I have found that Mr. Grabbe is for the most part correct in one of arguments: I have found only one few bible verse that hints at self-defense killing, apart from Exodus 22:2,3. That verse is Genesis 4:23,24 (Lamech's killing of a man for wounding him, an action that seems to incur no wrath or displeasure of God).
I can understand our need to depend on and respect God's sovererignty. On the other hand, the bible does seem to teach that we are responsible for using responsibly what God has given us (and God gave man the ability to invent firearms), and that we ARE responsible for defending innocent lives (namely, the life of the person being attacked).
ping
Christianity only exists because good men took up arms to defend the fail against the paynim.
To believe otherwise is to be confident in the expectation of a miracle on demand. That is the heresy of "special providence" that G-d will send a miracle because you are a believer, and really really want one.
The G-ds help those who help themselves.
I would suggest that he read Ester. Therin the Jews were permitted to defend themselves from the evil of Haman.
God instructed Israel about what to do when a man was killed. Numbers 35:9-28 shows that God recognizes only two classifications of killing: accidental and intentional. "Self-defense" is not even listed as a possibility!
Although, as I recall, there were a couple of "safe" cities designated where a person could run to for safety against revenge killings. Not that I'm advocating killing someone in revenge, if he wishes to rely on OT texts related to the taking of life of another human then he is incorrect here when he claims there are only 2 classifications of killing. Scripture did not talk against the revenge killing but rather provided places of safe haven if a person was able to reach there. I believe his error, as far as I've read so far, is centered on looking to OT law for Christian behavior (and again, not to say there is no value in the OT, but we are not under the law, so to seek to utilize the law without applying the whole law seems to be questionable).
Hmmmm....what about "an eye for an eye?"
Christians are clearly required to protect the innocent.
Are we ever jsutified in intentionally killing another person? Yep, its called survival. oldest law ever.
Bump for tomorrow.
Exodus 22:2 seems to contradict the idea that Christians should not kill in self-defense: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." At first glance, this seems to support the "self-defense in one's home" argument, but like Numbers 35:16-28, the distinction is accidental versus intentional. The next verse, Exodus 22:3, explains this: "If the sun has risen on him [the killer], there shall be guilt for his bloodshed." This statute illustrates that God differentiates between a killing committed when it is dark and one done when it is light. The meaning is not that darkness gives us license to break God's law, but rather that in the dark it is more difficult to determine what level of force is necessary to restrain an unknown intruder. The law gives the homeowner the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he would not deliberately use lethal force, since that falls under intentional or premeditated murder (Exodus 20:13).
The author seems to understand that self defense IS authorized by this passage, but as it conflicts with the strict pacifist position he seems to be advocating he tries to discount it in an explanation that only necessary force is allowed to be used. But isn't that the same view that most Christians who would own a firearm would also state? I doubt that there are all that many Christians that would advocate using more than necessary force to defend their family against an armed intruder. And in his example of the South African churchman who used a firearm, it could be argued that he used no more force that was necessary. Would he draw a distinction that one is only allowed to use minimal force at night in one's own home and that the exact same and minimal amount of force becomes unacceptable during the daytime or out of the home even though lives of others are at stake?
I don't own a firearm, but were an intruder burst into my home and begin to slaughter my children with a knife I wouldn't stand back and listen to their screams...I would use what force was necessary to stop the carnage. If, instead, it was a neighbor who was being raped or stabbed in the stairwell outside my door I would again use necessary force to protect the victim. The author makes what I thought was a very weak argument about judging the value of another were one to end up killing the attacker. No, it's not a matter of judging but protecting the weak. It is God who will judge him, but were I unfortunate enough to end up killing the person in an effort to protect someone being stabbed by him it is not out of judgment but protecting the weak. If one were to follow his logic to it's conclusion we should release all those who are in prison as they are being judged and only God should judge...and that is simply not rational.
IOW, my maintaining moral purity by not killing is more important than the protection of the innocent.
I have a simple scenario that generally unmasks pretenders to pacifism like this idiot.
You are locked in a room that has a one-way window. On the other side of the window is a violent child molester who is getting ready to rape and kill a three year old girl. They are unaware of your presence.
You can only intervene by pushing a button that will cause the killer to painlessly drop dead. In the next few minutes, either the child will die horribly, if you choose to permit it, or the molester will die painlessly.
Do you push the button?
If you don't, you are a pacifist, and you belive your moral perfection is more important than the suffering of innocents.
If you do, you are not a pacifist, and all your arguments against violence are merely about whether it is valid in a particular case, not about whether it is always wrong.
What about the physical manifestation of evil? Usually, if we fall victim to violence, it is because someone else has CHOSEN to inflict violence. Our sinful actions (acknowledged by the author) affect others; perversely, he denies that the sinful actions of others can affect us - and declares that we cannot resist the sinful acts of others, regardless of obvious effect.
Funny how the author completely ignores Luke 22:36 "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."
Commentators go nuts trying to explain that "sword" means some spiritual abstraction, yet agree that "purse" and "scrip" refer to mundanely possessing tools for paying one's own way and carrying one's own stuff ... by which reasoning "sword" should also mean mundanely possessing tools for one's own defense.
The concept of armed self-defense is axiomatic in scripture, right down to being the foundation for many parables & metaphors: sword of the spirit/word, legions of angels, full armor of God, strong men protecting homes, etc. If weaponry and proper use thereof was inherently evil, such literary comparisons would be about as crazy as favorably comparing righteous acts to prostitution, murder, drunkedness, etc.
Imagine the "put on the full armor of God" metaphor expressed as "put on the full kinky lingere of God". Atrocious! Sacreligious! But then if weapons - and their suitable use - is so bad, why is "put on the full armor of God" the inspired Word? Is "the sword of the Spirit" to have the same impact as "the dildo of the Spirit"? certainly not! Yet those who seek to classify weapons (and by extention those who own/use them appropriately) as bad must in turn acknowledge that weapon-based Biblical metaphors must have horrible meanings, rather than be inspirational.