Sonya,

Great post. Your husband is very fortunate to be married to such a smart woman. What a Proverbs 31 gal!

Sonya asked me what I thought of the post before she sent it. Initially I was hesitant to have her throw pearls before swine but then realized how well put this was. I completely agree with Traci that it perfectly sums up the issue.

Let me just state this as clearly as I can. I believe the attitude about "...I'll just trust God..." when we have the means within us to stop the harm of another human being is not only not Reformed, it is sub-Christian. In the Epistles, Paul calls men that don't provide for their familes worse than pagans. He says that such men deny the faith. I believe, emphatically, that a man who will not fight to protect the innocent or to preserve life when he has the opportunity is, likewise, worse than a pagan.

In fact, I believe it is Luther that wisely observed that each of the Commandments not only forbids the thing it prohibits but requires the very opposite to be upheld and performed. This is why the whole Law can be summed up in loving God and loving our neighbor. We are not only prohibited from committing murder but we are commanded positively to uphold life, to cherish it. We are not only commanded to not steal but we are commanded positively to respect another man's property. The prohibition implies the obvious that the motivation for the prohibition is that we are supposed to be about its opposite. Thus, I believe that the love of Christ is not in a man that has not the desire to spend himself on the protection of the innocent.

I don't even have to think about what I would do if a man came into my home. He would have to get over my dead body to get at my wife or children. That's what men do! All pious sounding stuff about God's will is so contrary to the REVEALED will of God about our responsibilities to our families and to our neighbors that I have absolutely no patience for a man that claims Christ to believe he has the first clue about what God's will is. Want to know what God's will is? Read your Bible!

Man, this hit a nerve but I am sick and tired of laziness, apathy, and cowardice in men being dressed up in pseudo-pious talk about "...trusting God's will." I don't have a problem with the discussion about Just Wars and the like but the man who is a complete pacifist as the Anabaptists (i.e. Amish and Mennonites) or JW's are, is worthy of derision. I don't care what he thinks his conscience tells him. He is out of accord with the Word of God.

-BREAK-

Now to brag on Sonya a bit.

This incident occurred right after I met Sonya. She's 6 years younger than me and I met her over her Christmas break in Monterey and we were mutually smitten. I was very thankful God preserved her and she is very strong emotionally so it didn't shatter her. Shortly thereafter, she started taking some self-defense courses. It's a self-defense course called RAD - Rape Aggression Defense. I prefer to call it "gouge the eyes and kick his groin with all your strength" as that is how all the moves end when I watched it on video. Sonya was really good at it. She is 5'9" and very strong.

We were married about 1.5 years later. When we moved to VA, Sonya went to work at a Sexualt Assault Victim Advocacy Service (SAVAS). She mentioned the program as something they could start teaching to some women so she and a few others drove to the training center in VA and received the training. They train both men and women instructors.

One of the graduating exercises is that the instructor has to take on assailants and fight them off. The assailants are in "Michelin Man" suits because the moves described above would nigh kill a man if they were not. The RAD training center was really impressed with Sonya. Normally they only put one or two assailants on the female trainers due to their strength. Unbeknownst to Sonya (except after when they told her), they knew that wouldn't be enough and had 4-5 attacking her at once. She was a groin-kicking phenom! I was so proud of her!

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

__________________
Traci
Lynnwood OPC
Psalm 52:8-9
8 But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever.
9 I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done it: and I will wait on thy name; for it is good before thy saints.

Thank you for the kind words! I did hesitate to share it, but thought some fruit could come of it.

It has been 13 years since the experience. In case any wonder about the outcome, he turned himself in, the case went to court and he pleaded guilty to kidnapping and a weapons violation. I think he was sentenced to 5-6 years and served maybe 2-3 years. I don't know what happened to him after that.

On a side note, a few weeks before the incident happened I shared the Gospel with him and he seemed genuinely interested. I don't know how real that was. Only God does. For his sake, I hope some seeds were planted even then and that his incarceration aided in bring him closer to the Lord. I pray for his salvation periodically.

On another note...
I love you very much, Rich!

I am honored and blessed to have such a loving encouraging husband...a little embarassed about such praise, but honored and blessed nonetheless.

__________________
http://leino.smugmug.com/photos/186295339-M.gif

Excuse me Ma'am but there will be no Public Displays of Affection (PDA) on this board. Please save all that mushy stuff for home.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Y'all two knock it off. You would think you were married or something.

__________________
Ryan
1689 London Baptist Confession

I am not settled in my views on this subject. I have long lived in the realm that you come from...somebody tries to touch my family or anyone close to me and I wouldn't think twice about beating the bloody pulp out of 'em. And I think that I am still at the point (whether it's right or wrong) that I would do that, because it's natural to me and I can't imagine doing otherwise.

However, with study that I have done on this subject, and the deep wrestlings I have gone through in my heart in thinking about it and the Bible's teaching, here are a couple of things I would want to add regarding your post.

You seem to suggest that all who take a pacifist position do so out of ignorance of the Bible or ignoring what it DIRECTLY teaches. I do not think that can be supported. The few people that I know who have come to that position have only come to it after deep wrestling with the Scriptures, fighting against their own natural inclinations. They have not come to it easily. Certainly not in ignorance of the Bible's teaching. Perhaps their understanding of Scripture is lacking, perhaps not. And my own journey towards sympathy with a more pacifist understanding of Scripture has been difficult. And it is not finished, and I do not know where it will lead me.

You also seem to suggest that all who take a pacifist position do so purely because they have succombed to "laziness, apathy, and cowardice." I would humbly suggest that such a statement is false. Perhaps it is in some. I do not doubt it. But those that I know who are going towards a more pacifist position do so ONLY from a commitment to what they believe Jesus wants from them. Further, you seem to suggest that pacifists do not believe in doing anything when evil threatens them and theirs. That is not the case. They are opposed to taking violent measures. David Augsburger says in "Dissident Discipleship" something to the effect of that he is willing to die for his family but not kill for them. Again, I am not there yet, but I can understand why he is at that point. And I don't think it's because he is a coward. If someone did threaten his family, I am sure he would not just stand there and let them do whatever, but he would attempt everything outside of violence. Which may to you seem like nothing, but he believes he would be following the teachings of Jesus.

I know that many would probably be guilty of what you charge. But that is not always the case. There are some faithful, godly, manly, courageous men who yet would not use violence for any reason in accordance with their understanding of Scripture.

__________________
Joel S.
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (Orlando, FL)
M.Div. Student, RTS Orlando, Oviedo, FL

Yes. It can.
I'm not saying people haven't studied the Scriptures who come to that conclusion. I'm saying that those who come to that conclusion are, yet, IGNORANT of the Scriptures true teaching on the subject.

A Jehovah's Witness believes he is following the teachings of Jesus. A Mormon believes he is following the teachings of Jesus. On a verse by verse study of the Scriptures there are men who far outstrip any of us here on the Puritanboard that hold to damnable heresies. Pacifism may not be damnable but it is, yet, a sub-Christian view of our resposiblities before God. Also, I still maintain that those who piously maintain something contrary to the Word are, in fact, impious. It matters not in the least to me that they are sincere in this belief or that they would die for this aberrant belief. It is impious. Full stop.

What I would take out of the above statement is godly, manly, and courageous. You can keep faithful above as long as you don't try to state that they are being faithful to the Scriptures. They can be faithful to their aberrant views but they are not being faithful to Christ. My Confessional view does not permit me to sacrifice meaning for the sake of post-Modernism. As for the words godly, manly, and courageous, I don't allow that such man are any of those. They are fools.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Well, and they would say the same thing of you. I want to be very careful, but I shudder to make such claims. Not that I have no beliefs. I do have convictions. I believe I am correct in my understanding of many theological issues. But I am very open to the possibility that I might be mistaken. And I hope that my understanding improves. Are Christians no longer allowed to disagree on theological issues?

Again, I don't disagree in principle. Some are wrong about their theological positions. Others are right. But I would not agree that this is a clear teaching of Scripture. Therefore, some allowance should be made for differences.

Wow...that is all I can say to that. So someone who is a pacifist, and says to someone who is about to kill his child, "Take me instead, kill me" is not godly, manly, or courageous? Simply because he believes Jesus does not condone killing makes him a spineless coward? Somehow I don't think that Christian charity allows for calling them fools. Surely to be a martyr takes courage. But because he won't be violent himself he's a fool and a coward? How can you back that up?

__________________
Joel S.
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (Orlando, FL)
M.Div. Student, RTS Orlando, Oviedo, FL

This is actually a well-documented psychological occurrence known as the "bystander effect". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

__________________
Timotheus, servant of the Lord
[(Timothy Merkel - Ellicott City, MD - Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church)]
Ye who are the warriors of God
And of the law of God
Hope in God, believe in God,
And in God you shall ever triumph

They're entitle to disagree with the Truth but not have the Truth. I'm sorry Joel but you sound like Oprah Winfrey with your appel to "different understandings". There are plenty of boards where people treat the Scriptures like "...what does that mean to you..." but this isn't one of them. We are a Confessional board here. What Church upholds pacifism that you can point to?

It is not at all unclear.

On the basis of the Scriptural principle that life is to be defended even as it is commanded not to be taken violently. Men who hate the things that God loves and love the things that God hates need to repent when they are confronted with these principles. Pacifists stand apart from every decent Confession of the Church and arrogate to themselves interpretive authority and then twist the Scriptures on this point. Roman Catholics, on the basis of natural theology, call the death penalty and evil punishment and, by doing so, impugn the character of an immutable God. It's in the habit of cults and sects to do things to the Word of God and I'll never be a party to being a soothing affirmer to wicked men.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

So we can never have different understandings about anything? So because I believe in infant baptism not credobaptism (only) does that mean I should just say everyone who doesn't agree with me (and of course therefore Scripture--without any humility that my fallible understanding may be limited) is foolish? I should just tell that they are ignorant of Scripture's teaching, are foolish, are impious and should correct their silly ways? Wow. I'm just not prepared to be that dogmatic. Don't get me wrong. There are some things I'll die for. There are some things I don't think we can have a "different understanding" of. Salvation is by faith alone e.g. But to all the specifics of the Confession? No, not willing to say that. And I'm not willing to say that everyone who disagrees with the confession is a fool. I might think they are wrong, and will discuss the issues with them and explain why I believe I am right. But to just say, "You're ignorant and foolish"? Somehow I don't think that is right. I hold ot the confession, but doesn't mean that I am committed to all the points to the point of death. And I would take exception at some points.

To you.

Where is that principle? "even as it is commanded not to be taken violently." Is that not what one would be doing? Again, I'm not committed to the pacifist position, but I do see where they are coming from. I have just read through much of the literature of the early church, and they were largely pacifist.

I think I'm done with this discussion. All you are saying is, "I'm right. They're wrong and you're wrong and that's all there is to it.

That's just not where I am at. I find Scripture encouraging us to a deep humility. Not an arrogant attitude that just labels everyone who disagrees "foolish."

__________________
Joel S.
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (Orlando, FL)
M.Div. Student, RTS Orlando, Oviedo, FL

Thank you for clarifying precisely what I was demonstrating. What is clear in the Scriptures and can be required of a Confessional believer is defined by you. Ironic that you don't find this arrogant. Of course, by what standard you would then say that justification by faith is clear is beyond me - except I suppose by consensus or that you approve that it is a Confessional requirement. But perhaps I should heed the pagan that contacted me recently wondering why we didn't allow unbelievers to partcipate here.

I'm saying that the Scriptures are clear. The Scriptures are true and that those who stand outside the Church's confession of those Scriptures are wrong. Especially those individuals and sects that arrogate to themselves aberrant private interpretations. I'm quite content that you're done with this discussion.

Or one that labels a man that believes in a Confession as arrogant even? This is the nature of "the tolerant" is it not? Those that are Confessional and do not loosen their subscription where you do are arrogant. Your open-mindedness in this matter gives you authority to prescribe the arrogant where my convictions of the Scriptures do not permit me to describe the character of a man as I believe the Scriptures do. As in society, so you believe here that the tolerant are those with such a right.

As you have offered nothing in the manner of Reformed thinking on the subject, I'm quite happy that you remain silent in the matter.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

This is a perfect demonstration of what I was saying. My point on this thread is about attitude. You can have all your confessional ducks in a row, but if you treat everyone outside of Confessionalism with sarcasm, calling them fools, cowards, and so on, you missed something somewhere along the line. I'm not even talking about my personal views on the thread, b/c I'm not a pacifist, though I have come to understand more why they arrive at their positions.

Again, my point is not whether you are right or wrong about holding to the Confession tightly. You seem to think that I'm saying you're arrogant for holding to the Confession. Wrong. What I'm saying is that you can hold to the Confession tightly without treating everyone in an arrogant, unkind manner.

So with that, I will not post on this thread again. I'm not arguing for pacifism. All I'm saying is that I wish that Christians, especially Reformed Christians, would demonstrate a deep grace and humility when discussing these matters, even when committed to their Confessional understanding.

__________________
Joel S.
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (Orlando, FL)
M.Div. Student, RTS Orlando, Oviedo, FL

I understand why they arrive at their positions but it does not change a thing. Most people consider Ghandi to be wise, I consider him to be a fool though I reckon he was a nice man. I am not being sarcastic in calling pacifists fools and cowards. I am calling them what the Scriptures label men who despise correction or who call the things that God has ordained wicked in themselves. It is impossible to read the requirements for military service in the OT or the passages about Abraham saving Lot or Saul and David protecting border towns without concluding the obvious that pacifists are dead wrong unless one takes an aberrant, dispensational view or concludes that God's view is not immutable. You have not provided one Reformed citation on the subject that we might discuss what the Biblical foundation is for the protection of the weak or what the role of the magistrate is in doing so. Instead, you provide the generic "well there are committed men on both sides" as if Truth is measured by commitment to it. Thus, you have not provided a counter standard or foundation from which you could demonstrate that their position is not un-Biblical (and therefore folly) but are more concerned about judging my attitude.

I have not treated a single man unkindly or arrogantly unless you consider Biblical labels to be arrogant and unkind. A man that calls the things that God calls good, evil is foolish. A man that allows a man or woman to die when he could have stopped it is in the role of the coward, whatever you think his motivations are.

I speak about men in general, you impugn my character directly and twice. You claim deep grace and humility for yourself and claim that I am arrogant for labelling men according to Scriptural designations. You claim the field for the things important in the Confession. Again, this is the purview of the truly humble: the tolerant.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

While I said I would not post again, I will only add this hopefully in there interests of being gracious myself, since that is what I have been talking about:

1) My purpose was not to argue for pacifism, as I am not in that camp.
2) I am sure that you are a godly man. Many of your posts have been helpful to me on several subjects. And for those reading this thread, I apologize for "impugning Rich's character." Such was not my intent, but as I have done so, I apologize. I recognize much pride in my own heart, perhaps that is why I have encouraged humility here, because I know it is something I have needed help on so many times. So, I apologize, and I hope that some good discussions might continue on this board on the subject that I might gain benefit and understanding from them.

__________________
Joel S.
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (Orlando, FL)
M.Div. Student, RTS Orlando, Oviedo, FL