Church Security

You missed the point, that you are being hypocritical, when you take issue with people not staying on topic when you do the exact same thing.

Also, when someone feels the need to start personally insulting people rather then dealing with the topic at hand exclusively, they are losing the debate.

 

Well said.

And if it happens again, and their widows and elderly and children are safe, then they will be glad.

AJ

 

I'm sure because this is how people react. However, this does not mean it's a good thing to do or that others should do it. It's a completely subjective reaction.

And I bet the chances of such an attack happening at the same churches again are even lower.

This kind of reasoning is like someone saying, "Since I was robbed, I always carry a gun." Fine. That means nothing except it's a subjective reaction of the person - does not mean it's necessarily the best thing or that others should do it.

 

To my knowledge the Amish situation (it is a good one because it deals with violence directed against) hasn't changed.

If I remember correctly Wedgewood Baptist Church does not have an armed security force on Sundays or at any other time. They are an example of a congregation asked the same question and came up with a different answer.

Also a church shooting in July of 2006 in Louisanna at The Ministry of Jesus Christ Church also has not responded with an armed security force.

Just a sample of some shootings I'm certain there are more examples that some could find with better info.

 

Has anyone presented a biblical argument in favor of arming ones self? Sure take precautions, be diligent, don't create situations where one creates a danger. But is there any verse I can use to justify packin a .44 in the church?

 

There isn't one. Jesus rebuked Peter and told him to put up his sword.
When the disciples were sent out as evangelists, first the 12, and then the 70, they were told to take nothing with them.
We find no evidence of any of the Apostles in the Book of Acts carrying any weapons. In fact the opposite is true. They allowed themselves to be tortured, imprisoned, and to suffer gladly for Jesus sake. It was an honor to suffer for the Lord.

Acts 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
--No thought of protecting church or family here, was there?

Paul and Silas sang praises unto the Lord at midnight in the prison in Philippi. They were mistreated and imprisoned unjustly. Paul "played his Roman citizenship card," only after he was let go, to shame them, and to warn them. He never pressed charges. He maintained a good testimony at all times. He didn't pack a gun (or anything similar). He was glad to suffer for Christ's sake.

Adoniram Judson suffered untold hardship in Burma at the hands of the Burmese.
Richard Wurmbrandt was persecuted beyond imagination.

In the last century there were more Christians that suffered for their faith than in other century known to mankind.
People (Christians) think they have rights. I have news for you. Once you became a Christian you surrendered your rights. You have none.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Your body, soul, and spirit all belong to God. You are his. He paid a price for you.
The Apostle Paul said in Romans 1:1, "Paul 'a bond-slave' of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle. The word doulos means bond-slave, not simply servant. A slave has no rights.

If God calls a person to another country, another mission-field, then what would you do? Pack your pistols in Saudi Arabia? India? Pakistan? Columbia? Sudan? Ethiopia? Egypt? Indonesia?
What kind of witness would you be? How many people do you think you would win to the Lord. Or would you even be able to enter the country? Probably not. Like drugs they would put you in jail as a terrorist, and in some countries hang you. All the world is not like America. A Christian has no rights, not if he is sold out to Christ.

 

Luke 22:36 (NKJV)36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

I do not think that Jesus wanted them to carry a sword (defensive weapon/tool of that date) to cut bread with.

 

I think it would be advisable to take that Scripture in context. Christ isn't talking about arming themselves like that. I've commented briefly about this passage already in this thread.

 

He was talking about arming themselves and preparing themselves for the world they would be in. I have read this Scripture and do not limit it's meaning to what I want it to say or mean. I have noticed this happens quite often, especially by those who think someone should reread a Scripture until they read it the way the person wants them too.

 

Put the Scriptures together, in chronological order if you have to. It was only minutes after Christ said that, that he was rebuking Peter for cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest. "Put up thy sword Peter. Know ye not that I could have called 12 legions of angels from my heavenly Father." As Christ told Pilate later, His kingdom was not of this earth. It was of Heaven.

Likewise ours:
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; )
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

It can't made any clearer than this that our weapons aren't packing pistols--carnal. They are spiritual. See also Eph. 6:11-18.

 

I almost wholeheartedly agree, Christ was not advocating war but selfdefense. I agree, our (believers) war is not carnal but it is spiritual, but we must able to defend our carnal beings so we can wage spiritual warfare in the battle for lost souls.

 

When it comes to this issue I think to often people look at one or two verses all by themselves and not only don't try and look at them in context, but don't allow scripture to interpret scripture. It reminds me of the people who select a few verses about baptism and based on that conclude that baptism is necessary for salvation. They ignore the verses that make it clear that is not so. Well, people do the same thing with this issue and ignore so many verses that make it clear Christ spoke out against using violence.

As far as this example in Luke ask yourself these questions. This is the same Jesus that said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Remember that Jesus not only immediately stopped Peter when he used the sword, but revered the effects of it. Did Jesus really instruct them all to arm themselves? Or was he saying something else? How come when they answered that they already had two, he said that is enough? He didn't instruct them to all go and arm themselves, if that was the point?.Jesus had to know that only two swords was not going to be enough protection to protect them all, or to hold off a Roman legion. There has to be more to this.

 

I merely quoted a scripture, (duh) if one were to read the whole chapter and those that suround it, one would realize that Christ had been telling His apostles that the time had come for Him to finish what had been written (phophesy).
Christ had just reminded them that in the past, that even tho, He had sent them out without money, knapsack or sandals, they lacked or needed nothing. Now Christ, was about to leave them, as was written in phrophesy, and they needed to adjust and prepare to go without the physical presence of Christ. HE now wanted them to carry a knapsack, money and sandals and yes, even swords.

From there He went to the Garden of Gethsemane, to ask His Father three times if what was happening was absolutely necessary For the Fathers's will to be done.

After His prayers in the Garden, Christ was arrested, Peter cut off the ear of Malchus. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword for he who raises the sword shall perish by the sword. This was in context to the great multitude who was with the chief priests and the elders of the people. The multitude was armed with staves and swords! This was not the time to fight if Christ was to die on the cross and His apostles not beaten and killed by the multitude.

Swords were the weapon of that era. I also understand that to live by the sword is to use the sword or it's threat to do your bidding. That person will surely perish by the sword. The swords that Christ told the apostles to take with them was for protection and as a useful tool.


He also said two is enough, so that is why I never pack more than two handguns at a time. <<<<< just a bit of humor!!

 

My post was not directed specifically at anyone, but rather in general. Matter of fact I had already started typing the post before you posted.

 

I fail to see the Luke 22 passage as a valid analogy to having guns in church. Does this mean all of us should carry guns when we go outside? There are many, many poor ways to apply this passage.

And don't use narrative for prescriptive unless you can back it up with other scripture. That is faulty hermeneutics.

 

I did not say or imply this ment you had to carry a gun to church. What I did say (and I thought I said it rather simply) is that Christ was telling the apostles things would be different and they would have to be prepared to take some responsibility to care for themselves.
I disagree that this is faulty hermeneutics, but I am not going to argue nor debate to find out if you understand what hermeneutics is. It is more than a mere definition of a word. My prayers are with you.

 

Okay, and I was saying it was not relevant to our issue.

Well, I had a course in seminary on it. Does that count? Have you never heard of not using narrative as prescriptive?

I never said it was a definition of a word. In fact, all I did was use it in a sentence! I'm lost at to your point here. <confused>

Why??? <more confusion> What did I say that makes you think you should pray for me???

 

No need for confusion Marcia. I, for one, welcome prayers of others directed toward me. I have never attained that point in my life where I did not need prayer. When I say "My prayers are with you" I mean it. Even if it is a prayer for an extra helping of God's blessing. I also pray for people who for unkown reasons seem to attack me as part of their debate. ( I plead guilty to that tactic at times myself):thumbs:

So,earnestly I say, my prayers are with you!

 

Saying your prayers are with me when I did not ask for any nor when there is any reason for it on this thread does not answer the question. Responding to someone's points in a debate by saying "My prayers are with you" could be seen as condescending, and certainly it is not related to the issue here.

Why did you say this?

 

Because I wanted too.