Does the Bible allow Christians to defend themselves with lethal force?

[JesusFan]

I tend to agree with you on protecting family as opposed to being persecuted for the faith.

I would do everything to protect my family.

I would pray God enabled me to endure suffering for the cause of Christ as Jesus and His Apostles did..

peace to you

Must make a distinction between suffering for the cause and sake of jesus and suffering due to acts of evil and wicked persons directed against you not due to being a Christian !

 

[BasketFinch]

I have acknowledged the difficulty of accepting the teaching we are not to defend ourselves if persecuted for the faith. There is really no question that is what was taught by Jesus and the apostles.

Concerning Jesus’ command to buy swords, the context is to advise His disciples of a change as they go forth. Unlike when He sent out the 70, now they would encounter danger as they preached the gospel. Had He expected armed revolution He would have not told them two swords were enough.

Just as a note; His disciples continuously misinterpreted what he said as they did here by pointing out they had two swords. Jesus told them “that is enough”. So either Jesus os saying it was enough of that kind of talk or, they only needed two swords among the 12 and other disciples to protect themselves. The former makes sense in the context and it is clear from early church history that is how Christians understood His words.

peace to you

I would suggest if self defense over concession to die passive were not a question, this thread would not exist nor have a ccryed these many pages.

The Hebrews were not passive in the OT. Not did God command it of them.

There are Christian soldiers serving in the military of different countries all over the world.

One cannot claim those soldiers are not of the faith for serving to protect and defend their country and their people.

The wars waged by Christians through history are evidence blanket passivity is a question. And is answered for over 2000 years.

We do not need to die on our knees for sovereign God's covenant to remain valid.

That the Disciples had two swords is evidence Jesus command was followed by two Apostles.

Though he instructed all of his Apostles to buy one.

There were two at first. To obey Jesus fully there would certainly be more later. Having two at that time was enough given the timeline of the Gethsemane encounter.

That there were two at all belies any argument Jesus was against arms. And the OT is fully proof that could never be.

What seems to be the point of yourself and some others here is to insist if a Christian is not unarmed and wholly passive, they are not in Christ. Or following his teachings. Implied so to be inferred by the reader rather than stated outright.

 

[canadyjd]

I would suggest if self defense over concession to die passive were not a question, this thread would not exist nor have a ccryed these many pages.

The Hebrews were not passive in the OT. Not did God command it of them.

There are Christian soldiers serving in the military of different countries all over the world.

One cannot claim those soldiers are not of the faith for serving to protect and defend their country and their people.

The wars waged by Christians through history are evidence blanket passivity is a question. And is answered for over 2000 years.

We do not need to die on our knees for sovereign God's covenant to remain valid.

That the Disciples had two swords is evidence Jesus command was followed by two Apostles.

Though he instructed all of his Apostles to buy one.

There were two at first. To obey Jesus fully there would certainly be more later. Having two at that time was enough given the timeline of the Gethsemane encounter.

That there were two at all belies any argument Jesus was against arms. And the OT is fully proof that could never be.

What seems to be the point of yourself and some others here is to insist if a Christian is not unarmed and wholly passive, they are not in Christ. Or following his teachings. Implied so to be inferred by the reader rather than stated outright.

Will you address the many passages of scripture where Christians are taught to passively endure persecution for the cause of Christ?

Whether Christians could serve as solders has been debated since the first century. The early church appears to have accepted the teaching that persecution for the cause of Christ was expected and should be endured passively as Jesus and His disciples did.

The very fact there is no record of any of the Apostles or early disciples taking up “swords” against persecution undermines your contention that Jesus commanded them to do so. In fact, the whole of the writings of the Apostles (and Luke) speak to the opposite conclusion.

When the Church in Rome consolidated power with the help of the Roman Army about the 4th century, they immediately began persecuted Christians that disagreed with them to the death.

The “crusades” were misguided butchery based on the promise of plenary indulgences.

The early church understood and practiced non violence toward those that persecuted them as sharing in the sufferings of Christ.

peace to you

 

[SavedByGrace]

Does he not use guns to defend his own?

Examples

 

[canadyjd]

Must make a distinction between suffering for the cause and sake of jesus and suffering due to acts of evil and wicked persons directed against you not due to being a Christian !

I do, when my family is involved.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

I would suggest if self defense over concession to die passive were not a question, this thread would not exist nor have a ccryed these many pages.

The Hebrews were not passive in the OT. Not did God command it of them.

There are Christian soldiers serving in the military of different countries all over the world.

One cannot claim those soldiers are not of the faith for serving to protect and defend their country and their people.

The wars waged by Christians through history are evidence blanket passivity is a question. And is answered for over 2000 years.

We do not need to die on our knees for sovereign God's covenant to remain valid.

That the Disciples had two swords is evidence Jesus command was followed by two Apostles.

Though he instructed all of his Apostles to buy one.

There were two at first. To obey Jesus fully there would certainly be more later. Having two at that time was enough given the timeline of the Gethsemane encounter.

That there were two at all belies any argument Jesus was against arms. And the OT is fully proof that could never be.

What seems to be the point of yourself and some others here is to insist if a Christian is not unarmed and wholly passive, they are not in Christ. Or following his teachings. Implied so to be inferred by the reader rather than stated outright.

When God gives a command, we obey. Has God commanded individuals in the body of Christ to pick up arms and fight their neighbors? I await the biblical evidence.

 

[canadyjd]

When God gives a command, we obey. Has God commanded individuals in the body of Christ to pick up arms and fight their neighbors? I await the biblical evidence.

He has given biblical support for his position. If you take the time to read the posts, he won’t have to repeat himself.

peace to you

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Pslam 27:17-20, "When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears and delivers them out of all their troubles. The Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all. He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken"

Ecclesiastes 9:18, "Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good"

Romans 12:19, "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

This has zero to do with discouraging self defense.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Exodus 22:2

 

[BasketFinch]

Will you address the many passages of scripture where Christians are taught to passively endure persecution for the cause of Christ?

Whether Christians could serve as solders has been debated since the first century. The early church appears to have accepted the teaching that persecution for the cause of Christ was expected and should be endured passively as Jesus and His disciples did.

The very fact there is no record of any of the Apostles or early disciples taking up “swords” against persecution undermines your contention that Jesus commanded them to do so. In fact, the whole of the writings of the Apostles (and Luke) speak to the opposite conclusion.

When the Church in Rome consolidated power with the help of the Roman Army about the 4th century, they immediately began persecuted Christians that disagreed with them to the death.

The “crusades” were misguided butchery based on the promise of plenary indulgences.

The early church understood and practiced non violence toward those that persecuted them as sharing in the sufferings of Christ.

peace to you

Will you address the many passages of scripture where Christians are taught to passively endure persecution for the cause of Christ?

Whether Christians could serve as solders has been debated since the first century. The early church appears to have accepted the teaching that persecution for the cause of Christ was expected and should be endured passively as Jesus and His disciples did.

The very fact there is no record of any of the Apostles or early disciples taking up “swords” against persecution undermines your contention that Jesus commanded them to do so. In fact, the whole of the writings of the Apostles (and Luke) speak to the opposite conclusion.

When the Church in Rome consolidated power with the help of the Roman Army about the 4th century, they immediately began persecuted Christians that disagreed with them to the death.

The “crusades” were misguided butchery based on the promise of plenary indulgences.

The early church understood and practiced non violence toward those that persecuted them as sharing in the sufferings of Christ.

peace to you

I have, with regard to your first question. God does not change. He wasn't passive in the OT nor did he advocate that for his elect.
That doesn't change. Because God doesn't.

 

[canadyjd]

Exodus 22:2

We don’t live under OT law.

Jesus said in Luke 6:29 “if someone takes your cloak, give him your coat as well.”

Nothing about killing the thief, but rather enduring the mistreatment passively.

peace to you

 

[BasketFinch]

When God gives a command, we obey. Has God commanded individuals in the body of Christ to pick up arms and fight their neighbors? I await the biblical evidence.

Non sequitur.

 

[atpollard]

Any scripture verses to support Christians using lethal force to protect themselves or others?

Sell your cloak and buy a sword.

 

[canadyjd]

I have, with regard to your first question. God does not change. He wasn't passive in the OT nor did he advocate that for his elect.
That doesn't change. Because God doesn't.

Are you claiming Jesus did not passively allow Himself to suffer and die? Did He take up a sword and fight back? Did the Apostles passively allow themselves to be martyred?

peace to you

 

[5 point Gillinist]

We don’t live under OT law.

Jesus said in Luke 6:29 “if someone takes your cloak, give him your coat as well.”

Nothing about killing the thief, but rather enduring the mistreatment passively.

peace to you

LOL. So I guess rape and murder are ok then? Please elaborate as to how this is not relevant to modern days.

 

[canadyjd]

Sell your cloak and buy a sword.

That has been addressed.

The context of the statement was to warn the Apostles of the coming danger with regard to spreading the gospel.

When the disciples stated they had two swords, Jesus said “that is enough”.

Either He meant that was enough of that kind of talk or He meant they only needed two swords for the 12 disciples and all others following Him. I believe the first is true.

There is no record after the resurrection of Jesus that any of His disciples “took up the sword”, in fact the opposite is true. All of the Apostles were passively martyred.

The early church clearly believed Christ had commanded them to endure persecution passively and followed the example of our Lord and His Apostles.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

LOL. So I guess rape and murder are ok then? Please elaborate as to how this is not relevant to modern days.

Strange you would “LOL” in the same breath as mentioning rape and murder.

I’m interested in what the Bible has revealed concerning the issue of Christian using lethal force.

Our Lord Jesus and His Apostles gave clear instructions, it seems to me. We can either believe it and attempt to live it, or walk according to what seems right in our own eyes.

At least on this issue, it appears most chose the latter.

peace to you

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Strange you would “LOL” in the same breath as mentioning rape and murder.

Strange that you aren't actually answering that (especially when there was a period which indicates an end to a sentence, and a beginning of a new one - nice try though ).
What the bible says about self defense is in the verse I gave you - if you want to disregard it with the tired old "we don't live under old covenant" argument, then that is fine, but murder and rape are OT rules too, so I guess you should disregard those as well.

 

[BasketFinch]

Will you address the many passages of scripture where Christians are taught to passively endure persecution for the cause of Christ?

Whether Christians could serve as solders has been debated since the first century. The early church appears to have accepted the teaching that persecution for the cause of Christ was expected and should be endured passively as Jesus and His disciples did.

The very fact there is no record of any of the Apostles or early disciples taking up “swords” against persecution undermines your contention that Jesus commanded them to do so. In fact, the whole of the writings of the Apostles (and Luke) speak to the opposite conclusion.

When the Church in Rome consolidated power with the help of the Roman Army about the 4th century, they immediately began persecuted Christians that disagreed with them to the death.

The “crusades” were misguided butchery based on the promise of plenary indulgences.

The early church understood and practiced non violence toward those that persecuted them as sharing in the sufferings of Christ.

peace to you

What about the Reformations? Catholic and Protestant.

Regardless of our opinion today the Crusades, there were 8 in total as I recall, they were considered just under God by the faithful.

 

[BasketFinch]

Are you claiming Jesus did not passively allow Himself to suffer and die? Did He take up a sword and fight back? Did the Apostles passively allow themselves to be martyred?

peace to you

I've already discussed Jesus death.

And history varies by tradition regarding the Apostles.
One thing we know is Jesus told them to buy swords. And why. And it was so they'd have them after he left.

Do we ignore that?

do we know how apostles died at DuckDuckGo