Private Message received from fellow church member about carrying at church.

[Glock Lover]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the apostles say something about self defense? I believe it was "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" or something to that nature.

was actually Jesus. A little out of context but we'll take it.

 

[jennybird]

I was curious about this - I've read Luke, but I guess that part didn't click with me at the time. I found a link that goes into a bit more detail about the topic of the Bible and self defense that gives a good explanation. The Bible and self-defense

Theweakerbrother, this might be a good article for you to share with your friend.

And carrying a weapon isn't about fighting violence with violence as she stated, it's about protecting ourselves, our families, and our homes.

 

[Armed & Christian]

http://img6.imageshack.us/i/truelove0814.jpg/

 

[mettle]

I posted a link to the black man carrying the AR-15 in Arizona. Because I have friends all across the political board, the post received a lot of arguing between my two camps of friends. I mostly stayed out of it until one young woman from our church said that she would never let her family near them. I mentioned to her that almost every time she's seen me socially, it has been with a loaded firearm.



I figured I would let the fine community here read what I had to say before I replied. Is this bringing too much personal stuff to the forum?

In hindsight, I should not have probably mentioned that I carry. I'm just trying to preach the Second Gospel of the right to keep and bear arms.

This is my rough draft reply to her:



What do you guys think?

I think she has been drinking long and hard from the koolaid straw and it would take a lot more than an email/letter to her to try to convince her of other ideas.

My take?... send her a letter with an analogy of some sorts. Ask her if she is afraid of something; and, then explain that she steers clear of it b/c she wants to avoid it. You carry a firearm b/c you want to steer clear of death via being a victim.

Trying to tell her it is your right to carry, is a waste of time. She long ago decided that guns were evil...

Be direct, concise and show her from her angle that it is a deterrent. People always use the 'Jesus said go get a sword' argument all the time. But it is out of context. When he sent the disciples out in Luke chapter 10, he told them to go with nothing.

You must explain from a non political, non amendment direction; b/c, she doesn't believe it IS a right, but a danger to her.

 

[Boilers]

Just waltz in her unlocked front door one day and say "Now, what if I had ill intentions?"

 

[racr28]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the apostles say something about self defense? I believe it was "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" or something to that nature.

LUKE 22:36

Then said he to them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his money: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

 

[mettle]

LUKE 22:36

Then said he to them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his money: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

This is taken well out of context folks, everyday on this board....

Read Matthew Henry's Commentary on it.

Christ just got through telling them to watch and PRAY, unless they fall into temptation. What he meant was to actually begin to sell all and begin spiritual warfare; via prayer.

2 Cor. 10:4. Christians do not war, nor were they encouraged to in Christ's time. >>>> Prayer <<<<

We must use firearms in a modest way to promote self preservation. God gave us a brain, so therefore, we should use it. STOP twisting the Word to a make it sound like what you want it to.

 

[Armed & Christian]

This is taken well out of context folks, everyday on this board....

Read Matthew Henry's Commentary on it.

Interesting...neither Geldenhuys, nor Lenski, nor A.T. Robertson agree with you; and neither did Francis Schaeffer, nor John Knox, nor Augustine.

Thank God that neither Charles Martel nor the Founding Fathers thought as you do.

If you are persuaded that our weapon is merely prayer, why do you bother to own firearms? After all, God is sovereign. If He wants you to be completely and utterly protected by means of prayer alone, then so be it.

Go pander your incorrect teaching somewhere else. In the meantime, you might try reading this

 

[dburkhead]

This is taken well out of context folks, everyday on this board....

Read Matthew Henry's Commentary on it.

Christ just got through telling them to watch and PRAY, unless they fall into temptation. What he meant was to actually begin to sell all and begin spiritual warfare; via prayer.

2 Cor. 10:4. Christians do not war, nor were they encouraged to in Christ's time. >>>> Prayer <<<<

We must use firearms in a modest way to promote self preservation. God gave us a brain, so therefore, we should use it. STOP twisting the Word to a make it sound like what you want it to.

You might want to take a little deeper look yourself. For one thing, most of Paul's epistles were written as "fixes" for groups of Christians at the time. They are like "spiritual medicine." Does one make medicine and only medicine one's steady diet? Of course not.

Context is more than just the phrases before and after.

The Context of Luke 22:36 is as follows (from 22:31 King James Version--it's what I grew up with)

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death
And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing
Then said he unto them, But 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.
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

So, this is at the Last Supper. He will soon be headed out to Gethsemane and from their to the Cross. He knows this. This has been the point he has been headed toward since, well, forever. And so, very soon, he won't be with his disciples any more (not physically anyway) and he's giving some instructions. And he then points out the instructions that he gave the last time he sent them out on their own and gives them different instructions this time (the situation has changed and the situations to be faced have changed). And he echoes that meaning when his disciples show two swords and he says "it is enough." After all, if he meant the swords as parable, he never had any hesitation about explaining parables to his disciples when they didn't understand them (see, for example, the Parable of the Sower).

Sure, a bit further on he tells Peter to "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," but then, he doesn't tell Peter to get rid of the sword, just sheath it. Again, context. What is happening at that time is the culmination of all the prophesy up to that time. His very purpose there is to be taken and crucified, a sinless sacrifice for sin. That purpose is hardly served by a fight in his defense.

A lot of folk who like to paint Jesus and Christianity as basically pacifist focus on that latter bit and forget (or try to twist) the former. They also forget that Jesus himself, made a whip with his own hands and beat on a bunch of people because they didn't like where they set up shop. (Okay, where they set up shop was, in effect, his own house so one could say he was simply enforcing his own property rights, but let's not sugar coat it.)

Jesus's teachings are really a lot more complex than many people give them credit for.

 

[Feign]

Someone that relies on emotions FIRST for decisions and then logic/knowledge takes a bit more muscle to change their opinion thereof...whether it's guns, deciding on french cut or whole green beans in a can, or moving to another state.

And not to be sexist, but women typically think this way. "Well that's how I feel!" "I cheated on you because you didn't make me feel like you love me." "I wanted to feel good about myself so I had a light salad with viniagrette dressing and water with lemon for lunch." Et cetera, ad nauseum.

 

[dkc485]

I've been corrected. Thanks for the specific verses too, i'll have to check it out

 

[RCB]

From a "church" perspective you might also mention that it is true that we should turn the other cheek, there are so very many people who aren't trying to simply strike you, they are misguided and often deprived thinking nothing of your life or anyone else's. God does not advocate against protecting yourself or your family. There are numerous verses about this in the Bible.

While people have almost breathed life into guns, they are no different than swords or spears of the past or for that matter... fists. Now, guns are a serious thing but not to be worshiped or feared. That said however it is important to understand the purpose of any weapon, be it gun, knife or fist. The purpose of a weapon is to amplify the damage a person can do. No more, no less. In a world where guns are everywhere, it is only wisdom to so equip yourself. They have no intent of their own, but rather take on their master's intent.

For those of us who try to follow the Bible, we are specifically told not to tempt God. Would you leave your house unlocked, trusting in God to make sure that no one steals from you, even though God gave you the common sense and ability to secure your belongings? In my opinion, as we have the ability to defend ourselves from malevolent forces, it would be foolish to not prepare accordingly.

Hopefully, we never have to deal with such a situation, but isn't it wise to be prepared?

This post isn't intended to be a religious post, but rather a perspective from within a given culture.

 

[mettle]

You might want to take a little deeper look yourself. For one thing, most of Paul's epistles were written as "fixes" for groups of Christians at the time. They are like "spiritual medicine." Does one make medicine and only medicine one's steady diet? Of course not.

Context is more than just the phrases before and after.

The Context of Luke 22:36 is as follows (from 22:31 King James Version--it's what I grew up with)



So, this is at the Last Supper. He will soon be headed out to Gethsemane and from their to the Cross. He knows this. This has been the point he has been headed toward since, well, forever. And so, very soon, he won't be with his disciples any more (not physically anyway) and he's giving some instructions. And he then points out the instructions that he gave the last time he sent them out on their own and gives them different instructions this time (the situation has changed and the situations to be faced have changed). And he echoes that meaning when his disciples show two swords and he says "it is enough." After all, if he meant the swords as parable, he never had any hesitation about explaining parables to his disciples when they didn't understand them (see, for example, the Parable of the Sower).

Sure, a bit further on he tells Peter to "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," but then, he doesn't tell Peter to get rid of the sword, just sheath it. Again, context. What is happening at that time is the culmination of all the prophesy up to that time. His very purpose there is to be taken and crucified, a sinless sacrifice for sin. That purpose is hardly served by a fight in his defense.

A lot of folk who like to paint Jesus and Christianity as basically pacifist focus on that latter bit and forget (or try to twist) the former. They also forget that Jesus himself, made a whip with his own hands and beat on a bunch of people because they didn't like where they set up shop. (Okay, where they set up shop was, in effect, his own house so one could say he was simply enforcing his own property rights, but let's not sugar coat it.)

Jesus's teachings are really a lot more complex than many people give them credit for.

You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. The disciple's, including the Jews even today, were are ARE waiting for some 'Messiah' to show up and give them a revolution. The disciple's were wanting to fight, which never was Christ's intention for His church. If it was, He would have never submitted to the Cross; but rather, He would have commanded His angels to fight.
God's kingdom on this Earth WILL BE spiritual until He descends to rule for the 1000 year period. His period of Grace right now is concerned with the SOULS of men.
You are wrong. Christ never wanted the disciple's to participate in, talk about, actual physical fighting. He had been teaching them for 3 years to become SPIRITUAL powerhouses. Why would one need a sword when Christ gives him power to command healing, peace, security and protection. He said in MANY places, my kingdom is IN you. Though, people need to be filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost (evidenced by other Tongues BTW)to actually understand this... and so few submit to what they don't understand for fear of embarrassment, and remain bound by the traditions of men.

Next thread....

 

[mettle]

TheWeakerBrother: I hope your family receives your correspondence in the right spirit.

 

[RCB]

I do agree they must be used modestly however. Because of the enchanced ability they confer, I have seen a lot of glorification of weapons. They need to be viewed like a tool, which is all they are. They serve to enhance bodily protection as well as providing food (for those of us who hunt). So try to use them to intimidate others or try to feel power over another. Those are (from my perspective) wrong ways to use a weapon.

 

[dburkhead]

You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. The disciple's, including the Jews even today, were are ARE waiting for some 'Messiah' to show up and give them a revolution. The disciple's were wanting to fight, which never was Christ's intention for His church. If it was, He would have never submitted to the Cross; but rather, He would have commanded His angels to fight.

Matthew 10:34

The position given through Jesus's own words is far more complex than what you are portraying here.

God's kingdom on this Earth WILL BE spiritual until He descends to rule for the 1000 year period. His period of Grace right now is concerned with the SOULS of men.

Not supported by the textual evidence.

You are wrong. Christ never wanted the disciple's to participate in, talk about, actual physical fighting. He had been teaching them for 3 years to become SPIRITUAL powerhouses. Why would one need a sword when Christ gives him power to command healing, peace, security and protection.

Then why didn't Jesus tell Peter to throw away the sword? And how do you reconcile all this with the frequent OT admonitions, indeed outright orders to fight? Why have the Isrealites fight when God could have simply smitten the Midianites.

But it must be nice to be so secure in your belief as to be able to make a flat-out "You are wrong" about something that happened close to 2000 years ago, had to be hidden for the first century or so, and then could not be questioned for the next millenium or so after that (both phases on pain of death).

He said in MANY places, my kingdom is IN you. Though, people need to be filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost (evidenced by other Tongues BTW)to actually understand this... and so few submit to what they don't understand for fear of embarrassment, and remain bound by the traditions of men.

Next thread....

And yet he did not tell Peter--the only other person ever demonstrated (or at least so the same textual evidence for anything else related to Jesus claims) to actually have sufficient faith to take a step or two on water--to throw away the sword.

And he most clearly told his disciples to take swords with them. After all, the Kingdom of God is not generally well served with having it's missionaries slaughtered by highwaymen before they could even spread the word.

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[Archbishop]

Just waltz in her unlocked front door one day and say "Now, what if I had ill intentions?"

Too funny. Course she might be a "closet gun hugger" and shoot you when bust through the door.....
I'm surprised that no one else said what I'm going to say, so take it with a grain of salt, but Your opening sentence says you under stand her hatred of guns. I would soften that to be something to the effect of I understand your feelings on guns. I think saying hatred could be an attack right out of the box. I like the over all feel of the message. Maybe say something to effect of no matter how safe it seems just driving to the grocery store we still buckle up just in case and no matter how safe our town is I carry just in case.
And lastly, and I mean this as a fellow Christian, Pray over the letter when you send it. Let God prepare her heart before she receives it.
God's speed to you.

 

[theweakerbrother]

I appreciate everyone's advice. I sent her a slightly edited copy of the letter. I also appreciate the reps I received and was flattered by those who said they are bookmarking this for future use.

Now if only I could get into the gun magazine editorial business... mmm.

 

[antsi]

carrying a weapon isn't about fighting violence with violence

If you want to get in to this, violence is the unjustified use of force. So, no, we're not advocating using violence against violence. We're number one advocating avoid the threat if possible, and number two, using justified force to defend oneself from violence if necessary.

I guess a similar argument could be used against surgery for knife wound victims: "you can't cure tissue incision with more tissue incision." In both cases, they're ignoring intent. A surgeon and a knife murderer may both use sharp instruments to incise tissue, but one has a justified reason for doing so.