Reformed Treatments of the Non-Aggression Principle

[Pergamum]

They may have died willingly (not passively, I'd argue) but they didn't sit around waiting for the Romans to capture them. They ran and hid. Resisting arrest by the state wasn't normally a viable option in Roman times.

I think JP probably just didn't think much at all before posting that.

It is a danger inherent in his status I believe: If we become a "famous" celebrity pastor and people want us to write current articles every week, or they ask us questions on current news every week, we are bound to mess it up at least part of the time. I am thankful for him. He messes it up a lot less than I would.

But I think the format of radio, social media, and blogging gives too much air time to too few pastors and these become oracles as a whole such that everyone goes around even parroting their phraseology without much thought. We thus form a "protestant Tradition" of orthodoxy that conflicts with the historical teachings of the Church.

For instance, Paul Washer and Voddie Baucham are highly respected and yet repeat stupid things such as the church being a "Family of Families" (no, it is not...that is an error pushed by the Family-Integrated Churches). We must hate mother and father and leave family for the Gospel sometimes, and churches are made up of many singles. Nowhere in Scripture or the ancient church do we read of the Church being a Family of Families.

Trust no man totally but evaluate all things by Scripture. And so God in His wisdom gives even very smart men some stupid ideas in order to prove that all of humanity must stay humble before God and His Word.

 

[reformed grit]

So, "more than twelve legions of angels" is the better way to go?

 

[Pergamum]

So, "more than twelve legions of angels" is the better way to go?

Not if you were designated to die as the Saviour of the World.

If a medieval Catholic army were massing in front of your Protestant village, however, it might behoove you to evacuate the wives and chilluns and arm your menfolk. A few legions of hardy men might do if you don't have 12 legions of angels at your disposal.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

It is a danger inherent in his status I believe: If we become a "famous" celebrity pastor and people want us to write current articles every week, or they ask us questions on current news every week, we are bound to mess it up at least part of the time. I am thankful for him. He messes it up a lot less than I would.

But I think the format of radio, social media, and blogging gives too much air time to too few pastors and these become oracles as a whole such that everyone goes around even parroting their phraseology without much thought. We thus form a "protestant Tradition" of orthodoxy that conflicts with the historical teachings of the Church.

Where old authority structures break down we create new ones. Humans can no more live without a mental hierarchy than they can subsist without food.

For instance, Paul Washer and Voddie Baucham are highly respected and yet repeat stupid things such as the church being a "Family of Families" (no, it is not...that is an error pushed by the Family-Integrated Churches). We must hate mother and father and leave family for the Gospel sometimes, and churches are made up of many singles. Nowhere in Scripture or the ancient church do we read of the Church being a Family of Families.

If anything, the church is a family. Period. FIC idolizes a de-spiritualized concept of family. The gospel breaks down boundaries and we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. That's what makes it a blessing to all, single, married, fertile, barren, residents, newcomers, etc.

 

[ZackF]

Enjoying the "serious Reformed engagement" with accompanied manliness

 

[Ben Zartman]

Maybe, maybe not. Not all situations are the same. If someone is coming at me obviously intending to harm me, or is making verbal threats while approaching me menacingly, and there is nowhere for me to flee, I will absolutely not “let him swing first,” because that’s all it could take to end me. Why would I do that?

I guess all the times I've been threatened have not been by someone who obviously had the will to actually harm, and a soft answer turned away his wrath. But in thinking about it, I agree with you that if someone pointed a gun at me, I'd disable him if I could before finding out if he meant to use it; if he had a club or machete I'd try to pre-empt: but I've been threatened enough times by unarmed, angry, insecure losers to know that they haven't the will to take the first swing, so why would I hit them first?