Pastor claims bible says guns are ok

[firestormx]

Did Jesus and the 12 and Paul all have a special doctrine just for them that said no revenge, no retaliation, no violence or Is their behavior an example for us to follow?

[ayin jade]

 

 

 

 

I have asked many questions that you have not answered, for instance. 

 

Why is there such a contrast between how the old testament saints responded to violence and how the new testament saints responded to violence.

 

As for Jesus said you could buy one, that is taking those verses out of context which I spoke about in another post. It was about fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

 

 

 

Added Later---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If you honestly think you answered my questions in that post, then I request you go read post 291 again, because you haven't.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said about it not being a sin to own a gun. I wanted to acknowledge that to be true. Sin is the transgression of the  God's word* or law.  There is nothing in the bible, old testament or new that says it's wrong to own a weapon. However, we are commanded to turn the other check, we are commanded to show love and not hate to all especially our enemies, and we are called to peace not violence. I honestly think owning a weapon falls under " all things are lawful unto me but all things are not profitable ". I am convinced that responding eye for an eye, violence with violence goes against everything Jesus taught.

 

 

 Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

 

*( I say transgression of God's word or law because Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34 for example and if you disobey that, by my understanding it would be sin. Because you are disobeying a commandment directly from Christ )

 

 

The biggest difference between the Mosaic covenant and the NT is that the Mosaic covenant is written to a nation and the NT is written to diverse people, who are not a 'nation'.  

 

The Children of Israel is an ethnic group from  common descendents (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). God gave them land, in scripture called the land of Israel (the land belonging to the children of Israel). The Mosaic law includes laws needed to serve God while forming a government to run the land. The Mosaic law includes a court system, and the penalties for breaking the various laws, including the death penalty. God also told that the children of Israel was to make war on those who attempted to attack their land and people.

 

Defending the land and the people from foreign invaders is a function of the government of the land. Since NT Christians are made up of various people from all differing ethnic groups and living in various land/countries. NT Christians as a group, were not given land by God, and therefore are not responsible as a group for protecting the land, like the children of Israel. Since courts and armies are not a part of the NT people, because the NT people were not given a land/country of their own, the NT does not give any laws concerning armies or courts. That does not mean armies or courts and death penalties are bad. It means it is the responsibility of the various governments to handle these necessities. In scripture, there were Christians who were professional soldiers (Centurians etc.) Being a soldier was not a sinful or forbidden occupation.

 

In the future, depending on how you interpret the end times events, Jesus will return to reign on earth as King. As a King, He will have an army. Jesus returns with His army, and they defeat the enemies.     

 

 

But getting revenge is not the question. I doubt anyone here would think its acceptable to seek revenge with force. Its whether or not it is acceptable to use force to defend yourself or the lives of others. 

 

 

Although that brings up a point. Is it seeking revenge to press charges against someone for robbing you or assaulting you? Is that scripturally acceptable?

 

To me this is simple. Remember Romans 12:19 above or all the other verses about not following an eye for an eye. 

 

If you hit me and I hit you back then I have retaliated against you or avenged myself.

 

if you break into my home and start to rob me and I catch you and kill you with a gun, then I have retaliated against you  or avenged myself.

 

If you assault my family and I take out a gun and kill you, then I have retaliated against you or avenged myself.

 

I am sure there are some that will spin it the other way. But the fact of the matter is, If we are attacked and we retaliate or avenge ourselves then we have went against scripture.

 

 

Again, asking about preventing an assault, not taking action after an assault. 

 

Someone breaks into your home and grabs your kid with the intent to harm the kid if not outright kill the kid. 

 

Would you stand back and see what happens or would you try and rescue your kid even if it means harming the assailant?

[coheir]

 

 

 

 

I have asked many questions that you have not answered, for instance. 

 

Why is there such a contrast between how the old testament saints responded to violence and how the new testament saints responded to violence.

 

As for Jesus said you could buy one, that is taking those verses out of context which I spoke about in another post. It was about fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

 

 

 

Added Later---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If you honestly think you answered my questions in that post, then I request you go read post 291 again, because you haven't.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said about it not being a sin to own a gun. I wanted to acknowledge that to be true. Sin is the transgression of the  God's word* or law.  There is nothing in the bible, old testament or new that says it's wrong to own a weapon. However, we are commanded to turn the other check, we are commanded to show love and not hate to all especially our enemies, and we are called to peace not violence. I honestly think owning a weapon falls under " all things are lawful unto me but all things are not profitable ". I am convinced that responding eye for an eye, violence with violence goes against everything Jesus taught.

 

 

 Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

 

*( I say transgression of God's word or law because Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34 for example and if you disobey that, by my understanding it would be sin. Because you are disobeying a commandment directly from Christ )

 

 

The biggest difference between the Mosaic covenant and the NT is that the Mosaic covenant is written to a nation and the NT is written to diverse people, who are not a 'nation'.  

 

The Children of Israel is an ethnic group from  common descendents (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). God gave them land, in scripture called the land of Israel (the land belonging to the children of Israel). The Mosaic law includes laws needed to serve God while forming a government to run the land. The Mosaic law includes a court system, and the penalties for breaking the various laws, including the death penalty. God also told that the children of Israel was to make war on those who attempted to attack their land and people.

 

Defending the land and the people from foreign invaders is a function of the government of the land. Since NT Christians are made up of various people from all differing ethnic groups and living in various land/countries. NT Christians as a group, were not given land by God, and therefore are not responsible as a group for protecting the land, like the children of Israel. Since courts and armies are not a part of the NT people, because the NT people were not given a land/country of their own, the NT does not give any laws concerning armies or courts. That does not mean armies or courts and death penalties are bad. It means it is the responsibility of the various governments to handle these necessities. In scripture, there were Christians who were professional soldiers (Centurians etc.) Being a soldier was not a sinful or forbidden occupation.

 

In the future, depending on how you interpret the end times events, Jesus will return to reign on earth as King. As a King, He will have an army. Jesus returns with His army, and they defeat the enemies.     

 

 

But getting revenge is not the question. I doubt anyone here would think its acceptable to seek revenge with force. Its whether or not it is acceptable to use force to defend yourself or the lives of others. 

 

 

Although that brings up a point. Is it seeking revenge to press charges against someone for robbing you or assaulting you? Is that scripturally acceptable?

 

To me this is simple. Remember Romans 12:19 above or all the other verses about not following an eye for an eye. 

 

If you hit me and I hit you back then I have retaliated against you or avenged myself.

 

if you break into my home and start to rob me and I catch you and kill you with a gun, then I have retaliated against you  or avenged myself.

 

If you assault my family and I take out a gun and kill you, then I have retaliated against you or avenged myself.

 

I am sure there are some that will spin it the other way. But the fact of the matter is, If we are attacked and we retaliate or avenge ourselves then we have went against scripture.

 

Avenge and protecting oneself are not the same thing. Avenge has the thought of repayment for a wrong. Protection does not have this thought.

[The_Patriot21]

 

 

 

So what you are saying is that you are incapable of answering my questions in post # 291.

I believe I did. I established biblically that owning a firearm is not a sin-there is nothing to suggest it is. Jesus said you could buy one and all your verses deal with the use of weapons. So biblically you cannot say owning a gun is a sin-so this debate is about use.

As far as use-which your question pertained to I answered it clearly. The OT law defines how they can be used and you can't discredit that. Jesus came to fulfill the law not get rid of it. It means were not bound by it we are saved by grace. But the law still defines what sin is the apostle Paul made that clear in romans 7:7 and later in Timothy where He said that all scripture is profitable for teaching and doctrine. You can't ignore scripture-or an argument because it doesn't after with what you want it to. So you see I did answer your question in post 291.

I have asked many questions that you have not answered, for instance. 

 

Why is there such a contrast between how the old testament saints responded to violence and how the new testament saints responded to violence.

 

As for Jesus said you could buy one, that is taking those verses out of context which I spoke about in another post. It was about fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

 

 

 

Added Later---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If you honestly think you answered my questions in that post, then I request you go read post 291 again, because you haven't.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said about it not being a sin to own a gun. I wanted to acknowledge that to be true. Sin is the transgression of the  God's word* or law.  There is nothing in the bible, old testament or new that says it's wrong to own a weapon. However, we are commanded to turn the other check, we are commanded to show love and not hate to all especially our enemies, and we are called to peace not violence. I honestly think owning a weapon falls under " all things are lawful unto me but all things are not profitable ". I am convinced that responding eye for an eye, violence with violence goes against everything Jesus taught.

 

 

 Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

 

*( I say transgression of God's word or law because Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34 for example and if you disobey that, by my understanding it would be sin. Because you are disobeying a commandment directly from Christ )

 

 

I answered that one as well. If I missed a question, or you didnt understand the answer do say so-but keep in mind I work in the oil field sometimes it can be awhile between replies and I dont see them. In this case, you ask why the contrast? well, there isn't really. To say there is a contrast-would be contradictory-the New Testament, cannot Contradict, the Old Testament. So lets work under the assumption, that the two do not contradict each other. 

 

Now, as for the apparent contract-lets look at the purpose of the new, and Old testament. The Old Testament serves several reasons-first, to provide a history of the world, and to show why we need to have a savior (it establishes sin, fallen world, who Gods chosen people are etc) Thats one purpose. The Old Testament, also defines what is sin, and what is not sin. Without sin, and the knowledge of what it is, there is no need for a savior. The New Testament-is to show us, who that savior is-and how to come to Christ-as well as to establish the church. It certainly changes some things-like how we get to heaven (grace verses works) And it changes how we apply said principles, but it doesn't change what is sin, and what is not sin. For example, according to the law, adultry is two things, first, its a sin, and second its punishable by death. Thats the law. Now, did the new testament change the law? no, adultry is still a sin, however, now its covered by grace-its not punishable by death if said person comes to Christ. If they don't, well they will still be punished for it. The new testament changes the punishment, not necessarily the sin.

 

Now, that verse, pretty much goes along with every other verse youve applied-it speaks to the heart, not the weapon itself, and it addresses a specific action, and that is revenge. But, see that doesn't really apply. Was vengeance in the OT law in some cases? certainly, but look at the reason behind the law-in the time it was written they didn't have a formal justice system-or jails. It was how justice was carried out. Times have changed, and that is one of the things the NT actually does change-we are not to seek revenge, that is a very true statement, one that I 100% agree with you on.

 

However, there is a marked difference between seeking revenge-and protecting oneself. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night with a gun and threatens to hurt you or your family-and you shoot him to protect your family, thats not vengeance, thats self defense. That is a preventive act to stop harm from coming to those you love. However, if someone breaks into your home and beats your child while your away, and you come home and chase the man down 3 days later and kill him-thats vengance, At that point it needs to be left to the cops. There is a marked difference between the two. Romans 12:19 does not apply to a self defense application. It is important to recognize the difference-because if one is to carry or own a weapon in self defense, it is a responsibility-and a bad choice in the use of it, can affect ones life-its a fine line between right and sin.

 

I hope that clarifies my position and answers your question.

[firestormx]

 

 

 

 

So what you are saying is that you are incapable of answering my questions in post # 291.

I believe I did. I established biblically that owning a firearm is not a sin-there is nothing to suggest it is. Jesus said you could buy one and all your verses deal with the use of weapons. So biblically you cannot say owning a gun is a sin-so this debate is about use.

As far as use-which your question pertained to I answered it clearly. The OT law defines how they can be used and you can't discredit that. Jesus came to fulfill the law not get rid of it. It means were not bound by it we are saved by grace. But the law still defines what sin is the apostle Paul made that clear in romans 7:7 and later in Timothy where He said that all scripture is profitable for teaching and doctrine. You can't ignore scripture-or an argument because it doesn't after with what you want it to. So you see I did answer your question in post 291.

I have asked many questions that you have not answered, for instance. 

 

Why is there such a contrast between how the old testament saints responded to violence and how the new testament saints responded to violence.

 

As for Jesus said you could buy one, that is taking those verses out of context which I spoke about in another post. It was about fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

 

 

 

Added Later---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If you honestly think you answered my questions in that post, then I request you go read post 291 again, because you haven't.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said about it not being a sin to own a gun. I wanted to acknowledge that to be true. Sin is the transgression of the  God's word* or law.  There is nothing in the bible, old testament or new that says it's wrong to own a weapon. However, we are commanded to turn the other check, we are commanded to show love and not hate to all especially our enemies, and we are called to peace not violence. I honestly think owning a weapon falls under " all things are lawful unto me but all things are not profitable ". I am convinced that responding eye for an eye, violence with violence goes against everything Jesus taught.

 

 

 Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

 

*( I say transgression of God's word or law because Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34 for example and if you disobey that, by my understanding it would be sin. Because you are disobeying a commandment directly from Christ )

 

 

I answered that one as well. If I missed a question, or you didnt understand the answer do say so-but keep in mind I work in the oil field sometimes it can be awhile between replies and I dont see them. In this case, you ask why the contrast? well, there isn't really. To say there is a contrast-would be contradictory-the New Testament, cannot Contradict, the Old Testament. So lets work under the assumption, that the two do not contradict each other. 

 

Now, as for the apparent contract-lets look at the purpose of the new, and Old testament. The Old Testament serves several reasons-first, to provide a history of the world, and to show why we need to have a savior (it establishes sin, fallen world, who Gods chosen people are etc) Thats one purpose. The Old Testament, also defines what is sin, and what is not sin. Without sin, and the knowledge of what it is, there is no need for a savior. The New Testament-is to show us, who that savior is-and how to come to Christ-as well as to establish the church. It certainly changes some things-like how we get to heaven (grace verses works) And it changes how we apply said principles, but it doesn't change what is sin, and what is not sin. For example, according to the law, adultry is two things, first, its a sin, and second its punishable by death. Thats the law. Now, did the new testament change the law? no, adultry is still a sin, however, now its covered by grace-its not punishable by death if said person comes to Christ. If they don't, well they will still be punished for it. The new testament changes the punishment, not necessarily the sin.

 

Now, that verse, pretty much goes along with every other verse youve applied-it speaks to the heart, not the weapon itself, and it addresses a specific action, and that is revenge. But, see that doesn't really apply. Was vengeance in the OT law in some cases? certainly, but look at the reason behind the law-in the time it was written they didn't have a formal justice system-or jails. It was how justice was carried out. Times have changed, and that is one of the things the NT actually does change-we are not to seek revenge, that is a very true statement, one that I 100% agree with you on.

 

However, there is a marked difference between seeking revenge-and protecting oneself. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night with a gun and threatens to hurt you or your family-and you shoot him to protect your family, thats not vengeance, thats self defense. That is a preventive act to stop harm from coming to those you love. However, if someone breaks into your home and beats your child while your away, and you come home and chase the man down 3 days later and kill him-thats vengance, At that point it needs to be left to the cops. There is a marked difference between the two. Romans 12:19 does not apply to a self defense application. It is important to recognize the difference-because if one is to carry or own a weapon in self defense, it is a responsibility-and a bad choice in the use of it, can affect ones life-its a fine line between right and sin.

 

I hope that clarifies my position and answers your question.

 

Yes it clarifies your position. But I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. From my POV defending yourself is retaliation or revenge. The fact it is in the moment, is irrelevant. You are striking back because you were attacked. that is retaliation or revenge. I see no way we will ever agree.

 

God Bless

[ncn]

Locking this thread for 24 hours  to give everyone a breather and time to reflect on how they reply to posts on this thread. 

 

PS> (24 later)

After discussing with other servants this thread is permanently locked.