Saul Of Tarsus

[Aloysius]

If Saul of Tarsus was attempting to kill some family member of mine, I would certainly have used deadly force to stop him, and would have bee justified in doing so. had someone waged a war against Saul and his ilk in order to protect the persecuted Christians, it'd be absolutely licit to kill him in the context of such a war, in defense. I could envision an individual possibly being justified along the same lines, coming up to Saul and confronting him and perhaps killing him to stop him from continuing his murder.

the fact that he later repented is irrelevant. repentance should indeed cover all sins so that all can forgive; but the immediate consequences of sins shouldn't be avoided due to some possibility of future repentance. If someone had defended one of Saul's victims to the point of killing him, then that was Saul's fault.

the blood of the martyrs may be the seed of the Church, but the sword of Constantine is the plow of the field where that seed grows.

remember that Our Lord commanded His Apostles to own swords themselves. Those swords were very likely used in defensive situations. Why else did Our Lord command them to have them? To look nice on shelves?

Now, I wouldn't advocate a "hunting down" mentality in a war because such a mentality would tend towards vengeance... so hunting down Saul of Tarsus or hunting down mass murderers of babies might not be the exact best course of action; but I will say this: deadly defensive force against either person to protect the lives of those they were attempting to kill is certainly morally justifiable.

and the popular image of the Apostles and early Church being just a bunch of pacifists is wrong, IMO. Sure, there were many who refused any type of violence, commendably, but there was a wide range in the early Church.... and the Apostles themselves owned swords by Our Lord's express command. it'd be a bit hypocritical to carry a sword if you were unwilling to use it; an empty threat: a lie, as it were.

there were very likely members of the early Church who did engage in acts of defensive violence. deacons stood guard outside house masses to ensure no one who wasn't a Christian could get in, I imagine someone might've tried to get in by force and might have had to be restrained violently. if the Apostles owned swords, I'd bet they told their successors to own swords. it was a dangerous world, and there were many situations that they could have fallen into in which violence provided safety for themselves and for the innocent, and I see no evidence that they didn't utilize any violence.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1263490421' post='2037006']remember that Our Lord commanded His Apostles to own swords themselves. Those swords were very likely used in defensive situations. Why else did Our Lord command them to have them? To look nice on shelves?[/quote]
The one recorded time a disciple used a sword, Our Lord told him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that Our Lord commanded his disciples to have swords. The only reference I am aware of is Luke 22:35-38:

[quote]And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was reckoned with transgressors'; for what is written about me has its fulfilment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." [/quote]
I'm not sure what Our Lord means here, but it seems to me that far from commanding his disciples to possess swords, he is associating swords with "transgressors." In other words, it seems that he is saying that the prophecy requires him to be "reckoned with transgressors," and thus Our Lord tells the disciples to take money and swords (symbols of this world) in order that they may possess the possessions of "transgressors," thereby fulfilling the prophecy.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1263490421' post='2037006']it was a dangerous world, and there were many situations that they could have fallen into in which violence provided safety for themselves and for the innocent, and I see no evidence that they didn't utilize any violence.
[/quote]
The fact that Scripture NEVER records any of the disciples resorting to swords, but instead records complete willingness to become martyrs, is pretty big evidence.

I have also seen references to "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome," which is apparently a third century document. I'm not aware of the history of this document, but I cite it here for consideration:

[quote]They will inquire concerning the works and occupations of those are who are brought forward for instruction. ...A charioteer, likewise, or one who takes part in the games, or one who goes to the games, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. If someone is a gladiator, or one who teaches those among the gladiators how to fight, or a hunter who is in the wild beast shows in the arena, or a public official who is concerned with gladiator shows, either he shall cease, or he shall be rejected. If someone is a priest of idols, or an attendant of idols, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God. [...][/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1263490421' post='2037006']the blood of the martyrs may be the seed of the Church, but the sword of Constantine is the plow of the field where that seed grows.[/quote]
I would rather that the field be burned by pagans than that Christians resort to Constantine's sword in the field's defense. Our Lord did not need swords to save the world. The Church does not need swords either; indeed, by resorting to swords in defense of the Gospel, the Church would only be killing herself: As Our Lord said, "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

[Aloysius]

Just because the scriptures don't record the events doesn't mean none happened. The events actually recorded by the scriptures make me think it very likely that such events probably occurred. And again, Our Lord commanded His Apostles to own swords. If they didn't have one, they were to sell their cloak

Your cited quotation doesn't convince me of any pacifism in the Early Church. Sure, there was a definite opposition to the blood lust of the Romans... but nothing that indicates to me a rejection of the Old Testament traditions of justified violence.... it'd be a huge turnaround from Old Testament traditions if Christianity stood on principal against any and all types of violence... and I've seen no proof of such a complete 180. It opposed most types of Roman violence... but did not oppose its members owning deadly weapons... it couldn't have, Our Lord commanded His apostles to own such deadly weapons.

your argument from silence is fallacious because silence would indicate no change from the commonly accepted teachings that the Jewish converts would've accepted. Show me where the Apostles preached to their Jewish converts that all types of violence are to be rejected... there is no such teaching in the Early Church. The Early Church would've kept up the same traditions of justifiable violence in defense of the innocent.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1263492733' post='2037027']
Just because the scriptures don't record the events doesn't mean none happened.[/quote]
That's true. But unless you have evidence to supplement Scripture, then to say that the early Christians resorted to swords is unfounded speculation. All the Scriptural evidence suggests that they did not.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1263492733' post='2037027']your argument from silence is fallacious because silence would indicate no change from the commonly accepted teachings that the Jewish converts would've accepted. Show me where the Apostles preached to their Jewish converts that all types of violence are to be rejected... there is no such teaching in the Early Church. The Early Church would've kept up the same traditions of justifiable violence in defense of the innocent.
[/quote]
I am not arguing from silence; you are. I cited Our Lord's clear command to the disciple who tried to use a sword to put his sword away, for "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

As for the idea that the Apostles taught that violence is never permissible, I have not made that claim; though I am claiming that the Apostles did reject any and all violence in defense of the Gospel. I am also claiming is that the Apostles and the early Christians never used the sword, and I think there are very important theological reasons why. But that's probably a longer discussion than we want to get into here.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='14 January 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1263492325' post='2037022']
I would rather that the field be burned by pagans than that Christians resort to Constantine's sword in the field's defense. Our Lord did not need swords to save the world. The Church does not need swords either; indeed, by resorting to swords in defense of the Gospel, the Church would only be killing herself: As Our Lord said, "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).
[/quote]
Constantine's sword is the plow that makes the seeds grow. It is like the swords that Christ commanded His Apostles to own in Luke 22:36... yes, indeed, those who live by the sword will die by the sword; but that just means not to live by the sword. Using the sword when justified is not living by the sword.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='14 January 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1263492806' post='2037029']
That's true. But unless you have evidence to supplement Scripture, then to say that the early Christians resorted to swords is unfounded speculation. All the Scriptural evidence suggests that they did not.


I am not arguing from silence; you are. I cited Our Lord's clear words that the disciple who tried to use a sword should put his sword away, for "all who live by the sword will perish by the sword."

As far as the Apostles saying that violence is never permissible, I have not made that claim. What I am claiming is that the Apostles and the early Christians never used the sword. And I think there are very important theological reasons why. But that's probably a longer discussion than we want to get into here.
[/quote]
I disagree. I see no evidence in the scriptures that the Apostles abandoned the Jewish traditions of God sanctioned violence in defense of the innocent.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1263492929' post='2037031']
Constantine's sword is the plow that makes the seeds grow. It is like the swords that Christ commanded His Apostles to own in Luke 22:36... yes, indeed, those who live by the sword will die by the sword; but that just means not to live by the sword. Using the sword when justified is not living by the sword.
[/quote]
I reject any use of the sword in defense of the Gospel. And I disagree that any sword can help the seeds grow. I think that the Church has paid the price over the centuries for resorting to the sword in defense of the Gospel. Every blow of a sword struck for the Gospel is first a wound to the Body of Christ.

[Socrates]

The Church teaches that force is legitimate in self-defense, or defending the innocent, so we should accept that.
We should also remember that violent force is a last resort only, and should not be carried out casually.

[Aloysius]

and I absolutely and unequivocally disagree. in my opinion, without the glorious and virtuous use of the sword by many great men through history, billions of souls would never have even heard the name of Christ.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1263493861' post='2037044']
and I absolutely and unequivocally disagree. in my opinion, without the glorious and virtuous use of the sword by many great men through history, billions of souls would never have even heard the name of Christ.
[/quote]
I do not believe any use of the sword in defense of the Gospel can be glorious or virtuous. Indeed, I believe that the use of the sword in defense of the Gospel is a great shame and a great betrayal of the Gospel. The only legitimate sword to be used in defense of the Gospel is "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17).

[Aloysius]

again, I disagree, and believe you have clouded the gospel with your own personal ideology of pacifism which does not have its origin in the seamless scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. I find no evidence of this pacifism in the scriptures or even in the early Church; I see nothing but an absolute continuity from Ancient Israel to the present Church.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='14 January 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1263494043' post='2037048']
I do not believe any use of the sword in defense of the Gospel can be glorious or virtuous. Indeed, I believe that the use of the sword in defense of the Gospel is a great shame and a great betrayal of the Gospel. The only legitimate sword to be used in defense of the Gospel is "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17).
[/quote]

I don't think anyone's talking about using violence to directly defend or directly spread the Gospel. The Gospel can't bleed or die. People can. Physical violence is for the defense of physical things.

~Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='16 January 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1263663884' post='2038524']Physical violence is for the defense of physical things.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
True. And I think that is precisely why the early Christians did not use the sword in their defense:

[quote]For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

--Ephesians 6:12[/quote]