Ron Sider against ALL killing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello David, welcome to PB!

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, did you get a chance to look at Baxter?
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
when the magistrate is absent or ineffective
Click to expand...

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

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

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

I've given some thought as to what a Luke 22:36 ministry might look like in a UN dominated society, but I haven't come to a conclusion yet.
 
Edward just for clarification I was ignoring other factors to just focus on the matter at hand
 
Loving this discussion, and I hope people can address those pacifist scriptures!! There are plenty. Like Steve, I'm not as interested in what the confessions say (especially if the proof-texts are weak / are incomplete), but what the Scriptures say.

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

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

3. Private Christians: if being intruded upon by a random drunk/robber/wicked man, I am personally going to tell my family to run, get the car and drive to the nearest police station. Meanwhile I'll pull out a baseball bat and tell the robber to take what he wants and leave my family alone. If he attacks any of my family, then I will have to fight him .. let's hope the police comes before I die!!
And if I have a gun I would shoot the guy in the thigh/stomach. Let's hope the ambulance arrives on time!!
 
Logan, I did check Baxter – very helpful! – thanks for that. NY law allows for self defense such as would permit using necessary force against home invasion, as well as other serious crimes outside the home, though – as NY doesn't have a "stand your ground law" – if one can make an escape there (if outside the home) one should.

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

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

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

These thoughts have been very helpful, so I thank you all for them. I believe I have sufficient to rest easy in my conscience in this matter now.
 
I agree about persecution, though with a qualifier. Suffering in the name of Christ, by those placed in legitimate authority, is not authorized by Scripture. I don't think the same would hold if an individual were to attack a Christian based on his faith. I'd have to think on that more but that has been my thought at least.
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
And Edward, I have checked NY law and if we act within certain rather broad parameters we may well defend ourselves
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) If someone like Tookie Williams breaks into your house, you will not scare him off with a baseball bat--especially if he is packing a Glock.
2) Samuel Rutherford has the best treatment of self-defense, never been answered.
 
Here are some Rutherford quotes, but a few points first. The natural law tradition has always maintained self-defense as a normal given. The enormous burden of proof is on the negative. As pertaining to the Exodus case law: if it is summative of the moral law, being a practical example of maintaining human life (6th commandment, plus one's family) and maintaining just wealth (8th Commandment), then its binding today. The only difficulty is in applying it in some of the statist parts of America.

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

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

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

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

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

In the greatest sentence in Lex, Rex, Rutherford says we should rather unhorse the Irish Catholic and throw him off the bridge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Against Fiction
2
Replies
44
Views
11K
Logan
Logan
M
  • Locked
Against favouritism
Replies
2
Views
1K
Free Christian
Free Christian
Ed Walsh
  • Locked
Killing Remaining Sin - Dr. Joel Beeke - With a Warning from Me
Replies
8
Views
2K
StephenMartyr
StephenMartyr
Herald
  • Locked
The battle against sin...
Replies
2
Views
4K
Bladestunner316
Bladestunner316
Reformed Covenanter
Hope against despair (Robert Riccaltoun)
Replies
0
Views
412
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Back
Top