» » War: Four Christian Views

epub War: Four Christian Views download

by Robert G. Clouse; editor,Herman A. Hoyt,Myron S. Ausburger,Arthur F. Holmes,Harold O.J. Brown

  • ISBN: 0884690970
  • Author: Robert G. Clouse; editor,Herman A. Hoyt,Myron S. Ausburger,Arthur F. Holmes,Harold O.J. Brown
  • ePub ver: 1380 kb
  • Fb2 ver: 1380 kb
  • Rating: 4.6 of 5
  • Language: English
  • Pages: 208
  • Publisher: BMH BOOKS (May 1, 1986)
  • Formats: rtf lrf azw txt
  • Category: History
  • Subcategory: World
epub War: Four Christian Views download

How should Christians view WAR? This book gives four possible biblical views

Only 19 left in stock (more on the way). How should Christians view WAR? This book gives four possible biblical views. Something for every Christian to consider. Dr Brown was an able proponent for a difficult position ( war) but was also a bit aggressive and condescending. He skillfully deconstructed his co-authors eschatologies to undermine their positions, which simultaneously provided a helpful service and left me unsettled.

Myron S. Augsburger. War: Four Christian Views (Paperback). Published May 1st 1986 by BMH BOOKS. Paperback, 208 pages. Myron S. Ausburger (Contributor). Arthur F. Holmes (Contributor).

Myron S. Augsburger on Christian Pacifism. Format: Paperback Number of Pages: 208 Vendor: BMH Books Publication Date: 2007

Myron S. Holmes on the Just War. Harold O. J. Brown on the Crusade or Preventative War. Product Information. ▲. Title: War: Four Christian Views By: Robert G. Clouse, ed. Format: Paperback Number of Pages: 208 Vendor: BMH Books Publication Date: 2007. Dimensions: . 3 X . 8 X . 0 (inches) Weight: 10 ounces ISBN: 0884690970 ISBN-13: 9780884690979 Stock No: WW690979.

The Triumph of Christianity. Jerusalem and Athens.

War: Four Christian Views. Christian book store quick menu. War: Four Christian Views. This brief survey reveals several reactions on the part of Christians toward war. These can be categorized as Christian pacifism or non resistance, t. Online family Christian book store.

In 1998, the Arthur F. Holmes Chair of Faith and Learning was established . Holmes Chair of Faith and Learning was established at Wheaton College in his honor, supporting and honoring the work of scholars in philosophy, history, or English who have given particular attention to one of the major themes of Holmes' academic career: the integration of faith and learning.

Clouse, Robert ., Hoyt, Herman Arthur,Brown, Harold O. eds. War-four Christian Views. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1981. These citations may not conform precisely to your selected citation style. Please use this display as a guideline and modify as needed.

Herman A. Hoyt was an American biblical scholar. Dr. Herman Hoyt explains the Biblical Nonresistance view. Holmes explains the Just War view, and Preventive War is explained by Harold . Christian Pacificism is discussed by Myron S. 48017/?tag prabook0b-20.

The christian and war. W illiam D. Barrick Professor of Old . 16Payne an d P ayn e, A Just Defense 61-74; Myron S. Augsburger, Christian Pacifism, in War: Four Christian V ie w s 81-97. Barrick Professor of Old Testament. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, Il. InterVarsity, 1981) 29-57. If the government views refusal to serve in the military as a criminal act (as in a time of war), the consistent Christian pacifist would accept whatever punishment the government sho uld deem appropriate-cf.

Robert G. Clouse brings together four scholars to debate various views on the millennium: George Eldon Ladd, Herman A. Hoyt, Loraine Boettner and Anthony A. Hoekema. Robert Clouse presents four different viewpoints on war: Herman Hoyt on biblical nonresistance, Myron Augsburger on Christian pacifism, Arthur Holmes on just war, and Harold . Brown on preventive war. Three of today's foremost church historians have succeeded in producing an invaluable introdution to church history that focuses on the influence of the church on culture and the impact of society on the church.

Should Christians ever go to war? If so, under what circumstances? If not, why? These questions have been disputed for centuries. This book presents four modern expressions of four classical views: biblical nonresistance, Christian pacifism, just war, and preventive war. Each essay and discussion will help readers formulate their own views about war.
Comments (7)

Quashant
I would not recommend this book to someone wishing to study the Christian views on war. The chapter on just war theory is the most scholarly of the four and provides the best data in support of its view, which by itself almost makes the book worth the cost. However, other books such as "Moral Choices" by Scott B. Rae and "Biblical Ethics" by Robert McQuilken and Paul Copan present the data and arguments for non-resistant more concisely and with far less loaded rhetoric than the non-resistance proponents in this book. However, there is not another book like this, and the biblical ethics books refer back to this for further reading at the end of the chapters on war, so this is a good starting point for a study on the morality of war. On the other hand, someone wishing to have a deeper knowledge of this issue must look further.
Shakar
this book brings up more questions than can be answered within this type of format but it does a very good job of walking the reader through the logic behind each view point. it would be nice if it was a little more in depth but there are other books for that. i found it very helpful and engaging and would recommend it to anyone, it just didn't answer all my questions. i will refer to it when i need to refresh my memory on the views i don't agree with.
Ranicengi
How should Christians view WAR? This book gives four possible biblical views. Something for every Christian to consider. A great study group conversation starter.
Quinthy
I bought this for my husband. He enjoyed reading it.
Gardall
Great book.
Aedem
Prompt service, good price and item as described = great seller
Yramede
This 4 views book is a lively, largely helpful discussion between interlocutors of varying ability championing positions of varying credibility. Since I found a distribution of skill and helpfulness in the essays and discussions, the easiest way to approach this is to review each of the authors separately.

Dr Hoyt is a dispensational seperationalist whose eschatology leads him to a position that Christians should be personally against violence but should not try to discourage their country's war effort and can even join it in a non-combatant role. The weakest position also happened to get the weakest defender. Dr Hoyt is a sincere old time Bible preacher with obvious passion for the things of God and the mission of the church...but he is not a skilled debater or a convincing author and is generally outmatched throughout the discussion. Augsburger briefly summarized the position in order to distinguish his from it and gave it a better treatment in 2 paragraphs.

Dr Augsburger is a much more formidable presence (perhaps the most formidable presence of the four) as the voice of pacifism and makes a stirring case for active non-violent intervention after the style of the cross and Dr King. I could not help wanting him to be right. And regardless of if he is, he does his job in championing the strict Sermon on the Mount ethic which any Christian has to come to terms with.

Dr Holmes, in his defense of the just war position, made the best use of the format. He was gracious but pointed in his comments. He stayed on message, effectively conveying a concise and immanently defendable thesis before we even got to his chapter. His defense of the just was accompanied by an appropriate denunciation of war and all its evils and a competent ethical stance of selecting a lesser evil. There is an issue of uncertainty of outcomes (e.g. will a `lesser evil' actually produce less evil) that was not fully dealt with, but Holmes message was coherent and well presented.

Dr Brown was an able proponent for a difficult position (crusade/preventative war) but was also a bit aggressive and condescending. He skillfully deconstructed his co-authors eschatologies to undermine their positions, which simultaneously provided a helpful service and left me unsettled. It was his flirtation with ad hominim calling Dr Augsburger dangerous and delusional that disappointed me the most. At the heart of his argument seems to be the idea that if defensive action is justified, preemptive action is justified on precisely the same criteria. It was more successful than I thought it had a chance of being. However, while he dealt briefly with the problem of imperfect future knowledge (how does one know that preemptive attack is necessary) he did not overcome the difficulties it poses for the equating of preemptive militarism with the reluctant acceptance of the evils of a just war. In the end Dr Brown did all right with a fundamentally flawed position

It also should be noted that it was written in `81 and the aftermath of Vietnam weighs heavily on the discussion. On the whole though, it is a worthwhile and timely book even 25+ years later.
Each of the four authors writes an essay defending his position, and then the other three respond, making for an interesting dialogue.
All four make compelling cases, partly because the New Testament does not directly address the issue of what a Christian or Christian community's response to war should be. The history of the Christian church will show how very differently popes, rulers, and Protestant communities viewed involvement in war.
Augsburger makes a compelling case for pacifism. What is attractive about pacifism is that it so brilliantly proclaims to the world a different way, the Way of Christ Himself who eschewed violence against those who mistreated him. The community then places its faith only in God for its protection. This position thus is naturally connected with the refusal to be politically involved, which it has historically accompanied in the Mennonite and other pacifist communites.
Hoyt says Christians can serve their country, but only in non-combat roles, as the Christian is bound not to perpetrate violence to another human. I must admit I was strongly attracted to this - and I'm sure this probably has reflected the views of many conscientious Christians once drafted. But this breaks down, because it sets up a double standard.
Holmes presents the classical doctrine of "just war". The problem with this is that a "just war" is hard to come by. Acting completely in accordance with it requires that no military forces attack territory or citizens belonging to the aggressor -- only retaking territory the enemy has taken -- thus being purely defensive. Reality tends to make conducting a "just war" impractical and unwise -- the Allies would have stopped at Germany's borders in World War II.
Brown defends the ideas of the "crusade" and the "preventive strike". This may sound offensive and did to me, but Brown is capable. But the problem lies in the Christian's justification of the particular crusade or strike. And, of course, how is this different from how the world conducts its warfare?
There are two fundametal realities that we confront as Christians facing war: One reality is that there are unscrupulous, evil, and aggressive rulers who need to be checked. The other is that war is an incredible evil and can do nothing but wreck the conscience -- which is especially troubling for the obedient Christian who knows that human life is made in the image of God. So how do we trust and obey God in the midst of war? The state "bears the sword"; can a Christian thus be part of such a state? If so, how should the state bear it?
I continue to struggle with the answers, but heartily recommend this to someone needing a beginning point on this.

Related to War: Four Christian Views: