Are Guns Inherently Against Life?

Rev. Lance Lewis of Philadelphia (ordained in the PCA) has written an interesting post here about the subject. His conclusion is that “it is time for us to realize that we cannot be both pro-life and pro-gun.” However, there is an inherent ambiguity in his target (if you’ll pardon the pun). Is he talking only about handguns, or about guns in general? In most of the article, he seems to have handguns as his target, but then at the end of the article, he seems to include all guns. This is problematic, as rifles and shotguns are usually used for hunting animals these days. In fact, contrary to Rev. Lewis’s assertion (“The handguns manufactured and sold in this country today are designed and built for one purpose and one purpose only; namely the destruction of human life”), handguns are used for hunting animals, and are also used for recreational target-practice (i.e., simply for fun).

The next problematic assertion that Rev. Lewis makes is, in effect, that the second amendment has to do only with resisting government. Having artificially limited the scope of the second amendment to that, he uses a reductio ad absurdam to prove that citizens could not possibly defend themselves against the government. Therefore we should not have handguns. This does not follow. The second amendment cannot be limited to defense against the government. It also includes the right of a person to defend himself against attacks against his family. How many people today are even thinking consciously about defense against their government? The argument does not fit today’s situation.

The argument (not made by Rev. Lewis, but seemingly implied, and certainly used today all over the place by people wanting to restrict the use of handguns) that keeping people from guns will reduce crime is absolutely ludicrous. For one thing, criminals will always be able to get guns. Disarming the citizens will not prevent violence in the slightest. If anything, it will increase violence. If this argument were valid, then Switzerland, which requires its people to own guns, would have the highest crime rate in the world. Instead, it has one of the lowest. The same thing is true of Kennesaw, Georgia. Why does gun ownership decrease violent crime? One simple word: deterrence. I remember vividly one cartoon in World magazine where two criminals were high-tailing it away from a house, with the owner of the house firing a gun after them. The one criminal says to the other criminal, “Doesn’t he know how dangerous it is to own a gun?” The same thing was true of the Cold War. Having a nuclear arsenal, implementing MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was an effective way to prevent a nuclear strike from the Russians.  Honestly, how many burglars would be willing to seek to burgle a house where he knew the owner not only kept a gun, but had training in how to use it? If I were a criminal, I would keep away from such houses, and instead prey on houses where I knew there would likely be no guns and no experience. You know, places like Philadelphia, Washington D.C, New York City.

So, completely contrary to Rev. Lewis’s assertion, pro-gun can actually be more pro-life than anti-life. And I personally resent the suggestion (I own three guns) that I am one iota less pro-life than Rev. Lewis is. Guns are not, and have never been, the problem. The problem is people and their sinful hearts. Gun control laws are a government-sponsored tyranny that simply cannot be messianic in its effect, since criminals get their guns from the black market anyway, so as to avoid the tracing. In short, there is very little logic in Rev. Lewis’s post.


  1. Seth said,

    September 15, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    Thank you for this post. Rev. Lewis’ assertion that pro-gun and pro-life are not compatible smacks of the same illogical reasoning as those who argue that if one is pro-life one ought not support the death penalty. How absurd! If a criminal breaks into my house, seeking to harm myself or my family, he has forfeited his life. What has the unborn infant done to forfeit his/her life?

  2. Colin said,

    September 15, 2008 at 5:15 pm

    I realise I am entering the bearpit (but across the Atlantic I should be OK, or out of range – to mix my metaphors !!!)

    But the availability of guns is the problem – as I stated on Pastor Lewis’s blog – we have in the last 15 – 20 years in the UK (a better comparrison than Switzerland – I think) developed a fetishisation of the gun among certain sections of our youth (who are as equally in sin as the young people in the US). But they cannot get there hands that easily on the guns – hence the murder rate by guns is fairly low.

    I fully admit your problem with a vast number of guns in circulation is a tough nut to crack, particularly with your antipathy to state intervention. But what your policy in effect seems to mean is that (and I take this from your last comments) the suburban middle classes have guns, and those in big cities don’t, so they have to suffer the brunt of the consequences of the huge no of guns in circulation. And short of arming everyone, there seems little else which can be done …


    PS I am looking forward to Reforming or Conforming

  3. greenbaggins said,

    September 15, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    Colin, my impression is that gun ownership is not all that distinct across classes over here in America. The issue with Switzerland is not that I think we should have mandatory gun ownership. Some people simply do not want to own guns. That’s perfectly fine! But Switzerland proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that more guns does not mean more crime. In fact, it can often mean less crime. The case of Georgia also proves the point. In my county, almost everyone owns guns. Crime is almost nonexistent. Access to guns is simply not the problem.

  4. Colin said,

    September 15, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Fair enough,

    Of course there are alot of people that own guns who do not go out murdering people – but that does not discount the fact that the large no of guns in the US, mixed with ‘socio economic cultural factors’ ( I realise that is a poor way to put it – but I mean the development of negative gun cultures in certain elements of society – be that the Columbine Killers, gang members etc) lead to your very high murder rates particuarly among certain groups.

    And again I don’t think Switzerland is a good example as it is not exactly currently known for the ‘socio economic cultural factors ‘ of the communities affected by gun violence in the US. However with the world wide transmission of negative gun cultures by MTV etc watch this space.


  5. greenbaggins said,

    September 15, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Colin, if you’re right, then guns are not to blame at all (since criminals will simply use another weapon), the socio-economic-cultural factors are to blame (I would probably call that sin). In which case, the solution is the preaching of the Gospel and missions, not gun control.

  6. September 15, 2008 at 7:11 pm

    It’s empirically true in the United States that the reduction of legal limitations on guns tends on balance to reduce violent crime while strict gun control laws tend on balance to increase violent crime. See Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime.

    The statistics as such are not a matter of dispute.

  7. E.C. Hock said,

    September 15, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    If we look at this ethic on guns biblically, that is, set ourselves within the NT context of the church, were not Christians pro-sword as well as pro-life? As the disciples eventually went out, swords and/or knives were not prohibitive. One may protest, and say, they did not take spears or long bows, but who knows? What then of Christian’s down through church history? Yet, perhaps one’s sword at the side was as today’s hand gun. After all, as the saying goes, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Surely, Lewis’ argument needs examination and review.

  8. Richard L. Lindberg said,

    September 15, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    Having read the original post, and the above comments (which are all standard fare when responding to those who do not believe in guns), I stand with the author of the post. There are no sound biblical grounds for gun ownership. Jesus said the one sword was enough. His teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, and the defenseless character of his life are enough for me to say no to guns. I have decided (after reading about carnage in Philadelphia and elsewhere on a near daily basis) is that anyone with a gun has the possibility of becoming a criminal.

  9. steve hoffmeister said,

    September 15, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    I have read the post by green baggins and the link as well as the replies. It is interesting we have a point from Switzerland and England polar differences. Also a look from NT only view and what seems to be almost Anabaptistic in view. I do agree that the original post from the Rev. Lewis has many problems in its look towards the killings in Philadelphia as far as crime with guns is concerned. It is easy to blame the gun makers for this problem. The real problem is sin and the various spheres not taking proper action. We have the family that is not doing its duty, the church not doing its duty, and the civil magistrate not doing its duty, all three are guilty of all the deaths that occur in Philadelphia,”see God its is the gun maker that you gave me, that gave me the gun so that I can kill my brother”. Since I am in Genesis “Cain rose up and slew Able with a Glock (well stone in Hebrew becomes Glock), I think Adam and Eve tried to sue God because He made stones that were lethal ( not just the round ones ,but the pointy ones yea they have only one use), but lost in court.
    When one is unable or willing to point out the obvious because they may be called racists or just plain not listen to because they are quoting a biblical point of view and we must have “seperation” what do you expect.
    I just moved out of that area , I was wondering if Philly is still trying to out the Boy Scouts because they will not allow gays. Here is one of the most insane ideas next to the making a builder use the plumbers union for bathrooms that wont be used, that has come out of Philly yet. Well any way that is my two cents worth.
    s.e. hoffmeister

  10. Roger Mann said,

    September 15, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    Colin, if you’re right, then guns are not to blame at all (since criminals will simply use another weapon), the socio-economic-cultural factors are to blame (I would probably call that sin).

    Absolutely correct. I’ve worked in Corrections for 22 years (the past 14 years at the Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary, Kansas), and the fact that guns are banned within the walls of the prison has never stopped a single killing there. Inmates simply use homemade knives (shanks), razors, clubs, or anything else they can get there hands on. Even Correctional Officers wind up getting stabbed, beaten, or killed from time to time. In fact, a 22 year old Officer, Jose Rivera (who survived two tours in Iraq), was killed by two inmates a few months ago at the Federal Penitentiary, Atwater, California. Evil men with murderous hearts are the problem, not guns.

    By the way, Colin is incorrect on the facts. Gun crime increased dramatically (along with violent crime in general) after law-biding citizens were disarmed in the UK. As the following article points out, “London is getting the name for being a knife crime capital around the world.” Bob Mattes has a good blog post on this topic here: Brits want their guns back.

  11. Roger Mann said,

    September 15, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Richard wrote,

    I have decided (after reading about carnage in Philadelphia and elsewhere on a near daily basis) is that anyone with a gun has the possibility of becoming a criminal.

    Brilliant! Now we just need to disarm the police, the national guard, and the military — since they’re one step away from becoming criminals with all those guns! Then we’ll simply give everyone a sword, as Jesus prescribed, and there will be no more killing and mayhem! We’ll all live in peace and harmony and sing cumbaya!

  12. Colin said,

    September 16, 2008 at 2:07 am

    Green Baggins,

    You don’t know me, so your dig about you calling social economic cultural factors sin and me calling sin social economic cultural factors is perhaps understandable.

    People in your county who are not believers, and ‘behave’ themselves with guns, are as dead in sin as those in the big cities (and elsewhere) who are going around killing each other. Sin manifests itself in different times and places in different ways, but it still comes from the same root, a fallen humanity.

    As you have mentioned, if criminals did switch to another weapon (however this switch could be acheived – and I fully accept in the States this would not be an easy thing) from the gun, say to the knife, I suggest your murder rate would drop substantially, and in cities alot more parents would still have their sons alive, not on death row or not serving life sentences.


  13. GLW Johnson said,

    September 16, 2008 at 7:29 am

    Good grief-the left wing kind of pietism that gave birth to Schleiermacher is now roosting on the PCA’s branch of the Reformed tree. What next-‘Reformed Quakerism’ ?

  14. Mike said,

    September 16, 2008 at 7:32 am

    Mr. Lindberg
    Your logic cannot be limited to guns. Any device in the hands of a sinful heart has the possibility of destruction. A match? An automobile? Please remember that we live in a constitutional republic that allows law-abiding citizens to own guns. I would rather see Christians championing law enforcement and the 1st use of the Law of God (curbing sin outwardly). Ideas have consequences which can result in the loss of civil liberties. When the burglar ignores the civil laws, the Ackerman security sign, and the locked door/window, he will happily be introduced to the family of Smith and Wesson. Gospel blessings,

  15. ReformedSinner said,

    September 16, 2008 at 7:35 am


    The “common sense” that if the government has banned gun = less murder or crimes is simply not proven by facts. Most of the Eastern Asian countries banned the selling of guns to public, and yet the murder rate (yes with guns) are higher than those of America. This is why we call them “criminals” Colin, they have ways to get things that average citizens can’t.

    Also, by banning guns, one of the biggest crime industry in eastern Asia is gun selling. So not only have you NOT solve the social problem your claim to solve (less crimes), but you have created another social problem (an entire new criminal ring of guns.)

    The argument that a gun owner is as guity as a criminal with guns is absurd. Now, I don’t own guns and I don’t plan to ever. But come on, let’s use real common sense here and make arguments based on facts, not absurd ideology.

  16. ReformedSinner said,

    September 16, 2008 at 7:41 am


    Mr. Lindberg,

    Your exegesis on guns is flawed. If I apply your “exegesis”, then the Catholics is right that real committed men of God should not be marry, because if Jesus can do without a wife that’s saying something about our social life. Next, all church leaders should be baseless and just wonder around from place to place, after all, Jesus doesn’t have a base. Finally, forget about being paid with salary and benefits, if Jesus can do well without health insurance and 401K then shame on the pastors to seek after these luxuries.

    Sorry, but just wanting to point out that you may think pro-gun people make absurd defenses, but unfortunately yours is just as unconvincing to put it mildly. And no I’m not a gun owner and I don’t plan to own any guns. But I just can’t stand such “exegesis” as basis to beat on the heads of conscious Christians.

  17. David Gilleran said,

    September 16, 2008 at 7:42 am

    May I remind everyone that any argument about what is pro-life for anyone in the PCA must either start or bring into the discussion very soon the WLC and WSC exposition of the 6th commandment. The main point of the exposition is that we are do to all that we can to protect our own life and the lives of others. In certain contexts that may include owning a weapon for self-defense.

  18. steve hoffmeister said,

    September 16, 2008 at 7:50 am

    hi Colin,
    still good to hear from one over the pond on these views. I was wondering if you could recommend a good news site of some city maybe London or even a smaller one that I could link to to observe your goings on. I also seem to remember that London has the most cameras per person in UK. So who watches the watchers?
    As far as families are concerned in Philly the link that unwed mothers or dysfunctional families if you will are a great cause of many the problems that occur in Philly. Some have multiple fathers and only one mother or worse grandmother, and the fathers do not care for the children. In some houses you have three to four generations of the same problem so the sin cycle continues and little is done about it. Another is the lack on the civil magistrates part to put one in jail or use the death penalty after said crimes.

    I will agree that it does take more skill and guts to walk up and stab someone and if there was a way to remove the guns the knife would be next.
    I do wonder how long it would take for numbers to come back up?The gun is a lazy mans weapon no doubt.
    s.e. hoffmeister

  19. dillimax690 said,

    September 16, 2008 at 10:40 am

    I suppose this Rev. Lewis is anti-death penalty as well?

  20. Roger Mann said,

    September 16, 2008 at 10:48 am

    If criminals did switch to another weapon…from the gun, say to the knife, I suggest your murder rate would drop substantially, and in cities alot more parents would still have their sons alive, not on death row or not serving life sentences.

    Is that why “London is getting the name for being a knife crime capital around the world”, because people are safer without guns? Is that why the UK’s violent crime rate with firearms has increased about 40% after handguns were banned? The following video clip demonstrates the absurdity of such a position, and why those who love freedom in the United States should never let the left gain control — and, yes, Barack Obama and the Reid/Pelosi control of Congress constitutes the left!

    Has England lost its mind?

    By the way, Colin, handguns were banned in Washington D.C. for decades, and it has consistently been one of the most violent cities in the United States (and its criminals are consistently some of the most unruly and violent inmates within the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as I can personally attest to).

  21. Benjamin P. Glaser said,

    September 16, 2008 at 11:02 am

    As an avid hunter who owns a number of firearms I would like to know what Rev. Lewis would like to do about the rise in the Deer and other animal population that would inevitable occur and the environmental crisis it would cause? Reintroduce predators? Also my main purpose for hunting is to provide meat for my family at a quite discounted price. How would I afford to spend more money on meat at the grocery store that is now provided by a bullet?

  22. Colin said,

    September 16, 2008 at 11:14 am


    For the news in the UK, check – there is the UK and news and also news from our regions.


    To draw a link between the banning of handguns in the UK and the rise in violent crime really is an outrageous jump of logic. I think there may some other things going on …

    When considering the knife crime in London, interestingly I believe the murder rate in London is actually down or at least fairly stable. Knife crime is the big story at the moment so seems to get a lot of coverage. But please don’t link this with our lack of guns. Anyway look at the murder rate in London compared with a big city in the US ….

    I still maintain if there were less guns in the US, you would have less murders… and for this I am associated with left wing pietism, Schliermacher, and my views on sin are questioned – anyone would think owning guns was in the Bible …


  23. Roger Mann said,

    September 16, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    To draw a link between the banning of handguns in the UK and the rise in violent crime really is an outrageous jump of logic.

    So, let me get this right. England bans handguns and gun violence subsequently increases by about 40% and knife assaults go through the roof, but it’s an “outrageous jump of logic” to conclude that the two are related, even though a similar rise in violent crime has happened in Washington D.C. and many other places around the world where guns have been banned. And you would have us believe, on the other hand, that it is eminently reasonable to conclude that “if there were less guns in the US, you would have less murders?” Ok, that sounds like a brilliant argument to me! Where do I sign up to hand over my guns?

    Now I just have to figure out a way to explain to my wife how she’ll protect herself if someone breaks into our home in order to rape and kill her while I’m working midnight shift. What should I tell her, “Don’t worry honey, those types of things never happen! And even if someone does break in, just call 911 and the police will show up in about 15 to 20 minutes if you’re lucky!” Do you think she’ll readily buy the new “logic” of my reasoning?

  24. ray said,

    September 16, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    We do have examples in Scripture like Nehemiah 4 where when the laborers armed themselves… this detered wicked intentions. I also think of early Israel who were made unarmed by their enemies like the Philistines. This did not happen by chance … this happened to Israel by the chastising hand of the Lord.

    Here in Canada we have proof why gun control/registry does not work and has ended up costing us the taxpayers millions of dollars and is in the process of being scraped. It is pretty sad when farmers are asked to register a Cooey .22 used for varmits around the farm. 2 provinces … Alberta and Ontario successfully rejected the Federal gun registry and big reasons the gun registry is on the way out.

    I can only shake my head when I here stories at our border crossings when the Canadian officers(armed with nothing but tazers and possibly bad breath) at the borders take tail and run when they hear some criminal is heading towards the border and considered armed and dangerous.

    I hunt with my brothers and Dad. My Dad ran a gun shop at one time. He taught me knowledge and understanding before he handed and taught me to use the rifle. I went through a hunter safety course and again for my firearms license . As fathers, it is our duty to teach our children and I believe most of us here do just that.

    I am not from the city, I live in the country and was raised in the country.

    Guns are not the problem as rightly set forth here. Sinful hearts are. God has routed more than once the most armed and weaponry endowed kingdoms. He did so in punishment for their sins … not because they had lots of weapons … but because they put their trust in their weapons.

    Defending one’s family and country from wicked intentions using weapons is not a wicked intent from me. I consider it my duty before the Lord for protecting the family He blessed me with, and protecting the country He blessed me to live in. I will live peacefully if possible.

    Thank you to Rev. Kiester and others who rightly put forth sound reason here on the topic.

  25. Ron Gleason said,

    September 16, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    Rev. Lance raises some important issues that demand good solid answers and rebuttals.
    For example, he writes, “The handguns manufactured and sold in this country today are designed and built for one purpose and one purpose only; namely the destruction of human life.” No. They are designed to protect human life. Every year–2-3 million times–handguns protect life without a shot being fired.

    He asks, “What rights do we enjoy as American citizens that are worth taking someone’s life over?” My life. “What scenario could we come up with that would justify the taking of a human life? Attempted murder.

    “If the issue is that owning a gun is necessary to protect my family then why stop at just having one gun in my home?” Indeed. Don’t we have two hands? “Why shouldn’t I arm myself and family in case we’re attacked while out?” Great point. You should. “How many (guns) do I need?” Just one more.

    There are few topics in the United States today that are more misunderstood than the Second Amendment. For our British brothers, the stats cited about the increase of death rates are accurate. See John Lott, Jr.’s 18 year study (read his “Freedomnomics” too. Great read!) Also read the works of Joyce Malcolm.

    With all the “stuff” going on in the PCA these days, I don’t like seeing another politically correct issue rearing its head. I wonder if Rev. Lance is anti-death penalty and pro-women in the military/combat?

  26. Richard L. Lindberg said,

    September 16, 2008 at 7:59 pm

    Having read the responses to my post about guns as well as the rest of the posts, I am not surprised by the tone of the discussion or the particulars of the discussion. The comments made by those who addressed my post range from challenging my interpretation of Scripture to comments bordering on reductio ab absurdum. I think my hermeneutics are sound even though they tend toward Anabaptistic. However, I think they are consistent with two guides in Reformed hermeneutics: what is not commanded is forbidden; and “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture (WCF I.VI). I know of no command in Scripture to own a gun (or any other weapon for that matter). It seems to me then that to own one is disobedience to God. I know of no passage that by “good and necessary consequence” would teach me that owning and using a gun is acceptable to God. To the contrary, we have the example of Jesus who could have called on myriads of angels to save him from the cross, but he did not call on them. We have the example of Stephen who accepted martyrdom without throwing stones back. We have the example of Peter who went to prison without violence. It seems to me that we can make a contrast between how the early church responded to persecution with how the Jews pushed against Roman rule with violence leading to the tragedy at Masada.

    I have arrived at this position not solely on the basis of Scripture, but also by observing our culture in which guns play a significant role. Yes, as some have pointed out, any number of things may be used as a weapon. Nothing is neutral. Yet the use of knives as a weapon is incidental to their major use for cutting food and other things. Guns, on the other hand, have only one purpose. They do not cut bread or meat or spread jam. They can be used for hunting, but so can a bow and arrow. Guns kill in the hands of sinful people which includes all of us (all have sinned and come short of the glory of God).

    I will leave off here. I doubt my arguments will sway anyone, but I felt it important to state a case in support of the original post.

  27. September 16, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    Nice job, Lane–as usual.

    Roger, RE #10, thanks for your kind words.

    I’d like to say that Lance Lewis’ post is unbelievable, but after Federal Vision and people wanting to ordain or commission women as deacons I guess I can’t say anything is unbelievable anymore in the PCA.

    I cannot do justice to the Lewis post in a comment, so I will work on a full post. Since I have first-hand professional experience with firearms AND so-called less-lethal technologies, so won’t be speaking from wild speculation or science fiction. Stay tuned.

  28. Benjamin P. Glaser said,

    September 16, 2008 at 10:32 pm


    Have you ever tried to hunt a squirrel with a bow? How about a Pheasant or a Duck?

  29. Scott Head said,

    September 17, 2008 at 12:12 am

    I disagree with the idea that Christians are to be defenselss. In fact, I believe that scripture mandates that self defense is a duty:


  30. September 17, 2008 at 12:24 am

    RE #29,

    They do it all the time in the cartoons. :-)

  31. September 17, 2008 at 1:38 am

    […] asked Are Guns Inherently Against Life? in response to Lance Lewis’ post Pro Life and Pro Glock? Lane did an excellent job in his […]

  32. September 17, 2008 at 1:46 am

    […] theology, and fantasy Lane over at GreenBaggins asked Are Guns Inherently Against Life? in response to Lance Lewis’ silly post Pro Life and Pro Glock? Lane did an excellent job in his […]

  33. GLW Johnson said,

    September 17, 2008 at 7:14 am

    A BIG thumbs up to rey on this one!!

  34. Ron Henzel said,

    September 17, 2008 at 9:04 am


    You mean ray. Yes: two big thumbs up!

  35. GLW Johnson said,

    September 17, 2008 at 9:19 am

    Yes, ‘ray’ not ‘rey’ ( who is not given to making coherent statements).

  36. greenbaggins said,

    September 17, 2008 at 9:46 am

    Yes, Ray, I agree. Great comment.

  37. Daniel Kok said,

    September 18, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Though sometimes I think my American friends are not gun shy enough, I don’t think we may use the scripture to impose our view of the ‘morality’ of guns upon fellow Christians or the broader populace.

    Rev. Lewis writes:

    “To the contrary, we have the example of Jesus who could have called on myriads of angels to save him from the cross, but he did not call on them. We have the example of Stephen who accepted martyrdom without throwing stones back. We have the example of Peter who went to prison without violence. It seems to me that we can make a contrast between how the early church responded to persecution with how the Jews pushed against Roman rule with violence leading to the tragedy at Masada.”

    Let us not use the example of Christ to prove or disprove gun ownership. Christ’s submission and death, as we all know, was redemptive in purpose. Besides one day our Lord will also return and judge the living and the dead. We might as well then use this logic to inaugurate that day by killing everybody. (!)

    Furthermore the martyrdom of early Christians is an example of death for the faith not defending one’s home or the lives of innocents. Who is being persecuted Lewis? Who is using their weapons to prevent persecution? Furthermore, can one not love their neighbour by owning guns and using them for the peace and security of an earthly kingdom?

    For it seems rather obvious to me that the two kingdoms view is being obscured by your hermeneutic. The civil government allows my American friends to own guns. The civil government’s power is given to it by God to administer the law of the land as it sees fit. If a Christian within that society desires to own and use a gun within the context of that law without violating God’s law, then I see it as a matter of Christian liberty.

    Should American Christians warn others of the danger of handguns and other weapons? Sure. Should they encourage people to use their weapons responsibly? Sure. Do I think that the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted rather broadly to include automatic weapons? Yes.

    But at the end of the day, as a Christian, I am free to purchase, own and use firearms because God has given me that freedom. And I will exercise that freedom in a way that honours Him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: