# Piper's Guns and Martyrdom



## martyrologist

Last week there was a little stir when John Piper posted his Guns and Martyrdom and James White replied.

I was wondering what thoughts of this group were on this. I have a feeling, from the previous threads on the issue of pacifism, that the majority would fall in line with James White. But, in my opinion, White failed to properly discredit Piper's sentiments. I have no idea of Piper has given any sort of response; doubt it, doubt he would. But I have sadly seen many flock to the proclamation that I will love my neighbors but not my enemies...in spite of Christ's command. I'm truly looking forward to your thoughts and any possible dialogue on this.


----------



## sastark

So I should quote John 3:16 to the man who breaks into my house to kill my wife and daughter?


----------



## Confessor

I think White adequately replied to Piper. As much as I like John Piper, he is being far too pacifist in his refusal to defend against, say, a man intending to rape his wife. It is far different to die in the service of the Gospel and to die because a crackhead has invaded your house. The former is noble, as its result logically can lead many to Christ (by not establishing malice with the natives) while the latter is not (since it bears no relevance to salvation and is a terrible harm).

Yes, by not killing an intruder, you are allowing him more time for salvation, but doing so would be contrary to biblical mandates to defend your family. Additionally, as White pointed out, the "do not resist evil" passage is in reference to humiliation, not imminent physical harm.

Also, to keep in line with the rest...


----------



## martyrologist

Thanks Seth.

So I should quote John 3:16 to the man who breaks into my house to kill my wife and daughter?

Piper never said that, though; or anything similar. Nor have I come across any pacifists who would advise that. Have you? 

I take it by the thumbs down you would be against Piper's post.


----------



## sastark

martyrologist said:


> Thanks Seth.
> 
> So I should quote John 3:16 to the man who breaks into my house to kill my wife and daughter?
> 
> Piper never said that, though; or anything similar. Nor have I come across any pacifists who would advise that. Have you?
> 
> I take it by the thumbs down you would be against Piper's post.



Should I revise my post to say "So I should shoot my pistol into the air as the man kills my wife and daughter?" - either one (John 3:16 or a shot in the air) has the same effect: a dead wife and daughter.

My thumbs down was meant to reinforce my disagreement with Piper's post.

I second Joshua's post: it is a violation of the sixth commandment to allow my neighbor (in this case my family) to be murdered while I stand idly by. 

Funny thing is, Piper says "I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun." but that was exactly what I was intending to do with my stimulus check!

H&P USP Compact 9mm


----------



## mshingler

"If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account." (Ex. 22:2 NASB)


----------



## TaylorOtwell

So, for clarification...

Would it have been right for those missionaries Dr. Piper mentioned to shoot the people who were trying to kill them? Why or why not? 

I mention this because I hear that we are responsible to defend ourselves and those with us, yet it is generally agreed upon that missionaries should not start killing those who are persecuting them. I'm trying to separate between when the act of defense is justified and when it is not.


----------



## panta dokimazete

As much as I love John Piper - I agree with JW. Don't threaten my family or my home or you will become dead, indeed.


----------



## martyrologist

Thanks Mike.

"If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account." (Ex. 22:2 NASB)

Do we not, though, have the example of Christ to follow? So often we see Old Testament verses given as refutation of the idea of loving your enemy and/or using nonviolent resistance. What I'm saying is that I would have thought Christians would posit the teachings and examples of Christ's life and death for their argumentation and reasoning.

I'm not trying to cop out or play the OT vs. NT game. I just thought followers of Christ would seek the imitation of Christ first. Plus, I do not believe the OT is prescriptive (but descriptive).


----------



## Ivan

panta dokimazete said:


> As much as I love John Piper - I agree with JW. Don't threaten my family or my home or you will become dead, indeed.



I agree. I'm a very peaceful man. Nary a violent bone in me, but you threaten my family...well...I change.


----------



## martyrologist

Ivan said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I love John Piper - I agree with JW. Don't threaten my family or my home or you will become dead, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I'm a very peaceful man. Nary a violent bone in me, but you threaten my family...well...I change.
Click to expand...


Thanks Ivan.

So then you would say being peaceful is not a necessary aspect of being a follower of Christ (Christian)? Thanks


----------



## Confessor

martyrologist said:


> Thanks Mike.
> 
> "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account." (Ex. 22:2 NASB)
> 
> Do we not, though, have the example of Christ to follow? So often we see Old Testament verses given as refutation of the idea of loving your enemy and/or using nonviolent resistance. What I'm saying is that I would have thought Christians would posit the teachings and examples of Christ's life and death for their argumentation and reasoning.
> 
> I'm not trying to cop out or play the OT vs. NT game. I just thought followers of Christ would seek the imitation of Christ first. Plus, I do not believe the OT is prescriptive (but descriptive).



I believe that we are always to choose the greater good. Since Jesus knew that through his passion and crucifixion, all of the elect would be saved, he had a nobler goal in mind. If we allow harm to befall us at the hands of an intruder, it is not towards any kind of salvific goal.


----------



## martyrologist

joshua said:


> I would say that pacifism when someone is trying to kill, rape, or hurt your family is not _peaceful_ at all.



Thanks Josh.

I can understand what you're saying. But, wouldn't that place the command of Christ to love our enemies and to pray for our persecutors (pretty sure he didn't mean "As you pull the trigger") into a category of Not Necessary? Thanks


----------



## sastark

joshua said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martyrologist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Seth.
> 
> So I should quote John 3:16 to the man who breaks into my house to kill my wife and daughter?
> 
> Piper never said that, though; or anything similar. Nor have I come across any pacifists who would advise that. Have you?
> 
> I take it by the thumbs down you would be against Piper's post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I revise my post to say "So I should shoot my pistol into the air as the man kills my wife and daughter?" - either one (John 3:16 or a shot in the air) has the same effect: a dead wife and daughter.
> 
> My thumbs down was meant to reinforce my disagreement with Piper's post.
> 
> I second Joshua's post: it is a violation of the sixth commandment to allow my neighbor (in this case my family) to be murdered while I stand idly by.
> 
> Funny thing is, Piper says "I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun." but that was exactly what I was intending to do with my stimulus check!
> 
> H&P USP Compact 9mm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seth, have you made your purchase yet? I would go with at least a .40 or .45. 9mm ammo is cheaper, but it's not enough punch, In my humble opinion if, in a hurry, you don't hit _exactly_ the right spot.
Click to expand...


Not to hi-jack the thread, but to treply to this:

I already own a 9mm hand gun (Beretta 92S), so I wanted to stay consistent with the caliber. But, I am open to advice, and I appreciate this, Josh. No, I have not made my purchase yet (haven't received my check yet, either). There is a gun range here in town that let's you "rent" handguns so you can get a feel for them before making a purchase. I plan on doing this with a few different brands (Springfield XD, H&K USP Compact, etc) and calibers (9mm, .45, .40, etc) before making my final decision.

While I've heard that the .45 ACP and .40 S&W have more stopping power than a 9mm, I've also read a few sites that disagree with that assertion. Some say that it doesn't matter what caliber you use - if you don't hit the brain or the spine, it won't stop an assailant anyway.

And, Josh, if you'd like to start a new thread on this so we don't get too far off topic from the OP, please feel free. I've been meaning to for a while, but haven't gotten around to doing so.


----------



## Theoretical

martyrologist said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that pacifism when someone is trying to kill, rape, or hurt your family is not _peaceful_ at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Josh.
> 
> I can understand what you're saying. But, wouldn't that place the command of Christ to love our enemies and to pray for our persecutors (pretty sure he didn't mean "As you pull the trigger") into a category of Not Necessary? Thanks
Click to expand...

Isn't there a moral difference between those who religiously persecute and random bandits who could not care any less about your religious beliefs or the color of your skin or the accent you have - they just want to steal, rape, and murder as they see fit.

Neo-Nazis graffiti-ing synagogues with swastikas or various groups systematically burning churches because they are churches is extremely different morally than a local bandit wanting your TV and computer while robbing you at gunpoint.


----------



## martyrologist

packabacka said:


> I believe that we are always to choose the greater good. Since Jesus knew that through his passion and crucifixion, all of the elect would be saved, he had a nobler goal in mind. If we allow harm to befall us at the hands of an intruder, it is not towards any kind of salvific goal.



Thanks packabacka.

I wouldn't limit Christ's example we are to follow so narrowly as that (toward a salvific goal); I believe he gave us the example for all aspects of life at all times. But, maybe more importantly in this specific instance, you seem to present the idea that you know what is going to happen when an intruder enters your home. Do you know you or a family member will be killed...or even hurt?


----------



## martyrologist

joshua said:


> Are you equating self-defense and upholding the 6th Commandment with hatred?



Only if that self-defense and the manner in which the 6th commandment is upheld happens to be by use of force, i.e. violent, lethal, harmful. I would consider that hatred.


----------



## Theoretical

martyrologist said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that we are always to choose the greater good. Since Jesus knew that through his passion and crucifixion, all of the elect would be saved, he had a nobler goal in mind. If we allow harm to befall us at the hands of an intruder, it is not towards any kind of salvific goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks packabacka.
> 
> I wouldn't limit Christ's example we are to follow so narrowly as that (toward a salvific goal); I believe he gave us the example for all aspects of life at all times. But, maybe more importantly in this specific instance, you seem to present the idea that you know what is going to happen when an intruder enters your home. Do you know you or a family member will be killed...or even hurt?
Click to expand...

People didn't persecute Christ for the the sake of beating up on some random carpenter and His friends - He was persecuted because He claimed to be Yahweh.


----------



## Dwimble

martyrologist said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that pacifism when someone is trying to kill, rape, or hurt your family is not _peaceful_ at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Josh.
> 
> I can understand what you're saying. But, wouldn't that place the command of Christ to love our enemies and to pray for our persecutors (pretty sure he didn't mean "As you pull the trigger") into a category of Not Necessary? Thanks
Click to expand...


So then, should the stricture to "love your enemies" take precedence over the command to "love your wife even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her?" We must take the scriptures as a whole. We can't merely lift one or two statements out of them (I'm not accusing you of doing that) and then build an extremist philosophy of total pacifism, in a "what would Jesus do" sort of manner, as if it is a given that Jesus would never use physical force in any circumstance.

Even our Lord himself whipped the moneychangers out of the temple.


----------



## martyrologist

Theoretical said:


> Isn't there a moral difference between those who religiously persecute and random bandits who could not care any less about your religious beliefs or the color of your skin or the accent you have - they just want to steal, rape, and murder as they see fit.
> 
> Neo-Nazis graffiti-ing synagogues with swastikas or various groups systematically burning churches because they are churches is extremely different morally than a local bandit wanting your TV and computer while robbing you at gunpoint.



A very, very good point. Where is the line drawn? My question would be who has drawn the line? Who makes the decision that it's OK to kill these as they mere bandits? Who decides they don't get another chance to be disciples of Christ?


----------



## Confessor

martyrologist said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that we are always to choose the greater good. Since Jesus knew that through his passion and crucifixion, all of the elect would be saved, he had a nobler goal in mind. If we allow harm to befall us at the hands of an intruder, it is not towards any kind of salvific goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks packabacka.
> 
> I wouldn't limit Christ's example we are to follow so narrowly as that (toward a salvific goal); I believe he gave us the example for all aspects of life at all times. But, maybe more importantly in this specific instance, you seem to present the idea that you know what is going to happen when an intruder enters your home. Do you know you or a family member will be killed...or even hurt?
Click to expand...


Well, if I see someone else with a gun, then there is an immediate and present danger, and I would not allow that without resistance. I do not _know_ that I am about to be attacked, but it is likely.

You're right about not limiting pacifism to salvific goals, but I still think that we are only to accept suffering if a greater goal is involved, most often of which is a salvific goal. As Theoretical said above, there is a moral difference between general criminals and religious persecutors. In the former instance I would most definitely react (since there really isn't a noble attitude regarding nonviolence in that case), but in the latter I would not react, in order to not incite malice towards Christianity and to help display the humility of Christ.


----------



## Theoretical

martyrologist said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that we are always to choose the greater good. Since Jesus knew that through his passion and crucifixion, all of the elect would be saved, he had a nobler goal in mind. If we allow harm to befall us at the hands of an intruder, it is not towards any kind of salvific goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks packabacka.
> 
> I wouldn't limit Christ's example we are to follow so narrowly as that (toward a salvific goal); I believe he gave us the example for all aspects of life at all times. But, maybe more importantly in this specific instance, you seem to present the idea that you know what is going to happen when an intruder enters your home. Do you know you or a family member will be killed...or even hurt?
Click to expand...

Also, why would Christ command His disciples to buy swords in Luke 22:36-38? 

No one buys a sword to serve a "utility" purpose outside of violence to defend oneself or attack another. Knives have additional uses outside of violence, but swords are utterly impractical for anything besides killing and hanging on a wall.



> 36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take _it,_ and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: _ ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’_[d] For the things concerning Me have an end.”
> 38 So they said, “Lord, look, here _are_ two swords.”
> And He said to them, “It is enough.”


 (NKJV)


----------



## Confessor

martyrologist said:


> Theoretical said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a moral difference between those who religiously persecute and random bandits who could not care any less about your religious beliefs or the color of your skin or the accent you have - they just want to steal, rape, and murder as they see fit.
> 
> Neo-Nazis graffiti-ing synagogues with swastikas or various groups systematically burning churches because they are churches is extremely different morally than a local bandit wanting your TV and computer while robbing you at gunpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very, very good point. Where is the line drawn? My question would be who has drawn the line? Who makes the decision that it's OK to kill these as they mere bandits? Who decides they don't get another chance to be disciples of Christ?
Click to expand...


If others threaten a loved one of mine, then they are susceptible to justice. They have put themselves in that situation, and for that reason they have decided to not get another chance to be disciples of Christ.


----------



## Ivan

joshua said:


> martyrologist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I'm a very peaceful man. Nary a violent bone in me, but you threaten my family...well...I change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Ivan.
> 
> So then you would say being peaceful is not a necessary aspect of being a follower of Christ (Christian)? Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say that pacifism when someone is trying to kill, rape, or hurt your family is not _peaceful_ at all.
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## martyrologist

Dwimble said:


> martyrologist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, should the stricture to "love your enemies" take precedence over the command to "love your wife even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her?" We must take the scriptures as a whole. We can't merely lift one or two statements out of them (I'm not accusing you of doing that) and then build an extremist philosophy of total pacifism, in a "what would Jesus do" sort of manner, as if it is a given that Jesus would never use physical force in any circumstance.
> 
> Even our Lord himself whipped the moneychangers out of the temple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, and thank you for the reply by the way, Christ gave himself for the church by dying for her, not by killing people. So, that example is quite a stark one.
> 
> You then mentioned the moneychangers in the temple incident. But, do you consider that violent? Do you consider that force? I just looked at the accounts again: Mt. xxi, Jo. ii, and Mk. xi. I cannot find where he hit or hurt anyone. I see in John's account that he whipped the animals, but all he did to the people was turn over their tables and toss their coins on the floor. There's nothing violent or even remotely potentially lethal in there.
Click to expand...


----------



## martyrologist

packabacka said:


> If others threaten a loved one of mine, then they are susceptible to justice. They have put themselves in that situation, and for that reason they have decided to not get another chance to be disciples of Christ.



Should that not be the Lord's prerogative? In fact, isn't it? Vengeance is the Lord's, not ours. I would think especially if we do not know who the elect are.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

So, what is the different from stopping someone from violating the 6th commandment in Peru when your trying to spread the Gospel (perhaps with your family), and stopping someone from violating it in your home? Both cases are self-defense. Many people even have their family with them on the mission field, is it o.k. to start killing people then? I don't have my mind made up either way, I'm just trying to understand this better...

Also, for Piper's sake, he never mentioned "rape", "murder", "kill", "crackhead", "meth", etc. one time in the entire article. 



joshua said:


> martyrologist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you equating self-defense and upholding the 6th Commandment with hatred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if that self-defense and the manner in which the 6th commandment is upheld happens to be by use of force, i.e. violent, lethal, harmful. I would consider that hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that's ridiculous. Part of upholding the 6th Commandment is stopping others from violating it when it's in your power to do so.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dwimble

martyrologist said:


> Dwimble said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, should the stricture to "love your enemies" take precedence over the command to "love your wife even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her?" We must take the scriptures as a whole. We can't merely lift one or two statements out of them (I'm not accusing you of doing that) and then build an extremist philosophy of total pacifism, in a "what would Jesus do" sort of manner, as if it is a given that Jesus would never use physical force in any circumstance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Christ gave himself for the church by dying for her, not by killing people. So, that example is quite a stark one.
Click to expand...

Once again...are you to place the love of your enemies OVER the love of and responsibility for your wife? I submit to you, that if you allow your enemy to harm or kill your wife when it is within your power to prevent that, then you are guilty of neither loving your wife NOR your enemy, but of loving your philosophy of pacifism above both.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

martyrologist said:


> Thanks Mike.
> 
> "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account." (Ex. 22:2 NASB)
> 
> Do we not, though, have the example of Christ to follow? So often we see Old Testament verses given as refutation of the idea of loving your enemy and/or using nonviolent resistance. What I'm saying is that I would have thought Christians would posit the teachings and examples of Christ's life and death for their argumentation and reasoning.
> 
> I'm not trying to cop out or play the OT vs. NT game. I just thought followers of Christ would seek the imitation of Christ first. Plus, I do not believe the OT is prescriptive (but descriptive).



I agree, so let's fashion bull whips and beat the tar out of people who are harming others by their wickedness (John 2:15).

A man who does not defend the weak against the wicked is worse than a pagan who at least, by the light of nature, know that wickedness must be supressed and that our "testimony" is not being foolish and allowing a man to plunder our house. The 6th Commandment not only forbids the taking of life but also requires the protection of it.


----------



## Christusregnat

Eddie,

If I may say so in all respect, the sentiment below is _the_ basic issue in this thread. When you state that "I do not believe the OT is prescriptive (but descriptive)" this reflects a certain way of thinking. 

The way of thinking is called anti-nomianism, and is, in my estimation, one of the most deadly errors, as related to Christ's teaching on civil law and sanctification. When we set up the Sermon on the Mount against the Law of Moses, we are doing _exactly what Christ forbad us to do_:

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


When you state that the OT is not prescriptive you are "breaking one of the least commandments", and are "teaching men to do so".

If we set the commands of Christ against the OT, then we are setting inspiration against inspiration. God against God. This is a dangerous error, and I would urge you to reconsider this fundamental point. It is not that you formally reject the inspiration of the OT, but this assertion has the same effect.

When Christ says to love your enemies, and then tells the magistrate to cut someone's head off, or frees a man from bloodguiltiness in cases of self defense, is He speaking contrarily to Himself? Recall, it was the Spirit of Christ that spoke through ALL of the prophets, Moses, David and Elijah included. Moses was Christ's mouthpiece, and therefore Christ the one who instituted "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burning for burning" etc. This is one of the most just laws ever created. If we think that the Sermon on the Mount was intended to set this or any other Law aside, we have misunderstood Christ and must re-read.

Cheers,

Adam





martyrologist said:


> I'm not trying to cop out or play the OT vs. NT game. I just thought followers of Christ would seek the imitation of Christ first. Plus, I do not believe the OT is prescriptive (but descriptive).


----------



## Davidius

When Peter drew his sword to keep Jesus from being murdered, Jesus told him to put it up. We also have the teachings that we are to let others strike us, steal from us, etc. without retaliation. There isn't a context of missionary activity in those passages. I'm interested to know what people think of that.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

I tend to agree with you. However, it's tough as many are raised with the idea that self-defense is never ok, and I'm trying to sort through the fog. Also, I have recently moved into my own place and hope to start a family someday; therefore, I have considered purchasing a weapon. 



joshua said:


> TaylorOtwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is the different from stopping someone from violating the 6th commandment in Peru when your trying to spread the Gospel (perhaps with your family), and stopping someone from violating it in your home?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, allow me to be real honest. I don't know of all the things involved in every case, as I'm sure every case is different. However, regardless of where I am, if someone breaks into my home, and they're going after my family, I will defend my family, missionary or not.
Click to expand...


----------



## danmpem

I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.


----------



## Confessor

Davidius said:


> When Peter drew his sword to keep Jesus from being murdered, Jesus told him to put it up. We also have the teachings that we are to let others strike us, steal from us, etc. without retaliation. There isn't a context of missionary activity in those passages. I'm interested to know what people think of that.



In that context, Jesus is dying to save the elect, which is even greater than missionary work.

Also, to what passages about allowing others to strike us and steal from us are you referring? If that is the "do not resist evil" passage, then please remember that Christ is referring to humiliation and not mortal harm.


----------



## martyrologist

joshua said:


> Well, that's ridiculous. Part of upholding the 6th Commandment is stopping others from violating it when it's in your power to do so.



Well, I don't think it's the ridiculous at all 

Two questions...(1) how do you know a certain outcome will occur? e.g. an intruder enters your home...therefore you or a family member will be killed.
(2) Is a violent even lethal action the only way to stop a person from killing someone?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Davidius said:


> When Peter drew his sword to keep Jesus from being murdered, Jesus told him to put it up. We also have the teachings that we are to let others strike us, steal from us, etc. without retaliation. There isn't a context of missionary activity in those passages. I'm interested to know what people think of that.



Contextually, I don't think that is an accurate summary of Christ's commandments.

First, Christ wasn't being murdered, he was being arrested at the time. There's also the issue of the nature of His Messiahship where He had come to suffer for sin and not lead a coup against the earthly powers.

Next, the passages regarding being struck have to do with going out of our way to defend our name. We are to be willing to be reproached as opposed to going for the jugular of another when they reproach us.

Third, we are not commanded to allow others to steal from us. We're commanded to give liberally to others when they _ask_ of something from us.

I would just note that I find it very strange that people would think that pacificism is the nature of the Gospel given its apparent penetration to military people among the Gentiles.


----------



## martyrologist

Dwimble said:


> martyrologist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dwimble said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, should the stricture to "love your enemies" take precedence over the command to "love your wife even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her?" We must take the scriptures as a whole. We can't merely lift one or two statements out of them (I'm not accusing you of doing that) and then build an extremist philosophy of total pacifism, in a "what would Jesus do" sort of manner, as if it is a given that Jesus would never use physical force in any circumstance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Christ gave himself for the church by dying for her, not by killing people. So, that example is quite a stark one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again...are you to place the love of your enemies OVER the love of and responsibility for your wife? I submit to you, that if you allow your enemy to harm or kill your wife when it is within your power to prevent that, then you are guilty of neither loving your wife NOR your enemy, but of loving your philosophy of pacifism above both.
Click to expand...


That would be quite the charge. I don't put the love of either over the other. The way I love my wife and kids is different than how I love my neighbor and my enemy. 

I would offer you this...which is apparently a radical, crazy idea...there are ways and means of preventing a person from killing or doing harm which do not involve my killing or doing harm. Killing, violence, is not an acceptable option in the eyes of Christ.


----------



## SolaGratia

Speaking of swords (guns) it got me thinking how John Piper uses the ESV and James White carries the NASB. 

This can turn to a ESV vs. NASB battle.


----------



## Confessor

martyrologist said:


> I would offer you this...which is apparently a radical, crazy idea...there are ways and means of preventing a person from killing or doing harm which do not involve my killing or doing harm. Killing, violence, is not an acceptable option in the eyes of Christ.



What nonviolent option would there be for a rapist who has stolen your wife from you?

My point is not that we should choose violence as our first choice in any endeavors with evildoers, but rather that it is _not a non-option._


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Eddie,

Honestly, your view of what Christianity is borders on some sort of strange Gnostic fatalism that is divorced from the things revealed. It is certainly not Reformed.

I will warn you that I have absolutely no patience for pacifists. I consider the very notion to be inherently wicked. It's the same kind of faith-denial that a man who would not provide for his family manifests.

Throughout the Scriptures, leaders are reproved for not granting justice or protecting the weak. God doesn't permit us to have a "pie in the sky" attitude to break into song like Pollyanna and hope that the whole town full of mean people will suddenly see that being nice is the way to go.

Christians who do not protect their own family and, by extension, believe that pagans should have to carry all the water when it comes to protecting society, do not know the spirit they are of.

This isn't about arming ourselves to the teeth so we can relish shooting people that dare to approach us but goes to the basics of whether or not men are commanded to guard against evil. Your reasoning might as well extend to spiritual peril as well. Why not just trust God that everything will work out and we can allow heretics in our pulpit and hope that God will just reveal that they're wrong and they'll suddenly start teaching truth.

No. Wisdom understands that wickedness does not self-suppress and God does not promise the immediate suppression of all wickedness against us. He commands, regularly, throughout His Word that men protect. The hidden things belong to God and the revealed things belong to us and our children (Deut 29:29). You want to avoid the revealed things of God about how He commands our protection of the weak on the one hand and live according to the hidden things. This is disobedient.

I don't like pacifists. Period. I think they're inherently selfish and people like the Anabaptists don't deserve the protections that a peaceful society provides them by the grace of a ministerial sword from God that they abhor and call wicked.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Here is a good explanation:

*Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?*
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves721 and others722 by resisting all thoughts and purposes,723 subduing all passions,724 and avoiding all occasions,725 temptations,726 and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;727 by just defence thereof against violence,728 patient bearing of the hand of God,729 quietness of mind,730 cheerfulness of spirit;731 a sober use of meat,732 drink,733 physic,734 sleep,735 labour,736 and recreations;737 by charitable thoughts,738 love,739 compassion,740 meekness, gentleness, kindness;741 peaceable,742 mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;743 forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;744 comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.745 

*Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?*
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,746 or of others,747 except in case of public justice,748 lawful war,749 or necessary defence;750 the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;751 sinful anger,752 hatred,753 envy,754 desire of revenge;755 all excessive passions,756 distracting cares;757 immoderate use of meat, drink,758 labor,759 and recreations;760 provoking words,761 oppression,762 quarreling,763 striking, wounding,764 and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.765


----------



## nicnap

martyrologist said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that pacifism when someone is trying to kill, rape, or hurt your family is not _peaceful_ at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Josh.
> 
> I can understand what you're saying. But, wouldn't that place the command of Christ to love our enemies and to pray for our persecutors (pretty sure he didn't mean "As you pull the trigger") into a category of Not Necessary? Thanks
Click to expand...


Brother...so when Christ wove together a whip and drove money changers out of the temple for the evil they did, he did it prancing around and passing out flowers and speaking peace? I don't think I would have liked to be at the receiving of that whip...for some reason, even if it was peacful, it may have stung. Don't get me wrong, I am as peaceful as you assume you'd be, but there is a place for defending yourself.

I will now finish reading the rest of this thread.


----------



## larryjf

joshua said:


> Well, that's ridiculous. Part of upholding the 6th Commandment is stopping others from violating it when it's in your power to do so.



This is really the crux of the matter in my opinion. So the question that i have is, is it biblically in our power to do so?

I understand that the law of the land in the U.S. gives us the right to have arms. But then again, it also gives doctors the right to kill unborn babies.

What does the Scripture say about the power to take life?

Rom 13:4 tells us that our rulers bear the sword. If the power of death is extended past the government and is put into the hand of the Church and individuals should we also start killing adulterers?

Here's a question...
If we are to stop others from violating the commandment against murder when it's in our power, why don't we stop the doctors from killing unborn babies?

I say this as a gun-carrying Christian. I have just always wrestled with the spiritual implications.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Larry,

I believe the WLC does a good job of distinguishing above. I think the Law is wise to consider it murder if a man is killed in your home in the daylight as a basic principle that there would be help nearby and the peril is not as dire. The basic principle of the Scriptures is that the sword belongs to the State but the State cannot always be locally present to protect life. A man who is guarding his home is upholding the 6th Commandment within the confines of his home to protect his household from harm. If the criminal flees and is shot in the back in vengeance then a man is no longer acting in self-defense but violating the Law of God.

We ought to properly distinguish between self-defense and the administration of justice for a crime. We're not the State but we are commanded by God to protect life within our homes.


----------



## etexas

danmpem said:


> I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.


I agree with Dan. In defense of Piper, I would like to give some "benefit of the doubt" it is indeed short and since he did not qualify or expand, I think (and hope) that he was being general and not dealing with any and all specifics. Even a very good Pastor can phrase things poorly, and perhaps this is such a case. Grace and Peace In Our Lord's Name.


----------



## larryjf

Semper Fidelis said:


> Larry,
> 
> I believe the WLC does a good job of distinguishing above. I think the Law is wise to consider it murder if a man is killed in your home in the daylight as a basic principle that there would be help nearby and the peril is not as dire. The basic principle of the Scriptures is that the sword belongs to the State but the State cannot always be locally present to protect life. A man who is guarding his home is upholding the 6th Commandment within the confines of his home to protect his household from harm. If the criminal flees and is shot in the back in vengeance then a man is no longer acting in self-defense but violating the Law of God.
> 
> We ought to properly distinguish between self-defense and the administration of justice for a crime. We're not the State but we are commanded by God to protect life within our homes.


So we are only to protect lives within our homes?
Seems like an arbitrary line to draw. After all, the unborn infants who are being slaughtered certainly can't defend themselves, and the government approves of their murder.

What if the unborn infant was part of your household, would it be ok to kill the doctor to preserve the baby's life then?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

larryjf said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Larry,
> 
> I believe the WLC does a good job of distinguishing above. I think the Law is wise to consider it murder if a man is killed in your home in the daylight as a basic principle that there would be help nearby and the peril is not as dire. The basic principle of the Scriptures is that the sword belongs to the State but the State cannot always be locally present to protect life. A man who is guarding his home is upholding the 6th Commandment within the confines of his home to protect his household from harm. If the criminal flees and is shot in the back in vengeance then a man is no longer acting in self-defense but violating the Law of God.
> 
> We ought to properly distinguish between self-defense and the administration of justice for a crime. We're not the State but we are commanded by God to protect life within our homes.
> 
> 
> 
> So we are only to protect lives within our homes?
> Seems like an arbitrary line to draw. After all, the unborn infants who are being slaughtered certainly can't defend themselves, and the government approves of their murder.
> 
> What if the unborn infant was part of your household, would it be ok to kill the doctor to preserve the baby's life then?
Click to expand...


If you're calling God's Word arbitrary then I cannot help you Larry. I believe the Scriptures are plain that we don't have the right as individuals to be vigilantes.

The blood of unborn children is fundamentally on the hands of doctors that commit an abortion and on a State that sanctions it.

If a doctor was to try to kill my unborn child then I would not hesitate to use deadly force to stop him but that's in my household. I don't have the right before God to walk up to an abortionist and shoot him. I am not given that authority.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

sastark said:


> martyrologist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Seth.
> 
> So I should quote John 3:16 to the man who breaks into my house to kill my wife and daughter?
> 
> Piper never said that, though; or anything similar. Nor have I come across any pacifists who would advise that. Have you?
> 
> I take it by the thumbs down you would be against Piper's post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I revise my post to say "So I should shoot my pistol into the air as the man kills my wife and daughter?" - either one (John 3:16 or a shot in the air) has the same effect: a dead wife and daughter.
> 
> My thumbs down was meant to reinforce my disagreement with Piper's post.
> 
> I second Joshua's post: it is a violation of the sixth commandment to allow my neighbor (in this case my family) to be murdered while I stand idly by.
> 
> Funny thing is, Piper says "I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun." but that was exactly what I was intending to do with my stimulus check!
> 
> H&P USP Compact 9mm
Click to expand...


I have this exact weapon and I highly recommend it. Good choice brother. BTW, I disagree with Piper on this one.


----------



## larryjf

Semper Fidelis said:


> If you're calling God's Word arbitrary then I cannot help you Larry. I believe the Scriptures are plain that we don't have the right as individuals to be vigilantes.
> 
> The blood of unborn children is fundamentally on the hands of doctors that commit an abortion and on a State that sanctions it.
> 
> If a doctor was to try to kill my unborn child then I would not hesitate to use deadly force to stop him but that's in my household. I don't have the right before God to walk up to an abortionist and shoot him. I am not given that authority.



When did i call God's Word arbitrary? Are you equating the post that you made with God's Word? I simply stated that the line YOU drew was arbitrary, you didn't reference any Scripture. I certainly would not call God's Word arbitrary.

I don't agree that we are only responsible for the welfare of those within our house. If we were, then what would the love of our neighbor mean in regards to preserving his life?

Regarding your last statement, I didn't say it was "your unborn child" but rather an unborn child in your household.

Presumably you could defend a grandchild who lived with you. Would you be able to defend an unborn grandchild even if your 15 year old daughter wanted to kill him?
Of course this is a hypothetical, not in any way actually speaking of you and your family, but it brings some important issues to the forefront.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

martyrologist said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that we are always to choose the greater good. Since Jesus knew that through his passion and crucifixion, all of the elect would be saved, he had a nobler goal in mind. If we allow harm to befall us at the hands of an intruder, it is not towards any kind of salvific goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks packabacka.
> 
> I wouldn't limit Christ's example we are to follow so narrowly as that (toward a salvific goal); I believe he gave us the example for all aspects of life at all times. But, maybe more importantly in this specific instance, you seem to present the idea that you know what is going to happen when an intruder enters your home. Do you know you or a family member will be killed...or even hurt?
Click to expand...



Have you taken everything you own and given it to the poor as Jesus counseled the Rich Young Ruler?


----------



## mshingler

martyrologist said:


> Thanks Mike.
> 
> "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account." (Ex. 22:2 NASB)
> 
> Do we not, though, have the example of Christ to follow? So often we see Old Testament verses given as refutation of the idea of loving your enemy and/or using nonviolent resistance. What I'm saying is that I would have thought Christians would posit the teachings and examples of Christ's life and death for their argumentation and reasoning.
> 
> I'm not trying to cop out or play the OT vs. NT game. I just thought followers of Christ would seek the imitation of Christ first. Plus, I do not believe the OT is prescriptive (but descriptive).



First, I don't agree with the blanket statement that the Old Testament is descriptive and not prescriptive. I also don't see Christ teaching anything contrary to the OT. If this law/principle (Ex. 22:2) was valid in the Old Testament as a principle of overall justice, it remains valid today, though the context in which we apply it may be different. The point in this passage is not that the person is to seek vengeance on the thief. That is clear in the very next verse. Rather, that if a thief is killed in the act of "breaking in", then his blood is on his own head. There is also not a prescription here that requires that the thief be killed, if he is caught in the act, but, rather, a principle that a man is right to defend his own home and should not be charged with murder in this instance. It seems to me that this certainly carries implications for our law system today. 
What Jesus taught about "turning the other cheek", etc., had more to do with personal vengeance than the situation here. I think if you really follow this reasoning through to its logical conclusion, then there is never a reason to fight in a war or for the govt. to impose capital punishment. 
The general rule that I keep in mind, for my house, is this: If someone is trying to steal my stuff, and there is no immediate threat to my family, then I will try to call the police, but I will not take a person's life over material things. However, if the life or safety of my family is at stake, that is another story.


----------



## Christusregnat

martyrologist said:


> I would offer you this...which is apparently a radical, crazy idea...there are ways and means of preventing a person from killing or doing harm which do not involve my killing or doing harm. Killing, violence, is not an acceptable option in the eyes of Christ.



Eddie,

Did Christ ever speak in the Old Testament? If so, what did He say? In the OT, did Christ ever tell anyone to perform any acts of violence, or to kill anyone?

Come to think of it, is the God of the OT the same as the God in the NT? Is God evolving? I'm seriously interested in what the source of some of your ideas are.

Cheers,


----------



## mshingler

danmpem said:


> I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.



I felt the same way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

larryjf said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're calling God's Word arbitrary then I cannot help you Larry. I believe the Scriptures are plain that we don't have the right as individuals to be vigilantes.
> 
> The blood of unborn children is fundamentally on the hands of doctors that commit an abortion and on a State that sanctions it.
> 
> If a doctor was to try to kill my unborn child then I would not hesitate to use deadly force to stop him but that's in my household. I don't have the right before God to walk up to an abortionist and shoot him. I am not given that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did i call God's Word arbitrary? Are you equating the post that you made with God's Word? I simply stated that the line YOU drew was arbitrary, you didn't reference any Scripture. I certainly would not call God's Word arbitrary.
> 
> I don't agree that we are only responsible for the welfare of those within our house. If we were, then what would the love of our neighbor mean in regards to preserving his life?
> 
> Regarding your last statement, I didn't say it was "your unborn child" but rather an unborn child in your household.
> 
> Presumably you could defend a grandchild who lived with you. Would you be able to defend an unborn grandchild even if your 15 year old daughter wanted to kill him?
> Of course this is a hypothetical, not in any way actually speaking of you and your family, but it brings some important issues to the forefront.
Click to expand...


Do I have to quote chapter and verse to demonstrate the point that men are permitted self-defense and defense of others and not vengeance? The OT is so full of principles governing it that I presumed I could mention a principle that would be understood by another man familiar with the Scriptures as well.

Yes, I would protect anyone in my vicinity that could not protect themselves. I think we are required to protect our neighbors as well but the use of deadly force is governed strictly by the Scriptures and we need to understand when we are assuming the role of the State. Not every case of defense requires the use of a deadly weapon and I don't think we need to be walking around town with 6-shoters in our belts ready to protect, with deadly force, whoever crosses our path.

I also can't walk up to an Abortionist and shoot him on the street. That's assuming the role of the State.


----------



## Dwimble

Semper Fidelis said:


> ...The basic principle of the Scriptures is that the sword belongs to the State but the State cannot always be locally present to protect life. A man who is guarding his home is upholding the 6th Commandment within the confines of his home to protect his household from harm. If the criminal flees and is shot in the back in vengeance then a man is no longer acting in self-defense but violating the Law of God.
> 
> We ought to properly distinguish between self-defense and the administration of justice for a crime. We're not the State but we are commanded by God to protect life within our homes.


Here, here. The extremist, pacifists' view always seems to me to ignore the broader context of scripture in favor of a couple of specific passages, which are then used in any number of strawman arguments to gird up their over-arching philosophy of "non-violence"...usually utilizing the disgusting tactic of implying that anyone who holds to a different view is a violent hatemonger, and therefore doesn't love as perfectly as _they_ do.

The truly aggravating thing, however, is their responses often remind me of what it is like when you try to talk to an apathetic teenager. Just as there can be no debate with: "So?" "So what?" "Oh well" "Who cares?" and so on, there can be no debate with someone who merely continually quotes simplistic platitudes, like: "Peace, peace," "Force is never the way," "There is always a non-violent solution," "Jesus wants us to _love_ everyone" (clearly presupposing that any show of force is _always_ hatred and therefore you are guilty of not "loving"), etc.

I find it all very strange...and rather squishy.


----------



## mshingler

larryjf said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're calling God's Word arbitrary then I cannot help you Larry. I believe the Scriptures are plain that we don't have the right as individuals to be vigilantes.
> 
> The blood of unborn children is fundamentally on the hands of doctors that commit an abortion and on a State that sanctions it.
> 
> If a doctor was to try to kill my unborn child then I would not hesitate to use deadly force to stop him but that's in my household. I don't have the right before God to walk up to an abortionist and shoot him. I am not given that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did i call God's Word arbitrary? Are you equating the post that you made with God's Word? I simply stated that the line YOU drew was arbitrary, you didn't reference any Scripture. I certainly would not call God's Word arbitrary.
> 
> I don't agree that we are only responsible for the welfare of those within our house. If we were, then what would the love of our neighbor mean in regards to preserving his life?
> 
> Regarding your last statement, I didn't say it was "your unborn child" but rather an unborn child in your household.
> 
> Presumably you could defend a grandchild who lived with you. Would you be able to defend an unborn grandchild even if your 15 year old daughter wanted to kill him?
> Of course this is a hypothetical, not in any way actually speaking of you and your family, but it brings some important issues to the forefront.
Click to expand...


I don't want to complicate the discussion, but, with regard to preventing the breaking of the 6th commandment, does that also apply to, say, Virginia Tech? If a Christian was there who was carrying a handgun, when the shooting started, would he not be obligated to "take out" the shooter if at all possible? In that case, it is not within the confines of one's home. I'm not really trying to argue a point as much as make an observation, because I think that would be the obligation of the Christian in that circumstance or a similar one.


----------



## larryjf

Semper Fidelis said:


> Do I have to quote chapter and verse to demonstrate the point that men are permitted self-defense and defense of others and not vengeance? The OT is so full of principles governing it that I presumed I could mention a principle that would be understood by another man familiar with the Scriptures as well.


But the statement that i contended with from you was that you were only permitted to defend those in your "house." Now you seem to be saying that you can also defend others outside of your house, and that was my whole point. In my post i said that you drew an arbitrary line in saying that we could only defend those in our household.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Yes, I would protect anyone in my vicinity that could not protect themselves. I think we are required to protect our neighbors as well but the use of deadly force is governed strictly by the Scriptures and we need to understand when we are assuming the role of the State. Not every case of defense requires the use of a deadly weapon and I don't think we need to be walking around town with 6-shoters in our belts ready to protect, with deadly force, whoever crosses our path.
> 
> I also can't walk up to an Abortionist and shoot him on the street. That's assuming the role of the State.



I'm still trying to see where you are drawing the line...so please be patient with my slowness.

If you were in a hospital and you saw someone approach a patient with a gun, presumably to shoot them, do you have the authority to stop them with lethal force? I understand that we have that authority within the confines of the U.S. law, but we are speaking about the confines of Scripture here.

If so, why wouldn't you have that same authority if you saw a doctor approach an unborn baby with an instrument of murder?


----------



## Christusregnat

Yeah, I notice that too! I was hoping to hear about if Jesus spoke in the OT!!!! 
Shux! 






joshua said:


> Attention Everyone: Eddie is a bonafide Anabaptist (by his own admission in his profile). This helps explain much. He won't be here to answer your Point-Well-Taken questions any time soon.


----------



## Dwimble

joshua said:


> Attention Everyone: Eddie is a bonafide Anabaptist (by his own admission in his profile). This helps explain much. He won't be here to answer your Point-Well-Taken questions any time soon.


 Ah!

I also notice that, ironically enough, his last group of posts were made exactly one year ago today, on Christian pacifism and "loving your enemies."


----------



## Barnpreacher

mshingler said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I felt the same way.
Click to expand...


Well, I would say a lot of what Piper says qualifies (in his mind at least) what he wrote. He is very big on not loving our lives more than Christ and the gospel. He exhorts Christians all the time to take up their crosses and be willing to lay down our lives for the gospel. Much of what he teaches on the subject is spot on.

Unfortunately, what he said in the above post was not.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

joshua said:


> Attention Everyone: Eddie is a bonafide Anabaptist (by his own admission in his profile). This helps explain much. He won't be here to answer your Point-Well-Taken questions any time soon.



Really? Seriously, is he gone? Wow. Swift justice here at the PB.

For those out there with pacifist tendencies (not making an accusation here boys), have you REALLY thought about what it would be like to be in a sudden, intense, violent situation involving an intruder and your wife or daughter? I know this has been commented on but is it even remotely appropriate to appeal to the Sermon on the Mount to justify the allowance of harm to our families, or ourselves? How does letting a drug addict kidanp or kill your child glorify God? Could you live with yourself?

I know I'm not saying anything new here and I'm really not replying to any particular post. Just my


----------



## InevitablyReformed

And when you get a chance thank God for the Supreme Court's ruling, upholding the second ammendment.


----------



## jogri17

The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

jogri17 said:


> The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.



And how would you evaluate that threat? Is it not situationally dependent? One would probably have fractions of seconds to make those evaluations. In my humble opinion, I would err on the side that most protects my family.


----------



## Confessor

larryjf said:


> If you were in a hospital and you saw someone approach a patient with a gun, presumably to shoot them, do you have the authority to stop them with lethal force? I understand that we have that authority within the confines of the U.S. law, but we are speaking about the confines of Scripture here.
> 
> If so, why wouldn't you have that same authority if you saw a doctor approach an unborn baby with an instrument of murder?



This is very interesting. Would it be correct to submit to the law at this point?


----------



## Dwimble

jogri17 said:


> The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.



While I agree that the taking of a life is always a terrible thing, how do you reconcile your view with the following scripture, which has been quoted a few times in this thread already?

_"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,_" - Exodus 22:2 (esv)

That scripture makes no mention or implication of your life being obviously or overtly threatened, only of there being a "thief found breaking in."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

larryjf said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to quote chapter and verse to demonstrate the point that men are permitted self-defense and defense of others and not vengeance? The OT is so full of principles governing it that I presumed I could mention a principle that would be understood by another man familiar with the Scriptures as well.
> 
> 
> 
> But the statement that i contended with from you was that you were only permitted to defend those in your "house." Now you seem to be saying that you can also defend others outside of your house, and that was my whole point. In my post i said that you drew an arbitrary line in saying that we could only defend those in our household.
Click to expand...


I understand where we had crossed lines then because I was thinking more along the lines of protecting the home as the Law permits deadly force at night but forbids it in they daylight. There's an implicit distinction between protection and vengeance there.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would protect anyone in my vicinity that could not protect themselves. I think we are required to protect our neighbors as well but the use of deadly force is governed strictly by the Scriptures and we need to understand when we are assuming the role of the State. Not every case of defense requires the use of a deadly weapon and I don't think we need to be walking around town with 6-shoters in our belts ready to protect, with deadly force, whoever crosses our path.
> 
> I also can't walk up to an Abortionist and shoot him on the street. That's assuming the role of the State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to see where you are drawing the line...so please be patient with my slowness.
> 
> If you were in a hospital and you saw someone approach a patient with a gun, presumably to shoot them, do you have the authority to stop them with lethal force? I understand that we have that authority within the confines of the U.S. law, but we are speaking about the confines of Scripture here.
> 
> If so, why wouldn't you have that same authority if you saw a doctor approach an unborn baby with an instrument of murder?
Click to expand...


What instrument would I have in my hands in such cases? Is it necessary to use lethal force to protect another life. If I had a weapon to stop a violent criminal in the act then I would use it. If I did not then I would use the means I have. Again, I think protection is key here and not that I'm meting out vengeance at that point.

I understand what you are driving at in the last point with the unborn baby. I'm not certain I can articulate a completely adequate response. There's sort of a different dynamic in the fact that it is the guardian that is complicit in the act of murder as well as the State. The parallel in the early Church were the people that left their babies to die of exposure or even infant sacrifice in the OT.

The hypothetical assumes I'm in the room with the physician. Am I supposed to kill the guard first to get past him in and break any other number of laws in order to get to a room where I know a crime is being committed? I think we've crossed the line where it becomes more apparent why the State must protect life and why it is so wicked that they do not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dwimble said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree that the taking of a life is always a terrible thing, how do you reconcile your view with the following scripture, which has been quoted a few times in this thread already?
> 
> _"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,_" - Exodus 22:2 (esv)
> 
> That scripture makes no mention or implication of your life being obviously or overtly threatened, only of there being a "thief found breaking in."
Click to expand...


Let's not forget that people didn't have shotguns back then. In order to kill somebody by hand it takes quite a bit of effort even with a club. I think that's why the Law holds a man guiltless for a thief in the night.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Semper Fidelis and Larry,

I appreciated the exchange between both of you. You both have helped me - including how both of you conducted yourselves. Thank you. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## k.seymore

Theoretical said:


> why would Christ command His disciples to buy swords in Luke 22:36-38?
> 
> No one buys a sword to serve a "utility" purpose outside of violence to defend oneself or attack another. Knives have additional uses outside of violence, but swords are utterly impractical for anything besides killing and hanging on a wall.



Although I have no problem with those who want to defend their homes by guns or whatnot, In my opinion Jesus words can not be used to defend this practice. I don't think that's what he is talking about.

In Luke 9 we see Jesus sending out the disciples to spread the kingdom of God, and he tells them not to take anything with them. The kingdom of God does not need food, or money or anything else to grow. But later Jesus needs to ensure that he is crucified as if he is a sinner. This symbolic action (similar to the actions of the prophets) will point toward the true meaning of his death. He is going to take the place of sinners. So at the last supper, what does he do to ensure that this will happen? 

"And he said to them, 'When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?' They said, 'Nothing.' He said to them, 'But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: "And he was numbered with the transgressors." For what is written about me has its fulfillment.' And they said, 'Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.'" (Luke 22:35-38).

Jesus reminds them that God's kingdom didn't need swords or any other earthly thing to spread, but now he must be numbered among the transgressors so that he might fulfill Isaiah 53. In this case, he plans to be numbered among those who try to bring in their kingdom by violence. Rome brought in their kingdom in this way. The Jews did it in the days of the Maccabees. Shortly after this the Jews would rebel against Rome and try to bring in the kingdom by the sword. And previous to this meal Jesus had prophesied this very thing would happen and it would end in utter failure for the nation.

So Jesus and the disciples take their swords and go off down to the garden. Jesus knows Judas is going to show up with soldiers. The soldiers show up to take the king of the kingdom off to be judged, and Peter, misunderstanding why Jesus asked them to bring swords thinks the Jesus wanted them to bring the swords for defense (as many seem to also mistakenly, in my opinion, believe) picks up his sword and swings. Christ yells at him "NO MORE OF THIS!" This is not why Christ wanted his group of disciples to be caught holding swords. No more of this. No more of Jews trying to win their kingdom by the very violence that Babylon and Greece and Rome won their kingdoms by. This kingdom would win by suffering and death. Jesus again explains why they have the swords. It is so he would be counted as a transgressor and put to death. He says to the soldiers: 

“Have you come out _as against_ a robber, with swords and clubs?" (Luke 22:52-53).

The gospels define what this term which is translated "robber" means. Compare John 18:40 with Luke 23:19 and Mk 15:7 and we see that the word Jesus uses can mean insurrectionists. If I am remembering correctly, Josephus also uses this word to refer to Jewish insurrectionists against Rome: Those who try to bring in God's kingdom by the sword.

So then Jesus is dragged off to trial, eventually standing before Pilate, who asks him if he's a king. Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world... if it were, my servants would have been fighting to keep me from being handed over to you." (John 18:33-36). Remember, Peter and started to do this very thing and fight to defend his king as is the way of the kingdoms of this world, but Jesus stopped him. Jesus kingdom does not come or sustain or try to protect itself by the sword like Rome or the earthly Jewish nation. 

Pilate offers the Jews the option of either having Barabbas or Jesus set free. Barabbas was, notice the sin again, "a robber" (Jn 18:40) meaning he was guilty of "insurrection and murder" (Lk 23:25, Mk 15:7). The people plead to have the insurrectionist freed and then Jesus dies as if he himself is an insurrectionist. "If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar... We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:12-15). So Jesus ends up dying as if he had taken up the sword and fought against Rome to bring in the kingdom... he dies as a transgressor, the very reason he told the disciples to get swords. And as he walks to his death he tells the woman, "Don't weep for me, weep for you and your children!" A generation later this very nation would become the insurrectionists and be destroyed as they try to defend and bring in God's kingdom by the sword.

So we have Jesus saying the kingdom doesn't need earthly things, then telling the disciples to get swords because he must fulfill the prophesy that he will be counted as a transgressor, then he yells at Peter not to defend him–the king–by the sword, then he asks the soldiers if they have come out against him with swords and clubs as if he is an insurrectionist, then he tells Pilate his kingdom is not of this world or his disciples would have been fighting, then an insurrectionist is freed and Jesus dies instead.

To me, if my interpretation is correct, this means the passage about Jesus telling the disciples to get swords should not be used to defend taking up the sword. That is borrowing from Rome and the Jew's worldview, which is the very reason it seems that Jesus said it: so that they would appear as if they were insurrectionists.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

However Jesus was not crucified because he was seen as an "insurrectionist" but because he was a ""blasphemer".


----------



## toddpedlar

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> However Jesus was not crucified because he was seen as an "insurrectionist" but because he was a ""blasphemer".



The state and the church had different motives for putting him to death there.

I don't understand why the previous poster made some reference to Christ telling the disciples to buy swords in order to "appear to be insurrectionists".
Christ would never tell them to give off a false impression - that would be a violation of the 9th commandment - so he must have had other reasons. Perhaps I mistook the poster's meaning, but I vehemently deny that Christ would have had them buy swords only in order to present the Roman guards with false appearances. He's no liar.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The State put him to death to shut up and appease the Sanhedrin. The State found no fault with Christ.


----------



## toddpedlar

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The State put him to death to shut up and appease the Sanhedrin. The State found no fault with Christ.



Indeed, that is the ultimate reason - I'm only speaking about possible motivations for the state do so (not that they actually acted on them) Sorry, I was terribly unclear and really should have just left that alone. My main point was to ask why the previous poster seemed to be implying that Christ intended that the disciples, by taking up arms, would "appear to be insurrectionists", and to firmly state that such a supposition is a claim that Christ lied.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I find this discussion a bit distracting. I agree that the idea that Christ told His disciples to buy swords in order to appear to be an insurrectionist is a fantastic notion.

I don't think you have to go to great lengths to argue that Luke 22:36-38 is speaking figuratively. I personally agree that it is a poor prooftext for people to rely upon to become armed given the context. The "Enough!" is more of a curt reply to an enthusiastic Peter who still doesn't "get it". Th context totally doesn't support some notion that Christ is now teaching on the importance of arming yourself for self-protection right before His Crucifixion.

Of course, I think one of the reasons there is a "felt need" to appeal to this passage is that folks are often not comfortable with the whole Biblical data. We've just _got_ to find that New Testament passage that re-iterates an Old Testament idea because God has mutated between Testaments.

The bottom line for me is that the Scriptural data is absolutely rock solid that we are not only permitted self-defense but are commanded to defend the weak in the moral Law. I do not think it is a responsible use of the Scriptures to bolster the case by appealing to Luke 22:36-38 as a prooftext for buying guns.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

toddpedlar said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State put him to death to shut up and appease the Sanhedrin. The State found no fault with Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that is the ultimate reason - I'm only speaking about possible motivations for the state do so (not that they actually acted on them) Sorry, I was terribly unclear and really should have just left that alone. My main point was to ask why the previous poster seemed to be implying that Christ intended that the disciples, by taking up arms, would "appear to be insurrectionists", and to firmly state that such a supposition is a claim that Christ lied.
Click to expand...


I agree with your main point Todd. I also do not understand the posters point.

As n aside and definitely  I have for a while been bothered by the "suffered under Pontius Pilate" line in the Apostles Creed.


----------



## Kim G

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> As n aside and definitely  I have for a while been bothered by the "suffered under Pontius Pilate" line in the Apostles Creed.



What about it bothers you? Acts 4:26-28--"The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth *against thy holy child Jesus*, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, *and Pontius Pilate,* with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.


----------



## Zenas

A theif who enters my home does so at the cost of his safety.


----------



## Pergamum

If a missionary is attacked "in the pulpit" (in the field or in any official capacity) for preaching Christ, perhaps he might choose to give up his right to defend himself to show the glory of Christ better. 

But his actions as an ordained representative of Christ in public (an official act) is different than personal defense of his family.




I see a HUGE gulf of difference between dying a martyr's death and letting a criminal kill you without retaliation for 20 dollars on your nightstand.



We all are not trying to make first contact with a aggressive tribe, nor are we called to endanger our lives like that. If a thief breaks into my house in the USA I would assume that this thief has had sufficient exposure to the Gospel and that it might be more honoring to prolong my life in order to tell others about Jesus than to give an unrepentant sinner a free pass.

Of course, perhaps shooting in a leg if able is advised. But when in doubt, shoot to kill. It is evident that Piper did not condemn the act of merely threatening to kill people or else he would have condemend the missionaries for even carrying guns.



An alternate view of Piper's words: Perhaps Piper just got off a 4th of July where he saw patriotism and Christianity mistaken and he got sick of all the usual mistaken sentiment that patriotism is inherently Christian and so this is perhaps his reaction (or over-reation).


----------



## Pergamum

packabacka said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were in a hospital and you saw someone approach a patient with a gun, presumably to shoot them, do you have the authority to stop them with lethal force? I understand that we have that authority within the confines of the U.S. law, but we are speaking about the confines of Scripture here.
> 
> If so, why wouldn't you have that same authority if you saw a doctor approach an unborn baby with an instrument of murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is very interesting. Would it be correct to submit to the law at this point?
Click to expand...


He is referring to Paul Hill, who killed and abortionist and went to the death penalty unrepentant and stating that he was just for preventing murder by killing an abortionist. Several prominant Christians wrote letters to him to repent before his death.

Can anyone link some facts to confirm this instead of my memory?


----------



## Timothy William

A letter which Gary North sent to Hill, in response to letters from Hill, is available here.


----------



## VictorBravo

Pergamum said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were in a hospital and you saw someone approach a patient with a gun, presumably to shoot them, do you have the authority to stop them with lethal force? I understand that we have that authority within the confines of the U.S. law, but we are speaking about the confines of Scripture here.
> 
> If so, why wouldn't you have that same authority if you saw a doctor approach an unborn baby with an instrument of murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is very interesting. Would it be correct to submit to the law at this point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is referring to Paul Hill, who killed and abortionist and went to the death penalty unrepentant and stating that he was just for preventing murder by killing an abortionist. Several prominant Christians wrote letters to him to repent before his death.
> 
> Can anyone link some facts to confirm this instead of my memory?
Click to expand...


Gary North, for one, wrote such a letter (start on page 3):

GNLG.html


----------



## timmopussycat

Ivan said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I love John Piper - I agree with JW. Don't threaten my family or my home or you will become dead, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I'm a very peaceful man. Nary a violent bone in me, but you threaten my family...well...I change.
Click to expand...


Likewise, on both parts. Anybody threatening the Orchid Lady will find the pussycat's claws very sharp indeed.


----------



## Christusregnat

Very powerful!



Timothy William said:


> A letter which Gary North sent to Hill, in response to letters from Hill, is available here.


----------



## etexas

joshua said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Dan. In defense of Piper, I would like to give some "benefit of the doubt" it is indeed short and since he did not qualify or expand, I think (and hope) that he was being general and not dealing wit any and all specifics. Even a very good Pastor can phrase things poorly, and perhaps this is such a case. Grace and Peace In Our Lord's Name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless, it's wrong of Dr. Piper to pass judgment (albeit implicitly) on those who would use their stimulus check to go out and buy a firearm, after having set himself up as a beacon of light for not owning any himself.
Click to expand...

Josh, my Friend I am not defending Dr. Piper for passing judgment, after reading Dan's post it made me think, when I said give Pipe the "benefit of the doubt" I was only stating that that Piper did not not qualify as well as he should have and was in hopes that he had simply expressed himself poorly. As I respect Piper I hope this was the case. Grace and Peace.


----------



## timmopussycat

joshua said:


> Well, that's ridiculous. Part of upholding the 6th Commandment is stopping others from violating it when it's in your power to do so.



Not exactly. Stopping others from violating the sixth commandment wherever possible is not part of the commadment but rather a GNC consequence from it. 

(I'm pedantic, I know but exact thinking is good and not so exact thinking is not so good.)


----------



## jogri17

InevitablyReformed said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you evaluate that threat? Is it not situationally dependent? One would probably have fractions of seconds to make those evaluations. In my humble opinion, I would err on the side that most protects my family.
Click to expand...

Fair point mon frère in Christ. I do not think that is true your point. Very few people break into houses for the purposes of killing/raping. Its usually stealing. Of course I realize I said usually and with the safety of your family at stake it is better not to take chances. I would apply it quite simply. Check to make sure your family is ok if they are get them all into one room. You stay with them and have a loaded gun in case they come in. If all your family is upstaires and the noice is down staires there is no need to go down. Call the police and stay safe. Now if there is a child downstairs you go down carefully and you aim at his head and yell stop or i shoot. if he goes away from where your child is (most likely the bedroom) you let him leave if he tries anything funny you shoot. But you must give a warning. You cannot justify biblically that stealing deserves the death penalty in the new testament (yes I was thinking of Aechan when i wrote that)


----------



## Christusregnat

Tim,

I'm even more pedantic, and consider the 6th Commandment to include anything which by GNC may be deduced therefrom. Out-pedant that! 

Cheers,

Adam





timmopussycat said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's ridiculous. Part of upholding the 6th Commandment is stopping others from violating it when it's in your power to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly. Stopping others from violating the sixth commandment wherever possible is not part of the commadment but rather a GNC consequence from it.
> 
> (I'm pedantic, I know but exact thinking is good and not so exact thinking is not so good.)
Click to expand...


----------



## VictorBravo

jogri17 said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you evaluate that threat? Is it not situationally dependent? One would probably have fractions of seconds to make those evaluations. In my humble opinion, I would err on the side that most protects my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair point mon frère in Christ. I do not think that is true your point. Very few people break into houses for the purposes of killing/raping. Its usually stealing. Of course I realize I said usually and with the safety of your family at stake it is better not to take chances. I would apply it quite simply. Check to make sure your family is ok if they are get them all into one room. You stay with them and have a loaded gun in case they come in. If all your family is upstaires and the noice is down staires there is no need to go down. Call the police and stay safe. Now if there is a child downstairs you go down carefully and you aim at his head and yell stop or i shoot. if he goes away from where your child is (most likely the bedroom) you let him leave if he tries anything funny you shoot. But you must give a warning. You cannot justify biblically that stealing deserves the death penalty in the new testament (yes I was thinking of Aechan when i wrote that)
Click to expand...


Residential burglary is an act of extreme violence. Trying to discern such a perpetrator's intent, especially in the middle of the night, can be deadly to you. Self defense ending in death of the intruder is not the "death penalty" because it is not judicial. Instead, it is justifiable use of force.

Sure, if he runs away, don't chase after him shooting (notwithstanding certain state laws). And definitely, if there is time, have everyone gather in a safe room to avoid confrontation. Yell, shout, warn--all fine, sensible, and done with a view to protect life. Of course you don't kill someone for stealing because that is an act of vigilante justice. There is a difference.

But keep in mind that the most dangerous of all situations is when you are face to face with an intruder, even if you are armed. Meth addicts and crack heads, for example, are impulsive, fearless, and dangerous. That's why self-defense training classes emphasize the 21 foot rule. Even if you are armed, you are in severe danger if your assailant is closer than that. He can charge you and do you serious harm even if you get a shot off.

My only point is that if someone breaks into your home at night, there is little liklihood that you will be able to come up with a neat and tidy plan. For that reason, the ancient law says that killing under those circumstances is justified.


----------



## Hippo

I am left uneasy when large numbers of passages in the new testament are pretty much ignored because we do not like the teaching. We are told to give thieves what they want to take and to turn the other cheek.

In my mind the message is clear that we should not violently resist wrongdoers who threaten us.

This is not the same as letting someone rape your wife as you are watching and to reduce the argument to this one point is at best unhelpful. The issue has to be addressed as part of the argument but it is an extreme.

We are told that in establishing the message of the Bible obscure passages should be interpreted through clearer passages and the problem is that the passages advocating personal pasifism are very clear and are repeated. 

This is quite personal to me as one of my earliest "deep" thoughts on the bankruptcy of the liberal (and not so liberal) Church was when in answer to a similiar question Billy Graham said that he would shoot someone who was attacking his wife as if he did not do so he would not be acting like a man. My thought was that should he be advocating a standard of behaviour because it was macho or because it was a command of God?

There is the issue that we are under the protection of God and our chief trust should be in him, not in small arms or baseball bats. I am not saying that these are easy questions or conclusions but the Gospel is foolishness to the world and perhaps this is an area where we should not be relying on presuppositions (as some, although by no means all of the arguements for reacting violently are based) of what we should be doing rather than the instructions of the Gospel.


----------



## Barnpreacher

You know, I've seen Piper in person. He's not a very big man. I still don't know what his muscles (guns) have to do with this thread???


----------



## redmanca

It seems to me that there is a disconnect between people's reason for protecting their families, and then their justification for that action. Allow me to demonstrate.

This was said earlier:



Ivan said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't threaten my family or my home or you will become dead, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I'm a very peaceful man. Nary a violent bone in me, but you threaten my family...well...I change.
Click to expand...


I completely agree, and have no doubt that this would be my reaction to a threat on my family (specifically since I'm getting married in a month). 

However, the WLC says:




Semper Fidelis said:


> *Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?* ...sinful anger,752 hatred,753 envy,754 desire of revenge;755 all excessive passions,756...




It would seem to me that the reaction stated above would fall into the category of at least "excessive passion," if not anger or desire of revenge. So, my question is, if you defend your family with lethal force, but experience excessive passion and/or hate while doing it, is it still just, or does it then become sinful and a breaking of the 6th commandment?
If you experience these sinful feelings, but still write off your actions as just, under the 6th commandment, isn't that trying to justify your sin with a principle of the law that doesn't apply to that situation any more (because of your sinful motives)?

Again, I'm not trying to single anyone out, or even say that I wouldn't have the same kind of reaction if it happened to me. But this question has been bugging me since I read this thread this morning.

Thoughts?

Conor.


----------



## Christusregnat

Mike,

The Sermon on the Mount is (if read properly) an enlargement and application of the Mosaic Law, not a replacement or contradiction. Jesus states this very clearly so that this sort of discussion would be superfluous. 

It is wrongheaded to assume that Jesus teaches non-violent resistance, when the established Law of God condones it. There are, to be sure, particular applications to be made in a hostile culture rather than a theocracy, but the point remains that Christ is not contradicting the OT.

As an Englishman you should know that the only people who rejoice at disarmament are thugs, tyrants and fools. The British people have been effectively disarmed in order to make them a pray to State-control and thuggery. Hitler did the same thing to the Jews BEFORE he took them off to concentration camps, the Soviets did it to the general populace before the killing began, the U.N. did it to people of Rwanda before the massacres in Rwanda. Here's a good article on Rwanda by a man who witnessed the aftermath of the slaughter:

The Holocaust in Rwanda - 10 Years on

By the by, it also an interesting fact of history that the Nazis NEVER attacked Switzerland. Every 18 year old Swiss male served a three year term in the military, and was sent home with an automatic weapon, and required to defend his home. The Nazis were too smart to attack an armed populace; sadly, the same was not the case with the Jews. Advocates of disarmament are participating in murder; this is a verifiable fact of history, and this is why Jesus gives the right for a man to defend his home, and to look out for the interest of those who are indefensible. To do otherwise is to consent to murder.

Cheers,

Adam





Hippo said:


> I am left uneasy when large numbers of passages in the new testament are pretty much ignored because we do not like the teaching. We are told to give thieves what they want to take and to turn the other cheek.
> 
> In my mind the message is clear that we should not violently resist wrongdoers who threaten us.
> 
> This is not the same as letting someone rape your wife as you are watching and to reduce the argument to this one point is at best unhelpful. The issue has to be addressed as part of the argument but it is an extreme.
> 
> We are told that in establishing the message of the Bible obscure passages should be interpreted through clearer passages and the problem is that the passages advocating personal pasifism are very clear and are repeated.
> 
> This is quite personal to me as one of my earliest "deep" thoughts on the bankruptcy of the liberal (and not so liberal) Church was when in answer to a similiar question Billy Graham said that he would shoot someone who was attacking his wife as if he did not do so he would not be acting like a man. My thought was that should he be advocating a standard of behaviour because it was macho or because it was a command of God?
> 
> There is the issue that we are under the protection of God and our chief trust should be in him, not in small arms or baseball bats. I am not saying that these are easy questions or conclusions but the Gospel is foolishness to the world and perhaps this is an area where we should not be relying on presuppositions (as some, although by no means all of the arguements for reacting violently are based) of what we should be doing rather than the instructions of the Gospel.


----------



## VictorBravo

redmanca said:


> There seems to me that there is a disconnect between people's reason for protecting their families, and then their justification for that action. Allow me to demonstrate.
> 
> This was said earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't threaten my family or my home or you will become dead, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I'm a very peaceful man. Nary a violent bone in me, but you threaten my family...well...I change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I completely agree, and have no doubt that this would be my reaction to a threat on my family (specifically since I'm getting married in a month).
> 
> However, the WLC says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?* ...sinful anger,752 hatred,753 envy,754 desire of revenge;755 all excessive passions,756...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem to me that the reaction stated above would fall into the category of at least "excessive passion," if not anger or desire of revenge. So, my question is, if you defend your family with lethal force, but experience excessive passion and/or hate while doing it, is it still just, or does it then become sinful and a breaking of the 6th commandment?
> If you experience these sinful feelings, but still write off your actions as just, under the 6th commandment, isn't that trying to justify your sin with a principle of the law that doesn't apply to that situation any more (because of your sinful motives)?
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to single anyone out, or even say that I wouldn't have the same kind of reaction if it happened to me. But this question has been bugging me since I read this thread this morning.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Conor.
Click to expand...


I don't want to be glib, but there is a place for righteous anger:

"Be ye angry, and sin not." Eph. 4:26.


----------



## k.seymore

toddpedlar said:


> I don't understand why the previous poster made some reference to Christ telling the disciples to buy swords in order to "appear to be insurrectionists". Christ would never tell them to give off a false impression - that would be a violation of the 9th commandment - so he must have had other reasons.



Yes, perhaps I was not clear, and I probably should not have used the word "ensure." Both the Jews and the Romans know he is not guilty. Jesus isn't deceiving anyone. It is a symbolic action. I had said, "This symbolic action (similar to the actions of the prophets) will point toward the true meaning of his death. He is going to take the place of sinners." Jesus tells them his kingdom needs nothing, but now they need to take up swords for he must be counted as a transgressor, Peter tries to use the sword to defend his king shortly thereafter, Jesus yells, "No more of this!" (that is speaking of more than just Peter's sin!) and explains, "Put your sword in its place. All who take up the sword will perish by the sword." Then he turns to the soldiers and says, "Have you come out against me _as if_ against a robber ("insurrectionist" perhaps, see Jn 18:40 with Lk 23:19, Mk 15:7)." They are arresting him "as if" he were a transgressor, even though he is obviously not as his words to Peter make clear. This is not deception.



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> However Jesus was not crucified because he was seen as an "insurrectionist" but because he was a ""blasphemer".



Of course they can't crucify him for insurrection! He's not an insurrectionist. Read the passage you are referring to... they come up with the charge of blasphemy because they were "looking for _false_ testimony against Jesus"(they knew he wasn't guilty) but none of their false witnesses could agree. And they know he isn't rebelling against Rome. But rebellion is exactly what they try to charge him with before Pilate: they say he was perverting their nation, forbidding them to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself was a king in the place of Caesar. "If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar's," they argue, "Anyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar." Does really it sound like they are telling Pilate to crucify him for blasphemy?

Anyways, all of that just to say Jesus' telling the disciples to take us swords shouldn't be used as a defense to take up swords. Other places in scripture allow this, but it appears to me that this one is being misused.


----------



## Ravens

What I'm about to say is a bit of a side-step, and somewhat of a tangent. Nevertheless, I believe it touches on a point of consistency.

I have to admit that people who advocate pacifism very much make me hot under the collar, *not** necessarily* because of their stance in and of itself, but because of their inconsistency and (I hate to say it, but perceived...) dishonesty in handling the Sermon on the Mount.

So, in accordance with the "clear" and "straight-forward" reading which some are advocating, if I 1) quoted Matthew 5:42, "*Give to him that asketh thee*, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away", 2) asked you to go to your bank, empty your checking account, savings accounts, etc., and mail them to me (I'll PM you the address), would you be consistent, and do so?

If that seems like a _reductio ad absurdum_, well, so be it. It is *exactly* the kind of hermeneutic that you are advocating when it comes to pacifism. This might be the lack of a judgment of charity, but pacifism is easy to advocate when your wife isn't getting raped, and when your actual locality isn't being attacked. It's easy to condemn war and guns when we are blessed to live in virtually uninterrupted peace.

So we can sit back and just adopt these schemes. Yet when that same hermeneutic is applied to other passages, all the sudden, it's like, "Wait, wait, wait a minute; hold on, now we're talking about *my money*!!! We have a mortgage, a car payment, etc., I just can't send you all of my money! Come on now, be realistic!"

Perhaps some of us just see that the protection of our wife and our family is equally important as our money.

Furthermore, since we are presumably not perfectionists on the Puritanboard, I have to wonder how many of the male pacifists are walking around eye-less and hand-less. Hmmmm...?

I think my tone has been a bit sardonic, and I apologize in advance. I've just seen these kinds of arguments before, whether from Campolo or others of that stripe, and when the rubber meats the road, e.g., their *money*, not just money in general, but _their_ money, all of it, mailed to me ASAP (PM me for the address, again), all of the sudden Christ's comments are to be understood by the _analogia Scriptura_, and with a modicum of, what's the proper way to say it, God-given, sanctified, Biblically regulated common sense.

Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount, ever, until they explain why they won't give me everything they own, because I ask. Because their interpretation of the passages relating to turning the other cheek and their stance on self-defense is intrinsically and irrevocably connected to the other issues.


----------



## redmanca

victorbravo said:


> I don't want to be glib, but there is a place for righteous anger:
> 
> "Be ye angry, and sin not." Eph. 4:26.




Alright, but does that mean that it's just to use lethal force in protecting your family while being righteously angry? Being angry and being angry while killing someone are two very different things. While it might be justifiable to be righteously angry, can the same be said for being that angry while killing? 
Doesn't that nullify the part of the WLC quoted? 


And to quote Tom Cruise: "You're glib!" 

Conor


----------



## Hippo

Christusregnat said:


> Mike,
> 
> The Sermon on the Mount is (if read properly) an enlargement and application of the Mosaic Law, not a replacement or contradiction. Jesus states this very clearly so that this sort of discussion would be superfluous.
> 
> It is wrongheaded to assume that Jesus teaches non-violent resistance, when the established Law of God condones it. There are, to be sure, particular applications to be made in a hostile culture rather than a theocracy, but the point remains that Christ is not contradicting the OT.
> 
> As an Englishman you should know that the only people who rejoice at disarmament are thugs, tyrants and fools. The British people have been effectively disarmed in order to make them a pray to State-control and thuggery. Hitler did the same thing to the Jews BEFORE he took them off to concentration camps, the Soviets did it to the general populace before the killing began, the U.N. did it to people of Rwanda before the massacres in Rwanda. Here's a good article on Rwanda by a man who witnessed the aftermath of the slaughter:
> 
> The Holocaust in Rwanda - 10 Years on
> 
> By the by, it also an interesting fact of history that the Nazis NEVER attacked Switzerland. Every 18 year old Swiss male served a three year term in the military, and was sent home with an automatic weapon, and required to defend his home. The Nazis were too smart to attack an armed populace; sadly, the same was not the case with the Jews. Advocates of disarmament are participating in murder; this is a verifiable fact of history, and this is why Jesus gives the right for a man to defend his home, and to look out for the interest of those who are indefensible. To do otherwise is to consent to murder.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam




I fully agree that Jesus was not contradicting the law, that would be an unthinkable interpretation but just as the women caught in adultry was not stoned (John 7) and an "eye for an eye" the new testament often teaches us to forgive rather than to enforce the law to its letter.

I am not advocating disarmament as such, I am quite happy for the civil magistrate to enforce the law by force if that is the will of God, but the role of the magistrate is very different to my role as a private citizen.


----------



## mshingler

Hippo said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> The Sermon on the Mount is (if read properly) an enlargement and application of the Mosaic Law, not a replacement or contradiction. Jesus states this very clearly so that this sort of discussion would be superfluous.
> 
> It is wrongheaded to assume that Jesus teaches non-violent resistance, when the established Law of God condones it. There are, to be sure, particular applications to be made in a hostile culture rather than a theocracy, but the point remains that Christ is not contradicting the OT.
> 
> As an Englishman you should know that the only people who rejoice at disarmament are thugs, tyrants and fools. The British people have been effectively disarmed in order to make them a pray to State-control and thuggery. Hitler did the same thing to the Jews BEFORE he took them off to concentration camps, the Soviets did it to the general populace before the killing began, the U.N. did it to people of Rwanda before the massacres in Rwanda. Here's a good article on Rwanda by a man who witnessed the aftermath of the slaughter:
> 
> The Holocaust in Rwanda - 10 Years on
> 
> By the by, it also an interesting fact of history that the Nazis NEVER attacked Switzerland. Every 18 year old Swiss male served a three year term in the military, and was sent home with an automatic weapon, and required to defend his home. The Nazis were too smart to attack an armed populace; sadly, the same was not the case with the Jews. Advocates of disarmament are participating in murder; this is a verifiable fact of history, and this is why Jesus gives the right for a man to defend his home, and to look out for the interest of those who are indefensible. To do otherwise is to consent to murder.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree that Jesus was not contradicting the law, that would be an unthinkable interpretation but just as the women caught in adultry was not stoned (John 7) and an "eye for an eye" the new testament often teaches us to forgive rather than to enforce the law to its letter.
> 
> I am not advocating disarmament as such, I am quite happy for the civil magistrate to enforce the law by force if that is the will of God, but the role of the magistrate is very different to my role as a private citizen.
Click to expand...


I think you are confusing the role of the government, in punishing evil-doers, with the role of the private citizen in self-defense or defense of the innocent and/or helpless. No one (I don't think) is advocating that we should take our guns and execute vengeance on someone who does violence to us. Rather, that it is biblically justifiable to defend one's self and one's family and, in some situations, other bystanders.


----------



## Hippo

JDWiseman said:


> Furthermore, since we are presumably not perfectionists on the Puritanboard, I have to wonder how many of the male pacifists are walking around eye-less and hand-less. Hmmmm...?
> 
> I think my tone has been a bit sardonic, and I apologize in advance. I've just seen these kinds of arguments before, whether from Campolo or from emergent folks in my life, and when the rubber meats the road, e.g., their *money*, not just money in general, but _their_ money, all of it, mailed to me ASAP (PM me for the address, again), all of the sudden Christ's comments are to be understood by the _analogia Scriptura_, and with a modicum of, what's the proper way to say it, God-given, sanctified, Biblically regulated common sense.
> 
> Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount, ever, until they explain why they won't give me everything they own, because I ask. Because their interpretation of the passages relating to turning the other cheek and their stance on self-defense is intrinsically and irrevocably connected to the other issues.



We are told that the greatest commandment is that you should "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind", by your argument this is nonsense because it is so hard to do and a bit of "Biblically regulated common sense" shows that it should be ignored, after all we are told elsewhere that we should love other things as well.

When you state that "Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount..." you are betraying presupositions that dictate what your understanding will be.


----------



## Christusregnat

Hippo said:


> I fully agree that Jesus was not contradicting the law, that would be an unthinkable interpretation but just as the women caught in adultry was not stoned (John 7) and an "eye for an eye" the new testament often teaches us to forgive rather than to enforce the law to its letter.
> 
> I am not advocating disarmament as such, I am quite happy for the civil magistrate to enforce the law by force if that is the will of God, but the role of the magistrate is very different to my role as a private citizen.



Mike,

Disarmament isn't about the nanny-state being disarmed. Disarmament is about the private man being forbidden to own a weapon, SO THAT he can become the pawn of the nanny state. It is part of Plato's ridiculous "republic" to have an armed class while all others are at their mercy. 

The Law that Jesus didn't contradict likewise gives private citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense, and for the defense of their wives, their little ones, and their liberty.

The disarmaments of which I spoke were done BY MAGISTRATES and the arms were taken away from PRIVATE CITIZENS. People who advocate disarmament of private citizens are consenting to murder. Magistrates who enforce such ideas are worse than murderers (though they are that), they are tyrants.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Ravens

> We are told that the greatest commandment is that you should "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind", by your argument this is nonsense because it is so hard to do and a bit of "Biblically regulated common sense" shows that it should be ignored, after all we are told elsewhere that we should love other things as well.



Let's not get lost in rabbit trails. Not that you are doing that now, but it could easily go down that road. I most certainly did not say that "If something is 'so hard to do' then it should be ignored." That's either irresponsible or disingenuous. Seeing as you have not properly set forth my position, I don't really know how to answer you.

Besides, I wasn't offering a full-fledged exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, nor was I offering a full-fledged critique of the pacifist position. I was commenting, as I said from the get-go, on a point of consistency.


> When you state that "Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount..." you are betraying presupositions that dictate what your understanding will be.



Well, you left out something rather crucial, didn't you? Namely, the rest of that paragraph. It sounds worse when you leave out the "until". Here's the full context, with emphasis: 



> Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount, ever, *until* they explain why they won't give me everything they own, because I ask. Because their interpretation of the passages relating to turning the other cheek and their stance on self-defense is intrinsically and irrevocably connected to the other issues.



I don't see that as inappropriate at all. 

That's like saying, I won't listen to an Arian *until* he can deal with John 8:58, or John 20:28. Or, not listening to someone who denies the imputation of Adam's sin *until* he deals with Romans 5.

I have no personal animosity towards you, nor, necessarily, towards pacifism in general. But any exegesis of a portion of the Sermon on the Mount that isn't applied to the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, and that seems to contradict a variety of threads of Scripture, whether pertaining to self-defense or the necessity of providing for one's family, will not be taken seriously by me.


----------



## VictorBravo

redmanca said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to be glib, but there is a place for righteous anger:
> 
> "Be ye angry, and sin not." Eph. 4:26.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, but does that mean that it's just to use lethal force in protecting your family while being righteously angry? Being angry and being angry while killing someone are two very different things. While it might be justifiable to be righteously angry, can the same be said for being that angry while killing?
> Doesn't that nullify the part of the WLC quoted?
> 
> 
> And to quote Tom Cruise: "You're glib!"
Click to expand...


OK, instead of glib I'll try to be concise instead. 

Q & A 136 enjoins *excessive *passions. Exodus 22:2 states that it is *just *to kill in self-defense. The two are not dependant upon each other, but are likely to both arise in a self defense situation. If you are angry at your family being attacked, it is not "excessive" but righteous, because someone is committing a wicked act that is worth being angry about. The act of killing, under these circumstances, regardless of your emotion, is just. I'd go so far as to say that the act of killing under these circumstances *without* righteous anger might be a mark of a cold-blooded killer instead of a fearer of God.

Of course the anger would be excessive and sinful if you sought revenge after the fact. It would be excessive if you were angry at someone who did not threaten your family. And so forth. But, even if we are called to love our enemies, we still can (and I think should) be righteously angry at wickedness.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

This topic has engaged me for decades; with a background in the USMC (1959+ [no combat]), martial arts, and living in a rough neighborhood on the lower east side of Manhattan while a single parent with a little girl, later in Woodstock NY still a single parent, living somewhat as a street person in those days.

In my early years I was backslidden a lot (that’s another story!), yet still carried His word in my heart.

In one incident in Woodstock, while – as a child-care worker – caring for a woman’s two young children (she traveling) in her home, my 7-year-old daughter with us, her brother, a big athletic guy, gay, living on the same grounds (different house), propositioned me, which I turned down firmly but respectfully.

Later that night, in a drunken rage, he tried to break in the front door; the children were all terrified (he had another time [before me] broken into the house and tried to burn it down – so the children told me). I called the cops but they were unsure of what was his property and what his sister’s, and wouldn’t respond. As he continued, I told him through the door, “I have a fireplace iron in my hand; if you make it through the door I will send you to the hospital, but I might do a bad job and send you to the morgue. You still want to come in?” He left. I gave the children ice cream, calmed them down, and they all got to sleep. I went to his house the next morning, a 4 foot plumbing pipe in my hand, and told him to come out if he was still feeling so rowdy. I was set to teach him a lesson about terrifying my children. He became subdued.

All this to say, I have struggled with violence most of my adult life (I went in the Corps at 17), that is, living among violent people, and seeking the biblical response. I was converted at 26 (now 66). In the early days I took a beating once for defending a sister against someone coming on to her and putting his hands on her (I stood up and loudly told him to get off her) – in a Christian coffee shop – and he waited for me outside and gave me a few punches – I told my friends standing around to leave him be – not to jump him. When he took a spike out of his pocket as though to stab me with it they did jump him and disarmed him, but didn’t beat him up – they let him go. I heard that a while later he became a Christian. I wasn’t able to verify that.

If someone comes into my house at night (there are robbers who are psychopaths even in this part of the world) and enters my wife’s bedroom I will seek to send him to the hospital (I have other weapons than guns), but may do worse. With hand-to-hand combat it’s not always easy to go easy, especially if one’s a slight guy like myself – not to mention being old! One makes every move count.

In the service of the Gospel I would suffer injury rather than inflict it. It is an honor to follow Christ in this. My wife and I are both prepared to die if so put to the test. 

Are not personal attacks having no relation to the presentation of the Gospel – nor in a missionary situation – to be seen differently? Are God-fearing people to allow the violation and disintegration of the social order – especially in a society governed by just laws – contrary to the law of the land? Romans 13 speaks of the “powers that be [which] are ordained of God” (v. 1), and if these powers allow self-defense, defense of family, and defense of the helpless against violent attack, one may do so without fear of the magistrate, and with a clear conscience before the Lord. Personally, to _not_ come to their defense would go against my conscience.

A distinction needs to be made – and has been in earlier posts – between acting as a representative of the Kingdom engaged in Kingdom activity, and acting as a private citizen of a worldly government, not at that time formally representing the Kingdom. 

There are different marching orders for each situation. When engaged in service in the house of God I don’t drink alcohol (save the communion wine). When not, I may. When in formal service I dress differently. And so forth.

If Christians were known to allow violence against their families, and theft of their property with impunity, they would be seen by the rest of society – and its government – as a detriment to domestic order and the enforcement of law. They would not be welcome in many societies as a result. To interpret the Sermon on the Mount as permitting such violence and theft is not sound exegesis.

I’ve been trying to stay away from PB for a while to catch up on other work, but this topic drew me in!


----------



## Hippo

JDWiseman said:


> Never in my life will I listen to a pacifist talk about the Sermon on the Mount, ever, *until* they explain why they won't give me everything they own, because I ask. Because their interpretation of the passages relating to turning the other cheek and their stance on self-defense is intrinsically and irrevocably connected to the other issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that as inappropriate at all.
> 
> That's like saying, I won't listen to an Arian *until* he can deal with John 8:58, or John 20:28. Or, not listening to someone who denies the imputation of Adam's sin *until* he deals with Romans 5.
> 
> I have no personal animosity towards you, nor, necessarily, towards pacifism in general. But any exegesis of a portion of the Sermon on the Mount that isn't applied to the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, and that seems to contradict a variety of threads of Scripture, whether pertaining to self-defense or the necessity of providing for one's family, will not be taken seriously by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you said was you would not listen to a pacifist until he explained why he did not live up to his stated position in practice (i.e. give you you money). This is very different to saying that you would not listen to him until he reconciled his position with other parts of scripture.
> 
> As I have posted elsewhere there is no inconsistency in my position at all, we are told that the law allows an eye for an eye but our Lord instructed us not to enforce this right, just as the women caught in adultry was not stoned as would have been permisable under the law.
> 
> It is your position that is inconsistent as you are advocating an action that is denied by direct command of scripture, my interpretation is acting within scripture.
> 
> I am not trying to be "smart" here (and if I was I am certainly not succeeding), this is a difficult area both theologically and practically but the command of personal pacifism cannot be dismissed out of hand as lacking common sense or not having a powerful scriptual base.
Click to expand...


----------



## CDM

Hippo said:


> JDWiseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that as inappropriate at all.
> 
> That's like saying, I won't listen to an Arian *until* he can deal with John 8:58, or John 20:28. Or, not listening to someone who denies the imputation of Adam's sin *until* he deals with Romans 5.
> 
> I have no personal animosity towards you, nor, necessarily, towards pacifism in general. But any exegesis of a portion of the Sermon on the Mount that isn't applied to the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, and that seems to contradict a variety of threads of Scripture, whether pertaining to self-defense or the necessity of providing for one's family, will not be taken seriously by me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said was you would not listen to a pacifist until he explained why he did not live up to his stated position in practice (i.e. give you you money). This is very different to saying that you would not listen to him until he reconciled his position with other parts of scripture.
> 
> As I have posted elsewhere there is no inconsistency in my position at all, we are told that the law allows an eye for an eye but our Lord instructed us not to enforce this right, just as the women caught in adultry was not stoned as would have been permisable under the law.
> 
> *It is your position that is inconsistent as you are advocating an action that is denied by direct command of scripture, my interpretation is acting within scripture. *
> 
> I am not trying to be "smart" here (and if I was I am certainly not succeeding), this is a difficult area both theologically and practically but the command of personal pacifism cannot be dismissed out of hand as lacking common sense or not having a powerful scriptual base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not read the entire thread so I apologize if you have addressed this already.
> 
> Where, exactly, does Scripture give "direct command" forbidding self-defense?
> 
> I do not want to set up a straw man so I'll say this generally: Any man that would not stop another (with lethal force if necessary) from murdering, raping, robbing his neighbor (his family!) is in DIRECT contradiction to scripture. This would not be "loving thy neighbor" but advocating gross wickedness.
Click to expand...


----------



## timmopussycat

Christusregnat said:


> Mike,
> 
> The Sermon on the Mount is (if read properly) an enlargement and application of the Mosaic Law, not a replacement or contradiction. Jesus states this very clearly so that this sort of discussion would be superfluous.



If you assert that the entire Mosaic Law is enlarged and applied to the new covenant era, you are echoing the view of the Galatian Judaizers. If you try to reduce your subject from the entire Mosaic law to a defined subset thereof, (e.g. Calvin and most of the reformed tradition reducing Christ's subject to the moral law/decalogue), you collide with Jesus' words in 5:18 "not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of the pen will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished." With regard to the Mosaic law as such, Christ is asserting its total applicability until he accomplishes everything necessary for it to be superseded by the new covenant. Yet the NC incorporates many of the Sinaitic details, some of which are incorporated in this very sermon.


----------



## Hippo

I did not read the entire thread so I apologize if you have addressed this already.

Where, exactly, does Scripture give "direct command" forbidding self-defense? 

I do not want to set up a straw man so I'll say this generally: Any man that would not stop another (with lethal force if necessary) from murdering, raping, robbing his neighbor (his family!) is in DIRECT contradiction to scripture. This would not be "loving thy neighbor" but advocating gross wickedness.​
While your general point is arguable it is an argument by inference, if you did not use lethal force out of concern for your own safety you would be correct but if you are following the commandments of God it is righteous. Your point is based on the presuposition that we are not commanded not to use force, which is the whole point of this discussion. 

Off the top of my head:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. 

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. 

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Mt 5:38-48). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Pe 2:19-24). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ro 12:17-21). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. 
32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Lk 6:27-33). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.


----------



## CDM

Hippo said:


> I did not read the entire thread so I apologize if you have addressed this already.
> 
> Where, exactly, does Scripture give "direct command" forbidding self-defense?
> 
> I do not want to set up a straw man so I'll say this generally: Any man that would not stop another (with lethal force if necessary) from murdering, raping, robbing his neighbor (his family!) is in DIRECT contradiction to scripture. This would not be "loving thy neighbor" but advocating gross wickedness.​
> While your general point is arguable it is an argument by inference, if you did not use lethal force out of concern for your own safety you would be correct but if you are following the commandments of God it is righteous. Your point is based on the presuposition that we are not commanded not to use force, which is the whole point of this discussion.
> 
> Off the top of my head:
> 
> 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
> 
> 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
> 
> The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Mt 5:38-48). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
> 
> For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24
> The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Pe 2:19-24). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
> 
> 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
> 
> The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ro 12:17-21). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
> 
> 27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
> 32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
> The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Lk 6:27-33). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.



I am not sure what I am supposed to understand about the various texts you have sighted but I do know that to love one's neighbor as thyself includes defending him from being beaten to death when it is in your power to assist him.

Earlier you mentioned:



> And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.



But did not mention the next verse,



> And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.



Is it loving to your neighbor to watch him be beaten to death? Or is this wicked? 

Thanks for your answers; I am truly seeking to understand your view.


----------



## Hippo

Firstly if anyone can explain to me why the verses that I quote do not mean that you should not resist violence with violence then I am genuinly interested in hearing why.

If you would not defend yourself if attacked then when not defending your neighbor you are loveing "thy neighbour as thyself". 

We are told to turn the other cheek and not to resist evil, I am sure that you would agree that in following the commandments of God you you are never being wicked, no matter how follish the Gospel seems to the world.

My problem is that we have clear commands of scripture, I have explained why such commands do not contradict scripture but the counter argument that the vast majority of this board are presenting is stating exactly that.


----------



## VictorBravo

Hippo said:


> Firstly if anyone can explain to me why the verses that I quote do not mean that you should not resist violence with violence then I am genuinly interested in hearing why.
> 
> If you would not defend yourself if attacked then when not defending your neighbor you are loveing "thy neighbour as thyself".
> 
> We are told to turn the other cheek and not to resist evil, I am sure that you would agree that in following the commandments of God you you are never being wicked, no matter how follish the Gospel seems to the world.
> 
> My problem is that we have clear commands of scripture, I have explained why such commands do not contradict scripture but the counter argument that the vast majority of this board are presenting is stating exactly that.




Have you read Matthew Henry on the Sermon on the Mount, or other reformed authors? If not, I'd suggest working through them to get a clearer understanding.

Here's an except from Henry's commentaries:



> 1. We must not be revengeful (Mat_5:39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; - the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom_13:2); and yet *this does not repeal the law of self-preservation*, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Pro_20:22; Pro_24:29; Pro_25:21, Pro_25:22; Rom_12:7. The law of retaliation must be made consistent with the law of love: nor, if any have injured us, is our recompence in our own hands, but in the hands of God, to whose wrath we must give place; and sometimes in the hands of his viceregents, where it is necessary for the preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify us in hurting our brother to say that he began, for it is the second blow that makes the quarrel; and when we were injured, we had an opportunity not to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves the true disciples of Christ, by forgiving him.


----------



## Hippo

I will read up more on this, but when he says "this does not repeal the law of self-preservation" it still begs the question of why?


----------



## satz

Hippo said:


> I will read up more on this, but when he says "this does not repeal the law of self-preservation" it still begs the question of why?



I think the context of the sermon on the mount – which is significantly concerned with correcting the pharisee’s abuse of the law- shows that when Jesus tells us to be pacifists, it is with regards to small, relatively inconsequential personal offenses, which is what the lost of a cloak, a slap on the cheek, or walking an extra mile are. 

An ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘tooth for a tooth’ were part of the OT as rights of the government, and the bible reaffirms them in Romans 13. What Jesus was correcting was the wrong application of those biblical principles to minor personal offenses.


----------



## Christusregnat

Tim,



timmopussycat said:


> If you assert that the entire Mosaic Law is enlarged and applied to the new covenant era, you are echoing the view of the Galatian Judaizers.



Interesting, albeit, untrue assertion (and that's all it is).

Here's Calvin thought on the passage:

There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which induced him to declare this agreement between the law and the Gospel. As soon as any new method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people immediately look upon it, *as if everything were to be overturned*. Now the preaching of the Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the expectation, that the Church would assume a *totally different form from what had previously belonged to it*. They thought that the *ancient and accustomed government* was to be abolished. This opinion, in many respects, was very dangerous. Devout worshippers of God would never have embraced the Gospel, *if it had been a revolt from the law*; while light and turbulent spirits would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to them for entirely overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what insolent freaks rash people are ready to indulge when there is any thing new.....With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the *coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law*: for it is *the eternal rule of a devout and holy life*, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to *ceremonies*, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.


Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Notice, for Calvin, there are two basic types of law: (1) Laws eternal in character, directing a "devout and holy life" and "ancient and accustomed government", and (2) Ceremonial Laws which Christ confirmed by His life, Passion, Resurrection, etc.

This is my position, but thanks for trying to group me with Judaizers 

Adam


----------



## InevitablyReformed

satz said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will read up more on this, but when he says "this does not repeal the law of self-preservation" it still begs the question of why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the context of the sermon on the mount – which is significantly concerned with correcting the pharisee’s abuse of the law- shows that when Jesus tells us to be pacifists, it is with regards to small, relatively inconsequential personal offenses, which is what the lost of a cloak, a slap on the cheek, or walking an extra mile are.
> 
> An ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘tooth for a tooth’ were part of the OT as rights of the government, and the bible reaffirms them in Romans 13. What Jesus was correcting was the wrong application of those biblical principles to minor personal offenses.
Click to expand...


Satz,
You might have just written the best post on this whole thread. Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hippo said:


> Firstly if anyone can explain to me why the verses that I quote do not mean that you should not resist violence with violence then I am genuinly interested in hearing why.
> 
> If you would not defend yourself if attacked then when not defending your neighbor you are loveing "thy neighbour as thyself".
> 
> We are told to turn the other cheek and not to resist evil, I am sure that you would agree that in following the commandments of God you you are never being wicked, no matter how follish the Gospel seems to the world.
> 
> My problem is that we have clear commands of scripture, I have explained why such commands do not contradict scripture but the counter argument that the vast majority of this board are presenting is stating exactly that.





Hippo said:


> I will read up more on this, but when he says "this does not repeal the law of self-preservation" it still begs the question of why?



I'm going to ask you something and I need a clear answer: Are you an anabaptist?

That out of the way, let me make something plain about the way you are approaching these "clear" commands of Scripture: it is a muddled and confused approach.

Did or did not Christ state that he taught in such a way as to be-fuddle many of His listeners?

There is something known as the analogy of faith that requires that our theological understanding of things has to be able to cohere from all directions. We work from the clear to the un-clear. Now, you want to claim that these "commands" by Christ are clear.

At the same time, however, you want to claim that Christ was not contradicting the Word of God elsewhere.

Well, given your interpretation of what Christ's command _clearly_ intends then you can't have it both ways. The only way you can hold together the OT commands and Christ's teaching is to take a dispensational view or a view that says that Christ came to over-rule the OT Law.

Frankly, I find your appreciation for the text to be superficial on a number of points but, most disturbing, is the way you pit God against Himself. It's sort of the "mean OT God" that commands/permits self-defense vs. the "nice NT God" who has had the Son come to make everything different.

The nature of a moral precept in the Scriptures is that they represent God's Holy character. We cannot hold that God is unchanging on the one hand and then claim that moral principles are somehow morphed from one era to another.

Thus, if pacifism is what God's character requires of us now then it follows that His character would have required it of OT Saints as well. Hence, you actually do injury to the nature of God Himself and I find myself extremely frustrated when I read the things you write because you type in such a way as to twist the Word of God into a pretzel.

You need to learn much more about the Word before you presume to teach here on a Reformed Board because you're understanding of the Scriptures is clearly de-formed and not reformed.

Fundamentally, you need to understand Christ as the Lawgiver Himself and the Sermon(s) on the Mount were not new revelation but proper interpretation. Christ never repudiates what is written but what others have said. In other words, He notes: "You have heard it said, but I say to you...." When He is finished, people are astonished because He spoke as one who had authority.

Why? Because the Law had been enshrouded by Rabinnical Schools of thought that "said" that these Laws mean this. Christ is giving proper interpretation to these laws. In some cases, He's pointing out that the Rabinnical interpretations permit too many loopholes and self-deceit regarding personal righteousness and in others He is correcting mis-information about where the Rabbis would have permitted vengeance where the Law only permits self-defense and the defense of the weak.

Hence, if you understand Christ as always with the people and the giver of the Law then you would not be able to come to some sort of crazy conclusion that He would give a law or principle about self-defense at one point in the life of God's people only to repudiate what He taught. Ceremonial principles had a terminus in His work but, if such moral principles change, then we're admitting mutation in the Godhead. This is unacceptable.


----------



## redmanca

victorbravo said:


> If you are angry at your family being attacked, it is not "excessive" but righteous, because someone is committing a wicked act that is worth being angry about. The act of killing, under these circumstances, regardless of your emotion, is just. *I'd go so far as to say that the act of killing under these circumstances without righteous anger might be a mark of a cold-blooded killer instead of a fearer of God.
> *




Fantastic point. Thanks for the answers sir.

Conor


----------



## Pergamum

A thought for me is that Jesus gave us examples of civil injustices that are minor and non life-threatening: 

---Romans soldiers impressing folks into carrying their packs, presumably to save the soldiers strength, maybe for fighting to save the Republic. Jesus seems to tell us to tolerate minor injustices such as this. 

If the army comes by and requisitions a jacket for a winter campaign I guess maybe we give them some old shirts too?

Getting slapped on the cheek is a lot different than being beaten with a baseball bat.



Can anyone link any info on the cultural context of Jesus' words?


----------



## jogri17

Dwimble said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree that the taking of a life is always a terrible thing, how do you reconcile your view with the following scripture, which has been quoted a few times in this thread already?
> 
> _"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,_" - Exodus 22:2 (esv)
> 
> That scripture makes no mention or implication of your life being obviously or overtly threatened, only of there being a "thief found breaking in."
Click to expand...

I say you it was for a theocracy, a law for a people that were supposed to be godly.


----------



## Pergamum

Another quick thought: 

Loving my neighbor might mean kicking his rear if he is drunk and sinning rather than being "nice" and enabling his sin. 

I am all for Godly butt kickings when needed.

In the Army (moreso in the past I am sure) we were glad when the troubled recruit was given a small "reminder" to shape up rather than "endanger" our whole platoon during training exercises. This "reminder" was not very nice and led to slight bruising but was an act of long-term love as the troubled recruit in question ceased from his stupidity, trained hard and finished his enlistment term successfully and with commendations.


The most "loving" thing is often not the most "nice."


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist

joshua said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martyrologist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Seth.
> 
> So I should quote John 3:16 to the man who breaks into my house to kill my wife and daughter?
> 
> Piper never said that, though; or anything similar. Nor have I come across any pacifists who would advise that. Have you?
> 
> I take it by the thumbs down you would be against Piper's post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I revise my post to say "So I should shoot my pistol into the air as the man kills my wife and daughter?" - either one (John 3:16 or a shot in the air) has the same effect: a dead wife and daughter.
> 
> My thumbs down was meant to reinforce my disagreement with Piper's post.
> 
> I second Joshua's post: it is a violation of the sixth commandment to allow my neighbor (in this case my family) to be murdered while I stand idly by.
> 
> Funny thing is, Piper says "I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun." but that was exactly what I was intending to do with my stimulus check!
> 
> H&P USP Compact 9mm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seth, have you made your purchase yet? I would go with at least a .40 or .45. 9mm ammo is cheaper, but it's not enough punch, In my humble opinion if, in a hurry, you don't hit _exactly_ the right spot.
Click to expand...


Dear MasterChief(s),

My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):

A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...



(note: I thought it necessary to add this in... it's not safe to dual wield fire arms)


----------



## CDM

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I revise my post to say "So I should shoot my pistol into the air as the man kills my wife and daughter?" - either one (John 3:16 or a shot in the air) has the same effect: a dead wife and daughter.
> 
> My thumbs down was meant to reinforce my disagreement with Piper's post.
> 
> I second Joshua's post: it is a violation of the sixth commandment to allow my neighbor (in this case my family) to be murdered while I stand idly by.
> 
> Funny thing is, Piper says "I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun." but that was exactly what I was intending to do with my stimulus check!
> 
> H&P USP Compact 9mm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seth, have you made your purchase yet? I would go with at least a .40 or .45. 9mm ammo is cheaper, but it's not enough punch, In my humble opinion if, in a hurry, you don't hit _exactly_ the right spot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear MasterChief(s),
> 
> My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):
> 
> A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...
Click to expand...




A point of clarification: Masterchief would not use a pea shooter like a 9mm...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> Dear MasterChief(s),
> 
> My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):
> 
> A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...



Jonathan,

As someone who knows more than a little bit about marksmanship, there is _never_ a time where dual wielding of pistols would be necessary unless you're playing a part in a movie. If you want to hit your target then use one weapon.


----------



## CDM

Semper Fidelis said:


> TheocraticMonarchist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear MasterChief(s),
> 
> My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):
> 
> A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan,
> 
> As someone who knows more than a little bit about marksmanship, there is _never_ a time where dual wielding of pistols would be necessary unless you're playing a part in a movie. If you want to hit your target then use one weapon.
Click to expand...


He was making a joke about a video game [are you happy now? you've made me expose my previous life as a gaming-geek].


----------



## Semper Fidelis

mangum said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheocraticMonarchist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear MasterChief(s),
> 
> My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):
> 
> A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan,
> 
> As someone who knows more than a little bit about marksmanship, there is _never_ a time where dual wielding of pistols would be necessary unless you're playing a part in a movie. If you want to hit your target then use one weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was making a joke about a video game [are you happy now? you've made me expose my previous life as a gaming-geek].
Click to expand...


I need to create a PuritanBoard infraction for "loss of man points."


----------



## Hippo

> I'm going to ask you something and I need a clear answer: Are you an anabaptist?



No. 

I will try and be constructive in my response as I believe that it is better to be constructive rather than to respond without real interaction. I am not an anabaptist firstly for the obvious reason that I am a paedobaptist however more pertinently I have a high view of the physical Church and do not advoacate seperatism. I am aware that certain elements of the anabaptsist movement advocated pacifism amoung a whole host of other beliefs but any commanality between myself and them on this point is incidental. 



> That out of the way, let me make something plain about the way you are approaching these "clear" commands of Scripture: it is a muddled and confused approach.
> 
> Did or did not Christ state that he taught in such a way as to be-fuddle many of His listeners?
> 
> There is something known as the analogy of faith that requires that our theological understanding of things has to be able to cohere from all directions. We work from the clear to the un-clear. Now, you want to claim that these "commands" by Christ are clear.
> 
> At the same time, however, you want to claim that Christ was not contradicting the Word of God elsewhere.



I am not the one apparantly claiming that Jesus did not really mean what he said when he taught his people to turn the other cheek. This appears to be a clear direct instruction. Reconciling statements that on first sight could be seen to be contradictory is necessary, as you have said, theology has to "cohere from all directions". I have explained why my interpretation coheres, you can disagree with me but you have given no grounds why your position coheres. You have taken a logical position that proposition A (shooting intruders is OK) is correct therefore proposition B (we should not shoot intruders) is incorrect yet you are accusing me of taking precisley the opposite position (B is correct therefore A is incorrect) and accusing me of being hetrodox for that very reason. Mote and beam please, you have also misrepresented my position in the first place, this is not my logic or approach. 




> Well, given your interpretation of what Christ's command clearly intends then you can't have it both ways. The only way you can hold together the OT commands and Christ's teaching is to take a dispensational view or a view that says that Christ came to over-rule the OT Law.



I will reiterate why there is no contradiction in my position as of course there cannot be a contradiction if a theological position is to be correct, this is true of both the pacifist position and the shooting intruders position, please apply this standard to both positions. 

In the OT we have commands that show that self defence is approved of under the law, just as there are commands that it is just to apply an "eye for an eye" when seeking restitution and that those guilty of adultry should be stoned to death. These standards reveal the law of God and were and are just. Jesus showed that in many situations we should not enforce our legal rights to the letter of the law, we should forgive those who wrong us and turn the other cheek rather than seeking the maximum redress available to us. Jesus gave a clear and direct instruction to turn the other cheek, of course he was not saying that the law was wrong or was repealed but he was saying that as Christians we should forgive rather than enforce our rights. This is very similiar to Our Lord letting the women found in adultry go free despite the just verdict of the law that she be stoned. Of course in this instance Jesus was not abrogating the Law, why are you suggesting that a command to turn the other cheek would require an abrogation? 



> Frankly, I find your appreciation for the text to be superficial on a number of points but, most disturbing, is the way you pit God against Himself. It's sort of the "mean OT God" that commands/permits self-defense vs. the "nice NT God" who has had the Son come to make everything different.



This is just not true, you have created a straw man argument from your own mind here. 



> The nature of a moral precept in the Scriptures is that they represent God's Holy character. We cannot hold that God is unchanging on the one hand and then claim that moral principles are somehow morphed from one era to another.
> 
> Thus, if pacifism is what God's character requires of us now then it follows that His character would have required it of OT Saints as well. Hence, you actually do injury to the nature of God Himself and I find myself extremely frustrated when I read the things you write because you type in such a way as to twist the Word of God into a pretzel.



God asks us to do many things which in our sin seem impossible to live up to, you are confusing moral principles with exhortations to suffer because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, so that we might follow in his steps.



> You need to learn much more about the Word before you presume to teach here on a Reformed Board because you're understanding of the Scriptures is clearly de-formed and not reformed.



I am no teacher and have never claimed to be so, I do not think that venturing and defending an opinion (while also being open to correction) on a bulletin board is innapropriate. 



> Fundamentally, you need to understand Christ as the Lawgiver Himself and the Sermon(s) on the Mount were not new revelation but proper interpretation. Christ never repudiates what is written but what others have said. In other words, He notes: "You have heard it said, but I say to you...." When He is finished, people are astonished because He spoke as one who had authority.
> 
> Why? Because the Law had been enshrouded by Rabinnical Schools of thought that "said" that these Laws mean this. Christ is giving proper interpretation to these laws. In some cases, He's pointing out that the Rabinnical interpretations permit too many loopholes and self-deceit regarding personal righteousness and in others He is correcting mis-information about where the Rabbis would have permitted vengeance where the Law only permits self-defense and the defense of the weak.



I do not argue with this point, it is usefully made.



> Hence, if you understand Christ as always with the people and the giver of the Law then you would not be able to come to some sort of crazy conclusion that He would give a law or principle about self-defense at one point in the life of God's people only to repudiate what He taught. Ceremonial principles had a terminus in His work but, if such moral principles change, then we're admitting mutation in the Godhead. This is unacceptable.



Again you are imputing an argument that moral principles had changed to me, something that I have never argued and is not implicit in my position.

My response was loose where I said" I will read up more on this, but when he says "this does not repeal the law of self-preservation" it still begs the question of why?", my point was that when two positions are enumerated (self defence and turn the other cheek) why does self defence automaticaly trump pacifism? As has been argued it is necessary to reconcile these two positions rather than choose one, a task that I have attempted to undertake.


----------



## Pergamum

Do we have the right to give up our right to self defense ever? 

Or is giving up this right sin? 

And if so, then we are REQUIRED to always fight back if threatened. 

And if required, and we are all Christians who witness, we must also defend ourselves in potential martyr situations. 

To die passively in the Colosseum then was sin for the early Christians. Whole families were often killed.

In the days of persecution by Rome, should the Chritians have risen up and forcibly protected themselves, perhaps by an attempted strike at the gov't itself since Christians were being exterminated? 


Could and should someone have tried to assassinate the Ceasar?

Or, if taken before the Colosseum crowds, why did they not try to kill their captors and escape? Weren't they required to try to protect their families with all means necessary? Even if the odds are against you, and you can take out several guards, wouldn't you be obligated to at least try instead of being herded before the lions. And once before the lions, wouldn't you be obligated to attack those lions and try to kill them?



Other thoughts:

Also guns are to kill. But under modification they can shoot rubber bullets. Or birdshot which is less lethal. We are NOT looking for lethality, but knock down power to immobilize. Therefore, it could be argued, that for intruders, one should choose something that will maim but not kill.






Finally, if Paul Hill [see above] sinned, WHY? What is the difference between vigilanteeism and murder? If the civil state won't defend the helpless, why can't we?


----------



## CDM

Hippo,

I truly commend you for your patience you have exhibited throughout this thread especially in the face of antagonism. It’s not easy being in the minority.  

Back to the thread.

In the story of the Good Samaritan, he was beaten and left for dead. If you or I were on the scene when the thieves / murderers were beating him to death, are you saying Christ would have us stand by and watch according to the Sermon on the Mount? If yes, would this not be a violation of one of the "greatest of the commandments" - loving thy neighbor as thyself? Does God approve of a man who stands by and permits violence and wickedness to our neighbor? How would this man not be an accomplice to the crime(s) in the eyes of man or God’s law? 

Also, how do you view Christ beating the merchandisers out of the temple?

I’m trying to get an idea how you view violence in general.


Blessings,


----------



## Pergamum

Was Stephen the martyr sinning by not fighting back?


----------



## Hippo

mangum said:


> Hippo,
> 
> I truly commend you for your patience you have exhibited throughout this thread especially in the face of antagonism. It’s not easy being in the minority.
> 
> Back to the thread.
> 
> In the story of the Good Samaritan, he was beaten and left for dead. If you or I were on the scene when the thieves / murderers were beating him to death, are you saying Christ would have us stand by and watch according to the Sermon on the Mount? If yes, would this not be a violation of one of the "greatest of the commandments" - loving thy neighbor as thyself? Does God approve of a man who stands by and permits violence and wickedness to our neighbor? How would this man not be an accomplice to the crime(s) in the eyes of man or God’s law?
> 
> Also, how do you view Christ beating the merchandisers out of the temple?
> 
> I’m trying to get an idea how you view violence in general.
> 
> 
> Blessings,



If I would not fight back if attacked then in not violently opposing those who are attacking others (I am not saying you should not get involved) you are treating your neighbor as you would treat yourself. I am not for one moment advocating standing back and doing nothing. 

As for Christ in the temple I have heard sermons (Peter Masters) that see this event as a miracle as he did not (according to the preacher) use violence. I do not subscribe to this view but God is the Judge, he can do what he wants as whatever he does will neceesarily be holy and right as that is his nature. God can judge our hearts, man cannot. We do not follow the actions of Jesus in all respects.

I can see situations in my life where I cannot imagine not using violence. I have a wife and a step daughter, it is easy to create scenarios where I do not think that I could resist acting violently. That however does not mean that I think that I would be right to do so. 

I really do agree with the piece written by Piper as I believe that this is the calling of the Christian. In particular acting violently "in case" is not I feel remotely defensible.

This is a difficult area with many hard questions but perhaps doing what is natural is not the right thing to do. I am not particularly evangelical on this point, it is a personal one, but when the subject is being directly discussed it seems to be a sensible time to express my view of the revelation we have received on the subject.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Rich and others well-read on the just-war/self defense view, could you perhaps provide some good book recommendations for that? I'd like a good book that gives a basic defense of the position and a refutation of the major pacificist arguments. I've read some on the pacificism side, but don't know which books to go for on the just war/self defense side. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Answerman

Semper Fidelis said:


> As someone who knows more than a little bit about marksmanship, there is _never_ a time where dual wielding of pistols would be necessary unless you're playing a part in a movie. If you want to hit your target then use one weapon.



Would if a gang of thugs were breaking into your house and you had two of these:

Twin G18s 9mm Auto Glock*Video

And if you’re strong enough you could use these drum magazines for each one:

Glock with a drum mag video

Could this be a senario for dual wielding?


----------



## Christusregnat

My friend, Charl van Wyk wrote a book called "shooting back":

Shop.WND.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive!

Cheers,

Adam






Covenant Joel said:


> Rich and others well-read on the just-war/self defense view, could you perhaps provide some good book recommendations for that? I'd like a good book that gives a basic defense of the position and a refutation of the major pacificist arguments. I've read some on the pacificism side, but don't know which books to go for on the just war/self defense side. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Answerman

Of course, you might have some trouble explaining to the police why you had guns that violated their unconstitutional laws.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hippo said:


> I will try and be constructive in my response as I believe that it is better to be constructive rather than to respond without real interaction.



Let me be explicit then about what constitutes that which is constructive:

[bible]Proverbs 12:1[/bible]



> I am not the one apparantly claiming that Jesus did not really mean what he said when he taught his people to turn the other cheek. This appears to be a clear direct instruction.





> I am no teacher and have never claimed to be so, I do not think that venturing and defending an opinion (while also being open to correction) on a bulletin board is innapropriate.



Wrong Sir.

Concerning our "Yes" to a thing:

[bible]Matthew 5:37[/bible]

Now, I ask you, as you claim to be a Presbyterian and you also clicked "I have read the Forum rules and agree to them" when you signed up for this board, are you now telling me that you lied when you clicked to agree to those Forum Rules? Or were you careless.

You see, I'm really not interested in your opinions when you are propagating a doctrine that is in clear violation of our Confessional standards on the 6th Commandment.

We're not talking about a mere slap on the cheek and withstanding the reproach of a neighbor. Christ did not say: "If your neighbor is trying to rape your daughter then trust in God and it will all work out." That is your twisted interpretation to turn a point about not seeking self-vindication to actually openly repudiate the teaching of Christ on the 6th Commandment Who, Himself, is the Lawgiver.

God does not merely _permit_ the defense of the weak if we're just weak kneed and don't have faith. That interpretation is frankly laughable. The 6th Commandment demands the protection of the weak.

I find your understand abhorrent because you add false piety to what is essentially a wicked notion and then claim that Christ is calling us to a completely different ethic than our forebears. Our forebears were not in some sort of fleshly disposition that gave them a pass to self-defense. Why wouldn't God simply command them to "trust" whenever crime would be committed? If the ethic is appropriate for us, it is appropriate for them.

Why did Paul refuse to be scourged by the Roman commander in Jerusalem? Why did he refuse to be beaten by magistrates in other districts? Why did He not "trust in God" and allow himself to be turned over to the Jews who were intent on assassinating him?

This false piety of the pacifist about what God demands in this new ethic insults men of faith in the Scriptures who understood that wickedness exists and that we don't stand idly by to allow the weak to be plundered, raped, or murdered and, with a pious look, tell them that we're strong enough to help but they just need to have faith. Abraham didn't need to go rescue Lot, he should have just trusted God. David didn't need to rescue the women, children, and livestock plundered by a marauding band, he just needed to trust in God. Men of Israel never needed to gird up their loins for battle. They just needed to trust in God.

You are in the minority here for a reason: you are outside the bounds of the Confession and the Scriptures on this matter. I'm not at all interested in hearing your distortions of the Scriptures further on this matter. I provide a venue for Reformed discussion because I know that the immature read this board for information and I will not permit what is an impious view of the 6th Commandment to be propagated and promoted.

Fundamentally, the pacifist tears down the very institutions of protection that God has given to bless man and calls them inherently wicked or fleshly. In doing so, he raises his hand against almighty God and tells Him that he's more holy than the means that God has provided to guard against the destructive influence in this world.

Your view is foolish and will not be tolerated here further.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

mangum said:


> TheocraticMonarchist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seth, have you made your purchase yet? I would go with at least a .40 or .45. 9mm ammo is cheaper, but it's not enough punch, In my humble opinion if, in a hurry, you don't hit _exactly_ the right spot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear MasterChief(s),
> 
> My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):
> 
> A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A point of clarification: Masterchief would not use a pea shooter like a 9mm...
Click to expand...


Why don't you sailors let the men (Marines) handle the big weapons?


----------



## timmopussycat

Christusregnat said:


> Tim,
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you assert that the entire Mosaic Law is enlarged and applied to the new covenant era, you are echoing the view of the Galatian Judaizers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, albeit, untrue assertion (and that's all it is).
> 
> Here's Calvin thought on the passage:
> 
> There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which induced him to declare this agreement between the law and the Gospel. As soon as any new method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people immediately look upon it, *as if everything were to be overturned*. Now the preaching of the Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the expectation, that the Church would assume a *totally different form from what had previously belonged to it*. They thought that the *ancient and accustomed government* was to be abolished. This opinion, in many respects, was very dangerous. Devout worshippers of God would never have embraced the Gospel, *if it had been a revolt from the law*; while light and turbulent spirits would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to them for entirely overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what insolent freaks rash people are ready to indulge when there is any thing new.....With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the *coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law*: for it is *the eternal rule of a devout and holy life*, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to *ceremonies*, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.
> 
> 
> Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
> 
> Notice, for Calvin, there are two basic types of law: (1) Laws eternal in character, directing a "devout and holy life" and "ancient and accustomed government", and (2) Ceremonial Laws which Christ confirmed by His life, Passion, Resurrection, etc.
> 
> This is my position, but thanks for trying to group me with Judaizers
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


First I was not grouping you with the Judaizers: I began my post with "If". Not even the most robust Christian Reconstructionist believes that the entire Mosaic Law is enlarged and applied to the new covenant era. Bahnsen pointed out that some of its stipulations are currently "out of gear". Second Calvin does not see Christ enlarging and applying the entire Mosaic law to the new covenant in Matt 5:17-19. His comments on v 19 "Whoever then shall break Christ here speaks expressly of the commandments of life, or the ten words, which all the children of God ought to take as the rule of their life" make it utterly explicit that he believes that Christ is here referring to the moral law only not the entire law.

If one tries to make Matt 5:17-19 a prooftext for applying all the law to the New Covenant one cannot get away from v.18's prohibition of any changes to the law "until everything is accomplished." Since Christ does not qualify his prohibition and since the NT clearly announces changes to the Law, "everything is accomplished" must have taken place before Heb. 7:12 was written.


----------



## kvanlaan

OK, I've managed to make it through all the posts now (1/2 an hour on) and have this question:

For those who would fight back (and I count myself among you): Is it the motivation/position of the attacker that dictates your ability to fight back? That is, is the fact that a nutcase on crystal meth is attacking your family the reason you would defend them? What if it was in fact an officer of the law, a "magistrate", who had come to bring your wife and daughter in for "questioning" (though you know that would include physical/sexual abuse) under the law of the land? At what point do we become lambs unto the slaughter and count it all joy to be persecuted for Christ? I realise that the two are very different scenarios in fact, but perhaps not so differnt in principle, and I am curious as to the thinking behind your answers.


----------



## Pergamum

Pergamum said:


> Do we have the right to give up our right to self defense ever?
> 
> Or is giving up this right sin?
> 
> And if so, then we are REQUIRED to always fight back if threatened.
> 
> And if required, and we are all Christians who witness, we must also defend ourselves in potential martyr situations.
> 
> To die passively in the Colosseum then was sin for the early Christians. Whole families were often killed.
> 
> In the days of persecution by Rome, should the Chritians have risen up and forcibly protected themselves, perhaps by an attempted strike at the gov't itself since Christians were being exterminated?
> 
> 
> Could and should someone have tried to assassinate the Ceasar?
> 
> Or, if taken before the Colosseum crowds, why did they not try to kill their captors and escape? Weren't they required to try to protect their families with all means necessary? Even if the odds are against you, and you can take out several guards, wouldn't you be obligated to at least try instead of being herded before the lions. And once before the lions, wouldn't you be obligated to attack those lions and try to kill them?
> 
> 
> 
> Other thoughts:
> 
> Also guns are to kill. But under modification they can shoot rubber bullets. Or birdshot which is less lethal. We are NOT looking for lethality, but knock down power to immobilize. Therefore, it could be argued, that for intruders, one should choose something that will maim but not kill.






KVANLAAN:

Yes, many martyr's went to their deaths with their whole families. 

Again I quote [ABOVE] my own words about the Christians in the Roman Arena. 


If we are to fight back, why were they so passive? Because of innumerable odds? Were they quitters who just gave up? Were they negligent in not even trying to protect their families and why didn't more of them rush the lions or the roman soldiers and try to take as many out as possible before being killed? They just prayed and sung hymns...

What are the principles that tell us when we should go to our deaths like sheep? Bad odds? State persecution?


Also, all this talk about pistols: Are we obligated or NOT obligated to focus on lethality and stopping power or maybe instead on non-lethality and maiming power? After all a maimed theif is usually just as "stopped" as a dead thief and for personal protection it is ideal to not kill if one need not kill. Birdshot thus would be better than a 9 ml..rubber bullets even better.


----------



## CDM

kvanlaan said:


> OK, I've managed to make it through all the posts now (1/2 an hour on) and have this question:
> 
> For those who would fight back (and I count myself among you): Is it the motivation/position of the attacker that dictates your ability to fight back? That is, is the fact that a nutcase on crystal meth is attacking your family the reason you would defend them? What if it was in fact an officer of the law, a "magistrate", who had come to bring your wife and daughter in for "questioning" (though you know that would include physical/sexual abuse) under the law of the land? At what point do we become lambs unto the slaughter and count it all joy to be persecuted for Christ? I realise that the two are very different scenarios in fact, but perhaps not so differnt in principle, and I am curious as to the thinking behind your answers.




_Any_ man, be it a drug attic, elderly neighbor, police / government agent / officer, judge, pastor, woman, one who comes in the name of the Lord, or whatever else you can think of comes in my house *as an aggressor / thief / murderer (i.e., sneaking in at night, breaking in a window, not identifying / announcing oneself, etc.) uninvited and /or illegally* will receive a deliberate and spirited, savage defense from me and mine. 

It is not my responsibility to consider (as if you had time) what the intentions are of the aggressor. The fact that he is assaulting your home is expressing his intentions - it is a violent act of war.

There are many scenarios that my response here has not covered of course. That’s why these questions cannot be answered easily (on line).

Now...

Me giving testimony of Christ's righteousness on the street and people spitting on me or slapping / shoving me would be "suffering for Christ's sake" and you would see me "turn the other check". 

If we are being mistreated because of Christ we will gladly suffer for him. If I am sentenced to death *because of my testimony of Christ*, by God's grace, you will see me being led like a lamb to the slaughter. 

The Christians were sentenced to death FOR BEING CHRISTIANS (there were real laws about this). A completely separate matter than someone breaking into one’s house to do evil. If my family and I were sentenced to death by the State for being Christians we would die as martyrs. Also, note the State executing Christians is different than criminals breaking in and assaulting you and yours. Does everyone see this distinction or am I out to lunch?


----------



## kvanlaan

No, I see the distinction, but what of the corrupt law enforcer who comes into the home, identifies himself, and again, takes your wife in "for questioning" due to her activities in evangelizing members of the community. There are plenty of places around here where the officials cover up all manner of crime but can lean on federal law to make it on the 'up and up'. The law says arrest them, it does not say rape them, but we acquiesce to the arrest as per Romans 13, and are unable to defend (though we know it will happen) the subsequent actions perpetrated upon them.

Where's the line?


----------



## Pergamum

Or when can a husband decide when it is appropriate for his wife and family also to die as martyr's? Sometimes whole families are killed at once and the man has to decide whether to suffer for Christ or protect family.


----------



## CDM

Pergamum said:


> Or when can a husband decide when it is appropriate for his wife and family also to die as martyr's? Sometimes whole families are killed at once and the man has to decide whether to suffer for Christ or protect family.



Good question.

My family belongs to Christ we will also die with him.

I do not readily see when the husband / father has a [godly] chocie to decide to die as a martyr or protect his family. Do you mean if he were to sin and renounce Christ to save his own?


----------



## CDM

kvanlaan said:


> No, I see the distinction, but what of the corrupt law enforcer who comes into the home, identifies himself, and again, takes your wife in "for questioning" due to her activities in evangelizing members of the community. There are plenty of places around here where the officials cover up all manner of crime but can lean on federal law to make it on the 'up and up'. The law says arrest them, it does not say rape them, but we acquiesce to the arrest as per Romans 13, and are unable to defend (though we know it will happen) the subsequent actions perpetrated upon them.
> 
> Where's the line?



Yeah, these are the stickiest of scenarios. The circumstances do greatly change the appropriate response.

Even still, in this country, are citizens required to submit to an unlawful order?

The legal and moral answer is "no."

However, in a conversation with a 35+ year SWAT team commander told me recently:



> "Yes, by law you [citizen] are not required to obey an unlawful command from a police officer. But you better because we will taze[r] you if you do not....especially the young ones [police officers] coming up."



I do not know about you gents but upon hearing this I was moved in my patriotic heart, fell to my knees, genuflected to Old Glory and immediately burst out into song  ..._and I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free_...!"

[wipes eye]

....
..
.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Hey PB peoples,

Haven't posted in a long, long time. There is no way I could read this whole thread. But, my comment..

If someone breaks into my house, and the Lord in His mercy gives me the time and ability to retrieve either my wife's .22 pistol with the hollow points and laser site, or my .357 Magnum, and I have time to point it at the intruder, then I believe I would conclude that the Lord has delivered the man into my hands and I will shoot him. 

I would wrestle later with the theological or moral ramifications over a cup of Starbucks with my wife.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

First of all, that automatic pistol we keep seeing the photo of sure looks like a .45 automatic and not a 9 mm (is the caliber not engraved on the slide?)

We keep seeing in the news (and on threads here) articles on the mounting homosexual agendas. If we do see the day when the social order -- and the laws of the land -- deteriorate to the point when Christians are considered fair game for persecution -- outlaws and enemies of the New Order of Humanity -- and one is attacked by homosexuals (as happened around the house of Lot in ancient Sodom), I doubt we will see many pacifists then. There is a limit.

When I see the remarks of the pacifist brother who said that he could envision scenarios of his becoming violent if wife and step-daughter were attacked, but that he would still consider it sinful -- there is a disconnect with reality there, in my view. This needs to be thought out and resolved before any such events may occur.

A good resource for consideration would be Rich's post #55 WLC on the sixth commandment

I think the Westminster Larger Catechism's statements on this are profound. They speak both to the issues of justice and mercy.

The succinctness of the Shorter Catechism speaks well also:

*WSC #68 - What is required in the sixth commandment?*

A: The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others.

*WSC #69 - What is forbidden in the sixth commandment?*

A: The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbour unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto.​
You will note, it talks of _lawful_ endeavors to _preserve_ life -- ours and others. And forbidding the _unjust_ taking away of life.

In my post #120, the incident described there, had I not threatened (and been prepared to exert) extreme violence in that situation, would not the possible resulting violence and trauma to all concerned have been staggering, and what is more, _allowed to happen_ because of my wicked refusal to protect both myself and my children?

The questions and answers of the catechisms are godly, reflect Biblical teaching, and are worthy of being taken to heart and lived out. We do not resort to violence because we hate life, but because we love it, and honor the God who gave it to us, and His instructions concerning it.


----------



## sastark

I thought this was germane to this thread:



> *FRONTLINE MISSIONARIES ATTACKED*
> 
> During the Reclaiming Africa for Christ Biblical Worldview Summit, the Deputy Director of Frontline Fellowship, Charl van Wyk, and Creation Science lecturer Philip Stott, were held up in an attempted hijacking at Khayelitsha while en-route to record a radio programme.
> 
> While two thugs pointed their automatic pistols at Uncle Philip threatening and manhandling him, Charl drew his pistol and opened fire, sending the assailants scurrying for cover.
> 
> Charl then came under fire from a third assailant who was concealed by the side of the road. By God’s grace, our speakers and vehicle escaped the attempted hijacking and ambush unharmed. Our people have laid charges of attempted murder, hijacking and robbery with the local police. We praise the Lord for His protection, that no lives were lost.
> 
> However, a number of foreign passports and identity documents of participants of the Great Commission Course were stolen by the attackers. This has caused much extra expense and time wasting disruption as each of the participants whose passports were stolen need to make application for emergency travel documents, travelling to their embassies, some of which are only in Pretoria (1,400 kilometres away), necessitating changes of flights, extra expenses and other complications.
> 
> Please join us in praying that the Lord would work all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. That this, which man meant for evil, God will use for good. Let us continue to pray that the Lord would bring those responsible for this attack to justice, to conviction of sin and to full Repentance.
> 
> For firsthand reports on the attack please read the articles written by Philip Stott and Charl van Wyk:
> 
> *Khayelitsha In The Morning*
> 
> 
> "Give me your cell-phone."
> 
> The words hardly register. I am deep in thought - full of hope and joy. Open on my lap is Favoured UdoJesus Edwin Akubuiroh's book "The New Wine Church". I have been meditating on a stunning observation – Africa has long been in trouble because "her witchcraft activities, idolatry, wickedness and all manner of sins brought her torment and the wrath and punishment of God." For years I have been despondent about the state of Africa. So much missionary effort, so little fruit, and I'm convinced that one of the main roots of the problem is that Africans never seem to accept any blame for their woes. The problem is always the old colonial powers, or the slave trade or something of that sort. But to hear an African acknowledge that witchcraft, idolatry and all manner of sins are to blame has filled me with hope. If a new generation like Favoured Akubuiroh is going to arise and acknowledge such sins in sincere repentance, then God could be on the verge of doing something wonderful and magnificent in Africa. When the door opened I had hardly noticed. It was almost as if it had happened in a dream.
> 
> "Give me your cell-phone. Now!"
> 
> I'm in a daze. I notice the reasonably tidily dressed man of about thirty standing at the open door. He's not quite as dark as most Africans – probably some racial mixture – and his English is surprisingly good. Somehow I seem to be in a trance, and I can't focus on him or pay attention to what he is saying.
> 
> My attention is fixed on the gun in his hand.
> 
> The gun is in very sharp focus.
> 
> It's a 9mm semi-automatic pistol with an unusually long barrel. I don't think I have seen a pistol with as long a barrel as this before. The gun is not new. It has seen hard service, much of the bluing is worn and the silver-grey metal is showing through the black coating of the barrel. The handle is brown. It could be wood, or perhaps plastic that looks like wood. His hand is wrapped tightly around that handle and the barrel is pointing at my stomach.
> 
> "Give me the cell phone."
> 
> "I haven't got a cell phone with me."
> 
> "Give me your money."
> 
> "I didn't bring any money with me."
> 
> "Give me your gun."
> 
> "I haven't got a gun." I make a gesture with my empty hands but he doesn't believe me. He starts again on his cycle of demands and paws my jacket searching for whatever he can find. He feels the outline of my camera through the soft material and starts to try and force his way in.
> 
> "Why haven't you given us your cell phone?"
> 
> It's a different voice.
> 
> There's a movement just inside my field of vision on the left. A more vicious looking fellow pushes another gun towards me. I hardly catch a glimpse of it before it is pressed against my side. The first thug stops groping my clothes and the second takes over demanding my money, my gun, my cell phone. I gesture helplessly and explain once again that I just don't have what they're asking for. Thug number two seems to be losing patience. Thug number one resumes fingering the camera through my jacket. The long barrel of his pistol swings from my stomach to my knees and back again. Thug number two angrily demands a cell phone again and jabs his gun into my ribs.
> 
> I'm in a dream. Can this be really happening? What can I do? I'm almost paralyzed. I gesture helplessly with my empty hands.
> 
> Then out of the blue there's Charl. Moving past the driver's-side window on the right.
> 
> He's always such a soft-spoken, mild-mannered chap with a constant look of joy on his face. But he doesn't look the same now. His jaw is set in a hard line. There's a determined expression on his face. He's crouching as he glides swiftly past the widow towards the bonnet. He has a gun clasped in both hands. He shouts. The thugs suddenly lose interest in me. They snatch their weapons away and pandemonium breaks loose.
> 
> Charl's gun roars and jerks up into the air with the recoil, shots ring out behind me to the left. The thugs have disappeared. I grab the door, slam it shut and crouch down trying to get my head out of sight below the level of the windows. Somebody is shooting somewhere over to the left but I can't tell where the shots are coming from. Charl fires again. Sipho, who had thought he was just getting a lift home as usual, shouts "Charl! Get down!" Charl ducks. More shots ring out and I hold my breath expecting bullets to shatter the windows or smash through the metal-work. Charl throws the driver's-side door open and pushes Sipho inside. Sipho fumbles as his feet get caught between the clutch and brake pedals, he fights his way past the gear lever and flattens himself down next to me. Charl slams the door closed, rams the lever into gear and races towards the cross-roads.
> 
> As we drive towards the police station I look past Sipho - perched uncomfortably on the handbrake - towards Charl. He still has that hard line to his jaw. I've known him for a long time, but I've never seen him quite like this.
> 
> I have known for a long time he takes the responsibility of protecting his wife and children seriously.
> 
> I'm conscious of being very thankful that he takes the responsibility of protecting his passengers seriously too.
> 
> Philip Stott
> 
> *Attackers Flee*
> 
> "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well." Proverbs 25:26
> 
> "Don't move! Don't move!" The gun-toting thug held his firearm pointed towards me whilst another came from behind and searched my jacket pockets. "Give us your money and cell phone. Where is your gun?"
> 
> I was busy unloading the back of our mission pick-up at 09h00 Tuesday 1 July 2008 in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Sipho , ex-terrorist unit commander, now turned Christian, was passing his bags of clothing from the back of the vehicle. We were giving him a lift from the Frontline Fellowship Biblical Worldview Summit held at Mizpah.
> 
> I gave the thieves my wallet, identification document and cell phone. They helped themselves to 10 foreign passports in my jacket pocket. These belong to Summit participants - I was to make copies of the documents so that our foreign ministry guests would be allowed into prisons to minister to convicts during the upcoming Great Commission Course.
> 
> The thug, who pointed the firearm at me, walked over to Sipho behind me and asked for his cell phone whilst the searcher carried on body searching me, trying to find a firearm. By God's grace, he was unsuccessful.
> 
> The attackers made their way over to my passenger, creation scientist, Philip Stott, a guest speaker at the Summit. I was to interview Uncle Philip for a radio show later that morning.
> 
> The passenger door was ripped open and the armed thug pointed his firearm at Uncle Philip who was reading and had no idea of what had been going on behind the vehicle. "Give me your cell phone, money and gun!" the thief commanded. Thug two, the searcher, moved in right next to my passenger and stuck a pistol into his ribs. They could not believe that he had nothing. They were agitated, frustrated and aggressive.
> 
> Uncle Philip was cool-headed whilst explaining why he had nothing to give them. He wisely also did not look either of them in the eye - many attackers fear being recognised in court and will easily kill you if they think you may be able to recognise them later.
> 
> This gave me time to move towards the driver’s door of the vehicle and draw and **** my 9mm Heckler and Koch pistol. Sipho heard me **** my firearm and thus took cover on my side of the vehicle. I moved to the front of the pick up, I shouted at the thugs as they were threatening the life of Uncle Philip. For a split second they were distracted and I opened fire.
> 
> They fled, and are hopefully still running. What I had not realised was that there was a third party covering them from a distance. He returned fire. I heard Sipho shouting, "Charl get down!"
> 
> I took cover behind the vehicle at the driver’s door, which I opened; Sipho and I jumped in and we drove off as fast as possible. By God's grace none of us were hit by flying bullets, and the mission vehicle was undamaged.
> 
> On the highway, a taxi van with about 12 passengers drove past; the passengers were waving, making positive hand gestures and showing thumbs up. "They are showing us that you hit one of the attackers Charl," Sipho explained.
> 
> Praise the Lord for His grace and protection over us.
> 
> We'd appreciate your prayers:
> 
> - That the thieves will come to repentance and faith in Christ.
> 
> - For me , as I deal with the police.
> 
> - That applications for all bank cards, licenses and cell phones etc will run smoothly - that can be pretty onerous.
> 
> - The return of the passports of our foreign guests - it is difficult to get travel documents - most embassies are 1,000 miles from Cape Town - the expense, time wasting and inconvenience for Frontline Fellowship is crippling.
> 
> Yours in the service of King Jesus,
> 
> Charl van Wy k
> 
> Frontline Fellowship
> P.O. Box 74
> Newlands, 7725
> Cape Town, South Africa
> Tel: (021) 689-4480
> Fax: (021) 685-5884
> [email protected]
> Frontline Fellowship


----------



## rmdmphilosopher

Hmm... After reading Piper's post and then White's, the reaction almost seems an over-reaction. Piper's post actually never describes the specific course of action he would take were his family threatened in his own home--it merely describes his resistance to preparations that would ensure a violent reaction to that threat. The entire tone of the article seems musing and, shall we say, allusive, to me... It was almost painful to read White taking that and reading explicit views about self-defence from it. I think it was more of a though-provoker than a manifesto on Piper's part.

But anyway, on the larger subject of Pacifism in general... I was writing an essay about the death penalty earlier in the year for a class at college, and I came across a comment somewhere (don't quite remember where anymore--but I think possibly from C.S. Lewis) that when governments--or individuals for that matter--cease to uphold the temporal rule of justice, and treat criminals in the modern 'humanitarian' vein, they actually treat them as less than human by acting as if they were animals to be merely trained out of their bad habits rather than humans with moral natures. This doesn't preclude mercy, it seems to me--but the source of this comment went on to point out that God's mercy in Christ was only justice displaced or redirected, not justice dispensed with. The substitutionary atonement of Christ and pacifism are two very different categories of sacrifice I think--one has an effect, the other is essentially pointless. 

Just a thought.


----------



## Sonoftheday

Someone breaks into my house while my family is sleeping and there dead. It seems like owning a gun ensures that they have a less painful death than if I must resort to a more primitive weapon. SO from the humanitarian viewpoint Ill own a gun.


----------



## timmopussycat

rmdmphilosopher said:


> But anyway, on the larger subject of Pacifism in general... I was writing an essay about the death penalty earlier in the year for a class at college, and I came across a comment somewhere (don't quite remember where anymore--but I think possibly from C.S. Lewis) that when governments--or individuals for that matter--cease to uphold the temporal rule of justice, and treat criminals in the modern 'humanitarian' vein, they actually treat them as less than human by acting as if they were animals to be merely trained out of their bad habits rather than humans with moral natures. This doesn't preclude mercy, it seems to me--but the source of this comment went on to point out that God's mercy in Christ was only justice displaced or redirected, not justice dispensed with. The substitutionary atonement of Christ and pacifism are two very different categories of sacrifice I think--one has an effect, the other is essentially pointless.
> 
> Just a thought.



Two Lewis essays in which you might have found this thought are _The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment_ or _Delinquents in the Snow_ both found in God in the dock ed. Walter Hooper.


----------



## Pergamum

No one has adequately dealt with the early Christian martyrs in the Roman arena who went passivley to their deaths, with their whole families... [see my previous posts]


----------



## kvanlaan

> No one has adequately dealt with the early Christian martyrs in the Roman arena who went passivley to their deaths, with their whole families...



Nope. I hear the crickets in the background too.

And I don't have an answer for you either. For some reason, I feel that a violent attack based on personal gain by a thief or murderer can be justly answered and defeated with violence. But a 'rounding up' of Christians based on a confession of faith is a different matter. Can we still fight to save our families? Not sure. I think it will be made clear when it happens. (I'm hoping so, anyway.)


----------



## larryjf

Was it wrong for the people of God to take up arms against those who wanted to destroy them in the book of Esther?

I believe that gives us good insight into the biblical method for self-defense. It was made legal first, and then it was carried out. So as long as it's legal to defend yourself you can.

With the martyrs of Rome, it would not have been legal for the Christians to defend themselves against the emperor.


----------



## TimV

One point is that the early church was faulty on many points of theology. The Kingdom is like a mustard seed, and grows in knowledge as well as size, so I wouldn't necessarily use the early church as examples of proper behavior or theology.

But a more practical point is that there was simply nothing a small minority of people could do in the Empire if the Empire wanted them dead. A Roman Legionnaire had to be 5 foot 9 inches, which was gigantic in those days, and they were superbly armed, and trained beyond the belief of what we call discipline nowadays. How could you take up arms against the Empire? And don't forget the principle behind decimation. It's to teach a lesson, and even if a few men got together and successfully jumped a couple of soldiers, the Empire would have made the whole Christian community pay dearly. 

So I think that to be a case of practicality rather than sound principle, although I take nothing away from those who did go with calm assurance of an afterlife.


----------



## CDM

Pergamum said:


> No one has adequately dealt with the early Christian martyrs in the Roman arena who went passivley to their deaths, with their whole families... [see my previous posts]



Maybe because the differences between criminal (i.e., unlawful) assault on one's self and family and the *lawful* (i.e., in accordance with the law) execution by the State is self-evident.

You and your family being sentenced to death in accordance with the *law* (and those martyrs were sentenced to death *lawfully*) for the capital crime of being Christian is suffering for Christ in accordance with 1 Peter 3:13-21; 4:12-16 to name but a few. Your home being invaded and your family attacked (unlawfully) by a thief are in a completely different category isn’t it? 

Those Christians in the arena are being slaughtered as they “did not love their lives unto death.” This is for Christ. This is for our testimony of him. This is for righteousness.

Permitting you (and it is permission, albeit passive), your wife, and children being slaughtered in their beds by a criminal makes you an accessory after the fact - to say it in the least offensive way I can. This is not for Christ. This is not for our testimony. This is not for righteousness. 

Rather, this would be wicked, perverse, and contrary to the sixth commandment. This attitude and conduct makes a mockery of righteousness – the advocate of justice.

Simply put: God commends the believer if he suffers for Christ's sake under an unjust State’s unjust law and unjust execution. Standing by and permitting the slaughter of innocents carried out by criminals (those with no authority to do so) is utter wickedness.

***
As a side note, I do believe God would approve if those martyrs would have fled the State before pronouncement of judgment to avoid persecution and death. Yet, it was their willingness to die for Christ that gave God the greater glory.

I do not see in Scripture that it is inherently sinful to avoid persecution and / or death.


----------



## TimV

> Simply put: a State acting in accordance with the law slaying Christians because of their testimony of Christ is approved of God in accordance with his Word.



No, because it is a violation of Biblical law, and so can't be approved by God.


----------



## CDM

TimV said:


> Simply put: a State acting in accordance with the law slaying Christians because of their testimony of Christ is approved of God in accordance with his Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because it is a violation of Biblical law, and so can't be approved by God.
Click to expand...


You misunderstand me. Sorry if I was unclear in my post - I will edit it.

I meant that God _approves of the Christian suffering for Christ’s sake _which is abundantly clear in scripture. *NOT* that God approves of a wicked government pronouncing unjust judgment and executing Christians. 

Anyone who knows me KNOWS I would not advocate State-sponsored terrorism.


----------



## TimV

Oh, sorry and thanks!


----------



## Pergamum

So the Jews should not have fought back either when the Nazis killed them, according to Nazi law?


----------



## Mushroom




----------



## CDM

Pergamum said:


> So the Jews should not have fought back either when the Nazis killed them, according to Nazi law?



On the contrary. I really do not see how you can come away with that idea from my post. Please let me know where I may clarify my comments so as to avoid this in the future.

Point of clarification: The [unbelieving] Jews are not God's people so their refusal to fight / resist the Nazi’s has no bearing upon the Christian's “suffering for Christ’s sake” or the point of the OP which was about the Christian's (not the non-Christian's) rights or lack thereof to defend himself.

1. In my previous post, you see my comment at the end - "_I do not see in Scripture that it is inherently sinful to avoid persecution and / or death._" 
2. An unjust law is no law at all.
3. I am afraid this is going to end up in a God's law is perfect / “Theonomy would fix this” discussion at this rate.


----------



## TimV

> So the Jews should not have fought back either when the Nazis killed them, according to Nazi law?



I think there's a good parallel there with the early Christians. Jews in Germany were a third of one percent of the population, and in 1933 they lost citizenship, so didn't have any military training, and couldn't deal in arms (although I've never heard their personal guns were confiscated). There's no way they could have done anything to prevent deportation, etc...

There was no targeted killing of Jews before the war, or in it's early stages. Even after war with the UK and France broke out, Jews were allowed to leave the country. It wasn't until late in 1941 that there were targeted killings, and that wasn't on German soil, and never was during the whole of the war, for that matter.

It wasn't a sure thing for either group, and people have a tendency to think it will only happen to the other guy.


----------



## sastark

Pergamum said:


> So the Jews should not have fought back either when the Nazis killed them, according to Nazi law?



Some Jews did fight back:

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Pergamum

Most did not. The question is not whether small pockets did, but SHOULD they have? Were they sinning by resisting, or sinning by NOT resisting? The same with the early Christians in Rome.


----------



## TimV

Jews in Germany simply couldn't. Jews in occupied Europe formed partisan bands, and former German Jews even joined armies like the French Foreign Legion to fight back. Jews in the West joined the war effort full blast. Jews were disproportionately involved in the war effort, and except for some very small groups had no moral qualms about fighting, it was more a question of opportunity. 

Remember, the vast majority of Jews had no idea they'd be killed after deportation, so it would be unfair to blame them for not going down with all guns blazing.


----------



## Pergamum

Bad odds are no reason NOT to resist IF our duties lies in that direction. 

If we are to resist than aren't we to take out as many of the enemy as possible (or is that only in wartime). If our duty is to resist, and yet we lack the means then we are to resist with whaever means we have. Samson killed people with bone, others have killed the enemy with rocks.

The Jews COULD have resisted a lot more it seems. As also the early Christians under Roman persecution.



What are the ethics of surrender anyhow (maybe a fitting split off thread).


----------



## TimV

> Bad odds are no reason NOT to resist IF our duties lies in that direction.



True!



> If we are to resist than aren't we to take out as many of the enemy as possible (or is that only in wartime). If our duty is to resist, and yet we lack the means then we are to resist with whaever means we have. Samson killed people with bone, others have killed the enemy with rocks.



Again, sure, but resist what? You get a notice that you are to be interned, like my neighbors the Nakamuras were in California during the war. No Japanese Americans wanted to go to the camps, but none fought, even when their land was confiscated. There was just nothing that they could do. They knew what was ahead wasn't going to be fun, but there was still a chance that when the war was over life would go back to normal.

Or our American soldiers who surrendered to the Japanese, or the Germans who surrendered to the Russians after Stalingrad. Only 5000 men of Von Paulus' WHOLE ARMY ever made it back to Germany, and that put their murder rate even higher than Auschwitz, which was 85 percent of long term inmates, and much lower when you count the thousands who were processed there and sent to other camps.

The Germans went to the Russian camps, just as the Jews went to German camps, and I'd dare say that everyone reading this thread would have done the same.


----------



## Skyler

Justin Martyr said of the early Christians "We used to be filled with war, mutual slaughter, and every kind of wickedness. However, now all of us have, throughout the whole earth, changed our warlike weapons. We have changed our swords into plowshares, and our spears into farming implements."

In Matthew 5, Jesus commands His disciples to love their enemies.

In John 18, Jesus scolds Peter for slicing off Malchus' ear, saying "No more of this!"(NIV, ESV)

In all honesty I find it difficult to comprehend how one can love a burglar while simultaneously shooting him in the chest. When we argue that such actions are permitted, it robs "love" of its meaning and, if I may say so, gives weight to those who think the Bible is confusing. If we can take "love your enemies" and turn it into a justification of killing them, it's no wonder people find the Bible confusing.


----------



## Poimen

Is one's enemy in Matthew 5 to be understood as one who breaks into your home and threatens your life? Doesn't it apply to those who persecute you and spitefully use you? I don't think a burglar would fit into that category.


----------



## OPC'n

Wait he promised! Obama promised we would get money! I was going to pay my house off with that!

ooops! Wrong post...sorry!


----------



## SolaScriptura

So help me understand... when precisely DO we as private Christians have to not resist him who robs us or turn the other cheek when we're assaulted?


----------



## OPC'n

SolaScriptura said:


> So help me understand... when precisely DO we as private Christians have to not resist him who robs us or turn the other cheek when we're assaulted?



When they are breaking the law of the land?


----------



## BobVigneault

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States


----------



## Skyler

Theoretical said:


> martyrologist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that pacifism when someone is trying to kill, rape, or hurt your family is not _peaceful_ at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Josh.
> 
> I can understand what you're saying. But, wouldn't that place the command of Christ to love our enemies and to pray for our persecutors (pretty sure he didn't mean "As you pull the trigger") into a category of Not Necessary? Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't there a moral difference between those who religiously persecute and random bandits who could not care any less about your religious beliefs or the color of your skin or the accent you have - they just want to steal, rape, and murder as they see fit.
Click to expand...


Were the natives who killed Jim Elliot & co. doing it for religious reasons?

I don't recall any such motive, but perhaps you do.

If not, though, then by your logic these missionaries weren't martyrs after all.



Pergamum said:


> Most did not. The question is not whether small pockets did, but SHOULD they have? Were they sinning by resisting, or sinning by NOT resisting? The same with the early Christians in Rome.



"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

That is what Paul wrote, If I recall correctly, to the Christians in Rome.

So, should they have resisted?



Poimen said:


> Is one's enemy in Matthew 5 to be understood as one who breaks into your home and threatens your life? Doesn't it apply to those who persecute you and spitefully use you? I don't think a burglar would fit into that category.



Are we, then, only to love those who persecute us for our religious beliefs? The rest of our enemies don't count?



Joshua said:


> In all honesty I find it difficult to comprehend how one can love a burglar while simultaneously shooting him in the chest.
> 
> 
> 
> We are also commanded to love one another, and part of this means defending them from those who look to violate the 6th Commandment.
Click to expand...


Do we allow the "law of the land" to define "murder" for us?



sjonee said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> So help me understand... when precisely DO we as private Christians have to not resist him who robs us or turn the other cheek when we're assaulted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they are breaking the law of the land?
Click to expand...


^^Not sure if you followed his somewhat convoluted sentence, sjonee, but that's the answer I give.

What he said, I think, translates roughly to:

"When shouldn't Christians resist robbers or turn the other cheek to assailants?"



BobVigneault said:


> "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
> Thomas Jefferson
> Third President of the United States



Somebody's got to do it.


----------



## Poimen

Originally Posted by Poimen:


> Is one's enemy in Matthew 5 to be understood as one who breaks into your home and threatens your life? Doesn't it apply to those who persecute you and spitefully use you? I don't think a burglar would fit into that category



Originally Posted by Skyler:


> Are we, then, only to love those who persecute us for our religious beliefs? The rest of our enemies don't count?



No. Jesus command to love our enemies does not exclude love for others (such as a wife & children etc. whom I certainly love more than a burglar who may threaten their lives and would do everything within my power to protect them AND prevent the burglar from breaking the sixth commandment thus also bringing upon himself more judgment from God and the magistrate). 

By definition, that is by Jesus definition, the love that I am to show to my enemies is not something that applies to a burglar. He is not my enemy as defined by Jesus here.


----------



## OPC'n

Skyler said:


> Theoretical said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martyrologist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Josh.
> 
> I can understand what you're saying. But, wouldn't that place the command of Christ to love our enemies and to pray for our persecutors (pretty sure he didn't mean "As you pull the trigger") into a category of Not Necessary? Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a moral difference between those who religiously persecute and random bandits who could not care any less about your religious beliefs or the color of your skin or the accent you have - they just want to steal, rape, and murder as they see fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were the natives who killed Jim Elliot & co. doing it for religious reasons?
> 
> I don't recall any such motive, but perhaps you do.
> 
> If not, though, then by your logic these missionaries weren't martyrs after all.
> 
> 
> 
> "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
> 
> That is what Paul wrote, If I recall correctly, to the Christians in Rome.
> 
> So, should they have resisted?
> 
> 
> 
> Are we, then, only to love those who persecute us for our religious beliefs? The rest of our enemies don't count?
> 
> 
> 
> Do we allow the "law of the land" to define "murder" for us?
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they are breaking the law of the land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^Not sure if you followed his somewhat convoluted sentence, sjonee, but that's the answer I give.
> 
> What he said, I think, translates roughly to:
> 
> "When shouldn't Christians resist robbers or turn the other cheek to assailants?"
> 
> 
> 
> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
> Thomas Jefferson
> Third President of the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody's got to do it.
Click to expand...


His sentence was a bit Grammatically incorrect.  Wasn't he asking, "When can we shoot them for breaking into our house?"? I'm glad others commit the "Grammatically incorrect sin" and not just me!


----------



## LawrenceU

For the record: Elliot, Saint, et al carried fire arms for protection and there is pretty solid evidence that they attempted to use them but were unsuccessful. This has been debated. But, there were Indians with wounds that only could have come from firearms.


----------



## Skyler

Poimen said:


> Originally Posted by Poimen:
> 
> 
> 
> Is one's enemy in Matthew 5 to be understood as one who breaks into your home and threatens your life? Doesn't it apply to those who persecute you and spitefully use you? I don't think a burglar would fit into that category
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Skyler:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we, then, only to love those who persecute us for our religious beliefs? The rest of our enemies don't count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Jesus command to love our enemies does not exclude love for others (such as a wife & children etc. whom I certainly love more than a burglar who may threaten their lives and would do everything within my power to protect them AND prevent the burglar from breaking the sixth commandment thus also bringing upon himself more judgment from God and the magistrate).
> 
> By definition, that is by Jesus definition, the love that I am to show to my enemies is not something that applies to a burglar. He is not my enemy as defined by Jesus here.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't think Jesus was necessarily defining "enemy" as being limited to a "persecutor". It would seem more reasonable, especially in light of the fact that the KJV and NKJV include "those who hate you" and "those who curse you", to say that his meaning was more along the lines of "Love your enemies, even those who persecute you."

Secondly, while I agree that love for one's family should be greater than--or perhaps a different kind of love than--that for an enemy, it does not negate the responsibility to still have love for said enemy.


----------



## JBaldwin

If the colonial Americans had not taken up arms to defend themselves, we would not have this country. A study of the revolutionary war period (especially in South Carolina/North Carolina/Georgia) shows that the Americans were protecting their homes from enemies before it broke into all out war with the British. 

I am quite impressed with the testimony of General Andrew Pickens (a presbyterian elder) who refused to fight the British until they crossed the line and burned his crops and tried to destroy his home and kill his family. When that happened, it was all out war for him. I think this an example of the principal of fighting your enemies.


----------



## Hamalas

Wow, I'd love to contribute to this discussion. But I just can't read all 196 posts before this one!


----------



## nicnap

Skyler said:


> In all honesty I find it difficult to comprehend how one can love a burglar while simultaneously shooting him in the chest. When we argue that such actions are permitted, it robs "love" of its meaning and, if I may say so, gives weight to those who think the Bible is confusing. If we can take "love your enemies" and turn it into a justification of killing them, it's no wonder people find the Bible confusing.



Brother...if you come home to find a man defiling your wife or daughter (God forbid!), precisely how will you show love to him? Will you ask him to stop and please leave your home? Will you begin sharing the gospel with him? Hmmm...



(Sorry if this seems crass...if so, Mods please remove it.)


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Hamalas said:


> Wow, I'd love to contribute to this discussion. But I just can't read all 196 posts before this one!



Just jump in. Everyone else seems happy to do it.

As for me, in order to show love, I have a .45 automatic beside my bed and practice double taps at the range. This will ensure that the intruder doesn't suffer long.


----------



## JBaldwin

I have a friend who used a gun to ward off a man who was attacking and trying to rape a neighbor woman. The result? She got shot, her face is badly scarred, her husband left her, she spent time in jail. What does she say about it now? "What could I do? The man would have killed that woman if I had not intervened." She says she does not regret what she did and would do it again.


----------



## Jesus is my friend

I'm all for using appropriate means of force including use of firearms etc. But can I ask anyone who cares to to watch this 5 min. segment from John's teachings before we jump to quickly into what he believes about the issue of use of force even though the handgun issue isnt addressed

How should a man physically protect his wife and family? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Thanks so much

I love John Piper ,and I love my right within this great country to protect my family,and I'm am taking my firearms safety class this year with the hope of having a permit to keep a pistol in my house


----------



## PresbyDane

Joshua said:


> to Piper's quip. I say every house should have a gun (or several). It is a violation of the 6th Commandment to not defend one's family from someone else who is seeking to break the 6th Commandment.


----------



## TsonMariytho

From reading his article, Piper seems to say that being unwilling to usher an assailant into likely perdition in self defense, is a decision he and his wife jointly made. I think it is unfair and an oversimplification to call them pacifists on that basis. Even if we ourselves would choose differently in a question of "my life or the other guy's", I think we could show respect for Dr. Piper's and his wife's leaning here. Their position is clearly based on their concern for the lost and desire to live Christ's teachings, even sacrificially.

Besides, I don't know about other people here, but if somebody broke into my house and presented an imminent threat, my objective would absolutely not be to kill him, but rather to stop him. If I produced a firearm and the assailant fled, that would be immeasurably preferable to the incident resulting in anyone's death. (This is not just me, either, the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia require gun owners to approach the issue this way. I can't speak for e.g. Texas, though.)


----------



## JBaldwin

TsonMariytho said:


> From reading his article, Piper seems to say that being unwilling to usher an assailant into likely perdition in self defense, is a decision he and his wife jointly made. I think it is unfair and an oversimplification to call them pacifists on that basis. Even if we ourselves would choose differently in a question of "my life or the other guy's", I think we could show respect for Dr. Piper's and his wife's leaning here. Their position is clearly based on their concern for the lost and desire to live Christ's teachings, even sacrificially.
> 
> Besides, I don't know about other people here, but if somebody broke into my house and presented an imminent threat, my objective would absolutely not be to kill him, but rather to stop him. If I produced a firearm and the assailant fled, that would be immeasurably preferable to the incident resulting in anyone's death. (This is not just me, either, the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia require gun owners to approach the issue this way. I can't speak for e.g. Texas, though.)




Local law enforcement officials have told us that if someone breaks into our home and threatens our lives, shoot to kill. If the person is outside the home, scare them off. The laws here protect those who kill assailants inside the confines of the house, but there is almost no protection for someone who is just on the surrounding property.


----------



## Poimen

Skyler said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Poimen:
> 
> 
> 
> Is one's enemy in Matthew 5 to be understood as one who breaks into your home and threatens your life? Doesn't it apply to those who persecute you and spitefully use you? I don't think a burglar would fit into that category
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Skyler:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we, then, only to love those who persecute us for our religious beliefs? The rest of our enemies don't count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Jesus command to love our enemies does not exclude love for others (such as a wife & children etc. whom I certainly love more than a burglar who may threaten their lives and would do everything within my power to protect them AND prevent the burglar from breaking the sixth commandment thus also bringing upon himself more judgment from God and the magistrate).
> 
> By definition, that is by Jesus definition, the love that I am to show to my enemies is not something that applies to a burglar. He is not my enemy as defined by Jesus here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think Jesus was necessarily defining "enemy" as being limited to a "persecutor". It would seem more reasonable, especially in light of the fact that the KJV and NKJV include "those who hate you" and "those who curse you", to say that his meaning was more along the lines of "Love your enemies, even those who persecute you."
> 
> Secondly, while I agree that love for one's family should be greater than--or perhaps a different kind of love than--that for an enemy, it does not negate the responsibility to still have love for said enemy.
Click to expand...


A burglar is not my enemy simply because he wants to break into my home and (possibly) hurt those inside and nothing Jesus says would make me come to that conclusion.

Besides, on the opposite end of the spectrum, one is not hating a burglar simply because I defend myself or others from his violent behaviour/actions. 
Loving my neighbour was an Old Testament command but it did not negate defense of one's home against those who would violate it.


----------



## OPC'n

I think one could think of it this way: if someone is breaking into my home which is against the law, then my hindering them in most appropriate manner would be me invoking the law of God and of the land similar to what the governmental officials do all the time. I guess I would have to ask those who disagree this question, "Would you stand by while the intruder raped your wife and daughters?" I really can't see how anyone with any moral sense would.


----------



## Jesus is my friend

mshingler said:


> "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account." (Ex. 22:2 NASB)



I was reading this passage in my daily reading today and I saw the verse you quoted,understand it,agree with it in context,however take a look at what the next verses say:



2"If the (B)thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. 

3"But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be (C)sold for his theft. (NASB)


My question is as my ESV Study note said:* "If the sun has risen on him"-This condition distinguishes between what is permissable retaliation when a thief is caught breaking in during the night (VS2) vs. during the day(VS3).The stipulation protects both the one who is surprised by a thief at night (vs2) and the thief himself,who could be identified during the day and should be brought to the judges for punishment* (ESV Study note)

This verse and study note seems to say that if I killed a man during the daylight in my own house I would be guilty,whereas at night as verse 2 pointed out there would be no bloodguiltiness

Can someone help me understand this

Grace and Peace to you


----------



## Theognome

Pastor John Weaver gave a great sermon on the topic of biblical self defense. It can be found here:

SermonAudio.com - The Biblical Doctrine of Self-Defense 

And yes, I am also not in agreement with Mr. Piper.

Theognome


----------



## discipulo

On the Firearms forum I posted my view on arms and I shared my personal concerns of a widespread use of arms.

Yet, with great respect and appreciation for John Piper, I can’t agree with his remarks on this.

Our life and of our families don’t belong to us, but to the Lord.

One the most noble acts of a man is to care and protect his family.

To allow a deadly threat on us or our family, without a proper reaction of defence, falls close to suicide or to tempt the Lord (Mathew 4:6-7).

Piper’s mention of noble motivations and purposes towards the thief or murder are far fetched and hypothetical. If God wants to spear the life of such a man and save him afterwards, no gun will take his life until that happens, and maybe a time in the hospital will be providential.

But I also can’t agree with light heart expressions about shooting and killing a human being, even if that person is a murder or a rapist.

If one must do that final act of defence, may one do it grieving, with fear and trembling, with sadness for how defiled and corrupted by sin, man, created in Imago Dei, became.

And remembering that, if it was not for God’s mercy and grace, anyone of us could be on the other end of the riffle


----------



## Manuel

larryjf said:


> So we are only to protect lives within our homes?
> Seems like an arbitrary line to draw. After all, the unborn infants who are being slaughtered certainly can't defend themselves, and the government approves of their murder.
> 
> What if the unborn infant was part of your household, would it be ok to kill the doctor to preserve the baby's life then?


If an abortionist doctor and a couple nurses break into my house carrying surgical instruments, anesthesia and an operating table and set it up in my living room, and then, grab my pregnant wife by force and try to perform an abortion on her, I'd shoot them all, and then I'd have a sandwich before calling the authorities (shooting makes me hungry).


----------



## Skyler

Joshua said:


> It is a violation of the 6th Commandment to not defend one's family from someone else who is seeking to break the 6th Commandment.



OK, I agree with that. I have a couple questions though.

If one tries to defend his/her family from someone else, but fails and they are murdered, is that breaking the 6th Commandment?

And secondly, when defending one's family, is it wrong to use a more painful/more destructive weapon when a less painful but equally effective one is available--e.g., a butcher knife vs. a handgun?


----------



## Skyler

Joshua said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a violation of the 6th Commandment to not defend one's family from someone else who is seeking to break the 6th Commandment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I agree with that. I have a couple questions though.
> 
> If one tries to defend his/her family from someone else, but fails and they are murdered, is that breaking the 6th Commandment?
> 
> And secondly, when defending one's family, is it wrong to use a more painful/more destructive weapon when a less painful but equally effective one is available--e.g., a butcher knife vs. a handgun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. For the person that murders the one trying to defend his family, _yes_. For the one attempting to defend his family, are you kidding me? Of course not.
> 
> 2. Well, if it's a surprise attack then I suppose one can carefully plan such defense. However, if one is _able_ to use "a less painful" approach fine; the problem with such an assertion is that "less painful" is subjective and unknowable.
Click to expand...


1. I wasn't kidding, I expected that answer. I just wanted to make sure. 

2. All right. If, in the event of a robbery, the victim has both a knife and a gun handy, and he chooses to use the gun to minimize the amount of pain the burglar suffers when he dies, but ends up missing and the burglar murders him and his family, then said victim is still not guilty of breaking the sixth commandment, right?


----------



## Skyler

Joshua said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. All right. If, in the event of a robbery, the victim has both a knife and a gun handy, and he chooses to use the gun to minimize the amount of pain the burglar suffers when he dies, but ends up missing and the burglar murders him and his family, then said victim is still not guilty of breaking the sixth commandment, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Your hypotheticals are pointless. The defensive tactic used is irrelevant. It is the the _principle_ of the matter (that a man defends his family) that is obedience to the commandment.
Click to expand...


The weapon he uses is irrelevant?


----------



## Skyler

Joshua said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The weapon he uses is irrelevant?
> 
> 
> 
> In your hypothetical, it is irrelevant insofar as keeping with the demands of the 6th Commandment, which is to defend one's neighbor/family/etc. against someone else who is trying to break the 6th Commandment by taking said neighbor/family/etc.'s life.
Click to expand...


All right, then what if the weapon used is spiritual rather than physical? What if, rather than attacking the person himself, the defendant attacks the spirit that drives him? Like Paul said, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces of evil(Ephesians 6:12). Is this breaking the 6th commandment? If so, what makes it different from my earlier hypothetical scenario?

If I may, I'll close this post with an anecdote:



David Bercot said:


> A number of years ago, some Christian friends of mine, Decio and Olivia, were staying at a motel in Atlanta. There had been a number of armed robberies and murders in the city. In these robberies, the assailants had ordered their victims to lie face down on the floor and then shot them in the backs of their heads. So Decio was on his guard.
> 
> It was a mild October evening, and Decio and Olivia had momentarily left their motel door open for a friend. Suddenly two teenage thugs appeared in the doorway with guns. They ordered everyone down on the floor. Decio hesitated and then knelt down, praying and trying to think of a way to foil the robbery.
> 
> His wife, Olivia, thinking it was a Halloween prank, remained seated on the bed. So one of the young robbers waved his gun at her and ordered her to lie on the floor. Instead, she started singing out loud “Jesus Loves Me,” as she got up from the bed and slowly walked over to the two young men. One of them raised his pistol, pointed it at her face, and cocked it. But when she continued singing and walking toward him, he suddenly yelled to his partner, “These are a bunch of Jesus nuts! Let’s get outta here!” And with that, the two young men vanished into the dark.
> 
> Over the years, I have heard and read many other accounts of how a prayer, a hymn, or a testimony effectively disarmed a would-be bruglar or assailant. There’s no point singing “Our God Is an Awesome God,” if we don’t really believe that He is.


----------



## Skyler

Joshua said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> All right, then what if the weapon used is spiritual rather than physical? What if, rather than attacking the person himself, the defendant attacks the spirit that drives him? Like Paul said, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces of evil(Ephesians 6:12). Is this breaking the 6th commandment? If so, what makes it different from my earlier hypothetical scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> That is absurd.
> 
> The spirit that drives him? Do you mean sin? Like Paul said, in that context of Ephesian, it's talking about withstanding the wiles of _the Devil_, not the threats of an impending thief/killer. That you would rip such a passage out of context is very telling.
Click to expand...


Are you saying, then, that the Devil and his servants do not incite human actions?

I think that it's clear from Scripture that this is frequently the case.


----------



## Skyler

Joshua said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> *snip*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying, then, that the Devil and his servants do not incite human actions?
> 
> I think that it's clear from Scripture that this is frequently the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that. Read it again.
Click to expand...




Ephesians 6:10-18(NIV) said:


> 10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.



By "devil's schemes" I assume, from the content of your post, that you limit these schemes to direct spiritual attacks from the Enemy, and not indirect physical attacks?

Is this justifiable in context?


----------



## Skyler

Joshua said:


> Jonathan, stop beating around the bush with tedious questions.
> 
> Say what you're wanting to say. No more questions.



What I'm saying is, by "devil's schemes", Paul includes not only spiritual attacks and temptations, but also physical attacks by those who are under the devil's power. Therefore, we are to resist those as well using spiritual weapons, rather than wrestling against "flesh and blood".


----------



## BobVigneault

Jonathan, I need to jump in for just a moment here and comment.

For somebody who seems to promote pacifism you are shooting from the hip way more than you are taking care to aim.

Furthermore, for someone who seems to be against violence, I have never seen Ephesians 6 tortured as mercilessly as you are doing it here.

Never bring a philosopher to a gun fight.

If you and you're family are being attacked I would suggest a gun, a knife, a chain saw, a jack hammer, whatever it takes to stop the threat.

The sixth commandment requires it. That's the Confession, not my opinion.


----------

