I can see that for the benefit of the reconstructionists and dominionists, we are going to have to do a New Testament Bible Study on this subject together, lest you begin Temple sacrifices and do three pilgrimages to Jerusalem every year, and all the other old covenant principles which are now supposed to be obsolete, being fulfilled in Christ, and which ought never be seen again.
We'll do that later....
But here's a good text to begin. Jesus said:
Mark 8:35 KJV (35)Ā For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
Christopher, the answer to your question is: When some people attend their church, they do so for Jesus Christ's sake and the gospel. When others attend a church service, it is not for Jesus Christ's sake, nor is it for the gospel. The former are Christians and the latter are pretend-Christians. Does that answer?
Dr. Tim wrote: John, if a demoniac enters our church to get saved, then hopefully he gets saved. If he enters to shoot our wives, children and grandchildren, he gets blown away. What could be fairer than that?
Tim, you are asking what is fair?
You need to ask the Lord himself about this, as I think he's the only one who could explain it to you.
There is certainly a great similarity between Darwin's 'Survival of the Fittest', and the American Culture.
What folks are not realising is, that the thread is about what a church ought to do to protect its faith and witness, including training its adherents to use weaponry such as guns to shoot and kill anyone coming in during a church service brandishing weaponry designed to kill people there.
It is easy to blur the lines and digress into personal protection.
Bro US, the difficulty here is that the law in the UK is somewhat different from the law in the USA. The reason I mentioned vigilantes, is because I imagine most Americans are brought up on a diet of "Vengeance" westerns, where a lone settler family is attacked while husband is out working, and when he gets home and is heartbroken, he vows to spend the rest of his life seeking out the perps and killing them one by one. Watching such a film creates in the human heart an empathetic feeling, and most of the second half of the film is taken up rejoicing in death, as one by one, the bandits are tortured and slowly put to death.
But this is the ungodly way.
Jesus came to save wicked sinners, even a demoniac with 100 devils in residence. A naked man living in a cemetery, a human being with immense strength. Is he worth saving? Jesus thought so.
Mike wrote: John, they were taken by Paul *because they were Christian,* and imprisoned because they were Christian, which puts a different light on it, no? They became martyrs for Christ. On the other hand, the looney who enters a church building to kill because he wants to kill isn't doing it because they are Christian, any more than the one who enters a school to kill is doing it because they are students, nor the one who shoots from a building is doing it because they are pedestrians. He is wanting to kill them because he wants to kill them. No Christian martyrdom involved. Just evil for it's own sake, and should be avoided if possible, or stopped if necessary.
Okay Mike thanks, let's run with that a while.
As far as I know, in every country of the world it is illegal to kill someone. That is law. And who enforces the law? The entire legal system. Who are vigilantes? They are people who take the law into their own hands. They do not have authority to be the entire legal system, yet they exercise what they call justice. Are they accepted by God? How does it tally with Romans 13?
BTW, you are saying it is okay to die for Jesus Christ, if that is the cause of your death.
Ahem Tim, I think you are rather losing the thread.
Let me remind you.
[The simulated gunfight at the church in Haslet was part of a niche industry that trains civilians to protect their churches using the techniques and equipment of law enforcement. Rather than a bullet, the rifle fired a laser that hit Stephen Hatherley's vest ā triggering an electric shock the 60-year-old Navy veteran later described as a "tingle." ...]
Now then, biblical warrant please!
Forget the modern equivalents; where is the biblical equivalent where the local synagogue/church trained up its adherents in weaponry to protect themselves from an isolated attack?
Dr. Tim wrote: So what Jesus should have said was, āBut 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, or better yet, lease one, because heās only going to need it for about six weeks.ā I canāt think of a New Testament example of anyone going to the loo, either, but Iām pretty sure they did.
Dr Tim, you obviously have no answer, so you resort to mocking or making do with an out of context verse of scripture, which you have received as the traditionalist verse for weapon possession, without really thinking it through.
I'm asking for a verse of scripture from the birth of the church onwards, and you can only refer back to the same old, same old, proof text from before Pentecost, taken out of context. So what that tells me is that this is the ONLY verse you are basing your entire theology of weapon possession on, in the new covenant economy.
Can you not see how precarious a position that is to hold? That maybe, just maybe, you are allowing American culture to outweigh Biblical culture. That is what I believe you are doing, and it will take scripture not scorning to shift my position.
At Pentecost, the Holy Ghost came, and filled all of the disciples and the NT church came into being. I have been trying extremely hard to think of a biblical occasion since then, when an apostle or a disciple or any ordinary saint took up any weapon with which to defend himself, in any circumstance whatever, and I just cannot think of one example. If I have missed one, please would someone share it. Thank you.
Mike NY, still looking forward to your reply, bro.
Acts 22:19-20 KJV (19)Ā And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: (20)Ā And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.
Before Saul of Tarsus became a Christian, he was very nasty to the saints. He beat some, imprisoned others, killed others.
Now Mike, what are you saying these saints ought to have done differently, which would have prevented them being beaten, imprisoned, or killed?
Youth in Asia wrote: Well in China paper currency is already obsolete, with only digital currency accepted by many stores. I already could not get a shuttle bus from the airport because they did not take paper money. All it takes is your bank account frozen and you can't buy anything. The end is near, the technology is in place, all that is required is for Israel to rebuild their temple.
That is very interesting YIA. So how do people with no bank account buy anything at the moment? And what do you use to make a purchase? Card? Phone?
Dr. Tim wrote: The dispensationalist believes there will be wars and rumors of wars, Douglasāand North Korea is certainly producing plenty of those rumors. The dispensationalist also believes that in the last days perilous times shall comeāin fact, it may not even be safe to go shopping at Walmart. And he believes there will be scoffers, people who ridicule his biblically based beliefs. Sounds like the olā dispy is batting a thousand, doesnāt it?
Someone told me it wouldn't be safe to shop anywhere, at least not without the mark of the beast.
There's a huge financial computer complex in Luxembourg called The Beast.
Dr. Tim wrote: Okay, John, he has overstayed his leave of absence from the loony bin.
And he won't go back on his meds, as they make him use a keyboard same as most other folk do. And seeing as he's an upper-case, off-the-limit, off-his-tree, former politician (and therefore cannot be a Christian), all in all there's not much hope for him, except in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.