Is it a sin for Christians to violently confront and resist oppressive antifa members?

Trekson said:

I believe most of the violence they faced in the first 300 years derived from persecution which is a different set of rules than life in general. The bible says that God is the same, he changes not, so have you read the OT? Factually, Israel was the invading army not a defender but had to continue the fight to maintain what God had blessed them with. So, if Israel could fight to protect themselves than it is illogical to think that the church should not do likewise.

Click to expand...

Have you read the NT?

Trekson said:

I believe most of the violence they faced in the first 300 years derived from persecution which is a different set of rules than life in general. The bible says that God is the same, he changes not, so have you read the OT? Factually, Israel was the invading army not a defender but had to continue the fight to maintain what God had blessed them with. So, if Israel could fight to protect themselves than it is illogical to think that the church should not do likewise.

Click to expand...

Except Jesus came along and said, love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, etc. The early church didn't make a distinction between religious persecution and any other offence.

Clement of Alexandria, Fragments.
Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Lactantius, Book 5, Chapter 23.
But the just and wise man, because he deems all these things as human, as it has been said by Lælius, and his own goods as divine, neither desires anything which belongs to another, lest he should injure any one at all in violation of the law of humanity; nor does he long for any power or honour, that he may not do an injury to any one. For he knows that all are produced by the same God, and in the same condition, and are joined together by the right of brotherhood. But being contented with his own, and that a little, because he is mindful of his frailty, he does not seek for anything beyond that which may support his life; and even from that which he has he bestows a share on the destitute, because he is pious; but piety is a very great virtue. To this is added, that he despises frail and vicious pleasures, for the sake of which riches are desired; since he is temperate, and master of his passions. He also, having no pride or insolence, does not raise himself too highly, nor lift up his head with arrogance; but he is calm and peaceful, lowly and courteous, because he knows his own condition. Since, therefore, he does injury to none, nor desires the property of others, and does not even defend his own if it is taken from him by violence, since he knows how even to bear with moderation an injury inflicted upon him, because he is endued with virtue; it is necessary that the just man should be subject to the unjust, and that the wise should be insulted by the foolish, that the one may sin because he is unjust, and the other may have virtue in himself because he is just.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Tertullian, First Apology, Chapter 37
We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum,—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. For what wars should we not be fit, not eager, even with unequal forces, we who so willingly yield ourselves to the sword, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay?
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

K9Buck said:

For instance, if a group of Christians sees a group of antifa members marching down the street, destroying property and intimidating or even attacking innocent people, is it a sin if those Christians beat the Hell out of those antifa members or even kill them?

I am personally conflicted over this. History has taught us that the far-left would turn America into a repressive, totalitarian state with egregious human rights abuses. If Christians take a pacifist approach, the left will turn the U.S. into a one-party, fascist, oligarchy such as China has. Eventually, churches will also be persecuted and closed.

So, is it a sin if we use violence to prevent the U.S. from being turned into a totalitarian state? As I said, I am conflicted.

Click to expand...

My opinion only - No, in one local town near mine the people did exactly that and these were Church people I saw. I was cheering them on watching the video.

Getitright said:

Except Jesus came along and said, love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, etc. The early church didn't make a distinction between religious persecution and any other offence.

Clement of Alexandria, Fragments.
Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Lactantius, Book 5, Chapter 23.
But the just and wise man, because he deems all these things as human, as it has been said by Lælius, and his own goods as divine, neither desires anything which belongs to another, lest he should injure any one at all in violation of the law of humanity; nor does he long for any power or honour, that he may not do an injury to any one. For he knows that all are produced by the same God, and in the same condition, and are joined together by the right of brotherhood. But being contented with his own, and that a little, because he is mindful of his frailty, he does not seek for anything beyond that which may support his life; and even from that which he has he bestows a share on the destitute, because he is pious; but piety is a very great virtue. To this is added, that he despises frail and vicious pleasures, for the sake of which riches are desired; since he is temperate, and master of his passions. He also, having no pride or insolence, does not raise himself too highly, nor lift up his head with arrogance; but he is calm and peaceful, lowly and courteous, because he knows his own condition. Since, therefore, he does injury to none, nor desires the property of others, and does not even defend his own if it is taken from him by violence, since he knows how even to bear with moderation an injury inflicted upon him, because he is endued with virtue; it is necessary that the just man should be subject to the unjust, and that the wise should be insulted by the foolish, that the one may sin because he is unjust, and the other may have virtue in himself because he is just.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Tertullian, First Apology, Chapter 37
We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum,—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. For what wars should we not be fit, not eager, even with unequal forces, we who so willingly yield ourselves to the sword, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay?
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Click to expand...

You may like to rely solely on the early church fathers but I prefer scripture. Every incident needs to be discerned singularly and acted upon accordingly. There are of course times when the opening sentence is true, however, the record of Peter cutting off the ear of the High priest's servant in Gethsemane is recorded in all four gospels, but the only rebuke given is that what is happening needs to occur for prophecy to be fulfilled, at that time! There is no stern rebuke regarding the use of weapons. Jesus does make a statement that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, this is echoed in Rev. 13:10, imo, this is in no way a condemnation, just a counting of the odds, however the once or twice in a lifetime occasion of protecting your family from certain death before their time, can hardly be described as "living" by the sword. To me it's simply an affirmation that if one makes violence and every day aspect of your life then one should expect to die the same way. There is a scripture that says the greatest gift one can give is to offer up there life to protect others, which is what I consider the military and the cops are willing to do. Hardly a condemnation, imo.

Trekson said:

You may like to rely solely on the early church fathers but I prefer scripture. Every incident needs to be discerned singularly and acted upon accordingly. There are of course times when the opening sentence is true, however, the record of Peter cutting off the ear of the High priest's servant in Gethsemane is recorded in all four gospels, but the only rebuke given is that what is happening needs to occur for prophecy to be fulfilled, at that time! There is no stern rebuke regarding the use of weapons. Jesus does make a statement that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, this is echoed in Rev. 13:10, imo, this is in no way a condemnation, just a counting of the odds, however the once or twice in a lifetime occasion of protecting your family from certain death before their time, can hardly be described as "living" by the sword. To me it's simply an affirmation that if one makes violence and every day aspect of your life then one should expect to die the same way. There is a scripture that says the greatest gift one can give is to offer up there life to protect others, which is what I consider the military and the cops are willing to do. Hardly a condemnation, imo.

Click to expand...

I rely on the early church fathers when I am expressing what the early church believed. When I am expressing what the Bible says, I use Scripture. Your argument from Peter's actions is a logical fallacy called an argument from silence. Your argument is that because a rebuke isn't recorded there was none. However, you have no way of knowing that. It is an assumption. However, when Peter acted Jesus told him to put up his sword. A lack of a recorded rebuke doesn't negate Jesus' plain teachings to, turn the other cheek, to love your enemies and so one. It doesn't negate Paul's admonition to not repay evil for evil. You've got the Biblical commands and at least 300 years of church history showing that Christians are not to use violence. As I said, this is not a popular doctrine with Christians today and especially not American Christians, but it is what was taught by Jesus and the apostles.

For a more in depth study here is my article, "Should Christians Use Violence"

Christians in the NT had plenty of opportunity to fight violence with violence. They didn't! Not even one instance.

Getitright said:

I rely on the early church fathers when I am expressing what the early church believed. When I am expressing what the Bible says, I use Scripture. Your argument from Peter's actions is a logical fallacy called an argument from silence. Your argument is that because a rebuke isn't recorded there was none. However, you have no way of knowing that. It is an assumption. However, when Peter acted Jesus told him to put up his sword. A lack of a recorded rebuke doesn't negate Jesus' plain teachings to, turn the other cheek, to love your enemies and so one. It doesn't negate Paul's admonition to not repay evil for evil. You've got the Biblical commands and at least 300 years of church history showing that Christians are not to use violence. As I said, this is not a popular doctrine with Christians today and especially not American Christians, but it is what was taught by Jesus and the apostles.

For a more in depth study here is my article, "Should Christians Use Violence"

Click to expand...

One also needs to adapt as society changes. The early church could not comprehend the world in which we find ourselves. Many of the NT policies aren't for today for example how women should dress and keeping silent in the church. One can't carry their culture into ours. The fact is Jesus never rebuked anyone for carrying a weapon and he did deal w/ several Romans. Paul in the vast majority of cases was talking about persecution, a different ball of wax altogether.

Trekson said:

One also needs to adapt as society changes. The early church could not comprehend the world in which we find ourselves. Many of the NT policies aren't for today for example how women should dress and keeping silent in the church. One can't carry their culture into ours. The fact is Jesus never rebuked anyone for carrying a weapon and he did deal w/ several Romans. Paul in the vast majority of cases was talking about persecution, a different ball of wax altogether.

Click to expand...

That's what people typically do when they don't like a teaching, it's not for. The early church probably had it much worse than any American does and yet they were adamant, there was no place for violence of any kind. And, yes, Paul's teaching on women's dress and keeping silent is for today. The Scriptures don't change just because a society does. Paul's appeal was to the created order, not Greek culture. As I said, you have the commands and 300 years of Christian history, the choice is yours.

Getitright said:

That's what people typically do when they don't like a teaching, it's not for. The early church probably had it much worse than any American does and yet they were adamant, there was no place for violence of any kind. And, yes, Paul's teaching on women's dress and keeping silent is for today. The Scriptures don't change just because a society does. Paul's appeal was to the created order, not Greek culture. As I said, you have the commands and 300 years of Christian history, the choice is yours.

Click to expand...

Your words. "And, yes, Paul's teaching on women's dress and keeping silent is for today" 1 Timothy 2:9-10 "Paul said: I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." A woman can be modest w/ braided hair and jewelry and expensive clothing depends one ones circumstances. The concept is not actually what they wear but to wear it w/o making themselves seductive or sexy, worn to be looked at, etc. What people think about these things changes w/ time. There was a time when a woman's ankles were considered sexy, today no one couldn't care less. First, we have these vss. 1 Co. 11:4-5 - "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." Then a little later we have this one: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

The first speaks about a woman praying or prophesying in the church, the second says they are to be silent. Do you know why? The context is different. It is a cultural difference. In the Hebrew culture women and men sat at different sides of the temple and when they were preaching Christ in the temples the seating remained the same but Paul was telling them of new and astounding things that were both confusing and joyful for the women as well as the men. In their excitement they would call out to their husbands..."Joel, what is he talking about?" or "Samuel, what is he saying"? Because the husbands were on the other side of the room, they had to speak louder than a whisper and thus creating an annoyance for the speaker and the listeners. That is why he is telling them to ask their husbands at home. Short hair is also mentioned here. In their culture long hair was valued and men were to keep their hair short however he doesn't clarify, unless you're a Nazarene. Today a woman's worth is not judged by the length of her hair. Keeping women locked into millennial old cultures is ridiculous. That's as silly as saying, "Well, the bible doesn't record people playing pianos or guitars so we must not allow them in churches" (Primitive Baptists and others really believe that!) God judges by the thoughts and intent of a woman's heart, not to see if she is maintaining 2000 year old cultural norms!

Trekson said:

Your words. "And, yes, Paul's teaching on women's dress and keeping silent is for today" 1 Timothy 2:9-10 "Paul said: I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." A woman can be modest w/ braided hair and jewelry and expensive clothing depends one ones circumstances. The concept is not actually what they wear but to wear it w/o making themselves seductive or sexy, worn to be looked at, etc. What people think about these things changes w/ time. There was a time when a woman's ankles were considered sexy, today no one couldn't care less. First, we have these vss. 1 Co. 11:4-5 - "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." Then a little later we have this one: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

The first speaks about a woman praying or prophesying in the church, the second says they are to be silent. Do you know why? The context is different. It is a cultural difference. In the Hebrew culture women and men sat at different sides of the temple and when they were preaching Christ in the temples the seating remained the same but Paul was telling them of new and astounding things that were both confusing and joyful for the women as well as the men. In their excitement they would call out to their husbands..."Joel, what is he talking about?" or "Samuel, what is he saying"? Because the husbands were on the other side of the room, they had to speak louder than a whisper and thus creating an annoyance for the speaker and the listeners. That is why he is telling them to ask their husbands at home. Short hair is also mentioned here. In their culture long hair was valued and men were to keep their hair short however he doesn't clarify, unless you're a Nazarene. Today a woman's worth is not judged by the length of her hair. Keeping women locked into millennial old cultures is ridiculous. That's as silly as saying, "Well, the bible doesn't record people playing pianos or guitars so we must not allow them in churches" (Primitive Baptists and others really believe that!) God judges by the thoughts and intent of a woman's heart, not to see if she is maintaining 2000 year old cultural norms!

Click to expand...

As I said, regarding the head covering, Paul didn't appeal to culture, he appealed to the created order. That hasn't changed as cultures change. Regarding keeping silent in the churches, we have to remember that the churches were fashioned after the Synagogues. In the synagogue the men would often challenge the speaker and question him. It's my understanding that the women at Corinth would challenge the speaker as the men would often do. Paul was putting an end to that. The woman is supposed to be subject to her husband, therefore she was not to challenge the male speaker in the church publicly. If she had questions she could ask her husband at home. So again, the appeal Paul makes is to the created order, not culture.

But, what does that have to do with the use of violence?

Getitright said:

As I said, regarding the head covering, Paul didn't appeal to culture, he appealed to the created order. That hasn't changed as cultures change. Regarding keeping silent in the churches, we have to remember that the churches were fashioned after the Synagogues. In the synagogue the men would often challenge the speaker and question him. It's my understanding that the women at Corinth would challenge the speaker as the men would often do. Paul was putting an end to that. The woman is supposed to be subject to her husband, therefore she was not to challenge the male speaker in the church publicly. If she had questions she could ask her husband at home. So again, the appeal Paul makes is to the created order, not culture.

But, what does that have to do with the use of violence?

Click to expand...

The world has changed from the first 300 years of christianity. They never experienced the level of freedom that we have. I don't believe in luck, I believe God is in control of all worldly situations. I also believe we are a blessed and favored nation and that the formation of America was His plan. He was aware that our freedom would only be won by shed blood and that it would be maintained the same way. As a "christian" nation were we supposed to sit idly by while pain, suffering and injustices were occurring that we could change? Absolutely not. Did God know that nationally, law and order must be established? Of course, Israel had their own set of rules and the death penalty was part of that and God left it to man to perform those acts. The same here and He was also aware that their would be bad guys and good guys were needed to stop them, usually with some type of violence. With all that violence happening, God still blessed us greatly. I believe that it was God's help that gave Israel the victories they have historically enjoyed militarily because they were facing overwhelming odds. So, while we should not go looking for trouble, part of being an honorable man is to look out and protect those, like our friends, family and neighbors should they be endangered by outside forces or a murderous criminal, if they are unable to protect themselves. With your viewpoint you condemn every christian soldier and policeman that has died trying to protect and serve others and, imo, that is absolutely wrong!

Trekson said:

The world has changed from the first 300 years of christianity. They never experienced the level of freedom that we have. I don't believe in luck, I believe God is in control of all worldly situations. I also believe we are a blessed and favored nation and that the formation of America was His plan. He was aware that our freedom would only be won by shed blood and that it would be maintained the same way. As a "christian" nation were we supposed to sit idly by while pain, suffering and injustices were occurring that we could change? Absolutely not. Did God know that nationally, law and order must be established? Of course, Israel had their own set of rules and the death penalty was part of that and God left it to man to perform those acts. The same here and He was also aware that their would be bad guys and good guys were needed to stop them, usually with some type of violence. With all that violence happening, God still blessed us greatly. I believe that it was God's help that gave Israel the victories they have historically enjoyed militarily because they were facing overwhelming odds. So, while we should not go looking for trouble, part of being an honorable man is to look out and protect those, like our friends, family and neighbors should they be endangered by outside forces or a murderous criminal, if they are unable to protect themselves. With your viewpoint you condemn every christian soldier and policeman that has died trying to protect and serve others and, imo, that is absolutely wrong!

Click to expand...

But, what you believe isn't Scripture. You have 300 years of Christian history, the first history, that shows what was taught in the Church. It was that Christians were not to use violence. We have Scripture that tells us to turn the other cheek and to not repay evil with evil. As I said, a lot of Christians don't like this, but it is what the church taught. Christians didn't start using violence until the Church and state merged with Constantine. At first they only would fight against pagans, however, later they began fighting each other. It's still that way today. When two countries go to war there are often Christians on both sides. Christians killing Christians. How do you suppose God looks at that? The Scriptures call Jesus the Prince of Peace, yet His followers go to war and and hurt and/or kill.

One of the reasons the Church is losing it's influence in the world is because it's becoming just like the world. Instead of turn the other cheek and don't repay evil with evil, it's an eye for an eye and repaying evil with evil.

K9Buck said:

For instance, if a group of Christians sees a group of antifa members marching down the street, destroying property and intimidating or even attacking innocent people, is it a sin if those Christians beat the Hell out of those antifa members or even kill them?

I am personally conflicted over this. History has taught us that the far-left would turn America into a repressive, totalitarian state with egregious human rights abuses. If Christians take a pacifist approach, the left will turn the U.S. into a one-party, fascist, oligarchy such as China has. Eventually, churches will also be persecuted and closed.

So, is it a sin if we use violence to prevent the U.S. from being turned into a totalitarian state? As I said, I am conflicted.

Click to expand...

Jesus rebuked Peter and told him that those who live by the sword will die by the sword and then He healed the soldier who Peter had injured by cutting his ear off. He also said to turn the other cheek, love our neighbor as ourselves, go the extra mile, treat other people the way we want to be treated, don't repay evil with evil but overcome evil with good, love your enemies and pray for them, and let your light so shine before men.

The Bible also says that vengeance belongs to the Lord.

Getitright said:

But, what you believe isn't Scripture. You have 300 years of Christian history, the first history, that shows what was taught in the Church. It was that Christians were not to use violence. We have Scripture that tells us to turn the other cheek and to not repay evil with evil. As I said, a lot of Christians don't like this, but it is what the church taught. Christians didn't start using violence until the Church and state merged with Constantine. At first they only would fight against pagans, however, later they began fighting each other. It's still that way today. When two countries go to war there are often Christians on both sides. Christians killing Christians. How do you suppose God looks at that? The Scriptures call Jesus the Prince of Peace, yet His followers go to war and and hurt and/or kill.

One of the reasons the Church is losing it's influence in the world is because it's becoming just like the world. Instead of turn the other cheek and don't repay evil with evil, it's an eye for an eye and repaying evil with evil.

Click to expand...

The concept of christians killing christians only had a mild possibility in WW2, after that, the only Christians fighting were American and European forces against decidedly non-christians. If one is really a christian and dies in war, it's not taking God by surprise, it was their destiny. These examples : "turn the other cheek and to not repay evil with evil", are not in the category we are talking about. These are on an individual basis. If I'm being mugged by a guy that is strung out, I'm not going to give him a hard time and if a neighbor kills my dog for spite, I'm not going to kill his pets. But if I have an "option" w/ me and a gang of thugs w/ obvious murderous intentions on their mind and my wife is in the car, I'm not going to stand idly by and let them kill us, which would be suicide by inaction, something you probably think God also doesn't approve of. I really think that the person(s) who let their loved ones and themselves get killed by inaction will be judged more harshly than the person who dies in defense of others.

It may be a tough nut to swallow but Jesus was quite clear. "Love your enemies". If we can't trust God to protect our families we serve an evil God.
"Deliver us from the evil one".

Trekson said:

The concept of christians killing christians only had a mild possibility in WW2, after that, the only Christians fighting were American and European forces against decidedly non-christians. If one is really a christian and dies in war, it's not taking God by surprise, it was their destiny. These examples : "turn the other cheek and to not repay evil with evil", are not in the category we are talking about. These are on an individual basis. If I'm being mugged by a guy that is strung out, I'm not going to give him a hard time and if a neighbor kills my dog for spite, I'm not going to kill his pets. But if I have an "option" w/ me and a gang of thugs w/ obvious murderous intentions on their mind and my wife is in the car, I'm not going to stand idly by and let them kill us, which would be suicide by inaction, something you probably think God also doesn't approve of. I really think that the person(s) who let their loved ones and themselves get killed by inaction will be judged more harshly than the person who dies in defense of others.

Click to expand...

Firstly, you're assuming you could stop the gang of thugs. Secondly, you could incite them to go beyond their initial intentions, thirdly, and more importantly, you could rely on God for your protection as the those early Christians, who wouldn't use violence, did.

Trekson said:

I really think that the person(s) who let their loved ones and themselves get killed by inaction will be judged more harshly than the person who dies in defense of others.

Click to expand...

Totally agree, Amen.

Getitright said:

Firstly, you're assuming you could stop the gang of thugs. Secondly, you could incite them to go beyond their initial intentions, thirdly, and more importantly, you could rely on God for your protection as the those early Christians, who wouldn't use violence, did.

Click to expand...

Or, one could say that God allowed me to be born in a place and in a time where it is legal to carry firearms for the sole purpose of saving myself and my family from evildoers, that he knew the devil would send to try and obstruct my family from helping all those he may bring in to our lives.