Faith and Firearms: Should Christians Own Guns?

[other one]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it that when this topic is discussed those on the side of using violent means for protection of self, family and liberty of nation use logic instead of showing where Jesus, Paul, Peter or John taught to fight others?

I guess because it's a given that Jesus is just as present in the Old Testament as He is in the New. Grace did not change the fact that there is sometime a need for war... all the way to the end of the book in Revelation.

It's not hard for me to figure.

Ah the old fig tree. Got it.

It is easy to see in the Old Testament so no need to prove it in the new.

Sorry I can't accept that.

if you take the position of the complete pacifist that you seem to be talking about here, we would not be a free nation.

Where did I say I take any position? I simply am asking questions and seeking answers. You assign a position to me by reading into my post using speculative imagination it appears.

I want someone to defend their position of agression using the New Testament.

You declare that we could not be a free nation without the use of violent force. How can you declare such as true?

I will repeat myself "If you take the position of the complete pacifist that you seem to be talking about here......."

I did not accuse you of taking any position, just what IF.

Got it Sam, thanks.

On to the second question I asked. You declare that we could not be a free nation without having resorted to violence. Such a declaration requires omnipotence because it says there is no other way to be free than through violence. How can you declare such?

 

While it's not possible to say that something can never happen, I don't see any historical president that it could have.  Considering the political climate of those years I have never seen anything that would convince me that it would have been possible.  At best we might be as Canada and Australia and be properties of the Crown and given some autonomy, but final decisions made by the Crown.

 

Queen Elizabeth has the authority to dissolve the entire governments of either country if she deems it necessary for it to follow their wishes.   Whether or not that's worse than the US is a whole different discussion.

[Guest shiloh357]

How many here would resort to violence to defend their family if someone intended to harm their loved ones??   How many would simply stand there while their loved ones are being beaten and raped and quote Bible verses??

[OldSchool2]

Why is it that when this topic is discussed those on the side of using violent means for protection of self, family and liberty of nation use logic instead of showing where Jesus, Paul, Peter or John taught to fight others?

I guess because it's a given that Jesus is just as present in the Old Testament as He is in the New. Grace did not change the fact that there is sometime a need for war... all the way to the end of the book in Revelation.

It's not hard for me to figure.

Ah the old fig tree. Got it.

It is easy to see in the Old Testament so no need to prove it in the new.

Sorry I can't accept that.

if you take the position of the complete pacifist that you seem to be talking about here, we would not be a free nation.

Where did I say I take any position? I simply am asking questions and seeking answers. You assign a position to me by reading into my post using speculative imagination it appears.

I want someone to defend their position of agression using the New Testament.

You declare that we could not be a free nation without the use of violent force. How can you declare such as true?

I will repeat myself "If you take the position of the complete pacifist that you seem to be talking about here......."

I did not accuse you of taking any position, just what IF.

Got it Sam, thanks.

On to the second question I asked. You declare that we could not be a free nation without having resorted to violence. Such a declaration requires omnipotence because it says there is no other way to be free than through violence. How can you declare such?

Read my signature. True peace is not just the absence of conflict but the presence of justice. This world is full of violent evil men, and they will not be stopped by pacifism. Many times the only way to stop a violent man and bring about justice is through violence.

Jesus was not a pacifist, at least not by today's standards. He realized there was a time for violence and a time for peace, and He had the wisdom to know the difference....

Otherwise, how did Jesus "peacefully" make a whip of cords to drive the moneychangers from the temple while overturning their tables?

The account is recorded in all four Gospels.

[gdemoss]

As I suspected there is no real proof being drawn from New Testament teachings but rather opinions based upon logic that speaks to imagined events.

Jesus clearing the temple and overturning tables is a good place to look for the possibility of use of force to acheive an end but it requires the use of the imagination to add to the text. Nothing in the text suggests he hit people. He may have only used it to move the animals out. Nothing suggests that he went about violently turning the tables over as he may have simply been turning them over on their side to send the message that the store is closed. On the otherhand he may have whipped people and thrashed tables. There is not enough detail to make a determination.

I prefer to draw conclusions based on principle rather than pure imagination.

The same Jesus who told them to get swords told them to put them away. He explained that one who chooses to live by the sword would die by the sword. That is clear. He instructed and we can choose what we will do. Does that mean he prohibited the use of force with weapons? I don't think so. I put it together with what he taught through Paul when Paul wrote 'but I show you a better way'.

What other New Testament passages would you say support the idea of the use of force to achieve God's will?

We are all familiar with the Old Testament passages of the use of deadly force to achieve ends But what about those that promote peaceful means to victory such as Elisha and asking God to blind his enemies and saving all alive? Or allowing God to consume the enemy as he did the Egyptians?

David was called a bloody man and not allowed to build God's house. God may not completely forbid the use of force but at the same time it seems there may be a better way.

I don't know. I am still learning.

[Guest shiloh357]

gdemoss,

 

The New Testament  doesn't actually address self-defense, so no Scripture can be brought forward to address it specifically.   So it is not a victory for pacifists.   It simply means that we can extrapolate from what the Bible does say in order to evaluate the morality of self-defense.   The NT  DOES say that a man who doesn't provide for his family is worse than an infidel. That includes providing for their safety and protection.  In the Bible,  God uses the metaphor of a father often to describe his relationship with us and God Himself has engaged and will engage I violent defense of His children/people.   So who lives on a higher moral plain than God??   Is God wrong for violently defending his people in Scripture???

 

Furthermore, I would like add that if we start trying to downplay views that can't be supported by a direct verse of Scripture, then tell me...   Since there are no verses that specifically address child molestation and spousal abuse, can we deduce that NT morality would allow for men to beat up their wives and sexually molest their children???

 

And tell me,  would you resort to violent self-defense if necessary, to defend your children?

[The_Patriot21]

gdemoss, there was the example of Jesus driving them out with a whip-that is indeed a show of force, appropriate to the circumstances. Jesus also ordered his disciples to purchase swords. But theres also the OT. We can't ignore the OT-the OT was given for us to learn from, to learn doctrine from, to know what is sin and what is not-all that is told to us in the new testament. (2 Tim 3:16, Romans 7:7) and the OT does list out where it is ok, and where it is not ok, to use deadly force.

 

And to answer an earlier question, I do not seek violence, but at the same time I am ready and prepared to do so if the need arises. I do own multiple firearms, of various types, with extra ammo, as well as various emergency gear should the need arise. All weapons were purchased legally, I do possess a concealed carry permit even though none is required in my state, and I do carry on a regular basis, usually concealed, but on occasion, openly. Not all my weapons are defensive, I do own some weapons the liberals would call "assault" weapons, with plenty of extra ammo. Im not afraid to admit that. I also have several weapons that have practical uses such as hunting, but id be lying if I said that was all I had, though, I pray those are all the ones I have to use.

[Bible2]

shiloh357 said in post 41:

 

Human beings are inherently evil.

 

And even Christians can be inherently susceptible to propaganda, so that they are lulled into thinking a war is a "just war" when in fact it isn't at all. Look at the American Civil War, for example. Both sides truly believed God was on their side. Christians slaughtered Christians in the name of God, when in fact it was just for political power. Same during the wars during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation: Catholic Christians slaughtered Protestant Christians, and Protestant Christians slaughtered Catholic Christians, all in the name of Christ.

 

Same during World War II. Both sides in Europe truly believed God was on their side. British Christians slaughtered German Christians, and German Christians slaughtered British Christians, and both sides truly believed their cause was just.

 

And even if Hitler had managed to defeat Britain and to hold off Stalin, and to make it to American shores with an army. Should American Christians really have taken up arms against German Christians, most of whom were deceived by Hitler into thinking what they were doing was a good thing, and who would have been instantly shot by the Gestapo if they laid down their arms in the name of Christ and peace between Christians?

[Bible2]

Matthew T. said in post 42:

 

Israel was given a land in the Old Testament, regained the land in the New. Still engaged in an all out effort to prevent being driven into the sea.

 

Fig tree? I don't know what that's about.

 

Matthew 24:34 could mean the temporal generation which would see the 1948 AD reestablishment of Israel, which could be symbolized by the rebudding of the fig tree (Matthew 24:32-34; cf. Matthew 21:19,43, Hosea 9:10, Joel 1:6-7, Luke 13:6-9), won't pass, i.e. won't die off completely, until the future tribulation and 2nd coming of Matthew 24 and Revelation chapters 6 to 19 are fulfilled. A temporal generation may not pass until 70 or 80 years (Psalms 90:10), or 120 years (Genesis 6:3).

 

--

 

The rebudding of the fig tree (Matthew 24:32) can refer to the 1948 reestablishment of Israel, just as Jesus' cursing of the literal, fruitless fig tree (Matthew 21:19) foreshadowed his curse on the part of Old Covenant Israel which rejected him (Matthew 21:43), for a fig tree can represent Israel (Hosea 9:10, Joel 1:6-7, Luke 13:6-9). And the Israel which was reestablished in 1948 is the same Old Covenant Israel which Jesus cursed at his first coming. For it still rejects Jesus and still considers itself to be under the Old Covenant. This Israel merely "putting forth leaves" again (Matthew 24:32) in 1948 was nothing more than a restoration to what the fig tree in Matthew 21:19,43 had been before it was cursed by Jesus and then destroyed in 70 AD: a tree with leaves, but without any fruit. And the unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel which was reestablished in 1948 may never bear fruit. For it could be destroyed before Jesus' 2nd coming, during a future war, by a Baathist army, just as it had been destroyed in 70 AD by a Roman-empire army.

 

But Jesus' kingdom is still called "Israel" (John 1:49, John 12:13-15, John 19:19, Luke 22:30). And at Jesus' 2nd coming, he will sit on the earthly throne of David (Luke 1:32-33, Isaiah 9:7), and restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6-7, Acts 3:20-21). Jesus is, in his humanity, the son of David (Matthew 1:1, Matthew 21:15-16, Romans 1:3), of the house of David (Luke 1:69). So at Jesus' 2nd coming, he will restore the tabernacle, the house, of David (Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11) to its royal glory (2 Samuel 5:12), which it had lost (2 Kings 17:21a). And Jesus will fulfill the prophecy and prayer of 2 Samuel 7:16-29. And he will bring salvation to all the still-living, unbelieving elect Jews of the house of David. For they (along with all other still-living, unbelieving elect Jews) will come into faith in him when they see him at his 2nd coming (Zechariah 12:10-14, Zechariah 13:1,6, Romans 11:26-31). And so they will all become part of the church at that time, for now there are no believers outside of the church (Ephesians 4:4-6).

 

After Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:3, Zechariah 14:3-5) will occur the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Zechariah 14:8-21), during which time the Gentile nations will come to seek the returned Jesus ruling the whole earth (Zechariah 8:22, Zechariah 14:9, Psalms 72:8-11) on the restored throne of David (Isaiah 9:7) in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:1-4, Zechariah 14:8-11,16-19). And the physically resurrected church will reign on the earth with Jesus during the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). For the church is Israel (Romans 11:1,17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10).

[Bible2]

gdemoss said in post 49:

 

Here is one scripture I toss out complete pacifism with:

 

Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

 

The principle I see here is that Jesus said that there were conditions upon which his servants would fight.

 

John 18:36 means Jesus' future, physical reign on the earth with the physically resurrected church (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29) won't be of this world in the sense that it won't come by worldly means, such as by the church fighting physically to establish it (2 Corinthians 10:3-4, Matthew 26:52, Matthew 5:39). Instead, it will come only by Jesus returning physically from heaven to establish it (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21). Also, after the millennium and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-15), a new earth will be created and God's kingdom will continue forever on the new earth (Revelation 21:1 to 22:5).

[The_Patriot21]

Your entire argument is flawed, especially when it comes to war. Even at ww2. You make it sound like both sides were in the wrong. Like the Germans were Christians and everyone around were Christian. Sure, there may have been Christians fighting for Hitler, buy I would imagine not many. He was a truly evil man, slaughtering Jews and other minorities, a true Christian would have a hard time following a man like Hitler.

A lot of those fighting Hitler also were not Christians though many were. They didn't want the war, Hitler was after total world domination, if not stopped he would have murdered Gods chosen people and taken the entire world into tyranny. By Christians standing back and not doing anything would be the same as murder-theyed be allowing Gods chosen people to be annihilated.

Also, there were German Christians-many of whom were standing up to Hitler. Do some reading into Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and others like him. Many of the actual German Christians were not fighting for Hitler, but rather fighting against him. So you can't say German Christians were fighting British Christians-thats 99% not true.

Your ignorance of history is also prevalent here. Hitler and Stalin started the war as allies. Russia had the same goals-world domination, as Hitler, the only reason Russia joined Britain in its fight was because Hitler in all his wisdom turned on Stalin. Had he not done that, ww2 may have turned out very differently.

I'm not even going to touch on your civil war comments, other then to say that you are looking at it from a skewed view. Your entire argument is based off if faulty assumptions, one that there is no such thing as a just war. The Bible is full of wars God ordered, and since God is a just God, then the wars He ordered were just. To say otherwise is an attack on God Himself.

The second assumption you seem to be working on is that wars are always fought between Christians-that there's Christians on both sides. That may have been true of the civil war, but that was the exception. With ww2 I would wager very few Christians actually fought for hitler-and those that did likely either didn't know all he was up to, were fooled, or were as disillusioned as you.

Fact is, there is a right and there is a wrong. Even if both sides think they're right don't mean they are. Hitler believed he was right, but he was not. The combined forces of america, Britain and Russia was what it took to win that war, and it stopped an evil man. Ww2 was the very definition of a just war.