The Glorious Church

Visit www.GloriousChurch.com

Mat 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch

the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his

house to be broken up. (LK 12:39 says, "broken through.")

 

In the light of the above scripture, just how far should the goodman of the house

be willing to go to keep his house from being "broken up" or "broken through" or what

we might say, broken into? 

 

Is concealed carry an option for Christians?

Views: 984

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Bro Mike, excellent response! 

I had to chuckle, 'cause you got me with Deut 22:5. The funny thing is, I saw that verse yesterday while reading and studying for my response and 'Amen'd' it in my head, because of course it is a verse that I stand by, yet did not even relate it to my argument against literal applications of Old Testament Law. So, again, you got me. Just when I thought everything was simple! :)

I have to chew on some more of what you responded yet and can not guarantee when I may be able to jump back in. I have five kids and a full-time job in addition to my responsibilities as a pastor/elder so I struggle to work these discussions in, but enjoy them very much!

Thanks Bro,

-Brandon 

Brandon Steinke said:

Bro Mike, excellent response! 

I had to chuckle, 'cause you got me with Deut 22:5. The funny thing is, I saw that verse yesterday while reading and studying for my response and 'Amen'd' it in my head, because of course it is a verse that I stand by, yet did not even relate it to my argument against literal applications of Old Testament Law. So, again, you got me. Just when I thought everything was simple! :)

I have to chew on some more of what you responded yet and can not guarantee when I may be able to jump back in. I have five kids and a full-time job in addition to my responsibilities as a pastor/elder so I struggle to work these discussions in, but enjoy them very much!


Just be sure that you aren't led astray by some bearded, wine-drinking heretic in a hippie online Bible forum.

I will keep that advice in mind! :)

Blessings,

Brandon

Mike R. Prevost said:

Brandon Steinke said:

Bro Mike, excellent response! 

I had to chuckle, 'cause you got me with Deut 22:5. The funny thing is, I saw that verse yesterday while reading and studying for my response and 'Amen'd' it in my head, because of course it is a verse that I stand by, yet did not even relate it to my argument against literal applications of Old Testament Law. So, again, you got me. Just when I thought everything was simple! :)

I have to chew on some more of what you responded yet and can not guarantee when I may be able to jump back in. I have five kids and a full-time job in addition to my responsibilities as a pastor/elder so I struggle to work these discussions in, but enjoy them very much!


Just be sure that you aren't led astray by some bearded, wine-drinking heretic in a hippie online Bible forum.

I appreciate the comments about a rationale for revolution. I started to post another Jefferson quote in my original post but decided not to.  Here it is now: "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." But, my question concerns a more narrow issue. I'm not questioning the fact that an oppressed people may legitimately come together to throw off their oppressors; I'm wondering about an individual administering justice because the State simply will not. My example is a Jew in Auchwitz. Another example would be a Louisianna slave in 1840 who watches his overseer systematically murdering other slaves simply because he can. Is there a context where a individual could execute a murderer and, even though he may be guilty under man's law, would not be guilty in the eyes of the heavenly Judge?


David Huston said:

[...]But, my question concerns a more narrow issue. [...] I'm wondering about an individual administering justice because the State simply will not. My example is a Jew in Auchwitz. Another example would be a Louisianna slave in 1840 who watches his overseer systematically murdering other slaves simply because he can. Is there a context where a individual could execute a murderer and, even though he may be guilty under man's law, would not be guilty in the eyes of the heavenly Judge. 

 

I think there a bunch of situations that we can get ourselves into that the Bible doesn't tell us how to deal with.  The Scripture, for the most part, tells us how things ought to be and rarely tells us how to deal with all the abberations.  So I'm kind of "winging it" here.

 

In the example of the Louisiana slave, I would tend to put this in the "defending others" category.  Not only does the Individual have a right/responsibility to defend himself against potentially murderous attackers, but he also should defend his family and other folks from such attacks -- they are created in the image of God just like he is.  I think the Louisiana slave would be entirely within his rights/responsibilities to come to the aid of his fellow human beings against this murderous overseer.

 

The Jew in Auchwitz would probably be in the same boat.  

 

In one case, the State didn't do anything to stop the evil, and in the other, the State was perpetrating the evil.

 

I don't remember Moses being punished by God for killing the abusive Egyptian slave master.  That may be applicable to both cases.

 

Note that I did not say that when the State does nothing, or does bad things that we can just reject its authority altogether.  This is a very specific case of preventing the murder of other individuals.

 

Bro Brandon brought up an interesting verse:

 

Deu 13:6-9 KJV If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; {7} Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; {8} Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: {9} But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

 

Goodness!  At first blush it seems to say, if you find an idolator, just kill him and ask questions later.  Doesn't seem to fit within the jurisdiction of the Individual very well.  But consider this:

 

Deu 17:6-7 KJV At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. {7} The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

 

Note the similarity with the previous passage: "But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people" vs "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people".  So, ANY time someone was to be put to death, there had to be a trial AND there had to be two or three corroborating witnesses AND the witnesses had to "throw the first stone".   I think the fact that "the hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death" is designed to be a deterrent from falsely accusing someone -- you much participate in the gruesome public execution.

 

Anyway, a little rabbit trail there, but BOTH the State and the Individual may intervene with lethal force, if necessary, to protect the image of God, but only the State can "execute wrath".   This (along with the Individual's free will, and conscience) are how we know that there IS a legitimate jurisdiction of the Individual.  

 

So I guess I would have to ask you if the Louisiana Slave and the Auchwitz Jew were defending others or executing capital punishment?

 

[Oh.  Relating to guns.  I have read that the Colonies implemented a form of gun control.  They went from house to house enforcing it.  If you didn't have your gun in good condition, ready to go, you got in trouble.  I think they levied fines if you didn't.  Quite different from gun control now-a-days. ;)]

 

Guys,

I still struggle to see your modern justifications for uprising
against oppressive governments exemplified in scripture. Sure we see
it in the Old Testament, but where do we see it after the time of
Christ? The same Christ that taught us to love our enemies and to pray
for those who persecute us and despitefully use us. Where do we see it
in Jesus going to the cross? (I know what you will probably say here,
that He had to die, and that He knew that, and therefore submitted
Himself to it, but I put forth that He also did it as an example for
us, as we are taught to take up our crosses and to die daily and to
die out to self. Were these symbolic examples, sure, but only to
a degree. The 'flesh' that is 'weak' and that we are commanded to die
out to, is all wrapped up in our wills, our emotions, and yes, this
skin and bones that we call home. And I put forth that He was also
setting an example for us and teaching us that there is sometimes more that can
be accomplished by a life through dying in humble obedience than there is through
rising up in defense of itself. Have good men died? How do we know the
mind of God? We make assumptions based on a mixture of spirituality
and carnality because we still have too much self within us, and we
don't have the mind of Christ.)


Or what about Steven? What about Paul? He was stoned but just happened
to survive. So when Jesus said turn the other cheek, was he really
only talking about injury and not death? How do you know what results it will have?


What about the Christians in general of the book of Acts?

We do not read one word of them 'rising up' or having any intent to 'rise up'

or even making any discussion of
ever 'rising up' against the oppression and persecution. Sure they
fleed from it, but fleeing is a far cry from fighting against. Did
they know every time they were beaten or abused that it would not end
in death? I would challenge not, but rather they thanked God in all
things, even rejoicing in being counted worthy to suffer for Him.

You might say they knew they were not strong enough to stand against the Romans and so therefore fled, but is it to be believed that these people of God, the same God who delivered the Israelites time and time again, the same God who used Gideon and his handful of men, could not have been delivered had it been God's will. If it were God's will, could they not have prayed and cried out to Him and would He not have fought for them and given them the victory over the Romans just as he had done countless times before? But this doesn't appear to have ever even been a consideration. It would appear that the early church clearly understood and applied Jesus' teaching of submission and humility.

Who is this Thomas Jefferson guy anyways? Was he the thirteenth
disciple? Sure, a lot of that stuff sounds good, but is it scriptural?
Is it gospel? Where did Jesus teach us to stand up for our so-called
rights?


(Sorry for the goofy formatting. I initially typed most of this out on my phone but then it didn't seem to be going through so I transferred it over to the desk top. Sorry also if it ends up coming through twice.)  :) 

So I guess I would have to ask you if the Louisiana Slave and the Auchwitz Jew were defending others or executing capital punishment?

Capital punishment is not done by the State as a mere act of wrath or retirbution. It is done to protect the rest of society from a very dangerous person and to discourage others from engage in the hideous crime of destroying the image of God. Therefore, we could say that both executing capital punishment and protecting life are efforts to defend others from harm. Certainly the Jew would kill the Nazi, not merely to get even with him, but to save the lives of other Jews. Likewise, the slave would kill his overseer, not merely out of wrath (even though that may be a part of it), but to save others from the inevitable homicide. So the $50,000.00 question is: would God frown in such an act or commend the perpetrator?

 

Thomas Jefferson was certainly no apostle of Christ, but he did articulate a view that has been held by many conservative Christians throughout the gaes, namely that God charges us with the responsibility of bringing liberty and justice to the world and that oppression and tyranny are antithetical to God's plan for man. I am not promoting this view, I am only asking questions that I have wondered about. Let me pose my question another way. If a women is being raped, would God expect her to submit to the act or resist, even to the point of inflicting bodily injury or even death upon the attacker? If she does not resist, how is that any different from consentual sex? Many times rape charges have been throw out solely on the basis that the woman did not resist.

David Huston said:

If a women is being raped, would God expect her to submit to the act or resist, even to the point of inflicting bodily injury or even death upon the attacker?

 

To make it more pointed, let's say that the woman was being raped by a soldier or a police officer and this was considered to be completely legal by the State?  Or, perhaps it was technically illegal, but never enforced.  What's a girl to do?  What if it was your wife or your daughter?  What's a husband/father to do?  Do husbands/fathers not have a responsibility to rise up and protect their families?

 

What if there was an organized program by the State to rape certain women and girls?  Do husbands/fathers not have a responsibility AS A GROUP to rise up and protect their families?

 

These are NOT a contrived or far-fetched scenarios.  This very thing has happened often in history and is probably happening somewhere in the world right now.

 

What if they are not raping your wife or daughter, but they are raping others?  What do you do?

 

German pastor Martin Niemoeller, referring to the horrors of Nazi Germany:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I
did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did
not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was
no one left to speak for me.”

 

Regarding the Revolution.  These people fled to another city.  Then to another country.  Then to another continent.  There was really no where else to go.
 

David Huston said:

So I guess I would have to ask you if the Louisiana Slave and the Auchwitz Jew were defending others or executing capital punishment?

Capital punishment is not done by the State as a mere act of wrath or retirbution. It is done to protect the rest of society from a very dangerous person and to discourage others from engage in the hideous crime of destroying the image of God. Therefore, we could say that both executing capital punishment and protecting life are efforts to defend others from harm. Certainly the Jew would kill the Nazi, not merely to get even with him, but to save the lives of other Jews. Likewise, the slave would kill his overseer, not merely out of wrath (even though that may be a part of it), but to save others from the inevitable homicide. So the $50,000.00 question is: would God frown in such an act or commend the perpetrator?

 

I do seem to remember a passage in the scripture where a guy just up and killed a bad priest.  Just ran him through with a spear or something.  He was not punished and I believe was commended by God.  Could not locate the passage though.  Definitely the exception to the rule.  

 

BUT.  I do not think that it is appropriate in the general case for Individuals to execute capital punishment.  Even in the Law, people did not get put to death without formalities involving multiple people.  Individuals can use lethal force to defend themselves and others from murderous attacks, but they may not kill for vengeance or punishment.

 

Are you looking for justification to kill an abortion provider?   ;)

 

Mike, 

Were you referring to Numbers 25:7-8? This is actually one of my favorite passages (believe it or not), not because a man kills another man, but because of the demonstration of a man rising up in holy defense of righteousness. It was of course a different age, time and place. :) 

Brandon Steinke said:

Mike, 

Were you referring to Numbers 25:7-8? This is actually one of my favorite passages (believe it or not), not because a man kills another man, but because of the demonstration of a man rising up in holy defense of righteousness. It was of course a different age, time and place. :) 

 

Favorite passage?  Eeew.   Yes, I think that's it.  The whole chapter.  I was wrong about the bad priest -- he killed them inside the door of the tabernacle.  

 

BUT.  This man, Phinehas, was told to kill these folks by Moses, who represented the Israelite theocracy.  He was acting as an agent of the State (which was God Himself).

 

And, brother.  God does not change.  His principles and intentions for life do not change.  We can learn from these passages.  If God told someone to do something, then it was a righteous thing to do.  There is not something that was righteous then, but not righteous now.  Righteousness does not change with dispensations -- it is anchored in the nature of God.  The nature of God did not change between Malachi and Matthew.  There has to be some other explanation, such as God -- in a theocracy -- can order these things to be done, but human government cannot.  Something like that.  God does not require two or three witnesses.

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2024   Created by David Huston.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service