ALR Episode 134 – Of Christians, Gun Control and Government

In this episode we bring you a feature-length edition of Clinging to God and Guns where Lloyd and Pastor Bennett consider what God's Word says about government and what we, as Christians, owe the ruling authorities. Leftist gun-grabbers accuse us of loving guns more than God. So we center our discussion around Romans 13, and the idea that government is instituted for our good and ask (and answer) some tough questions. Are we right to refuse to comply with the law if we disagree with it? Was the American Revolution a violation of Romans 13? What about government turned evil? What about gun control? As a Christian, must we comply if the law violates God's law? The questions and answers are difficult and uncomfortable at times, and that's why we ask them.

THIS EPISODE IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY COOK'S HOLSTERS.

AMERICAN MADE CUSTOM HOLSTERS WITH A 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEE.

www.CooksHolsters.com

Links of Interest

Prayer of the Week

Almighty and everlasting God, give unto us the increase of faith, hope, and charity, and as we do obtain that which You promise, make us to love that which You command; through Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Our Closing Theme
A rockin' rendition of A Mighty Fortress is Our God, performed just for Armed Lutheran Radio by Kenny Gates.

Thank you to our Reformation Gun Club members! Bryan, Dave, David D., David H., David W., Edwin, Frank, Gordon, Jackie, James, Jesse, John B., John N., Kalroy, Lucas, Marc, Robert L., Robert M., Russell, Samuel, and Tyler!

1 Comment on "ALR Episode 134 – Of Christians, Gun Control and Government"

  1. Jeremiah Hansen | August 26, 2018 at 10:11 pm | Reply

    I listened to this and you covered most of the key ones. However, I think you sidestepped a portion of the issue. There is a clear argument for providing defense for one’s neighbor, as well as providing for other needs. You sidestepped and said it wasn’t “permissible” (I believe that’s the word used) to disobey gun control (through restriction of the types of firearms) in as much as it allowed you to still practice defense of your neighbor. You didn’t cover the more pressing issue, and I think unintentionally did a disservice in analyzing the topic.

    I am going to ignore the legal question of whether a restricting gun control law violates the national supreme law (vis-a-vis the Second Amendment). The intent for the gun control laws are often to limit the types of weapons available, and often clearly state that is the intent and spirit of that law. Inherently, this limits the type of defense I could provide my neighbor. To pose an example, if I should need to defend my neighbor against a plurality of attackers, a single shot rifle is not likely the best choice. The example is perhaps a little extreme, but illustrates the point.

    Let’s look at this from a less charged angle by applying the same restriction concept to feeding or providing medical care. Let’s supposed my neighbor needs a tourniquet, but the state does not allow the use of tourniquets by anyone other than an EMT on an active call. I would be limited in my ability to help my neighbor without violating the state, even if that meant my neighbor died. Granted, you can make a tourniquet on the spot, but not so with a firearm. What about feeding my neighbor? Would it be legitimate for the state to require a particular meal be fed, regardless of the potential for the damage it might do (e.g. allergies, inability to be eaten by the individual)? In both these cases, its clear that you would have to go against the state using readily available means. The same here has to apply to firearms, which must be procured and trained on prior to the event. Limiting access to defense (firearms) inherently limits our ability to defend our neighbor. It also allows for the root to take hold that establishes tyrannical measures, which are not in the best interests of our neighbor although it might for the Kingdom (which would be unknown to us).

    I think this aspect of a thorny topic needs to be addressed, if only to say “you are bound by your conscience.” Its potentially unnecessarily binding when a key aspect is left out of the discussion or not considered to the fullest. Can you provide some comments on this line of thought?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*