Pastor Ortlund, you're probably my favorite Christian Channel on youtube. You've helped a lot with my walk with Christ. Please never stop posting content.
Im a PhD student of church history and I find the radical pacifism of the early church so inspiring and challenging. In a culture in which the army was constantly praised and violent gladiator fights were being watched as entertainment, so many Christians were committed to loving their enemies and preferring to die rather than kill someone else. As you noted, Gavin, they did not merely call out idolatry in the Roman army but also objected to the act of killing itself as contrary to the enemy love and peacemaking Jesus calls us to. May we today be as faithful in our violent times!
Thank you for making this video. I was in the army and deployed to Afghanistan and recently got out of the army. I am now getting my masters in Christian apologetics. This topic is extremely important to some and should be pertinent to all. The proclivity to move towards violence as a solution is far too prevalent within some sects of Christianity. The cost and horrors of war at times are worse than some can imagine. I spent a lot of time before I was in the army and while I was in reading modern pacifist theologians and just war theorists to get a good look at both sides. Prior to my time in the army I didn’t meet a single Christian who did not speak positively of military service. Now that I’m out I’ve run into people who say “if you are in the military or have been you are not a Christian”. For some people this is a first bucket issue and for all people it is morally complex. I think a deep dive on Pacifism would be extremely warranted. I know you are a busy man but I just figured I’d put that out there. It is very prevalent in the circles of pastors and preachers I know who have served as well as almost every Christian chaplain.
Just remember what's better take hitler. Hitler was a mass murderor. Would being a pacifist while he marched across the world be due. How bought the Islamic jihadists taking over christians. Or the north men raiding and slaving the monks. Christ has shown anger. We should strive for peace but be ready to pick up a sword to defend the weak
I think if you need help in some situations, you wouldn't want anybody else except the most lethal helpers. But I also think we all know deep down there is something deeply wrong about taking a human life--whether or not it can be "justified" by a theory dreamt up away from the battlefield. And I think that's why this is such a difficult question. It would be absurd to tell those at the front lines that they should put their weapons down. But it also seems absurd to tell them God wants them to aim for center mass. So which side must compromise? Today's a hard day to talk about this for many. I'll pray for ya. Take care.
Spiritual entities often operate at an epi-doxastic (beyond belief) level. People believe somethings that aren't true, but it doesn't prevent them [spirits] from interacting with them in a constructive manner.
Every time a tough subject comes up like this, where there is no absolute statement of "DO NOT DO THIS" because of the layers involved, it basically reestablishes the fact that we need grace. When before the throne of Judgement we're going to be called out for things we probably didn't even give a second thought to and yet we'll need the Advocate in Christ to cover those sins.
Believe me, I don't live this way--so I am quite the hypocrite--but there almost certainly is a "do not do this statement". Not just one, but many. Not only that but several centuries of Christian martyrdom witness to those statements. Why cheapen their sacrifice and their convictions by making them look like total choiceless victims instead of honoring their choices to be willing lambs shedding their blood in Christ's name? This is a harsh statement but I’m directing it to myself as well.
@@dylan3456 it isn't dismissing them whatsoever. Same as it isn't dismissing the sacrifices of those who did kill to save others and perhaps lost their lives in the act. What I'm saying is that the judgement we are so sure of, when it isn't EXPLICITLY STATED ( ex: you shall lay down your life, never put up a fight), might not be so sure. "Lean not on your own understanding". The spirit of this is, I shall never be righteous on my own (even in sacrifice) and will need the Grace of my Savior when I appear before the Judge who opens the book of life. I do not condemn those who submit to total non violence but I also do not condemn those who have made the choice to resist those who would do all manners of physical evil by violence.
Sin has to be done knowingly in order for it to be a sin. You have the law written on your heard though. And in real Christianity you would not be alone in this dilemma. You can "take it to the church" as Jesus instructed to do. The wisdom of 2000 years worth of prayer and study are very important in resolving issues like this. Just a pity that many people protest against the very things in the Christian life that Jesus established to help us in this problems.
@@SojoX777 Why do we all tend to spiritualize ethical mandates that were followed as if they were literal (and by this I mean 'not metaphorical') by even Jesus Christ himself? 1 Peter 3:9 alone is really hard to turn into something other than what it is. It's too easy to argue that it's different if you have a uniform on when someone is trying to kill you; it's too easy to say "oh sure, repay evil with evil in that case..."
@ dylan3456 I get what you’re saying. I would propose the question of what would be done if you had to protect someone else in your care, like your wife or your elderly parent or your child? We can turn our own cheek, but we cannot turn someone else’s cheek on their behalf.
I taught Just-War Theory in the Army, and it all goes back to Augustine. I'm a retired CCCC Chaplain. BTW, you mentioned Constantine. What do you think of Defending Constantine by Peter Leithart? I found it helpful. Also, veterans hate it when we're asked, "Did you kill anyone?" One vet answered, "Well I was an Army cook, so probably."
@@1Whipperin You can take issue with aspects of all wars. You may even object to the wars of Canaan conquest in the OT. This is an individual matter, which is why people in denominations that support just war theory can be conscientious objectors. I recommend Drew Univ prof Darrell Cole's book When God Says War is Just. I participated in Desert Storm, which many believe was a just war, but probably not entirely.
@bobleroe3859 Thank you. Just war theory sounds good but is nonsense because no wars have ever been just according to just war theory. I will get the book.
Full disclosure: Anabaptist Minister here, I have a few thoughts... I think that when a future tradition completely contradicts an early interpretation and practice of the Church, we're moving in the wrong direction. The early church was not Pacificts but non resistant. They were well aware of the Old Testament teachings, but believed Christ's kingdom was seperate from the earths kingdom. This is why the radical reformation moved so far back to the early church because the fruit of Augistines teaching contradicted the practice. So perhaps my general concern isn't necessarily a just war issue, but a general principle of how we as the Gods people identify with a non violent, non worldy indulgent, etc church if the body looks so differently today. Thanks for the great videos. I invite any thoughts from others to share your perspective to my response!
Random thoughts: I highly agree with your statement that they were not pacifists but nonresistant, anticipating imminent integration into Christ's Kingdom. A problem though, is the initial interpretation and practice of the "early church" was a progressive and moving target. When the return of Christ didn't come for the first hundred years, what to do in certain scenarios became more imminent. They were figuring out things as they went along, with theological milestones occasionally peppering the way. That road, as history reveals, was rocky indeed. And what correctly defines the term "early church" , the first 100 years, the first 300 years, the first 500 years? I'd rather prefer terms like Apostolic, pre-Augustine, post Nicene, etc.. "early church" is just too vague for discussion. (Note: I also use that term without specifics.) Even with all the literature and studies of the past 1900 years concerning this topic (and others), we as the full body of Christ have not yet come to a definitive conclusion, and especially not one that is embraced by all. No disagreement with your statements, just throwing thoughts out there.
This is spot on. I wish it were addressed more in these discussions. The reason why the early Christians practiced non-violence was because they were the sort of first fruits of the new heavens and the new earth. When Christ did not return in the timeframe expected there was a need to reframe their eschatology, as well as their relationship with church and state. It appears to me to be a doctrinal development which Gavin takes issue with.
I agree there's a bit of a contradiction here. Gavin has critiqued the EO and RCC churches for "accretions," e.g., use of icons, mariology, and papal authority. Yet the message of the NT is pacifism. Non-pacifism then sure seems like an accretion to early Christianity. I get how non pacifism may make sense with respect to human affairs, but how in principle is it not a contradiction of Gavin's professed ideals of Sola Scriptura?
Your mistake is trying to split Christ’s kingship of all in existence to only a realm outside of earth, and not a thing in it. This is unsettling to read, and dangerous imho Christ is king of all. Not just the church doors. This seems like somewhat of a farsical argument to avoid discipling once we leave church I find two kingdom supporters oddly enough completely support Christians abolishing slavery on a basis of sin. These supporters routinely contradict themselves and it seems like bad faith actions
I similarly studied the Bible and church history to determine if self defense is compatible with Christianity. Mostly because I'm a father who couldn't bear to sit by while a violent person attempted to harm my family. I believe it's well within the love of Christ to sacrifice oneself to defend family and friends. Remember, when Christ comes again he will come as a conquerer separating the unrighteous from the righteous. There will be a war, God will wage it and be victorious.
As a father and a pacifist, I have essentially resolved that, if it came to if, I would sacrifice my pacifism to protect my family - but not because I think that’s “justified” or correct. It’s a sin I’d “take upon” myself for them, much like Bonhoeffer participating in the attempt to assassinate Hitler, concerning which he said “When a man takes guilt upon himself in responsibility, he imputes his guilt to himself and no one else. He answers for it... Before other men he is justified by dire necessity; before himself he is acquitted by his conscience, but before God he hopes only for grace.”
@@kiwisaram9373 Jesus already demonstrated the Kingdom manifest. His kingdom is “not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But my kingdom is from another place.” So if Jesus intended a kingdom that was established and maintained by violence, he would have done it! But instead God established a kingdom of peace that subverts the usual violence of kingdoms into something which brings life
@Cornelius135 I don’t think this would even be a sin in this case. We as fathers are charged by God to protect and love our children, so acting to protect our children from an immediate threat is in no way violating Jesus’ command to love our enemies.
@Cornelius135 Correction: “My kingdom is not *from* this world.” Hence why He also said it isn’t “from here.” His kingdom is definitely “of” this world, else He would not have told us to continually pray for the Father to make it so “Your kingdom come and Your will be done *on earth* as it is *in heaven.”* Since the kingdom is not from earth Christ does not take His orders from earthly authority nor does He rely upon earthly powers. His power comes from above. I think He goes on to say that too in context, doesn’t He? Even claiming that earthly powers are only themselves given from above?
Hey Gavin! I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for the incredible impact you’ve had on my life. Your videos have not only enlightened me but have also been a source of inspiration and spiritual growth. Your positivity, wisdom, and deep theological insights have strengthened my faith. It's clear that your teachings come from a place of sincerity and altruism, and it's truly heartwarming to witness. Keep up the amazing work. You’re surely making a real difference in the lives of many.
I really appreciate this video and your stance, I am currently serving in Israel, working with Gazans and living with Israelis, and everything going on breaks my heart. Many Gazan friends I have are dead and I have sat through them with loss, I sat in a bomb shelter on Oct 7 reading headlines of Hamas militants attacking towns closer and closer to mine. I am a pacifist and many atrocities on both sides break my heart and challenged that. Most days my only prayer was for the wrath of God. In the end my convictions are strengthened, but I love the care and nuance you are taking and how you hold each view.
So...Generally speaking Pre-Edict of Milan Christians lived out the teachings of Jesus. After they had an Empire to run and wanted a way to commit wars with a clear conscience. Please explain to me how this is inaccurate. Also God bless you Gavin. Love your channel 🙂
Not to give justification to the post Nicene church but I think things are a little less black and white than that. Prior to Constantine Christians and the church weren't in places of authority in society for the most part, so the church served and cared for the poor and needy in the ways they could. But imagine you are now living in a time where Christianity has spread and even the leaders of the cities and nations have converted. As a Christian who is now in a place of authority, how do you fulfill your responsibility to protect and care for the people under you when you still live in a fallen world full of people who intend on doing evil? This is a difficult problem. And it was abused and still is, more often than not but it is the situation that I think influenced Augustine to write about just war when slavers were combing the countryside for people to sell and the church in hippo regius was caring for hundreds and thousands of stolen people that they rescued from the slavers. You are a Christian who is the governor of an ancient city and barbarian slavers are raiding, killing, raping, and stealing your citizens. How are you to be a righteous governor? What are we to do in a complicated world? I think it's easy to see what's clearly wrong. I don't know where the line is between "I won't let you harm these innocent people" and something like the crusades, inquisition, 30 yrs war, etc.
So what did you come away believing to be our moral duty in the face of violence from our enemies? Is it just nuanced? Are we consequentialists? Pragmatists? Aristotelians? Stoics? It's so hard to choose when there are so many philosophies to do the work of describing what we talking chimps do. ; )
Predisposed towards peace, at all times, at a minimum. This means conflict truly would be an absolute last resort and even then highly undesirable and be as kept as brief as possible.
Before watching the video. I would say as a matter of spreading the Gospel, the first three hundred years of Christianity was entirely pacifist. However, that doesn't necessarily mean every individual was a pacifist in every encounter of their lives.
@@JeansiByxan They were a massive minority everywhere before Constantine. The thousands baptized on Pentecost were from millions of Jews just in Jerusalem. Same everywhere else.
You gotta love Gavin. Our dearest brother is so unbiased yet passionate, so clever and a true irenean Christian. Thanks a lot for I learn a lot and your pastoral conclusions clearly come from the heart. Cheers from France :-) Stay blessed
As a Christian that believes and practices Christo centric non violence (CNV) I appreciate your honesty with some of this material although I would differ on some of the interpretation of events, nuances, and conclusions you made it was a blessing and edifying to see you lean into the side of peacemaking. I pray you continue to look into these matters as there is great mystery and depth in turning the other cheek and a willingness to follow Christ who blessed, forgave, and desired no harm to those who were actively killing him as did many of the blessed martyrs. Non violence is just as much a spirituality as a propositional truth with many foundational aspects and implications to be considered. Scripture and tradition are the building blocks but it takes a worldview change, a mind style change to fully sink in to these realities. Maybe if time permits you could have a dialogue with someone on the side of CNV. Thanks for the presentation Dr. Ortlund, God Bless.
Great coverage of this complex topic. I've studied this over several years, and there are no easy answers. I'd definitely recommend Daniel M. Bell's Just War as Christian Discipleship to continue to round out the conversation. Also not a pacifist, but surely open & humbled by the attitudes of our forebears (and of course, Christ). I want to live as someone who is proactive toward peace, while also being a protector of my family and community.
Good thoughts. I, unlike you, am more of a pacifist, but not a strict pacifist. I do think that it is possible to conduct just war, but that it is so very difficult that it almost never happens. One thing to think on. I don't see any specifically Christian justifications for violence, most especially in war. I am distinguishing between Christian motivations and justifications. A person can conduct themselves in a violent manner motivated out of a love for their family and obligation for their well-being for example. This is not the same thing as being justified in that act in my opinion. Furthermore, not everything we do MUST be justified as "Christian". We do many things that don't have "Christian" motivations or justifications. In fact I would go so far as to argue that many political positions fall directly into this category where people may use Christian motivations for the positions they hold, but not necessarily justified according to a Christian ethic or worldview. This is in fact how Christians have been hi-jacked by various political movements throughout the centuries, but most notably in recent times using Christian ideas of "love" incorrectly to justify abortion, or as a motivation for seeking a theocracy as with the Christian Nationalist movement. My point is that I think someone can decide to be in the military and still be a Christian, but I wouldn't say that their activity as a member of the military is a Christian activity. That doesn't automatically disqualify it in my mind, but without serious contemplation by that person I think they're already on shaky ground.
Thanks for your work Gavin! I would ask this: Why should we not view “just war” as a slow accretion into the Christian tradition just like many other doctrines you make strong cases against? If we trust that the earliest Christians were correct when they didn’t venerate icons and didn’t pray to saints, why would we think they were wrong when they didn’t kill? I appreciate that you identify pacifism as a legitimate Christian view, that’s more grace than many people show me when I argue for it. But how can it be that it is ok for some Christians to kill but wrong for others? Unless we will also say it is ok for some Christians to pray to saints but not others. Much love from a Mennonite Christian!
Is it ok for a Christian to stand by and watch someone get brutalized when you could have stopped it? That is kind of what pacifism ultimately entails.
@@TitusCastiglione1503 my comment and this video are addressing the historical claim of early Christian nonresistance and what weight should be given to early Christian practice. It’s not really related to how you might feel about the topic emotionally.
@@TitusCastiglione1503the question you posed (which is a fair question) nevertheless doesn’t make use of any biblical argument or testimony from antiquity. It is an argument stemming from the application of biblical principles. I would advise that one should first establish what the Bible teaches before we weigh out the application of those principles.
Great video Gavin. You mentioned Constantine multiple times. A video on him would be interesting and helpful especially with all the controversy on his conversion and faith.
First Christian channel that tackles basic building blocks of our faith in the context of the Bible and the history of the Body. It's a real gold nugget!
As much as I love Augustine, David Lipscomb convinced me pacifism really is what Christians should be doing. It's not to say there aren't extreme situations of protecting you community as scripture teaches (1 Timothy 5:8) but support of the imperialism of the US is not something Christians should support
Agreed, also Exodus 22:2 on defense of family. Does that make us semi-pacifist? If you want another great, non-liberal form of Christian pacifism, listen to David Bercot.
What’s interesting is that America taking on the role of global peacekeeper keeps the world more stable. The peace of the last 80 years is a historical anomaly, If America gave up this position and warfare resumed to historic norms would not more people die?
Watch "Hacksaw Ridge" or read about Desmond Doss. He isnt the only way to be a war hero. But he was a profound war hero. God was with him. Not at the necessary exclusion of God being with combatants.
Re Augustine on there being times when taking some life saves more life, wonder how he would react to the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy on Japan in World War II.
I appreciate the attempt, Gavin. But I found this quite unconvincing, both in general and in the particulars. The real questions to ask here are, I believe: 1. What is the Christian's (and the church's) relationship to the powers? 2. What does it mean to be a people who conquer by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony? 3. Is the resort to violence as a solution to problems really the same as, say, retirement planning, when it comes to trusting God for the good? (I.e., there are many decisions Christians make, which might be okay or might reveal a lack of faith, but not all are equal.)
Only IF you are led by the Spirit then you are not under the law. The law is for the lawless. Galations 5 18 But IF ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law 1 Timothy 1 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless
Gavin - a well-done video that is helpful. One point of clarification: pacifism today seems to mean those who believe not only in Christian non-violence, but also that God Himself is non-violent. Given the growth of this kind of theology in some circles of Evangelicalism, it might be helpful to distinguish that many ECF's, while advocating for Christian non-violence are not also advocating for God being non-violent.
Acts 23:12-35 is about the 470 Roman soldiers and two centurions sent to protect the apostle Paul to defend against Satan's jew assassins that swore an oath to not eat until they murder Paul. Under such circumstances when you have these types of zealots against God's children violent force is appropriate. Mohammedan pirates were murdering, robbing and enslaving merchant vessels along the Barbery coast requiring Thomas Jefferson to establish the U.S. Marines. After reading the Quran and seeing the zealous nature of the pirates, Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying: " Treat them with all courtesies due the enemy in times of war."
gonna give my 2 cents on this Christian "Pacifism". "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." Matt 16:25 i'm gonna compare Imperial Japan to the Soviet Union both where vial and wicked nations that did a lot of horrible things in the 1940s "Christian" America went to war to stop the Japanese and after bombing them and nuking them they eventually surrendered and stopped their wicked ways, but they have a deep rooted resent meant against Christianity cause of the horrible things a so called "Christian Nation" did to them and that country wants nothing to do with religion due to the deep scares inflicted upon them form so called Christians then there was the Soviet Union. "Christian" American did nothing but sit on its thumbs outside of a few proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. most that happened was missionaries and smuggled in Bibles and the underground church exploded and both Russia and China are set to over take America's Christian population despite being controlled by what people would see as vial dictators we are supposed to shine Christ for other people and Christ died for the sinners, he didn't shoot them in the face or bomb them to hell. all that will make people do is hate you and what ever you stand for Romans 12:19-20 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." you're going to heaven. those that wrong you or attack you are on their way to hell and you might be the only shot they got at not going there. so what you do and don't do will have eternal impact on someone's life. cause it isn't about us its about saving souls Matthew 5 [9] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [10] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [11] Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
My personal view is nuanced. I think we should all desire a world where Pacifism is the norm. And as much as it is in our power, we should live at peace with all men, and should not be the aggressor. We should turn the other cheek to insults, and repay evil with kindness, and blessing. However, if our Country is invaded, I believe we have a right and responsibility to fight. And likewise, if we witness violence against a neighbor, I think we have a right and responsibility to intervene and defend them, even if doing so uses force. Finally, I believe that self-defense in a Civil matters is justifiable (fighting to save your own life against a home invader, for example, or to defend your family). However, in matters of Faith, I think we ought to resist though our Faith, and the Gospel, and not take up arms to fight our Persecutors, but rather seek to win them over through the power of the gospel, and our faith lived out.
Wow! I really like you when your not beating up us Catholics 😆. Looking forward to your video on early church and TV. Also ordered the Living wisely book you recommended. Gladiator is my favorite. Saw in the theater with my wife when we were still dating and I was in the Army.
This is an important topic. Please become an expert in this area and go through it with a fined tooth comb like you do with things like honoring icons.
This is something I have never been at peace with. The Ante-Nice Fathers seem overwhelmingly to favor pacifism, and I don't think the context even warrants all the qualifications you gave. The Ante-Nicene Fathers are overwhelmingly clear on this point. It is more the qualifications after Constantine that give me pause, because if I only had the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I'd conclude the Christian faith was absolutely pacifist then. Even now it's hard to argue the exceptions justify reversing a very clear consensus (e.g. "you are committed to what you vowed and so must sign up for military service but may not sign up for more" seems more a value placed on oaths, and why Jesus forbade them, rather than an acceptance of military). However I believe God is at work in history, so the consensus that arose was his movement, even if I'm not at peace with it. I went back and forth on it, but what ultimately settled the question is: If I walked in and person X was doing something horrible to my wife or kids. Would I use violence to stop it? The least bad answer is, "Yes." However, I can think of no US war that was really a just war. In WW2 there were very real bad guys, but it doesn't seem to meet the standard of a just war, at least for the US. Almost no war does. Even then I require a third criteria before I will ever consider supporting it: It must be able to be done in a way that the person doing it is doing a holy action. If you cannot dedicate your activity to God, which would make a Christian conducting war one waging holy war, then it cannot be done. If someone cannot accept a war as a holy war, then it cannot be a just war. This makes the list of possibly just wars, very narrow indeed.
If you want to learn about this topic I would suggest you start with the words and the life of Jesus before you read the early church's view on it. I think of Ante-Nicene christians as Christians who live in countries where the state persecutes them and the Post-Nicene christians those who live in places like the US where Christianity is mainstream and involved in politics and government. Most of the time christians embrace violence for their own preservations. For their freedoms, wealth and such. Thank you Gavin for bringing up these topics, we need more of this.
The earliest Christians' eschatology defined strong distinctions between this age and the age to come, with this age in the hands of evil. Despite the church's attempts to be at peace with all and to respect the laws of the land, its doctrines were an implicit critique of the existing order. As the church leadership and the Roman state became chummier, a shift in eschatology also occurred which ultimately gave imprimatur to the powers of this age, including certain justifications for the wars of men. This eventually developed into the establishment of corrupt state churches. The temptation which Jesus rejected was several centuries later acceded to by the church high leadership.
We like to imagine life as a choice between hate and love when it is often a choice between loves. There are times when, in order to love someone, you may have to kill someone else.
Thanks for your work dr. Ortlund. Here's my pushback. I would have much more respect for the just war theorists if their theory frequently rejected newly proposed wars as unjust. Instead we don't really see them (as a whole) ever condemning a war as unjust in real time. They always seem to find a way to claim that it's the right thing to do this time even though, in our lifetimes in America, it never has been. I've never met somebody that claims they are bloodthirsty. Everybody says they don't like war, yet when it comes down to it, they usually cheerlead for it.
@@TruthUnites true. Thank you for the correction. Sometimes I wonder if the idea of a hypothetical just war lays down cover for unjust wars. If that is the case then we have to decide whether just war theory is actually doing more harm than good. How much is it actually restraining unjust war vs excusing it. As I look back at the last 2,000 years of Christian history I see far more instances of people erring on the side of too much violence rather than too little. I love your channel brother. Thanks again.
As far as pacifism verses reactionary war. Just ask all these self riteous people ask yourself. Hitler Hitler was a mass murderor He imprisoned maimed tortured did human experiment And to be a passifist with that kind of evil. How would he have stoped. God told them to defend themselves in.o.t
Note: you mention the issue of how to defend the Christian Empire against the Germanic barbarians.....but the Germans were by then themselves Christians. Arians, but Christians. Interesting in that you have, if I am not mistaken, the first actual wars in which Christians were killing other Christians....
I haven't had the time to watch the whole video yet, but I highly recommend to you the excellent work "The Early Christian Attitude to War" by Cecil John Cadoux. As far as I'm aware he treats just about every passage in the ante-nicene father's on this topic. It's quite a scholarly work laying out the evidence and some arguments both for and against starting with the sayings of Jesus, then the rest of Scripture, then the early father's. For more general readers, "Fight" by Preston Sprinkle is much easier to get through while still hitting many of the same points.
Romans 13:4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
This is actually something I think a lot of Christian pacifists kinda miss. Their whole scheme assumes they will not be the majority of a culture…. so, what happens when that happens? Suddenly, you don’t really have a police force, military or any civil authority (not an effective one, at any rate). Any civil authorities/soldiers/cops who wanted to be Christians would have to step down and hire/convince non Christians to undertake such work. So, when a foreign army attacks or when stopping crime, people other than Christian’s would be undertaking the hard and dangerous work of allowing pacifists to lead their peaceful lives. I’m not sure if that makes any real moral sense when you stop and think about it, but I suppose to it does to some people. I fail to see how such a bizzare society would even function for long. Then again, most pacifist Christian’s tend to be tiny communities off on the margins, being of little consequence to anyone but themselves. They don’t really affect culture or society in any great way; they certainly don’t build them.
The rulers don't wield the swords God grants them, either. That's left to the rest of us--a point I made elsewhere in the comments that I hope @TruthUnites will find the time to address! It's all well and good to say God gives them certain powers and makes their wars "just"--funny though isn't it, that it's not them fighting on behalf of justice who are doing the killing?
@@dylan3456 I don’t understand; what are your trying to say? God gives the sword to the governing authorities; Romans 13 and other passes clearly state this.
I posted this as a Patreon comment and didn’t get a response so I’ll try again here. FYI, I did end up watching the entire video and respectfully, you followed at least some of the normal commentary I anticipated below. I think you're more honest than that, but you are making statements like "there were allowances... there is nuance..." do WAY too much work for you. It's not as murky as you are making it seem by your appeals to ambiguity. The objections to Christian pacifism typically take these forms: “God kills people, so it must be acceptable [good?] for us to kill people sometimes, too.” (non sequitur) “Pacifism would be terribly impractical and difficult in dangerous circumstances.” (so?) “God made governments [what kind? Rotary club? The CCP?] for these tasks.” (absurdity) “God didn’t explictly tell soldiers in the New Testament not to continue soldiering.” (argument from silence) Or simply, “You first.” (annoying) Just War Theory is defended in the clean and sinless universal abstract, but wars are fought in the concrete particular by rotten sinners. In the abstract, the death penalty is defended as “justice”; in reality, it’s sought as vengeance. In the abstract, war is justified as an act by competent authorities that were presumably [always?] established by God; in reality, the individual human beings that are sent to war return fire on the enemy for reasons other than abstract notions of duty to satisfy Just War Theory. Who is justified, then? The anonymous government behind them? People being peaceful even unto death is just about the only real evidence I see of Christ in the world, and so many of us are just handwaving it and philosophizing our way into worldly pragmatism instead. You argue that taking one life might be acceptable if many other lives are saved? What? That's unconscionable, honestly. Christians are not consequentialists. In “Can Soldiers, Too, Be Saved?” Luther writes this: “God calls the sword his own ordinance…It is not man but God who beheads, slays, tortures…” Luther is saying here, if you didn’t catch it, that torture and beheading are not only acceptable, or evils God uses to his own infinitely good ends, but that they are instruments of God’s justice when done by “civil authorities”. Are these civil authorities comprised of any Christians? If so, then those Christians would be doing God’s will and carrying out his assigned means to justice on earth by torturing and beheading people. That is the plain reality of what actually happened in Luther’s time.
@@TruthUnites It's alright, I know you can't get to everything, and I basically wrote you a novel. Sadly, I'm sure you know what it's like to be disappointed when someone you admire takes a stance that absolutely drives you up a wall--and for reasons you're absolutely certain you can demonstrate to be flawed. That's part of the scandal here, for me at least.
believe me, I get it. The danger of talking long enough about different issues ... eventually we hit something we profoundly differ on. Your first comment was very clear but raised several different issues. To start with the question of ambiguity ... what is your take on the letter of Marcus Aurelius discussed?
You are annoyed at Ortlund's appeal to ambiguity and yet all of your objections to the arguments against pacifism are incredibly vague and dismissive. E.g. saying "so?" to legitimate questions of the practicality of pacifism is not a real argument and frankly snarky. Don't throw stones in a glass house
How is it different to argue that serving in the military in the pagan Roman empire is something else than today, from people arguing that homosexuality was something else back then?
Because serving in any military to stop marauders and enemies from storming your gates and slaying your family is an entirely different moral quandry that is not entirely immoral (since you can do moral actions within an immoral institution). Homosexuality is an action itself that is wholly immoral.
@KMANelPADRINO the whole point is that human on human violence is wholly immoral, just like practicing homosexuality. Christ has explicitly called us not to retaliate with violence. The apostles understood this. The early church understood this.
@@jdm11060 No. Christ said to not retaliate to insults by those who insult you. Turning the other cheek forces the person who insulted you to lower themselves to your control. It’s a way of overcoming brute power of insults with charity, which empowers you over them, since if they strike you when you invite them then you show they have now power over you. It’s simple. This also shows that you probably have not lived that verse out yet. As you can possibly tell, I have. He also told His disciples that after He got murdered by being falsely labeled a criminal to go get swords to protect themselves from untrustworthy people. Christ also personally destroyed Jerusalem for murdering Him, which was His repeated promise up to and through His own trial (and also prophesied by Daniel hundreds of years before). Christ also was appealed to by the apostles per Psalm 2 as the Messiah whom all kings and rulers of the earth should fear lest He respond to them in wrath. You are presenting an imbalanced version of Christ by negating whole sections of His teachings. You are also, in regard to my response, quite missing the point and ignoring the moral clarity that I have presented by the wisdom of Christ.
With respect, your interpretation is wishful thinking. I get it. In my flesh, I would love the benefit of using violence against my enemies. It would be very convenient. But as much as you try to obfuscate the word of God, it does not actually change it, or the fact that it clearly commands non-violence. Notice I said "human on human violence," which does not preclude God's judgment or wrath. "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written: "it is mine to avenge. I will repay," says the Lord." "Sell your cloak and buy a sword" is clearly, as stated by Jesus himself, about fulfilling scripture. He did not tell his apostles to use the sword to defend themselves or others. Very next chapter over you'll read what happened when Peter tried to use the sword in defense. "Those who live by the sword..." Even if you want to assume he did command them to by the sword for self defense, why did none of them go on to do so? They certainly lacked no opportunity considering the intense persecution of the early church. You ought to learn about the life of the apostles after Christ's ascension. Not a single one of them used the sword that you claim Christ commanded them to use after he was resurrected. I guess they just got it wrong in their martyrdom? They didn't have the wisdom of holier men hundreds of years later to tell them what Jesus really meant? Lastly, "turn the other cheek" is not merely about insult. This is strange mental gymnastics. I think you're right that it certainly includes insults, but it also necessarily includes acts of violence. All three of the examples Jesus uses to illustrate his point in Matthew 5:39-41 are physical violations. Getting hit, sued, and forced into labor are not insults, they're direct violations of your physical autonomy. Furthermore, by the time we engage with the rest of scripture on this issue, we see that the apostles very clearly understood Christ to forbid human on human violence. Roman's 12:17-19, 1 Peter 3:9, Hebrews 12:14, 1 Thessalonians 5:19, 2 Timothy 2:24, 2 Corinthians 10:4, etc, etc. I wrestle with this daily. Following Christ can be very difficult. I'm not saying I will be able to live out Christo non violence perfectly, especially if ever I find my family or loved ones at risk. But the fact that I'm too weak to carry my cross at times does not mean I need to redefine what Christ clearly taught. I will trust and rely on him all the more. God willing, we'll both be able to hear the words "Well done my good and faithful servant." Thanks for taking the time to read this far, and I pray for clarity for us both. God bless, brother.
@@jdm11060 Just to prove that you lack clarity in how you read the Bible: There is no verse in the Bible anywhere saying “Those who live by the sword…” You can go ahead and search for it. It isn’t there. Nor is it in the Koine. You are citing from an oral tradition and interpretation that you hold as Gospel, but not from the Scriptures themselves. Also you negate the context for what Jesus’s commandment for the swords was. He explicitly tells them why they need swords and tells them all to buy them. The fact that they were still not listening to Him and intended to use swords to stop His arrest rather than obey and humbly let things happen and then defend themselves once Jesus was dead exasperated Jesus, which is why He replied to them that the two swords were enough. Also, Jesus did not condemn Peter for defending Him in Mark. In fact, Jesus didn’t care according to that account. Nor did He care to say “Don’t do that.” Instead He said “Enough,” meaning Peter had proven the point. But rather, as Jesus noted in all of the accounts, that was the hour of judgement where God would track down everyone using force and turn it back upon them. Jesus meant to spare Peter from that judgement as Peter was using force to resist God’s will also.
I’m working in my MDiv and so I don’t have time to read extracurricular books, but I still greatly appreciate your book recommendations. I look forward to getting to them one day, Lord willing.
12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’[a] but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’[b]”
I think pacifism challenges the doctrine of God and biblical inerrancy. If killing is always wrong, then God in the OT both commanded and gave the grace to kill others in the OT (even filling some with his Spirit to do this). I think these changes fundamentally challenges perfect being theology, for if killing is wrong, then God commanded sin of the Israelites. This also justifies a semi-marcionite view of Scripture. If pacifism is the way of the NT, and is considered a moral good, then in my thought process, biblical inerrancy falls apart completely. It was seen as God's blessing when David killed Goliath (David even called upon the name of the Lord to do this). But if killing was always wrong, then David committed evil and sin in God's name. That, however, isn't what the text tells us. Second, pacifism and government is hypocritical. But Paul sees government as God's authority established in Romans 13. But if harm and killing are always wrong, then Paul is being hypocritical. The only consistent political theory of pacifism is anarchy for laws require force to be implemented. Without force, they are as good as useless. If the NT teaches pacifism as the moral good, then this does not create a moral betterment of the OT, it creates a contradiction. If God of the NT is the God of the OT, and pacifism is inherently moral, then God commanded immorality and sin in the OT. He even blessed it with his Spirit and inspiration. God could certainly change the requirements of salvation, but a change of morality tells us that the morals were arbitrary to begin with. This outcome undermines God’s character and perfection and undermines the authority of his word (and its inerrancy). This is why pacifists like Greg Boyd deny inerrancy in order for their pacifism to be logically and philosophically consistent. They just say that the OT depiction of God is wrong or false and Jesus corrected the perverse views.
Gavin, much of my Thology has been shaped by you. Thank you so much for Truth Unites. One question in light of this video. Do you believe pacifism as a general dogma of the church depends on the state of the government? It appears when a wicked government is in power, the church holds generally to pacifism whereas if the government holds generally good values pacifism is not necessary. Should this logic hold today in the church? For example, in an American government it would be justifiable to become a soldier, however, in Nazi Germany, not so much. Love to hear your thoughts on this.
If soldiers had killed in battle, and then have come home, might they have exhibited battle fatigue, and shown a need to come before our Lord, with the support of the church, in order to turn back away from a military mindset and a fearful or angry mindset, and towards a mindset of peace?
This topic has to be addressed in nuanced terms. Day to day scrabbles, yes be pacifist, in extreme danger, be a warrior. I fully support weapon ownership. And would not define myself as pacifist.
One thing that I think about is that ancient warfare was a lot more brutal than contemporary warfare. For example, when taking a city it was expected that the victorious army would have a few days of raping and pillaging. Although militaries certainly still do bad things, I think there is a lot more emphasis on ethics and just war (at least in the US) in today's world. It makes sense to me that earlier writers would lean more towards pacifism...they likely saw the Roman state as the bad guy, both for its practices and pagan beliefs. Later writers though came at a time when the Roman state was much more influenced by Christianity and the church as a whole had more power. This actually reminds me a bit of the development of war-friendly doctrine in Islam, where earlier revelations (when the community was small and vulnerable) tended to be more about keeping peace while later revelations (when the community had a lot more power) involved a lot more political assertion.
Catholic historian Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr. has a really good critique of Just War Theory on his show, The Tom Woods show, which can be found on RU-vid.
But if there was a concensus before Augustine, and he marked a strong departure from the previous conviction - would that not mark an accretion like you've mentioned happen with veneration of saints and icono worship? Jjust as well, Augustine did it within the context of trying to marry the responsibilities of church and empire, which are two things which do not mesh together very well. Could that pressure to do that not have influeced him in an unfaithful direction, whereas if the church had never joined the empire, then the traditional pacifistic stance would have continued unaltered?
Interestingly the Orthodox still hold that position. When a soldier comes home from war he has to confess and go through a time of repentance before he receives Communion. Also, Priests, Monks, Bishops can't kill even their own animals. Someone from the congregation has to do it for them. Also they still hold to no strangling of animals and no eating animal blood like in Acts. Before anyone jumps on me. I am protestant and just put this in here as I thought it was interesting and pertinent to the topic.
Jesus is not a pacifist but he commands us to be. This is so we are to be holy. Separate. It is because of pacifism , the apostles and early Christians serve as witness and evidence for Christ. Augustine probably did a lot of damage. Christians became a stench. However this does not mean not to take up arms to defend oneselves and defend your family and country
The New Testament is ambiguous, at best, concerning this matter and is therefore this is disputable. The Apostle Paul called us to live in peace, if possible, with our fellow man. The Lord Jesus and the Apostles have not clearly called us to pacifism though. The big question is how do we deal with evi? The lion has not lied down with the lamb and he does not yet eat straw. Until that time our sword have not yet been beaten into plowshares. There is still evil in the world and sometimes it must he violently dealt with.
Hey Gavin, have you ever heard of the RU-vidr “PF Jung” he spends a lot of time talking about politics but also about religion and philosophy, he describes himself as a Cultural Christian but is very open to conversations about God and loves to do so on livestreams. If nothing else I think you’d find his channel fascinating and if you’d be up for it I think he would be open to having a conversation with you!
Edit: just got to the part where you got to this. This is the part where Tertullian talks about Christian soldiers under Marcus Aurelius: "So far from that, we, on the contrary, bring before you one who was their protector, as you will see by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most grave of emperors, in which he bears his testimony that that Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians who chanced to be fighting under him. And as he did not by public law remove from Christians their legal disabilities, yet in another way he put them openly aside, even adding a sentence of condemnation, and that of greater severity, against their accusers." Maybe worth noting that at times being part of the Legion seemed to require mandatory sacrifices to ‘the gods’ which would be reason for Christians to tell other Christians to stay away
Also Tertullian: "We are not Indian Brahmins or Gymnosophists, who dwell in woods and exile themselves from ordinary human life. We do not forget the debt of gratitude we owe to God, our Lord and Creator; we reject no creature of His hands, though certainly we exercise restraint upon ourselves, lest of any gift of His we make an immoderate or sinful use. So we sojourn with you in the world, abjuring neither forum, nor shambles, nor bath, nor booth, nor workshop, nor inn, nor weekly market, nor any other places of commerce. **We sail with you, and fight with you, and till the ground with you; and in like manner we unite with you in your traffickings** - even in the various arts we make public property of our works for your benefit. How it is we seem useless in your ordinary business, living with you and by you as we do, I am not able to understand. " He says outright that the Christians ‘sail and fight alongside’ their fellow citizens
I do find it extremely curious that many who hold that Christians should be pacifists also support Israel’s actions because they believe it to be self-defense
Because in Israel’s case it’s pretty clear cut… if your family gets kidnapped most people would not want to live in a country with a pacifist government. If any such country could exist. I used to be a pacifist but I couldn’t maintain it because I realized how hypocritical I was to live safely enough to freely philosophize about these things. I don’t think any country would exist without being able to defend itself. Personally I would never choose to enter the military though. Too many moral complications. Even in a just war atrocities can be committed.
Why did Jesus first tell His disciples to go out without swords, and then with swords? I for one, do not know the answer to all these questions that have come to mind while listening to you, but for me to move over to pacifism, I personally would need to at least pray over, if not find answers, to these questions....
What scripture are you talking about where Jesus said to bring swords? And then what scripture are you talking about where Jesus said don't bring swords?
Spiritually I feel strongly that pacifism makes sense. Look at just the "non-God-fearing" people in our culture, virtually everything they champion causes there to be less human beings alive. I could list it all out but all someone has to do is think about everything they champion and connect the dots, it's a wild realization.
How about state and local law enforcement? They weld the staff of life and death. Should Christians not be involved? A further stretch is Judges and lawyers. They also exercise judgments that can cause someone their life or let them free. Should that be allowed as a Christian? Where truly is the dividing line between right and wrong?
@@SpaceCadet4Jesusthat’s why God knew that we could not by ourselves wield the knowledge of good and evil well without Him. But He did create that tree.
Thank you for addressing this…..even though I am way past the age of such a service and self sacrifice….for some reason I have been unable to understand the short correct answer for a younger person wanting a yes or no answer when it comes to military service. Not to mention those that may have served in the past in conflicts that have deep scars when in hindsight the reasons for their war…..righteous was not what they remembered. A good man can endure the aftermath if convinced he fought for right so to speak. For now I will be careful on what I say to young men since I DONT KNOW. 😏 And thank goodness the topic has only come up a few times (face to face one on one) through the years. But it does stick in my craw.
With my experience in the military, I would tell the young man that a decision is yours alone. There is no yes or no answer from somebody else. You have to have the faith and conscience that your decisions are acceptable at your stage of walk in the Lord. Jesus never condemned the military, as he told soldiers to be satisfied with their pay, instead of try to get out of the military. 1st Timothy says for us to pray for our government leaders and that would include the military, that they would have the wisdom and discretion to make good decisions. But will the governments of the world always do right, NO, but we are not responsible or held accountable for that as soldiers. Would any prohibition of military service also include local and state law enforcement? They also weld the power of life and death. I've been through two wars, Vietnam and Desert Shield Desert Storm and I do not have any deep scars concerning the origins of the wars. I could do a deep dive study of history and in hindsight nitpick every decision and resolution that led to both Wars. But what really is that going to do for me? And how is that going to prevent government from starting another war on shaky grounds? I have to accept that things are what they are and move on with my life and not get hung up on somebody's decision in the past, even if it involved me.
Pastor Ortlund I wasn’t aware you didn’t agree with YEC. Have you interacted at all with Dr Jason Lisle’s works? He wrote The Ultimate Proof of Creation. He’s a reformed scientist, I think specifically an astrophysicist and he communicates and teaches in a very similar way as you do, very winsome and intelligent.
seems to be if you believe in your jesus. "38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." But christians really hate to admit that their bible teaches pacifism, and doesn't say "god helps those who help themselves". Their set of contradictory books is quite a mess.
Why would we take "as gospel" what church leaders or thinkers say? We cannot question them further about nuances or all (or not all) they were considering. Since their opinions & advice are not Bible text, how seriously should they be taken? Thank you for what you do!
Could you do a follow up video about a topic like self defense? That would be an offshoot of this question. Maybe something dealing with citizens ability to defend themselves and possibly get into law enforcement and the means by which they can operate under a christian perspective. Thank you for your videos!!!
I noticed when quoting Tertullian and talking about the sacrifices @9:25 that you didn't finish the quotation. He continues from where you left off, "or-as regards (his magisterial) power-judging anyone on a capital or criminal charge-for you might allow (him to judge) about (questions of) money-or condemning (anyone), binding anyone, imprisoning anyone, or torturing (anyone): if it can be believed that these things are possible." Those don't have anything to do with sacrifice, but very much to do with acts of violence against a person (even lawfully). It's also clear from the final phrase that Tertullian is only granting that it's possible to be a magistrate as long as you don't do any of the things that magistrates do except perhaps make decisions about money.
I think it's also important to remember that Jesus never promised peace on earth when he came, or when he left. He even spoke about division and it's not a stretch to think that there will be division between people as it is within the church itself.
Food for thought: What would be the difference between serving a soldier who was killing, and watching a gladiator contest? I know one is a job, and the other mere entertainment. What about someone who served the gladiators?
