Piper's Guns and Martyrdom

[TheocraticMonarchist]

Thanks Seth.

So I should quote John 3:16 to the man who breaks into my house to kill my wife and daughter?

Piper never said that, though; or anything similar. Nor have I come across any pacifists who would advise that. Have you?

I take it by the thumbs down you would be against Piper's post.

Should I revise my post to say "So I should shoot my pistol into the air as the man kills my wife and daughter?" - either one (John 3:16 or a shot in the air) has the same effect: a dead wife and daughter.

My thumbs down was meant to reinforce my disagreement with Piper's post.

I second Joshua's post: it is a violation of the sixth commandment to allow my neighbor (in this case my family) to be murdered while I stand idly by.

Funny thing is, Piper says "I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun." but that was exactly what I was intending to do with my stimulus check!

H&P USP Compact 9mm

Seth, have you made your purchase yet? I would go with at least a .40 or .45. 9mm ammo is cheaper, but it's not enough punch, In my humble opinion if, in a hurry, you don't hit exactly the right spot.

Dear MasterChief(s),

My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):

A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...



(note: I thought it necessary to add this in... it's not safe to dual wield fire arms)

 

[CDM]

Should I revise my post to say "So I should shoot my pistol into the air as the man kills my wife and daughter?" - either one (John 3:16 or a shot in the air) has the same effect: a dead wife and daughter.

My thumbs down was meant to reinforce my disagreement with Piper's post.

I second Joshua's post: it is a violation of the sixth commandment to allow my neighbor (in this case my family) to be murdered while I stand idly by.

Funny thing is, Piper says "I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun." but that was exactly what I was intending to do with my stimulus check!

H&P USP Compact 9mm

Seth, have you made your purchase yet? I would go with at least a .40 or .45. 9mm ammo is cheaper, but it's not enough punch, In my humble opinion if, in a hurry, you don't hit exactly the right spot.

Dear MasterChief(s),

My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):

A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...

A point of clarification: Masterchief would not use a pea shooter like a 9mm...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Dear MasterChief(s),

My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):

A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...

Jonathan,

As someone who knows more than a little bit about marksmanship, there is never a time where dual wielding of pistols would be necessary unless you're playing a part in a movie. If you want to hit your target then use one weapon.

 

[CDM]

Dear MasterChief(s),

My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):

A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...

Jonathan,

As someone who knows more than a little bit about marksmanship, there is never a time where dual wielding of pistols would be necessary unless you're playing a part in a movie. If you want to hit your target then use one weapon.

He was making a joke about a video game [are you happy now? you've made me expose my previous life as a gaming-geek].

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Dear MasterChief(s),

My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):

A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...

Jonathan,

As someone who knows more than a little bit about marksmanship, there is never a time where dual wielding of pistols would be necessary unless you're playing a part in a movie. If you want to hit your target then use one weapon.

He was making a joke about a video game [are you happy now? you've made me expose my previous life as a gaming-geek].

I need to create a PuritanBoard infraction for "loss of man points."

 

[Hippo]

I'm going to ask you something and I need a clear answer: Are you an anabaptist?

No.

I will try and be constructive in my response as I believe that it is better to be constructive rather than to respond without real interaction. I am not an anabaptist firstly for the obvious reason that I am a paedobaptist however more pertinently I have a high view of the physical Church and do not advoacate seperatism. I am aware that certain elements of the anabaptsist movement advocated pacifism amoung a whole host of other beliefs but any commanality between myself and them on this point is incidental.

That out of the way, let me make something plain about the way you are approaching these "clear" commands of Scripture: it is a muddled and confused approach.

Did or did not Christ state that he taught in such a way as to be-fuddle many of His listeners?

There is something known as the analogy of faith that requires that our theological understanding of things has to be able to cohere from all directions. We work from the clear to the un-clear. Now, you want to claim that these "commands" by Christ are clear.

At the same time, however, you want to claim that Christ was not contradicting the Word of God elsewhere.

I am not the one apparantly claiming that Jesus did not really mean what he said when he taught his people to turn the other cheek. This appears to be a clear direct instruction. Reconciling statements that on first sight could be seen to be contradictory is necessary, as you have said, theology has to "cohere from all directions". I have explained why my interpretation coheres, you can disagree with me but you have given no grounds why your position coheres. You have taken a logical position that proposition A (shooting intruders is OK) is correct therefore proposition B (we should not shoot intruders) is incorrect yet you are accusing me of taking precisley the opposite position (B is correct therefore A is incorrect) and accusing me of being hetrodox for that very reason. Mote and beam please, you have also misrepresented my position in the first place, this is not my logic or approach.

Well, given your interpretation of what Christ's command clearly intends then you can't have it both ways. The only way you can hold together the OT commands and Christ's teaching is to take a dispensational view or a view that says that Christ came to over-rule the OT Law.

I will reiterate why there is no contradiction in my position as of course there cannot be a contradiction if a theological position is to be correct, this is true of both the pacifist position and the shooting intruders position, please apply this standard to both positions.

In the OT we have commands that show that self defence is approved of under the law, just as there are commands that it is just to apply an "eye for an eye" when seeking restitution and that those guilty of adultry should be stoned to death. These standards reveal the law of God and were and are just. Jesus showed that in many situations we should not enforce our legal rights to the letter of the law, we should forgive those who wrong us and turn the other cheek rather than seeking the maximum redress available to us. Jesus gave a clear and direct instruction to turn the other cheek, of course he was not saying that the law was wrong or was repealed but he was saying that as Christians we should forgive rather than enforce our rights. This is very similiar to Our Lord letting the women found in adultry go free despite the just verdict of the law that she be stoned. Of course in this instance Jesus was not abrogating the Law, why are you suggesting that a command to turn the other cheek would require an abrogation?

Frankly, I find your appreciation for the text to be superficial on a number of points but, most disturbing, is the way you pit God against Himself. It's sort of the "mean OT God" that commands/permits self-defense vs. the "nice NT God" who has had the Son come to make everything different.

This is just not true, you have created a straw man argument from your own mind here.

The nature of a moral precept in the Scriptures is that they represent God's Holy character. We cannot hold that God is unchanging on the one hand and then claim that moral principles are somehow morphed from one era to another.

Thus, if pacifism is what God's character requires of us now then it follows that His character would have required it of OT Saints as well. Hence, you actually do injury to the nature of God Himself and I find myself extremely frustrated when I read the things you write because you type in such a way as to twist the Word of God into a pretzel.

God asks us to do many things which in our sin seem impossible to live up to, you are confusing moral principles with exhortations to suffer because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, so that we might follow in his steps.

You need to learn much more about the Word before you presume to teach here on a Reformed Board because you're understanding of the Scriptures is clearly de-formed and not reformed.

I am no teacher and have never claimed to be so, I do not think that venturing and defending an opinion (while also being open to correction) on a bulletin board is innapropriate.

Fundamentally, you need to understand Christ as the Lawgiver Himself and the Sermon(s) on the Mount were not new revelation but proper interpretation. Christ never repudiates what is written but what others have said. In other words, He notes: "You have heard it said, but I say to you...." When He is finished, people are astonished because He spoke as one who had authority.

Why? Because the Law had been enshrouded by Rabinnical Schools of thought that "said" that these Laws mean this. Christ is giving proper interpretation to these laws. In some cases, He's pointing out that the Rabinnical interpretations permit too many loopholes and self-deceit regarding personal righteousness and in others He is correcting mis-information about where the Rabbis would have permitted vengeance where the Law only permits self-defense and the defense of the weak.

I do not argue with this point, it is usefully made.

Hence, if you understand Christ as always with the people and the giver of the Law then you would not be able to come to some sort of crazy conclusion that He would give a law or principle about self-defense at one point in the life of God's people only to repudiate what He taught. Ceremonial principles had a terminus in His work but, if such moral principles change, then we're admitting mutation in the Godhead. This is unacceptable.

Again you are imputing an argument that moral principles had changed to me, something that I have never argued and is not implicit in my position.

My response was loose where I said" I will read up more on this, but when he says "this does not repeal the law of self-preservation" it still begs the question of why?", my point was that when two positions are enumerated (self defence and turn the other cheek) why does self defence automaticaly trump pacifism? As has been argued it is necessary to reconcile these two positions rather than choose one, a task that I have attempted to undertake.

 

[Pergamum]

Do we have the right to give up our right to self defense ever?

Or is giving up this right sin?

And if so, then we are REQUIRED to always fight back if threatened.

And if required, and we are all Christians who witness, we must also defend ourselves in potential martyr situations.

To die passively in the Colosseum then was sin for the early Christians. Whole families were often killed.

In the days of persecution by Rome, should the Chritians have risen up and forcibly protected themselves, perhaps by an attempted strike at the gov't itself since Christians were being exterminated?


Could and should someone have tried to assassinate the Ceasar?

Or, if taken before the Colosseum crowds, why did they not try to kill their captors and escape? Weren't they required to try to protect their families with all means necessary? Even if the odds are against you, and you can take out several guards, wouldn't you be obligated to at least try instead of being herded before the lions. And once before the lions, wouldn't you be obligated to attack those lions and try to kill them?



Other thoughts:

Also guns are to kill. But under modification they can shoot rubber bullets. Or birdshot which is less lethal. We are NOT looking for lethality, but knock down power to immobilize. Therefore, it could be argued, that for intruders, one should choose something that will maim but not kill.






Finally, if Paul Hill [see above] sinned, WHY? What is the difference between vigilanteeism and murder? If the civil state won't defend the helpless, why can't we?

 

[CDM]

Hippo,

I truly commend you for your patience you have exhibited throughout this thread especially in the face of antagonism. It’s not easy being in the minority.

Back to the thread.

In the story of the Good Samaritan, he was beaten and left for dead. If you or I were on the scene when the thieves / murderers were beating him to death, are you saying Christ would have us stand by and watch according to the Sermon on the Mount? If yes, would this not be a violation of one of the "greatest of the commandments" - loving thy neighbor as thyself? Does God approve of a man who stands by and permits violence and wickedness to our neighbor? How would this man not be an accomplice to the crime(s) in the eyes of man or God’s law?

Also, how do you view Christ beating the merchandisers out of the temple?

I’m trying to get an idea how you view violence in general.


Blessings,

 

[Pergamum]

Was Stephen the martyr sinning by not fighting back?

 

[Hippo]

Hippo,

I truly commend you for your patience you have exhibited throughout this thread especially in the face of antagonism. It’s not easy being in the minority.

Back to the thread.

In the story of the Good Samaritan, he was beaten and left for dead. If you or I were on the scene when the thieves / murderers were beating him to death, are you saying Christ would have us stand by and watch according to the Sermon on the Mount? If yes, would this not be a violation of one of the "greatest of the commandments" - loving thy neighbor as thyself? Does God approve of a man who stands by and permits violence and wickedness to our neighbor? How would this man not be an accomplice to the crime(s) in the eyes of man or God’s law?

Also, how do you view Christ beating the merchandisers out of the temple?

I’m trying to get an idea how you view violence in general.


Blessings,

If I would not fight back if attacked then in not violently opposing those who are attacking others (I am not saying you should not get involved) you are treating your neighbor as you would treat yourself. I am not for one moment advocating standing back and doing nothing.

As for Christ in the temple I have heard sermons (Peter Masters) that see this event as a miracle as he did not (according to the preacher) use violence. I do not subscribe to this view but God is the Judge, he can do what he wants as whatever he does will neceesarily be holy and right as that is his nature. God can judge our hearts, man cannot. We do not follow the actions of Jesus in all respects.

I can see situations in my life where I cannot imagine not using violence. I have a wife and a step daughter, it is easy to create scenarios where I do not think that I could resist acting violently. That however does not mean that I think that I would be right to do so.

I really do agree with the piece written by Piper as I believe that this is the calling of the Christian. In particular acting violently "in case" is not I feel remotely defensible.

This is a difficult area with many hard questions but perhaps doing what is natural is not the right thing to do. I am not particularly evangelical on this point, it is a personal one, but when the subject is being directly discussed it seems to be a sensible time to express my view of the revelation we have received on the subject.

 

[Covenant Joel]

Rich and others well-read on the just-war/self defense view, could you perhaps provide some good book recommendations for that? I'd like a good book that gives a basic defense of the position and a refutation of the major pacificist arguments. I've read some on the pacificism side, but don't know which books to go for on the just war/self defense side. Thanks in advance.

 

[Answerman]

As someone who knows more than a little bit about marksmanship, there is never a time where dual wielding of pistols would be necessary unless you're playing a part in a movie. If you want to hit your target then use one weapon.

Would if a gang of thugs were breaking into your house and you had two of these:

Twin G18s 9mm Auto Glock*Video

And if you’re strong enough you could use these drum magazines for each one:

Glock with a drum mag video

Could this be a senario for dual wielding?

 

[Christusregnat]

My friend, Charl van Wyk wrote a book called "shooting back":

Shop.WND.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive!

Cheers,

Adam

Rich and others well-read on the just-war/self defense view, could you perhaps provide some good book recommendations for that? I'd like a good book that gives a basic defense of the position and a refutation of the major pacificist arguments. I've read some on the pacificism side, but don't know which books to go for on the just war/self defense side. Thanks in advance.

 

[Answerman]

Of course, you might have some trouble explaining to the police why you had guns that violated their unconstitutional laws.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I will try and be constructive in my response as I believe that it is better to be constructive rather than to respond without real interaction.

Let me be explicit then about what constitutes that which is constructive:

[bible]Proverbs 12:1[/bible]

I am not the one apparantly claiming that Jesus did not really mean what he said when he taught his people to turn the other cheek. This appears to be a clear direct instruction.

I am no teacher and have never claimed to be so, I do not think that venturing and defending an opinion (while also being open to correction) on a bulletin board is innapropriate.

Wrong Sir.

Concerning our "Yes" to a thing:

[bible]Matthew 5:37[/bible]

Now, I ask you, as you claim to be a Presbyterian and you also clicked "I have read the Forum rules and agree to them" when you signed up for this board, are you now telling me that you lied when you clicked to agree to those Forum Rules? Or were you careless.

You see, I'm really not interested in your opinions when you are propagating a doctrine that is in clear violation of our Confessional standards on the 6th Commandment.

We're not talking about a mere slap on the cheek and withstanding the reproach of a neighbor. Christ did not say: "If your neighbor is trying to rape your daughter then trust in God and it will all work out." That is your twisted interpretation to turn a point about not seeking self-vindication to actually openly repudiate the teaching of Christ on the 6th Commandment Who, Himself, is the Lawgiver.

God does not merely permit the defense of the weak if we're just weak kneed and don't have faith. That interpretation is frankly laughable. The 6th Commandment demands the protection of the weak.

I find your understand abhorrent because you add false piety to what is essentially a wicked notion and then claim that Christ is calling us to a completely different ethic than our forebears. Our forebears were not in some sort of fleshly disposition that gave them a pass to self-defense. Why wouldn't God simply command them to "trust" whenever crime would be committed? If the ethic is appropriate for us, it is appropriate for them.

Why did Paul refuse to be scourged by the Roman commander in Jerusalem? Why did he refuse to be beaten by magistrates in other districts? Why did He not "trust in God" and allow himself to be turned over to the Jews who were intent on assassinating him?

This false piety of the pacifist about what God demands in this new ethic insults men of faith in the Scriptures who understood that wickedness exists and that we don't stand idly by to allow the weak to be plundered, raped, or murdered and, with a pious look, tell them that we're strong enough to help but they just need to have faith. Abraham didn't need to go rescue Lot, he should have just trusted God. David didn't need to rescue the women, children, and livestock plundered by a marauding band, he just needed to trust in God. Men of Israel never needed to gird up their loins for battle. They just needed to trust in God.

You are in the minority here for a reason: you are outside the bounds of the Confession and the Scriptures on this matter. I'm not at all interested in hearing your distortions of the Scriptures further on this matter. I provide a venue for Reformed discussion because I know that the immature read this board for information and I will not permit what is an impious view of the 6th Commandment to be propagated and promoted.

Fundamentally, the pacifist tears down the very institutions of protection that God has given to bless man and calls them inherently wicked or fleshly. In doing so, he raises his hand against almighty God and tells Him that he's more holy than the means that God has provided to guard against the destructive influence in this world.

Your view is foolish and will not be tolerated here further.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

Seth, have you made your purchase yet? I would go with at least a .40 or .45. 9mm ammo is cheaper, but it's not enough punch, In my humble opinion if, in a hurry, you don't hit exactly the right spot.

Dear MasterChief(s),

My Opinion (not that I know anything about guns):

A 9mm is easier and safer to operate at 2:37am in the moring. It is especialy helpful to have two guns of the same calaber when dual wielding... if you ever were to find that necessary...

A point of clarification: Masterchief would not use a pea shooter like a 9mm...

Why don't you sailors let the men (Marines) handle the big weapons?

 

[timmopussycat]

Tim,

If you assert that the entire Mosaic Law is enlarged and applied to the new covenant era, you are echoing the view of the Galatian Judaizers.

Interesting, albeit, untrue assertion (and that's all it is).

Here's Calvin thought on the passage:

There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which induced him to declare this agreement between the law and the Gospel. As soon as any new method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people immediately look upon it, as if everything were to be overturned. Now the preaching of the Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the expectation, that the Church would assume a totally different form from what had previously belonged to it. They thought that the ancient and accustomed government was to be abolished. This opinion, in many respects, was very dangerous. Devout worshippers of God would never have embraced the Gospel, if it had been a revolt from the law; while light and turbulent spirits would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to them for entirely overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what insolent freaks rash people are ready to indulge when there is any thing new.....With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.


Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Notice, for Calvin, there are two basic types of law: (1) Laws eternal in character, directing a "devout and holy life" and "ancient and accustomed government", and (2) Ceremonial Laws which Christ confirmed by His life, Passion, Resurrection, etc.

This is my position, but thanks for trying to group me with Judaizers

Adam

First I was not grouping you with the Judaizers: I began my post with "If". Not even the most robust Christian Reconstructionist believes that the entire Mosaic Law is enlarged and applied to the new covenant era. Bahnsen pointed out that some of its stipulations are currently "out of gear". Second Calvin does not see Christ enlarging and applying the entire Mosaic law to the new covenant in Matt 5:17-19. His comments on v 19 "Whoever then shall break Christ here speaks expressly of the commandments of life, or the ten words, which all the children of God ought to take as the rule of their life" make it utterly explicit that he believes that Christ is here referring to the moral law only not the entire law.

If one tries to make Matt 5:17-19 a prooftext for applying all the law to the New Covenant one cannot get away from v.18's prohibition of any changes to the law "until everything is accomplished." Since Christ does not qualify his prohibition and since the NT clearly announces changes to the Law, "everything is accomplished" must have taken place before Heb. 7:12 was written.

 

[kvanlaan]

OK, I've managed to make it through all the posts now (1/2 an hour on) and have this question:

For those who would fight back (and I count myself among you): Is it the motivation/position of the attacker that dictates your ability to fight back? That is, is the fact that a nutcase on crystal meth is attacking your family the reason you would defend them? What if it was in fact an officer of the law, a "magistrate", who had come to bring your wife and daughter in for "questioning" (though you know that would include physical/sexual abuse) under the law of the land? At what point do we become lambs unto the slaughter and count it all joy to be persecuted for Christ? I realise that the two are very different scenarios in fact, but perhaps not so differnt in principle, and I am curious as to the thinking behind your answers.

 

[Pergamum]

Do we have the right to give up our right to self defense ever?

Or is giving up this right sin?

And if so, then we are REQUIRED to always fight back if threatened.

And if required, and we are all Christians who witness, we must also defend ourselves in potential martyr situations.

To die passively in the Colosseum then was sin for the early Christians. Whole families were often killed.

In the days of persecution by Rome, should the Chritians have risen up and forcibly protected themselves, perhaps by an attempted strike at the gov't itself since Christians were being exterminated?


Could and should someone have tried to assassinate the Ceasar?

Or, if taken before the Colosseum crowds, why did they not try to kill their captors and escape? Weren't they required to try to protect their families with all means necessary? Even if the odds are against you, and you can take out several guards, wouldn't you be obligated to at least try instead of being herded before the lions. And once before the lions, wouldn't you be obligated to attack those lions and try to kill them?



Other thoughts:

Also guns are to kill. But under modification they can shoot rubber bullets. Or birdshot which is less lethal. We are NOT looking for lethality, but knock down power to immobilize. Therefore, it could be argued, that for intruders, one should choose something that will maim but not kill.

KVANLAAN:

Yes, many martyr's went to their deaths with their whole families.

Again I quote [ABOVE] my own words about the Christians in the Roman Arena.


If we are to fight back, why were they so passive? Because of innumerable odds? Were they quitters who just gave up? Were they negligent in not even trying to protect their families and why didn't more of them rush the lions or the roman soldiers and try to take as many out as possible before being killed? They just prayed and sung hymns...

What are the principles that tell us when we should go to our deaths like sheep? Bad odds? State persecution?


Also, all this talk about pistols: Are we obligated or NOT obligated to focus on lethality and stopping power or maybe instead on non-lethality and maiming power? After all a maimed theif is usually just as "stopped" as a dead thief and for personal protection it is ideal to not kill if one need not kill. Birdshot thus would be better than a 9 ml..rubber bullets even better.

 

[CDM]

OK, I've managed to make it through all the posts now (1/2 an hour on) and have this question:

For those who would fight back (and I count myself among you): Is it the motivation/position of the attacker that dictates your ability to fight back? That is, is the fact that a nutcase on crystal meth is attacking your family the reason you would defend them? What if it was in fact an officer of the law, a "magistrate", who had come to bring your wife and daughter in for "questioning" (though you know that would include physical/sexual abuse) under the law of the land? At what point do we become lambs unto the slaughter and count it all joy to be persecuted for Christ? I realise that the two are very different scenarios in fact, but perhaps not so differnt in principle, and I am curious as to the thinking behind your answers.

Any man, be it a drug attic, elderly neighbor, police / government agent / officer, judge, pastor, woman, one who comes in the name of the Lord, or whatever else you can think of comes in my house as an aggressor / thief / murderer (i.e., sneaking in at night, breaking in a window, not identifying / announcing oneself, etc.) uninvited and /or illegally will receive a deliberate and spirited, savage defense from me and mine.

It is not my responsibility to consider (as if you had time) what the intentions are of the aggressor. The fact that he is assaulting your home is expressing his intentions - it is a violent act of war.

There are many scenarios that my response here has not covered of course. That’s why these questions cannot be answered easily (on line).

Now...

Me giving testimony of Christ's righteousness on the street and people spitting on me or slapping / shoving me would be "suffering for Christ's sake" and you would see me "turn the other check".

If we are being mistreated because of Christ we will gladly suffer for him. If I am sentenced to death because of my testimony of Christ, by God's grace, you will see me being led like a lamb to the slaughter.

The Christians were sentenced to death FOR BEING CHRISTIANS (there were real laws about this). A completely separate matter than someone breaking into one’s house to do evil. If my family and I were sentenced to death by the State for being Christians we would die as martyrs. Also, note the State executing Christians is different than criminals breaking in and assaulting you and yours. Does everyone see this distinction or am I out to lunch?

 

[kvanlaan]

No, I see the distinction, but what of the corrupt law enforcer who comes into the home, identifies himself, and again, takes your wife in "for questioning" due to her activities in evangelizing members of the community. There are plenty of places around here where the officials cover up all manner of crime but can lean on federal law to make it on the 'up and up'. The law says arrest them, it does not say rape them, but we acquiesce to the arrest as per Romans 13, and are unable to defend (though we know it will happen) the subsequent actions perpetrated upon them.

Where's the line?

 

[Pergamum]

Or when can a husband decide when it is appropriate for his wife and family also to die as martyr's? Sometimes whole families are killed at once and the man has to decide whether to suffer for Christ or protect family.

 

[CDM]

Or when can a husband decide when it is appropriate for his wife and family also to die as martyr's? Sometimes whole families are killed at once and the man has to decide whether to suffer for Christ or protect family.

Good question.

My family belongs to Christ we will also die with him.

I do not readily see when the husband / father has a [godly] chocie to decide to die as a martyr or protect his family. Do you mean if he were to sin and renounce Christ to save his own?

 

[CDM]

No, I see the distinction, but what of the corrupt law enforcer who comes into the home, identifies himself, and again, takes your wife in "for questioning" due to her activities in evangelizing members of the community. There are plenty of places around here where the officials cover up all manner of crime but can lean on federal law to make it on the 'up and up'. The law says arrest them, it does not say rape them, but we acquiesce to the arrest as per Romans 13, and are unable to defend (though we know it will happen) the subsequent actions perpetrated upon them.

Where's the line?

Yeah, these are the stickiest of scenarios. The circumstances do greatly change the appropriate response.

Even still, in this country, are citizens required to submit to an unlawful order?

The legal and moral answer is "no."

However, in a conversation with a 35+ year SWAT team commander told me recently:

"Yes, by law you [citizen] are not required to obey an unlawful command from a police officer. But you better because we will taze[r] you if you do not....especially the young ones [police officers] coming up."

I do not know about you gents but upon hearing this I was moved in my patriotic heart, fell to my knees, genuflected to Old Glory and immediately burst out into song ...and I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free...!"

[wipes eye]

....
..
.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Hey PB peoples,

Haven't posted in a long, long time. There is no way I could read this whole thread. But, my comment..

If someone breaks into my house, and the Lord in His mercy gives me the time and ability to retrieve either my wife's .22 pistol with the hollow points and laser site, or my .357 Magnum, and I have time to point it at the intruder, then I believe I would conclude that the Lord has delivered the man into my hands and I will shoot him.

I would wrestle later with the theological or moral ramifications over a cup of Starbucks with my wife.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

First of all, that automatic pistol we keep seeing the photo of sure looks like a .45 automatic and not a 9 mm (is the caliber not engraved on the slide?)

We keep seeing in the news (and on threads here) articles on the mounting homosexual agendas. If we do see the day when the social order -- and the laws of the land -- deteriorate to the point when Christians are considered fair game for persecution -- outlaws and enemies of the New Order of Humanity -- and one is attacked by homosexuals (as happened around the house of Lot in ancient Sodom), I doubt we will see many pacifists then. There is a limit.

When I see the remarks of the pacifist brother who said that he could envision scenarios of his becoming violent if wife and step-daughter were attacked, but that he would still consider it sinful -- there is a disconnect with reality there, in my view. This needs to be thought out and resolved before any such events may occur.

A good resource for consideration would be Rich's post #55 WLC on the sixth commandment

I think the Westminster Larger Catechism's statements on this are profound. They speak both to the issues of justice and mercy.

The succinctness of the Shorter Catechism speaks well also:

WSC #68 - What is required in the sixth commandment?

A: The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others.

WSC #69 - What is forbidden in the sixth commandment?

A: The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbour unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto.​

You will note, it talks of lawful endeavors to preserve life -- ours and others. And forbidding the unjust taking away of life.

In my post #120, the incident described there, had I not threatened (and been prepared to exert) extreme violence in that situation, would not the possible resulting violence and trauma to all concerned have been staggering, and what is more, allowed to happen because of my wicked refusal to protect both myself and my children?

The questions and answers of the catechisms are godly, reflect Biblical teaching, and are worthy of being taken to heart and lived out. We do not resort to violence because we hate life, but because we love it, and honor the God who gave it to us, and His instructions concerning it.

 

[sastark]

I thought this was germane to this thread:

FRONTLINE MISSIONARIES ATTACKED

During the Reclaiming Africa for Christ Biblical Worldview Summit, the Deputy Director of Frontline Fellowship, Charl van Wyk, and Creation Science lecturer Philip Stott, were held up in an attempted hijacking at Khayelitsha while en-route to record a radio programme.

While two thugs pointed their automatic pistols at Uncle Philip threatening and manhandling him, Charl drew his pistol and opened fire, sending the assailants scurrying for cover.

Charl then came under fire from a third assailant who was concealed by the side of the road. By God’s grace, our speakers and vehicle escaped the attempted hijacking and ambush unharmed. Our people have laid charges of attempted murder, hijacking and robbery with the local police. We praise the Lord for His protection, that no lives were lost.

However, a number of foreign passports and identity documents of participants of the Great Commission Course were stolen by the attackers. This has caused much extra expense and time wasting disruption as each of the participants whose passports were stolen need to make application for emergency travel documents, travelling to their embassies, some of which are only in Pretoria (1,400 kilometres away), necessitating changes of flights, extra expenses and other complications.

Please join us in praying that the Lord would work all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. That this, which man meant for evil, God will use for good. Let us continue to pray that the Lord would bring those responsible for this attack to justice, to conviction of sin and to full Repentance.

For firsthand reports on the attack please read the articles written by Philip Stott and Charl van Wyk:

Khayelitsha In The Morning


"Give me your cell-phone."

The words hardly register. I am deep in thought - full of hope and joy. Open on my lap is Favoured UdoJesus Edwin Akubuiroh's book "The New Wine Church". I have been meditating on a stunning observation – Africa has long been in trouble because "her witchcraft activities, idolatry, wickedness and all manner of sins brought her torment and the wrath and punishment of God." For years I have been despondent about the state of Africa. So much missionary effort, so little fruit, and I'm convinced that one of the main roots of the problem is that Africans never seem to accept any blame for their woes. The problem is always the old colonial powers, or the slave trade or something of that sort. But to hear an African acknowledge that witchcraft, idolatry and all manner of sins are to blame has filled me with hope. If a new generation like Favoured Akubuiroh is going to arise and acknowledge such sins in sincere repentance, then God could be on the verge of doing something wonderful and magnificent in Africa. When the door opened I had hardly noticed. It was almost as if it had happened in a dream.

"Give me your cell-phone. Now!"

I'm in a daze. I notice the reasonably tidily dressed man of about thirty standing at the open door. He's not quite as dark as most Africans – probably some racial mixture – and his English is surprisingly good. Somehow I seem to be in a trance, and I can't focus on him or pay attention to what he is saying.

My attention is fixed on the gun in his hand.

The gun is in very sharp focus.

It's a 9mm semi-automatic pistol with an unusually long barrel. I don't think I have seen a pistol with as long a barrel as this before. The gun is not new. It has seen hard service, much of the bluing is worn and the silver-grey metal is showing through the black coating of the barrel. The handle is brown. It could be wood, or perhaps plastic that looks like wood. His hand is wrapped tightly around that handle and the barrel is pointing at my stomach.

"Give me the cell phone."

"I haven't got a cell phone with me."

"Give me your money."

"I didn't bring any money with me."

"Give me your gun."

"I haven't got a gun." I make a gesture with my empty hands but he doesn't believe me. He starts again on his cycle of demands and paws my jacket searching for whatever he can find. He feels the outline of my camera through the soft material and starts to try and force his way in.

"Why haven't you given us your cell phone?"

It's a different voice.

There's a movement just inside my field of vision on the left. A more vicious looking fellow pushes another gun towards me. I hardly catch a glimpse of it before it is pressed against my side. The first thug stops groping my clothes and the second takes over demanding my money, my gun, my cell phone. I gesture helplessly and explain once again that I just don't have what they're asking for. Thug number two seems to be losing patience. Thug number one resumes fingering the camera through my jacket. The long barrel of his pistol swings from my stomach to my knees and back again. Thug number two angrily demands a cell phone again and jabs his gun into my ribs.

I'm in a dream. Can this be really happening? What can I do? I'm almost paralyzed. I gesture helplessly with my empty hands.

Then out of the blue there's Charl. Moving past the driver's-side window on the right.

He's always such a soft-spoken, mild-mannered chap with a constant look of joy on his face. But he doesn't look the same now. His jaw is set in a hard line. There's a determined expression on his face. He's crouching as he glides swiftly past the widow towards the bonnet. He has a gun clasped in both hands. He shouts. The thugs suddenly lose interest in me. They snatch their weapons away and pandemonium breaks loose.

Charl's gun roars and jerks up into the air with the recoil, shots ring out behind me to the left. The thugs have disappeared. I grab the door, slam it shut and crouch down trying to get my head out of sight below the level of the windows. Somebody is shooting somewhere over to the left but I can't tell where the shots are coming from. Charl fires again. Sipho, who had thought he was just getting a lift home as usual, shouts "Charl! Get down!" Charl ducks. More shots ring out and I hold my breath expecting bullets to shatter the windows or smash through the metal-work. Charl throws the driver's-side door open and pushes Sipho inside. Sipho fumbles as his feet get caught between the clutch and brake pedals, he fights his way past the gear lever and flattens himself down next to me. Charl slams the door closed, rams the lever into gear and races towards the cross-roads.

As we drive towards the police station I look past Sipho - perched uncomfortably on the handbrake - towards Charl. He still has that hard line to his jaw. I've known him for a long time, but I've never seen him quite like this.

I have known for a long time he takes the responsibility of protecting his wife and children seriously.

I'm conscious of being very thankful that he takes the responsibility of protecting his passengers seriously too.

Philip Stott

Attackers Flee

"A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well." Proverbs 25:26

"Don't move! Don't move!" The gun-toting thug held his firearm pointed towards me whilst another came from behind and searched my jacket pockets. "Give us your money and cell phone. Where is your gun?"

I was busy unloading the back of our mission pick-up at 09h00 Tuesday 1 July 2008 in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Sipho , ex-terrorist unit commander, now turned Christian, was passing his bags of clothing from the back of the vehicle. We were giving him a lift from the Frontline Fellowship Biblical Worldview Summit held at Mizpah.

I gave the thieves my wallet, identification document and cell phone. They helped themselves to 10 foreign passports in my jacket pocket. These belong to Summit participants - I was to make copies of the documents so that our foreign ministry guests would be allowed into prisons to minister to convicts during the upcoming Great Commission Course.

The thug, who pointed the firearm at me, walked over to Sipho behind me and asked for his cell phone whilst the searcher carried on body searching me, trying to find a firearm. By God's grace, he was unsuccessful.

The attackers made their way over to my passenger, creation scientist, Philip Stott, a guest speaker at the Summit. I was to interview Uncle Philip for a radio show later that morning.

The passenger door was ripped open and the armed thug pointed his firearm at Uncle Philip who was reading and had no idea of what had been going on behind the vehicle. "Give me your cell phone, money and gun!" the thief commanded. Thug two, the searcher, moved in right next to my passenger and stuck a pistol into his ribs. They could not believe that he had nothing. They were agitated, frustrated and aggressive.

Uncle Philip was cool-headed whilst explaining why he had nothing to give them. He wisely also did not look either of them in the eye - many attackers fear being recognised in court and will easily kill you if they think you may be able to recognise them later.

This gave me time to move towards the driver’s door of the vehicle and draw and **** my 9mm Heckler and Koch pistol. Sipho heard me **** my firearm and thus took cover on my side of the vehicle. I moved to the front of the pick up, I shouted at the thugs as they were threatening the life of Uncle Philip. For a split second they were distracted and I opened fire.

They fled, and are hopefully still running. What I had not realised was that there was a third party covering them from a distance. He returned fire. I heard Sipho shouting, "Charl get down!"

I took cover behind the vehicle at the driver’s door, which I opened; Sipho and I jumped in and we drove off as fast as possible. By God's grace none of us were hit by flying bullets, and the mission vehicle was undamaged.

On the highway, a taxi van with about 12 passengers drove past; the passengers were waving, making positive hand gestures and showing thumbs up. "They are showing us that you hit one of the attackers Charl," Sipho explained.

Praise the Lord for His grace and protection over us.

We'd appreciate your prayers:

- That the thieves will come to repentance and faith in Christ.

- For me , as I deal with the police.

- That applications for all bank cards, licenses and cell phones etc will run smoothly - that can be pretty onerous.

- The return of the passports of our foreign guests - it is difficult to get travel documents - most embassies are 1,000 miles from Cape Town - the expense, time wasting and inconvenience for Frontline Fellowship is crippling.

Yours in the service of King Jesus,

Charl van Wy k

Frontline Fellowship
P.O. Box 74
Newlands, 7725
Cape Town, South Africa
Tel: (021) 689-4480
Fax: (021) 685-5884
admin@frontline.org.za
Frontline Fellowship

 

[rmdmphilosopher]

Hmm... After reading Piper's post and then White's, the reaction almost seems an over-reaction. Piper's post actually never describes the specific course of action he would take were his family threatened in his own home--it merely describes his resistance to preparations that would ensure a violent reaction to that threat. The entire tone of the article seems musing and, shall we say, allusive, to me... It was almost painful to read White taking that and reading explicit views about self-defence from it. I think it was more of a though-provoker than a manifesto on Piper's part.

But anyway, on the larger subject of Pacifism in general... I was writing an essay about the death penalty earlier in the year for a class at college, and I came across a comment somewhere (don't quite remember where anymore--but I think possibly from C.S. Lewis) that when governments--or individuals for that matter--cease to uphold the temporal rule of justice, and treat criminals in the modern 'humanitarian' vein, they actually treat them as less than human by acting as if they were animals to be merely trained out of their bad habits rather than humans with moral natures. This doesn't preclude mercy, it seems to me--but the source of this comment went on to point out that God's mercy in Christ was only justice displaced or redirected, not justice dispensed with. The substitutionary atonement of Christ and pacifism are two very different categories of sacrifice I think--one has an effect, the other is essentially pointless.

Just a thought.

 

[Sonoftheday]

Someone breaks into my house while my family is sleeping and there dead. It seems like owning a gun ensures that they have a less painful death than if I must resort to a more primitive weapon. SO from the humanitarian viewpoint Ill own a gun.

 

[timmopussycat]

But anyway, on the larger subject of Pacifism in general... I was writing an essay about the death penalty earlier in the year for a class at college, and I came across a comment somewhere (don't quite remember where anymore--but I think possibly from C.S. Lewis) that when governments--or individuals for that matter--cease to uphold the temporal rule of justice, and treat criminals in the modern 'humanitarian' vein, they actually treat them as less than human by acting as if they were animals to be merely trained out of their bad habits rather than humans with moral natures. This doesn't preclude mercy, it seems to me--but the source of this comment went on to point out that God's mercy in Christ was only justice displaced or redirected, not justice dispensed with. The substitutionary atonement of Christ and pacifism are two very different categories of sacrifice I think--one has an effect, the other is essentially pointless.

Just a thought.

Two Lewis essays in which you might have found this thought are The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment or Delinquents in the Snow both found in God in the dock ed. Walter Hooper.