Christians Carrying Concealed Weapons - Falwell vs. Piper

[Zaac]

Don..., I'll answer your question. As a Christian you do whatever you can do to "serve and protect" another that has not the means to defend themselves.

...all of this "What If" stuff is for the birds. What If..., a helicopter falls on top of the cafeteria at Liberty during the lunch hour? What If..., an LP Gas tank explodes?

My wife and I carried concealed for 10 years and then let them expire. On occasion I still carry concealed especially while at church and will continue to do so.

Man hush. What are you,some sort of George Zimmerman wannabe? Officers are hired to serve and protect.

 

[Don]

I didn't see your response earlier Don.
Why do any of the scenarios you mentioned have to be settled by, i.e., shooting to kill? Or shooting at all? Are there not other ways to stop these things if you see them occurring other than shooting to kill?

The question included seeing someone shooting or stabbing--intending to cause serious bodily harm or death--others. So what would you have us do? Be specific, and give us an alternative.

Edited to add: where did anyone say "shoot to kill"? I believe you added that.

 

[just-want-peace]

The question included seeing someone shooting or stabbing--intending to cause serious bodily harm or death--others. So what would you have us do? Be specific, and give us an alternative.

Edited to add: where did anyone say "shoot to kill"? I believe you added that.

Typical to misquote, when they cannot argue the logic!! Very "liberal"!!??

 

[Zaac]

The question included seeing someone shooting or stabbing--intending to cause serious bodily harm or death--others. So what would you have us do? Be specific, and give us an alternative.

Edited to add: where did anyone say "shoot to kill"? I believe you added that.

Shoot to kill was the notion put forth by Jerry Falwell Jr. in his "address" during convocation. I was speaking to that notion as it is with what the thread started.
At Liberty University, a Christian's first line of defense should not be to kill or be killed, or to use deadly force to stop being killed as Mr. Falwell seemed to say.

I don't think it Christlike to walk around with a gun acting like you've got the answer if anything happens.

It's more about, again as Piper said, the attitude.

The cavalier attitude about taking a life tells me once again that abortion for a lot of folks is about politics and not about Christ. Otherwise, folks would be a lot less vocal about their ability to take a life if a situation arose.

Everything about being prepared to use the "sword" in such a way speaks to me of a worldly , fleshly response and not a spiritual response.

To answer your question about seeing someone shooting or stabbing, etc, I submit what Mr. Piper said:

A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”
My answer is sevenfold.

1) This instinct is understandable. But it seems to me that the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question. We don’t like this kind of ambiguity, but I can’t escape it. There is, as I have tried to show, a pervasive thrust in the New Testament pushing us toward blessing and doing good to those who hate, curse, and abuse us (Luke 6:27–28). And there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military. This is remarkable when you think about it, since I cannot help but think this precise situation presented itself, since we read that Saul drug men and women bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1–2).

2) Our primary aim in life is to show that Christ is more precious than life. So when presented with this threat to my wife or daughter or friend, my heart should incline toward doing good in a way that would accomplish this great aim. There are hundreds of variables in every crisis that might affect how that happens.

3) Jesus died to keep that assailant from sinning against my family. That is, Jesus’s personal strategy for overcoming crimes was to overcome sinful inclinations by giving his life to pay debts and change hearts. It is no small thing that Peter based non-retaliatory suffering from unjust treatment on the atoning work of Christ as exemplary: “To this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21).

4) I realize that even to call the police when threatened — which, in general, it seems right to do in view of Romans 13:1–4 — may come from a heart that is out of step with the mind of Christ. If one’s heart is controlled mainly by fear, or anger, or revenge, that sinful disposition may be expressed by using the police as well as taking up arms yourself.

5) I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I would personally counsel a Christian not to have a firearm available for such circumstances.

6) I do not know what I would do before this situation presents itself with all its innumerable variations of factors. And I would be very slow to condemn a person who chose differently from me.

7) Back to the first point, it seems to me that the New Testament does not aim to make this clear for us. Its aim is a radically transformed heart that lives with its treasure in another world, longs to show Jesus to be more satisfying than life, trusts in the help of God in every situation, and desires the salvation of our enemies.

 

[Zaac]

Typical to misquote, when they cannot argue the logic!! Very "liberal"!!??

Boring as usual.

 

[just-want-peace]

Boring as usual.

Not addressing the post -- as usual!!Rolleyes

Zaac sez: "I don't think it Christlike to walk around with a gun acting like you've got the answer if anything happens."

Right; misquote/twist, and then argue YOUR warped idea of what is actually said!!Rolleyes

 

[Zaac]

Not addressing the post -- as usual!!Rolleyes

Zaac sez: "I don't think it Christlike to walk around with a gun acting like you've got the answer if anything happens."

Right; misquote/twist, and then argue YOUR warped idea of what is actually said!!Rolleyes

I addressed it. Your usual boring mind coupled with your boring response just didn't like it. Checked off.

 

[HankD]

I believe God infused the will to survive in each of us.
I also believe those passages cited by Piper are for those who go forth into the world with the gospel and they should expect persecution and even martyrdom.

However, then there are those who come to us and mow us down like sitting ducks, this is a different situation.

While its true we have law enforcement to protect us, these ISIL murderers make sure and plan accordingly to kill where no firearms are allowed.

I believe Falwell said that only well trained individuals would be armed. Veterans and/or law enforcement persons preferably.

In this way the scenario of Jihadists (foreign or domestic) thinking to mow down as many students as possible would make Falwell's institution, having given them fair warning, an unlikely target.

Be wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove.

HankD

 

[just-want-peace]

I addressed it. Your usual boring mind coupled with your boring response just didn't like it. Checked off.

Well, you have calmed down a bit; now I'm just BORING instead of "BEING MIRED IN THE DEVIL'S WICKEDNESS".

Definitely an improvement!

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/will-america-survive.97133/page-2#post-218827

 

[Zaac]

Well, you have calmed down a bit; now I'm just BORING instead of "BEING MIRED IN THE DEVIL'S WICKEDNESS".

Definitely an improvement!

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/will-america-survive.97133/page-2#post-218827

Oh, you're STILL mired. You just added boring to your resume.Thumbsup

 

[salzer mtn]

When a man goes to war in a foreign land to defend his country this also includes his loved ones. Most likely you will have to kill the enemy. I don't see any difference in defending your loved ones and your property in America against those that would kill you and your family.

 

[True Puritan]

Jerry Falwell was right of gun right subject, I agree. But Falwell is in Hell, due to his heresy and betrayal of Faith. He sold himself to freewillism, God loves everybodyism, Arminianism, and corrupted political system. Love of money and power kill human souls.

 

[HAMel]

"Man hush. What are you,some sort of George Zimmerman wannabe? Officers are hired to serve and protect."

Zaac, take a couple of aspirins..., a short nap and you'll feel better when you wake up. Believe me. It works every time.

Most always "officers" show up after the fact.

 

[preachinjesus]

Apologies for the delay in replying, I've been about other things than this here board

Was David, a man after God's heart, chastised by God for protecting the sheep that he was made responsible for? Was David chastised by God for using a sling to kill Goliath? Or for waging battle?

David didn't live under the new covenant. Where are the examples, in the NT, of Christians committing brutality or "protecting others" with a sword that are condoned and championed?

He was most definitely chastised for sinning; but where's the example of Christians being chastised for protecting others?

I'm curious why "protecting others" inherently means carrying a gun. Are there no other alternatives? I'm all for protecting others, I just don't think the vast majority of Americans possess the capacity to properly handle a handgun in a sudden, violent situation.

Notice this video where British police, or this one as well, who are armed, bring down a machete wielding crazed man without shooting him. Isn't this a better option for ourselves and the police?

And to directly answer your question--Jesus talked a LOT about sheep. Is there anything in His discussions that would lead you to believe He would let the lion and the bear kill the flock?

The more direct line here is that in an moment where Jesus could have willingly allowed bloodshed on his behalf, the scene in the Garden where Peter strikes off the ear of another, he chooses instead to heal the wound rather than allow the pain. Under the New Covenant we have a new responsibility towards others.

I'm all for protecting others, but if we think that can only be accomplished with handguns we are lying to ourselves and the others we seek to protect.

You've made good points Don, please don't miss my appreciation of them, but I simply, respectfully disagree that handguns are the solution here.

 

[Revmitchell]

The more direct line here is that in an moment where Jesus could have willingly allowed bloodshed on his behalf, the scene in the Garden where Peter strikes off the ear of another, he chooses instead to heal the wound rather than allow the pain. Under the New Covenant we have a new responsibility towards others.

This does not make your case. They were there in the garden to take Jesus to the illegal court hearing where he was then taken to the cross. His purpose was in fact not to defend himself due to the greater purpose at that time.

 

[Rob_BW]

I'm curious why "protecting others" inherently means carrying a gun. Are there no other alternatives? I'm all for protecting others, I just don't think the vast majority of Americans possess the capacity to properly handle a handgun in a sudden, violent situation.

Notice this video where British police, or this one as well, who are armed, bring down a machete wielding crazed man without shooting him. Isn't this a better option for ourselves and the police?

If the average American, in your opinion, is not well trained enough to handle a gun in a violent situation, do you consider them well trained enough to engage a "machete wielding crazed man" unarmed? That seems to be your position.

The last crazed man I had to deal with (many years ago) ended up with me and a police officer tackling an unfortunate, mentally ill fellow in the gas station I was working at. He was pretty feisty, and I'm glad that he wasn't wielding a machete.

But, the entirety of the population is not healthy, young adult males. If my wife or disabled father in law were confronted by a machete wielding crazed man, I would hope that they had something other than their bare hands for defense.

 

[Zaac]

This does not make your case. They were there in the garden to take Jesus to the illegal court hearing where he was then taken to the cross. His purpose was in fact not to defend himself due to the greater purpose at that time.

It certainly does make his case as does everything Christ did on the Cross. A lot of you sound like you possess the same attitudes of the Jews during Christ's earthly ministry in that you think His way should be one of the sword and violence.

EVERYTHING He did during His earthly ministry pointed to His grace and mercy and forgiveness; the exact opposite of how the Jews thought the Messiah would come.

As preachinjesus said

I'm curious why "protecting others" inherently means carrying a gun. Are there no other alternatives?

Christ gave us the alternative to man's way. And man's way, without a doubt, is to arm yourself and shoot first and ask questions later.

This very worldly approach to dealing with folks definitely explains why some of you applaud with your words when a police officer kills an unarmed person.

Jesus will return with the sword in HIS time:

11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”a He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Rev. 19:11-16

 

[preachinjesus]

If the average American, in your opinion, is not well trained enough to handle a gun in a violent situation, do you consider them well trained enough to engage a "machete wielding crazed man" unarmed? That seems to be your position.

The last crazed man I had to deal with (many years ago) ended up with me and a police officer tackling an unfortunate, mentally ill fellow in the gas station I was working at. He was pretty feisty, and I'm glad that he wasn't wielding a machete.

But, the entirety of the population is not healthy, young adult males. If my wife or disabled father in law were confronted by a machete wielding crazed man, I would hope that they had something other than their bare hands for defense.

I didn't say anything about carrying non-lethal protection. I'm just curious how a handgun is, by default, the best option. Why not a telescoping baton, pepper spray, or even a stun gun? Why must the device of our protection be one of the few that almost automatically means the ending of a life?

 

[preachinjesus]

This does not make your case. They were there in the garden to take Jesus to the illegal court hearing where he was then taken to the cross. His purpose was in fact not to defend himself due to the greater purpose at that time.

I think it does. Of course, one might also point to the episodes where the crowd sought to seize Jesus and kill him (Luke 4:29-30) or when a crowd tried to stone him (John 8:58-59.) Jesus could have used force to repel these crowds, but instead he sought another way. In the second, the text plainly states that he ran and hid, in the first, a bit more miraculous perhaps.

When Paul, or maybe other early believers, was accosted by a crowd intent on harming him or killing him, how often did he, or they, take up arms in defense? Seems a new ethic is a hand.

Indeed, if we consider the literature of the earliest Christian communities through Nicaea there is a serious point made by the early Christians to resist using force to harm others seeking to harm them. If this weren't the model of the NT, why did a near pacifistic ethic suddenly emerge from the first Christians?

 

[Rob_BW]

I didn't say anything about carrying non-lethal protection. I'm just curious how a handgun is, by default, the best option. Why not a telescoping baton, pepper spray, or even a stun gun? Why must the device of our protection be one of the few that almost automatically means the ending of a life?

Because the things you listed are inadequate in the face of multiple assailants.