Concealed Carry

[Donnie Gillum]

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?

[Brandon Steinke]

Donnie Gillum said:

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 lifelaid 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?

Bro Donnie, I'm afraid most of these scriptures are a bit of a stretch. Priscilla and Aquila, we're not really sure what they did. They may have risked their lives just by simply being bold on Paul's behalf in times of such persecution in which they lived, they may have helped him escape from a situation, it just doesn't really say. As well as Jesus giving someone a 'good, verbal blistering'. That's a far cry from lethal self-defense.

The scripture you mention from John is an interesting one though. It is, obviously an exception not a rule to the life Christ lead, but even in this He was without sin. His 'cleansing' of the temple here reminds me of Phinehas' uprising that we mentioned earlier from Numbers, in that it was done in very pure defense of righteousness. With that I mean, it wasn't of the flesh. I bet if we tried doing something similar we'd have a hard time not letting our flesh get involved. :)

I think a lot of times, in discussions on topics such as this, we are like kids playing with a loaded .45; we think we can handle it but really might not understand just what it is we're playing with.   

[Donnie Gillum]

Good reply, Bro. Brandon.  Hard to be clear in writing.  As for Aquila and Priscilla, I agree.  I was just pointing out the fact that they did so and Paul deeply appreciated someone being at risk for him.  Also, I did not mean to imply Jesus' "blistering" was in self-defense...just that Him doing so, in some of today's definition of Christianity, Jesus Himself would not be a "Christian" in behavior like that.  It can be sometimes surprising just how the Lord would react, and quite often maybe not like we'd like to think.

Come to think of it, there are some similarities between our starting scripture and the incident of Jesus in the temple.  It seems logical that in Matt. 24 the obvious reason the goodman is to be ready is - to keep the thief out and … if he gets in – to get him out!

Jesus told them in the temple that they had made His Father’s House a den of THIEVES!  The thieves had already gotten in!  Would it be too far off to say the Jesus was the Goodman of His Father’s House?  He armed Himself and went to work.  He meant business … and got them out!  Good Man, wouldn't you say? :-)

[Brandon Steinke]

A good Man indeed. :)

Donnie Gillum said:

Good reply, Bro. Brandon.  Hard to be clear in writing.  As for Aquila and Priscilla, I agree.  I was just pointing out the fact that they did so and Paul deeply appreciated someone being at risk for him.  Also, I did not mean to imply Jesus' "blistering" was in self-defense...just that Him doing so, in some of today's definition of Christianity, Jesus Himself would not be a "Christian" in behavior like that.  It can be sometimes surprising just how the Lord would react, and quite often maybe not like we'd like to think.

Come to think of it, there are some similarities between our starting scripture and the incident of Jesus in the temple.  It seems logical that in Matt. 24 the obvious reason the goodman is to be ready is - to keep the thief out and … if he gets in – to get him out!

Jesus told them in the temple that they had made His Father’s House a den of THIEVES!  The thieves had already gotten in!  Would it be too far off to say the Jesus was the Goodman of His Father’s House?  He armed Himself and went to work.  He meant business … and got them out!  Good Man, wouldn't you say? :-)

[Mike R. Prevost]

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.

 

Talked about this briefly in my Thursday morning "Bible study" (more like grumpy old men meeting in a cafe, but still...).  

 

Someone brought up the concept of legal "standing".  That is, does the situation directly affect me?

 

One difference between the the abortion killer and either the Auchwitz Jew or the Louisiana Slave is that the Jew and the Slave were personally in line to be killed also.  They "have a dog in the fight" -- themselves.  This is probably not true in the case of the killer of the abortionist.

 

Perhaps you would have standing if the person having the abortion is your wife, then the abortionist is trying to murder your child.  Or maybe it's your teenage minor daughter, in which case, you are defending both your daughter and your grandchild.

 

But this gets sticky.  Say thieves are breaking into my neighbors house and I see them.  I go over there and try to help defend my neighbor and end up killing one of the thieves.  Am I justified?  [This actually happened, they almost killed my neighbor.  It happened at night and I didn't know about it.  Found out several days later via email.]

 

Pro 26:17 KJV He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

 

I wonder if there is a similar concept as "standing" in God's point of view.

 

[Michael V. Frazier]

Mike R. Prevost said:

But this gets sticky.  Say thieves are breaking into my neighbors house and I see them.  I go over there and try to help defend my neighbor and end up killing one of the thieves.  Am I justified?  [This actually happened, they almost killed my neighbor.  It happened at night and I didn't know about it.  Found out several days later via email.]

Pro 26:17 KJV He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

I can understand Bro. Prevost's point here, but let us also not forget that we are to love our neighbors (literally in this sense) as we love ourselves. The Bible's moral code illustrates our responsibility towards our neighbor. We are indeed "our brother's keeper." Likewise, we are called to live by a higher standard, doing to others what we would have done for ourselves.

I cannot think that any of us would want our neighbor to knowingly allow our homes to be invaded. If the neighbor knows that no one is home, then perhaps he should contact the authorities as quickly as possible. But assuming that he knows the home is occupied, and more so, occupied only by our young, teenage children, then would we not want him to take some form of immediate and direct action? If so, then would not also God want us to do the same for our neighbor?

I am not sure the Prov. 26:17 text would fit this exact example.  While it is wise to avoid other persons' quarrels, does that then mean we would should avoid aiding our neighbor in times of desperate need?  Someone asked the question earlier: If the Samaritan had encountered the Jew being beaten, what would Jesus have expected him to do?

[Mike R. Prevost]

Michael V. Frazier said:

[...]Someone asked the question earlier.  If the Samaritan had encountered the Jew being beaten, what would Jesus have expected him to do?

 
Yes.  I tend to agree with you.  We have an right/responsibility to use lethal force (if necessary) defend ourselves, our families, and our neighbor.

 

But we're really close to painting ourselves into a corner and saying that we have a right/responsibility to to use lethal force (if necessary) to defend the unborn against the kill abortionists.  That severely rubs me the wrong way.  There is some missing principle here.

 

Why don't we right/responsibility to to use lethal force (if necessary) to defend the unborn against the kill abortionists?

 

[Jim Moses]

By Face Book terminology I would be called a "Lurker," one who follows and reads but doesn't post. So with that I thought I would stick my toe in the water and say this has been an great discussion.

My next post will probably fall in the category of a blog, talking about the changes that have taken place at Abundant Life since we became an elder led assembly in April of 2011.

Again, I really enjoy this type of discussion, "Preach (discuss) the truth in love.

Blessings.

 

 

[Michael V. Frazier]

I have been trying to keep up with the conversation, so I am aware of the abortion discussion.  If pressed, I would have to answer that current cultural trends cause us to question ourselves in this particular situation. 

At this point in the debate, the general culture has not yet accepted the idea that the unborn are viable human beings.  It is true some philosophers will agree that the fetus is indeed a human being, but they then turn that idea on its head by arguing over the difference between actuality and potentiality, i.e., while the fetus bears human DNA, it only has the potential of becoming a full human being. I'll leave that debate for another time.

Until, therefore, society begins to bear the understanding that the unborn are viable (not just potential), there will always be this fine line that forces us to hesitate when it comes to considering the idea of lethal force to defend the unborn. 

My own opinion is simply this.  Is the killing of one abortionist truly going to change anything in the greater perspective?  Not at all.  Only when abortion is viewed as a moral evil will change take place.  Instead of resorting to lethal force in defending the unborn, Christians and others are wiser to arm themselves with knowledge and rhetoric rather than a weapon.  As the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword, especially in this specific case.  More voice, greater debate, and wider dispersion of Apostolic apologists are needed to spread the message that can change a society.  The truth of Christianity changed the world.  It can change our country if we are really serious about it.

As Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."  In the abortion debate, I believe this particular wisdom is the best practice for the greater effect.

[Brian & Michelle Schrift]

Sorry I am jumping in late in the game.  I read most of the posts and find the dialogue very interesting and certainly worthy of giving this serious consideration.  With that being said, I am firm believer in  not only the right, but the responsibility, that we as men are to protect and defend our homes and families.  I am a father of two daughters, one being an unmarried adult still at home and the other 10 years old. I believe that we must pray for the protection of our homes and families. If I missed someone else quoting Ecclesiastes 3, my apologies....however, there is indeed a time to kill, and I believe that God was not just referring to times of War.  There is a season for everything.  As, Brandon stated earlier, I too have my concealed permit, however, I am not saying that I carry all the time.  This permit also allows me to carry the weapon in my vehicle if I so choose to, for self defense reasons.  Case in point, yesterday, someone that one of my family members knows, shot another man in a parking lot while this man was getting out of his vehicle.  He was injured however, not critically.  He walked over to a bank and they called 911.  The gunman got back into his car and fled.  Now, if I am in my car, someone starts walking up to it with a 12 gauge (which the gunman did in this case), I am pretty sure I am now reaching into my glove compartment.  What if the victim was me and I had my wife and kids in the car...All I am saying is this stuff is real and it happens....more and more...We as Christian men not only have to fight for the Gospel, we have to fight for our families, spiritually, and unfortunately in this perverse generation, physically, when it is necessary.

Everything Has Its Time

 ¹ To everything there is a season,
A time for every purpose under heaven:

 ² A time to be born,
   And a time to die;
A time to plant,
   And a time to pluck what is planted;
³ A time to kill,
   And a time to heal;
A time to break down,
   And a time to build up;
⁴ A time to weep,
   And a time to laugh;
A time to mourn,
   And a time to dance;
⁵ A time to cast away stones,
   And a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace,
   And a time to refrain from embracing;
⁶ A time to gain,
   And a time to lose;
A time to keep,
   And a time to throw away;
⁷ A time to tear,
   And a time to sew;
A time to keep silence,
   And a time to speak;
⁸ A time to love,
   And a time to hate;
A time of war,
   And a time of peace.

[Michael V. Frazier]

I need to redact a portion of my last comment (regarding abortion) in the improper usage of viable.  I should have simply used the word actual, so please read it as such.

That said, the issue of actuality should be the defining point without any regard to potentially or viability.

Humbly...

[Brandon Steinke]

Michael V. Frazier said:

My own opinion is simply this.  Is the killing of one abortionist truly going to change anything in the greater perspective?  Not at all.  Only when abortion is viewed as a moral evil will change take place.  Instead of resorting to lethal force in defending the unborn, Christians and others are wiser to arm themselves with knowledge and rhetoric rather than a weapon.  As the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword, especially in this specific case.  More voice, greater debate, and wider dispersion of Apostolic apologists are needed to spread the message that can change a society.  The truth of Christianity changed the world.  It can change our country if we are really serious about it.

As Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."  In the abortion debate, I believe this particular wisdom is the best practice for the greater effect.

Bro Mike, 

I like the way you've put this. I believe this is pretty closely related to what I have been trying to say all along. Where does the Gospel tell us to try to right the wrongs and injustices of the world or society? We are to be lights set on a hill, beacons of hope and Truth, not flame-throwers of justice. :) Do we forget that God has set forth His plan to fix everything and it doesn't look anything like ours. Is our viewpoint temporal or eternal? Do we have the mind of men or the mind of Christ? That's why I commented on the Thomas Jefferson quotes. Sure that stuff sounds good and stirs us, but stirs us in what? The flesh or the spirit? And if spirit, what kind of spirit? Rocky Balboa can stir us up to fight and feel good about it, but does that make it right? (Don't even try to deny you've ever gotten an adrenaline rush from watching Rocky!) :)

And I'm glad you brought up Matthew 10:16 as well,

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

It goes on to say:

17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; 18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. (emphasis mine)

Here He gives us a glimpse of the difference between our ways and His. We think our lives are most valuable if we live to fight another day, it's been ingrained within us by Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, and Hollywood and all the rest. But he tells us that our lives will be used as a testimony against them! And then it says:

19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

This verse fits perfectly with the one before it. He is obviously showing/teaching us that it is His will and intention that we be in these situations, not that we fight to defend ourselves. And sure you could argue that this verse is not in direct reference to death or the giving of our lives, but surely the Lord was aware that some of these situations would lead to death. And He also surely understood what Paul said that to die is gain! 

Actually the next verse clears this up:

21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall
rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

And because I know it might be questioned, I will say that I do not believe the next verse, 22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved, is a reference to defending yourself and striving to prolong your days, but rather that your faith would endure through these afore referenced times of hardship and persecutions unto the end of your appointed days.

As I mentioned a few posts ago, verse 23 does go onto to mention fleeing:

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

But it doesn't mention fighting.

And verses 28-33:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. 32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

It seems clear to me that he is emphasizing again the importance of keeping your faith, not defending your life. This is another one of those scriptures that secular religiosity likes to misuse, (use a soft sissy voice when you read this) "All you have to do is confess Him and He will confess you before the Father..." Blah, blah, blah. Clearly since he was in the midst of exhorting them to stand strong in the face of on coming persecution, He was therefore referencing these types of situations. To paraphrase, He is saying, "When the persecutions come, and they will come, don't worry about your life, don't worry about your body, worry about one thing: your faith, and I'll take care of the rest because I know you better than you know yourself! And if you think your life has value to yourself, you don't even have a clue how much value it has to me! Your life (eternal, not carnal) is so valuable to Me that I went to the cross for it! I took the shame for it! Now hold fast! You're coming home!"

And yes, I know that the next verse says, "think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household", but in the context he has used of son against father and mother against daughter, I think it is clear that the sword He was referencing was not a physical sword but rather spiritual.

Now I know this doesn't necessarily apply to all that we have discussed but that is the problem with the concoction of topics that we have mixed in this forum. Does this apply to a burglar breaking into your house and attacking your family? Would that fall under 'persecution', probably not although it very well could be spiritual persecution. The idiot might not accurately understand why he's attacking you, but the spirit controlling him sure does! Would it be wrong for us to defend ourselves or our loved ones? I don't think it would necessarily be wrong or always wrong, but in light of many scriptures I don't think we can conclusively say that it would be right or always right either. But to fight and war and kill for justice, liberty, freedom... or to attack those (such as abortionists) that we deem wicked, unrighteous, and unjust... I can't see it in the Jesus's teachings. Sure we must look at the whole of scripture, Old Testament included, but would we use it to nullify the teachings or life of our Savior? Do we pull out some Old Testament trump card?

-Brandon

[Mike R. Prevost]

Brandon Steinke said:

[... lots of stuff ...]

 

You need to respond to Bro Houston's rape scenarios, brother.  I assume that you aren't a total pacifist.