Thread: Piper's Guns and Martyrdom

I tend to agree with you. However, it's tough as many are raised with the idea that self-defense is never ok, and I'm trying to sort through the fog. Also, I have recently moved into my own place and hope to start a family someday; therefore, I have considered purchasing a weapon.

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by TaylorOtwell

So, what is the different from stopping someone from violating the 6th commandment in Peru when your trying to spread the Gospel (perhaps with your family), and stopping someone from violating it in your home?

Well, allow me to be real honest. I don't know of all the things involved in every case, as I'm sure every case is different. However, regardless of where I am, if someone breaks into my home, and they're going after my family, I will defend my family, missionary or not.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

The 6th Commandment not only forbids the taking of life but also the protection of it.

I'm pretty sure Rich meant to place demands in between the words also and the.

The 6th Commandment not only forbids the taking of life but also demands the protection of it.

I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.

Originally Posted by Davidius

When Peter drew his sword to keep Jesus from being murdered, Jesus told him to put it up. We also have the teachings that we are to let others strike us, steal from us, etc. without retaliation. There isn't a context of missionary activity in those passages. I'm interested to know what people think of that.

In that context, Jesus is dying to save the elect, which is even greater than missionary work.

Also, to what passages about allowing others to strike us and steal from us are you referring? If that is the "do not resist evil" passage, then please remember that Christ is referring to humiliation and not mortal harm.

Originally Posted by joshua

Well, that's ridiculous. Part of upholding the 6th Commandment is stopping others from violating it when it's in your power to do so.

Well, I don't think it's the ridiculous at all

Two questions...(1) how do you know a certain outcome will occur? e.g. an intruder enters your home...therefore you or a family member will be killed.
(2) Is a violent even lethal action the only way to stop a person from killing someone?

Originally Posted by Davidius

When Peter drew his sword to keep Jesus from being murdered, Jesus told him to put it up. We also have the teachings that we are to let others strike us, steal from us, etc. without retaliation. There isn't a context of missionary activity in those passages. I'm interested to know what people think of that.

Contextually, I don't think that is an accurate summary of Christ's commandments.

First, Christ wasn't being murdered, he was being arrested at the time. There's also the issue of the nature of His Messiahship where He had come to suffer for sin and not lead a coup against the earthly powers.

Next, the passages regarding being struck have to do with going out of our way to defend our name. We are to be willing to be reproached as opposed to going for the jugular of another when they reproach us.

Third, we are not commanded to allow others to steal from us. We're commanded to give liberally to others when they ask of something from us.

I would just note that I find it very strange that people would think that pacificism is the nature of the Gospel given its apparent penetration to military people among the Gentiles.

Originally Posted by Dwimble

Originally Posted by martyrologist

Originally Posted by Dwimble

So then, should the stricture to "love your enemies" take precedence over the command to "love your wife even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her?" We must take the scriptures as a whole. We can't merely lift one or two statements out of them (I'm not accusing you of doing that) and then build an extremist philosophy of total pacifism, in a "what would Jesus do" sort of manner, as if it is a given that Jesus would never use physical force in any circumstance...

...Christ gave himself for the church by dying for her, not by killing people. So, that example is quite a stark one.

Once again...are you to place the love of your enemies OVER the love of and responsibility for your wife? I submit to you, that if you allow your enemy to harm or kill your wife when it is within your power to prevent that, then you are guilty of neither loving your wife NOR your enemy, but of loving your philosophy of pacifism above both.

That would be quite the charge. I don't put the love of either over the other. The way I love my wife and kids is different than how I love my neighbor and my enemy.

I would offer you this...which is apparently a radical, crazy idea...there are ways and means of preventing a person from killing or doing harm which do not involve my killing or doing harm. Killing, violence, is not an acceptable option in the eyes of Christ.

Originally Posted by martyrologist

Two questions...(1) how do you know a certain outcome will occur? e.g. an intruder enters your home...therefore you or a family member will be killed.

Well, I never said I did know. Since the invader is in my home, do I wait until he's actually struck, hurt, raped, or touched a family member before doing something, or do I prevent him from doing so? That's an easy answer for me.

(2) Is a violent even lethal action the only way to stop a person from killing someone?

Not sure I said that in any of my posts. However, sometimes, it is the only way.

Speaking of swords (guns) it got me thinking how John Piper uses the ESV and James White carries the NASB.

This can turn to a ESV vs. NASB battle.

Originally Posted by martyrologist

I would offer you this...which is apparently a radical, crazy idea...there are ways and means of preventing a person from killing or doing harm which do not involve my killing or doing harm. Killing, violence, is not an acceptable option in the eyes of Christ.

What nonviolent option would there be for a rapist who has stolen your wife from you?

My point is not that we should choose violence as our first choice in any endeavors with evildoers, but rather that it is not a non-option.

Originally Posted by martyrologist

Originally Posted by Dwimble

Originally Posted by martyrologist

...Christ gave himself for the church by dying for her, not by killing people. So, that example is quite a stark one.

Once again...are you to place the love of your enemies OVER the love of and responsibility for your wife? I submit to you, that if you allow your enemy to harm or kill your wife when it is within your power to prevent that, then you are guilty of neither loving your wife NOR your enemy, but of loving your philosophy of pacifism above both.

That would be quite the charge. I don't put the love of either over the other. The way I love my wife and kids is different than how I love my neighbor and my enemy.

I would offer you this...which is apparently a radical, crazy idea...there are ways and means of preventing a person from killing or doing harm which do not involve my killing or doing harm. Killing, violence, is not an acceptable option in the eyes of Christ.

So, are you pitting God against God? Are you asserting that Christ somehow brought a better or higher or holier principle of law? Really?

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Speaking of swords (guns) it got me thinking how John Piper uses the ESV and James White carries the NASB.

This can turn to a ESV vs. NASB battle.

Eddie,

Honestly, your view of what Christianity is borders on some sort of strange Gnostic fatalism that is divorced from the things revealed. It is certainly not Reformed.

I will warn you that I have absolutely no patience for pacifists. I consider the very notion to be inherently wicked. It's the same kind of faith-denial that a man who would not provide for his family manifests.

Throughout the Scriptures, leaders are reproved for not granting justice or protecting the weak. God doesn't permit us to have a "pie in the sky" attitude to break into song like Pollyanna and hope that the whole town full of mean people will suddenly see that being nice is the way to go.

Christians who do not protect their own family and, by extension, believe that pagans should have to carry all the water when it comes to protecting society, do not know the spirit they are of.

This isn't about arming ourselves to the teeth so we can relish shooting people that dare to approach us but goes to the basics of whether or not men are commanded to guard against evil. Your reasoning might as well extend to spiritual peril as well. Why not just trust God that everything will work out and we can allow heretics in our pulpit and hope that God will just reveal that they're wrong and they'll suddenly start teaching truth.

No. Wisdom understands that wickedness does not self-suppress and God does not promise the immediate suppression of all wickedness against us. He commands, regularly, throughout His Word that men protect. The hidden things belong to God and the revealed things belong to us and our children (Deut 29:29). You want to avoid the revealed things of God about how He commands our protection of the weak on the one hand and live according to the hidden things. This is disobedient.

I don't like pacifists. Period. I think they're inherently selfish and people like the Anabaptists don't deserve the protections that a peaceful society provides them by the grace of a ministerial sword from God that they abhor and call wicked.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

God doesn't permit us to have a "pie in the sky" attitude to break into song like Pollyanna ...

Here is a good explanation:

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves721 and others722 by resisting all thoughts and purposes,723 subduing all passions,724 and avoiding all occasions,725 temptations,726 and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;727 by just defence thereof against violence,728 patient bearing of the hand of God,729 quietness of mind,730 cheerfulness of spirit;731 a sober use of meat,732 drink,733 physic,734 sleep,735 labour,736 and recreations;737 by charitable thoughts,738 love,739 compassion,740 meekness, gentleness, kindness;741 peaceable,742 mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;743 forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;744 comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.745

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,746 or of others,747 except in case of public justice,748 lawful war,749 or necessary defence;750 the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;751 sinful anger,752 hatred,753 envy,754 desire of revenge;755 all excessive passions,756 distracting cares;757 immoderate use of meat, drink,758 labor,759 and recreations;760 provoking words,761 oppression,762 quarreling,763 striking, wounding,764 and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.765

Originally Posted by martyrologist

Originally Posted by joshua

I would say that pacifism when someone is trying to kill, rape, or hurt your family is not peaceful at all.

Thanks Josh.

I can understand what you're saying. But, wouldn't that place the command of Christ to love our enemies and to pray for our persecutors (pretty sure he didn't mean "As you pull the trigger") into a category of Not Necessary? Thanks

Brother...so when Christ wove together a whip and drove money changers out of the temple for the evil they did, he did it prancing around and passing out flowers and speaking peace? I don't think I would have liked to be at the receiving of that whip...for some reason, even if it was peacful, it may have stung. Don't get me wrong, I am as peaceful as you assume you'd be, but there is a place for defending yourself.

I will now finish reading the rest of this thread.

Originally Posted by joshua

Well, that's ridiculous. Part of upholding the 6th Commandment is stopping others from violating it when it's in your power to do so.

This is really the crux of the matter in my opinion. So the question that i have is, is it biblically in our power to do so?

I understand that the law of the land in the U.S. gives us the right to have arms. But then again, it also gives doctors the right to kill unborn babies.

What does the Scripture say about the power to take life?

Rom 13:4 tells us that our rulers bear the sword. If the power of death is extended past the government and is put into the hand of the Church and individuals should we also start killing adulterers?

Here's a question...
If we are to stop others from violating the commandment against murder when it's in our power, why don't we stop the doctors from killing unborn babies?

I say this as a gun-carrying Christian. I have just always wrestled with the spiritual implications.

Larry,

I believe the WLC does a good job of distinguishing above. I think the Law is wise to consider it murder if a man is killed in your home in the daylight as a basic principle that there would be help nearby and the peril is not as dire. The basic principle of the Scriptures is that the sword belongs to the State but the State cannot always be locally present to protect life. A man who is guarding his home is upholding the 6th Commandment within the confines of his home to protect his household from harm. If the criminal flees and is shot in the back in vengeance then a man is no longer acting in self-defense but violating the Law of God.

We ought to properly distinguish between self-defense and the administration of justice for a crime. We're not the State but we are commanded by God to protect life within our homes.

Originally Posted by danmpem

I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.

I agree with Dan. In defense of Piper, I would like to give some "benefit of the doubt" it is indeed short and since he did not qualify or expand, I think (and hope) that he was being general and not dealing with any and all specifics. Even a very good Pastor can phrase things poorly, and perhaps this is such a case. Grace and Peace In Our Lord's Name.

Originally Posted by etexas

Originally Posted by danmpem

I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.

I agree with Dan. In defense of Piper, I would like to give some "benefit of the doubt" it is indeed short and since he did not qualify or expand, I think (and hope) that he was being general and not dealing wit any and all specifics. Even a very good Pastor can phrase things poorly, and perhaps this is such a case. Grace and Peace In Our Lord's Name.

Regardless, it's wrong of Dr. Piper to pass judgment (albeit implicitly) on those who would use their stimulus check to go out and buy a firearm, after having set himself up as a beacon of light for not owning any himself.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Larry,

I believe the WLC does a good job of distinguishing above. I think the Law is wise to consider it murder if a man is killed in your home in the daylight as a basic principle that there would be help nearby and the peril is not as dire. The basic principle of the Scriptures is that the sword belongs to the State but the State cannot always be locally present to protect life. A man who is guarding his home is upholding the 6th Commandment within the confines of his home to protect his household from harm. If the criminal flees and is shot in the back in vengeance then a man is no longer acting in self-defense but violating the Law of God.

We ought to properly distinguish between self-defense and the administration of justice for a crime. We're not the State but we are commanded by God to protect life within our homes.

So we are only to protect lives within our homes?
Seems like an arbitrary line to draw. After all, the unborn infants who are being slaughtered certainly can't defend themselves, and the government approves of their murder.

What if the unborn infant was part of your household, would it be ok to kill the doctor to preserve the baby's life then?

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Larry,

I believe the WLC does a good job of distinguishing above. I think the Law is wise to consider it murder if a man is killed in your home in the daylight as a basic principle that there would be help nearby and the peril is not as dire. The basic principle of the Scriptures is that the sword belongs to the State but the State cannot always be locally present to protect life. A man who is guarding his home is upholding the 6th Commandment within the confines of his home to protect his household from harm. If the criminal flees and is shot in the back in vengeance then a man is no longer acting in self-defense but violating the Law of God.

We ought to properly distinguish between self-defense and the administration of justice for a crime. We're not the State but we are commanded by God to protect life within our homes.

So we are only to protect lives within our homes?
Seems like an arbitrary line to draw. After all, the unborn infants who are being slaughtered certainly can't defend themselves, and the government approves of their murder.

What if the unborn infant was part of your household, would it be ok to kill the doctor to preserve the baby's life then?

If you're calling God's Word arbitrary then I cannot help you Larry. I believe the Scriptures are plain that we don't have the right as individuals to be vigilantes.

The blood of unborn children is fundamentally on the hands of doctors that commit an abortion and on a State that sanctions it.

If a doctor was to try to kill my unborn child then I would not hesitate to use deadly force to stop him but that's in my household. I don't have the right before God to walk up to an abortionist and shoot him. I am not given that authority.

Originally Posted by sastark

Originally Posted by martyrologist

Thanks Seth.

So I should quote John 3:16 to the man who breaks into my house to kill my wife and daughter?

Piper never said that, though; or anything similar. Nor have I come across any pacifists who would advise that. Have you?

I take it by the thumbs down you would be against Piper's post.

Should I revise my post to say "So I should shoot my pistol into the air as the man kills my wife and daughter?" - either one (John 3:16 or a shot in the air) has the same effect: a dead wife and daughter.

My thumbs down was meant to reinforce my disagreement with Piper's post.

I second Joshua's post: it is a violation of the sixth commandment to allow my neighbor (in this case my family) to be murdered while I stand idly by.

Funny thing is, Piper says "I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun." but that was exactly what I was intending to do with my stimulus check!

H&P USP Compact 9mm

I have this exact weapon and I highly recommend it. Good choice brother. BTW, I disagree with Piper on this one.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

If you're calling God's Word arbitrary then I cannot help you Larry. I believe the Scriptures are plain that we don't have the right as individuals to be vigilantes.

The blood of unborn children is fundamentally on the hands of doctors that commit an abortion and on a State that sanctions it.

If a doctor was to try to kill my unborn child then I would not hesitate to use deadly force to stop him but that's in my household. I don't have the right before God to walk up to an abortionist and shoot him. I am not given that authority.

When did i call God's Word arbitrary? Are you equating the post that you made with God's Word? I simply stated that the line YOU drew was arbitrary, you didn't reference any Scripture. I certainly would not call God's Word arbitrary.

I don't agree that we are only responsible for the welfare of those within our house. If we were, then what would the love of our neighbor mean in regards to preserving his life?

Regarding your last statement, I didn't say it was "your unborn child" but rather an unborn child in your household.

Presumably you could defend a grandchild who lived with you. Would you be able to defend an unborn grandchild even if your 15 year old daughter wanted to kill him?
Of course this is a hypothetical, not in any way actually speaking of you and your family, but it brings some important issues to the forefront.

Originally Posted by martyrologist

Originally Posted by packabacka

I believe that we are always to choose the greater good. Since Jesus knew that through his passion and crucifixion, all of the elect would be saved, he had a nobler goal in mind. If we allow harm to befall us at the hands of an intruder, it is not towards any kind of salvific goal.

Thanks packabacka.

I wouldn't limit Christ's example we are to follow so narrowly as that (toward a salvific goal); I believe he gave us the example for all aspects of life at all times. But, maybe more importantly in this specific instance, you seem to present the idea that you know what is going to happen when an intruder enters your home. Do you know you or a family member will be killed...or even hurt?

Have you taken everything you own and given it to the poor as Jesus counseled the Rich Young Ruler?

Originally Posted by martyrologist

Thanks Mike.

"If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account." (Ex. 22:2 NASB)

Do we not, though, have the example of Christ to follow? So often we see Old Testament verses given as refutation of the idea of loving your enemy and/or using nonviolent resistance. What I'm saying is that I would have thought Christians would posit the teachings and examples of Christ's life and death for their argumentation and reasoning.

I'm not trying to cop out or play the OT vs. NT game. I just thought followers of Christ would seek the imitation of Christ first. Plus, I do not believe the OT is prescriptive (but descriptive).

First, I don't agree with the blanket statement that the Old Testament is descriptive and not prescriptive. I also don't see Christ teaching anything contrary to the OT. If this law/principle (Ex. 22:2) was valid in the Old Testament as a principle of overall justice, it remains valid today, though the context in which we apply it may be different. The point in this passage is not that the person is to seek vengeance on the thief. That is clear in the very next verse. Rather, that if a thief is killed in the act of "breaking in", then his blood is on his own head. There is also not a prescription here that requires that the thief be killed, if he is caught in the act, but, rather, a principle that a man is right to defend his own home and should not be charged with murder in this instance. It seems to me that this certainly carries implications for our law system today.
What Jesus taught about "turning the other cheek", etc., had more to do with personal vengeance than the situation here. I think if you really follow this reasoning through to its logical conclusion, then there is never a reason to fight in a war or for the govt. to impose capital punishment.
The general rule that I keep in mind, for my house, is this: If someone is trying to steal my stuff, and there is no immediate threat to my family, then I will try to call the police, but I will not take a person's life over material things. However, if the life or safety of my family is at stake, that is another story.

Originally Posted by martyrologist

I would offer you this...which is apparently a radical, crazy idea...there are ways and means of preventing a person from killing or doing harm which do not involve my killing or doing harm. Killing, violence, is not an acceptable option in the eyes of Christ.

Eddie,

Did Christ ever speak in the Old Testament? If so, what did He say? In the OT, did Christ ever tell anyone to perform any acts of violence, or to kill anyone?

Come to think of it, is the God of the OT the same as the God in the NT? Is God evolving? I'm seriously interested in what the source of some of your ideas are.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by danmpem

I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.

I felt the same way.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

If you're calling God's Word arbitrary then I cannot help you Larry. I believe the Scriptures are plain that we don't have the right as individuals to be vigilantes.

The blood of unborn children is fundamentally on the hands of doctors that commit an abortion and on a State that sanctions it.

If a doctor was to try to kill my unborn child then I would not hesitate to use deadly force to stop him but that's in my household. I don't have the right before God to walk up to an abortionist and shoot him. I am not given that authority.

When did i call God's Word arbitrary? Are you equating the post that you made with God's Word? I simply stated that the line YOU drew was arbitrary, you didn't reference any Scripture. I certainly would not call God's Word arbitrary.

I don't agree that we are only responsible for the welfare of those within our house. If we were, then what would the love of our neighbor mean in regards to preserving his life?

Regarding your last statement, I didn't say it was "your unborn child" but rather an unborn child in your household.

Presumably you could defend a grandchild who lived with you. Would you be able to defend an unborn grandchild even if your 15 year old daughter wanted to kill him?
Of course this is a hypothetical, not in any way actually speaking of you and your family, but it brings some important issues to the forefront.

Do I have to quote chapter and verse to demonstrate the point that men are permitted self-defense and defense of others and not vengeance? The OT is so full of principles governing it that I presumed I could mention a principle that would be understood by another man familiar with the Scriptures as well.

Yes, I would protect anyone in my vicinity that could not protect themselves. I think we are required to protect our neighbors as well but the use of deadly force is governed strictly by the Scriptures and we need to understand when we are assuming the role of the State. Not every case of defense requires the use of a deadly weapon and I don't think we need to be walking around town with 6-shoters in our belts ready to protect, with deadly force, whoever crosses our path.

I also can't walk up to an Abortionist and shoot him on the street. That's assuming the role of the State.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

...The basic principle of the Scriptures is that the sword belongs to the State but the State cannot always be locally present to protect life. A man who is guarding his home is upholding the 6th Commandment within the confines of his home to protect his household from harm. If the criminal flees and is shot in the back in vengeance then a man is no longer acting in self-defense but violating the Law of God.

We ought to properly distinguish between self-defense and the administration of justice for a crime. We're not the State but we are commanded by God to protect life within our homes.

Here, here. The extremist, pacifists' view always seems to me to ignore the broader context of scripture in favor of a couple of specific passages, which are then used in any number of strawman arguments to gird up their over-arching philosophy of "non-violence"...usually utilizing the disgusting tactic of implying that anyone who holds to a different view is a violent hatemonger, and therefore doesn't love as perfectly as they do.

The truly aggravating thing, however, is their responses often remind me of what it is like when you try to talk to an apathetic teenager. Just as there can be no debate with: "So?" "So what?" "Oh well" "Who cares?" and so on, there can be no debate with someone who merely continually quotes simplistic platitudes, like: "Peace, peace," "Force is never the way," "There is always a non-violent solution," "Jesus wants us to love everyone" (clearly presupposing that any show of force is always hatred and therefore you are guilty of not "loving"), etc.

I find it all very strange...and rather squishy.

Attention Everyone: Eddie is a bonafide Anabaptist (by his own admission in his profile). This helps explain much. He won't be here to answer your Point-Well-Taken questions any time soon.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

If you're calling God's Word arbitrary then I cannot help you Larry. I believe the Scriptures are plain that we don't have the right as individuals to be vigilantes.

The blood of unborn children is fundamentally on the hands of doctors that commit an abortion and on a State that sanctions it.

If a doctor was to try to kill my unborn child then I would not hesitate to use deadly force to stop him but that's in my household. I don't have the right before God to walk up to an abortionist and shoot him. I am not given that authority.

When did i call God's Word arbitrary? Are you equating the post that you made with God's Word? I simply stated that the line YOU drew was arbitrary, you didn't reference any Scripture. I certainly would not call God's Word arbitrary.

I don't agree that we are only responsible for the welfare of those within our house. If we were, then what would the love of our neighbor mean in regards to preserving his life?

Regarding your last statement, I didn't say it was "your unborn child" but rather an unborn child in your household.

Presumably you could defend a grandchild who lived with you. Would you be able to defend an unborn grandchild even if your 15 year old daughter wanted to kill him?
Of course this is a hypothetical, not in any way actually speaking of you and your family, but it brings some important issues to the forefront.

I don't want to complicate the discussion, but, with regard to preventing the breaking of the 6th commandment, does that also apply to, say, Virginia Tech? If a Christian was there who was carrying a handgun, when the shooting started, would he not be obligated to "take out" the shooter if at all possible? In that case, it is not within the confines of one's home. I'm not really trying to argue a point as much as make an observation, because I think that would be the obligation of the Christian in that circumstance or a similar one.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Do I have to quote chapter and verse to demonstrate the point that men are permitted self-defense and defense of others and not vengeance? The OT is so full of principles governing it that I presumed I could mention a principle that would be understood by another man familiar with the Scriptures as well.

But the statement that i contended with from you was that you were only permitted to defend those in your "house." Now you seem to be saying that you can also defend others outside of your house, and that was my whole point. In my post i said that you drew an arbitrary line in saying that we could only defend those in our household.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Yes, I would protect anyone in my vicinity that could not protect themselves. I think we are required to protect our neighbors as well but the use of deadly force is governed strictly by the Scriptures and we need to understand when we are assuming the role of the State. Not every case of defense requires the use of a deadly weapon and I don't think we need to be walking around town with 6-shoters in our belts ready to protect, with deadly force, whoever crosses our path.

I also can't walk up to an Abortionist and shoot him on the street. That's assuming the role of the State.

I'm still trying to see where you are drawing the line...so please be patient with my slowness.

If you were in a hospital and you saw someone approach a patient with a gun, presumably to shoot them, do you have the authority to stop them with lethal force? I understand that we have that authority within the confines of the U.S. law, but we are speaking about the confines of Scripture here.

If so, why wouldn't you have that same authority if you saw a doctor approach an unborn baby with an instrument of murder?

Yeah, I notice that too! I was hoping to hear about if Jesus spoke in the OT!!!!
Shux!

Originally Posted by joshua

Attention Everyone: Eddie is a bonafide Anabaptist (by his own admission in his profile). This helps explain much. He won't be here to answer your Point-Well-Taken questions any time soon.

Originally Posted by joshua

Attention Everyone: Eddie is a bonafide Anabaptist (by his own admission in his profile). This helps explain much. He won't be here to answer your Point-Well-Taken questions any time soon.

Ah!

I also notice that, ironically enough, his last group of posts were made exactly one year ago today, on Christian pacifism and "loving your enemies."

Originally Posted by mshingler

Originally Posted by danmpem

I am a little puzzled by John Piper's post; it is not like him to post something that short without qualifying it at least a little.

I felt the same way.

Well, I would say a lot of what Piper says qualifies (in his mind at least) what he wrote. He is very big on not loving our lives more than Christ and the gospel. He exhorts Christians all the time to take up their crosses and be willing to lay down our lives for the gospel. Much of what he teaches on the subject is spot on.

Unfortunately, what he said in the above post was not.

Originally Posted by joshua

Attention Everyone: Eddie is a bonafide Anabaptist (by his own admission in his profile). This helps explain much. He won't be here to answer your Point-Well-Taken questions any time soon.

Really? Seriously, is he gone? Wow. Swift justice here at the PB.

For those out there with pacifist tendencies (not making an accusation here boys), have you REALLY thought about what it would be like to be in a sudden, intense, violent situation involving an intruder and your wife or daughter? I know this has been commented on but is it even remotely appropriate to appeal to the Sermon on the Mount to justify the allowance of harm to our families, or ourselves? How does letting a drug addict kidanp or kill your child glorify God? Could you live with yourself?

I know I'm not saying anything new here and I'm really not replying to any particular post. Just my

And when you get a chance thank God for the Supreme Court's ruling, upholding the second ammendment.

The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.

Originally Posted by jogri17

The issue of threatening to kill our loved one is onething. The issue of a robber wanting our car, radio, tv, money is another. The life of a theif is worth more than all the money in the world. It is not worth taking the life in that context. You don't shoot to kill unless he makes a threat and its viable.

And how would you evaluate that threat? Is it not situationally dependent? One would probably have fractions of seconds to make those evaluations. IMHO, I would err on the side that most protects my family.