well be giving their life for a right cause and protection of others, this is not suffering love ?
John 15:13 -

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

I know I'm challenging perhaps most here regarding their pacifist views but this is an area where the Church is divided and it is interesting, to me, to read the rebuttals.

Some may not know this but my background in Pentecostalism was originally pacifist in belief and practise from 1906 until sometime into the 1950s, where most Pentecostal denominations had official or unofficial expectations that their members would not “bear arms” but serve as non-combatants if drafted. I personally don't recall any sermons about being a pacifist through the 1950 - 1970 period when I was in that group. One of many things that have changed in Pentecostalism during my lifetime.

Somehow I thought that the goal of a soldier who goes to war is not to due for his country, but rather to make sure that as many other men as possible die for their country. That doesn't seem like suffering love to me.

[Soloist]

Somehow I thought that the goal of a soldier who goes to war is not to due for his country, but rather to make sure that as many other men as possible die for their country. That doesn't seem like suffering love to me.

We called it preventive medicine. Kill them before they kill your soon to be patients.
Every single military ever has operated on a dehumanize your opponent so that taking life is easy.

[joshuabgood]

And if someone goes to war as an act of love that could very well be giving their life for a right cause and protection of others, this is not suffering love ?
John 15:13 -

No. What did Jesus do? What did he teach? Laying down your life isn't putting a bullet in another person's head.

[RZehr]

And if someone goes to war as an act of love that could very well be giving their life for a right cause and protection of others, this is not suffering love ?
John 15:13 -

They are suffering, and they do love their country.
But it’s not the kind of suffering love that Jesus had whatsoever.

[Sudsy]

Any natural reading of the teachings of Jesus, and any reasonable conclusions from the legacy of his witness, cement one to the suffering love ethos. I am convinced everybody knows this at one level. Only clever theology and cagey Biblicism result in anything else. Some people probably are genuinely misguided, but few coming back from war with actual combat experience romanticize it. I know that is strong...but also painfully obvious.

As Obama noted years ago to the Christian right-wing nationalists, wouldn't the teachings of Jesus pretty much do away with the defense department and military spending. What did they do...gnash their teeth. He was right though...they knew it and he knew it. Too bad nobody followed through on it.

And if someone goes to war as an act of love that could very well be giving their life for a right cause and protection of others, this is not suffering love ?
John 15:13 -

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

I know I'm challenging perhaps most here regarding their pacifist views but this is an area where the Church is divided and it is interesting, to me, to read the rebuttals.

Some may not know this but my background in Pentecostalism was originally pacifist in belief and practise from 1906 until sometime into the 1950s, where most Pentecostal denominations had official or unofficial expectations that their members would not “bear arms” but serve as non-combatants if drafted. I personally don't recall any sermons about being a pacifist through the 1950 - 1970 period when I was in that group. One of many things that have changed in Pentecostalism during my lifetime.

Sudsy, the timing of this discussion has been interesting to me. The message in our congregation last Sunday centered around the idea of Two Kingdom theology and Nonresistance as one aspect of its practical outworking. I have included a link below for anybody who might be interested. Disclaimer: the recording is a bit longer than usual, the message began with the reading of Matthew 5, so it's a bit over an hour of run time.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1INGC_B ... p=drivesdk

Anywho, I'm curious as to the shift you mentioned in your Pentecostal background regarding military involvement. Was this just something that shifted quietly, or was there a denominational movement to embrace the new position (or at least relinquish the old one)?

From what I have read this was more of a 'quiet shift' away from non-resistant views.

Here is a link on this I found interesting - https://pcpj.org/2017/12/01/why-america ... pacifists/

An excerpt -

My friend Darrin Rodgers, director of the Flowers Pentecostal Heritage Center, has confirmed to me that many Pentecostal denominations once had either official or semi-official statements or expectations about pacifism and that most have dropped them and many refuse to acknowledge that part of their history.

I took the time to listen to your link and thought his arguments were pretty good as he addressed some of the common opposing views that are used from scriptural texts.

I totally agree that believers in Christ should be reflecting a Kingdom way of loving that this world does not have. If I recall correctly he said the actions taken by non-resistant Christians in early years that led to their deaths was a testimony of love that drew many to become Christians. My understanding of what he said.

So, it seems he was saying that the Kingdom way of non-resistance is a main drawing of people to follow Christ by the showing of God's love. If this is true, how do we account for the lack of growth in many non-resistant churches aside from their having large families ?

My view on Pentecostalism is that their focus was heavy on evangelism and growing the Kingdom and as time went on more of what some might call 'worldliness' came into the church and today it is a major shock for some of us oldies to see where this has taken things. One might say quantity trumped quality.

I believe true Kingdom living will not be an isolated from the world way as Jesus mingled with sinners and was criticised for it. I am still thinking about this preacher's view on Jesus being resistant but He was the only one who was qualified to be. He certainly resisted the Pharisees with some very sharp words. Was this acting in love and non-resistance and if it was then who determines where we can be like Jesus and where we can't be in practise ? Just a few questions to tease more discussion.

[Wade]

And for the record, just because someone or some church identifies as Anabaptist, Church of Christ, Slavic Pentecostal, etc., does not make me think that they are probably born again, following Jesus, still have their candlestick, etc. I won't make that deduction until I have seen what kind of fruit is coming from their lives.

To whoever cares to respond as I am curious as to how far a pacifist Christian regards how God will judge professing believers who were and/or are involved in killings in acts of war.

Have you determined then that those professing believers that participated in wars and killing people in wars and believed they were instruments God used to stop evil, are lost ? Is this a kind of fruit that you believe forfeits one's salvation ?

Some believers understand scripture to say that war is justifiable when it is motivated by a desire for peace, or done in self-defence, or to protect the innocent, and when it is done in a just way. Under these conditions a Christian could go to war as an agent of his country.

I think we can be very wrong in our judgments as fruit inspectors regarding who is saved and who is not. The Matthew 7:15 text regarding fruit inspecting has to do with false prophets. Are all non-pacifist preachers, false prophets and believers on their way to hell if they have and/or are now involved in killing others during war times ?

We can let the word judge:

Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I agree with the word which agrees with the Word! If a person wants to call that judging then take the argument with God and what His scripture says.