A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
By taking careful aim and exercising good trigger control. The Holy Bible does not consist of one verse taken out of context. Risking one's own life to kill a murderer to prevent the murder of innocents is one of the most courageous and loving things a person can do.
"Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked." -Proverbs 25:26
As the eminent Biblical scholar and theologian Gleason L. Archer PhD wrote in the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:
"How could God be called 'good' if He forbade His people to protect their wives from ravishment and strangulation by drunken marauders, or to resist invaders who have come to pick up their children and dash out their brains against the wall? No policy would give freer rein to wickedness and crime than a complete surrender of the right of self-defense on the part of the law-abiding members of society.
No more effective way of promoting the cause of Satan and the powers of hell could be devised than depriving law-abiding citizens of all right of self-defense. It is hard to imagine how any deity could be thought 'good' who would ordain such a policy of supine surrender to evil as that advocated by pacifism.
All possibility of an ordered society would be removed on the abolition of any sort of police force. No nation could retain its liberty or preserve the lives of its citizens if it were prevented from maintaining any sort of army for its defense. It is therefore incumbent on a 'good God' to include the right of self-defense as the prerogative of His people. He would not be good at all if He were to turn the world over to the horrors of unbridled cruelty perpetrated by violent and bloody criminals or the unchecked aggression of invading armies.
Not only is a proper and responsible policy of self-defense taught by Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, but there were occasions when God even commissioned His people to carry out judgment on corrupt and degenerate heathen nations and the complete extermination of cities like Jericho (cf. the article on "Was Joshua justified in exterminating the population of Jericho?" in connection with Joshua 6:21). The rules of war laid down in Deuteronomy 20 represented a control of justice, fairness, and kindness in the use of the sword, and, as such, they truly did reflect the goodness of God."
I certainly could add much more to explain why there is no dichotomy between loving an enemy and discharging one's responsibility to stop wickedness and hold wicked people accountable regardless of whether or not they are acting from a state of deception as in the case of Islamic extremists.
It's because I love that I will relent if they repent and surrender. It's because I love that I will accept them as brothers if they respond to the Gospel.
But I won't facilitate wickedness nor act cowardly or negligently because a liberal took a scripture verse out of context.
"Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked." -Proverbs 25:26
As the eminent Biblical scholar and theologian Gleason L. Archer PhD wrote in the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:
"How could God be called 'good' if He forbade His people to protect their wives from ravishment and strangulation by drunken marauders, or to resist invaders who have come to pick up their children and dash out their brains against the wall? No policy would give freer rein to wickedness and crime than a complete surrender of the right of self-defense on the part of the law-abiding members of society.
No more effective way of promoting the cause of Satan and the powers of hell could be devised than depriving law-abiding citizens of all right of self-defense. It is hard to imagine how any deity could be thought 'good' who would ordain such a policy of supine surrender to evil as that advocated by pacifism.
All possibility of an ordered society would be removed on the abolition of any sort of police force. No nation could retain its liberty or preserve the lives of its citizens if it were prevented from maintaining any sort of army for its defense. It is therefore incumbent on a 'good God' to include the right of self-defense as the prerogative of His people. He would not be good at all if He were to turn the world over to the horrors of unbridled cruelty perpetrated by violent and bloody criminals or the unchecked aggression of invading armies.
Not only is a proper and responsible policy of self-defense taught by Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, but there were occasions when God even commissioned His people to carry out judgment on corrupt and degenerate heathen nations and the complete extermination of cities like Jericho (cf. the article on "Was Joshua justified in exterminating the population of Jericho?" in connection with Joshua 6:21). The rules of war laid down in Deuteronomy 20 represented a control of justice, fairness, and kindness in the use of the sword, and, as such, they truly did reflect the goodness of God."
I certainly could add much more to explain why there is no dichotomy between loving an enemy and discharging one's responsibility to stop wickedness and hold wicked people accountable regardless of whether or not they are acting from a state of deception as in the case of Islamic extremists.
It's because I love that I will relent if they repent and surrender. It's because I love that I will accept them as brothers if they respond to the Gospel.
But I won't facilitate wickedness nor act cowardly or negligently because a liberal took a scripture verse out of context.
