# Reformed Treatments of the Non-Aggression Principle



## ZackF (Nov 25, 2021)

I'd appreciate any sources of serious Reformed engagement with the NAP, either for or against.

Thanks

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Nov 25, 2021)

Adam McIntosh, the pastor of St. David's Church affiliated with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical _Churches _in Tomball, Texas which is north of Houston, is one of those who writes for kuyperian.com.
http://kuyperian.com/a-christian-critique-of-the-non-aggression-principle/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Nov 26, 2021)

A few observations:

Definitions of the non aggression principle
“...no man may _initiate_ the use of physical force against others.… Men have the right to use physical force _only_ in retaliation and _only_ against those who initiate its use.” Ayn Rand
“no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” Murray Rothbard
“Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man” Herbert Spencer
“...being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” John Locke

Libertarians who hold to the non aggression axiom also hold the law of non-contradiction as being self evident
If A can be demonstrated to be A. 
Then A can not be demonstrated to be not-A.
Two mutually exclusive assertions cannot both be known to be true at the same time.

From these pagan definitions arises the question: _Is coercion_ without actual violence, or even the explicit threat of violence synonymous with _aggression?_


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 26, 2021)

All governments operate by power and coercion. NAP is a fantasy. 

Plus, if you know somebody is gonna punch you - why not hit first? It's just good tactics. I see nothing more moral about waiting to get punched.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 26, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> All governments operate by power and coercion. NAP is a fantasy.
> 
> Plus, if you know somebody is gonna punch you - why not hit first? It's just good tactics. I see nothing more moral about waiting to get punched.


What about if someone smites you on the cheek, give him the other one? Must you smite him first, then give him both cheeks?
I think it's different for governments than for private people: they ought to pre-emptively squash enemies that are a credible threat, but private folk ought to give aggressors the benefit of the doubt. What if they're just bluffing? Most threats against me have been a bluff, or could be turned aside with a soft answer.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 26, 2021)

Ben Zartman said:


> What about if someone smites you on the cheek, give him the other one? Must you smite him first, then give him both cheeks?


Jesus here is talking about insult, not assault.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 26, 2021)

Ben Zartman said:


> What about if someone smites you on the cheek, give him the other one? Must you smite him first, then give him both cheeks?
> I think it's different for governments than for private people: they ought to pre-emptively squash enemies that are a credible threat, but private folk ought to give aggressors the benefit of the doubt. What if they're just bluffing? Most threats against me have been a bluff, or could be turned aside with a soft answer.


A good case for pre-emptive war for states is Israel's pre-emptive attacks against credible threats. I see no reason this does not apply to private persons. If someone breaks into your house at night, you've got to wonder what else they are willing to do to your family, you need not wait and see if he actually carries it out first. Turning aside from a harmless insult (slap on the cheek) is different than ignoring a real and present danger.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 26, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> A good case for pre-emptive war for states is Israel's pre-emptive attacks against credible threats. I see no reason this does not apply to private persons. If someone breaks into your house at night, you've got to wonder what else they are willing to do to your family, you need not wait and see if he actually carries it out first. Turning aside from a harmless insult (slap on the cheek) is different than ignoring a real and present danger.


I think this is a bit of a straw man. If someone has broken into your house that is already clear and unequivocal aggression initiated against you, so that's not a fair depiction of the NAP.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 26, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> I think this is a bit of a straw man. If someone has broken into your house that is already clear and unequivocal aggression initiated against you, so that's not a fair depiction of the NAP.


I hate to admit it, but you might be correct. Perhaps shooting a person for climbing your fence is premature, they might be retrieving their football, etc. but once they go through a locked door then they seem fair game as they clearly intend to harm you and have, indeed, already harmed you through the violation of your privacy.


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 27, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> I hate to admit it, but you might be correct. Perhaps shooting a person for climbing your fence is premature, they might be retrieving their football, etc. but once they go through a locked door then they seem fair game as they clearly intend to harm you and have, indeed, already harmed you through the violation of your privacy.


Even there I have questions. Was it at night or in broad daylight? Is it a child, or a man in a mask? Even Proverbs absolves a thief's death from bloodguilt if it happens at night... but not in the daytime.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 27, 2021)

If someone enters my house at night, I'll probably club him with a saucepan and ask questions after I'm sitting on his head--he's already showing criminal violence. But for an altercation in the street, I think it's best to let him swing first.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 27, 2021)

Ben Zartman said:


> But for an altercation in the street, I think it's best to let him swing first.


Maybe, maybe not. Not all situations are the same. If someone is coming at me _obviously_ intending to harm me, or is making verbal threats while approaching me menacingly, and there is nowhere for me to flee, I will absolutely _not_ “let him swing first,” because that’s all it could take to end me. Why would I do that?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 27, 2021)

Sometimes it’s hard to turn the other cheek…..


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 27, 2021)

only fight if you can’t run. then only fight until you can run.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reformed grit (Nov 27, 2021)

Real men follow Romans 12. Paul is Reformed. I'm pretty sure.
Of course, too many real men tend to have high blood pressure, ulcers, and die young.

Sorry, OP Zack, that's probably not what you were hoping for,

ps. The real trick is living Romans 12 with joy and peace.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2021)

Ben Zartman said:


> If someone enters my house at night, I'll probably club him with a saucepan and ask questions after I'm sitting on his head--he's already showing criminal violence. But for an altercation in the street, I think it's best to let him swing first.


You are probably like most men and over-estimate your ability in a physical confrontation and are preparing to be made a victim.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> only fight if you can’t run. then only fight until you can run.


Sure, if no women and children are also involved. Otherwise you are a coward. Sometimes they cannot run even if you can. 

A righteous _man_ who falters before the wicked _Is like_ a murky spring and a polluted well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Nov 27, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Sure, if no women and children are also involved. Otherwise you are a coward. Sometimes they cannot run even if you can.
> 
> A righteous _man_ who falters before the wicked _Is like_ a murky spring and a polluted well.


MGP?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 27, 2021)

I've noticed it's natural for humans to think aggressively, defensively, and violently. That's how most people are. But by God's grace we can seek peace in gentleness and love, and try our best to deescalate any situation. Self defense is not wrong, but I think the Bible paints a different picture than the typical "tough manly Christian" mentality that is common today.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I've noticed it's natural for humans to think aggressively, defensively, and violently. That's how most people are. But by God's grace we can seek peace in gentleness and love, and try our best to deescalate any situation. Self defense is not wrong, but I think the Bible paints a different picture than the typical "tough manly Christian" mentality that is common today.


I hardly think that the error of our age is that Christians are too tough and manly.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 27, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> I hardly think that the error of our age is that Christians are too tough and manly.


I know what you mean, and I do see that as well. I was thinking of a different group of people I have experienced. But there is that group. LOL


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I know what you mean, and I do see that as well. I was thinking of a different group of people I have experienced. But there is that group. LOL


Yes..... there is a reactionary trend among some of our reformed folks. A caricature of toughness. I believe that is what made Mark Driscoll attractive. I still like much of what the guy had to say.

There is only so much some of us men can stand when soft pastors like John Piper tell us he would pray with the thief who broke into his house. Trying to pray for a man assaulting your wife is to fail to provide for your own family what they most need (safety and security) and so these men are thus worse than infidels according to Scripture, at least on this one point of non-aggression and self-defense and pacifism.

Pacifism is sin, pure and simple. Life sometimes demands action. Even pre-emptive violent action. I believe the non-aggression principle is good in general, but cannot be applied the same at all times and in all situations. There are exceptions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reformed grit (Nov 27, 2021)

The Reformers were very big on fellowship in the sufferings of Christ. Calvin comforted the Huguenots a lot on that issue. But not so much on non-violence. One mostly has to stealthily work one's way though the Anabaptists and Radical Reformers to approach strong elements of non-aggression and pacificism. 

It probably doesn't help to insist that Scotsmen were some of the absolute best mercenaries in all of recorded history.


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 27, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> There is only so much some of us men can stand when soft pastors like John Piper tell us he would pray with the thief who broke into his house. Trying to pray for a man assaulting your wife is to fail to provide for your own family what they most need (safety and security) and so these men are thus worse than infidels according to Scripture, at least on this one point of non-aggression and self-defense and pacifism.


Agreed here. Not one of JP's finer moments. I wonder how, theologically, he arrived at that strange conclusion.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 27, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Sure, if no women and children are also involved. Otherwise you are a coward. Sometimes they cannot run even if you can.
> 
> A righteous _man_ who falters before the wicked _Is like_ a murky spring and a polluted well.


Of course


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 27, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> Agreed here. Not one of JP's finer moments. I wonder how, theologically, he arrived at that strange conclusion.


It’s not the only one


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> Agreed here. Not one of JP's finer moments. I wonder how, theologically, he arrived at that strange conclusion.


Influenced by baptist tradition maybe? It is better to be persecuted than to persecute others, etc. Better to suffer violence without sin than to do violence and sin in the process. But that is a false dilemma, especially when passivity before evil is itself sin.


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 27, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Influenced by baptist tradition maybe? It is better to be persecuted than to persecute others, etc. Better to suffer violence without sin than to do violence and sin in the process. But that is a false dilemma, especially when passivity before evil is itself sin.


It's odd to me because I would think that his teaching would lend itself more to the manbro stereotype than the soyboy (sounds like a new poll in the making!). He thrives on dramatic calls to action on a wide range of subjects. You'd think he'd set apart self defense as a characteristic of biblical masculinity. I'd expect him to go off the rails maybe by saying that a women should not defend herself because femininity is yielding and compliant or some such nonsense - but for him to go where he did was a surprise to me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> It's odd to me because I would think that his teaching would lend itself more to the manbro stereotype than the soyboy (sounds like a new poll in the making!). He thrives on dramatic calls to action on a wide range of subjects. You'd think he'd set apart self defense as a characteristic of biblical masculinity. I'd expect him to go off the rails maybe by saying that a women should not defend herself because femininity is yielding and compliant or some such nonsense - but for him to go where he did was a surprise to me.


Maybe he is fascinated by the early Church martyrs who died passively in the arena. If the civil state imprisons you and feeds you to a lion in the arena or to be killed by gladiators, you don't really have a lot of options otherwise, at that point. Or, if like Dirk Willens (sp?) Catholics are chasing you across frozen ice and they fall in and start freezing/drowning, then you might be duty-bound to save them despite their persecution of you. But the Hussites armored wagons and defeated the Catholic armies in battle many times and this is the better solution as a whole I believe to protect your family and children.


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 27, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Maybe he is fascinated by the early Church martyrs who died passively in the arena. If the civil state imprisons you and feeds you to a lion in the arena or to be killed by gladiators, you don't really have a lot of options otherwise, at that point. Or, if like Dirk Willens (sp?) Catholics are chasing you across frozen ice and they fall in and start freezing/drowning, then you might be duty-bound to save them despite their persecution of you. But the Hussites armored wagons and defeated the Catholic armies in battle many times and this is the better solution as a whole I believe to protect your family and children.


They may have died willingly (not passively, I'd argue) but they didn't sit around waiting for the Romans to capture them. They ran and hid. Resisting arrest by the state wasn't normally a viable option in Roman times.

I think JP probably just didn't think much at all before posting that.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> They may have died willingly (not passively, I'd argue) but they didn't sit around waiting for the Romans to capture them. They ran and hid. Resisting arrest by the state wasn't normally a viable option in Roman times.
> 
> I think JP probably just didn't think much at all before posting that.


It is a danger inherent in his status I believe: If we become a "famous" celebrity pastor and people want us to write current articles every week, or they ask us questions on current news every week, we are bound to mess it up at least part of the time. I am thankful for him. He messes it up a lot less than I would.

But I think the format of radio, social media, and blogging gives too much air time to too few pastors and these become oracles as a whole such that everyone goes around even parroting their phraseology without much thought. We thus form a "protestant Tradition" of orthodoxy that conflicts with the historical teachings of the Church.

For instance, Paul Washer and Voddie Baucham are highly respected and yet repeat stupid things such as the church being a "Family of Families" (no, it is not...that is an error pushed by the Family-Integrated Churches). We must hate mother and father and leave family for the Gospel sometimes, and churches are made up of many singles. Nowhere in Scripture or the ancient church do we read of the Church being a Family of Families.

Trust no man totally but evaluate all things by Scripture. And so God in His wisdom gives even very smart men some stupid ideas in order to prove that all of humanity must stay humble before God and His Word.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reformed grit (Nov 27, 2021)

So, "more than twelve legions of angels" is the better way to go?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2021)

reformed grit said:


> So, "more than twelve legions of angels" is the better way to go?


Not if you were designated to die as the Saviour of the World.

If a medieval Catholic army were massing in front of your Protestant village, however, it might behoove you to evacuate the wives and chilluns and arm your menfolk. A few legions of hardy men might do if you don't have 12 legions of angels at your disposal.


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 27, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> It is a danger inherent in his status I believe: If we become a "famous" celebrity pastor and people want us to write current articles every week, or they ask us questions on current news every week, we are bound to mess it up at least part of the time. I am thankful for him. He messes it up a lot less than I would.
> 
> But I think the format of radio, social media, and blogging gives too much air time to too few pastors and these become oracles as a whole such that everyone goes around even parroting their phraseology without much thought. We thus form a "protestant Tradition" of orthodoxy that conflicts with the historical teachings of the Church.



Where old authority structures break down we create new ones. Humans can no more live without a mental hierarchy than they can subsist without food.



Pergamum said:


> For instance, Paul Washer and Voddie Baucham are highly respected and yet repeat stupid things such as the church being a "Family of Families" (no, it is not...that is an error pushed by the Family-Integrated Churches). We must hate mother and father and leave family for the Gospel sometimes, and churches are made up of many singles. Nowhere in Scripture or the ancient church do we read of the Church being a Family of Families.



If anything, the church is a family. Period. FIC idolizes a de-spiritualized concept of family. The gospel breaks down boundaries and we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. That's what makes it a blessing to all, single, married, fertile, barren, residents, newcomers, etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Nov 27, 2021)

Enjoying the "serious Reformed engagement" with accompanied manliness

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 28, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Maybe, maybe not. Not all situations are the same. If someone is coming at me _obviously_ intending to harm me, or is making verbal threats while approaching me menacingly, and there is nowhere for me to flee, I will absolutely _not_ “let him swing first,” because that’s all it could take to end me. Why would I do that?


I guess all the times I've been threatened have not been by someone who obviously had the will to actually harm, and a soft answer turned away his wrath. But in thinking about it, I agree with you that if someone pointed a gun at me, I'd disable him if I could before finding out if he meant to use it; if he had a club or machete I'd try to pre-empt: but I've been threatened enough times by unarmed, angry, insecure losers to know that they haven't the will to take the first swing, so why would I hit them first?


----------

