File Name: 3154.txt Ä Area: A_THEIST: A_T ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Msg#: 76 Date: 05-23-95 21:02 From: Randy Edwards Read: Yes Replied: No To: All Mark: Subj: Re: [3 of 7] Know Thy Ene ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Original Message Posted via ANEWS * Date: 22 May 95 17:17:48 * From: Randy Edwards @ 1:325/805 * To: All * Forwarded by: Christopher Baker @ 1:374/14 * Message text was not edited! @MSGID: 1:325/805 019b6ba9 @SPLIT: 22 May 95 17:17:48 @325/805 29760 03/07 +++++++++++ The zeal of Phinehas by which he "made atonement" was, after this incident, taken up by the people as a whole, verse 16, "Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Be hostile to the Midianites and strike them,' Lest someone object to the individual or corporate vengeance that led to such violence, consider Calvin's comment on this passage: "Inasmuch as God constantly forbids His people to take vengeance, it is surprising that the people of Israel should now be instigated to do so; as if they were not already more than enough disposed to it. We must bear in mind, however, that since God, who is the just avenger of all wickedness, often makes use of men's instrumentality, and constitutes them the lawful ministers for the exercise of His vengeance, it must not be altogether condemned without exception, but only such vengeance as men themselves are impelled to by carnal passions. If any one is injured, straightway he is carried away to the desire of vengeance by the stimulus of his own private injury; and this is manifestly wrong: but if a person is led to inflict punishment by a just and well-regulated zeal toward God, it is not his own cause, but that of God which he undertakes." The remarkable thing about the violent zeal of Phinehas is that it arguably received as much or more emphatic approval from God than any other act in the Old Testament. God's approval of violent zeal is also seen in the New Testament example of Christ cleansing the temple of moneychangers. In Christ's example the act was not only violent, but also an act of civil disobedience. Who could say whether his cleansing the temple helped stay God's hand of judgment on Jerusalem for a few more years? Are there any heinous sins being committed today that could again fan the flames of God's righteous anger to the scorching point? Is there any need in today's world for men of the stamp of Phinehas? Could the bold daring of Cozbi and Zimri in parading before Moses as he wept over sin have any modern parallels? The righteous zeal of Phinehas did not permit him to stay his hand long enough to even ask Moses or the church leaders of the wisdom of his action. If any similar zeal be found among us today, occasion to exercise it will not be lacking. Theological Basis For Defensive Action Biblical Christianity affirms both the individuals' and their leaders' responsibility to protect the innocent from unjust harm. The responsibility to protect innocent life is not given directly to government leaders from God. This responsibility is first given to the people who delegate some of this responsibility to their appointed civil servants. If our civil servants neglect their responsibility to protect our children, the responsibility falls even more heavily upon us as individuals to do so. Supporting Authors We would be naive to think that we are the first to deal with issues such as these. Ecclesiastes rightly affirms that "there is nothing new under the sun." Taking defensive action in the face of oppressive civil governments is nothing new. The common sense principles asserted in this pamphlet have been held by untold numbers of Christian theologians. Franklin Sanders also makes this point in an article in the "Herald of the Covenant" dated April 15, 1989: "The real question is, Can any civil government make a law which is... (against the law of God)? As to the Scriptures, there is no question that this is impossible. As to the commentators, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox, George Buchanan, & Samuel Rutherford, to list only a few, all agree with our position: such a law is no law at all. As to the civil law, we have already shown that constitutionally and legally, no such law as "legalized abortion" can be established. Is John Calvin ambiguous against such a presumption when he writes (Comm. Daniel, Lecture XXX, on Dan. 6:22), "For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit on their heads than to obey them." Stout talk, even for the mild John Calvin..." John Knox also understood the Scriptures to require individuals to protect innocent life in spite of government opposition. Francis A. Schaeffer's "A Christian Manifesto", makes this point on page 97. In referring to John Knox, he says, "He maintained that the common people had the right and duty to disobedience and rebellion if state officials ruled contrary to the Bible. To do otherwise would be rebellion against God." In a meeting John Knox had with Queen Mary, she questioned him about his views which legitimized subjects resisting their princes, "If their princes exceed their bounds, Madam, it is no doubt that they may be resisted even by power", said Knox. When Mary protested that the Apostles had not resisted their persecutors by force, Knox replied that the reason was solely the lack of funds (Roland Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Beacon Press, 1952, p. 241). Samuel Rutherford also defended the right of the individual citizen to protect innocent life on page 188 of his well-known Lex Rex: "But because I cannot return to all these opinions particularly, I see no reason but the civil law of a kingdom doth oblige any citizen to help an innocent man against a murdering robber, and that he may be judicially accused as a murderer, who faileth in his duty, and that Solon said well... It is a blessed society in which every man is to repute an injury done against a brother, as an injury done against himself. As the Egyptians had a good law, by which he was accused upon his head who helped not one that suffered wrong; and if he was not able to help, he was held to accuse the injurer, if not, his punishment was whips or three days' hunger; it may be upon this ground it was that Moses slew the Egyptian. Ambrose commended him for so doing." Later on the same page Rutherford adds: "Ambrose (Lib. 1, office. c. 36) citeth this same text, and commendeth Moses who killed the Egyptian in defending a Hebrew man. To deliver is an act of charity, and so to be done, though the judge forbid it, when the innocent is unjustly put to death." He further proves his point on page 189: "The law of God, commanding that we love our neighbor as ourselves, obligeth us to the same, except we think God can be pleased with lip-love in word only, which the Spirit of God condemdeth (1 John ii. 9,10; iii. 16). And the sum of law and prophets is, that as we would not men should refuse to help us when we are unjustly oppressed, so neither would we so serve our -- MPost/2 v1.1 @ Origin: Spartacus Lives! * Home of ANEWS * Venceremos! * (1:325/805) *PATH: 325/805 3615/50 374/1 98 14 -!- GenMsg [0002] (cbak.rights@opus.global.org) ! Origin: Rights On!-A_THEIST Echo Mod/Host-Titusville_FL_USA (1:374/14)