I do not disagree with your assessment of Jesus’ call to pacifism and its implications for Christians serving in our military. Unless I misunderstood your presentation, this man was talking to the pastor about becoming a Christian, not what he had done as a Christian. Your application of Jesus’ call to non-violence is applicable to those empowered by the Spirit to live in accordance with His commandments and example. However, should any Christian truly be surprised when an unbeliever acts like an unbeliever? No, for the Scripture clearly states they are at enmity with God and are unable to obey Him apart from the indwelling Spirit. Again, you address the wrong issue.

The question is not what he should have done prior to joining the military, but what can be done for him now. He is seeking forgiveness for himself, not for those he killed. If I add what you wrote in your response to your application of the victorious gospel to this man’s situation, I have to summarize your dealing with this man in this manner: “Sir, it is understandable that you suffer such inconsolable grief because you disobeyed God when you decided to join the military and actively engage in combat. But there’s no need for you to worry about the eternal destiny of the soldiers you murdered, for God will bring them to Himself through His Son, Jesus. And it is this same Jesus through Whom you can be saved, too.”

Your application of the victorious gospel addresses the eternal destiny of the soldiers he killed in combat, not his guilt over having killed them. These are two separate issues. The traditional gospel says he cannot know what the final state of those soldiers is (unless he asked each before their deaths); he, like us, has to assume they weren’t Christians. The victorious gospel says he can know their final state. As touching the latter issue, both views espoused as the gospel are capable of addressing how this ex-soldier may be forgiven.

Your confusion of the issues would only serve to further condemn this man for a decision (the eternal destiny of the those he killed) for which he bears no responsibility; that is for God to determine. To lay the burden for their final state at his feet is to create false guilt and remove personal responsibility for one’s spiritual decisions (make him responsible for the spiritual state of the dead rather than they themselves).

I have heard it said, “You can’t say everything, because if you try to say everything, you wind up saying nothing at all.” I think the statement applicable to your presentation inasmuch as you assume much that is not clearly stated: as an unbeliever, it is credible to expect him to obey God; his military service was voluntary (Was he old enough to have been drafted? How long ago was he active in the service?); the enemy combatants were non-Christians; he is responsible for the eternal destiny of those whom he killed (no matter which gospel is presented, you make this assumption to be true). Without further clarity, it is difficult to address the specifics of any one person’s case. But as a general course of counseling this man, I would still adhere to my path: separate false from true guilt, and deal with the latter through the person and work of Jesus.

Your response only deals with the latter issue. It still fails to answer how the victorious gospel can “cleanse his conscience” regarding the eternal destiny of those for whose death he is responsible. The most you can reasonably claim is that he should not feel guilt for their eternal destiny because God will save everyone eventually regardless of the choice of faith they choose in this life.

I know you feel passionately about your beliefs but I hope in the future you will not use language that tends to alienate those you seek to win over to your position. Accusing traditional Christianity of being “the military church filled with false traditions of men”; insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you and affirms the reality of false guilt is insane and heartless; and charging the traditional gospel with hypocrisy . . . These are not likely to be seen as winsome to those you seek to convince.

I appreciate your passion evident in this clip. My best friend’s son was deployed to Afghanistan with the Marines only 2 weeks ago. I worry about how his conscience may respond in the future to just such a scenario as you discussed.

It seems to me that your pastor friend was “stuck” only because he failed to realize this ex-soldier was struggling with two separate guilt issues, only one of which he was responsible for. It also seems to me that you fail to recognize this confusion and as a result, the “answer” of the victorious gospel is no greater a solution to this man’s stricken conscience than is that of the traditional gospel.

From your recounting of the story, the man appears to be struggling with the following: (1) guilt over the sin of murder, and (2) personal responsibility for deciding the ultimate fate (however false) of the 46 men he killed. It should have been made clear to him that he bears no responsibility for the latter issue. Whether one believes in election/predestination or in human free will, the sole responsibility for which religion/faith the dead soldiers embraced was theirs alone. In this instance, the gentleman was experiencing “false guilt”. If this had been dealt with adequately, then the issue for which he is solely responsible, i.e. murder, could have been singled out and dealt with.

In such a case, I see no difference between the offer of forgiveness for his personal guilt between the victorious gospel and the traditional gospel. Both are more than sufficient to take away his sin because Jesus is presented in both as his personal Savior. The victorious gospel would be able to satisfactorily answer the question of the murdered soldiers’ ultimate spiritual fate. But neither gospel can satisfactorily explain why they met their ultimate fates in this life at this man’s hands. That is a mystery beyond the ability of either gospel to answer.

I suggest it was this confusion of false and true guilt that exacerbated the ex-soldier’s situation. If the first had been recognized and dealt with, so he could leave the fate of the dead soldiers in God’s hands, then he might have more easily received the forgiveness offered by either gospel. I fail to see how the victorious gospel’s affirmation of the dead’s ultimate salvation in any way relieves this man of the false guilt he mistakenly voluntarily shouldered.
Gary’s response: False guilt? Jesus said to lay down our life rather than take it. The military with the help of a corrupt church has made it acceptable to kill for all kinds of ungodly reasons. Furthermore, if the soldier kills an unbeliever, according to what the soldier is taught in Christianity, if that “enemy” is not born again, that person is tortured endlessly forever. If the soldier lived by Jesus’ words and not the military church filled with false traditions of men, that man would never have joined the military in the first place. How can you say that soldier isn’t in some way responsible? He didn’t have to join the military. He could have been a conscientious objector. Without the knowledge that Jesus can undo what he did when he killed someone, I believe any sane person with a heart would feel guilty and rightfully so. The Victorious Gospel is the salve that can cleanse that conscience, I don’t believe the hypocritical traditional gospel can.