Tag Archives: Self-Defense

Wayne Grudem explains what the Bible says about self-defense

Reformed Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem speaks on the Bible and the right of self-defense.

About Wayne Grudem:

Grudem holds a BA from Harvard University, a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. In 2001, Grudem became Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary. Prior to that, he had taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he was chairman of the department of Biblical and Systematic Theology.

Grudem served on the committee overseeing the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and in 1999 he was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He is a co-founder and past president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. He is the author of, among other books, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, which advocates a Calvinistic soteriology, the verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the body-soul dichotomy in the nature of man, and the complementarian (rather than egalitarian) view of gender equality.

The MP3 file is here.

A PDF sermon outline is here.

Topics:

  • what about turning the other cheek? doesn’t that undermine self-defense?
  • what does Jesus say about the right to self-defense in the New Testament
  • did Jesus’ disciples carry swords for protection during his ministry?
  • why did Jesus tell his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords?
  • what about Jesus stopping Peter from using force during Jesus’ arrest?
  • shouldn’t we rely on police instead of our own personal weapons?
  • what about brandishing a handgun vs actually trying to shoot someone?
  • what are violent crime rates in pro-gun USA and in the anti-gun UK?
  • does outlawing guns cause violent crime to increase or decrease?
  • do academic studies show that gun control decreases crime?
  • do academic studies show that concealed carry laws decreases crime?
  • what do academic studies show about defensive handgun usage?
  • do many children die from guns in the home compared to other causes?
  • doesn’t the US Constitution limit the usage of guns to the army and police?
  • what did the Founding Fathers believe about lawful ownership of firearms?
  • What should be the goal of someone who uses a weapon in self-defense?

I’m not a Calvinist, because I like middle-knowledge instead. But boy, have the Calvinists got some good theologians.

You can find more talks by Wayne Grudem here.

My previous post on the deterrent effect of legal private ownership of firearms is here: Why do people favor legal private ownership and concealed carry of handguns?

.

UK woman warned for brandishing kitchen knife at trespassers

These are both from ECM.

Self-defense and justified violence

Consider this story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Miss Klass, a model for Marks & Spencer and a former singer with the pop group Hear’Say, was in her kitchen in the early hours of Friday when she saw two teenagers behaving suspiciously in her garden.

The youths approached the kitchen window, before attempting to break into her garden shed, prompting Miss Klass to wave a kitchen knife to scare them away.

Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Herts, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an “offensive weapon” – even in her own home – was illegal.

Jonathan Shalit, Miss Klass’s agent, said that had been “shaken and utterly terrified” by the incident and was stepping up security at the house she shares with her fiancé, Graham Quinn, who was away on business at the time.

He said: “Myleene was aghast when she was told that the law did not allow her to defend herself in her own home. All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off.

This happens all the time in the feminized UK. They think that violence is never justified, and that criminals are actually the victims of social inequalities. And since criminals aren’t responsible, it’s wrong for home-owners to stop them from committing crimes. This is just another example of the secular left’s view that there is no objective right and wrong, and that morality is relative. It’s not wrong to steal, they say – what’s wrong is to think that you have a right to own your own private property. Permitting the theft of your property is like – sharing.

A previous post I wrote explains how weapon ownership by law-abiding citizens deters crime.

Liberty and personal responsibility

Consider this story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Heavy snow, low temperatures and a lack of gritting mean pavements throughout the country are too slippery to walk on safely. Hospitals have been struggling to cope with rising numbers of patients who have broken bones after falling on icy paths.

Yet the professional body that represents health and safety experts has issued a warning to businesses not to grit public paths – despite the fact that Britain is in the grip of its coldest winter for nearly half a century.

Under current legislation, householders and companies open themselves up to legal action if they try to clear a public pavement outside their property. If they leave the path in a treacherous condition, they cannot be sued.

It’s like people in the UK think that British citizens are all young children to be controlled, so that they won’t hurt themselves or anyone else. I wonder where that attitude comes from? It certainly wasn’t there 50 years ago. What changed?

UK man charged with murder after defending home from two burglars

Check out this Green Room post by Laura (from Pursuing Holiness).

Excerpt:

The UK, having made domestic surveillance into an art form, is now at leisure to babysit your children.

No, really. They insist: Parents banned from supervising their own children in playgrounds… in case they are paedophiles.

Supervising children’s every waking moment is the natural next step in a nation where they are subject to death panels, handguns are sufficiently outlawed so they have moved on to knives and big sticks, they are prosecuted for fighting back against burglars who enter their homes and cameras scour the land like the eye of Sauron, watching for anti-social behavior. Over 10,000 cameras in London alone, which do almost nothing for actual crime. So they’re focusing on thoughtcrime, which can be prosecuted without video.

It’s the nanny state. Literally.

Well, that is bad, but I took a closer look at the “fighting back against burglars” link and saw this.

Excerpt:

A council official’s son who allegedly stabbed two burglars breaking into his mother’s home has been charged with murder.

Omari Roberts was hailed a hero after disturbing 17-year-old Tyler Juett and his accomplice, 14.

But yesterday, the 23-year-old appeared in court accused of killing Juett and wounding the younger raider with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

The CPS said it decided to charge him for using ‘excessive and gratuitous force’ when the pair tried to burgle the home of Jacqueline McKenzie-Johnson in Nottingham in March.

Criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens in the UK, because everyone has to be the same. Moral distinctions make people feel bad, so the criminals must be lifted up and the law-abiding must be pushed down. Everyone is equal, right?