Tags
Repealing the 2nd Amendment: Blinded by Spiritual Darkness
This video is not evidence of a special kind of stupidity. It is evidence of how the darkness of being spiritually dead not only ignores the biblical teaching of the laws of God, specifically, the sixth commandment, but also demonstrates the apathy and lethargy that is prominent in Americans who have grown far too comfortable – and ungrateful to God – for the liberties and freedom they once enjoyed, and are now oblivious to. Americans may never wake up, unless by God’s grace, His Spirit moves.
5 Pt. Salt 
Despite its warning “shalt not be infringed,” the Second Amendment is the most infringed, licensed, and limited amendment of all twenty seven. And the day is probably coming when the Second Amendment Will be repealed. This is the nature and danger of optional constitutional rights versus non-optional God-expected responsibilities, such as the following one:
“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [beginning first with spiritual protection and second with physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)
I must disagree with your view of 1Timothy5:8. The Chapter deals with our responsibility for caring for the vulnerable, sick, widows etc. Both as families and as a body of believers Paul is reminding us of our responsibilities to care/ maintain/be thoughtful of. The word used (pronoeo προνοέω), “to take thought for, provide,” is translated “provide … for” in 1 Tim. 5:8; in Rom. 12:17 and 2 Cor. 8:21, rv, to take thought for (kjv, “to provide”). Nothing to do with fighting, arms, defense, guns.
Labhrashealy, thank you for responding.
After providing for his family’s spiritual safety, a Christian man’s next priority should be providing for his family’s physical protection. Food, clothing, and shelter are of little benefit if you are unprepared or unwilling to defend your family against thieves, rapists, and murderers. It is not unchristian to practice self-defense – it is unchristian if you do not.
I never said anything about self defense, neither condoned nor condemned it. I merely pointed out that the scripture you quoted was not valid for your argument. The passage relates only to our duty of care and provision.I give no opinion on the 2nd amendment, just my opinion on the use of God’s Word and it’s correct use in context. I know there are scriptures for both sides of the debate, but this is not one of them. On another note however, I do like the fact that Christians are willing to post online and take a biblical stand on issues. We may differ, but it is comforting to know that the Body of Christ is not just in my little town.
I disagree with you, I believe this is most powerful and overlooked passage in the Bible in favor of arming ourselves in defense of ourselves and our families. The point being “Food, clothing, and shelter are of little benefit if you are unprepared or unwilling to defend your family against thieves, rapists, and murderers.” In principle, therefore, this passage implies physical protection as well.
Let me ask you two questions: 1) If a man provided the things that are context specific in 1 Timothy 5 and didn’t provide his family spiritual protection, do you think God would still consider him worse than an infidel?
2) If a man provided the things that are context specific but allowed his wife and children and possessions to be murdered, raped, and stolen, do you think God would still consider him worse than an infidel?
In reply to your 2 questions, God does not consider a man on 1 action or lack of action. He considers the whole. He considers the soul. He considers the faithfulness.
One could raise the question in reply: ” Does the willingness of man to take preemptive action indicate a true lack of faith in God? Is his God not strong enough to defend & protect like God did for the patriarchs ? But I am not here to debate the issue of guns/arms or self defense. I am here only to comment on the use of God’s Word correctly and truthfully. To insist that this passage implies anything else than what is stated is a dangerous and erroneous way of studying God’s Word. In fact it is false teaching. As I have stated previously there are other more appropriate scriptures to be used for & against arms and self defense. But let me finish with these final thoughts: A christian is defined as one who is a follower of Christ; we just celebrated Easter, what does that have to say about Christ’s thinking and attitude and should not a follower of Christ therefore follow such example?
I’m still waiting for your answers.
I did reply on April 14, 2013, but here it is again :
“In reply to your 2 questions, God does not consider a man on 1 action or lack of action. He considers the whole. He considers the soul. He considers the faithfulness in executing all his duties & responsibilities..
One could raise the question in reply: ” Does the willingness of man to take pre-emptive action indicate a true lack of faith in God? Is his God not strong enough to defend & protect like God did for the patriarchs? But I am not here to debate the issue of guns/arms or self defence. I am here only to comment on the use of God’s Word correctly and truthfully. To insist that this passage implies anything else than what is stated is a dangerous and erroneous way of studying God’s Word. In fact it is false teaching. As I have stated previously there are other more appropriate scriptures to be used for & against arms and self defence. But let me finish with these final thoughts: A Christian is defined as one who is a follower of Christ; we just celebrated Easter, what does that have to say about Christ’s thinking and attitude and should not a follower of Christ therefore follow such example?”
But here are some more thoughts on your questions:
1) If a man provided the things that are context specific in 1Timothy 5 and didn’t provide his family spiritual protection, do you think God would still consider him worse than an infidel?
2) If a man provided the things that are context specific but allowed his wife and children and possessions to be murdered, raped, and stolen, do you think God would still consider him worse than an infidel?
Ted, it’s not about what I think but about what GOD SAYS. So I start by saying that in both questions, I cannot presume to know the mind of God in considering if a man is an infidel or not. I believe our concern should not be whether or not God considers him an infidel but how can we serve/glorify God in this man’s life.
So to Q1 :- If he is a fellow believer and is failing to follow God’s teaching then scripture tells us exactly what to do in this regard: Galatians 6:1-2,1 Corinthians 10:24, 2Tim.3.16, Hebrews 10:24, James 5:16, Romans 14:13, James 4:11, 1 Corinthians 10:13 Also His Word has much to say on parenting, children & their responsibilities. Exodus 10:2, Deuteronomy 6:20-24, 11:1-7, 1 Thessalonians 2:11-12, 2 John 4. Mark 9:42
(This is not a complete list).
So to Q2:- And as I said before, Ted, I was not raising a pacifist/defence argument but a misuse of scripture but as you seem determined to push for an answer, here is what GOD SAYS:
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill (KJV), You shall not murder (NIV),
Just to be certain, the Hebrew word used, also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence. As all of the commandments are endorsed by Christ, then surely it follows that this commandment is beyond dispute. Matthew 5:18-19, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20. This commandment, however does not preclude the use of non-lethal force to defend oneself or family. Nor can I find any definitive scripture that precludes non-lethal force.
One other thing, in your first reply to my initial comments, you said ” It is not unchristian to practice self-defense – it is unchristian if you do not.” As Christ, Peter, Paul, Stephen and others did not self-defend, where does this leave them?
For anyone interested, I recently preached a message entitled “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight” at last month’s Springfield, Missouri Firearms and Freedom Symposium regarding the Biblical responsibility versus the constitutional right to bear arms. You can listen to it and an interview Larry Pratt. Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, conducted with me on this same subject at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.com/#FeaturedMessages.
Thank you Ted!
You’re very welcome. I hope it proves to be a blessing!