Regarding Jesus bending down and writing in the
DUST with his finger in John 8:6

I believe Jesus was writing the names of the accusers.

In Jeremiah 17:13 it states:
“..All who abandon you will be ashamed,
those who leave you will be INSCRIBED IN THE
DUST, because they have abandoned the Lord,
the source of living water.”

…..”at this they began to leave…” (john 8:9)
or were they abandoning the scene?!

We’re talking about hypothetical principles, not how I should personally behave in any given situation. Duh.

So are you saying that you don’t buy into your own “teachings?” Because if you wouldn’t actually act in a violent manner to “protect,” “defend,” or “advance” the Kingdom, then what is the point of your assertions?

You assert that we should act violently for the Kingdom of God, but now you are saying that you wouldn’t behave that way.

I need to do some work…maybe I will respond to some of your non-sense later.

We’re talking about hypothetical principles, not how I should personally behave in any given situation.

Common sense… So Paul would be killed for acting violently, but you won’t? I see…

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

As you can see, Christ did not come to destroy the law. Appealing that there is a “new law” is contradicting Christ’s statement in Matthew 5. Christ did not make a new law.

Did you see Paul responding violently to those who arrested him and prevented him from spreading the Kingdom of God? Your claims about the use of violence would imply that Paul should have responded violently to those that got in the way. How do you respond to this?

I respond by appealing to common sense- Paul didn’t use violence because if he did they would have chopped him up into little bits. One man cannot fight against a whole slew of soldiers. Paul had no promise from God that He would deliver Paul if Paul started to fight with the people who had captured him. Paul was using common sense, and in that situation it was common sense to turn the other cheek. This does not imply that the principle should apply to every situation.

Yet you have little reason to do so. You certainly have no Biblical support to do so. You even keep referring back to “the two greatest commands,” yet you never talk about the second one about loving each other.

No one denies the duty to obey the second greatest command, but we are confining ourselves to those situations where the first command to love God overrules the second command to love neighbor.

You are using poetry as proof? Do you take all of the Psalms literally? Funny that you are attacking me for using the direct commands of Jesus as literal commands, yet you use a poem/song as literal proof. Interesting.

Yes I take Psalm 149 literally, and why can’t I? You have no proof that forces me to take it figuratively. I think its quite clear- the saints have the right to conquer heathen kings.

As for your Old Testament interpretations, I do believe that we are under a different covenant, one that Jesus was quite clear about with the use of violence. Did you see Paul responding violently to those who arrested him and prevented him from spreading the Kingdom of God? Your claims about the use of violence would imply that Paul should have responded violently to those that got in the way. How do you respond to this?

You claim that we are under a different covenant than Israel was, which is incorrect. Since I am a Calvinist and covenant theologian I would take issue with your assessment that the New Testament= New Covenant. But even assuming that you are right, the burden of proof is on you to show that the New Covenant law in the respect of warfare is different from the Old Covenant law. I see no reason to assume it is. The verses you cite about turning the other cheek do not force one to agree with you. The burden is on you to show that the commands in the sermon are to be taken universally and literally. Its quite clear that they are not to be so taken, as Christ used the word ‘fool’ even though it is condemned in the Sermon, and resisted evil even though the sermon states you should not resist evil.

Psalm 149 clearly declares that the saints may use swords and weapons to advance the Kingdom of God.

You are using poetry as proof? Do you take all of the Psalms literally? Funny that you are attacking me for using the direct commands of Jesus as literal commands, yet you use a poem/song as literal proof. Interesting.

No one is ignoring the second command, I am merely subordinating it to the greatest command!

Yet you have little reason to do so. You certainly have no Biblical support to do so. You even keep referring back to “the two greatest commands,” yet you never talk about the second one about loving each other.

As for your Old Testament interpretations, I do believe that we are under a different covenant, one that Jesus was quite clear about with the use of violence. Did you see Paul responding violently to those who arrested him and prevented him from spreading the Kingdom of God? Your claims about the use of violence would imply that Paul should have responded violently to those that got in the way. How do you respond to this?

Well even if He did not use the whip, and had no intention of using the whip, you would have to admit He went in with a deceptive intention

I don’t have to admit that at all. Have you ever been to the circus? The animal trainers do not use the whip to actually hit the animals. They use it to control the animals.

If someone is coming at your daughter with a knife and intends to rape her are you going to tell her to turn the other cheek?

I love this question. Extremes are wonderful straw mans, but I will respond anyway. I have no idea how I would respond if my daughter (I do not have one) or wife were attacked. But I am confident that scripture is quite clear about the need to be non-violent. I do know one thing – I do not think that the appropriate response would be to kill the person. I also am very confident that if someone close to me was murdered I would do everything I could to make sure that person did not receive the death penalty.