This Guy: Mark Keith Robinson

All of the NT examples of those who died rather than use violence to defend themselves, no doubt had more of the Spirit than any of us. Let's follow their example, and stop beating the air over hypothetical situations.

 

This is completely evading my theological points which you quoted, and which are certainly not hypothetical. Apparently you do not operate in theological bounds, since you have bit answered my theological points, and since your pneumatology is faulty. No has any "more of the Spirit" than anyone else. You don't measure the Holy Spirit, since He is eternal God. John 3:34 (my translation): "For the one Who God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by degrees."

But hey, I'll bite. Name me a believer in the NT who died through violence other than persecution. All of the 12 except John died violent deaths, though only that of James is recorded in the Bible. No one on this thread, least of all me, has opposed dying for the cause of Christ in persecution. But this thread is not about that, but about defending yourself from evil non-persecutors in your own home.

 

Thanks for keeping this interesting. All I can say is I have not seen any proof from you about Christians using violence to defend themselves. Only conjecture. The reason is, [Edit: vicious attack on Christians edited]

 

So at lunch I mentioned this debate to "my son the Ph.D.," who teaches with me. In particular, he was surprised to hear that 1689Dave rejected the applicability of the OT verses I mentioned that clearly are in favor of self defense and defending the helpless. He mentioned how German theologians before WW2 rejected the OT in a similar way. Now, please note that I am not committing "Godwin's Law" here (Godwin's law - Wikipedia).

My point is not that 1689Dave is Hitler! He is just the opposite. But the point is that if you reject the OT as having any applicability to modern Christianity, you are going to end up in a completely untenable position. And that is where 1689Dave is right now.

By the way, I barely plumbed the OT passages on self defense. Try the one about Abraham chasing down the kidnappers of his nephew Lot with his trained and armed servants. Then there is this:
Ex. 22:2--"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."

 

So, you totally reject the theological points I've made, is that true?

I've not used conjecture, but theology, which you have not even tried to answer.

And I've given Christ's example of defending his Father's house (His own house) against evil men, and all you can rejoin is that I should go and throw someone out of a church building. So who is following Christ's example? I am, not you.

And now you are completely out of arguments, and cannot answer my theology and my argument that Christ used violence, so you compare me to Al Capone! You have completely gone off the rails!! FYI, Capone is the bad guy coming into my house, the career criminal who was a murderer. If I defend my wife from a rapist and murderer, even to the point of killing the guy (and I can do that without a gun), I'm not Al Capone, I'm defending against him!

 

Jesus abolished circumcision, and the Ten Commandments on the cross. But he reinterpreted the Ten Commandments for us under the New Covenant. And in it he preached non violence, love of enemies, turning the other cheek, and so on. If you do the complete opposite of what the Ten Commandments forbade, you get the Sermon on the Mount and the whole of NT ethics.

Instead of killing our enemies, we go the extra mile and love them. Instead of stealing, we give in love to all brethren as our equal. We promote our neighbor instead of coveting his assets, and so on.

Do the opposite of what the law forbade and you'll get the picture.

 

The passage on turning the other cheek is the most misused one ever in any discussion of self defense. The passage is about revenge, not self defense. As an expert in self defense, I can tell you that a slap on the cheek (Christ is not talking about a punch) is an insult in any culture, but is not a damaging blow (unless you are a Sumo wrestler). If a bad guy comes in my house, I'm not going to slap him, I'm going to attack his vital points.

A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures on Matt. 5:39--"
"One thing certainly is meant by Jesus and that is that personal revenge is taken out of our hands, and that applies to 'lynch-law.' Aggressive or offensive war by nations is also condemned, but not necessarily defensive war or defence against robbery and murder. Professional pacifism may be mere cowardice."

But hey, at least you've finally found a verse to talk about besides "Love your enemy."

Sorry, you have no credibility left with me since you compared me to a violent criminal, Al Capone. You are supposedly the non-violent one, yet you are committing verbal violence with this comparison. How hypocritical. Your insult has shown that you have no love for me. You'd do fine loving a vicious criminal like Al Capone (who is not my enemy, since I never knew him; therefore I don't have to love him).

 

I did not compare you with Al. I said we are to follow Jesus, not big Al. Big difference.....the choice is yours.

 

You certainly did compare me with Al Capone. It's there for everyone to see. In your view I'm not following Jesus, but Al Capone. At least have the guts to acknowledge that you did make that comparison. You, sir, are verbally violent while you advocate non-violence.

And I'm following Jesus the Violent One by defending my home. I've made that clear, and you've not been able to deal with that.

 

If you took it that way I apologize. But I'm saying we need to follow Jesus and not think as thugs do.

 

Except...I can't find a single pre-Constantine example of a Christian resisting evil physically in the way some advocate here. I'm not saying I could live up to that standard. But to claim that violence is justifiable based on Christian behaviour between the NT and the Edict of Milan seems a massive leap.

 

I beg your pardon. Edict of Milan? Where did that come from? I've strictly used Scripture, and not church history (which I teach, so I know it well). In fact, I see no reason for any church father to discuss the matter, so if they did have an opinion they kept it to themselves.

 

There you go again. So according to you, if I defend my wife from being raped and murdered, I'm a thug. Do you really read what you write? Do you know what a thug is? He's a criminal. Yet all 50 states (and Japan where I lived and other countries I've visited) allow for defending one's self and family in one's own home.

You cannot change words ("thug") to mean what you want them to mean. I'm a linguist. I can tell you that the term "thug" has never been used in the history of the English language to mean "one who defends his home and family." Once again, you are committing verbal violence by applying "thug" to me.

There is a motto in Karate, attributed to Gichin Funakoshi, who took the art from Okinawa to Honshu: 空手に先手なし ("There is no first blow in karate.") Thugs strike first. Defending one's self means to strike second.

 

Weaponry types are irrelevant.

Simple question: name a Christian from the birth of the Church in Acts to Constantine who practised or advocated physical violence even when s/he or his/her family were on the receiving end of violence

 

Simple answer. Name some document from the same time period which condemns using physical violence in defense of one's self or family.

Your argument is like saying, name a single church father who was in favor of cooking steaks. The writers of the time simply did not comment on the issue.

 

For those who wish to stick to Scripture instead of church history, note that John the Baptist was certainly not a pacifist. When approached about how a soldier should act, he did not recommend leaving the army, but instead regulated how they should act while in the army (Luke 3:14). Later, Jesus Himself praised a centurion whose son He had healed, but did not tell him to leave the military, instead praising the man's faith (Luke 7:8-9).