 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Pentz
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 59
| Posted 4/11/2006 5:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | On Sunday I was at work and I was talking with a cowoker about the Passover and Easter and ect. He started talking about why he doesnt believe in Christianity (He is Jewish) and said that the whole theory of Jesus coming back was started in the 19th century and that it doesnt make any sense to him. Do any of you have any idea what theory or thought he was talking about? I have never heard of Jesus second coming being originated so recently and I am wondering what idea he got this from. (Its sounds rather ridiculous to me since the gospels talk about it so much, but I digress)
Thanks!!
Nate | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/11/2006 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Premillenialism, dispensationalism, etc. WERE started about then. They are new on the scene, and not part of traditional Christianity.
But the second coming is told of in the OT too. So...
Here's an article that makes the point that from a Near Eastern point of view, judgement happens when the Judge comes, begins when He begins court. Happens suddenly, and is FINAL.
Read this, by Paul Nadim Tarazi: "Time and the Signs of the End" http://www.svots.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=242&Itemid=116
TEASER:
Time does not function as the decisive factor in the reality of these events, although they are indeed events within time. Recall the saying about a baseball game, that, "It ain't over 'til it's over": a game or a match is defined by its content, not its duration.
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 4/11/2006 6:24:46 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Pentz
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 59
| Posted 4/12/2006 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Pot-
I know about all those, but the second coming was part of Church tradition since Jesus went to heaven. What i was wondering was where he came up with the idea that the second coming was only in church history from the 1800s.
Nate | | Back to Top | | |
|
Pentz
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 59
| Posted 4/15/2006 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom and all,
I was thinking about this last night and i think that his idea that "Jesus would come back and save the world" is from all the End Times theology that has become so popular in the last 150+ years. I think i assumed that he was refering to Jesus coming back in general not that Jesus would be the savior of a world in under the controll of the "Anti-Christ". I must say that in this case i have learned how damaging this theology can be and how in some cases it can save. (i would guess that some people who come to Christ under this, do so under fear as opposed to a love for what he has done)
Thanks,
Nate | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/21/2006 1:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Yet again I find a thread on eschatology - long long after the discussion occurred! What saddens me, as a Christian who accepts both Premillennialism and Dispensationalism, is the seemingly gleeful passing of misinformation concerning both systems, and the knee-jerk tendency (exhibited even by Gregory Boyd) to throw the baby out with the bath-water - to off-handedly dismiss the core elements because of the extraneous abuses exhibited by an unbalanced few (the likes of Hagee, Van Impe, etc.).
PotOnWheel said...
Premillenialism, dispensationalism, etc. WERE started about then. They are new on the scene, and not part of traditional Christianity.
PotOnWheel, it is inexplicable to me how you could possibly say that Premillennialism began in the 19th century and is not part of historic Christianity. Premillennialism is arguably the only category of eschatological thought exhibited within the first 2 centuries of the church, and remained the primary system well into the 3rd century. If you can refute this assertion, please feel free to do so.
Eusebius, citing Papias: "Among these things, Papias says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth."
Justin Martyr: "There was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem."
And while dispensationalism may not have been as thoroughly systemized prior to J.N. Darby's time in the 19th century, nonetheless Ryrie's book "Dispensationalism" traces the concept through prior centuries and earlier theologians. (Unfortunately I don't have access to this book at present, but for anyone interested in understanding what genuine Dispensationalism is, apart from the extraneous glitter and glam and abuse, Ryrie's book is indispensible). It also seems fairly clear to me that the pre-Nicene Christians understood and taught the key elements of Dispensationalism - a recognition of the distinction between Israel under the Law of Moses, and the Church under the Law of the Spirit, along with a recognition of multiple Covenants:
Irenaeus: "For this reason, four principal covenants were given to the human race: The first was under Adam, prior to the deluge. The second was the one after the deluge, under Noah. The third was the giving of the Law under Moses. The fourth is that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel."
Cyprian: "The former Law that had been given by Moses was about to cease. And a new law was to be given. Another dispensation and a new covenant were to be given. The old baptism was to cease and a new one was to begin."
Sir_Edward said...
You know folks what really ticks me off now -- all the money I spent buying books and charts and stuff for all this end times, put the events of revelation on a timeline, garbage that I now no longer believe. Makes you really want to say something to John Hagee doesn't it? man I could have bought 5 copies of Calcidius' book with that.
Blessings.
Out of curiosity, Sir Edward, what eschatological framework do you hold to presently? Do you adhere to a Dispensationalism (or at least Premillennialism) uncluttered by such vain speculations? (Such is where I stand). Or did you mistakenly associate the vain speculations so closely with Premill. &/or Disp. that you felt you had to abandon it for an altogether different system (such as Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, partial-preterism, etc.)?Post Edited (John N. Darby) : 6/21/2006 1:56:33 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 6/21/2006 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | | I've been working on the search engine, and found this old thread debating dispensationalism. Thought I'd repost this from Modes of Thought because it made me laugh...
Bob Hill has chosen to do 12 dispensations of salvation (though he admits as few as 3 to as many as 37 are possible), here's my 18 dispensations for biblical sexual ethics:
*Gen. 2 initiates the dispensation of nudity which is very brief. More of a flash really.
*Gen 3 introduces the dispensation of physical hiddenness which endures through until the resurrection where we will receive transfigured clothes and be asexual like the angels. 2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3 are also examples of prohibitions against nudity prior to the resurrection. To accidentally violate this command warrants a curse (Gen. 9:20-27).
*Gen 3 also intiates the dispensation of sexual tension (3:15) which is accompanied by the curse of childbearing pains for the woman (16).
*The dispensation of Patriarchy begins when Adam is punished for submitting to his wife (3:17 says, "because you have listened to the voice of your wife…") and this is not lifted until Gal. 3:28 but it is then reinstated again in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2. This period between Gen 3:17 and Gal. 3:28 is to be understood as the dispensation of marital strife which is followed by a very short dispensation of marital harmony (Gal. 3:28 through 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2). After that the strife reensues. Natural enough under the dispensation of marital strife is the allowance of divorce (Deut. 24:1-4). But this is forbidded by Christ (Mark 10:1-12) presummably because our ability to keep the sexual ethical laws has increased over the many generations practice. This in some ways anticipates the immenent dispensation of marital harmony.
* Dispensation of hospitality Under this dispensation the sexual integrity of one’s daughters is understood to be subordinated to that of guests whom you may have. This is evidenced by the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29) in which Lot was willing to give up his two daughters so that the men of Sodom could do as they please. "Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." (Gen. 19:8).
*The Dispensation of Male Gay Bashing (quite literally) began with the giving of Lev. 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (NRSV). (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." The dispensation of female gay bashing (or alternately, the dispensation of universal gay bashing ) didn’t start until Paul wrote Rom. 1:26.
* the dispensation of "keep it in yer pants" the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose--in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation--was considered equivolent to abortion or murder. This dispensation is still in effect so far as the text is concerned (BUT this one does not apply to women. Who says the Bible is TOTALLY patriachal?).
* The "keep it clean" dispensation was initiated in Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24 where it was now competely disallowed to have sexual intercourse during the woman’s menstrual period. Violators where to be cut off but this penalty was not in effect during whatever time period it took Moses to get from Lev. 15:19-24 to 18:19. This dispensation insured you "ain’t gonna get none" for about half of the time. One week of the month PMS, the next MS, the rest is fair game.
* The dispensation of stoned adulterers began with the writing of Deut. 22:22. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both. However, it was not possible, during this dispensation, for a man to commit adultery against any of his own wives, only agianst a wife of another man. So unmarried nonvirgins were fair game. Female virginity is the issue here, male virginity is not relevent. Jesus put an end to this dispensation with the incident of the woman caught in adultery in John’s record. While I recognize that this passage is questionable in terms of textual integrity (it does not appear inthe earliest manuscripts) I assure you it is best to keep it IN the canon, if for no other reason than that it fits my dispensations so well.
* The Dispensation of Polygamy is one of the few universal dispensations that the Bible never retracts. Included in this dispensation is the Leverite Marriage which also is universal in scope. (Jesus mentions this practice without criticism in Mark 12:18-27).
* Another universal dispensation is the dispensation of unclean sex (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse makes you unclean until sundown and this is never retracted.
*The Dispensation of Prostitution was in effect (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7) until Paul undoes it 1 Cor. 6:12-20. Again only the woman is to be regarded as sinning in prostitution during the dispensation of prostitution, whereas both are sinners after this dispensation comes to fulfillment.
For a very short period we see that Paul carried the dispensation of celebacy (1 Cor. 7). Even though it was regarded as aberrant in the Old Testament and considered heretical in 1 Tim 4:1-3. In this last instance it is clear that it is the demons who "forbid marriage".
* The "No Low Blows" Dispensation was intiated by necessity in Deut. 25:11f. "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity". Another universal dispensation from that point forward.
* The Dispensation of using female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual objects is supported by 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18. The justification for these practices is not clearly recinded in the either Testament.
Since I am new at this please forgive me for not having this all charted out just yet. Eventaually, I surely could have these on a time line with the institution times, the time they come to end, and the way of proper relatingbetween people during the given dispensation.[ I acknowledge significant indebtedness to Walter Wink's research and commentation on this topic.] | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/21/2006 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid said...
What I can't figure out is how believe in any system over another has any pragmatic value. The only real-life consequences of any of these views seem to be book sales and the popularity of their main proponents...
The pragmatic value isn't readily evident, admittedly. But, it's also not readily evident what pragmatic value Trinitarianism has over Modalism/Oneness theology; on the surface, the differences seem like a mere nitpicking over details. Nonetheless, inasmuch as Christians should seek to adhere as closely as possible to the Apostolic teachings embodied in the Scripture and the witness of the early church, Trinitarianism's value over Modalism is that of Truth over falsehood. I believe it is the same with Premillennialism vs. its competitors which sprang up later in church history.
However, if you'll indulge me a little, I'll chart out at least one thing I consider of practical value when it comes to a Christian's millennial view. According to Revelation 20:2-3, Satan is bound for the duration of the Millennium, during which he is restrained from deceiving the nations. Hypothetically, if amillennialism were correct, and the Millennium is merely symbolic for the Church Age, that would mean that Satan has been bound since the time of Acts; therefore any resistance the Church encounters in spreading the Gospel would not be coming from Satan and his kingdom, but soley from human sources. Which would seem to conclude that Christians ARE wrestling against flesh and blood, rather than against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. And thus the strategies of the Church could come to reflect this inverse understanding, and lead the Church into using earthly power and earthly weapons to combat earthly opponents. Interestingly enough, such strategies were indeed employed by history's primary purveyor of amillennialism.
With postmillennialism, however, you have the bizarre arrangement where Satan will not be bound and restrained from deceiving the nations UNTIL the Church has converted the world to Christianity (until the Church has ushured in the Millennium). Ok, gee, thanks for small favors. It is my opinion that postmillennialism also has the unfortunate tendency to bring about the mentality of using whatever means necessary to convert (subjugate?) the world to Christianity, in order that the Church may fulfill its obligation of ushering in the Millennium.
With premillennialism, you keep the most natural reading of Revelation 19 to 20, you have a view that is in line with the eschatological framework of the early church fathers, and you recognize that the Church is still struggling against Satan and his kingdom, since the Millennium has not yet come (this, to me, also fits more appropriately with a Warfare worldview); it is also seen that Satan's binding is brought about by Christ's Second Advent in order to let the Gospel proceed unhindered by Satan's kingdom, and thus it is not on the shoulders of the Church to force the Millennium to come. With these things in mind, the Church as a whole, and Christians individually, can form their spiritual strategies and prayers, with the knowledge that Satan is not yet restrained from deceiving the world, and the knowledge it is not our responsibility to use earthly power or earthly weapons to Christianize the world (nor is it our responsibility to attempt to speed up or force prophetic fulfillments; instead we are to seek to teach the Gospel and live the Gospel, as a light to the world).
Lest it be said that I am unfairly mischaracterizing amillennialism and postmillennialism, I'm sure that both theories have a vast variety of ways of attempting to resolve these problems; I'm only offerring what seems to me to be the most logical outcomes of both systems.Post Edited (John N. Darby) : 6/21/2006 3:12:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/21/2006 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Well, I do applaud you. No one has ever before given me a reason why I should care about the subject (thought it is still my understanding that Jesus teaches us not to care about this).
Correct me if I'm wrong here... So amillennialism would say equate the millennium with the time from pentacost to parousia, and this is the time when Satan is kept from "deceiving the nations." Postmillennialism would equate the millennium with the thousand years leading up to the parousia, so Satan is restrained before Christ returns. Premillennialism would put the millennium after the parousia, so of course Satan will be restrained.
I'll agree with your criticism of amillennialism. It is pretty clear from Jesus and the New Testament that Satan is still a problem. But I don't see your criticism of postmillennialism. If we assume that the Church will bring about the millennium before the parousia, what is wrong with the idea that Satan will be bound at that time? Your "thanks for small favors" criticism (if I understand it correctly) would just as effectively apply to premillennialism. If the war is won (sorry McLaren) and everything is made right, it is superfluous to say Satan is also bound. It doesn't matter if Christ has returned by then or not.
I agree also that postmillennialism is often associated with the kind of Christian optimism that can quickly turn to arrogance and violence. But I'm not at all convinced that your theory of causation is accurate. In my experience it is much more often the case that the corrupt theology is invented to support corrupt practices rather than the other way around. Sure, people "innocently" get caught up into evil systems believing it is the right thing to do. I just don't think a lesson in hermeneutics and ethics would have stopped the conquistadores. You can't imagine how many times I've argued for pacifism (as did the early Church) and have been shut down by the answer, "I just couldn't" or "I just wouldn't do that." I believe that for the most part people pick up and lay aside reason when it suits their purposes.
For the record, if I had to choose, I'd guess I'd say that I'm a premillennialist. But not a dispensationalist and definitely not a chart-maker.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/21/2006 3:37:11 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/22/2006 12:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid said...
But I don't see your criticism of postmillennialism. If we assume that the Church will bring about the millennium before the parousia, what is wrong with the idea that Satan will be bound at that time? Your "thanks for small favors" criticism (if I understand it correctly) would just as effectively apply to premillennialism. If the war is won (sorry McLaren) and everything is made right, it is superfluous to say Satan is also bound. It doesn't matter if Christ has returned by then or not.
Yeah, it was more of a musing than anything else. The primary criticism of postmillennialism would of necessity be scriptural, with added support from the early church fathers; it just doesn't reflect the eschatology of the early church, and forces the relevant scriptures to do headstands and backflips.
Sahid said...
I agree also that postmillennialism is often associated with the kind of Christian optimism that can quickly turn to arrogance and violence. But I'm not at all convinced that your theory of causation is accurate. In my experience it is much more often the case that the corrupt theology is invented to support corrupt practices rather than the other way around. Sure, people "innocently" get caught up into evil systems believing it is the right thing to do. I just don't think a lesson in hermeneutics and ethics would have stopped the conquistadores. You can't imagine how many times I've argued for pacifism (as did the early Church) and have been shut down by the answer, "I just couldn't" or "I just wouldn't do that." I believe that for the most part people pick up and lay aside reason when it suits their purposes.
Agreed. Any Christian who is devoted to the pursuit of Christlikeness and the fruit of the Spirit will exhibit peacefulness regardless of their eschatological stance. And, while I believe that prayerful study of scriptural eschatology is not to be ignored or neglected, an overemphasis on any of the views to the neglect of weightier matters is to be avoided.
Sahid said...
For the record, if I had to choose, I'd guess I'd say that I'm a premillennialist. But not a dispensationalist and definitely not a chart-maker.
Not a chart-maker here either  For me, dispensationalism is to premillennialism what open theism is to freewill theism. You don't have to be an open theist to assert libertarian freewill, but open theism certainly helps make a lot of sense out of the issues involved. In a similar fashion, Darby's dispensationalism really helped me understand premillennialism better, especially in terms of "what practical spiritual value and relevance does this have to me as a Christian? " (There's a good book out there along these lines called "the Complete Green Letters" by M.J. Stanford, focusing on the topic of spiritual growth. The first out of the 5 sections can be read online, if you're interested or curious > http://www.withchrist.org/mjs/glchapters.htm )Post Edited (John N. Darby) : 6/22/2006 12:04:06 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/23/2006 1:59 PM (GMT -6) | | |
recommending....
http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?products_id=2740
Apocalypse [audio CDs] [CD-APOCHO]
Thomas Hopko
The Book of Revelation in Orthodox Christian Tradition
retreat lectures on compact disk
4-CD Set
These lectures offer a fresh approach to reading the Book of Revelation and understanding its complex messages. While Fr Hopko notes that “everything about the Apocalypse is controversial—not only in modern scholarship but also in church history,” he grounds the place of this cryptic writing within the context of ongoing life in the Orthodox Church. In particular, he draws attention to the symbols and words originating in the Hebrew scriptures and demonstrates that the Book of Revelation not only has inspired the Liturgy of the Church but also has been inspired by it. Fr Hopko transforms the typical, modern exegesis of this biblical text from one of literal fundamentalism and futuristic prophecy to one of experiencing eternal life, here and now, in the worship of the Church.
The Book of Revelation
CD 1: Historical Context
CD 2: Signs and Symbols
CD 3: Apocalyptic Images
CD 4: The Last Days and Redemption
The Lecturer
Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko is Dean Emeritus of St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary and a world-renowned lecturer.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/28/2006 1:54 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
jeff: Also, how did the early church argue for pacifism? I'm ignorant of that part of church history.
Since you had asked Zach, I was going to watch for his response, but perhaps he's busy at this time. Here are some relevant quotes from the early church fathers concerning pacifism [mostly within the context of war, though some are more applicable outside the context of war]. For the sake of brevity, I'm referencing only 2nd century writers [the only 1st century references I'm aware of are actually in the New Testament] . You can obtain the fuller context of any of these quotes by going to www.newadvent.org and doing a search using a portion of the quote and the name of the writer :
Justin Martyr:
...and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.
... and we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,--our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage,--and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope ...
Athenagoras: ... for we have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak...
Clement of Alexandria:
...For it is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained...
...For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them; nor a sword, nor a bow, following as we do, peace; nor drinking-cups, being temperate...
... And an enemy must be aided, that he may not continue an enemy. For by help good feeling is compacted, and enmity dissolved...
...Further, manliness is to be assumed in order to produce confidence and forbearance, so as "to him that strikes on the one cheek, to give to him the other; and to him that takes away the cloak, to yield to him the coat also," strongly, restraining anger. For we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war; since we wish the men even to be peaceable...
Tertullian:
...We are the same to emperors as to our ordinary neighbors. For we are equally forbidden to wish ill, to do ill, to speak ill, to think ill of all men. The thing we must not do to an emperor, we must not do to any one else...
...If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands?...
...For what wars should we not be fit, not eager, even with unequal forces, we who so willingly yield ourselves to the sword, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay? ...
...the Christian does no harm even to his foe...
..."and they shall join to beat their glaives into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against nation, and they shall no more learn to fight." Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices ...
...But the new law's wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances," and to remodel the pristine execution of "war" upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of "ploughing" and "tilling" the land...
...But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters--God and Caesar...
...But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier...
If you're interested, I can compile some quotes relevant to the topic of pacifism, primarily outside the context of war. | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 7/1/2006 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Howdy jefscott
I'm not entirely in a position to offer an apologetic for the pacifism of the early church (post-apostolic, pre-nicene), because I'm still trying to discover what it means for me, and to what extent I should model my own life after their example (I would personally agree with you about the use of force to defend children and others who can't defend themselves, though I would advocate non-lethal force if and whenever possible). Nonetheless, I'm willing to explore the topic with you, but first I would want to offer up a compilation of quotes pertaining to pacifism outside the context of war, as well as any other relevant pre-Nicene references - if you're interested. Let me know, and I'll get to it as time permits. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/1/2006 11:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Some quick responses before the other thread gets going:
Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
To say that in this passage John is "sanctioning" violence is, at best, an argument from silence. In the book of John an effort is made to show that John is not the messiah; the diferences between the two are emphasized. I'm not saying that's happening here, but in the book of John, the Baptist's word is not always the "gospel truth." Still, I think he says the perfect thing here. A few penitent Roman soldiers are not going to put an end to war in the empire, and while I (and the early Church) think employment in the army is immoral, it is far more important to master the simple disciplines of the kingdom.
As to Christ and the law: The law says, "Thou shalt not kill." Moses commanded the Israelites to kill Midianite children. This action is contrary to the law. Moses, like John, was not perfect. Furthermore the law prohibits shaving and "sanctions" selling children. Whatever we make of Christ and the law, we must take our more explicit disobediences into account. If the Church is to follow the law, then why aren't we stoning more homosexuals? If Christ kept the law it a literalistic way, then how can he declare it's unclean foods clean? A reading of the New Testament itself speaks against Christ's literal compliance to the law. There are many differences between Christ and the law.
I agree with my Baptist upbringing that says the law is to be interpreted in the light of Christ and not the other way around.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 7/10/2006 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | PotonWheel, hello? Did you ever see my question here? >
>>30 bucks! :P I don't suppose it is available (on the internet or elsewhere) in a text format (or anything less expensive)?
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|