Jesus didn’t want them to fight against those who were going to kill Him, Jesus came to die on the cross and NO ONE was to stop that from happening.

You said that war is not evil and unloving but then you contradict yourself saying it is immoral. God does not do that which is immoral.

i think i understand you now. Even if God deems an action wrong, it may well be that God doesn't condemn the agent who commits the act on account of his heart–disposition. Is that right?

(Assuming i got it right) i couldn't agree more! Boy, that better be right or we're all toast–especially me.

i haven't meant to hinge anything i've said on particular people going to hell over behaving non-pacifistically. But i've tried to keep the focus on whether or not killing/violence is ever right period–regardless of what bearing (if any) it has on where a particular individual spends eternity.

Like i said, i've never meant to imply anyone who disagrees with me necessarily has bad motives or intentions. All of us can have good intentions but still be unsure precisely what God wants us to *do.*

i appreciate your thoughts and participation in this discussion,

–Guy

i'm not sure what more i can say to be clearer. You wrote:

"You say war is evil and unloving thus God guided men to that which is evil and unloving."

No, i am NOT saying that war is evil and unloving PERIOD in ANY and ALL senses of those terms. i've stated several times some of the particular way and particular circumstances under which i believe those terms apply. Thus i am in no way saying that God ever commanded something evil.

"Was Jesus not with God when these men battled in war were they not looking to the same kindom of God as we do, they were as much a part of God’s heavenly kingdom as we are."

Yes, i believe Jesus was "with God" back then, because i believe Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. i've never claimed that Jesus somehow disagrees with the Father. All i've said is that when the covenants changed, certain moral parameters changed. Could those Jews in the OT be members of the same kingdom as Christians? Yes. Is that kingdom identical to the earthly nation-state of Israel? No. That's a *huge* difference.

You wrote:
"Of course Jesus didn’t want them to fight against those who were going to kill Him, Jesus came to die on the cross and no one was to stop that from happening."

Of course that's what He came for. But He didn't say His servants did fight because that would counter His goal of dying. He said His servants didn't fight because His kingdom was not of this world. That is an important difference in rationale.

–Guy

If a heart has undergone the transformation that we see take place throughout tne NT (i.e. Rom. 12 etc.) then when the heart is right matters would be weighed in that light. In Jay's case of the sniper, many have expressed thier different views of what they would do. I will assume all those opinions have come from the opinion holders heart on the matter as they seek to please thier Lord and Savior. Can all those views be 100% correct at the same time? Not in my opinion. Would all those right heart opinions that are wrong find mercy and grace from our Father? Absolutely. This is what I get when I read accounts of the OT men and women that just totaly got it wrong in thier actions but God poured out His grace and mercy over them, as seen in thier reverant and upright stance they are held in the NT. If I were the sniper and I aproached the situation with a heart dedicated to God and desiring to please Him in obedience and chose not to shoot or chose to shoot the gunman, I know in my heart that God would have grace and mercy on me with either decision I make.

With that I will leave it for now, maybe someone with better writing skills can express better than I.

In love,
Steve Valentine

Jesus was with God and with those men who battled in war, and God does not do that which is evil.

Of course any NT writer can say that OT people who battled did the right thing. *i'm* telling you i think they did the right thing because i believe killing/war was morally permissible/obligatory *given the particular conditions of the OT.* My position is not incompatible with the words in Hebrews.

i am claiming that killing/pacifism is like unto animal sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was a practice unique to Judaism which is not a component of Christianity. You acknowledge that Jesus' personal sacrifice renders animal sacrifice no longer appropriate. i am making a similar claim: Christ has set up a kingdom that is not earthly in nature: it has no physical, segregated borders or civil law/justice system. He has not set up the church has an earthly government. Therefore it's not appropriate to defend it violently , just as He said (John 18:36). Thus, whereas the fact that OT established an earthly kingdom with a civil legal system and a particular earthly territory rendered war participation and violence (in some cases) permissible and obligatory, the *absense* of equivalent parameters in the NT renders such activities inappropriate.

–Guy

Surely i'm misunderstanding you: If our heart is right, then it is unimportant what we actually choose to do?

–Guy

Now back to the issue at hand.

Certainly Paul wasn't wrong to say, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

The Hebrews writer certainly saw it relevant to tell Christians that men who battled in wars were brave who worked righteousness

Hebrews 11:32-34 “And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.”