# Ron Sider against ALL killing



## Jerusalem Blade

In this CT article, Were the Church Fathers Consistently Pro-Life?, Ron Sider tries to make a case that in the early church those fathers who wrote anything about killing were unanimously against it, and they should be listened to as they were closer to what Jesus and the apostles actually said than later centuries.

The article states that he will be updating his former book on nonviolence, and then will write what he says is his “best book on biblical pacifism”.

Now pacifism is *not* my view, but I would be interested in seeing a refutation of where Sider’s scholarship is going, namely, a complete pacifistic stance which he says is based on Scripture.

I know the Westminster Standards are clear on this, but I would like to see a *Scriptural* refutation of this view – for that is what must be marshaled against his claims. And I should add, from the New Testament primarily, as therein are the “marching orders” for the saints in Christ.


----------



## Skyler

I am working on something along those lines in a series of posts on my blog (in my signature), but it's a work in progress and not yet complete. If you're interested, you can follow the blog to receive updates by email as it develops. I'd welcome any feedback.

I'm writing particularly in response to the Anabaptist & co. formulation of nonresistance, but (without looking into Sider's arguments more closely) I suspect many of his prooftexts will be along the same lines. I plan to spend most of my time developing the Scriptures' teachings on violence rather than strictly rebutting a particular position, so hopefully it will be applicable to Sider's position as well regardless.

For a short book that I've found valuable, see also Loraine Boettner's "The Christian Attitude Towards War": 

The Christian Attitude Toward War: Loraine Boettner: 9780875521183: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Wayne

You might find some help on this topic in pastor Ron Gleason's work on the death penalty:

The Death Penalty On Trial: Taking of a Life For a Life Taken: Ron Gleason: 9780979673672: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Andres

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I know the Westminster Standards are clear on this, but I would like to see a Scriptural refutation of this view



What is wrong with the scripture proofs from the Westminster Standards? Specifically I'm thinking WLC 134-136 would be helpful.


----------



## RamistThomist

I know the Calvinist International guys have done work on the early church and pacifism. I used to go to school with a bunch of disciples of Yoder. I never thought they honestly dealt with the claims where John the Baptist told the soldiers to behave (but not to stop killing) or that Paul said he was in Caesar's court _where he out to be tried_ (sort of refutes the whole counter-polis movement) and was okay with the death penalty.

Sider writes,


> They were much closer to him in time than we are, and there is reason to think they would have had a pretty good understanding of what he meant. Therefore, given that every single Christian text we have on killing from the first three centuries, whether war, capital punishment, or abortion, says that Christians don't do that, and with some frequency they say that's because of what Jesus said and did, I think Christians today ought to listen to them with some seriousness.



That's a dangerous line of argument. Every single Orthodox apologist I have debated has said that (though change the terms from "war" to "Eucharist, Bishop, tradition, etc." If Sider were consistent with that claim he would become Orthodox or Catholic. Of course, he is smart enough to see that and pulls the sola scriptura card at the very end. The problem with that line of thought, as every critic of Yoder points out, is that the New Testament is very clear on pro-war and pro-capital punishment.


----------



## Skyler

Jacob, thanks for those blog posts. I'm looking forward to reading them.


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ron Sider tries to make a case that in the early church those fathers who wrote anything about killing were unanimously against it, and they should be listened to as they were closer to what Jesus and the apostles actually said than later centuries.



I don't know much about Sider, but it would seem that this would hinge in some way upon a dispensational view. There's plenty in the Old Testament if one wants to look at all of Scripture, I would think one could only argue the way Sider does if one took the "Jesus trumps all" view.

I just think back to Genesis 9:5, 6 "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Noting that this was a covenant made with all mankind, before the law, and that the reason annexed is that man is made in God's image---I would think that this, like the Sabbath, is an abiding command.


----------



## Skyler

Logan said:


> I don't know much about Sider, but it would seem that this would hinge in some way upon a dispensational view. There's plenty in the Old Testament if one wants to look at all of Scripture, I would think one could only argue the way Sider does if one took the "Jesus trumps all" view.



It usually isn't dispensationalism proper, but I've often heard proponents of nonresistance say that Jesus "changed the Law" or "perfected the Law," especially with reference to His Sermon on the Mount (where he says "You have heard, but I say," etc.). There tends to be a sense that the Old Testament is the "ugly stepsister" that has a few good points here and there but is mostly full of bad examples and compromises on God's part.


----------



## irresistible_grace

Logan said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Sider tries to make a case that in the early church those fathers who wrote anything about killing were unanimously against it, and they should be listened to as they were closer to what Jesus and the apostles actually said than later centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know much about Sider, but it would seem that this would hinge in some way upon a dispensational view. There's plenty in the Old Testament if one wants to look at all of Scripture, I would think one could only argue the way Sider does if one took the "Jesus trumps all" view.
> 
> I just think back to Genesis 9:5, 6 "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
> 
> Noting that this was a covenant made with all mankind, before the law, and that the reason annexed is that man is made in God's image---I would think that this, like the Sabbath, is an abiding command.
Click to expand...


The irony of Genesis 9:6 is that it is a proof text for Matthew 26:52,
Then said Jesus unto him, "Put up again Thy sword into his place: *for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"*

Matthews 26:52 seems to teach that "Christians" are NOT to use violent means even if Christ's life depends on it! 



John Brown Self-Interpreting Bible said:


> 1. The sword is a general name for all weapons and means of warfare.
> 2. The warfare in the case is private opposition to public authority.
> 3. It is warfare undertaken rashly, and revengefully, in defense of or for propagation of religion.
> Now all who thus take, and continue to hold the sword, shall finally perish by it, either literally, as the Jews soon after did; or spiritually, by making shipwreck of their holy faith.



I few more verses that come to mind...
Psalm 55:23
Ezekiel 35:5, 6
Romans 12:19
Matthew 5:38-45 (specifically verse 39)
1 Peter 4:16-19
1 Corinthians 4:11,12
2 Corinthians 10:3


----------



## Logan

irresistible_grace said:


> The irony of Genesis 9:6 is that it is a proof text for Matthew 26:52,
> Then said Jesus unto him, "Put up again Thy sword into his place: *for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"*



I'm not seeing the connection, what do you mean?




irresistible_grace said:


> Matthews 26:52 seems to teach that "Christians" are NOT to use violent means even if Christ's life depends on it!



Only if you make no distinction between who is to wield the sword and who is not. Calvin has some good comments on this passage:



> By these words, Christ confirms the precept of the Law, which forbids private individuals to use the sword. And above all, we ought to attend to the threatening of punishment which is immediately added; for men did not, at their own pleasure, appoint this punishment for avenging their own blood; but God himself, by severely prohibiting murder, has declared how dearly he loves mankind. First, then, he does not choose to be defended by force and violence, because God in the Law forbade men to strike. This is a general reason; and he immediately descends to a special reason.
> 
> But here a question arises. Is it never lawful to use violence in repelling unjust violence? For though Peter had to deal with wicked and base robbers, still he is condemned for having drawn his sword. If, in such a case of moderate defense, an exception was not allowed, Christ appears to tie up the hands of all. Though we have treated this question more copiously under Matthew 5:39, yet I shall now state my opinion again in a few words. First, we must make a distinction between a civil court and the court of conscience; for if any man resist a robber, he will not be liable to public punishment, because the laws arm him against one who is the common enemy of mankind. Thus, in every case when defense is made against unjust violence, the punishment which God enjoins earthly judges to carry into execution ceases. And yet it is not the mere goodness of the cause that acquits the conscience from guilt, unless there be also pure affection. So then, in order that a man may properly and lawfully defend himself, he must first lay aside excessive wrath, and hatred, and desire of revenge, and all irregular sallies of passion, that nothing tempestuous may mingle with the defense. As this is of rare occurrence, or rather, as it scarcely ever happens, Christ properly reminds his people of the general rule, that they should entirely abstain from using the sword.
> 
> But there are fanatics who have foolishly misapplied this passage, so as to wrest the sword out of the hands of judges. They contend that it is unlawful to strike with the sword. This I acknowledge to be true, for no man is at liberty to take the sword at his own pleasure, so as to commit murder; but I deny that magistrates—who are God’s ministers, and by whom he executes his judgments—ought to be viewed as belonging to the ordinary rank. And not only so, but by these words of Christ, this very power is expressly ascribed to them: for when he declares that murderers must be put to death, it follows, that the sword is put into the hands of judges, that they may take vengeance for unjust murders. It will sometimes happen, indeed, that men addicted to the shedding of blood are punished by other means; but this is the ordinary way in which the Lord determined that the fierce cruelty of wicked men should be restrained from rioting with impunity. Certain doctors of what is called Canon Law have ventured to proceed to such a pitch of impudence as to teach, that the sword was not taken from Peter, but he was commanded to keep it sheathed until the time came for drawing it; and hence we perceive how grossly and shamefully those dogs have sported with the word of God.


----------



## Skyler

irresistible_grace said:


> The irony was that the same exact verse that is used to defend using the sword to take a life (capital punishment ) is used to say you should not use the sword to take a life (even when defending the life of a loved one). That is all.



I don't think Jesus was referring to Genesis when He made that statement.


----------



## Logan

irresistible_grace said:


> The irony was that the same exact verse that is used to defend using the sword to take a life (capital punishment ) is used to say you should not use the sword to take a life (even when defending the life of a loved one). That is all.



I think the Genesis verse refers to the magistrate's responsibility, in the positive. Reference Romans 13:4
The Matthew verse refers to the individual's responsibility, in the negative. 

Incidentally Steve, perhaps Romans 13:4 is a good passage to look at and discuss.


----------



## Logan

I think this may actually be relevant to the topic: I'd be interested in discussing why Peter was told to put his sword away (not get rid of it, but put it into its sheath John 18:10). I.e., what was wrong about him using it in that situation? It was Christ's time? It was resisting the authorities? It was done in anger? 

I assume the Sider talks about this passage, may even use it as a proof text.

It was not apparently wrong for Peter to carry it though, since Jesus said in Luke 22:36 to sell his garment and buy a sword (perhaps figuratively), to which the disciples said they had two swords and Jesus replied "it is enough". No condemnation of the sword, just of what Peter did in that instant. I admit I've not done any study on these passages and what the implication is. 

Both Poole and Calvin seem to indicate that this was Peter taking the position of magistrate, which was not his to take.


----------



## Skyler

Logan said:


> I think this may actually be relevant to the topic: I'd be interested in discussing why Peter was told to put his sword away (not get rid of it, but put it into its sheath John 18:10). I.e., what was wrong about him using it in that situation? It was Christ's time? It was resisting the authorities? It was done in anger?



Jesus Himself tells us why.



Matthew said:


> Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”





John said:


> So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”



Jesus chose to turn himself in peacefully, so as to fulfill the Scriptures. Had He wanted to resist, He could have.

As far as the "those who take the sword will perish by the sword" construction goes, there's a similar verse in Revelations 13:



KJV said:


> He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.



The ESV phrases it differently though. I'm not sure why the difference, or how the two passages are related. The similarity in the KJV suggests that Christ intended this also as a call for patience, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.



ESV said:


> If anyone is to be taken captive,
> to captivity he goes;
> if anyone is to be slain with the sword,
> with the sword must he be slain.
> Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks all for your input!

I’ll be following your discussion on this in your blog, Jonathan. I like your approach.

With regard to Jesus telling Peter to put up his sword in Matt 26:52, the articles Jacob referenced – Was Jesus a Pacifist? – have a good take:
*TAKING THE SWORD*

As we noted in the first installment of this series, when Jesus said to Peter (Matt 26:52), “Put your sword back into its place[, f]or all who take the sword will perish by the sword”, he uttered a common piece of timeless wisdom. This statement finds OT precedents, where it could not be pacifistic. What it really means is something people have truly recognized forever: that unjust aggression provokes vengeance from others. At least in the OT, however, this was not taken to mean that state coercion could never be effective. Further, it would find clear application in the case of revolutionaries and the seditious. These people, the OT taught, were very likely to meet a nasty end as a result of state vengeance. It is this aspect of the saying in particular which directly applies in Jesus’ context, for Peter’s violent act was committed against deputies of the state, and no doubt had a zealot holy war ideology as its engine. But Jesus knew the zealot agenda had no chance of succeeding against the might of the first century Roman empire. All those who took up the sword in that sense and context would surely die by it. And sadly, because they did not heed his warning, that is exactly what happened to Jewish zealot movements in 70 AD.​ 

Andrew, yes, the WLC has some pertinent material, such as 135A’s “just defense against violence” proofed by Ps 82:4. I’ll have to ponder Prov 24:11-12 further, as I had always read it as referring to those – for us in the NT age – in “fatal ease” heading for eternal torment, and our witnessing to them of Christ. Though indeed in the OT, _and_ now, it can refer to physical death. And “protecting and defending the innocent” is pertinent, though I don’t find in the proofs for that a warrant for physical defense.

In WLC 136A’s “taking away the life . . . of others . . . [in] necessary defense . . . [and using] lawful and necessary means of preservation of life” the use of Exodus 22:2 is pertinent in A.D. times through the principle of general equity.

While general equity – from OT to NT – rightly used is a most valuable exegetical method, when arguing with those who do not subscribe to or appreciate the Westminster Standards (or other Reformed confessions), one must base one’s arguments strictly upon Scripture. Nor do I think that so important a matter as the taking of a life in defense of a life is not adequately addressed by Jesus and the apostles. It must be recognized that in many things _our_ “marching orders” differ from those under Moses’ law, and to clarify this (for me, at any rate) is the purpose of this thread.

I like Jonathan’s blog in the approach he seems to be taking, and also some of the points in the blog Jacob referenced.

I live in a densely populated area of NYC, and I think that our societal structures shall be shaken so that domestic unrest will be widespread throughout the land. So I think to protect myself and my wife against, for instance, home invasion, when the civil magistrate’s forces are not present to protect the citizens. Sider’s views are disconcerting in such scenarios for they seem to say _to Christians_, “Let evil overrun the world as far as you using force in any capacity – for you are only to speak to it, or run from it.”

I anticipate Sider – or his colleagues – using this saying of Jesus to promote their view,
“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36).​ 
If we would not fight to save the King, should we fight to save a wife? And yet “saving the King” would have thwarted His mission to save the world, so there is a limited application to that saying.

Responding to violence has long been an area of concern for me. As a young man (am now 71), after leaving the USMC, I began to study the martial arts – at the same time going to college – yet one day almost hurting a friend through a trained reflex action (he was just fooling around) caused me to stop this study.

I am more afraid of _my_ tendency to violence (old though I am) than of the violence of others. And yet there are times for defense. I don’t like the warrant for that taken from me, unless it be God’s word, which I don’t think it is. I believe in being clear beforehand as regards _principled conduct_ in various situations, that I may act according to principle rather than passion. If I am to end a man’s life while protecting my wife’s and mine (for example) I want *with certainty* to know I act in accord with God’s law.

Logan, I do believe that capital punishment is warranted by God, and also that the offices of magistrate and police may be held by a Christian. I am looking at Scriptural principles that apply to private citizens in lawless and perilous times, where no police or law enforcement are present. 

Jonathan, the difference between the Authorized Version and the ESV is the result of variant readings in the Greek editions used. The Greek text of the AV’s Revelation initially developed from those mss providentially provided to editor Erasmus and reflected the readings of what are called the Andreas Group of mss, which differed from the 046 Group used by the Critical Text _and_ the Majority Text. The collator of the book of Revelation, Herman C. Hoskier, said this of Erasmus’ work:
I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest _number_ of existing MSS in the world _of one type_, he could not have succeeded better, since his family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual _numbers_, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies. (_The John Rylands Bulletin_ 19-1922/23, p 118.)​ 
More on this textual issue may be found here: Responding to James White of AOMIN. But this is really aside from the matter at hand.


----------



## DMcFadden

> I don't know much about Sider,



Not surprisingly, Sider teaches at an ABC school and attends a Mennonite church in Philadelphia. He is characteristically identified with the "evangelical left."

While I don't know him personally, his work reminds me of a former parishioner of mine, Glen Stassen at Fuller. Like Glen, Sider has a great respect for the Mennonites and other "peace churches" and both of them show a real affinity for Matthew 5-7.


----------



## Tirian

Logan said:


> So then, in order that a man may properly and lawfully defend himself, *he must first lay aside* excessive wrath, and hatred, and desire of revenge, and all irregular sallies of passion, *that nothing tempestuous may mingle with the defense.* As this is of rare occurrence, or rather, as it scarcely ever happens, Christ properly reminds his people of the general rule, that they should entirely abstain from using the sword.



As I read this I thought about Christ saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone...." Obviously Calvin is very helpful here and those who would wield the sword would do well to filter their qualification to do so through these safeguards.


----------



## Logan

Definitely.


----------



## DMcFadden

Of the twelve or so approaches to the Sermon on the Mount, the Anabaptist/Mennonite tradition handles it in a way that practically mandates pacifism.

Of the major views, we have the following handful of the most popular views . . . 

a. Lutheran orthodoxy takes the SonM as "law" so pure and unyielding that it is intended primarily to drive us to the Gospel of grace.
b. Classic Liberalism saw Jesus’ eschatology as so “realized” that the what we have in the SonM is a kind of "moral map" guiding society toward upward social progress as we celebrate the Fatherhood of God and universal brotherhood of man.
c. Some biblical scholars see the Evangelist as writing catechetical instructions for application to his community in Palestine.
d. During the last century, proponents of so-called Existential interpretation (cf. Bultmann) discovered little more than a call to personal decision and authentic faith in the SoM. Unfortunately, they proceeded to strip away and discard the supernatural Object of such faith who issued the summons.
e. A bunch of critics believed that Jesus was in error in his belief in an imminent end to the world. So they saw these demanding logia as a kind of "interim ethic" to carry the disciples through the brief time before the end. 
f. When I was in seminary it was common to hear that the SonM was a radicalizing of the the Old Testament moral law.
g. Classic Dispensationalism (not the revisionistic Progressive brand that passes as Dispensationalism today) interpreted the Sermon on the Mount as a law code for the millennial kingdom which Jesus offered to the Jews. Reading the notes to the Scofield Bible we learn that "the Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church. These are found in the Epistles."

Finally, the tradition which Sider finds so fascinating, the Anabaptist-Mennonite, tradition explains the ethical demands of the SoM in a literalistic way and applies them to all believers in every age and every circumstance. The philosophy of radical pacifism confronts the world of power and privilege with the ultimate counter-cultural message of the Nazarene and calls for disciples of the Christ to eschew participation in the structures of government or society. Once you buy into the hermeneutics of the radical reformers, you are pretty much required to conclude that Jesus taught radical pacifism. The Mennonites, Hutterites, and Amish all reflect (to one degree or another) the impact of this connect-the-dots logic.

Evangelicals such as Sider and Stassen (son of the former perennial presidential candidate Harold Stassen) have drunk deeply from the waters of the radical Reformation and employ its hermeneutical insights quite consciously in their writings.

BTW - if you are ever in northeast IN, make a point of visiting the Mennohof in Shipshewana. The historical theologian in me LOVES all things Reformational and pretty much every well done museum. The Mennohof is a wonderful trip through the past with rooms laid out like dungeons, ships, tornado rooms, and the like. It traces the three branches of the Anabaptist family (Mennonites, Hutterites, and Amish) in Europe and America in a most fascinating way. While I DISAGREE radically with their theology, this is a most educational augment to what you already know about the Reformed and Lutheran branches of the Reformation. You could race through it in an hour. Reading all of the exhibit information would take more like 2 hrs. In the last room they even let you try on Amish clothing in a recreated Amish house. http://www.mennohof.org/


----------



## chuckd

Does Augustine count as a church father?



> Chapter 21.—Of the Cases in Which We May Put Men to Death Without Incurring the Guilt of Murder.
> 
> However, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Abraham indeed was not merely deemed guiltless of cruelty, but was even applauded for his piety, because he was ready to slay his son in obedience to God, not to his own passion. And it is reasonably enough made a question, whether we are to esteem it to have been in compliance with a command of God that Jephthah killed his daughter, because she met him when he had vowed that he would sacrifice to God whatever first met him as he returned victorious from battle. Samson, too, who drew down the house on himself and his foes together, is justified only on this ground, that the Spirit who wrought wonders by him had given him secret instructions to do this. With the exception, then, of these two classes of cases, which are justified either by a just law that applies generally, or by a special intimation from God Himself, the fountain of all justice, whoever kills a man, either himself or another, is implicated in the guilt of murder.



City of God


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

The one question I wanted answers to has not yet been answered. I agree that the civil magistrate has warrant from God to execute those whose crimes merit such, and that Christians may hold that office.

What I wanted to know is if the Scriptures have anything to say about private citizens using lethal force to defend their families, themselves, and helpless people in lawless times, when the civil magistrate is not available or unable to come to the defense of its citizens.

IN the WLC 136 A, an exception to the prohibition against taking of life is found in the clause, “except….[for] necessary defense”, with the proof text Exodus 22:2, “If a thief be found breaking up [i.e., in], and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” The general equity I believe would warrant force that may be lethal in the event of a home invasion in our days.

An apparent qualification for this warrant is found in verse 3, “If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him” – the presumption being that a burglar would not break in in the daylight, so that murder would likely be the case. But this qualification would be obviated in a situation involving riotous times where daylight break-ins would be common.

I know a lot of folks buy firearms for just such occasions, as maniacs and bold killers abound in our land, and “protecting and defending the innocent” (WLC 135 A) is shown to be a duty to the godly, though Scripture proofs for using potentially lethal force in this case are not given.

So I would ask, are there any such proofs in the OT that would have general equity for our times? Or principles in the NT? For those of you who are able to conceal carry, what _Biblical_ warrant (not confessional) would you give to shoot a shooter committing murder, or attempting to do so?

I would assume an attacker openly breaking into my home – whether in daylight or at night – as likely being intent on killing, raping, and kidnapping as well as robbing, and to be stopped using whatever force necessary. Is this godly?

As I noted earlier, I want to know _in principle_ what is the right course of action so that I act by Biblical principle, and not ungodly passion.

Can anyone supply Biblical warrant besides Exodus 22:2 for such defense?


----------



## Edward

I do want to warn you that you are in New York, not the South, so acting in self defense may well lead to prison - or at the very least, very high attorney fees. So in your case, at least, you would also need to weigh the moral imperatives of acting contrary to the express will of the magistrate.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks, Edward – what you say may well be correct, though we still have the legal right to self-defense here also, yet more stringent perhaps than where you live or elsewhere. But I want to understand on what Scriptural basis Texans or southerners acting in self-defense have to stand on. This is not a "baiting" question, but one to help me predetermine my own courses of action.

A lot of folks living in less "politically correct" parts of the country are well-armed, and I want to know the basis of their warrant to defend their families and / or protect the innocent. Surely such an important matter is addressed in God's word, and I am looking for help in finding it.


----------



## earl40

Edward said:


> I do want to warn you that you are in New York, not the South, so acting in self defense may well lead to prison - or at the very least, very high attorney fees. So in your case, at least, you would also need to weigh the moral imperatives of acting contrary to the express will of the magistrate.



Good point. Now of course one should do such before any self defense presents itself.


----------



## ZackF

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks, Edward – what you say may well be correct, though we still have the legal right to self-defense here also, yet more stringent perhaps than where you live or elsewhere. But I want to understand on what Scriptural basis Texans or southerners acting in self-defense have to stand on. This is not a "baiting" question, but one to help me predetermine my own courses of action.
> 
> A lot of folks living in less "politically correct" parts of the country are well-armed, and I want to know the basis of their warrant to defend their families and / or protect the innocent. Surely such an important matter is addressed in God's word, and I am looking for help in finding it.




When Jesus restrained Peter from further violence after cutting the guard's ear off, he said put the sword away, not get rid of it. He was rebuking Peter's timing and placement of violence and not it's overall legitimacy.

Addendum: It look like Logan brought that up above.


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> What I wanted to know is if the Scriptures have anything to say about private citizens using lethal force to defend their families, themselves, and helpless people in lawless times, when the civil magistrate is not available or unable to come to the defense of its citizens.



Steve,

This is something I put some thought into a while back, and want to look at with all humility. I want to stand on Scripture and not some preconceived notion of "Americanism" or "Texanism" or whatever you want to call it ("where ah defend mah home with a shotgun and ain't nobody gonna tell me differnt.").

What I think it comes down to is something of a view of natural law. Not natural man vs spiritual man, but things that are of good and necessary consequence, and I think in this case it would take a positive command of Scripture to negate defending one's self and family.

For example, as far as I know, except in the case of Peter, we are never commanded to "eat". We are given specific allowances for what we can eat, and we are warned against specific things like eating blood and to excess (gluttony). Throughout its pages, Scripture assumes men will naturally eat and then gives limits. Actually, it takes a positive command to not eat such as fasting, but the expectation of normal is that we eat.

Similarly the Scriptures assume self-defense throughout. The example of Abner comes to mind, when Asahel was pursuing him (the passage indicates to kill him). Abner warned him, Asahel didn't turn, and Abner defended himself and killed Asahel. My impression from reading Joab's revenge was that it was wrong, not only because it was treacherous, but because he had no cause to avenge his brother (David condemns Joab and commissions Solomon to bring justice upon him for what he did to Abner). Abner was defending himself and had no other choice (Trapp and Henry both say this was self-defense). 

Abraham also fought for Lot's life. David rescued his wives after they had been captured. The people in the tower of Shechem likewise defended themselves against Abimelech. There's a great example of defense in lawless times!

It seems to me that the Bible assumes that the ordinary reaction to a man or his family being attacked, would be to defend. I am hard put to think of any biblical character who would have stood by and watched his family get slaughtered in order to hold the moral high ground. Since it is assumed by the biblical characters, it would seem to necessitate a positive command in order to negate defending one's self or family, which I don't think we have.

Or think of it in the opposite: do we believe Scripture teaches us to stand by and watch while a robber breaks in and kills our family when it is in our power to save them? Is this loving our wife like our own body? Or as Christ loved the church? I don't think so. If Christ defends His church against her enemies, then ought not a husband his wife, both verbally and physically?

Now, we are definitely warned against anger, or vengeance. No question there! But just as we are warned against gluttony yet still eat, I wouldn't see that as a case against defense, which is unmeditated but out of necessity.

This is at least how I've looked at it.


----------



## Logan

Steve,

Baxter's "Directory" has a section on self-defense. He goes into great detail on how one should obey the law of the land but where it can be lawfully done it is one's duty to defend one's self and family. He references no Scripture though so I'm not sure how helpful it will be.

This really seems to be a 20th/21st century quandary, unless you count the Anabaptists. Everyone throughout the ages would probably give us a strange look if they heard we were wrestling with whether to defend one's family or not.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks, Logan! What you say in your post 26 makes sense. I will ponder it further. When we live in an age that subjects every Biblical truth to minute scrutiny, and seeks to disassemble godly common sense with seemingly plausible scruples, it is then required of those who seek to live godly to consider various objections and give good opposing responses. If it comes to pass (I pray it never does) I am in the position to take a man's life to defend my family, I want to be absolutely certain I am in the right before God.

I just sold my hard copy of Baxter's Directory (vol 4) for a pittance, but I found an online version here. Which of the chapters holds his thoughts on self-defense?


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Which of the chapters holds his thoughts on self-defense?



In _Christian Directory_ it is Chapter 10 of Part 4, Question 5 (bottom of page 788 and continuing onto 789).


----------



## davdavis

It's really disturbing to see Sider still being drawing a crowd. I attended Covenant College in my freshman college year 78-79, and it swept through the school like a plague. His view that God was a Socialist, is about as subjective as Rushdoony's view that God was a capitalist. It seems to me that the best refutation of Christians required to be Pacifist are, 1: Romans 13, where it is said that the magistrates are entrusted with the sword.
the sword is violent. 2. When the soldiers came to John the Baptist, he did not tell them to cease being soldiers, just not to use the power of their position to mistreat people.( Luke 3:14) 3. The Centurion Cornelius is not rebuked by Peter for being a Centurion.(Acts 10:1-4) 4. Jesus told the disciples to carry swords. (Luke 22:36 ) 5. Paul's use of military language, e.g. Ephesians. Rather unusual if Christianity enjoined Pacifism.

Apart from The scripture its fairly plain in Church history. from the earliest times, from before Christianity became a Licit religion, Christians were present in the Roman Legions. (a volunteer force). Reference a quote from the website, "the Ancient Near East and its Legacy "
"*Christian authors Tertullian and Apollinarius said that the Christians in the legion prayed and credited them with providing rain, adding that Marcus Aurelius thanked his Christian soldiers for their prayers. Pagan writer Cassius Dio credited an Egyptian magician named Arnuphis who “invoked by means of enchantments various deities and in particular Mercury.” The unknown author of the Historia Augusta credited the prayers of Marcus Aurelius himself, he did not note the receiving deity. The event is also depicted in a relief on a column commissioned by Marcus Aurelius in Rome, where the rain is seen coming in anthropomorphic form, with a rain god spreading his arms over the troops*.[5]"[/B]{note the whole article is excellent by the way" While its possible
the story is legend, it is widely attested and is certain evidence of Christian presence in the legions and the acceptance of them by the Church. The author goes on to show that at least 8 tombstone have been Found inscribed to Christian soldiers before Constantine, and that two early third century churches, had military ties. One at Megiddo was in a fortress of the 2nd Legion and contained the inscription, “The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.”

_“Gaianus, also called Porphyrius, centurion, our brother, has made the pavement at his own expense as an act of liberality. Brutius carried out the work_
No doubt Sider, and his supporters will argue the sermon on the mount. This is absurd. If taken to apply to the Magistrate as to the individual there could be not magistrate because you could not use violence to apprehend, much less punish evildoers.

David Davis
PCA \
Montgomery, Al 
blog://ddav-mynewsandviews.blogspot.com/ {I left the "http" off because im not sure if direct linking is allowed}


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello David, welcome to PB!

Yes, we pretty much agree to what you have said in this thread. My question specifically inquired with regard to private individuals exercising defense of self, family, and the innocent, when the magistrate is absent or ineffective.

Sider has recently gotten some press in _Christianity Today_ (as noted on the OP), and as he is still publishing his views we need to be ready to refute him. That's why this thread. Thanks for your input!


----------



## Logan

Steve,

I came across this section of the Westminster Confession today (Chapter 1) that I thought was relevant to what I was saying, speaking of Scripture:

"Nevertheless, we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."

I think this is a case of "light of nature" and "general rule", which would necessitate a command against in order to invalidate it. But again, that's how I see it.

By the way, did you get a chance to look at Baxter?


----------



## Tirian

Jerusalem Blade said:


> when the magistrate is absent or ineffective



I've been thinking about this during the week as our church has had a focus on prayer for the persecuted church - that obviously the experience in Syria for believers right now is vastly different to my experience in Melbourne, Australia. Yet there should be a compelling truth that fits all situations. If private persons are required to act in the absence or negligence of the magistrate, then we would be compelled to actively ship arms into Syria to be distributed to believers. We shouldn't just have the international week of prayer for the persecuted church - we who are in richer, more stable nations should have the international week of shipping and distributing high powered and relatively inexpensive weapons to the believers in persecuted churches. I'm not talking about mounting armed conflict - rather it should be *right* for my family to donate and ship an AR-15 with ammunition to the father of a Syrian Christian family to defend himself when necessary. That's if we can proof-text or otherwise support the *requirement* for believers to wield the sword of the magistrate under certain circumstances.


----------



## Edward

Matthew Glover said:


> rather it should be *right* for my family to donate and ship an AR-15 with ammunition to the father of a Syrian Christian family



I'd recommend something from the AK family, rather than the AR family. 

But one more thing should be factored in. For most of us, it would be illegal to export guns to a war zone. So you would need to take the next step that such laws are contrary to moral standards, and thus such acts would not be contrary to our duties to the civil magistrate. (Luke 20:25 comes to mind).

I've given some thought as to what a Luke 22:36 ministry might look like in a UN dominated society, but I haven't come to a conclusion yet.


----------



## Tirian

Edward just for clarification I was ignoring other factors to just focus on the matter at hand


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

Loving this discussion, and I hope people can address those pacifist scriptures!! There are plenty. Like Steve, I'm not as interested in what the confessions say (especially if the proof-texts are weak / are incomplete), but what the Scriptures say. 

1. Public Magistrates 110% yes!! They wield the sword against evil. Plenty of scriptural examples.

2. Private Christians? If being hurt in the NAME OF Christ, then we have NO WARRANT from the Scriptures to retaliate. Not even a SHRED.

3. Private Christians: if being intruded upon by a random drunk/robber/wicked man, I am personally going to tell my family to run, get the car and drive to the nearest police station. Meanwhile I'll pull out a baseball bat and tell the robber to take what he wants and leave my family alone. If he attacks any of my family, then I will have to fight him .. let's hope the police comes before I die!! 
And if I have a gun I would shoot the guy in the thigh/stomach. Let's hope the ambulance arrives on time!!


----------



## Edward

Matthew Glover said:


> Edward just for clarification I was ignoring other factors to just focus on the matter at hand



Then you shouldn't have broadened the discussion.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan, I did check Baxter – very helpful! – thanks for that. NY law allows for self defense such as would permit using necessary force against home invasion, as well as other serious crimes outside the home, though – as NY doesn't have a "stand your ground law" – if one can make an escape there (if outside the home) one should.

Matthew, that's an interesting hypothetical you posit (re Syrians) – gives one food for thought. Though due to other laws in force it would not be feasible. Yet one could extrapolate the hypothesis into other situations, though that is not applicable to my concerns.

Michael, I think what you say here is right: "Private Christians? If being hurt in the NAME OF Christ, then we have NO WARRANT from the Scriptures to retaliate. Not even a SHRED."

I have considered Michael's view before, and I think that is important. And Edward, I have checked NY law and if we act within certain rather broad parameters we may well defend ourselves, although very few are allowed gun permits in NYC, so we have to make do with other means.

These thoughts have been very helpful, so I thank you all for them. I believe I have sufficient to rest easy in my conscience in this matter now.


----------



## Logan

I agree about persecution, though with a qualifier. Suffering in the name of Christ, by those placed in legitimate authority, is not authorized by Scripture. I don't think the same would hold if an individual were to attack a Christian based on his faith. I'd have to think on that more but that has been my thought at least.


----------



## Edward

Jerusalem Blade said:


> And Edward, I have checked NY law and if we act within certain rather broad parameters we may well defend ourselves



Just because you have a legal right doesn't mean that you won't have to spend a significant amount of money on legal fees to vindicate that right. It's a subset of the old saying - 'you might beat the rap, buy you can't beat the ride'. Thus my original comment on this subject.


----------



## ZackF

Edward said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Edward, I have checked NY law and if we act within certain rather broad parameters we may well defend ourselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you have a legal right doesn't mean that you won't have to spend a significant amount of money on legal fees to vindicate that right. It's a subset of the old saying - 'you might beat the rap, buy you can't beat the ride'. Thus my original comment on this subject.
Click to expand...


I've read in jurisdictions in the US and abroad as the difficulties of, and penalties for, self-defense increase burglaries decrease. However armed robberies in these same jurisdictions increase because there is less fear of people defending themselves. Places, like Kansas, have the opposite thing going. People fear robbing occupied homes as to not be killed but watch instead for signs of extended leaves. If you are not careful you can come home from vacation to an empty place.


----------



## Edward

KS_Presby said:


> People fear robbing occupied homes as to not be killed but watch instead for signs of extended leaves. If you are not careful you can come home from vacation to an empty place.



Things are things (although I am too attached to my things) but people are people. I'd rather live where folks are afraid to attack my family than some place where they are afraid to take my stuff. Although if someone cleaned me out, they'd probably get laughed out of the pawn shop.


----------



## ZackF

Edward said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> 
> People fear robbing occupied homes as to not be killed but watch instead for signs of extended leaves. If you are not careful you can come home from vacation to an empty place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things are things (although I am too attached to my things) but people are people. I'd rather live where folks are afraid to attack my family than some place where they are afraid to take my stuff. Although if someone cleaned me out, they'd probably get laughed out of the pawn shop.
Click to expand...


LOL. If they cleaned us out the pawn shop might recognize some of the stuff!!!


----------



## RamistThomist

A few notes:

1) If someone like Tookie Williams breaks into your house, you will not scare him off with a baseball bat--especially if he is packing a Glock. 
2) Samuel Rutherford has the best treatment of self-defense, never been answered.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, could you please post a link to or a quote from Samuel Rutherford on this? Thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, could you please post a link to or a quote from Samuel Rutherford on this? Thanks!



It'll have to be tonight. The book is on constitution.org, though I'll have to find the relevant part.


----------



## Tirian

See Article: Young lady's car breaks down 2:30am. Fearing her safety has no option other than to knock on someones door. Door opens - one shot to the head, she dies on the porch - a suspected intruder.

Whatever you decide on in terms of justifiable self defense, this kind of thing absolutely must not happen.

Woman Renisha McBride shot dead after seeking help in Dearborn Heights, Detroit | News.com.au


----------



## RamistThomist

Here are some Rutherford quotes, but a few points first. The natural law tradition has always maintained self-defense as a normal given. The enormous burden of proof is on the negative. As pertaining to the Exodus case law: if it is summative of the moral law, being a practical example of maintaining human life (6th commandment, plus one's family) and maintaining just wealth (8th Commandment), then its binding today. The only difficulty is in applying it in some of the statist parts of America.

If we deny that one can use this law, then we are back to the natural law question. If we reject natural law, then the choices are theonomy are Anabaptist chaos.

And shall it excuse the estates, to say, we could not judge the cause of the poor, nor crush the priests of Baal, and the idolatrous mass-prelates, because the king forbade us? So might the king break up the meeting of the lords of session, when they were to decern that Naboth’s vineyard should be restored to him, and hinder the states to repress tyranny; and this were as much as if the states should say, We made this man our king, and with our good-will we agree he shall be a tyrant. For if God gave it to him as a king, we are to consent that he enjoy it. (97)

But the conclusion is absurd, and denied by royalists. I prove the connection: If the king have such a power above all restraint, the power itself, to wit, king David’s power to kill innocent Uriah, and deflower Bathsheba, without the accident of being restrained or punished by men, it is either from God or not from God. If it be from God, it must be a power against the sixth and seventh commandments, which God gave to David, and not to any subject; and so David lied when he confessed this sin, and this sin cannot be pardoned because it was no sin: and kings, because kings, are under no tie of duties of mercy, and truth, and justice to their subjects, contrary to that which God’s law requireth of all judges (Deut. i. 15-17; xvii. 15-20; 2 Chron. xix. 6, 7; Rom. xiii. 3, 4): (103)

Whatever David did, though he was a king, he did it not as king; he deflowered not Bathsheba as king, and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have resisted king David, though kingly power remained in aim, while he should thus attempt to commit adultery; else David might have said to Bathsheba, “Because I am the Lord’s anointed, it is rebellion in thee, a subject, to oppose any bodily violence to my act of forcing of thee; it is unlawful to thee to cry for help, for if any shall offer violently to rescue thee from me, he resisteth the ordinance of God.” Subjection is due to Nero as an emperor, but not any subjection is due to him in the burning of Rome, and torturing of Christians, except you say that Nero’s power abused in these acts of cruelty was, 1. A power from God. 2. An ordidance of God. 3. That in these he was the minister of God for the good of the commonwealth. (149).

Rutherford notes on p. 153 that on the Statist gloss, and in accordance with what Charles I wanted to do (e.g., hiring Irish Catholics to come and kill English Protestants), the English Protestants were obliged to lay down arms and let the Irish Catholics kill them. 

In the greatest sentence in Lex, Rex, Rutherford says we should rather unhorse the Irish Catholic and throw him off the bridge.


----------



## Edward

Matthew Glover said:


> this kind of thing absolutely must not happen.



Since we don't know what happened, I'll wait for the facts to come out. The official story has changed a bit from its original version.


----------



## ZackF

A bit of a side note on Sider. He is one of the liberal evangelical goto guys like Campolo and Wallis.


----------

