Adriel wrote:
... the alternative ...

"And fear not them which kill the body..."

So: Trust in God. He gives life to His servants for His purpose.

The balm of God's comfort by which and through which we live:

"I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body,and after that have no more that they can do.
... Fear him, which after he has killed has power to cast into hell ...
Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings,
and not one of them is forgotten before God?
But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear not therefore:
ye are of more value than many sparrows."

"In righteousness shalt thou be established:
thou shalt be far from oppression;
for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.
Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me:
whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake.
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper;
... This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD,
And their righteousness is of me, says the LORD"

We walk by faith not by sight

Just a Guy wrote:
Whenever you want to change a whole culture for evil, you have to make sure the next generation are all taught the same thing. And the only way to do that is to treat them like cattle. Teach them as a mass of brains and flesh, and not like the individuals they are...
One big reason our country was so much better before the public school era, was because no one was taught the same. We had generations of free thinkers, and young people who learned in the one room school house, and the church. They grew under the close watch of their parents and preachers. And even the many who wanted to be "free" (which just means a freedom to sin) from cultural morality were carried along with Godly principles put down by our spiritual forefathers (Pilgrims, Puritans, etc)...
The millennials are totally gone, and the baby boomers trained the millennials to be the loosers they are. The only hope for this nation is a turning back to God, and it certainly won't be done unless the parents of today are willing to step up, get off the couch of self, and homeschool this next generation of children ...

PAUL WASHER, in his talk 'What a man is not' (SA) addresses what you point out in depth & extensive detail

Mike wrote:
Because the scenario is extremely rare. Instant media coverage makes the rare seem more common than it is. How many churches are involved in this particular news item, and see how much reaction it has wrought? Likewise real events, though actually rare, bring forth emotional responses, which is the goal of the media in the first place. It's easier to pass legislation when the citizen is in an emotional, rather than a thoughtful state

18 churches have completed this training, according to the article. Other data shows there are over 300,000 Protestant churches in the US. Their biblical stance is not the issue at the moment, but the overwhelming number that aren't involved in the article issue. But we have been led to "feel" like it's something really big, no?

Inventing scenarios to support a particular case count in scriptures as *enticing words of man's wisdom*, which drive into conclusions lacking truth, and hence value or power, and this is what the article is about. Thanks

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
1. neither John, Adriel or BMac answered my scenarios.
2. So it might be safe to assume that ... John wouldn’t stop him because there’s no example of that being done in the New Testament and BMac wouldn’t warm him because it’s just a stupid American thing.
3. The leftest press in America doesn’t cover it.

2. Erraticly over extrapolating some approximate facts, US, but regretfully distorting and misconstructing truth from them

3. Coming a little closer to a real faction of the entire picture

Herbal Mama wrote:
B, "Swords were carried as a tool and to deter danger, doubtfully to attack."
No different than a gun.

John UK wrote:
You are in danger of joining with those who do not believe in objective truth. Read an article on "relative truth" and it may save you from a cul-de-sac... the God who "so loved the world" does not have different truth for different countries.

John UK wrote:
Matthew 10:34-39 KJV
(34)  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
(35)  For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
(36)  And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
(37)  He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
(38)  And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
(39)  He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

One of the costs of following Christ is antagonism between family members. Jesus is not referring to a literal sword, but a rift, a separation. When it comes to peace, he teaches:
Matthew 5:9 KJV
(9)  Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Dolores wrote:
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.

"I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant"

"For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment."

"... say to the land of Israel, Thus says the LORD; Behold, I am against thee, and will draw forth my sword out of his sheath, and will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked."

"out of his mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations"

******

However, his discerning Spirit through the word acts a sword,

" the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, ... a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart"

"the sword of the Spirit, ... is the word of God"

John UK wrote:
... jumping into another argument, hoping that it might fare better (clutching at straws ...)

2. Judas came with a mob on behalf of the religious/political *stablishement* with soldiers under captain's orders
"he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and *captains*, how he might betray him unto them." Officers (Jh.18:3 &12) held staves and swords to act upon criminals

3. If we singular out the incident at Getsemane, how were the apostles' swords never used in the many times Christ's life had been in danger during the last 3 years together?
Swords were carried as a tool and to deter danger, doubtfully to attack.

Mike wrote:
So Hitler was the power that be ordained of God, and any Germans who resisted him resisted the ordinance of God, though he killed other powers that be to become a bigger power that be, so that he could kill lots of Jews and others. Churchill was ordained of God to fight against him at the same time. They were a couple of the powers that be. But it was ok for each to fight against the other power that be, because that is war, and wars are fought by nations, not people, so the rules of defense are different.
Such is the mind-bending silliness that derives from reading Romans13:1,2 alone. If we continue with verses 3,4, we find the authority and purpose of the powers that be. There is no contradictory authority granted to them by God. Look it up.
Proverbs 16:12
"It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness."
Hosea 8:4a
"They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not:..."

Douglas Fir wrote:
Romans 12: 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

The biblical meaning of avenge deriving from the Greek term is to privately vindicate, retaliate, or punish a wrong without the proceeding of law or justice

Dictionary renderings for the two words in question,

Revenge is the action of hurting or harming someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands.

Avenge is to inflict harm in return for an injury or wrong on behalf of (oneself or another)

***

David practiced self preservation in his measures to avoid being killed by Saul, not as much as self defence which is more as resisting attack to protect from harm or danger.
See his prayer here while being encamped by Saul.

"Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God:
*defend* me from them that rise up against me.
Deliver me from the workers of iniquity, and save me from bloody men.
For, lo, they lie in wait for my soul: the mighty are gathered against me; not for my transgression, nor for my sin, O LORD."

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
1. Pretty much, ... the way God pushed down the enemies spoken of in the Psalm was through them being killed by the Israelites
2. No one talking about being separated from the love of Christ for His elect. To say those verses promote Pacism would not be consistent with the context

2. Not taking about pacifism, or separation from Christ's love, unprofitable, but pointing to the fact that the sword is a universal ongoing element of trial in this world

Focussing on the first verse, but omitting the second you missed the plot of the answer to the despondency of the previous poster when saying, "Should we allow others to kill us simply because they have a deadly weapon..."

Just a Guy wrote:
Guns...clubs...frying pans.
So the issue here is self defense. Is it allowed or not? Should we allow others to kill us simply because they have a deadly weapon...

Just wondering wrote:
If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood he shed for him
Exodus 22:2
Did you notice the killer doesn’t have to flee to s city of refuge?

"These six cities shall be a refuge, ... that every one that kills any person unawares may flee thither.
And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
And if he smite him with throwing a stone, ...
Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, ...
The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer:
when he meets him, he shall slay him.
But if he thrust him suddenly *without enmity*,
or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
*Then the congregation shall judge* between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments:
And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood"

John UK wrote:
... 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?

***

For the benefit of the average reader,

The end should never justify the means, so 'killing someone who is breaking in your house can never be scripturally justified' because "Thou shall not kill" has not clauses attached, neither we read of a special dispensation along those lines. If that happened by accident in self-defense in the OT, the person was still guilty and had to reach a city of refuge.

"Ye have heard ...
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also ..."

Perhaps we are too dominated by the issues of the physical realm.
Can we leave the unknowns that perhaps will never materialise with God?

Lurker wrote:
Hey Mike,
Thanks for your thoughts grounded in reality. Obviously, I concur.
But as for that .22 varmint rifle; I'd encourage you to not offend or neglect it as it may pull its own trigger and seriously injure someone. After all, guns kill.
Blessings to you and yours, brother. I'm going back to the shadows of reality.

Mike wrote:
1. ...they are considered natural rights because in nature, created by God, we see that demonstration of survival instinct is intrinsic in the design. One needs no permission to protect wife and children, it's not up for discussion. The arguments from those who for generations have become comfortable with having govt as a parental authority/entity ignores this.
2. Today in the US, ... here, use tragedy to increase control, not because they give a rip about victims, but because they fear an armed people. As the fallen who lust for power should.
3. Still waiting for someone to explain how America would be safer if I no longer had my single shot .22.

2. True

3. Avengement and protection are God-granted powers to the state not to individuals,

"the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God: ...
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
For he *is the minister of God to thee* for good."

*********

Lurker wrote:
Thanks sister B. I appreciate you taking the time to hear out our particular situation. It's not an easy one.
Personally, I don't believe we, as a nation, will be able to put an end to the mass shootings. In my opinion, the best chance we have in our power to curtail them is to do away with gun free zones at schools, churches, shopping centers, etc. They are an open invitation to lunatics who can't handle freedom.
Aside from that, God has the solution but He isn't speaking just yet.
Blessings.