So: Trust in God. He gives life to His servants for His purpose.
Such precious thought you end with here, Adriel.
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
"When a man's ways please the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him" Pro 16:7
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 ...
Great pointers, friend
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?
Good grasp of reality, Mike.
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
See, "... my speech and my preaching was not with *enticing words of man's wisdom,* but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the WISDOM OF MEN but in the power of God"
Unprofitable Servant wrote: 1. neither John, Adriel or BMac answered my scenarios. 2. So it might be safe to assume that ... John wouldnâ€™t stop him because thereâ€™s no example of that being done in the New Testament and BMac wouldnâ€™t warm him because itâ€™s just a stupid American thing. 3. The leftest press in America doesnâ€™t cover it.
1. Not interested in your scenarios, US, which are only strawmen at best, but in the Word, which after having been presented has been laid to rest with you.
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
Fare well, US, take a rest and God bless you, and yours
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)Â Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (35)Â 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)Â And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (37)Â 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)Â And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. (39)Â 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)Â Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
John UK wrote: ... jumping into another argument, hoping that it might fare better (clutching at straws ...)
1. A common tendency and practice here. No one is denying protecting responsibilities out of Christian duty. Certainly we all can do that without getting into the tribal law of arming as a right. The defence of a church or public enterprises lies on the order sustained by the powers to be. Poor is the 'civilized' nation that has to resort to defend herself.
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.
4. John, there are many pages in Church history confirming Christ' warnings urging prudency to his little flock as lambs among wolves, except when the sword was taken by German princes (30 years war) or the Parliamentary armies in Cromwell's day
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:..."
Mike, you are getting out of content and contextual boundries distorting meaning by which you arrive to the absurd. The powers to be are for the purpose of punishing evil and safeguarding good. Not all the times states perform accordingly regretfully
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
Some useful definitions,
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."
"The LORD hear thee in the day of trouble; the name of the God of Jacob *defend* thee"
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
1. The setting is *national*, not personal or private. See, "...thou did drive out the heathen with thy hand, and planted them" However, even in this setting faith prevailed not trusting on their sword, or bow. "For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them" Ps.44
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..."
The devotional input intended was that we can be "... killed all the day long; ... accounted as sheep for the slaughter", a precise quotation from Ps.44 above, that cerciorates national trust as referred in the first point
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...
"O God, our fathers have told us, what work thou did in their days, in the times of old. How thou did drive out the heathen with thy hand, and planted them; how thou did afflict the people, and cast them out. For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou had a favour unto them. Thou art my King, O God: command deliverances for Jacob Through thee will we push down our enemies: through thy name will we tread them under that rise up against us. For I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me. But thou has saved us from our enemies, and has put them to shame that hated us. In God we boast all the day long, and praise thy name for ever."
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."
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 doesnâ€™t have to flee to s city of refuge?
Yes, though this is the passage for *none intentional* killing in mind, upon which any killing was judged and balanced. Motives and circumstances needed clarified to establish a guilt-free verdict.
"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"
Once no ill intent was established your passage above would take role.
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 though we walk in the flesh, We do not war after the flesh: For the weapons of our warfare (or instruments for war) are not carnal ..."
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?
There is considerable risk of getting hurt by bombs in Europe How being armed would help?
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.
Perhaps it should be better thoughts grounded on Scripture
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.
1. 'Natural rights' should not affront/contradict NT teachings "Jesus said unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
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.
Again the solution you present does not fit the title the 'land of the free' with everybody armed to the teeth as it were.
There should be other alternatives, as a change of the frame of mind about the matter by taking on board the Scripture presented about the issue besides the political hints addressed.