"It's Just War" - Should Christians Fight? Debate 

I wish they would've gotten another Presbyterian and not had a Roman. EDIT: They should've gotten two proper Reformed people.

I'm a combat veteran and served in Iraq and Afghanistan with Marines. I saw much death and violence, eventually leading to issues of PTSD, depression, anxiety and insomnia. I wasn't a believer throughout all of this. When I look back, I can say neither side was the "good" side. Psalm 11:5 reinforces that for me. I cannot reconcile any good from the violence I saw. What men say is good, God says is evil. Now that I believe, I believe in carrying my cross and following the path Christ provided by loving my enemy. Even if that means it's unpopular to men, or that my "enemy" will kill me. A true follower of Christ will understand this; death of the flesh is not the end of life. To endure and/or die because you follow Christ's word is not weakness. Christ says those that die in his name are blessed. Those that love violence likely can't comprehend this or understand a believers love for God, but we can't serve two masters. I choose to serve Christ and know that vengeance belongs to Him alone.

This video had so much influence on me. After watching it, my mind truly had no more conflict. War could no longer be justified. The two Kingdoms suddenly became obvious to me and that our warfare is not of this world. We bless those who persecute us and ask for forgiveness on their behalf as they are killing us.

This is extraordinary!! When I was 18 or 19 years of age I struggled with the idea of going to war and it terrified me to say the least. I feared of being killed..but what I feared more was killing another human being..I used to think I was strange because I didn't believe war was right. But years later I found a people who believe the things I did..I am deeply grateful to to God that He helped me discover the anabaptists. God Bless you all !!

Thanks for setting up this debate. I do find David Bercot and Dean Taylor's position to be more in line with Christ's teachings. I'm praying for grace to live out these commands.

Well done David Bercot and Dean Taylor! Thank you for using Scripture to make your points, rather than Augustine, C.S. Lewis, other writers, philosophers, or family members and their jobs! You both clearly spoke the truth about love, in love. Thank you for representing the biblical non-resistance way of life with integrity. Jesus didn't lower the bar because of all the "what ifs," but still demanded complete and radical obedience. (And thank you for wisely addressing all the typical "what ifs" as you did! That has helped me many times when discussing this topic.) Amen! If to follow Christ, we must FOLLOW CHRIST!

Amen! Dean and David did a great job defending Non resistance!

I have listened to this debate a year or two ago and once again today. I truly enjoyed it and I am convinced that the non-resistance way, is what Lord Jesus taught and wants us to follow. Thank you so much for this very informative debate. It has helped me a lot on my walk with Christ by learning about the Anabaptists way, and for that I am ever so grateful. May God bless you for your ministry and I pray it will continue to bless people around the world. 🙏❤️

Using the early church to justify pacifists doesnt completely make sense to me. The apostoles died and justifiably so...for the faith, as we are all called to do if necessary. But standing for the innocent is just as much of a Christian value as dying for the faith.

The Pacificts duo sound like regular pastors of a local church. As a Christian I can relate well with them. the other two sounds like a typical philosophers and their arguments make sense from world point of view.

Amen to Dean and David! Our sole purpose on Earth as Christians must be to know Christ intimately, and to make Him known to others... or, in other words, to receive agape love, and give the same away...

Amazing debate. I hope the every Christian in America gets a chance to watch it. Loved the interaction about Rwanda, and also the closing statements.

Dean's closing statements are gold. Romans 8 simply does not sound like just war theory!

so glad to find this site and see the thoughtful engagement of the participants. Some took up too much time with lengthy examples and hypotheticals that didn't really add much....but I guess that can't be avoided. Good thinkers/writers may not have comparable listening/speaking skills. They sometimes resort to silliness ("....you would require that they remain unbelievers..."...."I don't own any guns"...etc.).. but on the whole, a great debate. I wish more faith leaders engaged in classic-style debates and faced questions.

Interesting debate, however I would really have liked to see a third position argued, which is the libertarian non-aggression principle position. I don’t agree with a pacifist position, however I’m also completely against the logical conclusion of what people most commonly refer to as just war theory. I think there is a huge difference between an individual right to self defense and justifying war. Also I think Romans 13 is the most incorrectly interpreted biblical passage especially in Christian vigorous defense of statism.

Meeting with Cornelius was an act of love for an enemy occupier, not supporting one's own nation in some patriotic way.

Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent. Call Bible things by Bible names, and do Bible things in Bible ways! Thanks David and Dean for standing with scripture!

Thank you for posting this.

I loved.. Bercot and Taylor's introductions and endings!

Thank you for setting up the debate. I thought both sides to be very respectful towards eachother, yet holding firm Philosophic positions.

Listening to this debate you kind of get a feeling that the pro just war professors still need a life and mind changing encounter with Jesus Christ and his teaching

The people who advocate for war in the name of peace do not see things in light of eternity. They only see the temporal.

Peter Kreeft will definitely steer clear of Rwanda in future debates. Rwanda was 95% Christian (58% Catholic) when the killing started. If we Christians (I'm Catholic) had remained faithful to the teachings of Jesus, the massacres don't happen. The same for Fascist Germany - no Christians to man the German armies or the concentration camps and WWII doesn't happen. The JW proponents were soundly beaten.

@Followers of the Way: I noticed that the video is cut at 57:43 after Dean finishes talking and cuts forward - do you mind me asking what was cut out there? I'm curious if there was a response from the Just War panelists there that was cut? Thanks so much!

Smashed that replay button

Very good. OT has no teaching of just war, and the just war teaching was absent for the first 300 years of Christianity. Non resistance was the original teaching. Good comment by Dean, "Can someone be a follower of Christ without following Christ?"

Can anyone provide scholarly research on the Council of Nicaea Canon 12 referenced by the GNV side? I can find very little on this canon beyond its contents.

I met David Bercot once.

This debate is very educational! In discussing the various countries to be able to fully discuss of enlisting in the military one would need to be familiar with each country's military structure. We have 2 of our children and their companions and families living in a church building area in southern Chile South America. The first native convert was a longtime MILITARY office worker. Mamager of many employees. (A centurion??!!) So as non-resistent believers they had a discussion with him and the division he worked for was what we in the US is known as the Army Corp. of Engineers. Groups responsible only for land conservation etc. So he was permitted to remain in his work as he is near retirement. All since have chosen other employments.

very good and quite thought provoking. But i was thrilled to see that the bottom line is really illuminated at the end. in essence: The Bible is the authoritative and literal Word of God. Sinful and finite man can and will do all they can to explain it away, but the Bible stands! Praise God they we don't have to go through philosophy and the works of mere men to determine Gods will! God has given us his Word; now lets read it, take it for what it obviously means, and then apply it to our lives!!!

From the applause at the end of Dean's concluding statement, it doesn't seem like many in the room were persuaded of the validity of "just war theory." Neither was I.

Amazing video

Seems as though this is one of those things that the individual has to determine for his own walk and thus bare the consequences whether good or bad,

Interesting discussion. About a little more than halfway in and I am wondering if the pacifists will rejoice with the saints when God avenges on the prostitute the blood of His saints (Rev. 19:1-3) or will they join in the holy array of His army when He returns to judge the nations who have disobeyed His Word (Rev. 19:11-16; 2 Thess. 1:6-10)? Are they just temporary pacifists or is this how God always administers the New Covenant?

it’s amazing how a false teaching from a well meaning Christian teacher can prevent you from seeing truth. I used to think CS Lewis settled the just war debate until I discovered the early church writings thanks to David Bercot. Now the 2 kingdoms is so obvious I’m ashamed I missed it.

I'm even more confused than before! Ultimately, I think the "non-resistance" side won this debate with altogether more cogent arguments, and I am personally erring on this side of the argument myself. However, one thing I still find confusing is why a) John the Baptist did not tell the roman soldiers he speaks with to refrain from killing and leave the army, as per Dean Taylor's actions, and similarly b) Cornelius the Roman Centurion is not told to cease being a Roman soldier and leave the army to enter into a less violent occupation. Do any proponents of the non-resistance have any responses on these instances? Thank you.

No greater love than that of laying down your life for others.

My conclusion, pacifism is a moral option for the christian not a moral obligation. Holy/just violence is a moral option but not a moral obligation.

It was very interesting, I was very impressed with Dean Taylor whom I had not heard speak before this debate. To bad the "just war" side wanted to talk about something other then nonresistance and kept returning to pacifism, some what of a red herring in this debate.

Very clean job!

Great.

What is gonna make the difference anyway about the arguing

It would have been nice to see an Evangelical perspective in this debate. It was also frustrating that the Just War proponents weren't aware until halfway through the debate that their opponents didn't hold to "Christian Pacifism" but to Non-Resistance. Interesting debate nonetheless.

Wasn't Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works in Romans 16, that Paul greeted, in the government? Does the Pacifist camp not allow Christians to be in the government? Didn't Tertullian also prohibited Christians to be teachers, on the account of them teaching about mythology and stuff? So, you can't be teachers or civil workers? Pilgram Marpeck, an influential Anabaptist of the 16th century, was working for the government as well. (If one wants to talk about Anabaptist roots.) Maybe we should designate "Extreme Pacifist" and "Moderate Pacifist" in this debate. I agree with the guy with the nice beard, that most issues are not either/or, but more complex. This is where Christian conscience and freedom come in, as opposed to legalism, in its black and white approaches.

:) "AMEN PACIFISM" :) TRUE BIBLICAL TEACHING :) “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” ‭‭2 Thessalonians‬ ‭3:18‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The confusion is SPECIFICALLY because so many Christians are taught that they are still a part of the World that we have actually died to. Many believe that Biblical statements such “we have died to the World,” and that “we are no longer a part of the World,” are simply very strange ways of saying “we are the World’s moral superiors.” NO! EVERY Christian is a pardoned convict.

How did nobodyy reference Ecclesiastes 3?

I came to the same conclusion.

It bothers me Bercot isn't distinguishing between self defense against a private evil versus resistance to an evil state actor. Jesus after He left this planet told His disciples to bring their sword. Their sword wasn't for rebellion against the state, but a private evil.

Does a farmer allow the coyote to eat his chickens at night? Does a shepherd watch as wolves eat his lambs? what is a shepherd's staff for?

To be clear tho ... The gentlman in the debate that his father-in-law was a car switcher in the railroad ( he didn't clarify which kinds of train service but suspecting for the Nazi army) we would believe that is actively involved in the loss of life so should not be done.

A great debate. Here's one without taking a stand on either side for sure - so many wars are fought for immoral reasons these days, that is it practical to fight in wars driven by ulterior motives than simply "helping" another nation? The military industrial complex kind of really is another whole factor to look at as well...

This was a great debate. The full debate page (with recommended follow-up reading) is here: www.followers-of-the-way.org/justwar2014.shtml The nonresistance side clearly won but they did not answer the "homocidal maniac" question as well as they could have. Here is what they should have said: - Peter Kreeft kept posing counterfactuals as if one knew the future perfectly, i.e. "shoot this person or he murders your family." But one never has such perfect foreknowledge. Maybe the invader isn't intending to kill your family but you think he is and, being nervous, shoot and miss. Now enraged, the invader does kill you and your family when he never so intended. - Practically speaking, the "gunfight" approach is more likely to get you or your family killed (many studies have shown this), so the objection fails on purely practical grounds. - The earliest advocates of just war theory, Ambrose and Augustine, both said that based on the Sermon on the Mount, you were not allowed to defend yourself from personal assault. Modern just war advocates have abandoned even that position and have left the Sermon on the Mount evacuated of any application. They don't think Jesus was talking about governments and they don't think he was talking about personal behavior. It's tragic to see how they eviscerate Jesus' teaching. Read John Howard Yoder's book "What would do?... if a violent person threatened to harm a loved one" for a definitive answer to this question. Finny Kuruvilla's "King Jesus Claims His Church" chapter on nonresistance has more on this as well. Real life stories from people like Pablo Yoder and others show that this is not only possible, but can transform communities. Finally, Kreeft raised the question about lying to potentially protect others. It's a classic case of "do the ends justify the means?" The historic Christian answer to this is no. Christians are supposed to obey God and trust that He will work out good according to His wisdom. By Kreeft's logic, if your child needed chemotherapy but you couldn't afford it, and a gangster offered you money to kill an bad person, you're allowed to kill that bad person that to save your innocent child. Beware of this kind of slippery thinking. Overall, this was a great debate and clear victory for biblical nonresistance, but there were some unfinished threads that should be further addressed.

I would be interested in the early christian decsent against non resistance.

Thanks

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” John 18:36 NASB

If there ever were a case for just war it would have been the day religious people had a just and sinless man murdered-Jesus. But Jesus chose love, told Peter to put his sword away and even went a step further, healing the ear of the soldier Peter harmed.

John 10:11:"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." John 10:14-15:"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." Hebrews 13:20:"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant." 1 Peter 2:25:"For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." Psalm 23:1-4:"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." Ezekiel 34:15-16:"I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God. I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment." Psalm 80:1:"Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth." Isaiah 40:11:"He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." Micah 5:4:"And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth." 1 Peter 5:4:"And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."

What if I believe you can both love your enemies and fight against them even to the death. What if I admit the nessesity of killing to protect others and hope that the enemy makes it to heaven or sees the error of his ways and lays down his arms? You say he that lives by the sword shall die by it, I grant it, my question is are somethings worth dying by the sword over?

I don't agree with the pacifist position on all points, but one thing I will say for their side that I see as a common thread they keep looping back to: they try to take Jesus' commands at face value and try to live them in faith. Many of the Gospel's teachings are hard, and I think it can be easy for us to try to come up with "what-if's" or make up scenarios in which we would be exempted from them. But really, the question shouldn't be "Well what if this" or "what if that". The question should be, do we believe Jesus meant what He said? Do we believe that God is sovereign? Do we believe that the next life is infinitely better than the present one? As Christians, we are not responsible for outcomes, only faithfully following Jesus' commandments in each moment that is given to us.

Does anyone know a discussion like this on believers baptism v infant baptism?

It is apparent that Dean and David's position is what Christ taught. They do not need to quote CS Lewis or Augustine. They only need to stick with the Bible.

Answer the question when people are wrong you always see him divert to a different topic and active on topic

None of the Roman soldiers baptized where ordered to leave the army.

Peace will always be more popular than war for obvious reasons and not because of anything Jesus said. But I’m sure that the peaceniks are glad for us veterans who defended our country from Nazis and Communists so that they could freely practice and proclaim their emotion-based beliefs.

Lord willing i become saved and a pacifist like Christ. Please pray for me.

So do non-resistance types believe we should love our enemies more than our own families? If killing an enemy is the only way to stop him from killing our friends, why wouldn't we do that?

A gust a wind wars.

Was this Roman Catholic a Jesuit? I find it disturbing his ignorance of the holocaust and the eagerness to defend Talmudic Judaism.

A true pacifist understands that force is not aggression and violence. To be against violence is not to be against force.

Here are two important early Christian writings that support a solid pacifist dogma: Here is an important epistle from Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus who at the end Justin Martyrs 1st Apology; gives us an important insight of how Early Christians dealt with Rome’s wars through prayer in a spirit of pacifism: Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate, in Which He Testifies that the Christians Were the Cause of His Victory.152 The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Germanicus, Parthicus, Sarmaticus, to the People of Rome, and to the sacred Senate greeting: I explained to you my grand design, and what advantages I gained on the confines of Germany, with much labour and suffering, in consequence of the circumstance that I was surrounded by the enemy; I myself being shut up in Carnuntum by seventy-four cohorts, nine miles off. And the enemy being at hand, the scouts pointed out to us, and our general Pompeianus showed us that there was close on us a mass of a mixed multitude of 977, 000 men, which indeed we saw; and I was shut up by this vast host, having with me only a battalion composed of the first, tenth, double and marine legions. Having then examined my own position, and my host, with respect to the vast mass of barbarians and of the enemy, I quickly betook myself to prayer to the gods of my country. But being disregarded by them, I summoned those who among us go by the name of Christians. And having made inquiry, I discovered a great number and vast host of them, and raged against them, which was by no means becoming; for afterwards I learned their power. Wherefore they began the battle, not by preparing weapons, nor arms, nor bugles; for such preparation is hateful to them, on account of the God they bear about in their conscience. Therefore it is probable that those whom we suppose to be atheists, have God as their ruling power entrenched in their conscience. For having cast themselves on the ground, they prayed not only for me, but also for the whole army as it stood, that they might be delivered from the present thirst and famine. For during five days we had got no water, because there was none; for we were in the heart of Germany, and in the enemy's territory. And simultaneously with their casting themselves on the ground, and praying to God (a God of whom I am ignorant), water poured from heaven, upon us most refreshingly cool, but upon the enemies of Rome a withering153 hail. And immediately we recognised the presence of God following on the prayer-a God unconquerable and indestructible. Founding upon this, then, let us pardon such as are Christians, lest they pray for and obtain such a weapon against ourselves. And I counsel that no such person be accused on the ground of his being a Christian. But if any one be found laying to the charge of a Christian that he is a Christian, I desire that it be made manifest that he who is accused as a Christian, and acknowledges that he is one, is accused of nothing else than only this, that he is a Christian; but that he who arraigns him be burned alive. And I further desire, that he who is entrusted with the government of the province shall not compel the Christian, who confesses and certifies such a matter, to retract; neither shall he commit him. And I desire that these things be confirmed by a decree of the Senate. And I command this my edict to be published in the Forum of Trajan, in order that it may be read. The prefect Vitrasius Pollio will see that it be transmitted to all the provinces round about, and that no one who wishes to make use of or to possess it be hindered from obtaining a copy from the document I now publish. ecmarsh.com/fathers/anf/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3959_754048 Also we know that in the 12th Canon from the Council Of Nicea the Roman Church continued to require pacifism in its attendants: Canon 12 As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfil the whole time. www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicaea_canons.htm

What I find interesting is that the underlying question in this debate relates to the question of whether the Bible is the supreme authority (over and above any other authority) by which a Christian should live his/her life, or not. Just in perusing the comments, it seems to me that if you take a Sola Scriptura perspective, than the Christian Non-Retaliation P.O.V. won the debate. If you take the perspective that Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition hold equal merit under the authority of the Church, than the Just War P.O.V. won.

We should resist evil. it is a command of Yah.

The unfriendly over-simplifying fellows on the left are pretentious. The older fellows on the right aren't great at arguing this case, not to mention they fell for the classical debating traps set for them by the unfriendly fellows on the left. Also, the narcissistic fundamentalist younger man called the other gentlemen 'unsaved' initially and then back-walked his statement back. Bad debate. Frustrating. The argument that no one can do something bad to stop something worse is sophomoric in philosophy. We do it all the time.

Clearly, our LORD JESUS CHRIST was/is against war. Did he not heal the ear of Malchus when Peter sliced it off with his sword?? Loving our enemies means to share the Gospel & respect every person that we encounter in this Worldly Kingdom knowing that we are citizens of our Heavenly Kingdom. When Jesus was slapped, spit upon, flogged, beaten, and kicked when he dropped his cross that he was forced to carry, did He not allow this, so that he may die for His enemies??? To "put on Christ," we have to understand that this Worldly Kingdom is NOT our home. We have to "die to our flesh." This is why He taught that we can only serve ONE Master. Our Master ought to be Christ. Whatever happens to our flesh by our oppressors ought not worry us. We will be hated, afflicted, cursed, and persecuted for being citizens of God's Kingdom, but it is still a small price to pay for all of our transgressions that we have committed against our Heavenly Father, while we are living on this planet, is it not? We must rejoice in our tribulations, Beloved.

With love, faith comes by hearing God's word (Romans 10:17). And let us all come into the unity of faith (Ephesians 4). 1. Is the American government worldly or part of God's kingdom? -- Jesus says, "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth" (John 17:16-17). -- In the Hebrew language, the word "NATIONS" is identical with the word heathen -- Psalm 96:5; Psalm 2:1. 2. What are the weapons that Christians should use on their enemies? -- "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:4). 3. With love, should we give our enemies food and water, or should we kill them? -- "Let love be without hypocrisy [play-acting]. ... Repay NO ONE evil for evil. ... If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink ..." (Rom. 12:9-21). 4. I now have been born from above -- a new birth brings new citizenship. Where is our new citizenship? -- "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Philippians 3:20). -- Are there Christians in this nation? Yes, but ... Biblically, we belong to a kingdom, not a nation. -- Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight ... BUT now My kingdom is not from here? 5. What kind of mind are we to have? -- The mind of Christ (Eph. 2:5). 6. Do the Old Testament Wars come into play, NOW? -- Jesus says, "You have said, an eye for an eye ... BUT I tell you NOT to resist an evil person" (Matthew 38-48). Because ... --"The wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God" (James 1:20). The work of the Gospel is to make peace between men and God--not war. Wherever a heart surrenders to God the spirit of militarism and nationalism must go (June 21, 1898). The person who believes that the voice of the people is the voice of God may want to reconsider: "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb ... they loved not their lives unto death" (Rev. 12:11). 7. Does God regard it as less sinful to kill a thousand men than to kill one? -- "Though they join forces, the wicked shall not be unpunished; but the posterity of the righteous will be delivered" (Proverbs 11:21). blessings, John

"He shoots one of those kids dead." That's tragic, but realize - He's now with the Father in Heaven. Those that justify violence love the world, not the word. (Jas 4:1-4 HNV) Where do wars and fightings among you come from? Don't they come from your pleasures that war in your members? You lust, and don't have. You kill, covet, and can't obtain. You fight and make war. You don't have, because you don't ask. You ask, and don't receive, because you ask amiss, so that you may spend it for your pleasures. You adulterers and adulteresses, don't you know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

The more I think about it, Bercot's position is ridiculous. When the Roman soldier became a Christian there is no record of the apostles telling him that he must quit being a soldier.

Our Government Met in church originally, that's where "In God We Trust" came from.. Now it's In "God WE No Longer Trust". Jesus told his Disciples to buy a sword for protection.. Thou shalt not kill, means Murder, not Self-Defense.. John 18:10 “Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.” ---- Why did Peter have a Sword ? Luke 22:36 “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” --- A Sword for protection . If I see 3 guys raping a little girl, I'm "Not" looking the other way.. . Romans 8:14 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” .. All of the talking from so-called men of God, and not one word from God ???

Roman’s 13: 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will have his approval. 4For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer. 5Therefore it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience. Acts 10: 1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was called the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his household were devout and God-fearing. He gave generously to the people and prayed to God regularly. 3One day at about the ninth hour,a he had a clear vision of an angel of God who came to him and said, “Cornelius!” The man who had an Angel visit him which is a really big deal, and He was known as a devout and God fearing man, He was a solider

So I fully support the Anabaptist personal freedom to choose and argue for pacifism, but they are refusing to love their neighbor via protection from evil harm. David Bercot in particular shows a lack of love of neighbor in how he argues he can wash his hands of the problems of the world. Why would Jesus have told them to buy a sword if there was no possible reason to use one? Luke 22:36

This is what YASHUA "Jesus" said in the bible " if anyone comes to harm you do not resist them, for vengeance is mine."

I talked to dean taylor he liked my dog

To all the would-be pacifists, who have no real idea of what they would actually do if their life or the lives of their dear ones were threatened, I highly recommend a reading of “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers” by Jonathan Mayhew. You’re welcome.

Wow. The body language and aggression of the pacifist side was not expected. If watched with no sound one would mistake which side was which.

Apologia studios sermon on Jesus wepons and war Is a good video to wach if you found the defenders of just war to be inadequate in their argumentation and use of scripture in this debate

No worries. We’ll fight for the pacifist too...

The Catholic Church has a history of war. They were very much apart of the Holocaust. They apologized for there part in the genocide in Rwanda.

How about when ;Jesus said surly, sell your garments and buy a sword? To protect your self.

Christ used violence when he drove the merchants from the temple. He didn't use deadly force but he did use violence.

Timing - Transition from Old Testament Law Of Carnal Ordinances, to New Testament Laws Of Spirituality. Jesus knew the Theocratic Rulers of the Jewish people were the Pharisees, and he knew they were hypocrites. He also knew it is important to obey those in position of authority, but we see he also knew where to draw the line. Matthew 23:1-3 - Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying; The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. ------------------------------------------ Romans 13 - Apostle Paul was talking to Church members who had Already obeyed The Gospel. As It Was Preached By Jesus to the Pharisee Ruler Nicodemus in John 3:5. Apostle Paul was talking to the Church members who had obeyed the same Gospel of Salvation that Apostle Peter preached in Acts 2:38. They were were Truly Born Again Christians. Apostle Paul is talking about Church Ministers, Preachers, Pastors, Teachers i.e. Those with "Church Authority", Not Roman Secular Government. KJV Romans13 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers

What the hell is wrong with these guy's that are against just war theory? John the Baptist is mentioned and even quoted but yet the most important and pertinent words of John the Baptist is never quoted. THIS VERSE ANSWERS THE ENTIRE QUESTION LITERALLY AND ENTIRELY. HERE! Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man,.. A soldiers asked what should they do? And John answers "DO VIOLENCE TO NO MAN!" Without soldiers you can not have wars and John said that soldiers "do violence to no man". The greatest victories of Israel were when they trusted in God and did not fight, such as their deliverance by God from the Egyptian army during the exodus. And the one battle that not one Israeli was got even a scratch when the prophet told king Hezekiah was to take his army onto the field of battle without any weapons and harps and to sing praises to God. The enemy army that out numbered them began to kill each other because God put a delusion upon them!

2 Kings Chapter 9

1:10:45 followers of the way transitioning quickly out of the ww2 Jewish problem situation. That seems to be a point of discomfort 1:18:20 but bercot wins it right here & delivers the ko blow re the early church circa 150ad approx on tertullian/origen very clear overt pacifism and when they ask for a "universal source" he cites nicea which couldn't possibly be more universal or clearly conclusive. If we believe the patristic fathers carried the clearest form of the original apostles teachings, which they did, then that ends the debate right there-Christians were forbidden to serve in the military period 1:26:50 a decent rebuttal "the obvious change is when you have a transition from a pagan empire to a Christian one"; that could be a sound rebuttal

To the kingdom of the world (darkness) its impossible to understand the opposite Kingdom Of God. In the Kingdom of God citizens are Christian non-resistant. Not pacifists. They allow their enemies to kill them out of Love for their enemy and not themselves.

Did God ever command anyone to be stoned?

Pacifism is a straw-man argument. Taking up the Cross is not a passive en-devour.

Pacifism simply means to refuse protecting the weaker from the stronger. It's my personal opinion that Jesus was not a pacifist as he went to "war" with the devil to protect us weaker ones from the stronger, that is, the devil. This can apply to several things such as just war, abortion, and stopping a bloodthirsty criminal from killing the ones you love in your home, including the one is "one flesh" with you. (Genesis 2:24)

one does know that an unbeliever is going to Hell !

I wish bercot would have stepped up and been bold when asked if there were concerned for the salvation of the other men. They blatantly are going against what Christ taught. For crying out loud the older gentleman who was for just war basically said he can’t say just because someone was an unbeliever that they wouldn’t be in heaven!!!🤦🏽 The biggest problem the church has today is the compromise of agreeing to disagree. 1 Timothy 6:3-5 KJV [3] If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; [4] He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, [5] Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.