John Piper, Guns, Self-Defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm very glad that we don't have handguns easily accessable in Australia.
I may regret this statement if we ever experience a war on our own soil.
But until then, I'm happy to let our police officers carry for us.


Amen brother - let the magistrate do its God appointed job.

How will the magistrate stop the rapist in that moment?

I am all for the magistrate doing his God appointed job, but I am also for the father doing his God appointed job in protecting his family. If we work on the assumption that the family is a training school for the commonwealth, then I do not see how you can assume that it is wrong for a father to protect his natural family with physical force but okay for a civil magistrate to protect his civil family with physical force. How is one any more vengeful than the other?
 
I'm puzzled to the rape in the dark alley analogy being used as a justification for killing someone in the name of "protecting" your wives and children.

Why is your wife and your children in a dark alley in the first place?

It's been used as an example so often that it is a figure of speech. No matter, The rapist comes into your house. Same scenario.

Same question then - why is there a rapist in your house? (because he overcame the locks) how did he overcome the locks? (because I bought cheap ones at the hardware store).

In the end, our God-given need to protect mingles with a sense of vengeance. Instead of "I will be accountable for ensuring my home is secure" we are overcome with "anyone tries that with my wife or children and I will blow their brains to hell".

I read Jon Pipers article as a cri de coeur rather than a water-tight case for change.

It will take bravery to examine it in such a light.

Matthew,
Your questions (Why is a rapist in your house?,...) do not reflect reality....at least here and I imagine Aussie criminals and perverts aren't less wicked (or capable) than ours. Criminals break through windows, bust down doors, jimmy doors,.... all the time. Does your family leave the house? Unless you live your life in a "safe room", you're exposed. Secondly, police response, especially in larger cities, is greatly delayed. You may not want a gun. You may hate guns. You may think we who own them are evil. What you can't do, however, is blame a crime on the victim for not having bank-type vault doors on their house....
 
I'm very glad that we don't have handguns easily accessable in Australia.
I may regret this statement if we ever experience a war on our own soil.
But until then, I'm happy to let our police officers carry for us.


Amen brother - let the magistrate do its God appointed job.

How will the magistrate stop the rapist in that moment?

I am all for the magistrate doing his God appointed job, but I am also for the father doing his God appointed job in protecting his family. If we work on the assumption that the family is a training school for the commonwealth, then I do not see how you can assume that it is wrong for a father to protect his natural family with physical force but okay for a civil magistrate to protect his civil family with physical force. How is one any more vengeful than the other?

Right. And this is where Piper's pacifism degenerates into incoherence. It's hard to see how letting the copy shoot the bad guy is more "gospelish" (to use a New Calvinist term) than my shooting him.
 
What if I am walking in my neighborhood and a large dog decides to attack my young son? Not all threats are human. What if I am grocery shopping and some knucklehead decided to start shooting randomly and has a gun aimed at my wife? Should I dial 911 and hope the police are faster than his finger? I wish to NEVER have to defend life with a firearm, but I will, and will deal with the ramifications.
 
As folks say:

When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

The new Texas gun control law goes into effect next week - open carry only in a shoulder or belt holster. Rules unchanged for concealed carry.
 
Leave guns aside. Can I knife him? Can I throw a hammer or a tire iron (I actually have very good aim with that)? But even that aside, I know where pressure points are and how easy certain bones break. Can I do that?
 
I'm puzzled to the rape in the dark alley analogy being used as a justification for killing someone in the name of "protecting" your wives and children.

Why is your wife and your children in a dark alley in the first place?

It's been used as an example so often that it is a figure of speech. No matter, The rapist comes into your house. Same scenario.

Same question then - why is there a rapist in your house? (because he overcame the locks) how did he overcome the locks? (because I bought cheap ones at the hardware store).

In the end, our God-given need to protect mingles with a sense of vengeance. Instead of "I will be accountable for ensuring my home is secure" we are overcome with "anyone tries that with my wife or children and I will blow their brains to hell".

I read Jon Pipers article as a cri de coeur rather than a water-tight case for change.

It will take bravery to examine it in such a light.

Matthew,
Your questions (Why is a rapist in your house?,...) do not reflect reality....at least here and I imagine Aussie criminals and perverts aren't less wicked (or capable) than ours. Criminals break through windows, bust down doors, jimmy doors,.... all the time. Does your family leave the house? Unless you live your life in a "safe room", you're exposed. Secondly, police response, especially in larger cities, is greatly delayed. You may not want a gun. You may hate guns. You may think we who own them are evil. What you can't do, however, is blame a crime on the victim for not having bank-type vault doors on their house....

Piper has prompted you to look at this from a different perspective - I get that to do so would shake your world at its foundation. As you might rightly guess, I don't think that is a bad thing.

What you can't do though is accuse me of doing something I did not - which is blame the victim. If you are a husband and father, you accountable for your family's physical safety. What I'm suggesting is that responsibility starts a long time before you're pulling the trigger with an impure heart.

Bank vault doors? Never even thought of it. But then again this is just deflecting your responsibility so you can hold onto the thing you love most.
 
Piper has prompted you to look at this from a different perspective - I get that to do so would shake your world at its foundation. As you might rightly guess, I don't think that is a bad thing.

Sorry....Piper hasn't shaken anything except his own sensibilities


What you can't do though is accuse me of doing something I did not - which is blame the victim.

You were the one who suggested the homeowner buying cheap or faulty locks was potential cause for a break-in, not me...... You might want to go back to re-read your own post.

If you are a husband and father, you accountable for your family's physical safety. What I'm suggesting is that responsibility starts a long time before you're pulling the trigger with an impure heart.

Agreed up until the impure heart thing.....how did you get to the place where you know this about anyone who would defend their family? Sounds like imputing motives to others here.......

Bank vault doors? Never even thought of it. But then again this is just deflecting your responsibility so you can hold onto the thing you love most.

What responsibilities have I neglected? There are locks on my doors. I visually case everyplace my family goes to. I teach them to be aware of their surroundings. I don't take them to the 'hood. If someone comes after my family, 100% responsibility is on their head.
The thing I love most? You have no idea what (or Whom, this is the PB) I love most and are unqualified for such a judgment. You can't know...period.

You've made all kinds of assumptions here, just like you have in other firearm related threads, Matthew. You hate guns...I get it. You don't want anyone to have them except the law. Great....you are qualified to have tea with our President at the White House. Tell him I said "hi" and I can't wait for him to be replaced. You may not assign ill motives to those of us who, we believe, are doing right by defending our families with deadly force, if necessary. For the record, I don't know anyone who would take gleeful delight in having to do such......no one. The blood, guts,... the permanent images in my children and my head...... For the record, if this wicked magistrate strips us of our Constitutional gun rights, I will immediately go out and purchase another lethal means of protection for my home (bow and arrow, chain saw, lead pipe, Japanese sword...). Firearms are not what I love most, just so we are clear on that point.
 
Piper has prompted you to look at this from a different perspective - I get that to do so would shake your world at its foundation. As you might rightly guess, I don't think that is a bad thing.

What you can't do though is accuse me of doing something I did not - which is blame the victim. If you are a husband and father, you accountable for your family's physical safety. What I'm suggesting is that responsibility starts a long time before you're pulling the trigger with an impure heart.

Bank vault doors? Never even thought of it. But then again this is just deflecting your responsibility so you can hold onto the thing you love most.
When I was a kid in the 1950s we didn't lock our doors. I walked a mile to the public park and played with other 9 and 10 year olds. A month or so ago a pastor who had moved from South Carolina to Indiana had gone to the gym for a workout. He didn't lock his doors either.

Three thugs entered his house and robbed it. One of them raped his pregnant wife while their toddler was in a crib upstairs. He then shot her in the head before leaving. Should have locked his doors, or maybe she could have had access to a firearm. Moot point.

Had I been on the strip in Las Vegas when a deranged women began running her car into people, killing one, injuring many, if I'd been close enough I would have put a 38+P slug in her brain bucket and maybe saved some innocents from being maimed or killed. I'd have slept like a baby.

I carry a pistol all of the time. In my neighborhood there have been five (5) murders in two separate occasions. Both robberies where unarmed victims were shot execution style (what the media calls it) by criminals who obviously have no respect for human life.

In one of those cases the two perpetrators were caught because one of them bragged to a friend that he had shot the three defenseless women in the head. He was proud of his work. His friend turned him in. Regrettably those two got life in prison, not the death penalty they so richly deserve.

I haven't read Piper's article and don't intend to. I don't know what neighborhood he lives in, nor what the situation is in Victoria, Australia, but here in Lake Worth, FL USA I have a concealed weapons permit, and a legal, and I'd argue a moral right, to protect myself.
 
Piper has prompted you to look at this from a different perspective - I get that to do so would shake your world at its foundation. As you might rightly guess, I don't think that is a bad thing.

Sorry....Piper hasn't shaken anything except his own sensibilities


What you can't do though is accuse me of doing something I did not - which is blame the victim.

You were the one who suggested the homeowner buying cheap or faulty locks was potential cause for a break-in, not me...... You might want to go back to re-read your own post.

If you are a husband and father, you accountable for your family's physical safety. What I'm suggesting is that responsibility starts a long time before you're pulling the trigger with an impure heart.

Agreed up until the impure heart thing.....how did you get to the place where you know this about anyone who would defend their family? Sounds like imputing motives to others here.......

Bank vault doors? Never even thought of it. But then again this is just deflecting your responsibility so you can hold onto the thing you love most.

What responsibilities have I neglected? There are locks on my doors. I visually case everyplace my family goes to. I teach them to be aware of their surroundings. I don't take them to the 'hood. If someone comes after my family, 100% responsibility is on their head.
The thing I love most? You have no idea what (or Whom, this is the PB) I love most and are unqualified for such a judgment. You can't know...period.

You've made all kinds of assumptions here, just like you have in other firearm related threads, Matthew. You hate guns...I get it. You don't want anyone to have them except the law. Great....you are qualified to have tea with our President at the White House. Tell him I said "hi" and I can't wait for him to be replaced. You may not assign ill motives to those of us who, we believe, are doing right by defending our families with deadly force, if necessary. For the record, I don't know anyone who would take gleeful delight in having to do such......no one. The blood, guts,... the permanent images in my children and my head...... For the record, if this wicked magistrate strips us of our Constitutional gun rights, I will immediately go out and purchase another lethal means of protection for my home (bow and arrow, chain saw, lead pipe, Japanese sword...). Firearms are not what I love most, just so we are clear on that point.


The point of asking and answering those hypothetical questions was to highlight the futility of such argumentation - at some point we have to trust our safety to the One who will never let even a hair from your head perish outside of His well but also to make the point that we have a much broader responsibility than the "conclusion."

Your puerility regarding your God appointed President is unbecoming, as is tagging Jon Piper as he has been in this thread as nothing more than a "Neo Calvinist" and discarding everything the man has to say on the topic.

Jesus said "But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves." In times of persecution the Spirit has always sufficiently equipped His saints. The Spirit has also restrained evil through the magistrate and the influence of the Gospel. This is somewhere near the heart of Piper's message.

I contend this - that at the point you pull the trigger your motives will not be 100% righteous. Vengeance will most likely form a part of what you do. Your civil laws will excuse your behaviour and you will feel justified but your sin will be carried to the Cross.
 
I haven't read Piper's article and don't intend to. I don't know what neighborhood he lives in, nor what the situation is in Victoria, Australia, but here in Lake Worth, FL USA I have a concealed weapons permit, and a legal, and I'd argue a moral right, to protect myself.

Jimmy,

Your situation sounds tough.if nothing else, I guess this thread reminds me to pray fervently for those in authority that they would protect those who do good, and punish those who do evil.

Outside of that we all have to die sometime - it's not something that occupies a great deal of my thought time. I know that whatever the circumstances of my death, or the death of my wife or children - that God purpose will not be thwarted. May He give me and them the grace and strength to endure it to His honour and glory when it comes.

Matt
 
Gentlemen, argumentum ad hominem. To summarize, some are suggesting that Mr. Piper's piece offers an opportunity to examine the issue from a different angle. Others see problems in Mr. Piper's arguments due to a lack of continuity between OT and NT, adherence to the 6th commandment, and a reflection of the governing roles at the family and state levels?
 
I haven't read Piper's article and don't intend to. I don't know what neighborhood he lives in, nor what the situation is in Victoria, Australia, but here in Lake Worth, FL USA I have a concealed weapons permit, and a legal, and I'd argue a moral right, to protect myself.

Jimmy,

Your situation sounds tough.if nothing else, I guess this thread reminds me to pray fervently for those in authority that they would protect those who do good, and punish those who do evil.

Outside of that we all have to die sometime - it's not something that occupies a great deal of my thought time. I know that whatever the circumstances of my death, or the death of my wife or children - that God purpose will not be thwarted. May He give me and them the grace and strength to endure it to His honour and glory when it comes.

Matt

When David asked the Lord of Hosts if he should 'go up' to smite the Philistines the Lord said "Go up." If I have the opportunity to defend myself, or others, being assaulted by nefarious characters to my mind the sin would be to stand idly by and assume it is the Lord's will that I perish. I've had this argument with a few Europeans of the liberal persuasion. Different world view entirely. I cannot persuade them, nor can they persuade me. May the Lord richly bless you this coming New Year.
 
Gentlemen, argumentum ad hominem. To summarize, some are suggesting that Mr. Piper's piece offers an opportunity to examine the issue from a different angle. Others see problems in Mr. Piper's arguments due to a lack of continuity between OT and NT, adherence to the 6th commandment, and a reflection of the governing roles at the family and state levels?

Ad hominem attacks toward me are "de rigueur" on this topic. It's rarely admonished by the admins and never retracted by the offenders.

As you rightly say, it's worth considering Piper's piece which comes at this issue from a different angle without malicious intent from what I can see.
 
I haven't read Piper's article and don't intend to. I don't know what neighborhood he lives in, nor what the situation is in Victoria, Australia, but here in Lake Worth, FL USA I have a concealed weapons permit, and a legal, and I'd argue a moral right, to protect myself.

Jimmy,

Your situation sounds tough.if nothing else, I guess this thread reminds me to pray fervently for those in authority that they would protect those who do good, and punish those who do evil.

Outside of that we all have to die sometime - it's not something that occupies a great deal of my thought time. I know that whatever the circumstances of my death, or the death of my wife or children - that God purpose will not be thwarted. May He give me and them the grace and strength to endure it to His honour and glory when it comes.

Matt

When David asked the Lord of Hosts if he should 'go up' to smite the Philistines the Lord said "Go up." If I have the opportunity to defend myself, or others, being assaulted by nefarious characters to my mind the sin would be to stand idly by and assume it is the Lord's will that I perish. I've had this argument with a few Europeans of the liberal persuasion. Different world view entirely. I cannot persuade them, nor can they persuade me. May the Lord richly bless you this coming New Year.


Well Jimmy if you are in battle as David was, and you deserted your post or failed to act proactively in attacking and merely waited to "defend" then your sin would be upon you. If you are on the battlefield right now God bless you and keep you. if you're not the currently appointed magistrate, then my encouragement to you is to trust in the one the Lord has given you and to pray for them.

May the Lord truly bless you too in this year ahead and cause His face to shine upon you, and give you GREAT joy and piece.

Matt
 
Piper has prompted you to look at this from a different perspective - I get that to do so would shake your world at its foundation. As you might rightly guess, I don't think that is a bad thing.

Sorry....Piper hasn't shaken anything except his own sensibilities


What you can't do though is accuse me of doing something I did not - which is blame the victim.

You were the one who suggested the homeowner buying cheap or faulty locks was potential cause for a break-in, not me...... You might want to go back to re-read your own post.

If you are a husband and father, you accountable for your family's physical safety. What I'm suggesting is that responsibility starts a long time before you're pulling the trigger with an impure heart.

Agreed up until the impure heart thing.....how did you get to the place where you know this about anyone who would defend their family? Sounds like imputing motives to others here.......

Bank vault doors? Never even thought of it. But then again this is just deflecting your responsibility so you can hold onto the thing you love most.

What responsibilities have I neglected? There are locks on my doors. I visually case everyplace my family goes to. I teach them to be aware of their surroundings. I don't take them to the 'hood. If someone comes after my family, 100% responsibility is on their head.
The thing I love most? You have no idea what (or Whom, this is the PB) I love most and are unqualified for such a judgment. You can't know...period.

You've made all kinds of assumptions here, just like you have in other firearm related threads, Matthew. You hate guns...I get it. You don't want anyone to have them except the law. Great....you are qualified to have tea with our President at the White House. Tell him I said "hi" and I can't wait for him to be replaced. You may not assign ill motives to those of us who, we believe, are doing right by defending our families with deadly force, if necessary. For the record, I don't know anyone who would take gleeful delight in having to do such......no one. The blood, guts,... the permanent images in my children and my head...... For the record, if this wicked magistrate strips us of our Constitutional gun rights, I will immediately go out and purchase another lethal means of protection for my home (bow and arrow, chain saw, lead pipe, Japanese sword...). Firearms are not what I love most, just so we are clear on that point.


The point of asking and answering those hypothetical questions was to highlight the futility of such argumentation - at some point we have to trust our safety to the One who will never let even a hair from your head perish outside of His well but also to make the point that we have a much broader responsibility than the "conclusion."

You trust/ask God for a job, but you don't go to any interviews? Have you ever considered it may also be His will that one defends himself or family? You seem to indicate it that defending ones self also includes not trusting God, which is the reason I asked if one should bother to interview for a job....


Your puerility regarding your God appointed President is unbecoming, as is tagging Jon Piper as he has been in this thread as nothing more than a "Neo Calvinist" and discarding everything the man has to say on the topic.

I don't argue God has appointed all men to office. I believe He appoints upright men just as He appoints wicked and unrighteous men all the time for His own purposes. This should not be a novelty or a surprise to anyone. For the record, I have not "not" submitted to any of the Prez's decrees, so far as I know. As for Dr. Piper, it's ok to admit he has spoken without wisdom. He's not the pope, after all..... Neo-Calvinist may not be the best descriptor, but YRR seems reasonable as he self-admits to an anti-confessional, anti-covenantal position, which is not Reformed... I don't think categorizing one = demonizing one, though it is possible to do both. I have only suggested a failure in judgment on his part, not that he is now a heretic.

Jesus said "But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves." In times of persecution the Spirit has always sufficiently equipped His saints. The Spirit has also restrained evil through the magistrate and the influence of the Gospel. This is somewhere near the heart of Piper's message.

I contend this - that at the point you pull the trigger your motives will not be 100% righteous. Vengeance will most likely form a part of what you do. Your civil laws will excuse your behaviour and you will feel justified but your sin will be carried to the Cross.

I agree, but that is whole of our lives unless you've embraced Wesley's perfectionism. My motives for everything are tainted all the time as are your's. I don't make it through Lord's Day worship without wandering thoughts and impure motives, much less at home or at work! Does that = I'm wicked if I defend the less defensible/defenseless? I think that is a stretch and misunderstanding of the duties of the 6th....

Matthew, please know this: We may differ significantly on this issue, but I don't despise you. You are my brother. I look forward to a new heaven and earth where we don't have to lock our doors and we will exist in perfect peace. For now, I lock my doors and set my loaded and chambered weapon next to my bed and hope that such a horrible day never comes......
 
I'm puzzled to the rape in the dark alley analogy being used as a justification for killing someone in the name of "protecting" your wives and children.

Why is your wife and your children in a dark alley in the first place?

It's been used as an example so often that it is a figure of speech. No matter, The rapist comes into your house. Same scenario.

Same question then - why is there a rapist in your house? (because he overcame the locks) how did he overcome the locks? (because I bought cheap ones at the hardware store).

In the end, our God-given need to protect mingles with a sense of vengeance. Instead of "I will be accountable for ensuring my home is secure" we are overcome with "anyone tries that with my wife or children and I will blow their brains to hell".

I read Jon Pipers article as a cri de coeur rather than a water-tight case for change.

It will take bravery to examine it in such a light.

Matthew,
Your questions (Why is a rapist in your house?,...) do not reflect reality....at least here and I imagine Aussie criminals and perverts aren't less wicked (or capable) than ours. Criminals break through windows, bust down doors, jimmy doors,.... all the time. Does your family leave the house? Unless you live your life in a "safe room", you're exposed. Secondly, police response, especially in larger cities, is greatly delayed. You may not want a gun. You may hate guns. You may think we who own them are evil. What you can't do, however, is blame a crime on the victim for not having bank-type vault doors on their house....

Piper has prompted you to look at this from a different perspective - I get that to do so would shake your world at its foundation. As you might rightly guess, I don't think that is a bad thing.

What you can't do though is accuse me of doing something I did not - which is blame the victim. If you are a husband and father, you accountable for your family's physical safety. What I'm suggesting is that responsibility starts a long time before you're pulling the trigger with an impure heart.

Bank vault doors? Never even thought of it. But then again this is just deflecting your responsibility so you can hold onto the thing you love most.

Can you phrase your question with charity? Piper hasn't "prompted us to look" anew at something that would shake our foundation. I pointed out, as have numerous others, numerous logical fallacies and category confusions. You haven't dealt with the many defeaters we've offered to Piper's argument, falsely so-called. I've been debating anabaptist hippies on this point for years now. The difference is that Hauerwas and Yoder know where their ethical incoherence leads.
 
Gentlemen, argumentum ad hominem. To summarize, some are suggesting that Mr. Piper's piece offers an opportunity to examine the issue from a different angle. Others see problems in Mr. Piper's arguments due to a lack of continuity between OT and NT, adherence to the 6th commandment, and a reflection of the governing roles at the family and state levels?

Ad hominem attacks toward me are "de rigueur" on this topic. It's rarely admonished by the admins and never retracted by the offenders.

You get used to it after a while.

As you rightly say, it's worth considering Piper's piece which comes at this issue from a different angle without malicious intent from what I can see.

In my OP I offered numerous problems with Piper's assertions (I cannot call them arguments). I didn't do so with any malicious intent. Pastor Wedgeworth at Calvinist International offered even more pointed criticisms with even more charity. Would you care to respond to either of us?
 
I don't think a charge that we are hand-waving away John Piper's arguments is warranted. I thought the discussion had been remarkably restrained given the emotional nature of the subject matter, and several logical issues with John Piper's line of thinking were brought.

In the OP, Jacob went through the article and listed issues he had with it. Others have as well, including two public articles/blog posts that were shared (haven't read them in detail yet, personally).

Matt, you mention that you subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith. How do you interpret WLC Q135 and Q136? There are a few phrases that I'd like to understand how you find yourself duty bound to them (or not, perhaps having taken exception to them):

WLC Q135 ("Duties Required"), includes "by just defence thereof against violence" (Ps. 82:4, Prov. 24:11–12, 1 Sam. 14:45)

WLC Q136 ("Sins Forbidden"), includes this phrase, "The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, (Acts 16:28) or of others, (Gen. 9:6) except in case of public justice, (Numb. 35:31,33) lawful war, (Jer. 48:10, Deut. 20:1) or necessary defence; (Exod. 22:2–3)"

The Exodus 22:2-3 passage is the interesting one, because one might try to make the connection with many of the other passages to the magistrate, or extraordinary circumstances (the people rescuing Jonathan from Saul).

Exodus 22:2-3 is listed as a Scripture proof:
2 If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Here is a warrant in the Law of God for lawful defense. Exodus 22:2-3 also is interesting in that this is not an unrestrained "kill on demand". If the sun is up, and you shoot him and there was no harm being perpetrated towards persons, then you should not kill the man. If for instance, the thief appears to be a common crook, not intending to harm a person, then you shouldn't kill the man. This is important balance in this debate. We should never be quick to hurt someone if mere property is threatened, and they are not threatening the life of others. Here's how Matthew Henry and Poole see this passage:

Concerning Exodus 22:3, Matthew Henry states:
Yet, if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it (v. 3), unless it was in the necessary defence of his own life

Matthew Poole:
There shall be blood shed for him; he that kills him shall be put to death, because he punished him more than his crime deserved, and might have been otherwise either secured or righted; and in that case, it is probable, the thief designed not murder, but theft only. But if it were evident that the housebreaker designed murder, he might doubtless kill him in his own defence.

Yes, it is good to point out - that no matter what, taking the life of someone who is made in God's Image is a sober thing, and should never be done lightly.

But you'll have to forgive us if it appears as if John Piper covers no new ground here. We have a pretty solid and firm foundation to stand upon, from our standards, from the general equity of the Old Testament Case Law, and from many great exegetes in the past. Exegetes such as Henry and Poole knew nothing of the modern "gun-control" debate, and it would be unfair to claim that they were influenced by such, in either direction.

See, we cannot argue on this basis with John Piper. He doesn't hold the same presuppositions we do on God's Law, and his system of theology is quite different from ours. But on the PuritanBoard we have the advantage of making short-handed arguments because of our commitment to the system of doctrine taught in the confessions. So our discussion with our brethren here is of a slightly different nature, and so a full diving into Piper's presuppositions isn't particularly needed (hence the comments on the divide between OT and NT).
 
Last edited:
I contend this - that at the point you pull the trigger your motives will not be 100% righteous. Vengeance will most likely form a part of what you do. Your civil laws will excuse your behaviour and you will feel justified but your sin will be carried to the Cross.

Matt, my father is a retired police detective from New Jersey. In August of 1985 my father was on duty and responded to a call at a crowded park and recreation complex (you can read about the incident HERE). When he arrived he was shot at by a gang member who was part of two rival families who were "settling their differences" with guns and machetes. In response my father pulled out his service weapon, crouched down, and let off one shot which hit the assailant in the lower abdomen. Thankfully my father survived. He later told me that adrenaline kicked in and the moment became surreal. Vengeance was not on his mind. He had two thoughts: to immediately defend his own life and the lives of the hundreds of other park quests. Perhaps you would say that my father had government or magisterial authority to discharge his weapon in self-defense. But unless you are willing to call my father a liar, I believe him when he me told his motives for pulling the trigger.

I would like to know how you can guess the motives of another person in a hypothetical situation, and then go the next step and accuse them of sin?
 
I've got an old sword.

But in my 42 years in Perth, including also a few years in Aberdeen, I can't remember having a life-threatening crime committed against me, or a burglary, apart from one attempted robbery/assault by two drunks, which probably wasn't going to end up life-threatening.

I don't hear that we as a family had any problem either, in Glasgow (West End), Oban, Strathpeffer or Inverness, or that the question of owining a gun or making preparations for defending oneself against burglay or a lone gunner was ever raised.

Some parts of the world are obviously more lawless than others, otherwise these things would be a topic of conversation and preparation in all neighbourhoods and circles. Maybe if I lived in a different part of Britain I'd be interested in guns.
 
Last edited:
My former next door neighbor was tied up and robbed at gun point. And it wasn't even in a "hood" part of town. My other next door neighbor was a crackhead and meth chemist. I sometimes thought about shooting a bottle rocket into his meth lab, but I feared the explosion would also damage my house.
 
My other next door neighbor was a crackhead and meth chemist. I sometimes thought about shooting a bottle rocket into his meth lab, but I feared the explosion would also damage my house.

That would be interesting to explain that to an insurance agent.....:D
 
Matthew, please know this: We may differ significantly on this issue, but I don't despise you. You are my brother. I look forward to a new heaven and earth where we don't have to lock our doors and we will exist in perfect peace.

Amen - Lord come quickly.
 
In my OP I offered numerous problems with Piper's assertions (I cannot call them arguments). I didn't do so with any malicious intent. Pastor Wedgeworth at Calvinist International offered even more pointed criticisms with even more charity. Would you care to respond to either of us?

Jacob your OP was gracious and helpful. Before we can even tackle the issue at hand, it was necessary to highlight some of the logical fallacies (wife and children in a dark alley nonsense, starting with the confrontation instead of a circumspect approach to protection) before we could even begin. Something got lost in translation as I ended up being accused of that which I was trying to highlight and extract. My economy with words perhaps.

Thanks for the reference to Pastor Wedgeworth, I will look up the article.
 
WLC Q135 ("Duties Required"), includes "by just defence thereof against violence" (Ps. 82:4, Prov. 24:11–12, 1 Sam. 14:45)

I'm not sure where you derive gun ownership from this. The application is far broader of course, but if you are using this to justify owning a gun then the burden is upon you to justify it from the rest of scripture. The gun "race" has the effect of arming thousands (or in the case of the US probably millions) of people which introduces risk that wasn't there otherwise. I can see how such a verse argues against the proliferation of guns - at the very least high powered automatic style weapons.
 
WLC Q136 ("Sins Forbidden"), includes this phrase, "The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, (Acts 16:28) or of others, (Gen. 9:6) except in case of public justice, (Numb. 35:31,33) lawful war, (Jer. 48:10, Deut. 20:1) or necessary defence; (Exod. 22:2–3)"

The magistrate is appointed to public justice and war. Taking life in defence is something I agree is necessary in this fallen world. This gets us nowhere towards proliferation of gun ownership or an expectation that we all carry one on our persons at most times etc. The reason you need guns is because you have guns. Piper is speaking to that I believe - it will be up to Christians to lay down their guns and demonstrate bravery and trust in the Almighty. It will require the nation surrendering its guns to reach an ideal - it will take brave people to initiate that.

In Australia we don't have a proliferation of gun ownership so I am unlikely (Lord willing) to face an armed intruder or even be involved in an armed situation at all. But I would use lethal force if required.

The secondary effect of gun proliferation is that it is the start of the cycle that precipitates the need and makes it humanly impossible to not be lead along by it thereafter.
 
But you'll have to forgive us if it appears as if John Piper covers no new ground here.

I covered this in another post brother. Piper's article is more of a "cri de cœur" than a manifesto. To approach it in any other way would be uncharitable and frankly, ludicrous.
 
I contend this - that at the point you pull the trigger your motives will not be 100% righteous. Vengeance will most likely form a part of what you do. Your civil laws will excuse your behaviour and you will feel justified but your sin will be carried to the Cross.

Matt, my father is a retired police detective from New Jersey. In August of 1985 my father was on duty and responded to a call at a crowded park and recreation complex (you can read about the incident HERE). When he arrived he was shot at by a gang member who was part of two rival families who were "settling their differences" with guns and machetes. In response my father pulled out his service weapon, crouched down, and let off one shot which hit the assailant in the lower abdomen. Thankfully my father survived. He later told me that adrenaline kicked in and the moment became surreal. Vengeance was not on his mind. He had two thoughts: to immediately defend his own life and the lives of the hundreds of other park quests. Perhaps you would say that my father had government or magisterial authority to discharge his weapon in self-defense. But unless you are willing to call my father a liar, I believe him when he me told his motives for pulling the trigger.

I would like to know how you can guess the motives of another person in a hypothetical situation, and then go the next step and accuse them of sin?

I'm sorry to hear about your fathers experience and glad he survived to be able to share his experiences. Your father was legal arm of the magistrate dutifully doing everything in his power to save those around him. I'm glad that we have men and women that still readily sign up for this all so necessary work in a fallen world.

Piper's article and the thrust of this discussion relates to civil ownership of guns so I'll leave it there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top