"Get a sword", Jesus?

[SolaScriptura139]

The Church has never fallen into corruption - to say so is to call Christ Himself a liar, who promised to guide her to the end.

I never said the Church, I said the Catholic church, which can be two different things (as is any denomination who may fall into corruption, not singling out Catholics). The Church is the body of true believers throughout time, and of course they would not fall into corruption via the promise you stated. The Catholic church did fall into corruption as is obvious from a study of world history.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Everyone should tread lightly when speaking of another beliefs, Hinduism, and Islam comprise more followers than Christianity, so you just stated that nearly 2/3 the world follows religions that arn't civil. Some people still follow a break-off of the Aztec beliefs and teach their children nahuatl the Aztec language. Lets all take THR and not state pointing fingers.

kfh, I certainly did not state what you claim. You have read things into my statements that I just did not put there, and I hope you will take the high road and publicly acknowledge that. I didn't state that Muslims and Hindus are uncivil, any more than I claimed all Christians are great social reformers.

I was hoping to oblige your request for an explanation of my statement. Having done so, I am now being lectured for doing what you asked. If "treading lightly" means that one cannot even suggest doubts about various religions, and in a conciliatory tone question their "civility," I am quite at a loss as to how I might answer you. If my last response treads not lightly, what does? Your post, I suppose? The one that dotingly recites the creeds of these religions, as if platitudes "civilized" us?

I am aware of the traits of these religions, so a recital of them changes little. The road to hell on earth is often paved with nice religious talk about seeking peace and goodwill. If a religion is to be credited with making us more civil, nice talk is not enough. Have these religions introduced new concepts and practices that have "civilized" us, or have they just codified ideas and traditions that were already commonplace?

 

[javacodeman]

11M, I was working from BibleGateway.com, which does not add the italics. I have done some study on "I am" and knew that "He" was added and so added the italics manually. I have never caught that "Roman" was also italizied. You bring up some good points as to why it wouldn't make sense for it to be Roman, but I'll have to do some studying. Be it Roman or Jewish, the point still stands that no reprisal was made because (from a physical standpoint--as you mentioned) the damage had been repaired and (from a supernatural standpoint--as I mentioned) Jesus had again made the claim that He was God--this time very boldly--and scared the armed cohert.

java

 

[PaladinX13]

One for and one against it meaning a real sword. Hmmmmmm.

Well the "one for" isn't really for. Jesus is simply saying hard times are coming, not that they ought literally get swords. Remember this, in the context of the story, Jesus COMES BACK! He raises from the dead, returns to his followers, and explains all his teachings to them afterwards. So after their period of tribulation did the Apostles go around armed? Maybe so... but they certainly didn't fight back against persecution with force. They are jailed, whipped, and martyred. If the intent of Jesus was for them to be armed and to fight, he would have clarified upon his return and they would have done as he said.

We do mostly agree, however, that the teachings and leanings of the Bible, Old Testament and New, and implicity the God who wrote this Bible, are in favor of self-defense, armed when necessary.

I agree, but must emphasize again that "when necessary" is not always the same as what conventional wisdom dictates.

Common sense says a shepherd boy doesn't call out a giant or refuse the king's best sword and armor come the duel. Common sense does not tell you to go against a fortified city and march around it for days with your worship team out front. Of course... in both David and Jericho's cases, it did come down to a sword in the end- so neither should we say we won't pick one up under any circumstances either.... but the point is that "necessity" is dictated by God- not necessarily circumstances.

 

[seeker_two]

I agree, but must emphasize again that "when necessary" is not always the same as what conventional wisdom dictates.

Common sense says a shepherd boy doesn't call out a giant or refuse the king's best sword and armor come the duel. Common sense does not tell you to go against a fortified city and march around it for days with your worship team out front. Of course... in both David and Jericho's cases, it did come down to a sword in the end- so neither should we say we won't pick one up under any circumstances either.... but the point is that "necessity" is dictated by God- not necessarily circumstances.

And that's why the Bible is about men and women of FAITH...

...and why this is the best statement about the whole issue I've heard so far...

Keep it up, guys. I'm learning a lot here, myself...

 

[One of Many]

The CHURCH that the bible refers to never had added identification attached to it to distinguish one denomination from another. In fact, the bible clearly indicates that doing so is wrong (see 1 Cor 3 - entire chapter).

The CHURCH is not the Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopalian Church, the Anglican Church, the Baptist Church, etc.

The CHURCH found in the New Testament, had no hierachy; each church was independent of control by other local churches. Each church was to be under the oversight of men who were members of that local church, not controlled by some council from great distances.

As individuals were added to the CHURCH, they were part of the total membership of the family of God, through their acceptance of Christ, and worshipped and participated in good works at the local level; there was no hierarchy or governing body other than the local church. When famine hit other parts of the world, and Apostles called for local churches to send aid to the Christians in other areas, that aid was turned over to the local church for distribution. One church from afar did not set up a missionary society to oversee the distribution of it's disaster relief in the area of the local church that was suffering.

The fact that there exists so many different religious identifications today, is evidence that people are discontent to follow the word of God; they have to add thier own "flavor" to the word that God provided us through Jesus the Christ. God warns his people not to Add To or to Take Away From his word; those that do so will be judged.

Religious denominations are at odds with what God commands from his followers. God did not create many different churches with different doctrines; God created ONE CHURCH, the church that God possesses, the church that Christ rules. The CHURCH of God, the CHURCH of Christ is the church of the new testament; only God and Christ can possess and be the head of that church, which is the Bride of Christ, and Christ is the head of the church, the body being the individual members of that church.

The so called church history is actually the history of the departure from the teaching of Christ, and the creation of hierarchies that God never intended for his people. The history of protestantism, with the split from the Catholic Church by people following the teachings of Martin Luther and others, is not a history of the church that God created; it is a history of churches that MAN created, because man was not content to follow the rule of God and Christ.

If you want to understand what God and Christ intended their worshippers to do, then throw away the creeds and catechisms, the later day revelations, and ignore the false prophets of modern times; go back to the Bible for the only real authority, and use a sound translation of the scripture, instead of a paraphrased interpretation published by biased and fallible men. Go to the source for your inspiration.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Wow! What a great and interesting thread. I am very impressed by the thoughtful, intelligent and civil discussion. I've seen threads about Glocks and 1911s here degenerate into name calling, conclusion jumping, and product bashing way before 6 pages and here we're talking about religion and Christianity without so much as a hard feeling! I just have to say that I am very much pleased to be a part of THR and am pleasantly surprised at the theological insights by it's members as evidenced by this fascinating thread.

To make a comparison between the Bible and the Constitution, we must understand that there is essential doctrine (the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, and all those pertaining to salvation) and then the non-essential doctrine (speaking in tongues, wearing long sleeved shirts, and everything else, etc). That is why we have denominations. Most Christian churches agree on ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE. What they disagree on (and often get obsessed with) are the non-essentials. "The (insert denomination here, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc.) are wrong because they (fill in the blank)." Just like Massachussetts is wrong because they don't interpret the Constitution like I would. Well, that's why I don't live there. If the people that live there like it, (and since they don't vote to change it, they must) good for them. Just don't force your ideas onto me.

God is just and He is merciful. He knows every man's heart. The issue of self defense is non-essential doctrine. You have a Scriptural and Constitutional responsibility to help those in need and that includes keeping them safe. If you choose to do that by means of weaponry, then God will support you (as evidenced by Scripture). If you do not believe in the use of weapons, far be it from me or the Lord to tell you otherwise. This does not absolve you of your responsibilities, however. The Lord will hold you responsible as He will the armed person who misuses his armament.

 

[One of Many]

The concept of "Non-Essential" Doctine does not make sense to me. If it pertains to meeting the requirements of salvation, then it is Essential, and therefore it is Doctrine. If something does NOT pertain to meeting the requirements of salvation, it may be left to personal preference, and is not "essential" and is not "doctrine".

Many denominations differ on Essential matters pertaining to salvation, so it is a matter of Doctrine that separates one religous belief from another. If the only difference was what color the walls are, or the size of the pew, or what the temperature setting of the thermostat is, that would not create a denomination. The very word "denomination" means that there is a division between the teachings of doctrine these groups profess.

Different denominations teach various ways for their believers to be saved. Some teach "faith only" is sufficient for salvation, while others teach that faith must be combined with total immersion in water (Baptism) by a person capable of understanding the significance of that action, while others teach that sprinkling "holy" water on someone without the ability to understand, is necessary for salvation.

Doctrine is what separates the denominations, and it is essential to understand the difference in what MAN has set up as the entry requirements to heaven, and what God has set up as the requirement. It is God's house we seek to enter, so we must meet his requirements; no man has the authority to tell God that they are replacing God's requirements with something they think will work better.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

If something does NOT pertain to meeting the requirements of salvation, it may be left to personal preference, and is not "essential" and is not "doctrine".

I disagree, as the definition of the word "doctrine" is, "a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject," or "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government." That's why there is Essential Doctrine, Non-Essential Doctrine, and Personal Preference. And denominations within Christendom do differ on Non-Essentials. Many, if not all, Protestant denominations believe that salvation is by grace through faith, but I can point out a few reasons why there are so many different denominations. The Southern Baptists and North American Baptists used to be one denomination, but split over the issue of slavery (the Southern Baptists wanted to keep their slaves, not a great start for us, but we've come a long way). Methodists split over how the church was ran, as in the Free Methodists split from the Methodists because they were charging for seating.

There are also a few Non-Essential doctrines that Protestants argue about, like Eternal Security, Speaking in Tongues, Church Government, etc. These arguments prevent harmony and cooperation for a large part of the American Church.

The only place where I see any denominations arguing Essential Doctrines are between Protestants and Catholics. As stated above, most Protestants believe justification by grace through faith alone, and most Catholics (according to Roman teaching) believe in justification by grace through faith and works.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

I just think it's terrific we can discuss these things intelligently on a "gun forum". And thank you SS139 for making my point for me.

 

[Justin]

This thread had an amazingly good run. Thank you for keeping the tone civil.

However, I'm afraid that it's gone off-topic at this point.