John Piper, Guns, Self-Defense

[CDM]

As for the WCF LC question that was cited earlier - it should put to rest, for the Reformed anyways, the moral and biblical question of the right to lethal force in defense of person and property and preservation of the innocent. Not only does the WLC affirm the Scripture's teaching but makes it clear it is our moral obligation. Is the objection about the instrument used in defense - a gun? Is using a knife more Christian than using a gun? No, I will not be any more or less righteous if I send a 00 buckshot into the chest of a home invader tonight or strangle them with my bare hands. Something terrible has happened when men have lost their God given instincts to defend kith and kin. Even worse is the pretension of piety for their derelictions of duty.

As for the magistrate and Romans 13 objections. The magistrate in the USA don't simply give us permission to bear arms but recognizes its citizens have the "inalienable" right to bear arms. "We the People," we Americans recognize these rights come from our Creator. Not only this but also the right to defend ourselves and the innocent with lethal force. In fact, as some here do not seem to understand, or have neglected reading world history through the ages, the chief reason why a free people should always be "well-armed" is for their own defense from their government's potential for tyranny, i.e., to defend the innocent citizens from wicked magistrates. Be that as it may, this is not my simple opinion it is the Law - Federal and in all 50 States. Besides, Romans 13 does not teach the State has some divine monopoly on the use of weapons anyway. Romans 13 is about the magistrate’s divine authority in punishing evil doers. Law and order. Prosecution, Sentencing, and Execution. A private person having the right or not, to use what kind of weapon or not, in defending himself against an attacker has absolutely nothing to do with this portion of Scripture.

As for me all the hypotheticals on either side, pro- or anti-gun, are next to useless. The anti-gun proponent says 'Look at all the gun deaths' and so on. The pro-gun proponent says 'Look at all the good guns do and here are some statistics that show it’s not as bad as what you're saying and so on. So what? On both accounts. What does this have to do with the law, our rights, and the Bible teaching? A thousand shooting murders could happen a day and it is irrelevant to these questions.

Bearing arms and using them for defensive purposes is legal, and much more than that it is biblical. If in God's providence I am found in that unpleasant situation I trust that he teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.

There is great confusion in your post Christopher. Because you have an inalienable right you will build a biblical construct from it?

In any case, the question at hand here is not the defence of ones kith and kin - this is understood even in Pipers article, and I have certainly made my position clear on the matter so you are certainly right in saying the question of defence should be put to rest.

How you jump therefore to broad gun ownership is puzzling and an appeal to the law of the land is not comprehensible.

Reverse the situation - if you did not have the legal right to carry guns, and domestic security was excellent in preventing illegal gun possession, would you be here today arguing that guns should be introduced as a biblical right?

There is no great confusion on my part, but there is in yours. You said an "appeal to the law of the land" is "not comprehensible?" You can't understand this? I see in your signature you are likely not an American. We are armed here not chiefly because of the potential of violence from criminals but from our government. But all this seems to be beside the point with you anyway, and that's fine. So forget appeals to the law, our rights, and our culture even though you cited Romans 13. Incidentally, a brief review of 20th century history should more than suffice to prove the point that disarmed populations are in the very worst position.

The Bible explicitly says we are free from guilt in using deadly weapons to kill even THIEVES under certain circumstances (Exodus 22:2, 3). The Israelite then would have used some sort of club or bladed weapon, the disciple in Jesus' day used or sword, and today this Christian in particular chooses a firearm. Piper's sensibilities are not more spiritual than God's Word.

I notice that Piper doesn't deal directly with the text above that explicitly addresses his topic and chooses rather to go to parts elsewhere that have nothing to do with the matter to prove his point. Just one example being I John 3 and 4. Even a child can understand this is dealing directly with persecution “as a Christian...” Piper even quotes this verse (4:16). Yet being persecuted for our faith is a bit different than a lunatic breaking in to rape and kill don’t you see? This is one of many examples of Piper twisting Scripture. Do you think he is properly dividing the Word here?

Bottom line: show me a Scriptural argument where God or even the Westminster Standards condemns the use of a deadly weapon in one’s defense (in this particular day and age, a firearm). Even Piper couldn’t bring himself to outright condemn this which indicates he knows he cannot prove his case but really wishes people would think like him anyway.

Gary North sums it up better here: Rev. John Piper: Unarmed Christians for Jesus!

 

[CDM]

Piper:

I realize that even to call the police when threatened -- which, in general, it seems right to do in view of Romans 13:1--4 -- may come from a heart that is out of step with the mind of Christ. If one's heart is controlled mainly by fear, or anger, or revenge, that sinful disposition may be expressed by using the police as well as taking up arms yourself.

So...should I wait to call the police when my "heart is better"?

Piper:

And there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military.

So when presented with this threat to my wife or daughter or friend, my heart should incline toward doing good in a way that would accomplish this great aim. There are hundreds of variables in every crisis that might affect how that happens.

But see Reformed Ethics 101:

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 ourselves[721] and others[722] 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]

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;

You cannot be a reformed christian and say Piper has a good argument. FTW

With all due respect to Piper, I don't see how you can be any kind of Christian and say he has a good argument. I understand Christians having this belief but it is a belief not proved by the Bible. As North was saying in his article, those can't even be called arguments just sentimentalities cobbled together with Bible references torn from their proper context.

 

[CDM]

If you have heaps of handguns floating around in a society you will have handgun deaths.

You have a heap of knives floating around, and you will have knife deaths. They have about 25,000 knife crimes a year in England and Wales combined. About 3,000 firearms crimes a year in England and Wales. Source ONS. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...ons.html#tab-Firearms---Prevalence-and-trends http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...s-or-sharp-instruments--Prevalence-and-trends

You can't compare hand guns with knives

Sure you can.

A hand gun is a convenient killing machine.

As our previous governor proved while walking his dog. He had to use his .380 to take out a coyote that attacked. They can be useful for snakes, as well.

How about the old addage, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

And here in Australia, rifles work great against taipans and king browns,
but we are not allowed to shoot snakes anymore either.
Everything in Australia is protected and when Bear Grills came over
to do a tv show, he was only allowed to eat a few insects.

I probably shouldn't have imposed my cultural sensibilities on everyone.
If I lived in America, then I would seek to own a gun. (no problem)
But can anybody here admit that the world would be a safer place
if no civilians owned guns in the first place. (especially hand guns)

I think it would, but I can't prove it.

My guess is each and every American here would disagree that the "world would be a safer place" without guns. I think one could prove or disprove this point. I don't think its a leap to say there would have been no United States of America if only Great Britain had the guns.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich thank you for your gracious post. I think you go too far with your criticism of points 8-9. Piper is addressing Falwell's call to arm university students broadly. I don't think for a second he was addressing the magistrates use of weapons in the just execution of justice.

I think you use that unfairly to accuse him of being derelict in his duties under the sixth commandment and further you accuse him of sinning thusly. I think you have stretched his meaning well beyond its intent and so found fertile ground upon which to to accuse him.

He has moved beyond Falwell when he answers a question of "general principle" in the answer to Question 8:

This instinct is understandable. But it seems to me that the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question. We don’t like this kind of ambiguity, but I can’t escape it. There is, as I have tried to show, a pervasive thrust in the New Testament pushing us toward blessing and doing good to those who hate, curse, and abuse us (Luke 6:27–28). And there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military. This is remarkable when you think about it, since I cannot help but think this precise situation presented itself, since we read that Saul drug men and women bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1–2).

My report of what Piper writes is accurate. He confuses spheres of activity and his counsel is sinful. He violates what the 6th Commandment requires. The general equity of the 6th Commandment requires the defense of one's home. It's not a matter of civil rights but duty before the Lord that a man protect his home. Piper cannot simply appeal to the NT and treat God as mutable with respect to the moral law which provides for the defense of the innocent all throughout Scripture.

Let me make this plain as well: of course handguns are for lethal force. One needs to understand that about weapons. You don't buy something to wound. You purchase it because it may be necessary to use lethal force. This is the nature of human life that God values it so highly that he commands that it be taken when innocent human life is threatened. It is the basis for protecting one's home as well as the basis for just war. if I was an OT Israelite I would not feel compelled to use a rock as a less lethal form of home protection because there were too many iron swords laying around contributing to the general problem that people were killing each other in larger measure due to the advancements made in technology. I use a handgun because the chances are that the person who would assail my home or innocents around me would be armed as such. I do not have the luxury of hypotheticals with the 6th Commandment and it is "hypothetical thinking" that is sinful to begin with. We're to live in the world and time that God has placed us within and not some world of our hypothetical imagination.

The Word of God is clear about the protection of human life and that God values it all throughout his Scripture. The reason why I find pacifists particularly sinful is the false piety with which they make their arguments. It's the reason the Reformers reserved particular contempt for the theology of the enthusiasts and radical Reformers. The Lord has instituted certain institutions and principles for the preservation of life and this false piety tells Christians they are to have no part in the protection of human life and they quote the Scriptures which teach the exact opposite. I have little respect or patience for this false Godliness. The Christian need not go looking for opportunities to fulfill the duties of the 6th Commandment with respect to preserving life through some sense of machismo. That part of Piper's article I agree with. What I will not abide is his pitting of Scripture against Scripture and counseling Christians that the NT teaches that a Christian man should not use lethal force to defend his home but call the police or military. Let's just hope that the police man when he comes is of the same theoology and needs backup from another police man who is not bound by a false sense of "New Testament" ethics where Christians are supposed to allows suffering "for Christ's sake."

Christ is not honored by this folly. Christ is not honored when those who claim his name say: "Following Christ means I can neither protect my family nor any innocent person I encounter that needs my help. I'll leave it to the pagans to provide the peace that God has ordained in Romans 13 but I'm barred from it."

 

[arapahoepark]

If you have heaps of handguns floating around in a society you will have handgun deaths.

You have a heap of knives floating around, and you will have knife deaths. They have about 25,000 knife crimes a year in England and Wales combined. About 3,000 firearms crimes a year in England and Wales. Source ONS. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...ons.html#tab-Firearms---Prevalence-and-trends http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...s-or-sharp-instruments--Prevalence-and-trends

You can't compare hand guns with knives

Sure you can.

A hand gun is a convenient killing machine.

As our previous governor proved while walking his dog. He had to use his .380 to take out a coyote that attacked. They can be useful for snakes, as well.

How about the old addage, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

And here in Australia, rifles work great against taipans and king browns,
but we are not allowed to shoot snakes anymore either.
Everything in Australia is protected and when Bear Grills came over
to do a tv show, he was only allowed to eat a few insects.

I probably shouldn't have imposed my cultural sensibilities on everyone.
If I lived in America, then I would seek to own a gun. (no problem)
But can anybody here admit that the world would be a safer place
if no civilians owned guns in the first place. (especially hand guns)

I think it would, but I can't prove it.

My guess is each and every American here would disagree that the "world would be a safer place" without guns. I think one could prove or disprove this point. I don't think its a leap to say there would have been no United States of America if only Great Britain had the guns.

Amen. This isn't merely theory either.
https://mises.org/blog/pew-homicide-rates-cut-half-over-past-20-years-while-new-gun-ownership-soared
https://mises.org/blog/gun-control-fails-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada

https://mises.org/blog/theres-no-correlation-between-gun-ownership-mass-shootings-and-murder-rates

https://mises.org/blog/rothbard-gun-regulation-explained

 

[RamistThomist]

Let me make this plain as well: of course handguns are for lethal force. One needs to understand that about weapons. You don't buy something to wound. You purchase it because it may be necessary to use lethal force.

Just to anticipate what some people might say: why not just shoot the gun out of his hand?

Easier said than done.

 

[Edward]

But can anybody here admit that the world would be a safer place
if no civilians owned guns in the first place. (especially hand guns)

Maybe someone could, but not anyone familiar with history. How did that gun control work out for the Jews and Communists in Germany between 1933 and 1945?

The vast majority of the mass shootings in the US in recent years have occurred in 'gun free zones'. How did gun control work out for the folks in San Bernandino (service provider to the state for those with mental retardation)? Sandy Hook(public school)? Roseburg (community college)? Colorado Springs (abortion clinic)? Chattanooga (military recruiting center - the Pentagon can't trust those folks in the armed forces with guns)? Fort Hood (military base - see previous comment)? Washington Naval Base (see comment at Chattanooga)? Emaunual Church (see S.Car 23-31-215(M)(9) - banned unless explicit permission granted)? Aurora, Colorado (movie theater where guns were prohibited)? Oikos University (college campus in California)? Virginia Tech (college campus)? Colombine High School (school campus)? and Killeen, Texas (Luby's Cafeteria - a gun free zone before changes in Texas law)?

One common element - folks were supposed to be safe because those scary, noisy, guns were banned. Yes, you can dig through shootings and find a couple of instances of mass shootings where carry was legal, but you will generally find that no armed civilians were available.

Remember, we are living in a country where the Attorney General and the US Department of Justice supplies guns to Mexican drug gangs. https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2012/s1209.pdf

 

[2ndViolinist]

Several of my Reformed friends warned me about Piper, but they did not say why... In any case, I've never been a big fan of his.

"Jesus died to keep that assailant from sinning against my family." << That--among many other things in the article--bothers me. What does Piper mean by that? Jesus died for His people so that they would not have to face the eternal punishment in hell that they deserve. He did not die to prevent sinners from ever sinning again, but to save sinners ("whosoever believeth in Him").

I should hope that my future husband would be willing to use firearms to protect me and die for me, if necessary. My father certainly is ready to.

 

[RamistThomist]

"Jesus died to keep that assailant from sinning against my family."

Yeah. This statement is ambiguous at best, incoherent at worst. Let's assume it is true. So what? Does this mean the assailant will suddenly stop?

 

[Peairtach]

"Jesus died to keep that assailant from sinning against my family."

This is just gobbledegook.

It's not Calvinist; it's not Arminian. What is it?

 

[Miss Marple]

"Put a handgun in the hands of a troubled teen in a school and you have a completely different dynamic. The effect of broad gun ownership is that you increase the likelihood of someone who is unstable having access to a weapon that is not used (merely) defensively but can be used very easily in a mass killing incident."

Matt, how do you reconcile the fact that mass shootings and knifings and other types of killings occur more often, per capita, in countries where there is strict gun control?

You assert that more killing results from wider availability of guns, but reports I have read say that actually the opposite is true.

If we are our brother's keeper; and we are to do unto others as we would have done unto us; should we not promote private gun ownership in light of these facts?

 

[Miss Marple]

Matt, here is just one example of the type of facts - I see them as factual - that I have frequently run across over the years.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/

in this article, there is an easily understood chart which shows that the top five countries for mass shootings have restrictive gun control.

So why would you state that permissive gun control increases violence? It is clearly not true, unless you reject the facts on the chart.

 

[Gforce9]

Rich thank you for your gracious post. I think you go too far with your criticism of points 8-9. Piper is addressing Falwell's call to arm university students broadly. I don't think for a second he was addressing the magistrates use of weapons in the just execution of justice.

I think you use that unfairly to accuse him of being derelict in his duties under the sixth commandment and further you accuse him of sinning thusly. I think you have stretched his meaning well beyond its intent and so found fertile ground upon which to to accuse him.

He has moved beyond Falwell when he answers a question of "general principle" in the answer to Question 8:

This instinct is understandable. But it seems to me that the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question. We don’t like this kind of ambiguity, but I can’t escape it. There is, as I have tried to show, a pervasive thrust in the New Testament pushing us toward blessing and doing good to those who hate, curse, and abuse us (Luke 6:27–28). And there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military. This is remarkable when you think about it, since I cannot help but think this precise situation presented itself, since we read that Saul drug men and women bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1–2).

My report of what Piper writes is accurate. He confuses spheres of activity and his counsel is sinful. He violates what the 6th Commandment requires. The general equity of the 6th Commandment requires the defense of one's home. It's not a matter of civil rights but duty before the Lord that a man protect his home. Piper cannot simply appeal to the NT and treat God as mutable with respect to the moral law which provides for the defense of the innocent all throughout Scripture.

Let me make this plain as well: of course handguns are for lethal force. One needs to understand that about weapons. You don't buy something to wound. You purchase it because it may be necessary to use lethal force. This is the nature of human life that God values it so highly that he commands that it be taken when innocent human life is threatened. It is the basis for protecting one's home as well as the basis for just war. if I was an OT Israelite I would not feel compelled to use a rock as a less lethal form of home protection because there were too many iron swords laying around contributing to the general problem that people were killing each other in larger measure due to the advancements made in technology. I use a handgun because the chances are that the person who would assail my home or innocents around me would be armed as such. I do not have the luxury of hypotheticals with the 6th Commandment and it is "hypothetical thinking" that is sinful to begin with. We're to live in the world and time that God has placed us within and not some world of our hypothetical imagination.

The Word of God is clear about the protection of human life and that God values it all throughout his Scripture. The reason why I find pacifists particularly sinful is the false piety with which they make their arguments. It's the reason the Reformers reserved particular contempt for the theology of the enthusiasts and radical Reformers. The Lord has instituted certain institutions and principles for the preservation of life and this false piety tells Christians they are to have no part in the protection of human life and they quote the Scriptures which teach the exact opposite. I have little respect or patience for this false Godliness. The Christian need not go looking for opportunities to fulfill the duties of the 6th Commandment with respect to preserving life through some sense of machismo. That part of Piper's article I agree with. What I will not abide is his pitting of Scripture against Scripture and counseling Christians that the NT teaches that a Christian man should not use lethal force to defend his home but call the police or military. Let's just hope that the police man when he comes is of the same theoology and needs backup from another police man who is not bound by a false sense of "New Testament" ethics where Christians are supposed to allows suffering "for Christ's sake."

Christ is not honored by this folly. Christ is not honored when those who claim his name say: "Following Christ means I can neither protect my family nor any innocent person I encounter that needs my help. I'll leave it to the pagans to provide the peace that God has ordained in Romans 13 but I'm barred from it."

Rich,
Thank you for this thoughtful exposition, for it is good. I only wish to help clarify the thought of handguns (against the possession/use of rifles/shotguns). Handguns are not more lethal than rifles, but less in terms of ballistics. The same .357 mag (or .44 mag)round in a 4" revolver is slower and has less muzzle energy than out of a 24" rifle and is far less accurate. The handgun's primary effectiveness is in it's portability. One cannot easily strap on a 40 ish" rifle, but can (relatively) easily strap on a handgun. There was no concealed carry back in the early days of handguns; everyone open carried, at least in the 'States. Handguns are only more lethal in the fact that they can be carried, not in their ballistic efficiency or accuracy. This discussion has gone back and forth between pragmatic issues and the OP, namely, the Law of God. Based on the argument, the issue for Christians rests on the 6th Commandment; does the civil magistrate have the exclusive responsibility to all matters of the 6th or do individuals have some responsibility? I have come to the understanding that individuals have responsibility for the 6th as does the magistrate. May our God protect us all from having to kill (not murder) to protect the innocent, for I , myself, have no desire to deal with the fallout of killing the wicked to protect the innocent, but may I not shy away from the duty if evil arises........

 

[JimmyH]

The above post, # 163. by Greg, Gforce9, would be a good end to this thread. In 162 replies to the OP I don't know what else could be said that might change any minds. Closing it would be a good thing In my humble opinion.

 

[Tirian]

Let's say a bad guy breaks into your home. You have a chance to defend your wife and kids. Will you tell your wife, "Sorry, everyone has to die." This is why Rich said Piper was sinning on the 6th commandment. The Reformed interpretation says we are "obligated" to preserve life. Piper fudges on this bit. Will you admit that Piper rejects the implications of the sixth commandment?

As Gary North says, "For John Piper the question "what is better, a raped wife--or even yet, a dead one--or a dead criminal?" Piper has no coherent answer to that question.

I've said this numerous times now so will paraphrase once more - the right thing to do is to defend your wife and children or die in the attempt. Nothing in Piper's paper suggests he would call that a sin, and that he would not do the same himself.

 

[Tirian]

And while you might think that Piper's essay is a noble cry from the heart, you aren't open to people subjecting it to biblical and logical analysis.

This is patently incorrect. Hold anything I have said or will ever say up to the highest level of scrutiny you can muster. The more of you the merrier and rightly so and likewise for Piper. I look forward to seeing a biblical rejection of Piper's paper.

That's what we have been doing. Earlier in the discussion you rejected criticisms of Piper's assertions based on what you perceived our motives to be.

Chapter and verse Jacob - you made assumptions about what I was doing and saying which I took pains to gently correct. I look forward to seeing a biblical rejection of Piper's paper that doesn't rely on you already having guns in your society.

 

[Tirian]

You cannot be a reformed christian and say Piper has a good argument. FTW

With all due respect to Piper, I don't see how you can be any kind of Christian and say he has a good argument.

Well, thank you for your honesty. Such disdain you feel for those who don't share your views that you will cut them off from the body of Christ.

 

[Tirian]

I disagree. Unless your position is that the civil magistrate must act in every situation before I act. In which case, you and your family will probably be dead long before the police get here.

We all have to die sometime Jacob (save the Lord return) and our death may be more important than our lives. King Jesus has appointed your time and mine and will care for your family and mine if we are taken first.

Let's say a bad guy breaks into your home. You have a chance to defend your wife and kids. Will you tell your wife, "Sorry, everyone has to die." This is why Rich said Piper was sinning on the 6th commandment. The Reformed interpretation says we are "obligated" to preserve life. Piper fudges on this bit. Will you admit that Piper rejects the implications of the sixth commandment?

As Gary North says, "For John Piper the question "what is better, a raped wife--or even yet, a dead one--or a dead criminal?" Piper has no coherent answer to that question.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/14653.cfm

Piper clearly allows for this in his position. Point 8.6: 6) I do not know what I would do before this situation presents itself with all its innumerable variations of factors. And I would be very slow to condemn a person who chose differently from me.

So, chances are he may take the life of the intruder and would be slow to condemn anyone who chose differently.

 

[Tirian]

I've always maintained that our magistrates should be as well equipped as possible to protect those who do good and punish those who do evil. Therefore I am greatly in favor of guns continuing to be refined and made safe to operate and effective to use, but only in the hands of the magistrate that God appoints.

I've been following this but am only going to respond to this one. In political theory, there is a term for this state of affairs: a police state (or Feudalism in pre-modern societies). An armed populace is meant to be a check on the overreach of civil power.

Could you bring a biblical defence of "An armed populace is meant to be a check on the overreach of civil power." meaning that the populace, biblically, should curb the threat of overreaching civil power with guns?

 

[Tirian]

there would have been no United States of America if only Great Britain had the guns.

I think that there is some great honesty here. The challenge as we transition to 2016 is whether that threat (an equivalent of course) still makes broad gun ownership desirable given the side effects (easy access for criminals and guns in the hands of someone that goes through an emotional breakdown/trauma)

Matt

 

[Tirian]

I should hope that my future husband would be willing to use firearms to protect me and die for me, if necessary. My father certainly is ready to.

Kat - thanks for the input. God grant you such a man indeed One day, Lord Willing not too far away, none of this will be necessary and we will see our King and Protector face to face.

PS. Don't make the mistake of dismissing Piper altogether though. I struggled with his book "Desiring God" from the opening contention and I have been guarded ever since. I still find blessing from some of his other work.

 

[Tirian]

So why would you state that permissive gun control increases violence? It is clearly not true, unless you reject the facts on the chart.

The big number that obviously jumps out there is 227, belonging to the US. I guess one way to reconcile that would be to say you have more people so you can afford to loose more.

I read through the Australian gun reform Act last night and was taken aback by what Australia does allow. We have a growing thirst for gun ownership in this land and so I realise no country is immune - i understand this isn't just an American issue or consideration.

 

[Philip]

Could you bring a biblical defence of "An armed populace is meant to be a check on the overreach of civil power." meaning that the populace, biblically, should curb the threat of overreaching civil power with guns?

Historically, Reformed churches have supported it, at least in principle as in the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos.

Whether a populace should resist unlawful overreach is determined on a case -by-case basis. To say this should never happen is to go beyond Scripture.

Historically speaking, being armed was indicative of other political rights.

 

[Tirian]

My report of what Piper writes is accurate. He confuses spheres of activity and his counsel is sinful. He violates what the 6th Commandment requires. The general equity of the 6th Commandment requires the defense of one's home. It's not a matter of civil rights but duty before the Lord that a man protect his home. Piper cannot simply appeal to the NT and treat God as mutable with respect to the moral law which provides for the defense of the innocent all throughout Scripture.

The confusion here is that you import guns into the argument as a given. Because others can conceive of a society without the need for guns in the hands of many civilians your argument falls flat.

The lack of a gun to defend oneself does not negate ones responsibility under the sixth commandment to defend the lives of your family and your own and to potentially take the life of an assailant. I've certainly not argued that it does. Pipers position doesn't require that we abdicate our responsibility either.

Irrespective of whether guns remain widely available, or are outlawed completely you (and I) will always have that responsibility under the sixth.

Hence when you accuse him of sinning, I believe you do so without grounds.

The Word of God is clear about the protection of human life and that God values it all throughout his Scripture.

I think this is particularly important as I sure we all agree on this. For you this means owning guns, because your society already has them. For me, honouring that principal of life means not putting guns in the hands of people broadly as it puts life at risk. It also means challenging the current norms about whether what we have best achieves that goal.

I understand the historical reasons you have guns as well (at least at a high level). The question for us is whether in 2016 those reasons still make sense and whether the preservation of life in accordance with that biblical principle is achieved more through disarmament than proliferation or even continued ownership.

Despite being told in this thread that I could not be a "reformed Christian" let alone a "Christian" to hold these views, nevertheless I do and I would love to convince you of them.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I still do not understand this fixation on guns.

You keep assuming they have an ontological problem as a state of being.

As has been noted our violent crime rate is the lowest it has been in 50 years, yet gun ownership has never been higher.

Why would lower gun ownership result in less violence if more ownership has not caused more violence?

You can point to some isolated mass shootings, but that is neither the norm or statistically relevant.

More people have died in the States from mass flooding in the past three days than have died in the kind of mass school shootings you keep mentioning in the past several years.

Your distance from the scene in the United States leads you to have understandably misinformed ideas about firearms and violent crime in our country.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Tirian]

Could you bring a biblical defence of "An armed populace is meant to be a check on the overreach of civil power." meaning that the populace, biblically, should curb the threat of overreaching civil power with guns?

Historically, Reformed churches have supported it, at least in principle as in the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos.

Whether a populace should resist unlawful overreach is determined on a case -by-case basis. To say this should never happen is to go beyond Scripture.

Historically speaking, being armed was indicative of other political rights.

Hey Philip - this paper is very good, thank you for sharing it. In the section called "a. Whether private individuals may resist by use of arms" the writer deals with an issue which has been raised as the primary cause for owning guns - namely the state turning rogue.

His whole paper summarised my position far more eloquently than I can put it - including the necessary defence of life, the role of the magistrate as the primary bearer of arms. Here is one part of many that I found helpful:

"What then shall individuals do if the king tries to force them to serve idols? If the magistrates into whose hands the people have given their authority, or the magistrates of the place where thesy live oppose these proceedings of the king, let them, in God's name, obey their leaders, and employ all their means (as in the service of God) to aid the holy and commendable enterprises of those who oppose themselves lawfully against his wicked intention. Among others, they have the examples of the centurions, and men at arms, who readily and cheerfully obeyed the princes of Judah who, stirred up by Jehoidas, purged the church from all profanation, and delivered the kingdom from the tyranny of Athaliah. (2 Chr. 23) But if the rulers and magistrates approve the course of an outrageous and irreligious ruler, or if they do not resist him, we must lend our ears to the counsel of Jesus Christ: we should flee to some other place. We have the example of the faithful mixed among the ten tribes of Israel, who, seeing the true service of God abolished by Jeroboam and no opposition, they fled into the territories of Judah, where religion remained in her purity. Let us rather forsake our livelihoods and lives, than God; let us rather be crucified ourselves, than crucify the Lord of Life: The Lord says, do not fear them who can only kill the body. (Mat. 10:28) He Himself, His apostles, and an infinite number of Christian martyrs, have taught us this by their examples. Therefore, shall it be permitted to any private person to resist by arms?" VINDICIAE, CONTRA TYRANNOS: SIVE, DE PRINCIPIS IN Populum, Populique in Principem, legitima postestate STEPHANO IVNIO Bruto Celta, Autore.

 

[Tirian]

Your distance from the scene in the United States leads you to have understandably misinformed ideas about firearms and violent crime in our country.

In Australia we have exactly the same issue. I carved out a humanly successful corporate career based in Melbourne and one of the things we always struggled with was prejudice from the north. In fact there is a saying "Not made in Sydney" which made national projects a political challenge when you had a core team based in Melbourne.

I read your comment and see the same prejudice.

 

[Tirian]

I still do not understand this fixation on guns.

You keep assuming they have an ontological problem as a state of being.

Flip it around then - if you lived in a society that had not guns, and in which the magistrate performed its duty in protecting its citizens in accordance with its God given authority as we are blessed with in many Western nations, would your first thought be to flood society with guns to make it even safer?

Brother Philip posted a link to Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos from which I have quoted - it answers that question from a biblical perspective and I commend it to you wholeheartedly.

 

[Philip]

His whole paper summarised my position far more eloquently than I can put it - including the necessary defence of life, the role of the magistrate as the primary bearer of arms. Here is one part of many that I found helpful:

Ok, but the position set out in the passage you quoted assumes that the populace is armed. The lesser magistrate can't lawfully resist unless there is an armed populace to support him. Remember that Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos was written as a contemporary defence of the Huguenot resistance in France.

 

[JimmyH]

I still do not understand this fixation on guns.

You keep assuming they have an ontological problem as a state of being.

Flip it around then - if you lived in a society that had not guns, and in which the magistrate performed its duty in protecting its citizens in accordance with its God given authority as we are blessed with in many Western nations, would your first thought be to flood society with guns to make it even safer?

Brother Philip posted a link to Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos from which I have quoted - it answers that question from a biblical perspective and I commend it to you wholeheartedly.

When seconds count the police are only minutes away. Firearms have been a part of this country since its inception. Our supreme court has upheld the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The old adage, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, is obviously correct. Demonstrated by the violence perpetrated by the criminal element in cities/states with stringent gun laws.

I hope you have the same zeal in opposing the state sponsored perversion of marriage and the murder of babies as you have supporting the abolition of our right to keep and bear arms.