- So it seems Pacifist 2.5.1, at least under OS 10.5.2, crashes at the end of the package scan, if you launched Pacifist by dragging the package to the Pacifist app icon in the Finder. I tried the crashy opening variation with Pacifist 2.0.1, and it didn't crash, but 2.0.1 doesn't start scanning the package until you dismiss the registration.
- The New Testament alludes to the state in diverse ways. Texts such as Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; and Titus 3:1 presenting a more positive view of the state. In contrast, Revelation 13; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; Matthew 4/ Luke 4; and Ephesians 6:12 show the state in more negative terms.
- Pacifist 3.2.8 Release Notes (Mar. 19, 2014) Fixed an issue that could cause errors when installing files on Mac OS X 10.6.x with administrator privileges; Pacifist 3.2.7 Release Notes (Mar. 18, 2014) Fixed a crash that could sometimes occur when opening packages; Pacifist 3.2.6 Release Notes (Mar. 18, 2014) Columns can now be sorted in the.
Pacifist 3 6 2 Commentary David Guzik
(TECHNICALLY) no deaths! This was a joy to play through the first time and still a joy to play through the second. Toby Fox, this has easily be. Pacifist 3.2.8 Release Notes (Mar. 19, 2014) Fixed an issue that could cause errors when installing files on Mac OS X 10.6.x with administrator privileges; Pacifist 3.2.7 Release Notes (Mar. 18, 2014) Fixed a crash that could sometimes occur when opening packages; Pacifist 3.2.6 Release Notes (Mar. 18, 2014) Columns can now be sorted in the.
Questions and answers on pacifism and the sword
Christians are commanded to love their enemies, so are Christian soldiers and policeofficers permitted to kill them? How can they maintain their witness about God when theymay have to pull the trigger? Wasn’t Jesus a pacifist? Wouldn’t revelationsguide the State better than reason?
This is Part Six in a series on pacifism and the sword in the New Testament, asking and answering questions that were not covered in the earlier articles.
1. Are the Church and the kingdom of God the same?
Basic New Testament theology says they are different. I cannot improve on George EldonLadd’s book A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Eerdmans, 1974, 1993).He writes:
The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and derivatively, the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with its subjects. They are the people of God’s rule who enter it, live under it, and are governed by it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself. Jesus’ disciples belong to the Kingdom as the Kingdom belongs to them; but they are not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the rule of God; the church is a society of women and men. (p. 109)
Explaining Scripture, Ladd goes on to say that the kingdom creates the Church, not theother way round. The Church testifies about the kingdom. The Church is the instrument ofthe kingdom. And the Church is the custodian of the kingdom (pp. 109-17).
I have been careful in this series not to fuse the Church and the kingdom of Godtogether. However, if a church denomination were to teach that the kingdom and the Churchare identical, then the New Testament still does not permit the two (fused as one) to wagemilitary war. Jesus separates the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar. That is themain point of the series.
2. Why did the Medieval Church wage war so often?
The words 'so often' in the question reflect the popular view, but the Churchenjoyed long stretches of peace. Also, Protestants attacked each other and Catholics in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), for example. So we should not see the Medieval Church as the only one that wandered off from the New Testament. Incidentally, it is simplistic and inaccurate to call the entire Medieval Age the 'Dark Ages.' For centuries huge cathedrals were built and many universities sprang up, so the society had to be prosperous (the birth of capitalism and the rise of the middle class), and people had to be smart to accomplish those things. It was not one day after another of violence, any more than for other societies.
With that said, we consider the ideal and the real.
Ideally, the proper response for the Church (Catholic and Protestant) throughout itshistory would have been to ask the State, such as the kings of Europe and the 'HolyRoman Emperor,' to fight the battles. Indeed the Church did this, but confusion ofthe two realms often won out. They were not adequately separated.
Now for the real. It is too easy to condemn every policy of the Medieval Church andlater times. The Church faced hard reality. Both Protestants and Catholics had toconfront, for example, the aggressive, invasive armies of Islam, which were taking vastterritories. The Church was doing the best it could with the light it had, under difficultcircumstances. For me to look back now and only criticize it is too easy, though there ismuch to criticize.
In any case, to follow the New Testament properly, the Church should fulfill itsmission of saving souls, teaching believers, and helping the needy. It should not raisearmies and wage wars. That’s the job of the kingdom of Caesar that is permitted tocarry the sword (Rom. 13:1-7). The US (and other nations), thankfully, follows this divineorder. That is why we enjoy religious tolerance and peace.
This article tracks the timeline of the Islamic invasions long before the Church declared its first Crusade. Also go here,here and here for other timelines.
Go to these two articles (What Islamic Science and Philosophy? and Islam and the Problem of Rationality)to see how Western philosophy in the Medieval Age had to refute and get away from Islamicphilosophy, which was bogged down in occasionalism, which is defined in the articles.These two articles (Hyping Islam’s Role in the History of Science and The Not-So-Golden Age of Islamic Philosophy)balances out the picture that says Islam embraced the cultures it conquered. Rather,numerous Christians and Jews who did not convert to Islam are the ones who transmittedclassical culture as they lived under their Islamic overlords. This article (Islam, Christianity, Classical Civilization, and Modernity)discusses how the Medieval West advanced in philosophy, and Islam got stuck in itself.
Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that Islam sustained the West during the entireMedieval Age. The full and complete story must be told.
3. What does 'forcefully advancing' mean in Matthew 11:12?
One of the more difficult passages in the Gospels is Matthew 11:12, which reads,according to the most accurate translation of the Greek:
12 From the time of John the Baptist . . . until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing; and violent and rapacious men have been trying . . . to plunder it. (D. A. Carson, Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Zondervan, p. 267)
In his commentary, Carson summarizes various interpretations of the verse. But then heformulates the best one (which seems right to me and others, too). John is the forerunnerof Christ, announcing repentance. Then God transfers the call of the kingdom from John toJesus. Consequently, the reason why the kingdom is depicted as advancing forcefully isthat it had never before been revealed with such energy and power. Jesus’ miraclesand assaults on demonic strongholds and false ideas had never before been so striking.John the Baptist, in prison, heard of the miracles and asked Jesus if he was the PromisedOne. Jesus answers affirmatively, citing the miracles (Matthew 11:1-6).
In addition, 'violent and rapacious men have been trying to plunder it'means, as follows:
Herod’s imprisonment of John . . . the attacks by Jewish leaders now intensifying (Matt. 9:34; 12:22-24), the materialism that craves a political Messiah and the prosperity he would bring but not righteousness (Matt. 12:2-24). Already Jesus has warned his disciples of persecution and suffering (Matt. 10:16-42); the opposition was rising and would get worse . . . . (Carson, pp. 267-68)
Thus, the kingdom was and is advancing forcefully, and it does not include swords ormilitary holy wars. This interpretation of Matthew 11:12 fits the grammar and vocabularyof the verse as well as the entire sweep of the Gospels and even the whole New Testament.This series of articles on pacifism and the sword confirms it, as well.
4. Christians are commanded to love their enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36). So are Christian soldiers and police officers permitted to kill them?
That is a great question, for it summarizes the objection some pacifists may haveconcerning Christians who join the State that God ordains to wield the sword. What if theState requires its agents—including Christians—to kill in some circumstances?The reply is fivefold.
First, the easy answer—too easy in fact—is to teach that Christians shouldwithdraw from any 'messy' involvement in the State. However, I have alwaysthought that it is the lowest form of ingratitude when the Church asks the State to do the'dirty work' of protecting Christians, but they do not pull their fair share.
If Christians have an extra-sensitive conscience about harming anyone in anycircumstance, but they still want to serve in law enforcement and the military, then it issound advice for them to work behind the scenes. However, when an enemy mortally threatenscitizens, and the Christian police officers or soldiers have no other choice than to uselethal force, then they should not feel an ounce of guilt about it, provided they followthe law. There is nothing wrong if Bible-educated Christians—who therefore do nothave to suffer from an extra-sensitive conscience—fight on the frontlines with allthe risks that entails. No one has to be poisoned with hatred in his heart as he pulls the trigger. Virtual vertex muster 9 0 149.
Second, in Scriptural context, the command to love our enemies requires doing good tothem (see Part Five and Luke 6:27-31). It is not merely a gooey feeling. I have heard first-hand stories aboutsoldiers who have done good to an enemy immediately after he threatened them with mortaldanger. As soon as he dropped his weapon, the soldiers treated his wounds so he would notdie. That is goodness in action; therefore, that is 'love your enemy' inpractice. True stories like that abound, but they never make the news in the mainstreammedia.
Third, as we saw in Part Three, Jesus and the Apostles Peter and Paul endorsed weapon-carrying soldiers and officers whodid not have to leave their careers, after they encountered the kingdom of God, two ofthem converting. There is no Scriptural evidence that they stayed only and always behindthe frontlines. This may be, strictly speaking, an argument from silence, but the logic ofhistory requires us to assume that Roman soldiers may have to kill an enemy. It iscompletely certain that Jesus and the New Testament authors assumed this about the Romanmilitary. They lived in the Empire, and Jesus predicted his own death by thoseauthorities. And God chose to help and call military men and a law enforcement officer,and as new-born Christians they may have had to kill an enemy. So we must balance parts ofScripture with all of Scripture.
Fourth, other themes besides love are found in the Four Gospels, such as justice(Matthew 12:18, 20; 23:23; Luke 18:7-8). In fact, Jesus explicitly juxtaposes the justiceand the love of God. Pronouncing woes on certain self-righteous Pharisees, he says:'But you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latterwithout leaving the former undone' (Luke 12:42). He says love and justice complement,not oppose each other.
And sometimes justice is hard; in extreme circumstances it includes using physicalforce on lawbreakers and perpetrators of violence, domestic or foreign. Such protectionexpresses the justice of God and the love of God to peaceful citizens. Jesushelped a military officer. And the first gentile convert to Christianity was a militaryofficer, not a civilian (see Part Threefor details). Jesus assumed that the military was part of life in this world (Matt. 22:7;Luke 11:21-22, 14:31-32, 19:27). And Christians may join that part, if they feel called.
Therefore, it is misguided to impose one verse or theme ('love your enemy')on everyone who protects us, even by force, as if that one verse or theme represents theonly one in the Bible. Unbalanced idealism obsessed over by utopians can lead to absurdconclusions, in at least a few difficult circumstances. Paradoxically, these extremeidealists appeal to Jesus, but they go way beyond all of his teachings. Seethese verses on the judgment of God on his enemies: Luke 11:50-51; 12:20, 51-53, 57-59;13:1-9, 22-30; 16:19-31; 17:26-37.
Fifth and finally, blessed are the flexible and the teachable. As I noted in Part Four, if a Christian becomes a soldier or a police officer, then he officially andpublicly serves the State. But his private faith and religionwill make him a better servant because he strives to act with integrity. Ultimately, theChristian soldier or officer serves a just and loving God, so he follows and obeys justiceand love (not one without the other). All of this depends on fluctuating circumstances.The soldier or officer must exercise wisdom as to when and how to apply love and justice.This is why he must stay in Christian fellowship, so he can ask for counsel from the bodyof believers. He must also know the law, which provides a lot of guidance in difficultsituations.
5. You writethat individual Christians may own a firearm. But you have concluded repeatedly that theChurch is pacifist. Yet it is made up of individual Christians who may own a firearm.Would you clarify this?
That concern is easy to answer. I have written again and again:
Church leaders in the name of the Church or of God should never convene a council or general assembly in order to raise an army to fight battles and to coerce heretics and sinners to conform.
It is best to distinguish between the kingdom of Caesar (the State) and the kingdom ofGod, which creates the Church. Christians have a dual citizenship, one foot in the worldsystem that is doomed to perish, and one foot in the kingdom of God (1 Pet. 1:17; 2:9). Toapply this essential two-kingdom theology specifically, Christians should not email eachother in order to form a militia of firearm-carrying friends for the Church. None of themshould proclaim, 'I own my firearm in the name of my Church!' Neither shouldthey say: 'As a parachurch organization, we own our firearms in the name of theLord!' That misguided notion is too strange for words, for it blurs the distinctionbetween the two kingdoms. An individual Christian may own a firearm as a citizen ofsociety, not as an official or even unofficial representative of the Church. And neithershould church leaders call an assembly of its weapon-carrying members with the expresspurpose of 'taking care' of their perceived enemies or for any purpose.
It is imperative to maintain the two-kingdom theology, and then there will be noconfusion. Thus, the Church as an institution is pacifist within itself, forit follows the dictates of the kingdom of God ushered in by Jesus. And he waged onlyspiritual and moral warfare, not a military one. Individual Christians mayown a firearm as citizens of society. To illustrate further the difference between thesecular-social and the ecclesiastical, if they enter a society that forbids any kind ofprivate ownership of a firearm, then they should not break its laws in the name of theLord or the Church, demanding their God-given right. The very idea is repugnant, for notonly are they citizens of the kingdom of God, but also of the kingdom of Caesar. If wekeep the two kingdoms separate, especially in the debate over the sword, then we willenjoy clarity.
6. How can Christian soldiers or policemen maintain their witness about God (Matthew 28:18-20), when they may have to kill?
Many of the answers provided in Question Four apply here; nonetheless, I take slightly different directions in my reply now.
Ideally, we should witness about God to everyone. In America, the message of the gospelis everywhere: on television, radio, and the street corner. Even church buildings bring an awareness of the gospel. Nothing stops a criminal from repenting of his sins in one of them. In fact, through advanced media technology the gospel is penetrating into theremotest corners of the globe. Witnessing takes many forms. So who is to say that acriminal or enemy soldier against whom deadly force is used never had his chance to hearthe gospel? He may have heard and rejected it.
Further, even in times of peace, average Christian citizens who do not carry weaponsmay never reach some people. Not everyone will convert, as the Scripture affirmseverywhere. Therefore, if not everyone will convert in times of peace, then how much morewill no conversions be a possibility in times of conflict? Conversely, maybe in hard timespeople are more open to hear the gospel. In that case, doors may open to share one’sfaith. Whatever the case, Christians do not know (or rarely know) in advance who isconvertible. Often the unconvertible are model citizens, but sometimes they are violentcriminals and enemies. But when they threaten citizens and agents of the State withimmediate, mortal danger, the Christian soldier or policeman may have to use deadly force,for he does not have time to ask whether such violent suspects and enemies have heard thegospel.
As noted in the answer to Question Four, it is misguided to impose only one theme inthe Bible onto anyone, let alone Christian soldiers and officers who are God-ordained toexercise, sometimes, justice that requires lethal force. The Scriptures teach the love ofGod, witnessed to in the gospel, and the justice of God, also a part of thesame gospel. Winclone 8 pro.
If pacifists believe that Christians using lethal force according to the law is a badwitness to the gospel, then the pacifists do not understand the full teaching of the NewTestament.
7. What if a Christian lives under an unjust government? Should he join the military or law enforcement?
That question reflects a sad reality around the globe. If a Christian lives under anoppressive regime, such as a bloodthirsty dictatorship or communism, then he must takeextra-special care about working for the State in the institutions that require weaponsand killing. He may be propping up injustice in an irredeemable system. But if he is in a position to bring about reform or carry out peace and justice, purging out oppression,then in this (extremely) rare case he may stay in the institutions. He needs to pray forwisdom each day, if he is forced to remain in law enforcement or the military under anoppressive regime. Maybe he can work behind the scenes.
However, Christians living under a democracy have an easier decision in working for theState. If such a privileged Christian joins the military, but concludes that a militaryoperation is unjust, then he has a heavy burden of proof to make his case, especially whenthe majority of the lawmakers supported the action (never mind later backpedaling by thesesame lawmakers just to score political points). Maybe a compromise can be reached for theobjector. Perhaps he can work behind the scenes, but still in the military. But he mayhave to pay a heavy price for prematurely quitting or escaping from the military that isoverseen by democratic institutions following the law.
8. You saythat we can use reason to craft the State. But reason has often failed (e.g. the Naziregime). Isn’t it better to use revelations to guide the State?
Your wall between revelation and reason is shaky. Brilliant persons like Aquinasbenefited from revelation (e.g. the Bible) and did not abandon their reason. In fact, thisentire series is based on the two areas, not one without the other. We have discoveredreasonable truths and revelations from the New Testament that expresses the wisdom of Godfor society.
To reply to your main point, however, Aristotle teaches us, wisely, that extremeactions and policies are indicators that reason is not being followed (see his Nicomachean Ethicsand Politics; incidentally, I do not endorse everything Aristotle says, but his wisdom far outweighs his blind spots).
In any case, it is clear that the Nazi regime went to extremes, more than any inhistory. The same is true of the old Soviet Union (and its story has not been finallywritten yet), China, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq under Saddam, and others. It is true thatthese extreme human rights abusers had their own internal logic that gave the appearanceof reason, but they could not see that their starting point or foundation for their ownlogic within their heads and cadre of leaders was murderous, greedy, and bloodthirsty, as seen in Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
Thus, extreme vice is no evidence of sound reason—but of the exact opposite. Forpeople to live in maximum peace, governments must adopt moderate policies that ensurebasic freedoms, in such areas as religion and speech. People must be free to worship asthey want and to criticize all governments and all religions.
Plus, the answer depends on what you mean by 'revelations.' States thatdepend on them also oppress their people, such as imprisoning or killing them if theyleave the State religion. It is a sad reality that 'revelations' themselves maymteach violence and brutality and human rights abuses—after Jesus came and showed us a better way. Also, the Church must truly follow its sacred Scriptures; then it will not make foolish and deadly errors like starting the Reich Churchin Nazi Germany. If the German Church had followed the New Testament closely, it would never have fused itself into Nazi ideology and endorsed or looked the other way as the Nazis oppressed and mass-murdered people. But the Confessing Churchopposed both the Reich Church and Nazi ideology. (See the Confessing Church’s Barmen Declaration.)
Thus, the Church, interpreting its Scriptures properly, may guide the State, but thetwo shall not become one. If they do, we will witness a repeat of religious atrocitiesperpetrated by the Church sometimes in its history.
In addition to the new and revolutionary teaching of Jesus, God-given reason (apartfrom direct revelations) confirms that it is best to keep the kingdom of God separatedfrom the kingdom of Caesar. Enlightenment thinkers also figured that out, as they lookedback on history, especially church history. Birthed in the Enlightenment andChristian revivals, the US has learned that hard lesson of separation, and now itscitizens live in religious peace. The State should never impose religion, and the Churchshould keep its distance from controlling the government. Power corrupts. Corrupted powermay lead to violence. Religious violence is especially repugnant to all clear reasoners.Thus, anyone should be permitted to leave his religion or to worship as he likes (or notat all) and not be harassed by religious 'brown shirts' or 'goonsquads.'
9. So what’s the bottom line? Was Jesus himself a pacifist or not?
That question is direct enough, but it is framed misleadingly. Jesus never carried asword and bloodied or killed people with it. However, the Gospels do not teach onlypacifism, as the previous answers and the first three articles explain. He praises acenturion, not condemns him (Matt. 8:5-13). As noted, he assumes that the military waspart of this life and this world system, again separating the kingdom of God from thekingdom of Caesar (Matt. 22:7; Luke 11:21-22, 14:31-32, 19:27).
But Jesus was involved in a special kind of warfare, a spiritual one that would solvethe world’s problems if only people would open their eyes. He was ushering in thekingdom of God in an unprecedented way. He confronted the powers of darkness that actuallyharassed people. He was working miracles so people could be free of their ailments. He wasparrying the verbal thrusts of his enemies. He was teaching his disciples who oftenmisunderstood basic ideas. The crowds clamored so much for him that sometimes he told hisdisciples to go apart for some rest. But no one should see him as a retreatist. Hecrisscrossed Israel preaching and ministering the deeds of the kingdom of God, knowingthat it would spread around the globe. The kingdom started as small as a mustard seed, andits plant grew surprisingly large, much larger than the seed would indicate. Eventually,however, he was killed for his services rendered, but then he was resurrected, vindicated.That’s the kind of warfare he waged.
May the Church follow him fully!
The complete series of articles:
Part One: Part Two: Part Three: Part Four: Part Five: Part Six: Part Seven: Part Eight: | Jesus, Pacifism, and the Sword Pacifism and the Sword in the Gospels Soldiers, Officers, and God Church and State—and the Sword Should the State turn the other Cheek? Questions and Answers on Pacifism and the Sword Summary Addendum—Fight or Flight? |
Many translations of the Bible may be read here.
Copyright by James Malcolm Arlandson.Articles by James Arlandson
Answering Islam Home Page
Answering Islam Home Page
Pacifist 3.6.1 | 21.4 MB
Pacifist opens up .pkg installer packages, .dmg disk images, .zip, .tar. tar.gz, .tar.bz2, .pax, and .xar archives and more, and lets you extract or install individual files out of them. This is useful if you need to install just one file out of a package instead of the entire package (for example, if you deleted your Preview application and need to reinstall it, but not the whole operating system), or if you want to inspect a downloaded package to see what it will do before installing it. Pacifist can also load some archive types over HTTP, in case you want to extract just a single file from a large .zip archive without waiting for the entire archive to download. Finally, Pacifist can examine the kernel extensions installed in your system to let you see what installer installed them, and whether the installer was made by Apple or a third-party.
What’s New in Pacifist3.6.1:
Pacifist 3 6 2 Commentary Verse
- Works around a bug in Mojave’s productbuild that sometimes writes corrupt data into package files
- Fixes a rare hanging bug when extracting from a small number of packages
- Works around some other Mojave bugs
Requirements for Pacifist
Pacifist 3 6 2 Commentary Kjv
- Intel, 64-bit processor
- OS X 10.8 or later