Piper's Guns and Martyrdom

[nicnap]

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

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



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

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

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

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

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

 

[JBaldwin]

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

 

[Jesus is my friend]

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

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

Thanks so much

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

 

[PresbyDane]

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

 

[TsonMariytho]

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

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

 

[JBaldwin]

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

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

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

 

[Poimen]

Originally Posted by Poimen:

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

Originally Posted by Skyler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

 

[Jesus is my friend]

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

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



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

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


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

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

Can someone help me understand this

Grace and Peace to you

 

[Theognome]

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

SermonAudio.com - The Biblical Doctrine of Self-Defense

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

Theognome

 

[discipulo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Manuel]

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

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

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

 

[Skyler]

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

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

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

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

 

[Skyler]

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

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

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

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

1. For the person that murders the one trying to defend his family, yes. For the one attempting to defend his family, are you kidding me? Of course not.

2. Well, if it's a surprise attack then I suppose one can carefully plan such defense. However, if one is able to use "a less painful" approach fine; the problem with such an assertion is that "less painful" is subjective and unknowable.

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

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

 

[Skyler]

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

Your hypotheticals are pointless. The defensive tactic used is irrelevant. It is the the principle of the matter (that a man defends his family) that is obedience to the commandment.

The weapon he uses is irrelevant?

 

[Skyler]

The weapon he uses is irrelevant?

In your hypothetical, it is irrelevant insofar as keeping with the demands of the 6th Commandment, which is to defend one's neighbor/family/etc. against someone else who is trying to break the 6th Commandment by taking said neighbor/family/etc.'s life.

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

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

A number of years ago, some Christian friends of mine, Decio and Olivia, were staying at a motel in Atlanta. There had been a number of armed robberies and murders in the city. In these robberies, the assailants had ordered their victims to lie face down on the floor and then shot them in the backs of their heads. So Decio was on his guard.

It was a mild October evening, and Decio and Olivia had momentarily left their motel door open for a friend. Suddenly two teenage thugs appeared in the doorway with guns. They ordered everyone down on the floor. Decio hesitated and then knelt down, praying and trying to think of a way to foil the robbery.

His wife, Olivia, thinking it was a Halloween prank, remained seated on the bed. So one of the young robbers waved his gun at her and ordered her to lie on the floor. Instead, she started singing out loud “Jesus Loves Me,” as she got up from the bed and slowly walked over to the two young men. One of them raised his pistol, pointed it at her face, and cocked it. But when she continued singing and walking toward him, he suddenly yelled to his partner, “These are a bunch of Jesus nuts! Let’s get outta here!” And with that, the two young men vanished into the dark.

Over the years, I have heard and read many other accounts of how a prayer, a hymn, or a testimony effectively disarmed a would-be bruglar or assailant. There’s no point singing “Our God Is an Awesome God,” if we don’t really believe that He is.

 

[Skyler]

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

That is absurd.

The spirit that drives him? Do you mean sin? Like Paul said, in that context of Ephesian, it's talking about withstanding the wiles of the Devil, not the threats of an impending thief/killer. That you would rip such a passage out of context is very telling.

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

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

 

[Skyler]

*snip*

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

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

No, I didn't say that. Read it again.

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

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

Is this justifiable in context?

 

[Skyler]

Jonathan, stop beating around the bush with tedious questions.

Say what you're wanting to say. No more questions.

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

 

[BobVigneault]

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

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

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

Never bring a philosopher to a gun fight.

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

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