The good man that turned bad out of necessity

[Matthias]

I think if a clergyman saw others being murdered in front of him and he had access to a weapon, I think he would try to help the innocent who were being shot.

He should. Whether he would or not is another matter.

Even if it meant just wounding the mass shooter.

Have you asked clergymen if they would shoot to wound a mass shooter?

Military chaplains are strictly prohibited from carrying and using weapons. They have soldiers assigned to them who, to paraphrase @Rivens comment - keep them from getting their hands dirty, having someone else do the dirty work for them.

Things in real life happen fast. You never know what you might do to save someone else.

That’s partially true. I know that I would do a number of things, but I also know that I wouldn’t kill.

 

[Matthias]

You are talking about the citizen who recently saved other lives by shooting at the mass shooter. (I see now the mass shooter died of a self inflicted gunshot.). The mass shooter had already killed three and injured several more.

I think the armed citizen saved other lives. If your family was under attack and an armed citizen saved them, I think you would be grateful. If not I wonder if you are human.

Did Jesus and the apostles use the weapons of the world to save people who were being attacked?

No, they didn’t.

Why didn’t they?

 

[Matthias]

It goes back to the development of Just War theory @Riven.

Why does Just War theory exclude clergy from killing?

AI Overview -

“Just War theory excludes clergy from killing because priests and clerics are strictly bound to a spiritual role. By functioning as ministers of the sacraments and the Gospel, their primary obligation is to mediate peace and divine grace, making participation in warfare inherently contradictory to their sacred duties.

The exclusion of clergy from combat is deeply rooted in this historical and theological decelopment:

• Separation of the Sacred and the Secular: Early church fathers initially debated whether Christians could serve as soldiers at all. As the theory evolved, theologians like St. Augustine acknowledged the necessity of defending the state. However, a fundamental distinction was drawn between the temporal duties of lay rulers and the spiritual duties of religious teachers.

• The Ministerial Role: Ordained clergy act in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) to bring spiritual healing, reconciliation, and the Eucharist to the faithful. Wielding weapons and taking human life is fundamentally incompatible with the office of a peacemaker and minister of God’s grace.

• Avoidance of Irregularity: In canon law - particularly within the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions - clergy are subject to an ‘irregularity’ that prevents them from exercising their priestly functions if they shed human blood. Even in times of self-defense or justified wars, participating in bloodshed is considered a spiritual impediment.

• Pastoral Duty to Both Sides: Clergy are tasked with the spiritual care of all people, including enemy combatants. Taking up arms would destroy their role as a neutral, pastoral presence and theor ability to offer last rites and comfort to dying soldiers on both sides of a conflict.

While Just War framework provides moral criteria for a state to defend itself, it simultaneously maintains that the individuals consecrated to holy orders must remain non-combatants dedicated exclusively to spiritual duties.”

Allow me to simplify it. They are a different class of Christian from everyone else. Holy men, you see, don’t kill their enemies.

Do you see a problem with that?

Have you heard of the priesthood of all believers?

The Just War theory was unknown to the early Christians @Riven. It doesn’t come to us from Jesus and the apostles. (It comes to us from men like Ambrose and Augustine; late 4th century / early 5th century.) There was no “class system” that made clergy holy men who couldn’t kill for the state and non-clergy who could kill for the state in their teaching and practice.

The clergy wasn’t morally superior to non-clergy in the early church. You might believe that they are now, but they aren’t according to scripture.

 

[Matthias]

The apostles didn’t wound or kill their enemies.* The apostles didn’t wound or kill their friends. The apostles didn’t wound or kill one another. The apostles didn’t wound or kill the disciples (brothers and sisters) of Jesus. The apostles didn’t wound or kill anyone, for any reason. The apostles didn’t teach Christians to wound or kill, for any reason. The apostles obeyed the teaching of Jesus and followed his example. The apostles taught those entrusted to their care and instruction to do likewise. We today are still under their care and instruction.

The apostles frequently saw and heard about innocent people - Christians, Jews, Samaritans, even pagans - being attacked. They themselves were attacked. They didn't wound or kill the attackers.

@Riven I’m going to make a statement which every follower of Jesus should immediately denounce as false and absurd. Here it is: People who wound and kill their enemies are better than Jesus and the apostles.

* Peter wounded a man, cutting off his ear, and was rebuked by Jesus for doing it. He put away the sword and didn’t take it up again.

 

[Matthias]

”We [all followers of Jesus, not only the clergy] do not use the weapons of the world.” - Paul, in 2 Corinthians 10:4

@Riven the clergy has always had access to weapons. We know what weapons they have access to. They are the same weapons which all followers of Jesus have access to -> Spiritual weapons.

It is the state, not the followers of Jesus, which has access to the weapons of the world for the purpose of wounding and killing human beings.

Not only does the state have access to the weapons of the world, it has the God-given responsibility to use them appropriately, as needed, to maintain order. That is the role of government, not the body of Messiah.

This is Romans 12 and 13.

 

[Riven]

The apostles didn’t wound or kill their enemies.* The apostles didn’t wound or kill their friends. The apostles didn’t wound or kill one another. The apostles didn’t wound or kill the disciples (brothers and sisters) of Jesus. The apostles didn’t wound or kill anyone, for any reason. The apostles didn’t teach Christians to wound or kill, for any reason. The apostles obeyed the teaching of Jesus and followed his example. The apostles taught those entrusted to their care and instruction to do likewise. We today are still under their care and instruction.

The apostles frequently saw and heard about innocent people - Christians, Jews, Samaritans, even pagans - being attacked. They themselves were attacked. They didn't wound or kill the attackers.

@Riven I’m going to make a statement which every follower of Jesus should immediately denounce as false and absurd. Here it is: People who wound and kill their enemies are better than Jesus and the apostles.

* Peter wounded a man, cutting off his ear, and was rebuked by Jesus for doing it. He put away the sword and didn’t take it up again.

It is only so because Christians have the force of the state to fall back on. Something happens, they call the police. But what if there is no police, or you don't have time? Protecting your family, including yourself, with lethal force, should not be considered a sin.

 

[markalan]

The apostles didn’t wound or kill their enemies.* The apostles didn’t wound or kill their friends. The apostles didn’t wound or kill one another. The apostles didn’t wound or kill the disciples (brothers and sisters) of Jesus. The apostles didn’t wound or kill anyone, for any reason. The apostles didn’t teach Christians to wound or kill, for any reason. The apostles obeyed the teaching of Jesus and followed his example. The apostles taught those entrusted to their care and instruction to do likewise. We today are still under their care and instruction.

The apostles frequently saw and heard about innocent people - Christians, Jews, Samaritans, even pagans - being attacked. They themselves were attacked. They didn't wound or kill the attackers.

@Riven I’m going to make a statement which every follower of Jesus should immediately denounce as false and absurd. Here it is: People who wound and kill their enemies are better than Jesus and the apostles.

* Peter wounded a man, cutting off his ear, and was rebuked by Jesus for doing it. He put away the sword and didn’t take it up again.

Did Jesus ever condemn the governing authorities for carrying out their duty of lawfully protecting people?
Paul calls them the servants of God in Romans 13

 

[Matthias]

It is only so because Christians have the force of the state to fall back on. Something happens, they call the police.

There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what the police are for.

But what if there is no police, or you don't have time?

Then you have to use other means which do not conflict with the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles. What did they teach and what did do?

Protecting your family, including yourself, with lethal force, should not be considered a sin.

It isn’t a sin to protect yourself and your family. It is a sin to disobey Jesus. Use of lethal force by a follower of Jesus violates his command - made to his followers, not to the state - not to kill our enemies.

 

[Matthias]

Did Jesus ever condemn the governing authorities for carrying out their duty of lawfully protecting people?

No.

Paul calls them the servants of God in Romans 13

Yes. Paul called Nero and his government (the pagan Roman Empire) servants (or ministers) of God. Right?

 

[markalan]

Paul called Nero and his government servants (or ministers) of God. Right?

Yes ... when they are lawfully protecting people -

"For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Jesus would have been set free by Pilate but for his cowardice in caving into the threats of the Sanhedrin.
Paul would have been set free by King Agrippa but Paul had appealed to Caesar.
In both cases God had a higher plan.

When the legal system protects the innocent, it is acting as a servant of God ... when it does not protect the innocent, it is not acting as a servant of God ... the same thing applies today.

 

[markalan]

It is only so because Christians have the force of the state to fall back on. Something happens, they call the police. But what if there is no police, or you don't have time? Protecting your family, including yourself, with lethal force, should not be considered a sin.

It should be considered a sin if we could prevent innocent people from being harmed or killed and fail to intervene.
Who has the greater sin ... an insane person who is gunning down children or the one who refuses to take any action to stop him and says "wait for the police"?

 

[Matthias]

Yes ... when they are lawfully protecting people -

"For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

That’s right.

Jesus would have been set free by Pilate but for his cowardice in caving into the threats of the Sanhedrin.
Paul would have been set free by King Agrippa but Paul had appealed to Caesar.
In both cases God had a higher plan.

Yes.

When the legal system protects the innocent, it is acting as a servant of God ... when it does not protect the innocent, it is not acting as a servant of God ... the same thing applies today.

That’s right. But there is something different now than it was when Paul wrote, and that difference is what has caused the problem we are discussing.

 

[Matthias]

It should be considered a sin if we could prevent innocent people from being harmed or killed and fail to intervene.

There is no guarantee that anyone can prevent innocent people from being harmed or killed. The government certainly can’t guarantee it, and it is the governments responsibility.

Let’s go back to Jesus and the apostles. Were they able to “prevent innocent people from being harmed or killed and failed to intervene”? Did they? If they did, how did they do it?

Who has the greater sin ...

Jesus condemns all sin.

... an insane person who is gunning down children …

Sin.

… or the one who refuses to take any action to stop him and says "wait for the police"?

Sin.

You may not have read my post #88 before you wrote this. I haven’t said that Christians should not take action to intervene in such a scenario. Waiting for the police isn’t always possible. Intervening in a way which doesn’t violate the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles is required at all times, in every scenario.

 

[markalan]

There is no guarantee that anyone can prevent innocent people from being harmed or killed. The government certainly can’t guarantee it, and it is the governments responsibility.

The "government" are men and women on the front line doing what is necessary to protect people.
To me it seems like hypocrisy to be grateful they killed someone to protect my family when I was not prepared to do so with whatever force was necessary.

Let’s go back to Jesus and the apostles. Were they able to “prevent innocent people from being harmed or killed and failed to intervene”? Did they? If they did, how did they do it?

Jesus protected the woman taken in adultery by divine power (John 8).
Paul cursed a man with blindness (Acts 13).
I doubt any of us have that power so we can only use what God has provided for us.

 

[Matthias]

The "government" are men and women on the front line doing what is necessary to protect people.

Yes. When Paul wrote, those people were pagans. It was their role, not the role of the apostles and the followers of Jesus, to protect people.

How does scripture say followers of Jesus are to protect themselves? Isn’t it by putting on the full armor of God?

If someone were to ask you to pray that God would protect them, and if you were to do that for that person, would you say that you were or were not involved in protecting that person?

To me it seems like hypocrisy to be grateful they killed someone to protect my family when I was not prepared to do so with whatever force was necessary.

1. What you’re describing is “the end justifies the means” philosophy. That isn’t the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

2. It wouldn’t have seemed like hypocrisy to Jesus and the apostles. It is the order which God has established until the Messiah returns.

Jesus protected the woman taken in adultery by divine power (John 8).
Paul cursed a man with blindness (Acts 13).
I doubt any of us have that power so we can only use what God has provided for us.

”We do not use the weapons of the world.” - Jesus, via Paul

 

[markalan]

When Paul wrote, those people were pagans. It was their role, not the role of the apostles and the followers of Jesus, to perform.

Certainly it was not their "role" ... their role was to spread the Gospel.
Jesus taught us about not responding to personal attacks ... He certainly believed in defending other such as the woman taken in adultery.

It wouldn’t have seemed like hypocrisy to Jesus and the apostles.

Leaving it to others to defend you family? Jesus would not condone that.

”We do not use the weapons of the world.” - Jesus, via Paul

Paul is talking about spiritual warfare, not protecting innocent people from attack.

Whatever view one takes of the sword Jesus told the disciples to buy, He did tell them, and later in the Garden, demonstrated that it was not to be used unwisely.

 

[Matthias]

Certainly it was not their "role" ... their role was to spread the Gospel.

That’s right. It also was not the “role” of the state to spread the Gospel.

Jesus taught us about not responding to personal attacks ... He certainly believed in defending other such as the woman taken in adultery.

Did Jesus kill anyone?

Leaving it to others to defend you family?

No.

Jesus would not condone that.

Neither would I nor the apostles condone it.

Paul is talking about spiritual warfare, not protecting innocent people from attack.

My position is that spiritual warfare is linked to protecting innocent people from attack.

Whatever view one takes of the sword Jesus told the disciples to buy, He did tell them, and later in the Garden, demonstrated that it was not to be used unwisely.

I agree.

 

[markalan]

Did Jesus kill anyone?

Jesus had divine power that we do not. He used physical violence to protect His disciples when He made the men who had come to arrest Him, fall to the ground. (John 18:6)

My position is that spiritual warfare is linked to protecting innocent people from attack.

Do you think you can do what Jesus did to the men in the Garden?

 

[Matthias]

Jesus had divine power that we do not.

See your question below.

He used physical violence to protect His disciples when He made the men who had come to arrest Him, fall to the ground. (John 18:6)

He didn’t touch them. He spoke and they fell.

Do you think you can do what Jesus did to the men in the Garden?

What I know is that followers of Jesus are instructed to imitate him, as the apostles imitated him. You know that too, don’t you?

 

[markalan]

He didn’t touch them. He spoke and they fell.

So the solution to protecting innocent people is to speak like Jesus did?

What I know is that followers of Jesus are instructed to imitate him, as the apostles imitated him. You know that too, don’t you?

I don't know about you, but I can't make water into wine either ... I had to do physical labor to earn money to buy the food and drink for my daughter's wedding.