Featured Would you be part of civil unrest?

We have a fundamental disagreement here. I do not believe that we Christians should use violence even to protect our household. No scripture gives us that authority and Jesus' teaching strips us of any permission to use violence.

Regardless, you can still use a bat or pepper-spray or a hatchet or a guard dog... whatever. Assuming that we do have the scriptural right to use violence, even if guns are outlawed you could still protect you family.

Still doesn't affect my ability to read the Word, pray or worship. If the government ever decided to control where I go to church or how I worship, then I disobey because that has become a spiritual issue. I would not use violence, but I would disobey. Also worship does not require fellowship, you misapply "where two or more are gathered" - that is related to church discipline, not worship or prayer. Christ is always with us. I can worship wherever I please and he is there and receives it, whether I'm alone in my office or at church service with 200 brothers and sisters.

Also, this really falls apart when you consider the early church. They were under severe persecution from the Romans and the Jews. Yet they worshiped and spread the gospel. More effectively than we are today in all likelihood.

Lastly, we are now talking about directly spiritual things, which I said I would resist/disobey, non violently of course, as the apostles did.

 

I would suggest that is absurd. Jesus told His immediate disciples, The Twelve, to arm themselves for the days after His crucifixion and eventual ascension.

Luke 22, NASB
35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."
36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
37 "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." ​

And those aren't weapons? How do guns become a special class? What did they use before guns? A stick, a hatchet, a guard dog. A sword!! Assuming that we do have the scriptural right to use violence, even if guns are outlawed you could still protect you family.[/quote]And thus you also make it a spiritual issue, so my initial point, that there is no such thing as a "non-spiritual" issue, is proven. The rest of your post is irrelevant to that main point, and regardless of what I think of the reasoning you use in it, you have essentially, against your will, agreed with me this is a spiritual issue. So please, attempt another example.

 

No, he tells them to arm themselves so that the prophecy would be fulfilled, that he be numbered with transgressors.

Do you really think that Jesus told 12 men to arm themselves for self-defense but was satisfied that they only had 2 swords (v38)? If he wanted them to defend themselves through violence would he really have told Peter that those who live by the sword die by it as well? You really think the same Jesus who said "love your enemies" and "do not resist the one who is evil" suddenly is OK with stabbing people with swords?

This is everyone's first passage they jump to. It really is so predictable. Like Calvinists going to Romans 9. LOL

They absolutely are weapons. You missed what I said. I said "Assuming that we do have the scriptural right to use violence (which I emphatically deny)" you can still protect your family in those means. Maybe I wasn't clear on that. Sorry about that.

No actually, my point stands. I have not agreed at all, nor have you proven anything. The government outlawing guns is not a spiritual issue.

 

We have spent all morning arguing a "non-spiritual issue" with biblical references.

The fact is, no issue can be raised that is not a spiritual issue. You lose.

 

:laugh:
LOL Just declaring victory doesn't make it so.

Also I think we may have slightly differing definitions of "non-spiritual issue." Again, by that I mean an issue that does not directly impact Christian faith or practice. You seem to define it as anything that impacts our lives at all. I can kind of be sympathetic to that as I truly believe all of life is worship and everything we do and say and think is theology, however when we are talking about the practical issues of how we practice our faith some issues are not relevant. If you really thought everything was a "spiritual issue" in the way I am saying, then you would necessarily be an anarchist and believe that the apostles were wrong to not always be resisting the Romans or the Jews.

I also notice you didn't actually deal with anything I said in my last post. Though the issue of violence should probably be it's own thread.

 

In this case it does. :laugh:

Bos, Bos, Bos ...

That's because it is.

That is simply untrue.

Ridiculous leap to erroneous conclusion. The Bible clearly teaches I must submit to the government until the government defies God, or puts me in a situation in which I must choose following it, or following Him. So you would be wrong in that statement.

Which is why I didn't deal with it. I will say this: There is nothing in the Bible that would lead anyone to conclude they as believers should be pacifists.

 

That's our problem, like I said. Differing definitions. I don't think you can reasonably say that if guns were outlawed that directly impacts our faith and practice.

No, I'm right. See, I can arbitrarily declare victory too! :tongue3:

But seriously, I agree with what you said. That's my point even. Sticking with our topic of gun confiscation, that is not an issue of following God or the gov. Turning in your guns is not being disobedient to God. In fact, I would go further and say that disobeying that law would be disobedience to God because you are to submit to the government, even in unjust laws, that do not impact your faith. Losing your guns does not impact your faith.

Simply not true. I am a pacifist (though I don't like the term. Too much non-Christian baggage there) and the majority of the church for the first 200-300 years was pacifistic. I am not a pacifist by nature or nurture. I'm from West Virginia with a huge gun/military tradition in my family, I served in the military, and I own and love guns, I am not exactly the prime candidate for being a pacifist. I only became one after careful, agonizing study of the word of God.

Granted, I acknowledge a lot of people smarter than me disagree (But many agree too!). Same with Calvinism and Arminianism. Thankfully this is a way secondary (tertiary?) issue and complete uniformity on this is not necessary for fellowship.

 

It negates my ability to provide the proper level of safety and security for my family, which puts me in conflict with His commands. There is a great deal of truth to the addage, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight." I would add, "Or a hammer, hatchet or stick, either." Armed intruders aren't going to come into my house with hatchets and sticks. Even if the government confiscates guns, the bad guys will still have them. I have the right, and according to God, the duty to protect my home family.

As you can imagine, I beg to differ. :laugh:

Totally incorrect.

I would suggest you study it again, Bos.

I'm not sure it's as secondary as you believe, but pacifism is also another thread.

 

I was going to ask for chapter and verse for those commands, but that really is OT. Feel free to make a new thread for a pacifism debate. I'm bored and have nothing better to do ATM. :smilewinkgrin:

I'm shocked.

Again, new thread needed, but... prove it.

Off and on the last 2 years or so. I am fully convinced of Christian non-violence. Maybe it's your turn to study it?

Why? You can't fellowship with a pacifist? That's kind of narrow minded don't you think? One of my best friends is a big pro-America libertarian who is just waiting for he first shot to be fired (I exaggerate of course... some). We disagree obviously but still are good friends and worship together.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There's nothing implied that I would not fellowship with you. It's just that the endless back and forth about whether it is or is not secondary is a rabbit trail and neither of us would ever convince the other. I'm sure your friend and you don't debate the topic endlessly like a seemingly never-ending table tennis volley. :laugh:

 

You said it wasn't as secondary as I made it out to be. I took that to mean that it would be a major issue for you. Typically disagreements in major issues inhibit fellowship. Did I misunderstand you?

And no we don't debate it much. We've talked about it some though. He VEHEMENTLY disagrees. :laugh:

 

Even if it is "secondary" to you and not so much to me, how does that impede fellowship, unless one of us is an egocentric arrogant jerk? Which I don't believe to be the case. Wait a minute! You're not hiding something from me, are you? :laugh:

Hm. Sounds familiar, don't it? :smilewinkgrin:

 

LOL. I thought that you were implying it would be a hindrance to fellowship. I guess that's what I get for assuming. My bad.

:smilewinkgrin:

Back to the OP. No I would not participate in civil unrest. I would encourage all Christians to not participate either. We should however be active in our society by working within the system we have. Vote, campaign, run for office if you feel so led and above all pray.

 

Interesting that there isn't an option presented to act like a Christian in the coming unrest. Christ commanded that we love our neighbor and even our enemies. That's the only reaction that will prove to be of any real value. Yes, I will be out in the streets when the revolution occurs against the powerful few but I will NOT have a gun in my hand but instead a Bible.