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

What would be the difference in a Jew killing a Nazi executioner to stop the ongoing murder and someone stepping into an abortion clinic and killing a "doctor" to stop the ongoing murder? You stated, "Individuals can use lethal force to defend themselves and others from murderous attacks, but they may not kill for vengeance or punishment." Wouldn't this be an individual using lethal force to defend another from murderous attack? BTW, I am wondering want others think about the woman being raped. Do the teachings of Jesus ("Do not resist an evil person; love your enemies.") mean that she must submit to it. 

Bro. Dave, maybe this will be of some help:

Deu 22:23-27

(23)  If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;(24)  Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

(25)  But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:(26)  But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:(27)  For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

This is OT of course, but the woman is expected to cry out for help.  Why is she required to cry if it is not expected of the one who hears to respond with help?  But woe if there is none to save her! 

 

God change? Of course not. But the way God has dealt with men has changed and will change again. These would be the dispensations. From one angle you are right, but from another... 

During Old Testament times it was imputed to a man for righteousness if he devoutly kept the law and various sacrifices, and that was it. That was his one shot at hope. Flat out obedience.

But that all changed when Christ came, and Jesus' life and teachings made that clear. I know we've been here before in this discussion but Jesus redefined the definition of righteousness to a man. Don't kill vs. don't hate. Don't commit adultery vs. don't lust after. Give ten percent vs. sell all that you have. Eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek. Kill your enemies vs. pray for your enemies.

So has God's righteousness changed? No. He changes not. But has God's dealings with and expectations of a man changed? Absolutely. They've been stepped up. And each time they've been stepped up, He has placed a higher calling and has sought to draw men further and further out of the ways of this world and it's dealings. There are ways of man and there are ways of God. God has suffered much because He is, "not willing that any should perish." What's our take? Make others perish so that we don't have to suffer.

This exact issue is one of the reasons the Israelites rejected Christ. They wanted a David of all Davids. And they  thought, through misunderstanding prophecy, that they were going to get a David, a King, that is, that would come and once again lead the charge in forceful deliverance from the enemy captors and oppressors. A physically strong King, a violently powerful King, the size of Saul, the courage of David, and the wisdom of Solomon all wrapped into one. But what did they get? They got Jesus, in all of his glorious humility and meekness teaching us and showing us that the greatest power of all is not in the raising of a sword or the rising of a fist, but rather in brokenness, peacefulness, and mercy. Saying that blessed are you when you are persecuted and reviled for so reviled and persecuted the prophets before you! Which of the prophets fought back in self-defense? 

This reminds me of a discussion we had on divorce the other night. Is it God's will? (Divorce that is.) Will it send you to hell because it is bigger than other sins? I think we would agree not. God doesn't like it. It's sin. But so is a whole host of other things that we do regularly. Is it a sin to shoot in self-defense? Is it wrong to execute capital punishment? I don't know for sure. But even if it is, what is it? It's a sin. And we would be called to repent just like we are for a whole host of other things. All I know is that if your pulling the trigger, you'd better be ready to answer for it.

Otherwise I agree with you. I preached a message a while back on the Sovereignty of God and I love the concept of it. Can He order killing. Absolutely. In His ultimate righteousness He has and He will. But does man have this same sovereignty? Absolutely not. It's our job to do what we're told, even if it rubs the wrong way or we don't understand it.

I appreciate the discussion Bro.

I'll tell you what. This discussion is giving me a much greater appreciation of Old Testament Law and scriptures. Thanks again to each of you for participating.

-Brandon 

David Huston said:

What would be the difference in a Jew killing a Nazi executioner to stop the ongoing murder and someone stepping into an abortion clinic and killing a "doctor" to stop the ongoing murder? You stated, "Individuals can use lethal force to defend themselves and others from murderous attacks, but they may not kill for vengeance or punishment." Wouldn't this be an individual using lethal force to defend another from murderous attack? BTW, I am wondering want others think about the woman being raped. Do the teachings of Jesus ("Do not resist an evil person; love your enemies.") mean that she must submit to it. 

 
Well, if you just walked into the abortionists office and shot him while he was sitting there in his high back chair, then you have performed a premeditated execution.

 

If you go into the operating room and try to physically restrain him from killing someone's baby, and end up killing him accidentally, that's different.  

 

I suppose that by just killing him in his office, that you might be preventing him from performing more abortions (and, thereby, "protecting" future victims from his attacks), but that adds a level of indirection to the scenario.

 

It's true, the end result is the same -- the abortionist is dead.

 

So, I guess the question now is, if it's OK to use lethal force to defend your self and others against murderous attacks, then why is it wrong to use lethal force to defend the unborn from the murderous attacks of the abortionist?

 

My, I hope not many folks read this!

 
[DISCLAIMER:  Mike R. Prevost is not in any way advocating for the killing of abortionists, or any one else.]

 

Donnie Gillum said:

This is OT of course, but the woman is expected to cry out for help.  Why is she required to cry if it is not expected of the one who hears to respond with help?  But woe if there is none to save her! 

I don't think she is required to cry out in the field.  It's that it cannot be proven that she didn't, so it is assumed that she did.  There are no witnesses to hear her and no one can be killed without witnesses.  Of course, God knows if she cried out or not, but these are instructions given to man to govern by.  Two different spheres.


If during the inquiry and/or trial it was discovered that there acutally had been a man out of sight nearby, but because she didn't cry out, he didn't know anything about it and therefore did not/could not come to her rescue.  It might not be "required" so to speak, but, for her safety during the event, and/or during a trial it "required". :-)

Clearly the killer of the abortionist would be considered guilty of murder in the eyes of the State, but would He in the eyes of God? It seems to me that it is just as clear that even though the abortionist is not considered guilty of murder in the eyes of the State, he definitely is in the eyes of God. This discussion is not about advocasy; it's about the difference between what God considers a crime and what the State considers a crime. The only reason we are even discussing this is because the laws of the State are in so many ways out of harmony with the laws of God. This does not bode well for our future as a nation.

Donnie Gillum said:

If during the inquiry and/or trial it was discovered that there acutally had been a man out of sight nearby, but because she didn't cry out, he didn't know anything about it and therefore did not/could not come to her rescue.  It might not be "required" so to speak, but, for her safety during the event, and/or during a trial it "required". :-)

 
Yes.  If I were her, I would scream!  

 

I think God gave women a scream to tell the men folk to come and defend them.

 

I recently defended my wife against a mouse.  Outsmarted the little beast with a sticky trap and then stomped it with my bare foot.  You should have seen the teeth and claws on that thing!  It could swallow a full grown woman in one gulp!




Bro. Dave, I see what you're driving at now. Hmmm...

Bro. Prevost, I think you're right on the scream. :-)

 

 

Maybe the proper “Christian” response is to throw oneself in harm’s way to protect another.  Such as in this NT example:

(3)  Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

(4)  Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. (Rom 16:3-4)

Notice the thankfulness of the great apostle for their willingness to sacrifice in his favor.

Sometimes the actions of our Lord Jesus can be very surprising and “un-Christ like” i.e. He gave a steaming hot, good verbal blistering to the local religious hypocrites … even resorted to some very degrading name-calling at times.  Yet, I cannot help but wonder about the behavior of our Lord upon this one occasion, consider:

(13)  And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

(14)  And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

(15)  And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

(16)  And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. (Joh 2:13-16)

No doubt about it here, Jesus was “armed”!

Question:  What if these filthy-lucre profiteers had set their tables upright and had flat-out refused to leave?

David Huston said:

Clearly the killer of the abortionist would be considered guilty of murder in the eyes of the State, but would He in the eyes of God? It seems to me that it is just as clear that even though the abortionist is not considered guilty of murder in the eyes of the State, he definitely is in the eyes of God. This discussion is not about advocasy; it's about the difference between what God considers a crime and what the State considers a crime. The only reason we are even discussing this is because the laws of the State are in so many ways out of harmony with the laws of God. This does not bode well for our future as a nation.

I think we're long past 'not boding well'. :) I think we're probably more into the 'deep doo doo' stage. :)

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2024   Created by David Huston.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service