Featured Guns and the Church

Jer. 17:7. “Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD And whose trust is the LORD.”

 

No. God did not misrepresent and abuse Jer. 17:9 to the detriment of a brother in Christ.

 

It is a misrepresentation and abuse of the Scriptures to attribute the condition of the heart spoken of in Jer. 17:9 to any Christian. Furthermore, it is a disgusting and perverse denial of the efficacy of the atonement of Christ to free believers in Christ Jesus from their bondage to sin and to give them a good heart (Rom.6:2, 17; 10:1, 8-10; etc.). However, if you were attributing the condition of the heart spoken of in Jer. 17:9 to all people regardless of their faith rather than insulting Martin by implying that he was either not a Christian or a Christian who has not experienced the efficacy of the atonement of Christ, I apologize to you for my comment.

 

Neither is there a prohibition against it anywhere in the New Testament.

Clearly your opinion is not universal.



(Painting by George Henry Boughton (1833-1905), entitled "Pilgrims Going To Church" - note all the guns they're taking with them)

 

In the first century there was no one who walked into a church and shot the place up. So whether or not there is precedent is irrelevant. Having guns in the church is for the purpose of protecting the membership which is both wise and needful.

Tcassidy's post was in no way dishonest and making the claim that carrying a weapon into the church is "an appalling witness" is a claim made with no evidence or support. Simply saying they did not do it in the early church does neither.

Further, agreeing to be shot death instead of bringing some mythical shame on the church is absurd.

 

Craig - David was a shepherd. He was given the responsibility to watch over a flock. He protected them from predators with the weapons of his time.

If you had a flock of sheep, what would you use to protect them from wolves, bears, and other predators? Would you only use the weapons we read of in scripture? Or would you at least buy a shotgun?

If not, then are you being a good steward of that which has been given to you, placed under your responsibility?

If yes, then why are others--your family, for example--less worthy of protection than the sheep?

 

Being in agreement with points on both sides of the fence, or rather, it might be better to say I don't agree with all points, lol, I would just say that this is a matter where every man has to come to a conclusion himself as to whether they should carry a gun.

The first point I would make is the OP is a member of the Military, and often the Military are exposed to scenarios the general public is not, so I view that kind of a man to deserve special consideration.

Secondly, for those of us who do not feel compelled to bear arms, and trust God in this matter, that is not something we should expect everyone to share.

Third, if we look at what Scripture teaches in regards to the punishment of evil-doers, I myself have not found anything that suggests the Church be armed, and be the ones enforcing justice.

Fourth, the issue of the right to bear arms doesn't really have a place in this thread, and that issue is not open to debate. It is what it is.

Fifth, much of the abuse of arms by the criminal element in this Country results in the deaths of...other criminals. While there are innocents (collateral damage), we have to recognize that the abuse of this right isn't grounds to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. I have yet to hear of someone suggest we restrict/remove driving privileges based on those convicted of drunk driving. They don't close all the stores because some shoplift.

Basically, my view is that I do not feel compelled to carry a gun. Like CBTS, I go into dangerous neighborhoods, and while I'll be honest, there have been times when I might have wanted one, it's just not something I see a need for. However, I can't say that my brother, who feels either a need or a duty to carry one, should be viewed as disobedient or weak in faith, because some will view this from a perspective of preparedness. I would prefer that those who do carry were people well trained in gun safety and responsible people, someone who is not going to, by having a gun, complicate a situation. But as I said before, I don't have a problem with someone carrying a gun into the Church.

I'll tell you something that bothers me worse: someone carrying a cup of coffee into a church. This, in my view, show a lack of reverence for the worship service. Seriously, we can't go 2 hours without a cup of coffee?

Here is one last thought on the subject of guns in our country, and what cannot be denied as a serious problem, which is the number of people killed every year in our country: if we actually enforced justice we would see this problem decrease. What I mean by that is this: many of the criminals that carry out the offenses that rack up the stats should have never been in the position where they could commit those offenses (again!), but we see that oftentimes they are repeat offenses.

It is true that despite gun laws...the criminals are going to have them, What we need to do is make sure that criminals are not allowed the chance to commit these crimes (again!).

So two words: stiffer sentences.

The Law of God makes it pretty clear, intentionally take the life of another and your life is forfeit. How many people kill others and are out of jail again to commit the same crimes? Stiffer sentencing is preventive, in my opinion.


God bless.

 

Terrorism ( and I think it needs to be remembered that acts like these are terrorism) is not something new. I read of the Sikkari (spelling?), a group of Jews that would go around sneaking up on Roman soldiers and thrusting a knife between their ribs. They were a terrorist organization.

Those who are going to kill, will kill, and they will use whatever they can get their hands on.

Something that should be considered though, is that we do not see an image of the First Century Church retaliating against those who had the rule over them. Christians did go to their deaths without fighting back.

Again, I think this is something every believer has to be convinced of in their own minds. I think we are going to see more of a pattern of non-violence than retaliation.

 

If I may address just this point, I would just like say that I see stopping an attack in progress as a very distinct act from punishing evil doers or enforcing justice.

 

As do I, but that is not what I was speaking of. What I am speaking of a Christian Group with a specific purpose of standing in the role of Military or Police. That mentality has been the source of much grief which the Church, to this day, is still suffering for.

I take the view that we, as Christians, have a duty to defend those who cannot defend themselves, however, I think that Christians are going to have different views on how that can be done.

We look at the example CBTS gives in the case of one man throwing himself in front of a bullet...I can think of no greater act of Christian character. He laid down his life for his friend.

Now, what if those who carry forgot to bring their gun one day, is the same character there, that they would also throw themselves in front of the bullet? Perhaps. But, for this man, there was no option of returning fire with fire.

And we can't help but admire the man for his sacrifice.

I think most of us have, in light of the shootings of late, given thought as to whether we have that character. I think most of us would like to think we have, but the truth is we are not really going to know unless faced with that situation.

As I said, having someone in the congregation who is carrying, and is responsible with firearms is a comforting thought.

But it's all speculation.


God bless.

 

So you are saying you would react in a defensive manner only? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply take the shot if you could?


God bless.

 

Call me weak in the faith if you wish but how could anyone stand by and watch while their wives, children, and/or grandchildren are being beheaded, set on fire in a cages, mowed down by automatic weapons, raped, kidnapped to be sold into the flesh-trade and not act to protect them thinking that God is against that protection.

We are a fiercely war like nation, born of rebellion against the tyranny of the crown because in part religious persecution and we FOUGHT. Does anyone believe there were no Christians involved and that they were not justified in their actions?

We fought against the tyranny of the madmen from Berlin and Tokyo.

In three days we disintegrated almost a quarter of a million men, women and children (Nagasaki, Hiroshima). Does anyone believe there were no Christians involved and that they were not justified in their actions after these tyrants destroyed over 20 million lives?

New tyrannies are now invading our shores and easily crossing our borders to bring Jihad to our families.

I believe many of the armchair theologians will change their minds when radical Islam comes down their street to behead our families, rape and kill our women and children as they have ALREADY have done to 200,000 plus Christians proving from whence they come - the bowels of hell.

I know what kind of reception they will receive even here in my part of the People's Republic of Washington.

Its not about saving my own sorry #@% but protecting the innocent.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

HankD

 

A man who will not do everything he can to protect his family is worthless. Period.

 

This calls to mind Lot, who was willing to give his daughters up, which most of us would fight to the very death before doing. Still scratch my head when I read he was "just."

But the fact is, Christians without known number have over the years refused to take an offensive position, and died in and for their faith. While I don't take that view in a hyper-literal sense, I think we are again indulging in speculation, and don't think any of us would know precisely what we would do if faced with a situation like those presented. I can only look to how I have reacted in the past, and think it a pretty good bet that I am not going to stand idly by.

I think most of this has in large part how we approach things. I do not take my wife places where bad things can happen, that is just common sense and the first step in avoiding being in a situation where I have to find out how I would react. While I go places, neighborhoods, which are high crime areas, when I am there, I mind my own business, lol.

So I don't think anyone has implied they would stand by, simply a matter of how those situations will be dealt with should they arise. And it goes back to the point of those who are going to kill, regardless of whether they have guns or not, are going to kill.

I think all of us would want to be certain that however we react, that it would be motivated by God. I think there are those out there sitting around hoping something like that would happen. Those are the ones we should worry about.


God bless.

 

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere in the New Testament do we find Jesus or any Christian using a lethal weapon for self defense, or making an allowance for it. My view is the biblical view rather than the view found deceitfully in propaganda published by the NRA.

The New Testament places of worship were very dangerous places—as testified to in the New Testament—but we do not find in the New Testament any mention at all of Christians defending themselves or their families through violent means; indeed, violence belongs to the wicked—not to the righteous.

If you want to carry a gun and the laws of your community permit it, that is your business—but taking a lethal weapon into a place of worship is a shameful abomination that makes a mockery of Jesus and the principles that He taught.

Dying for Christ or in defense of the principles taught in the New Testament is not to be feared—it is a privilege that few people in the Western world experience today.

The teaching of Jesus is expressly clear and irrefutable,

Like 12:4. “I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.
5. “But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!”

 

lol

Okay, saying this is a strawman?


God bless.