Guns: An Important Discussion

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

...and that is scary.

Not really. I am happy to know it will be a winnable war.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Luk 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luk 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Two swords are not enough for each of them to engage in self defense. Jesus said, "It is enough.", because they were taking Him literally when He was actually warning them with a parable that they'd face violent opposition. Christ's intention wasn't that they truly go and get swords... else Jesus would have said, "Two are not enough.", and we'd read of them going and buying swords. However, we don't.

Joh 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Joh 18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

It's clear the gospel is NOT to be advanced by the sword. If Christ's kingdom was of this world we would "fight" but it is not. Therefore the gospel is a true message of peace and good will towards men - all mankind.[/QUOTE]

Amen.

However, the question is not one of gospel propagation it is "self defense". On this the Bible is clear:
It is interesting to note that Abraham (the father of the "faithful" - the man of faith) brought his "trained servants" with him to rescue Lot.
Gen 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

Abraham wasn't living under the New Covenant. It was a nomadic time and Abraham lived according to patriarchal codes. He was much like a tribal leader. Thus this doesn't apply. It's more akin to warfare.

Then there is this passage of scripture letting us know that we can defend our property from thieves:
Exo 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

A man breaking into a house to steal would be smitten and the owner of the house would suffer no adverse consequences.

Again, this isn't the New Covenant. Essentially this Law of Moses was part of ancient Israel's civil code of justice. It doesn't speak to the morality of self defense, only the justice. Much like laws regarding self defence here in the United States. For example, it's legal to use lethal force to defend yourself. However, like the Law of Moses, it doesn't speak to it's morality or how such an action should be viewed in light of Christ's teachings.

Then there is this passage as well:
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

What does "provision" mean?
Certainly it the taking thought for the "needs" of the family. A man should work to provide for his family.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

What does this have to do with the issue at hand? I am glad you asked! LOL!
What man among us would not step in and defend our families from a rabid dog? What man among us would not defend our families from any wild creature seeking to do them harm. I would use anything I could get my hands on to defend them from such an attack.

Actually, I'll have to differ with you here. The context of the verse was addressing men that were not working and expecting the church to continue giving them and their families handouts. Paul's point is that these able bodied men must provide for their families and their necessities (food, clothing, etc.). This doesn't speak at all about self defense or the use of lethal force.

Jesus said:
Mat 12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
Mat 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

In the above passage Jesus states that it is right to do good even on the Sabbath day. Here we have the clear statement that humanity is better than the animal kingdom - this is because of our being created in the image of God not because of any other type of inherent worth.

When our families or ourselves are found in the proverbial "ditch" among thieves and robbers it is good to "provide" for their defense whether those thieves and robbers are wild animals or men acting like wild animals. We are commanded to "provide" for our families and there is no doubt in my mind that this includes "protection".

Christ's point is this passage was that the Pharisiacal accusation against him for healing on the sabbath was baseless. Also, with this Christ affirmed the superiority of the Gospel of Grace over the Law, affirming that He was Lord of the Sabbath. Nothing about self defense was in view.

Jesus told the Disciples to go and get a sword, not for the propagation of the gospel but for self defense. These were not letter openers. The highways were dangerous and they would be travelling these. More often than not the robbers look for easy prey and when they see armed men they wait for the unarmed. Interesting that today it is in the "gun free" zones where the mass killings take place. There is nothing new under the sun.

Already addressed.

In summary, we are not to propagate the gospel with the sword. However, we are to provide for our families. That includes protecting them from harm. I cannot imagine any man standing idly by watching a venomous animal of a man raping his wife or daughter and doing nothing. It goes against every fiber of what a "man" is supposed to be. All that evil needs to prosper is for good people to do nothing.

Christian history attests to the fact that rather iit be under organized persecution or isolated acts of random violence against Christians... early Christians refused to draw blood. Even Christians serving in the Roman army refused to shed blood for the emperor and were executed for treason. Entire families were often the target of isolated random violence, crime, and persecution... in each instance... they died before shedding the blood of their attacker.

True Christianity will cost you more than a dress code... should someone break into your home... obedience to Christ might cost you or life... and perhaps even your family's lives.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Is James speaking of religious persecution or someone breaking and entering?

False dichotomy. It's not about persecution verses a criminal act perpetrated against you. It's about one thing only in all circumstances... obedience to Christ. Obedience even unto death if need be. Be they a unit of a persecuting police force... or some dumb, doped up, and armed 20-something breaking in your home to rob you blind.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Apparently you have missed one of the points I have made - that is there is a difference between religious persecution and a robber.

A false dichotomy implying situational ethics.

[Aquila]

Either you trust the Lord with the fate of yourself and your family... or you don't.

It's not about persecution vs. criminal act. It's about obedience to Jesus Christ.

I don't live in the best neighborhood. My girlfriend's brother was beat down and robbed two blocks down. My car was stolen last April. I've anointed my doors and windows and prayed over those I love. Now... it's really about me preparing for whatever the Lord would have happen to me. Like a Kamakazi... my death is gain. I've been marked by my maker a peculiar display. The high and lofty... they see me as weak... 'cause I wont live and die... for the power they seek.

[Aquila]

I remember a television show called Little House On the Prairie. What always struck me was how Michael Landon's character was a Christian... and a pacifist. Be they bandits or authorities... he never used lethal force that I can remember. I seem to remember him always refusing weapons... and even showing displeasure with even pointing a weapon at another human being.

[Aquila]

Here's what's funny... Christians in various parts of the world like India, some Middle Eastern countries... China... etc. don't believe in using lethal force at all. Not even against an attacker or robber. Facing persecution... obedience to them is at a premium. But in our comfortable little America we don't face REAL persecution like they do. So we've become fat and sassy... justifying the use of lethal force against "criminals" as though because it's a criminal we don't have to obey Jesus.

A REAL Christian understands the every day cost of Christianity. And being a Christian might mean that you'll die with a witness on your lips at the hands of a man holding you at gun point for your wallet outside a convenience store.

Truth be told... my first pastor served as a Marine. And interestingly enough... he was also against Christians using lethal force in any circumstance. I was even admonished NOT to joint the military when I chose to sign up. He'd put it this way... "Either you believe in God or you don't. Don't tell me you believe in God and not trust Him with your fate, come what may."

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Two swords are not enough for each of them to engage in self defense. Jesus said, "It is enough.", because they were taking Him literally when He was actually warning them with a parable that they'd face violent opposition. Christ's intention wasn't that they truly go and get swords... else Jesus would have said, "Two are not enough.", and we'd read of them going and buying swords. However, we don't.

Oh yeah... That's why Peter had a sword because it was just a story. Two swords is enough for self defense. You will not start a war with them but you will be able to defend yourself. Yeah... Jesus was just telling them a parable about swords and violent persecution... Give me a break. Next you will tell us Jesus told Peter to throw his sword away instead of sheathing it for now. I guess they were letter openers right? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Abraham wasn't living under the New Covenant. It was a nomadic time and Abraham lived according to patriarchal codes. He was much like a tribal leader. Thus this doesn't apply. It's more akin to warfare.

He was the father of the faithful. So you are saying he did not trust God? Bologna. My Bible tells me all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for instruction in righteousness. Last time I checked the OT was still scripture.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, this isn't the New Covenant. Essentially this Law of Moses was part of ancient Israel's civil code of justice. It doesn't speak to the morality of self defense, only the justice. Much like laws regarding self defence here in the United States. For example, it's legal to use lethal force to defend yourself. However, like the Law of Moses, it doesn't speak to it's morality or how such an action should be viewed in light of Christ's teachings.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for instruction in righteousness. Last time I checked the OT was still scripture. Self defense is a basic human right. Interesting that a "Libertarian" does not see this.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, I'll have to differ with you here. The context of the verse was addressing men that were not working and expecting the church to continue giving them and their families handouts. Paul's point is that these able bodied men must provide for their families and their necessities (food, clothing, etc.). This doesn't speak at all about self defense or the use of lethal force.

I don't believe I said it was explicitly stated. However, it is implicit. The man is the guardian of the home, the provider. What good is providential care when there is no defense of that care? You can stand and pray while someone destroys your home or does unimaginable things to your family. That is your prerogative. Mine is to defend my family and as I see it it is part of providing for my family - my responsibility as a man.

Also I see where Cornelius was commanded to depart the army right before Peter baptized him... NOT!
Gotta run...

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's what's funny... Christians in various parts of the world like India, some Middle Eastern countries... China... etc. don't believe in using lethal force at all. Not even against an attacker or robber. Facing persecution... obedience to them is at a premium. But in our comfortable little America we don't face REAL persecution like they do. So we've become fat and sassy... justifying the use of lethal force against "criminals" as though because it's a criminal we don't have to obey Jesus.

A REAL Christian understands the every day cost of Christianity. And being a Christian might mean that you'll die with a witness on your lips at the hands of a man holding you at gun point for your wallet outside a convenience store.

Truth be told... my first pastor served as a Marine. And interestingly enough... he was also against Christians using lethal force in any circumstance. I was even admonished NOT to joint the military when I chose to sign up. He'd put it this way... "Either you believe in God or you don't. Don't tell me you believe in God and not trust Him with your fate, come what may."

Well on most points so far I agree more with your view. A personal question? Are you referring to Pastor Shearer? I know he was a Marine.

[Michael The Disciple]

I fear that there are many believers having never seen brute violence will fall when it comes. Not that violence is good it is the most evil of all emotions. What I mean is lots of people I have met over the years just think "Hey it will all work out in the end".
Well maybe not if our hearts are not fully prepared by living a daily life of denying self for the love and will of Jesus to flow.

God took his people in the OT a long way to the promised land because he knew that if the people saw war "not being prepared" they would faint and go back to Egypt. Exodus 13:17.
He first allowed other trials to get them stronger before facing the Philistines in the savage encounter of war.

It would certainly be easier if God had instructed us to rise up, arm ourselves and physically fight our enemies. One might still lose but they would at least feel they were more "in control".

Now there is one verse I know of that I stand on as far as the possibility of using force in a given situation.

17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written , Vengeance is mine; I will repay , saith the Lord.20Therefore if thine enemy hunger , feed him; if he thirst , give him drink : for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Rom. 12:17-21

Paul says IF ITS POSSIBLE live in peace with everyone. There may be situations I cannot live in peace with someone. We see vengeance is completely ruled out. Wonder if there are varying levels of ones enemies? At least generally speaking we are told to do them good.