End of the World (Fight for Freedom)
I have attempted to show this important part of theology in a conversational form (where both sides: – for fighting (U1) and not fighting (U2) – illustrate their points – do take note that the ones in the conversation are generally Universalist Christians themselves)
I support points stated by U2 = not fighting.
U2:
“As true Christians, we do not need to “fight” to keep our “freedom of living” in this age.
If the present age (aion) has gone so bad as to the only way to keep our “freedom of living” is to “fight” for it, then it might well be the call to “die” in the hands of our enemies as martyrs for Christ.
Why?
Simple: It’s better to “die” for Christ than to “kill” our enemies via the “fighting” for our “freedom of living” in the present age where it’s not worth living in it anymore.
There is a “secret” too (you don’t win when you “kill” off all the righteous):
“The righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.” (Isaiah 57:1)”
U1:
“Hmm, interesting thoughts. But, I have to wonder: There would not even be a free America to fight for if people had thought like that. In my heart, I long for peace but I can’t help thinking along with a very wise man who said there’s a “time for war and a time for peace.” Am I a committed man of GOD? Yes! But, I own guns. How far will I go to defend my right to “bear arms”? As far as the LORD takes me, for in Him, I have no rights at all! And, how about the “freedom of living” in your own home? If a rapist breaks into your home with the intent of taking your wife, will U not defend her to the death (yours or his)? If U don’t–short of having a direct mandate from GOD–I say U are no man at all . . .”
U2:
“ Those are “earthly perspectives” & some providence to do such under the Old Testament covenant/age.
No New Testament Scripture supports it. In fact, Christ says “do not resist an evil person” (Matthew 5:39). Hence, I have to “die” (lay down my life) if there’s no other way.
However, there’s the test of faith: To follow it 100% is 100% Christian but I may lose it in the case of a rapist breaking into my house of which my reaction may be “manly” but not “Christ-like”.
That’s the way Scripture is. Bear in mind that when true Christians (being completely non-violent & do not defend themselves) get butchered in the masses obeying Scripture truthfully, something “supernatural” may be done by God.
But as long as Christians themselves do/act against Scripture by fighting & killing their enemies in the name of freedom or to be “manly”, God may not be for us. Fighting against our enemies is “sacrifice” (not written in NT Scripture) whilst “obedience” (written in NT Scripture) is to “not fight/resist” by “Loving our enemies”.
“Obedience is better than sacrifice.” (1 Samuel 15:22)
U1:
“U miss my point ( I believe a quality of a true Christian is also to be a better listener than talker–isn’t that laying down our lives also?), I believe there is a “time” for martyrdom but I don’t believe its written in black & white and applied to every and any circumstance as U suggest but by walking by the Spirit of GOD in every situation. But, that’s your opinion, and because of men of GOD like me, and my sons, people like U are free to voice it–and since its your post, I’ll let U have the last word . . .”
U2:
“Don’t worry too much about it, God loves both your sons & also the enemies whom they may have to shoot/kill in their fight for freedom. That’s why His Ways are “Higher” because He Loves more than anyone, even His enemies!”
U1:
“Jesus never criticised the Roman centurion for his being a soldier but He did commend him for his great faith.”
U2:
“Indeed. But neither did Christ commend the roman centurion for being a soldier either. It was just not the issue in that passage.
Also, the centurion was not part of God’s side (Israel’s side) but rather on the Roman side which was oppressing Israel though the centurion himself may have been more honourable than the rest in his camp. He may be closely compared to more like a “good Hamas/Palestinian military leader” than an “American soldier” for the very fact that he was on the “opposing side of Israel”.
It was the healing of the centurion’s servant which was brought up there not a discussion on whether can he continue be a soldier whilst practice love your enemies, for example.”
U1:
“Actually Christ stayed away from politics. He never condemned the Romans so we know He was not a zealot. He said that we should pay taxes even though they were oppressive. He focused on the Kingdom of God instead of the temporal system we are currently living under. Another statement was made by John the Baptist when he told the soldiers to be content with their wages. Still no condemnation there. In the epistles Paul stated that the authorities were placed by God Himself to punish the wrongdoer. Paul also stated that whatever station in life we were under when we believed we should remain. That must include soldiers as well.”
U2:
“Yes. God “allowing” the military authority does not mean that He “endorses” it.
In all the examples that you quoted from John the Baptist to apostle Paul, the soldiers were of the “ruling government” = which was “oppressing Israelites & Christians”.
It would be thus odd for a “true believer” to be part of an “army which was against/oppressing Israel & Christians alike” though not impossible.
It is more likely that God allowing Christians & not directly forbidding Christians to join or fight against such soldiers to practice “Love your enemy” & that being the “better evil”, they keep the worst ones in check “being a terror to them”.
Allowing & endorsing are two different things the latter needing a direct Scriptural backing for its providence under the New Testament Covenant (which is not so).”
U1:
“ U make a grave error by continually separating the Old & New Testaments (or Covenants)–they are one. Jesus fulfilled the Old, He did not discard it . . . Jesus never mentioned Abortion, so are we to assume that He is pro-choice? Absolutely not! We exegete the Bible as a whole and then we understand the heart and mind of GOD regarding the murder of babies in the womb . . . Also, don’t forget that the first gentile to receive the Holy Spirit was also a soldier (Centurion–Acts 10) . . . just saying. That is right Michael! I had forgotten about the Roman Centurion who was considered righteous even though he was in charge of many soldiers. David also fit in that category- ” a man after God’s own heart.”.
U2:
“I disagree on OT & NT being “one”. Christ fulfilling the OT is by Him living Perfectly without sin by it primarily & that Mercy exceeds any judgment in NT (as illustrated in the case of the adulteress who was supposed to be stoned to death by OT but received Mercy in Christ – a demonstration of difference between OT & NT way of “executing Judgment vs Mercy”). OT does not live on in the NT.
The OT covenant was for the Jews whilst the NT for all men who wishes to believe. The fact that “OT” was “abolished” and does not live on in the NT may be seen literally in the verse below:
“in the saying ‘new,’ He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old is nigh disappearing.” (Hebrews 8:13)
Regarding the first gentile to receive the Holy Spirit being a soldier, God has distributed “each one a measure of faith” (to those who believe in Him) even as the verse below declares (but His Perfect Way – “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is Perfect” (Matthew 5:48);) is for one to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44) & you can’t do that by shooting or killing them for whatever “earthly” reasons):
“For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” (Romans 12:3)
God “allows” it but does not “endorse” it (as Scripture states literally) because in His Grace & Mercy allows such according to “each one” having a “measure of faith”.
On the unrelated note regarding abortion, it’s a classic response to similar ones such as “since God didn’t ban cigarettes in the Bible, can I do them?”
Answer: Simple. The main reason neither abortion nor cigarettes are mentioned is because those sins did “not exist” or was “not known” amongst the believers to which they were addressed to “at that time”.
However, “love your enemies” and military forces “did exist” at that time and the perfection principles of the Bible contradict it literally under the New Testament age’s Covenant.
I rest my case. As I mentioned prior, don’t worry too much about it for God gives “more Grace” under this New Covenant as the verse below literally states:
“Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:” (Romans 5:20)
U1:
“tell that to ISIS when they come knocking at your door! . Jesus took the beating so i wouldnt have to, Jesus took the suffering so i wouldnt have to…….The American Christian has only known to fight for freedom…..you cannot change that…love the enemy Yes, but i only have two cheeks..”
U2:
“Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my officers had struggled that I might not be delivered up to Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence.’” (John 18:36)
You may paraphrase the above equivalently for a response to ISIS.
Let ISIS have the kingdom of this world! (in this age)
We may well be gone!”
