Was Pacifism the Early Church's View?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- In this video Gavin Ortlund explores whether pacifism was the early church's view.
See Han's Madueme's Defending Sin: bit.ly/44lXVEe
Truth Unites (www.truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.
SUPPORT:
Tax Deductible Support: truthunites.org/donate/
Patreon: / truthunites
FOLLOW:
Website: truthunites.org/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
truthunites.org/mypublications/
PODCAST:
podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CREATIVE DIRECTION: Clau Gutiérrez (www clau.uk)
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
00:00 - Introduction
01:28 - Book Recommendation
02:56 - Learning From the Early Church
04:50 - Justin Martyr
06:13 - Athenagoras
07:40 - Tertullian
09:45 - The Apostolic Tradition
11:52 - Cyprian
13:09 - Origen
14:30 - Nicaea 1
16:04 - Much Pacifism in Early Church
16:48 - Lactantius
17:53 - Marcus Aurelius' Letter
20:37 - Synod of Arles
21:20 - Summing Up Ante-Nicene Evidence
22:05 - 4th Century Changes
24:23 - Eusebius
26:51 - Basil
27:47 - Augustine
32:10 - 1. Strong Early Instinct Toward Pacifism
33:12 - 2. Just War Theory as Organic Development
33:56 - 3. Context and Ambiguity in Church History
36:34 - 4. God is a Peacemaker
38:30 - Summing Up - Zábava
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!
Well said, God Bless.
Pacifists are far from perfect themselves. The extremes are downright dangerous.
Pacifism is nin Christian
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 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.
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
@@ChrisTisking12256 Hi Chris, could you elaborate on your last point regarding slavery and where the contradiction lies?
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
Thank you for your service.
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.
Thank you for your service. Peace to you and glad you made it back to continue your journey in a new way. 🤜
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."
LOL! 🤣
Defending Constantine was awesome.
Please name all the "just wars" the United States has ever fought. Thank you.
@@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.
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.
Thanks so much Blake, what an encouraging note to receive!
Wow, I am doing an independent study at my seminary this summer on just war and pacifism! What a timely video
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.
Which wars were "just wars"? Thank you.
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.”
How will God Himself maintain order in His own Kingdom?
@@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?
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.
An excellent discussion. As a Church History prof, I’m finding myself referring people to your videos often.
terrific, hope they can serve you!
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.
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.
Amen.
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
The last part was so beautiful!!!!!, Thank you for sharing😭😭😭😭
it is so good to have the written outline
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.
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 Gavin! Great channel, great info and graciously done!
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.
I'd say that it isn't pacifism when you can't fight back anyway, which was the case for the early church.
@georgechristiansen6785 Yes, it would be more like "involuntary pacifism".
What do you mean can’t fight back? There were thousands of zealots ewith access to arms.
I think spreading the Gospel should always be peaceful.
This is about defending, protecting
@@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.
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.
Lol same. Another one for the Amazon wishlist. Now back to my homework…
Pastor Ortland. Tis a pleasure to support you.
Another awesome and informative video as always. Love your content brother!
Love what you do. Clear mind and good intention. Thanks
Bold choice to release this on Memorial Day
I enjoy such content!
Love you sir
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.
Thank you Gavin :)
Thank Dr. Ortlund
You chose a sensitive day to release this video. Many are mourning and remembering friends and family who died in our nation’s defense. However, I appreciated your handling of this difficult subject
Good observation. Watching this after the fact, I didn't catch it. He may have mentioned Memorial Day. But if he did, I missed that too.
Excellent.
Great video, thanks so much for covering this topic. Would love to hear your thoughts on Augustine’s position on torture and forced conversion too, if you’d be interested in addressing that.
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.
@@calebpearce9334 I said nothing of emotions; I speak physical
reality. But, if you do not wish to answer the question, I shall not press.
@@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.
@@calebpearce9334 So are you going to answer my question or not?
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.
@@calebcothron3556 Yes, I think it was, and still is, quite complex. Thanks for your comments.
This is really interesting
What honor does Paul seem to provide a place of honor for capital punishment, via the power of the sword that God gives to sovereigns?
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.
Would being in local or state law enforcement qualify as pacifism?
“not supporting the US” is not pacifism. You just described a Christian non-pacifist position.
@@NotRexButCaesar "support of the imperialism of the US"
@@NotRexButCaesar by saying the US shouldn't engage in wars?
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.
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.
Fight is really good. The lectures by Father Charles McCarthy are really good. Most of them are on CZcams. God Bless
If anyone is interested, I made some videos on Cadoux's book. This is the first, czcams.com/video/KgmtGPScrhA/video.html
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.
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.
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 CZcams.
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?
video on para church ministries? Relation to local church ecclesiology, the means of grace, the ministry of the Word? Non denom campus ministries? Stuff I'm thinking and reading about.
One issue missing, and rarely made distinct in early church discussions, is the unique difference between self defense, church defense, national defense, and empire defense.
🙌🏼
Hey Gavin, have you ever heard of the CZcamsr “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!
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.
Before using "Just War Theory" to justify a war against another nation, I wonder whether it was first considered to deliver the Gospel to said nation?
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.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus thank you for your service and a bit of wisdom.
The account of Christian Roman soldiers praying for rain was one that I hadn’t heard before. I think it’s a worthy discussion.
I think that while we should turn the other cheek, we also are unable to turn the cheek on another’s behalf. I think it’s one thing to be a soldier, but it could also be another thing if you’re in a position where you have to kill or at least attack with lethal force in order to save someone else that is defenceless.
How can choosing to turn the other cheek possibly apply in such a situation? I don’t think that it does if someone else in a defenceless position (or someone you’re charged in protection of, such as your wife or your child) is in danger.
There is definitely nuance in this, and I think that this video addresses them well.
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 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.)
Good thoughts. I'll just say in response that life, and the Christian life, is complex. I would love for it to be more black and white, but it's not.
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
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.
Scripture calls on us to pray for our leaders *so that we may live in peace* (not necessarily a direct quote, but something similar to that???)...
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.
“The Eucharist is the rejection of all violence” - Rene Girard.
If God grants the power of the sword to rulers, are rulers necessarily to be left as unbelievers, fated to experience hell?
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.
Good point to consider deeply and its ramifications.
@@Yj-Fj I agree.
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.
Have you read the great catechism by St Gregory of Nyssa yet?
Hello, I was wondering if you have any recommendations for books on the great schism. I am about to finish Augustine’s confessions, a fascinating book I highly recommend. I love reading church history, not for debate or argument. I believe we can glean wonderful insight as we seek Jesus. I feel for me, the seeking never ends, it could also be defined as seeking a deeper relationship with him.
The blessing of being deep in history is to cease to be Protestant!
@@geoffjs never been one.
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.
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!!!
Thanks for the great insights, this time around the issues of Pacifism.
I have broader questions around Augustin and others of the church Fathers.
Four of the Apostles in the last epistles of the canon lay out emphatic warnings that the church was being infiltrated. Peter, Paul, John and Jude all laid out the warnings. Three of the warnings were in present tense. After these we have the “report cards” of the seven churches of Revelation pointing out that five of the churches had failed. Ephesus though had identified false apostles although they had lost their first love.
When it comes to using Augustin as a reference on the pacifism issue my question would be, would he pass the seven church report card test? This would be my first question of all the post apostolic players.
Evidence of the echoes of the seven church messages seems rare amongst the early church and even less by the time we reach Constantinople. The contention over the trinity at Nicaea seems to lack basic elements of Christian character. This points in the direction that the Nicaea was connected to failed churches of Revelation. Looking at what the bishops came away with after Nicaea, it appears they fell for the temptation of Influence security and wealth that Jesus was offered in His testing. This is further evidence.
My motivation for this direction of questioning is to resolve what it means for “members of the body of Christ” to retain a “Candlestick” in this age? Reconnecting with the true foundation of the apostles has to be a prerequisite of this task.
Interested in any comments.
Question: How do you propose reconnecting with "the true foundation of the apostles"?
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.
I struggle with this too. Offering the other cheek doesn't condone war in any way. But what about self defense?
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.
Were capital offenses implemented in the name of Caesar as a god?
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?
I agree with your views. Protecting innocent people in an invasion is just. Conquering is wrong. There is a difference between killing and murdering.
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.
He ruined it on Original Sin. Probably using a bad translation of Romans 5:12.
"Owning a sword is more important than owning clothing"
-Jesus (basically)
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
have you read THE EARLY CHURCH ON KILLING by Ronald Sider. For me it is the most comprehensive review of the literature on this subject.
Sider even looks at grave inscriptions, he examines the claims that some early church fathers supported military service. Sider I think shows that while there may be warnings against serving in the Roman military because of involvement in idolatry etc, Sider persuades me that the fundamental objection was that serving in the military may entail killing.
This is his conclusion and I haven't read or heard anything that persuades me that Sider is wrong
“What we can say with confidence is that every extant [existing early church] Christian statement on killing and war up until the time of Constantine says that Christians must not kill, even in war. That a growing number of Christians, especially in the late third and early fourth centuries, acted contrary to that teaching is also clear….But we have absolutely no evidence to support the suggestion that [teachers who supported just war] ever existed until the time of Constantine. Any claim that they did is sheer speculation.”
I read this book as well and it rocked my world.
Ron Sider is a very liberal pacifist. His view is like Marcion-lite “violence is bad.” David Bercot has a much better form of pacifism, I’d recommend his videos.
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.
Where does Ananias and Sapphira come in to this?
Great topic for a video…
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.
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.
Interesting reflection.
I struggled with this until 9/11.
Although our response was unjust when we invaded Iraq, I decided there is such a thing as just war.
Having said that, Christians should be slow to respond, and only commensurate to the violence done to them.
Nor does Jesus seem to consistently teach non-violence or pacifism, although how he responded to his persecutors is an important example for us.
What about turn the other cheek? Do not repay evil with evil? Bless your enemies?
Hmm how similar are the anabaptist views to the early church on this?
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?
Can you do a video on the church fathers and sexuality?
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.
Brother Ortlund really does exhibit Christ in his approach to important issues.
Jesus told *Peter* to put away his sword, for those who live by the sword due by the sword. It *could* in theory, be a foreshadowing of the statement that Peter understood to mean that Peter himself would die in a manner similar to the way Jesus was killed.
I suspect Jesus was condemning St. Peter’s desire to illegally overthrow the current rulers via violent revolution. I suspect the Sermon on the Mount talks of this as well; it isn’t talking about violence to defend innocent life.
Who in Rome had to pledge allegiance to Caesar as a god?
Interesting topic..may watch later. But all we need to ask ourselves is what does Christ say in the Sermon on the Mount? How did the apostles act in the book of Acts? Our faith should be built on inspired spirit-derived words and deeds..not on subsequent interpretations and acts of professed believers, given that apostasy has always existed.
I agree. Much of the early church’s hyper-pacifism doesn’t necessarily obvious to the context of the New Testement.
@@TitusCastiglione1503 how do you fit war killing and torturing and traumatizing into the Sermon on the Mount and the earliest martyr's examples?
@@kelliemicheley I said nothing of torture. Killing to save innocent life and defend your country was commanded by god in the Old Testement; Jesus doesn’t really abrogate this.
@@TitusCastiglione1503 You know what the Sermon says, and what the martyrs did and didn't do. Besides that, war TAKES innocent lives galore, so by this logic, vengeance should fly back and forth. Even though it's supposed to be left to God
@@kelliemicheley I never said anything of vengeance. I spoke of defending innocent life and your country at the behest of a lawful authority. These are not the same thing.
I agree with N.T. Wright; the Sermon on the Mount opposes armed revolution/taking the law into your own hands, not defending an innocent person or defending your country.
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.
so far as I can tell, that is a fair critique -- at least of how just war is often implemented, not the theory itself
@@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.
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.
How can Theonomists not be Judaisers?
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.
Is Pacifism the Holy Spirit’s view?
Sola Early-Histora!
Wouldn't accusations of Christians being cannibals provide evidence that early Christians believed in the true presence of Christ In the Eucharist?