Buying a Sword

[Atonement]

I am glad...Hey post up some pics...
Did Raul share about his battle with the devil? Literally...If he did not not, you will soon hear about it...It has to do with his vietnam days...Anyway, did not mean to side track the thread....

LOL Yes that is what his sermon was about.. At the end he did a Alter Call and many bikers and veterans came and to know the Lord that evening. I would share picks but it was done with a 35mm camera it wasn't a digital. I have to go to Walgreens and get the film developed. Hey they have an option at Walgreens I believe where you can get a CD that you can upload right?

 

[Guest]

I find it interesting that those who are advocating the use of violence for "protection" have not offered ONE iota of Scriptural evidence for this position.

Lewis - you state that the moral laws are still in effect. So, does your church hold regural stonings for those who violate that Levitical laws?

I agree that the moral laws are still in effect, however we are in an age of grace, we are no longer under the Law - this is not to say that the law is abolished, but that Christ Jesus fulfilled the Law.

Jesus was clear in the Sermon on the Mount that "you have heard it said, BUT I tell you."

We can all write a ton of "what if" stories in an attempt to disprove the other view - what if your wife is attacked, what if the person "breaking" into your house at 3am is running away from a murder, what if this what if that - I am not to live my life by "What ifs" - but by the Word of God. The Sermon on the Mount provides for pratical teachings on how a born again believer is to live out the Christian Life - Jesus provides for a living example of how we are to live out the Christian Life.

 

[Lewis]

Please pay attention to verse 4. And notice the word (sword) and the word (revenger) and don't forget (execute wrath) Upon him that doeth evil.

Romans 13

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

 

[Guest]

Please pay attention to verse 4. And notice the word (sword) and the word (revenger) and don't forget (execute wrath) Upon him that doeth evil.

Romans 13

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Verse 4 is referring to the responsibility and role of those in authority (government).

 

[christian_soldier]

Verse 4 is referring to the responsibility and role of those in authority (government).

Well, the issue gets a bit dicey, at least in the good ole USA, since the authority is vested in the people, who delegate to elected officials.

When the elected officials go to the dark side and legislate badly, where is the evil and where is the good?

Follow? (I may come back and put this together more clearly after I get some sleep. ing: )

P.S. - if you are going to wake me in the middle of the night....call ahead first. :smt066

 

[Lewis]

Verse 4 is referring to the responsibility and role of those in authority (government).

Yes' and it could also be the people like in Biblical times. As long as it was done the way the Bible said to carry it out. The reason why crime is so high today' is because they get away with to much' and crime is not dealt with like God told us to. Set up thee old whipping post' and if someone is going to be executed and they did do the crime with 100% certainty put them to death real (quick.) Because if you don't mens hearts will be set to do crimes again. Because they know appeal after appeal in todays time can add up to 30 something years of extra life. People keep telling me' oh well we are living under grace. What has that got to do with dealing with murders and rapes ? The Old Testament still has some of the best wisdom when it comes to dealing with crime. Because mans way does not work.

Ecclesiastes 8:11
11Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

 

[Guest]

Yes' and it could also be the people like in Biblical times. As long as it was done the way the Bible said to carry it out. The reason why crime is so high today' is because they get away with to much' and crime is not dealt with like God told us to. Set up thee old whipping post' and if someone is going to be executed and they did do the crime with 100% certainty put them to death real (quick.) Because if you don't mens hearts will be set to do crimes again. Because they know appeal after appeal in todays time can add up to 30 something years of extra life. People keep telling me' oh well we are living under grace. What has that got to do with dealing with murders and rapes ? The Old Testament still has some of the best wisdom when it comes to dealing with crime. Because mans way does not work.

Ecclesiastes 8:11
11Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

Discussion of the penal system is probably best served in another thread - If you are going to promote the following of OT Law - then it must ALL be followed - not just a sampling here and there.

The OT also provides to a fair and just system - such things like 'cities of refuge'.

 

[Lewis]

I am saying all hat to say this. If you have to use the sword in your house or outside your house to protect you and your family' by all means do so. The Bible backs you up.

 

[Guest]

I am saying all hat to say this. If you have to use the sword in your house or outside your house to protect you and your family' by all means do so. The Bible backs you up.

Where? Perhaps you can provide a verse or two of support.

Matthew 5 speaks differently.

 

[Drew]

Verse 4 is referring to the responsibility and role of those in authority (government).

I think it is patently clear that the Romans text refers to the government and cannot be "stretched" to apply to the people in general.

While I do agree that violence in self-defence is Biblically justifiable, I would only make that case through the application of Biblical principles (such as the value of human life), not by appealing to specific texts.

In this respect, I agree with aLoneVoice - I find no Scriptural evidence, in the form of a specific text, that sanctions the use of violence even in self-defence.

And even though I believe that the use of violence is acceptable in certain circumstances, I think those circumstances are much more rare than most North American evangelicals think they are. For example, if someone breaks into your house at 3 AM, I do not think it is OK to "shoot first and ask questions later". One has the responsibilty to make some sort of assessment first. Is it hard to this under the pressure of the moment? Indeed it is. But that is the nature of life. It is not clean and tidy. We must only use violence as truly a last resort.

I have heard an explanation of the "turn the other cheek" passage that provided compelling evidence that Jesus was not suggesting that we never use violence. I cannot remember the details, but I know where to find them.

 

[christian_soldier]

Individual self-defense

Exodus 22
2If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
3If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Proverbs 25:
26 A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.

 

[Drew]

Individual self-defense

Exodus 22
2If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
3If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Proverbs 25:
26 A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.

I do not see how either of these texts supports the use of violence in self-defence.

Re the Exodus text: This text addresses a thief that has been "smitten", presumably by some person "X" who has practiced self-defence. However, this text addresses the sins of the thief - whether they require blood sacrifice. The text does not address the actions of the "smiter". Silence on the matter of the smiter's guilt in smiting the thief is not grounds for assuming that he did not sin when he smote the thief.

I have no idea how the Proverbs text supports self-defence.

 

[christian_soldier]

I do not see how either of these texts supports the use of violence in self-defence.

Re the Exodus text: This text addresses a thief that has been "smitten", presumably by some person "X" who has practiced self-defence. However, this text addresses the sins of the thief - whether they require blood sacrifice. The text does not address the actions of the "smiter".

Yes it does! "If he be smitten...there shall no blood be shed for him. "


I have no idea how the Proverbs text supports self-defence.

A righteous man falling down before the wicked? C'mon. Think.

 

[Lewis]

I am getting a little tired of this subject, I have had this very same subject before on this forum. And people who think that you don't have the Biblical right to defend your family and yourself' has it all wrong. But anyway' read some of these articles below. One is even about fighting in a war. I guess you think that Christians should not defend their country also. And let the enemy kill everybody in the land.

Christians and Guns
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro4.html

Pacifism and the Sword: Fight or Flight?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/ ... t_o_1.html

Why Do Christians Fight?
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12426.htm

 

[Drew]

I do not see how either of these texts supports the use of violence in self-defence.

Re the Exodus text: This text addresses a thief that has been "smitten", presumably by some person "X" who has practiced self-defence. However, this text addresses the sins of the thief - whether they require blood sacrifice. The text does not address the actions of the "smiter".

Yes it does! "If he be smitten...there shall no blood be shed for him. "

You are mistaken. Here is the text again:

2If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
3If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Proper use of the English language requires that "him" refer to the thief. The obvious referent of "him" (as in "no blood be shed for him") is "he" as in "smitten that he die". Who is it that dies? Obviously the thief.

And about Proverbs 25:26. Here is this same text in the NASB:

Like a trampled spring and a polluted well
Is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked

You simply assume too much if you take this text as justifying self-defence through violence. The text is way too general. There are many ways that a righteous man can "not give way" to the wicked that do not involve the use of violence.

 

[christian_soldier]

I've got your back, Lewis.

In spirit, anyway.

:smt059 :smt066 :smt059

 

[christian_soldier]

You are mistaken. Here is the text again:

2If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
3If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Proper use of the English language requires that "him" refer to the thief. The obvious referent of "him" (as in "no blood be shed for him") is "he" as in "smitten that he die". Who is it that dies? Obviously the thief.

And about Proverbs 25:26. Here is this same text in the NASB:

Like a trampled spring and a polluted well
Is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked

You simply assume too much if you take this text as justifying self-defence through violence. The text is way too general. There are many ways that a righteous man can "not give way" to the wicked that do not involve the use of violence.

There will be no blood shed FOR him. i.e. - no penalty for the shedee or smiter.

"There are many ways that a righteous man can "not give way" to the wicked that do not involve the use of violence."

True, but violence is not excluded from interpretation.

 

[Lewis]

Thanks for having my back man. Now let me ask Drew something. Drew what would you do in a war ? Put your M16 and 45 down and let the enemy kill the whole platoon ? Or if the enemy was shooting at you' would you shoot back' or just pray for him ?

 

[Drew]

There will be no blood shed FOR him. i.e. - no penalty for the shedee or smiter.

On what basis do you conclude that "him" is the smiter? "Him" obviously refers to the thief.

Consider the following simplified version of the statement:

If a thief is found breaking into a house and he is smitten so that he dies, there shall be no blood sacrifice for him.

Obviously the "him" is the thief. Your interpretation is simply not valid given the conventions of English.

And the fact that Proverbs 25:26 does not exclude your interpretation does not mean that it supports your interpretation.

Neither of these texts provide any support for the use of violence in self-defence.

 

[Drew]

Thanks for having my back man. Now let me ask Drew something. Drew what would you do in a war ? Put your M16 and 45 down and let the enemy kill the whole platoon ? Or if the enemy was shooting at you' would you shoot back' or just pray for him ?

I think you should be asking this question to someone else. I do believe that there are cases where violence is justified in both war and in "regular life". Heck, I make my living designing defense systems.

I have really only been saying the following:

1. I know of no clear texts from the Scriptures that justify the use of violence in self-defence. I conclude that violence is sometimes justifiable from general Biblical principles and general knowledge of the world.

2. I believe that many evangelicals go "too far" in applying these principles. For example, agreeing that its OK to "shoot first and ask questions later" if someone breaks into your house at 3 AM. Same thing with Iraq. The widespread support among evangelicals for this invasion suggests to me that Christians are willing to use violence even when not really threatened.