@4castle It was the right thing to do. End of. They were trying to kill my people.

@4castle Your special pleading is not accepted but I thank you for offering that point of view. I don't share it, but I understand how you got there.

@KorvinStarmast I appreciate hearing your point of view. I trust that you've made decisions that make sense. Whoever "they" are, I also trust that they were trying to make decisions that make sense. It's difficult, but faith in Christ's sacrifice and obedience to his laws are ultimately more important than the lives of your people. (Matthew 10:37; Matthew 19:29; Luke 14:26)

@4castle No, they aren't and weren't. I think you and I will need to agree to disagree on that, since I am pretty sure that not doing my duty is a severe failure in stewardship and faith.

@KorvinStarmast Did you read those scriptures? It's not me you're arguing with, it's Christ.

@4castle do you believe that the civil magistrate has the authority to punish evil with the sword?

@Birdie I'm afraid I don't know what a "civil magistrate" is. Are you asking if I believe in the death penalty?

A civil magistrate is a ruler in a country.

The reference is Romans 13:1-4

@Birdie Ah, then yes I do.

Is it evil to steal private property?

@Birdie Yes

So then the civil magistrate would be within his rights to punish me if I were to walk over to my neighbour's house and steal his house, booting him out physically.

Yes, that would make sense.

If I were to bring a gang of 10 people with me to help steal the house, would the civil magistrate be justified in enlisting the assistance of others to aid in his punishing evil with the sword?

The "ordaining" of more magistrates, as it were.

Yes, they have that authority.

So if a gang of 100 people from just across the border in another country came over to kill me and steal my house, the civil magistrate could enlist his own 100 or more people to arm themselves and punish the evil gang of 100 stealing my house and killing me, yes?

Yes.

So then it is acceptable to enlist in the military to defend evil invaders from other countries who wish to kill and to steal.

That doesn't quite follow. God has given authority to human governments, but that doesn't mean their actions are acceptable. We have a choice to make.

So the civil magistrate has the authority to enlist assistance in punishing evil, but we don't have the authority to allow ourselves to enlist in that assistance in punishing evil?

I'm not seeing where it doesn't follow.

To oppose the authority of human governments would be to oppose God, but to join those governments would also be to oppose God. (Revelation 19:19) The real ruler of these humans governments is Satan (Luke 4:5-7).

So then a Christian ruler is not supposed to punish the evil with the sword?

Correct. That's Romans 12:19

@Birdie The authority of humans governments is also "relative", as Romans 13:1-4 said. When human governments command us to disobey God's laws, we're obligated to disobey those human commands (Acts 5:29)

@4castle Sure, but there's no law against being hired by the police.

@curiousdannii Right, there couldn't be since "police" are a relatively modern concept, but there are Bible principles which can guide a person to choose well.

I'd be happy to do more research on that if you desire. It's something I'm not too familiar with at the moment

@4castle I understand how to cherry pick scripture. really, I do. I also know that Christians are God's children, as were the scions of Abraham, whom God supported in their war. The Christian teachings on war, and just war, go back as far as Augustine. You really aren't standing on firm ground. best wishes in any case.

@Birdie Thank you for your thoughts on this conversation. :)

@KorvinStarmast Is Augustine arguing with Christ also? I would be interested to hear how I've misrepresented those scriptures, but yes, I think we've said enough. Have a good day

@KorvinStarmast They go back to the Old Testament, actually :D

@4castle Vengeance and justice aren't the same thing. Romans 13 makes it clear that the civil magistrate is the servant of God, and thus an approved position to be in for a Christian.

Acts 5:29 is Satan, the Father of Lies, speaking. I wouldn't take his word at face value.

@Birdie Acts 5:29 is Peter speaking. I will need to do more research on Romans 13, because I don't think being a servant of God and approved by God necessarily coincide. God allowed the Israelites to be conquered by other nations when they were disobedient. That doesn't mean they should go join those nations.

Oh sorry, I meant Luke 4:5-7

@Birdie Ah, yes, but Satan isn't lying in Luke 4:5-7. See John 12:31, John 14:30, and Ephesians 2:2

This is why Satan's temptation would have been a real temptation. If he was lying, the temptation wouldn't really have been a temptation to Jesus.

@4castle Christian pacifism is still a far more consistent position that Christian libertarianism though :)

@4castle It's not that simple. Psalm 22:28 says that God rules over the nations.

As does Psalm 47:8, Jeremiah 10:7.

@Birdie Good point. God is Almighty, so there is nothing he doesn't rule over. This subject has a lot to do with why God allows suffering.

Because I think you might agree, that if every action performed by human governments was approved by God, then these governments would be perfect, which means we wouldn't see any corruption in those governments

I agree that not every action performed by human governments is approved by God, but one that is explicitly approved by God is the punishing of evil by the sword.

@Birdie I never noticed that aspect of the verse before, but now I see what you mean. The last sentence in Romans 13:4 says that it's "God's minister, an avenger". So, therefore, the punishment is indirectly from God. Though I don't agree that this means a Christian should occupy this position.

@4castle So a position that is good, ordained by God, a position that is held by God's servant, is one that a Christian is forbidden to occupy, even though the text in no way mentions that?

@Birdie 1 Peter 2:13-14 says to "subject yourselves ... to a king ... to governors". So Christians should occupy a lower position in this hierarchy. The pattern of Christians presented in the Bible was how Paul would send letters of correction to the congregations, and punishment would be carried out by removing unrepentant ones from the congregation (1 Cor. 5:13; 1 Tim. 1:20). They didn't punish ones using the legal system, they had a separate arrangement.

It doesn't follow that they need to be in a lower position, just because they should submit themselves to kings and governors. We also have to submit ourselves to elders in the church, but yet Christians must also be the elders in the church.

Perhaps the verses above would give better context. 1 Peter 2:11-12 are discussing how Christians should be as "foreigners and temporary residents ... among the nations". So these positions of king and governor are outside of the congregation.

Actually, I see now that the letter was being addressed to congregations which lived in foreign lands (1 Peter 1:1). I'll look for another example. On the other hand, I've never heard of a Christian in the Bible who ruled as part of the legal system. They were much more occupied leading the congregation than their nation.

@Birdie I'll sleep on this. I need to go to sleep

Some clickbait for you: Is There Sex in Heaven? (My latest blog post)

(insert long argument here based solely on the title)

Lee, that was a very interesting insight into the spiritual nature of marriage, a good read.

I was so shocked by the Islamic concept of heaven that I denied sexuality existed after death. The blog post was a new light on the topic.