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

Sounds pretty good to me Mike, and I especially appreciate the note:

Note that I have not directly said (or at least, I didn't intend to) that the individual is justified in killing attacker(s) when protecting themselves, or others.  I have said that the Individual is justified in using lethal force, which can possibly (or even probably) kill the attacker(s).  The direct objective of constructive violence is to stop the attacker, not necessarily to kill him.  Whether the attacker actually dies or not is immaterial -- the lethal force was justified.  

If I may make one comment without *officially* stepping back into the conversation (OK, I confess, it's really hard to stay out of it.) One of the reasons I feel this note and clarification is so important, is that I think too often in these types of discussions it turns into 'good guy vs bad guy', and to a degree it is 'good guy vs bad guy', but I think that often times, in the midst of this, we forget the God is the Lord and giver of life, ALL life. And that he died on the cross for ALL. Not just the 'good guys'. And that the Bible tells us that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, not just the 'bad guys' and that there is none righteous, no not even one. And the verse that keeps coming to mind is Genesis 4:10, "And He said, 'What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.'"

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not adding this to change anything regarding what we have previously discussed or concluded, just simply commenting to perhaps enhance a bit. My point is simply to solidify the importance of the note on avoiding the 'intention of killing', with the reason being that A) we are all sinners, bad guys and good guys alike, B) we were all created in His image, good guys and bad guys alike, and C) God sustains the breath and heartbeat of all, good guys and bad guys alike. He knows the hair on every head and cares for each more than He cares for any other aspect of creation. And the attacker, for many essential purposes, is no different than we once were, self-centered and lost in sin. And because God is the life-giver and life-sustainer, He is FULLY aware of every time a life is lost and a heartbeat stops, for the 'blood crieth' out unto Him. 


Again, I didn't add that to change anything, but just perhaps to add a qualifying appreciation for all life. I guess what it would probably boil down to is a question (and this could open a whole 'nother can-o-worms, but that's not my intention): Is our life more valuable than theirs? Or is one life more valuable than another? And again, when considering this, don't consider it or contemplate it in opposition to any thing that we have said, but rather in application to what we've stated. I don't think it changes anything, just enhances I believe. 

As a side note, do you believe that is a proper use and implication of Genesis 4:10 that all blood cries out to Him, or did Abel's blood cry out because of his righteousness?

-Brandon

The word "blood" is actually in the plural form in the orginal (bloods). Commentators suggest that this indicates that Cain not only killed Abel, but he also, in effect, killed all of the potential offspring that could have come from Abel's loins. When you think about it this way, it shows just how tragic the unnecessary death of any one individaul is. Who knows what magnificent people never got an oppotunity to live and demonstrate their greatness because it was "inconvenient" for their mothers. Who knows what music John Lennon may have produced if he hadn't been gunned down on the streets of Ney York. Who knows what great places John Kennedy might have led this country if he hadn't been gunned down in Dallas. Yes, murder is a horrible evil and has deprived the world of indeteminable possibilities. 

Yes, I hadn't thought of it that way. Although a while back I did preach a similarily minded message on the importance of a single solitary life. Thanks.

Mike, any thoughts on my post? What time is it in Alabama? You still sleeping? Ha ha. :)


Brandon Steinke said:

Mike, any thoughts on my post? What time is it in Alabama? You still sleeping? Ha ha. :)

 

Two things.  First, although your intent is not to kill the attacker, but to stop him, neither is your intention to NOT kill your attacker.  You are stopping him in the safest way you can -- safest to YOU that is.

 

Second, you are right -- the only reason that we are having this discussion is because ALL human life is created in the image of God and is to be greatly respected.  It would be a horrible thing to kill someone.  However, it would be much less horrible than for the attacker to kill someone else, though.  Also, to passively sit back and let someone kill you seems like it would be comparable to suicide.  [Note, I'm not talking about martyrdom, or such like.  I'm talking about burglars, rapists and street thugs.]

 

Amen.

One of my constant concerns, not just in this discussion but day-to-day, and the reason I stress some of these issues, is that we would constantly check our own hearts and spirits and motives, because it is sooooo easy for our carnality to creep back into our thinking sometimes without our realizing it, until, or unless we are able to stop, or slow down, and back up, and take an objective look at what we are saying/thinking. I believe this may be especially true when involved in debates/discussions such as these. We become so concerned with having the 'upper hand' or defending our position that we hunker down, and before you know it we can't see anything objectively any longer fore the piles of dirt all around us where we have dug ourselves in our blocking our view and cutting us off. 

It seems like so often we are afraid to confess our carnality. We wouldn't want anyone to think we're not 'spiritual'. But I figure, if Paul wasn't afraid and was man enough to confess it, then why shouldn't I. "That which I want to do, I don't...etc" "Oh wretched man that I am." And so forth. We'll never overcome it if we can't admit we've got it. Classic denial. Prideful bondage.

A sinner saved by grace,

Brandon 

Well said, Brandon.  I might add that sifting through our carnality to grasp spiritual understanding is actually the fundamental purpose of this dialogue we've particapated in.  It is indeed a "dark glass" we are looking through. :-)

 Again, well stated.

Do some people have more value than others? I believe the Bible teaches that they do. Isaiah 40:17 says, "All nations before Him are as nothing, and they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless." Apparently when God totals up the net value of all mankind, not only is it worthless but it is a liability--less than nothing. Perhaps this is why He could wipe out the whole of mankind (minus 8 people) without being overcome with grief. The glory of the gospel is that in spite of our utter worthlessness, God came into the world and shed His blood for us, thereby attributing worth to us. He paid the ultimate price, not because of our value but because of His love.

Since the value of anything is determined by the price someone paid for it, those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb have worth beyond comprehension. The rest of mankind still has no worth at all, which is why God won’t grieve for a moment when they are cast into Gehenna (which you may recall was the ever-burning garbage dump outside Jerusalem). We should keep in mind that the reason murder was proscribed in Genesis 9 was not because man had value, but because man was made in the image of God.

David Huston said:

Do some people have more value than others? I believe the Bible teaches that they do. Isaiah 40:17 says, "All nations before Him are as nothing, and they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless." Apparently when God totals up the net value of all mankind, not only is it worthless but it is a liability--less than nothing. Perhaps this is why He could wipe out the whole of mankind (minus 8 people) without being overcome with grief. The glory of the gospel is that in spite of our utter worthlessness, God came into the world and shed His blood for us, thereby attributing worth to us. He paid the ultimate price, not because of our value but because of His love.

I agree with the above paragraph and the interpretation of Isaiah 40:17, but question what is said in the next paragraph:

Since the value of anything is determined by the price someone paid for it, those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb have worth beyond comprehension. The rest of mankind still has no worth at all, which is why God won’t grieve for a moment when they are cast into Gehenna (which you may recall was the ever-burning garbage dump outside Jerusalem). 

If 'the 'value of something is determined by the price someone paid for it', which is agreeable, but 'those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb have worth beyond comprehension', then how do we explain Romans 5:8, "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." If, to Him, the 'rest of mankind still has no value at all', then who did He die for? For the Jews only? When He paid the price for us, and thereby attached to us a great value, we were still part of what you call the 'rest of mankind'. Or what about Luke 15:7, "Thus, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one [especially] wicked person who repents ( changes his mind, abhorring his errors and misdeeds, and determines to enter upon a better course of life) than over ninety- nine righteous persons who have no need of repentance." It sounds to me like there is tremendous value placed upon the 'rest of mankind', that heaven would be more excited over one of them than one of us.

I can see the thinking, as we are grafted in, and have become children, sons, heirs, that we would be of tremendous value to our Heavenly Father, but scripturally I'm not sure I see, beyond the Old Testament, where it would imply that the 'rest of mankind' has no value. 

In addition, 2 Peter 3:9 says, " The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us- ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Why would He 'suffer long' for something that has no value to Him? Why did He even wait for us? Why didn't He just get it over with a long time ago?

We should keep in mind that the reason murder was proscribed in Genesis 9 was not because man had value, but because man was made in the image of God.

How can we say that man has no value but the image of God does, if in the image of God man was created? I can understand what you're getting at to a degree, but fail to see how you can separate the two. If man was created in the image of God, then what else is he? Is he anything else outside of this? Psalm 8:4, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" What is man? God's special creation, created in His image and ascribed great value. Which men? All men. 


-Brandon



Brandon Steinke said:

If, to Him, the 'rest of mankind still has no value at all', then who did He die for?


Herein we get involved in the elect vs. universal debate. 

Brandon Steinke said:

If 'the 'value of something is determined by the price someone paid for it', which is agreeable, but 'those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb have worth beyond comprehension', then how do we explain Romans 5:8, "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." If, to Him, the 'rest of mankind still has no value at all', then who did He die for? 

 

I have a problem with all non-Christians being called valueless.  Perhaps the better scripture to use is

 

1Jn 2:1-2 KJV My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: {2} And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

I'm not sure that I want to lend credence to the idea that something's worth is determined exclusively by what's paid for it, but in the case of Christ, the price that was paid was paid for the whole world.  I don't believe in the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

 

Neither do I believe in the doctrines of Original Sin, or that man is born with a Sinful Nature.  Given this, I think man, though born out of fellowship with God and thus destined to eventually sin, is born with great value -- as much value as Cain or Able, or Enoch, or Moses, David, or Elijah was born with.

 
This is not really off topic.  If a man is intrinsically valueless, this sure would serve to ease the conscience of someone like Scott Roeder.  Listen to THIS interview with Scott Roeder  (at least the 1 minute segment from 1:26-2:26) .  He uses the EXACT same arguments we are using here to justify killing abortionist George Tiller.

 

QUESTION: What was incorrect about Roeder's arguments?
 

Here is a defense of Roeder from A POST on the Army of God website (where Roeder is a hero):

 

"Here is where Mr. Cunningham’s case goes bad. He presumes Mr. Roeder exacted vengeance on George Tiller for the 60,000 babies he has killed. I do not believe vengeance was Mr. Roeder’s primary motive. I believe Mr. Roeder killed George Tiller to prevent him from killing again. Tiller was killed on a Sunday, Monday he was scheduled to kill. Mr. Roeder was acting defensively for Monday’s children. Mr. Roeder did not “murder” George Tiller; Mr. Roeder committed “justifiable homicide.” He was acting in defense of others.

 

If George Tiller was retired from his grizzly practice than Mr. Roeder would have murdered George Tiller.  An individual has no authority to exact vengeance. Vengeance is the sole god-given jurisdiction of civil government. Even when civil government is remiss in administering justice, a citizen has no right to carry out vengeance. Vengeance must be left to God (Romans 12:19 & 13:4).

 

Defensive action might be carried out by anyone. All of us are duty bound to protect the weak, the innocent, and the helpless. It is our Christian duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, and to rescue those who are unjustly being led to the slaughter (Matthew 25:31-46; Proverbs 24:9-10).

 

George Tiller was an active serial killer, operating under a color of law. He killed, and he was going to kill again. If we were in a position to stop the killing of a classroom of children and we were too fearful or indifferent to act, we should be blamed along with the assassin for the children’s deaths. It matters not that it is “legal.” It matters not that the parents hired the assassin; it makes no difference if the school and government officials condone their deaths. If abortion is murder we should act as it were murder!"   [emphasis mine]

 

Did this guy say anything that was untrue?  Is there some principle that he has left out that makes his argument untrue?

 

Here is an attachment by Larry Pratt, Executive Vice-President of Gun Owners Foundation.  Many of its sentiments have been expressed on this forum, with a few points etc. that have not (that I can recall).

Attachments:

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2024   Created by David Huston.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service