Evangelical Christian leaders in America have expressed their support for stricter gun regulations following December's tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where 26 people were fatally shot.
In a poll conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), 73 percent of church leaders agreed that there needs to be stricter gun regulations, in hopes that tragedies, such as the ones that occurred in Newtown, can be prevented or minimized in the future.
"Evangelicals are pro-life and deeply grieve when any weapons are used to take innocent lives," said Leith Anderson, President of the NAE. "The evangelical leaders who responded to the NAE survey support the Second Amendment right to bear arms but also want our laws to prevent the slaughter of children."...
John UK wrote: ... And in the ten or so years I was a part of that team, witnessing every Saturday throughout the year, despite our equipment sometimes taking a bashing, and tracts being eaten by lunatics, not one of us ever suffered any harm, but were regularly filled with the Spirit and with joy.
That is a beautiful testimony and perfectly played and this is the rightly dividing of this issue in my opinion. When we are labouring for the Lord and preaching the gospel, when we are being directly persecuted for the cause of Christ, then we endure and suffer the persecution.
Now, take this same thug and let's say he breaks into a house, school, church, restaurant whatever and begins to attempt to take the lives of innocent people. Is it the duty of a Christian man to A. Hide behind a tree (in which case innocent people die) B. Call 911 (in which case innocent people die) or C. Intervene using all means necessary to neutralize the threat (in which case there is the potential of saving innocent life). I believe there is a time to be martyred and there is a time to kill (Ecc 3:3). May God grant us the wisdom to rightly discern the right time for each.
Mike, you don't need a gun for that form of self-defense.
Now back to my true story. I am bearing testimony of the amazing grace and power of God, to whom be glory!
The brother was still speaking, the aggressor was glaring at him with murderous intent. I awaited with bated breath what should transpire.
All on a sudden, the aggressor turned away, and strode off down the street. The big, burly fellow next to me said to me, "If he should have taken one step nearer your chap on the box, I would have straightway gotten a hold of him and knocked him out. I know him well, and he's a troublemaker."
I didn't know what to say, but inwardly I was praising God that even if the enemy had gotten violent, there was a provision of support even from amongst the ungodly.
This sort of thing happened so regularly that I concluded we had made the right decision never to be violent to any man, but simply trust in God as little children dependent on him.
And in the ten or so years I was a part of that team, witnessing every Saturday throughout the year, despite our equipment sometimes taking a bashing, and tracts being eaten by lunatics, not one of us ever suffered any harm, but were regularly filled with the Spirit and with joy.
John UK wrote: --- If I am framed for a crime, the police come to arrest me, and I may not defend myself against them, but must go with them and plead my case according to the law. --- Quite, and where do we find scriptural examples of self-defence, especially in Paul's life, which was traumatic to say the least.
2 Corinthians 11:32,33 "In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me: And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands."
Escape is a form of self defense. In modern terms it would be known as "resisting arrest," and "flight to avoid prosecution," definitely breaking of the law. Note Paul did not go along with the "God ordained authorities"(who were coming to arrest him) so as to plead his "case according to the law."
Unprofitable Servant wrote: good point and in most states here in the U.S. you are allowed to defend yourself against threats to your life, and if necessary by deadly force.
Yes US it is different in our two countries. Defenders here have gone to prison for killing intruders. Sad, eh?
But to illustrate what I mean by having a Living God as a Defender and Shield:
Back in the 80's, when I was part of an open-air preaching team, we concluded after prayer that in order not to bring the cause of Christ into disrepute, we would not offer blow for blow if we were attacked. In other words, we trusted in God implicitly. We would only protect our head from blows, not strike anyone, that onlookers may see our "innocency".
On one occasion, when an entire Rugby team came out of a local pub, one stout fellow was immediately confronted with one of our group giving his testimony. It enraged him so much that he shouted, "Shut up!"
The brother ignored such a command of Satan and continued.
The burly Rugby player started walking towards our brother, stopped, and said, "Shut up or I will ram my fist down your throat!"
Now standing next to me was another huge Rugby player, and although it was a bit intimidating, I held ground.
Yes US That is exactly it! The "defence" was by the appointed authorities.
good point and in most states here in the U.S. you are allowed to defend yourself against threats to your life, and if necessary by deadly force. These are laws passed by appointed authorities. Subject to every ordinance of man comes to mind at this point. Maybe I have missed it, but you still have not given a biblical reference that says you should not defend yourself. The passage you quoted is talking about being buffeted for your faults, not defending yourself.
John for you to say that "all" OT laws except the 10 commandments are things we can ignore is too far out for me. Now much of the OT was a shadow of things to come, but to dispensate it away is really radical.
Leviticus 18:23. `Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
Frank The OT laws (except the commandments) are hardly a good example for us to follow.
How about:
1 Peter 2:21-23 KJV 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
Is not this the new covenant way?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks for asking, try Acts 23:11-24
Neil, US, and others. Your thoughts are correct in my opinion! Truth is truth and it has not changed since Exodus 22 quoted below.
Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him. [3] If the sun be risen upon him, [there shall be] blood [shed] for him; [for] he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Malachi 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Neil wrote: 2. It may be that guns may not be practical in all circumstances; how about the shillelagh, combination club & walking-stick; 3. I don't have Bradford's account on hand (a good read), but I don't think the Pilgrims traveled to New England unarmed, faithful though they were. At least they treated the natives justly; considering what happened later in our history, that's a good testimony.
1. Yes, from the historical and accurately researched novels I have read, it was quite normal for say a travelling (walking) salesman to carry a cudgle as a means of protection from bandits abroad in the countryside, going back a few centuries in England.
2. It would indeed be interesting to know the history and their biblical thinking, but alas my history is sadly lacking.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Where would we find the Biblical admonition to not to defend ourselves against loss of life.
Quite, and where do we find scriptural examples of self-defence, especially in Paul's life, which was traumatic to say the least.
John UK wrote: Jim, I wonder if you can put into English the point made by the GBC. It sounds good to me, but I'm not sure I have it read right. "Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it. The Evangelist now describes the foolish zeal of Peter, who attempted to defend his Master in an unlawful manner. Boldly and courageously, indeed, he incurs great risk on Christ's account; but as he does not consider what his calling demands, and what God permits, his action is so far from deserving praise, that he is severely blamed by Christ. But let us learn that, in the person of Peter, Christ condemns every thing that men dare to attempt out of their own fancy." says Frenchy
John U.K., I would say they meant a soldier, which is what the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution applies to. Our Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to defend an individuals right to act like he lives in the Wild West. By the way, years before they allowed anyone in my state to carry concealed weapon. You could legally strap on a gun, and if it was in plain sight it was legal. I never saw anyone do that--I don't remember anyway.
It is really strange that most commentaries are silent on those verses except Clarke--he was against slicing people.
John UK wrote: 1. A good example then of when the law coincides and agrees with God's commandments. 2. Well, a pragmatic proponent might tell me to have a gun, because if it came down to a prolongued struggle, I would soon perish! 3. ... as opposed to the Pilgrims, who gladly accept their lot from the Lord, no matter what that lot might be.
2. It may be that guns may not be practical in all circumstances; how about the shillelagh, combination club & walking-stick; 3. I don't have Bradford's account on hand (a good read), but I don't think the Pilgrims traveled to New England unarmed, faithful though they were. At least they treated the natives justly; considering what happened later in our history, that's a good testimony.
Neil wrote: 1. Wrong, it is God's Law, not merely civil law, that no man be injured w/o just cause (Ex. 21 etc.), & that restitution be made in the event, which Jesus did for the servant on Peter's behalf. 2. Consider that protecting human life (esp. another's) may well be worth a prison term. At least you're alive. It is ironic, even funny, that Jim quotes the Geneva Notes, since it was the Bible used by very militant (in both senses) Puritans & Dissenters. Perhaps they overlooked that bit.
1. A good example then of when the law coincides and agrees with God's commandments.
2. Well, a pragmatic proponent might tell me to have a gun, because if it came down to a prolongued struggle, I would soon perish!
3. The Puritans and Dissenters both have their doctrine from scripture, and it would be nice to see some of them explain their position on this, as opposed to the Pilgrims, who gladly accept their lot from the Lord, no matter what that lot might be.
Where would we find the Biblical admonition to not to defend ourselves against loss of life. David certainly defended himself against Goliath who had threatened to end his life. And we have the following example also, (II Samuel 23)11 And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. The Philistines had gathered together into a troop where there was a piece of ground full of lentils. So the people fled from the Philistines. 12 But he stationed himself in the middle of the field, defended it, and killed the Philistines. So the Lord brought about a great victory.
John UK wrote: 1. Peter's sin was because he broke the law of the land, 2. ...The only time I would disobey the law of the land is if Christ commanded me to go preach or do some other service, and the guv made it illegal. In that case I would have to obet God not man, and sufer[sic] imprisonment for doing so; which would be God's will.
1. Wrong, it is God's Law, not merely civil law, that no man be injured w/o just cause (Ex. 21 etc.), & that restitution be made in the event, which Jesus did for the servant on Peter's behalf. 2. Consider that protecting human life (esp. your family's or another's) may well be worth a prison term. At least you're alive.
It is ironic, even funny, that Jim quotes the Geneva Notes, since it was the Bible used by very militant (in both senses) Puritans & Dissenters. Perhaps they overlooked that bit.
Geneva Bible Commentary wrote: Matthew 26:52: (14) Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that {y} take the sword shall perish with the sword. (14) Our vocation must govern our zeal. (y) They take the sword to whom the Lord has not given it, that is to say, they who use the sword and are not called to it. Jim said: I think we can say we can substitute the word "gun" for "sword" without damage to the meaning.
Jim, I wonder if you can put into English the point made by the GBC. It sounds good to me, but I'm not sure I have it read right.
"Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it. The Evangelist now describes the foolish zeal of Peter, who attempted to defend his Master in an unlawful manner. Boldly and courageously, indeed, he incurs great risk on Christ's account; but as he does not consider what his calling demands, and what God permits, his action is so far from deserving praise, that he is severely blamed by Christ. But let us learn that, in the person of Peter, Christ condemns every thing that men dare to attempt out of their own fancy." says Frenchy
I suppose out of all those 118+ comments this has been brought up?
Matthew 26 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said^ to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.---NASB
Geneva Bible Commentary wrote: Matthew 26:52: (14) Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that {y} take the sword shall perish with the sword. (14) Our vocation must govern our zeal. (y) They take the sword to whom the Lord has not given it, that is to say, they who use the sword and are not called to it.
I think we can say we can substitute the word "gun" for "sword" without damage to the meaning.
Neil wrote: 1. None of that refutes what I make of the text, for I already said resisting arrest, as Peter did, is a sin. That implies nothing about whether possessing or using weapons is sinful in itself. I say again, Jesus permitted them, & not just the sword Peter used. Are we to believe that Jesus permitted His Disciples to do what is sinful, that prophecy might be fulfilled? 2. "Instituted law": Whose, humanists' or God's? You smuggled in that inference w/o warrant. Not all sins as defined by man are Biblical sins.
1. Peter's sin was because he broke the law of the land, not God's law; and God says we must obey the law of the land, being ordained of God. And yes, I believe Jesus permitted Peter's sin to fulfill prophecy, just as happened later when Peter again fulfilled prophecy when he denied Christ thrice.
2. It all depends what God says about the "authority". Currently, I see it as being ordained of God, and thus in order to obey God in my life, I must be a law-abiding citizen. The only time I would disobey the law of the land is if Christ commanded me to go preach or do some other service, and the guv made it illegal. In that case I would have to obey God not man, and suffer imprisonment for doing so; which would be God's will.
John UK wrote: --- The instituted law must be obeyed; and if gun control laws are changed in the USA you will have to abide it. Hope that answers yours, John B.
The government is subject to the supreme law of the land, and must abide it. It cannot legally make laws overriding it. Since the citizenry is also subject to that supreme law, and their legal rights codified in it, no law contradicting it can be abided. As you said the instituted law must be obeyed, but with the qualification that no law may be instituted which contradicts the highest law.
John UK wrote: This is why Peter was a transgressor.
You make a very narrow fulfillment of the prophecy. Are we to believe that Jesus permitted His Disciples to carry swords to do what is sinful, that the prophecy of transgressors might be fulfilled? How about our transgressions being imputed to him on the Cross instead? No swords were required for any of this to occur; He would've been arrested anyway.
Food for thought: Christ made restitution for the servant's ear on behalf of Peter. Can't have him tried for assault & battery here. Peter's transgression was covered here, at least in secular terms.
"Instituted law": Whose, humanists' or God's? You smuggled in that inference w/o warrant. Not all sins as defined by man are Biblical sins.
118
There are a total of 157 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
john uk from wales: "it is an act of kindness to let sinners know exactly how they..."
