Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I understand why they arrive at their positions but it does not change a thing. Most people consider Ghandi to be wise, I consider him to be a fool though I reckon he was a nice man. I am not being sarcastic in calling pacifists fools and cowards. I am calling them what the Scriptures label men who despise correction or who call the things that God has ordained wicked in themselves. It is impossible to read the requirements for military service in the OT or the passages about Abraham saving Lot or Saul and David protecting border towns without concluding the obvious that pacifists are dead wrong unless one takes an aberrant, dispensational view or concludes that God's view is not immutable. You have not provided one Reformed citation on the subject that we might discuss what the Biblical foundation is for the protection of the weak or what the role of the magistrate is in doing so. Instead, you provide the generic "well there are committed men on both sides" as if Truth is measured by commitment to it. Thus, you have not provided a counter standard or foundation from which you could demonstrate that their position is not un-Biblical (and therefore folly) but are more concerned about judging my attitude.


I have not treated a single man unkindly or arrogantly unless you consider Biblical labels to be arrogant and unkind. A man that calls the things that God calls good, evil is foolish. A man that allows a man or woman to die when he could have stopped it is in the role of the coward, whatever you think his motivations are.


I speak about men in general, you impugn my character directly and twice. You claim deep grace and humility for yourself and claim that I am arrogant for labelling men according to Scriptural designations. You claim the field for the things important in the Confession. Again, this is the purview of the truly humble: the tolerant.