Gunman shoots 2 at White Settlement church before churchgoers return fire
A gunman opened fire Sunday morning at a church in White Settlement, killing one person and critically wounding another before churchgoers fatally shot him, authorities said.
Police in White Settlement, about eight miles west of Fort Worth, were called about 10 a.m. to the West Freeway Church of Christ at 1900 South Las Vegas Trail, where three people were treated for gunshot wounds.
Two of the wounded people â one of whom was the gunman â died at a hospital, MedStar spokeswoman Macara Trusty said.
Paramedics resuscitated the third person, who went into cardiac arrest on the way to a hospital. That person remained in critical condition....
I was being facetious. I wonât go to any book of the Bible for anecdotal evidence, like the book of Acts, when I can go to clear dictates, anywhere in the Bible. Paul used a passage about feeding oxen to lay out a precept about providing for our pastors, so I can go to the OT to get rules about defending others and self defense.
Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
So, killing an evildoer is not always punishable by God plus we are charged to protect others from death. That church was likely full of believers and unbelievers alike. That killer forfeited his life when he decided to enter the church to kill. The wise congregant with the gun protected others from death, believers and unbelievers alike. He did well. Leaving killers alive to kill isnât loving, its hateful to the weak and oppressed. The killer was also prevent from increasing his sins and increasing his condemnation on Judgment Day. It was the best possible outcom
Marty McD wrote: John, we are under grace and not law. We can shoot whoever we want. Right?
Marty, it seems that in America, anyone can shoot anyone, and they do so, regularly.
But it seems you are asking whether or not, because we are saved by grace, we can now break God's laws with impunity, without consequences?
From the evidence found in scripture I would say both yes and no.
Because of predestination, election, and God's choice of who his children are, and his sending his Son to die in their place, for their sins, bearing their sins in his own body on the tree, no sin, committed by one such, can result in them losing their justification; they have the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith, and this is all they need to be allowed into heaven at last. [Jesus calls this the wedding garment]
However, when believers sin, they may expect consequences in this life from the chastising Father: sometimes death, sometimes sickness, sometimes trials, sometimes other things. The first is for a serious sin, the rest are designed to cause them to steer a course for righteousness and bear better fruit.
The Quiet Christian wrote: Ah, John, I'm starting to understand your point of view. As a dispensationalist, you're a NT Christian in a NT-only kind of church. We have those here in the US, NT Baptists, for instance. ... Trying to figure out where you are coming from, Brother. That's all.
My dear old thing, I have never kept it hidden what my beliefs are, and I am certainly not a dispensationalist.
If you really want to know what I believe about the majority of subjects within the Christian life and church, they can be found in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, freely available on the net. [This was Charles Spurgeon's confession.]
If you wish to know and fully understand where I stand on covenant theology, please watch these wonderful videos of several American pastors explaining Chapter 7 of the Baptist Confession, which thing will take you into a whole new realm of discovery, as these pastors explore the great and deep thinking behind the 1689 Baptist Confession as it relates to God's covenants. It all makes sense to me, now.
Several years ago, in IFB circles, there was a book running around called âOne book, rightly dividedâŠâ It taught a version of hyper dispensationalism that is anti-biblical, and it led many well-intentioned Christians astray because of their lack of knowledge in the Scriptures. In general, dispensationalism is not biblical as it takes a unified progression of Scripture and attempts to tear it into tiny pieces for each group. (for instance, there are some dispensationalists that believe that the teaching of Jesus was only applicable for Jews of that day, and we Christians are not under thatâŠ Hence when Christ said âWhosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.â Luke 16:18 He was talking to Jews, so we as gentiles could divorce and remarry at will.
Ah, John, I'm starting to understand your point of view. As a dispensationalist, you're a NT Christian in a NT-only kind of church. We have those here in the US, NT Baptists, for instance.
This is a very deep and long discussion, Brother, but in summary, not a lot nor tittle of the Law has passed away. So while we may not stone condemned persons to death, there is a principle of the death penalty that remains. I don't think you can solve your problem by ignoring the OT because you can't or don't keep all of it.
I personally take a covenental viewpoint that stacks and unfolds rather than creates a linear system.
And the heart of the discussion, then, becomes one of how the Lord is working. No one can get inside of God's mind. So by piecing together the evidence, we come to differing conclusions? Trying to figure out where you are coming from, Brother. That's all. Augh...this darkened glass! But not forever...
Quiet Christian, do not forget that in the history of the world there are dispensations, and you must obey the rules of whichever dispensation you are born into.
Now because the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT, there are certainly some principles we may carry forwards, such as the keeping of the Sabbath day as a day of rest rather than the Sunday. This was instituted at creation and was never revoked.
But that apart, sure, I could find plenty of things from the OT which affect my life, simply because they are eternal, and some things never change.
But hey, have you decided yet whether or not Jesus teaching in the four gospels is to be obeyed? Think about it.
Are all of Paul's teachings to be obeyed, or were some of his instructions temporary?
How do you decide which parts of the Bible are relevant to us today, and which parts have no instruction for us except for a history lesson?
Typing quickly...meant to say that 2 Timothy 3:16 includes the OT but any inspired writings which make up our NT today. Seems like your argument is a bit unbalanced, John. You must consider OT principles as well as new to be complete.
John, did you and I have that discussion about the "moral law" from the OT?
Either way, we have a problem. Jesus is standing before Jerico in Joshua 5 & 6 giving orders to Israel's armies, and He speaks through the prophet Isaiah, so we must also look to the OT. The NT, being a history of the Lord Jesus in the flesh and a commentary on what that means, nor a complete how-to manual for every instance. In a nutshell, it is incomplete. The Apostle Paul undoubtedly meant the OT in 2 Timothy 3:16 when he wrote about its four-fold usefulness.
No, we don't keep Jewish ceremonies...those are complete. We don't impose the OT criminal and civil code. But the strong principles behind them all flow through and alongside the NT.
Be Like a Berean wrote: John UK, Ok. What value then do you find in the OT? Not trying to belittle, just trying to understand your thinking.
The OT is of great value. Without it you would never know that God can make a king think he is actually an animal who eats grass, who leaves his palace and his wealth behind for a seven year vacation in the forest where he grew claws and long hair and ate grass. The Lord was merciful to him and restored him, after which he wrote a letter to be delivered to the known world, so keen he was to let people know that God is sovereign over the lives of men.
Then you have God's hymnbook, which is in the OT.
Then you have types and shadows which help the understanding of God's dealings in redemption.
Overall, you have a lot of information as to creation, God's person and character, the prophetic word concerning the coming of Messiah.
Then you have the decalogue, which, when sinners have their eyes opened to it by the Holy Ghost, and thusly seeing themselves as sinners, seek a Saviour who is preached alongside, namely, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of all his people, ensuring their salvation, which is the will of God.
Installing radar on the roof wouldn't be a bad idea...
I actually think we should build church in a atomic bunker, and have half the men in the congregation stand guard with their own self guided attack drones...
Ok just kidding, there is always a guy stronger than you, so the best option is to use reason and apply what you can to the situation. Chances are, the average loony tune shooter isn't going to try a drone on church. But if it became easy enough for a shooter to do it one day, than chances are, it would be just as easy to buy a anti drone system as well...
John UK says "but I do not advise you to put OT laws into action in your state"
All instructions in the Old Testament should still be followed unless specifically changed in the New Testament...
God didn't inspire the Old Testament writers of the law, just for the Jews. The detailed punishments for stealing, property rights, defense, and others, are for all of God's people and not just for ancient Israel...
As I saidâŠ Why is it that you assume that you must have a new testament example of a behavior that is clearly defined by Old Testament commandment? To me, your argument is like a Preacher I heard about 25 years ago who was preaching against âwire rimmed eyeglassesâ because they were the âinâ thing. All the old time pastors in the 50s and 60s didnât wear wire rimmed glasses, so they must be wrong.