SITE NOTICE | MORE..Feature Summary Revision 5! We're happy to make available a newly-updated feature summary brochure for SermonAudio! It is our fifth revision and provides a birds-eye view of the core features of the site in a beautiful layout. .. click for more info!
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Brother John, we will give you your thinking on Paul. Not clutching at straws, don't care what other preachers think, basing my thinking on Biblical principles of my God given responsibilities from the verses cited in my last post. If you don't see that it is not my problem. God bless.
Okay brother, I'll retract that which I said.
But what I'm after is not so difficult, is it? My simple little question could easily be answered if there was was such a text to furnish it. With all the persecution and killings and imprisonments and beheadings and beatings and robberies and stoning to death in the new covenant church, I'm after one reference where a Christian fought back with weapons, even with his fists, and killed, or hurt in any way, or disabled another person. Surely if that was a common practice, there must be lots of references.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Had a reply written and decided it was too snarky. Here's the bottom line. The Scripture says I am to provide for my own and I believe that includes their safety and protection. The Scripture says I am to do good to all men but especially those of the household of faith and that includes stopping them from receiving bodily harm when it is within my power to do so.
Ahem, a couple of things here bro.
1. It was "the authorities" who protected Paul. He was in their custody. It was NOT Paul defending himself, nor did he ask his Christian friends to defend him. I can hardly believe you are using this text as a proof text. Yet you are angry with me, who has a just argument, and why is that? You will have to work that through with the Lord Jesus.
2. You are jumping, jumping, away from your proof text, knowing it to be no proof text (the tongue-in-cheek technique) and now are jumping into another argument, hoping that it might fare better (clutching at straws technique).
Brother, I am convinced you are fully aware of the futility of your argument, but you fear the Yee Ha preachers and other members who will laugh at you, and force you to leave their circle.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Read Acts 23:16-35 John, anyone attempting to attack this church member/leader would have been put to death and the protection given was strictly self-defense purposes. And yes he was being tried for his faith.
Bro US, this is what I referred to earlier as the "clutching-at-straws" and "tongue-in-cheek" technique for a "proof text".
Mike wrote: Appreciate the Gill quote, esp since I am not one of his biggest fans.
The only intruders I have encountered are squirrels, but they were armed with black walnuts. I suppose being black walnuts, they might have been more dangerous than English walnuts, also grown in this area, but squirrels run when they hear a loud noise anyway.
Question for you, John. What is the difference between preventing an intruder from doing harm in your house, and preventing one from doing harm at a gathering of the church?
me neither, to be honest, Mike. But you know my spiritual father was born in Mississippi, and he is not available free with e-sword. Not that his theology is all that hot, mind.
So it is all hypothetical stuff, eh? Balance of power thing.
I witnessed with mine own eyes, in a community house church in England, where a strong, young lad lived and worked, who took exception to having his radio confiscated (which is against house church rules to have one) and he attacked an elder of the church just prior to the commencement of the evening meeting. The elder, being rather small and weak would have taken quite a beating, had it not been for several of "the brothers" who brought him under control.
Christopher000 wrote: Ok John, I'll think on it for a few. I didn't include any scriptures, for the sole reason that I feel they've all been exhausted, from both sides, and there was nothing new that I could think of to add to all that have already been posted up. My approach was to keep them all in mind, and give my take on things from a common sense, biblical perspective, as I see things, anyway, keeping the whole of scripture in mind. Scripture doesn't necessarily condone or forbid in a way where we can post up a clear, all-encompassing verse or passage, that lays out the answer clearly enough to put the topic to bed, so I went at it at a different angle.
Well Christopher, I can post up for your perusal plenty of NT examples of blood spilt or at the very least the churches attacked, members beaten, falsely charged and imprisoned, beheadings, stoning to death, and all the rest of it. And not one peep of any church member fighting for their survival with any weapon. Are you thinking that these battles were just not recorded in scripture? Or would you agree with me that there were no such battles?
Christopher000 wrote: Hey John, I didn't forget about you yesterday, and poked away at my answer throughout the day. Well, I think most here already know I have some issues, and the response ended up being 5-pages long. I hadn't planned on that, but I really can't shorten it, either, and still have it all make sense. So, the question is, do I post it anyway? I don't want to upset anyone, because I know my long rants can get tiring and old.
Christopher, my stock answer is John 2:5.
But don't forget that we would all love to have 3,000 characters or more to properly explain our comments.
Tell you what, why not post up your first scripture with explanation and then we can discuss it. _______________
BTW Mike, the quote from Gill was in response to your post. I think it should meet with approval.
Thanks for the explanation about your 1-shot. It concerns me that if you miss, the intruder may use the time you take to reload to do you a mischief.
The Quiet Christian wrote: John UK asks "Was it really worth it?" I say it is. There are ideas worth fighting and dying for.
QC, think about this a little more carefully. If a man is going to live and die for a particular cause, it is commendable, but not if he hasn't sorted out what ought to be the first priority in his God-given life, namely, to get right with his Creator and begin to live for him: to do justly, to love mercy, and walk humbly with his God.
If a non-Christian protestor dies in the course of his protesting, what can we say to him in hell but, "Was it really worth it?"
Mark 8:36 KJV (36) For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
I've no doubt that China is angry with Christians in Hong Kong because of the "Gift Bag" evangelism going on there, where Chinese visitors are given a jamboree bag in which are many items including gospel tracts. Now that is a cause worth living and dying for, the gospel of Jesus Christ.
"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power",..The office of magistracy, and such as are lawfully placed in it, and rightly exercise it; who denies that there is, or ought to be any such order among men, despises it, and opposes it, and withdraws himself from it, and will not be subject to it in any form: "resisteth the ordinance of God", the will and appointment of God, whose pleasure it is that there should be such an office, and that men should be subject to it. This is not to be understood, as if magistrates were above the laws, and had a lawless power to do as they will without opposition; for they are under the law, and liable to the penalty of it, in case of disobedience, as others; and when they make their own will a law, or exercise a lawless tyrannical power, in defiance of the laws of God, and of the land, to the endangering of the lives, liberties, and properties of subjects, they may be resisted, as Saul was by the people of Israel, when he would have took away the life of Jonathan for the breach of an arbitrary law of his own, and that too without the knowledge of it, 1 Sam 14:45; but the apostle is speaking of resisting magistrates in the right discharge of their office, and in the exercise of legal power and authority. [Gill]
Dr. Tim wrote: Where I work, there are rattlesnakes and other pit vipers, coyotes, bears, bobcats and even the occasional cougar, and in the places where I do business there are sometimes armed robbers. Iâ€™m going out right now to find me a club. Or should I just wag my finger and say, â€śNow yâ€™all be goodâ€ť?
Doc, there have been professing Christians throughout history who have literally just trusted in God only, especially those such as Madame Guyon of France, who believed that all events in their life were as a direct result of the will of God. She was able to do something that is extremely rare within christendom, and for which there is a biblical exhortation, namely, to give thanks in all circumstances. Your comment reminded me of the passage in her autobiography where she found herself in a dangerous situation between places and was confronted by highwaymen, who were all set to do her mischief. She didn't wag her finger or say anything to them, but she merely inclined her head towards them. They turned their horses and departed, leaving her in peace, which peace she had in abundance, because she accepted all things as coming from the hand of the great God. I only read it because....
I'll just add a quick snippet to my comment lest, well, you know what I mean.
Imagine a day when wolves roamed wild, and the Lord would have you travel from south to north, preaching the gospel as you went, camping under the stars at night. With no defense against a wolf but your bare fists, you would soon be overcome. And because wolves go around in packs, even a small group of evangelists would soon be overcome. So they would carry weapons of some sort or another.
This was quite normal for travelers. If you were a traveling salesman, going from county to county with a backpack of geegaws or kitchen implements for sale, you would never set off without a club, which you also used as a form of walking stick. If wayside bandits attacked you, at least you could defend yourself against them, and maybe put them off. An unarmed man was defenceless and easily robbed.
This is how it was in the UK going back in time a few centuries.
Bro US, thank you for taking the time to share with me the simple fact that you justify the actions found in the article from Nehemiah 4. This is very helpful info and I will bear it in mind.
Regarding Luke 22:36-38, when you read it in context, you will discover that the scripture reveals only two swords were required for the purpose. And the purpose was? Self-defense? As in, future self-defense for the apostles and disciples as they went on their missionary journeys?
Brother, read the passage prayerfully, and you will come to a better way of understanding it. Ask the Lord Jesus to help you, and he will indeed.
I don't need to say anything except to point you to Jesus himself, and get you to ask of him. They are HIS words, and HE knows what he meant by them. So read the words in context, and then ask him what he meant.
Christopher000 wrote: Good morning John, I have a simple take on this if you'd be willing to hear it.
Christopher? Yes, I've already said I'd be willing to listen to what you have to say. I'm back from my prayer-walk, during which the Lord was speaking to me about certain techniques used to justify certain actions in this world which are not of him, but are of the flesh, worldly, devilish. He said that men "clutch at straws", meaning that they have their action in place and then scout around the Bible for a "proof text" which justifies the action. This is very commonplace apparently. And then there is the tongue-in-cheek technique, where deep down, folks know the text does not prove their point but they still use it, and with enough "Yee Ha", they can get others to accept it and make it traditional and acceptable, so that it becomes acceptable doctrine.
So it seems to me that it is not the very occasional shooter who is winning the battle against the Christian church; rather it is that ancient trinity of enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil, the enemies whom we have to battle spiritually. In particular, the battle for the mind.
Christopher000 wrote: John UK Wrote: "...where is the NT examples of the saints being armed and fighting while they were doing the work of God in building the church? Hmmmm?" Good morning John, I have a simple take on this if you'd be willing to hear it. I know I said I'd stay off the topic, but you've brought that up a few times now, and I've had the same thoughts each time.
Good morning Christopher,
I'm just off for my prayer walk, but I am very interested in what you have to say concerning the question. Please read the question carefully, and answer it specifically. If you have a comment anyway, just make a statement, that's fine. But the question is very specific for a purpose. Thanks bro. I'll only be a half hour or so.
Dr. Tim wrote: It has already been shown in this thread that ... arming groups that are doing a work for Godâ€™s glory is scripturally justified.
Dr Tim, allow me to answer both yourself and Bro US at the same time. Are you here referring to Bro US's reference to Nehemiah 4? I've asked him several times to explain why he put that up as a proof text, and now maybe you have put up the explanation.
Is that it?
You're giving that as scriptural justification for a new covenant practice?
In that case you do realise there is scriptural justification for the death penalty for children who answer back to their parents? Or the eye for an eye principle? Or the celebration of the passover every year?
Now you will say that some things were brought forwards and some things were left behind. Okay, if the Neh 4 principle was one of those brought forward principles, and we find that the work of God was continually being hindered, where is the NT examples of the saints being armed and fighting while they were doing the work of God in building the church? Hmmmm?
Christopher000 wrote: Take every gun away, and I see the current violent crime rates, skyrocketing. So, what to do?
Ah Christopher, you would like to open up the topic much further than designed. Well, that is okay. Tell me brother, what is your moral stance on napalm bombing of civilian targets? Or, going back farther, what did you think of the German bombings of London, or the flattening of most all German cities by hundreds of allied bombers, or the American atom bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Is there such a thing as righteous warfare, a proper way to kill people? In battle should we avoid killing civilians, or is it unavoidable? Ought we be concerned about killing babies and young children, or are they just the enemies' children, and so don't count? What if in battle we kill many of God's elect, and when we take a bullet at the same time, we end up in heaven at the same time as our "enemy"? Would we say to them, "Sorry about that?" Is that bizarre or is it all part of "normal Christian life"?
I know you love these sort of questions. No need to answer, bro.