Re: Help me get ready for Good Friday / Resurrection Sunday
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:24 pm
Paidion,
We are in agreement regarding what you just said!
We are in agreement regarding what you just said!
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
True, you ‘must’ be absolutely perfect in order to enter the presence of God, but since all have sinned we must all be cleansed and covered to enter His presence, and only Gods work can cover us.Obviously Jesus not only thought it possible for his disciples to be perfect just as the Father is perfect, but REQUIRED it of them! (Paidion pg2)
No. You don’t ask someone to do it for you, and then tell them they are wrong for doing so.I could request help (if possible, call the police, etc). But I will not resort to violence (attempt to kill the enemy) b/c that is the opposite of what Jesus told me to do. (matt pg2)
You are equating policing with sin. Divorce and polygamy is sin, protecting and enforcing the law is not a sin(?). (You still have God enforcing His own Laws, in fact adultery was commanded punishable by death, as were many other laws)Actually, this is not really that controversial of a point, since God put up with polygamy and other things that we would typically consider un-ethical. The point is, allowing something (like a military, or... divorce) is not necessarily an endorsement of it. (Matt pg2)
Christians should participate in and help in society, this is Gods will on earth as it ‘will’ be in heaven.Now, if you're talking about a Christian officer, struggling in his conscience with his use of violence given his kingdom status...
This is where I really disagree, have a godless person do the job, or take his place is better, for society and neighborhoods?I would not counsel him to continue in the force. He is now part of a new kingdom and he has a new role to play (Matt pg2)
I already addressed this objection. The government (including the police) have a recognized role in the fallen world. I would not claim they are wrong to do it. I simply claim it is not the way of the Kingdom.jriccitelli wrote:No. You don’t ask someone to do it for you, and then tell them they are wrong for doing so.
And besides you don’t generally just let a violently aggravated or dangerous person (or a situation) walk by without letting ‘professionals’ know, because after you’ve run away they may find another innocent person (or an innocent person may walk into the situation).
Who is arguing for no law? Who is arguing for no government? Who is arguing for no police?I really like your thinking generally, so I think the problem comes from living in a protected perspective.
First there is the civil argument; You could not have jails, or property, or schools, or civility in general without law and enforcement, it is just a fact.
Do you think a dangerous person, or anyone for that matter is going to willingly get into the back of a patrol car, or step into a jail cell without the presence of a sword (?!).
Why don’t thieves just walk into a store and walk off without a care? Because they know there may be repercussions, and only armed intentional authority is going to persuade them to put on handcuffs.
I was not equating them. I was making the general point that God often accommodates things that are less than ideal (whether they be sinful or not).You are equating policing with sin. Divorce and polygamy is sin, protecting and enforcing the law is not a sin(?).
Of course Christians should participate in and help society. But they do so, primarily, by introducing the kingdom to it. THY kingdom come. THY will be done. What we should be most passionate about is bringing the kingdom of God to earth, not bringing about the best version of the kingdoms of men.Christians should participate in and help in society, this is Gods will on earth as it ‘will’ be in heaven.
We would ‘rather’ have Christian officers and Christian public servants that can make public 'service' honest, gracious, considerate, loving, compassionate, and just in order to 'better' protect and serve.
In a sense it is better to have a non-Christian be a police officer.... since the job may require violence and such is forbidden of Christians.This is where I really disagree, have a godless person do the job, or take his place is better, for society and neighborhoods?
Again, I never said don't help. I said help in kingdom ways. I never said don't defend. I said don't attack with violence.And two; equating Gods will with 'not' helping a person when in mortal danger. Kingdom doctors, lawyers and mothers also are 'in' the world (and a Kingdom mother can defend her children with her life).
I'm a little confused by your wording. Are you saying Jesus' message of non-violence only pertains to certain aspects of our life (like when we are being persecuted for our faith?)Laying down our life in defense of the faith, when challenged on our devotion to Christ, dying when given the option of either denying our faith in God, or bowing down to another authority is a different situation than common crime and violent aggression. Being challenged to deny the faith is rarely subject or cause of a robbery or domestic violence situations. We are also told to give up all our belongings and money, leave our family, hate our father mother children and self, you do not see the principle? It is a call to put God first, but this also does not negate the wisdom of scripture. It is a call to use discernment and wisdom, with God as the The Rule and the law.
If a person in mortal danger cries out for help, do we help?
Mortally wounding an attacker is the absolutely ‘last’ resort, but there ‘are’ times when an attacker ‘cannot’ safely be stopped, you can die if you want, but you have might of as well run because your death will leave the victim just where they were before you showed up, only now more horrified. We are not Jesus. Jesus died for sins, he did not say we must die for another sinner. We are called to give our lives, and not think of our own lives as important when knowing we may die ‘trying’ to protect the innocent.
We give our life to protect the innocent, it is a different thing to be challenged to deny our faith if that is the sincere intent of the persecution, most domestic disputes do not center around people challenging their girlfriends to deny the faith. Most criminals do not crawl in a window with a gun to see if you will deny your faith.
[/quote]I am not basing this epistemology purely on logic or reason. Christianity means Christ paid the price, we forgive others as we have been forgiven, but this message of peace does not negate being helpful, loving, praying for and laying down our own lives to protect ‘others’ from harm and violence.
So you agree that we must be absolutely perfect in order to enter the presence of God. "But since all have sinned, we cannot be absolutely perfect, but if we are covered, we can enter His presence."JR wrote:True, you ‘must’ be absolutely perfect in order to enter the presence of God, but since all have sinned we must all be cleansed and covered to enter His presence, and only Gods work can cover us.
Yes, that is why we must ‘die first' as I emphasized, ‘then’ we are raised a new man (finally we agree).‘… does the person require a changed, regenerated, healed, nature so that he will be acceptable to God?
I’m a little distressed that you interpret Matt 5:39 to mean we cannot defend ourselves, family, or anyone against an attacker. All Jesus is saying is do not be aggressive. Go to extremes in showing restraint, conviction, kindness, patience and forgiveness but it is not saying ‘be unable to defend anything’.I'm a little confused by your wording. Are you saying Jesus' message of non-violence only pertains to certain aspects of our life (like when we are being persecuted for our faith?)
Yes, I disagree with the last statement; All restraint and patience is fine, but you learn you eventually have to put your foot down. We are talking about civil servants who ‘must’ make an oath and decision to defend using deadly force (otherwise they will utterly fail if such a situation occurs). And you cannot defend against a determined mortal attack if the aggressor cannot be stopped safely by conventional restraint or procedure. If the aggressor continues he may harm, attack or kill more than a few, and unfortunately only deadly force can stop some attackers.Amen! Is there something there you suspect I disagree with? I can do all of that without violence.
There are 2 mistakes one could make in regard to Matthew 5:39jriccitelli wrote:I’m a little distressed that you interpret Matt 5:39 to mean we cannot defend ourselves, family, or anyone against an attacker. All Jesus is saying is do not be aggressive. Go to extremes in showing restraint, conviction, kindness, patience and forgiveness but it is not saying ‘be unable to defend anything’.
This section demonstrates that you really haven't yet understood my position. I won't respond with the same explanations I've already given.This is the heart of the Law that Jesus is speaking of, yet remember Jesus is still speaking of the Law, He is not abolishing the Law, rather He is focusing on the heart of the Law – which also included death penalties and sacrifices. Jesus says in this sermon “unless your righteousness surpasses the that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of heaven”
Do you understand what Jesus is teaching from? The Law.
Jesus said “Go an extra mile”, he didn’t say go a hundred, or a thousand miles.
Jesus said “Give your cloak as well”, he didn’t say give everything to a thief.
Jesus said “Turn the other cheek also”, Jesus doesn’t say keep turning until your abused or dead, and everyone around you is abused, beaten, raped or dead also (it is often 'necessary' to use weapons to stop violent attackers).
As I said numerous times. I do not know what I would do in the heat of the moment. But I do know that if you have already decided you're willing to kill someone who is attempting to kill you or your family... you may end up pretty quickly pulling the trigger when the situation doesn't demand it.Yes, I disagree with the last statement; All restraint and patience is fine, but you learn you eventually have to put your foot down. We are talking about civil servants who ‘must’ make an oath and decision to defend using deadly force (otherwise they will utterly fail if such a situation occurs). And you cannot defend against a determined mortal attack if the aggressor cannot be stopped safely by conventional restraint or procedure. If the aggressor continues he may harm, attack or kill more than a few, and unfortunately only deadly force can stop some attackers.
Much counseling, methods, devices (Tasers) and negotiations are gone to and over in length by police to put an assailant out of harms way. There does come a time when an attacker is better armed and dangerous than the victim(s) and this is what we are speaking of, when they continue to attack after negotiations and time no longer are an option.
If you refuse at this point, you have let down the victim, and likely put your partner or fellow soldier in a horrible deadly situation, where they were depending on you to defend.
I cannot lead ‘anyone’ to think that ‘not’ defending others is biblical, and that a Christian is wrong, or 'not obeying Jesus', for serving their country or city as an officer or soldier.
How can you dismiss "enabling grace" with such finality when Paul clearly taught it?JR wrote:For heavens sakes, there is no such thing as an ‘Enabling grace’...
If the grace of God does not enable us, how in the world can it TRAIN us, "for heavens sakes".For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age... (Titus 2:11)
I suggest good discernment be a priority for any Christian, as well the emergency training.‘I do not know what I would do in the heat of the moment. But I do know that if you have already decided you're willing to kill someone who is attempting to kill you or your family... you may end up pretty quickly pulling the trigger when the situation doesn't demand it’