TGC Writer: We Should Have Let Hitler WIN?!

Hey guys, Colin here, and welcome back to the channel where we bring you Christian commentary about the things that

matter.

As ever, please know this video isn't a sinful attack, but rather a Biblical critique.

In today's video, we're going to be talking about gun control.

Specifically, the Gospel Coalition, or TGC for short, hosted a debate between two

Christians on the topic of gun ownership and how we should view it as Christians.

On the one hand, we have Bob Thune, a pastor from Nebraska who believes that Christians have the liberty to

own guns, and even that these guns are a great way to protect innocent people.

On the other hand, we have Andrew Wilson, who's a pastor in London and is actually a writer for the Gospel

Coalition.

Andrew seems to be a sort of Christian pacifist who is against violence of virtually any kind,

even self -defense.

Obviously, it would seem that he opposes gun ownership for Christians.

In this clip, Andrew was asked, in his own pacifist framework, whether or not it would be ethical for

Christians to take up arms against Hitler in World War II.

Here was his response.

Watch this.

I think, I mean, I think World War II is the closest thing we have to a

genuine war of good against evil.

And so as that sense, it follows us, it's like the reductio ad absurdum of the pacifist position.

And I think you, as a pacifist, you basically swallow it.

And you say, yeah, that might mean Britain had been invaded.

I might not be speaking German, maybe.

I think the world would be, I have to trust the providence of God.

I have to, I have to ultimately say, this is exactly what Romans 12 is doing, saying you don't do these things because vengeance is mine, it's

mine to repay.

And I think in the Sermon on the Mount, don't, again, I think if you read the Sermon on the Mount and say, what does this say I should do with Hitler?

You'd go, yeah, I think that means you might have to say, I don't resist.

And at that point you might say, oh, that's cowardice.

I actually think that takes a lot of courage to hold that position.

So Andrew says that in his worldview, if Christians see Hitler invading the world with his army, taking over

countries, killing millions of innocent people at will, he acknowledges that this is evil.

He admits in his own words that World War II is perhaps one of the only clear cut good versus

evil situations that you can find in recent world history.

But when asked about whether or not Christians should have used violence to stop Hitler, he plainly responds by

saying this, quote, as a pacifist, you basically swallow it and say, yeah, that might mean

Britain would be invaded.

I might now be speaking German, end quote.

Basically, Andrew says outright that it would be unethical for Christians to oppose Hitler with guns or

violence of any kind.

If your family's getting murdered by him, you have no right to defend them.

In fact, you're required to let him do it.

If he's bombing your hometown in England, there's nothing you can do biblically about it.

You might as well just pray and get ready to read your Bible in German.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the natural and logical conclusion of the Christian pacifist.

So many Christians who oppose gun ownership are really pacifists in disguise.

This is their worldview, and this is why they oppose it.

I think we tend to forget that.

But is this biblical?

Is this really ethical?

Should Christians have been neutral in World War II?

And for that matter, is it ever okay under any circumstances for Christians to use violence in

self -defense?

Well, let's take a look at Andrew's biblical argumentation and find out.

Here is his first point of evidence.

Watch this again.

I might now be speaking German, maybe.

I have to trust the providence of God.

So the first theological defense he offers is that we need to trust in God's sovereignty.

God controls all things, so you should let Hitler take over your country and just trust that God is in control anyway.

This point needs to be debunked, because, humbly, I don't think any of us should find it compelling at all.

It is true that God is sovereign.

Proverbs 19 .21 says, quote,.

"...many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.".

End quote.

So we know that the Lord's will always comes to pass.

He is omnipotent, after all.

All Christians should agree with this.

It is fundamental to God's nature.

But the conclusion of Andrew's argument does not follow.

Effectively, this means God is in control, therefore you should leave the invasion of Hitler to God alone

and not defend yourself.

And I wonder if Andrew would apply this same logic to food and drink.

God is sovereign, so don't eat any food, don't drink any water, God's just going to provide for you.

You need to trust Him.

Why are you eating?

You need to trust God.

What this kind of thinking ignores is that God might very well provide for you through giving you food

and water.

In Psalm 144 verse 1, David says this, quote,.

"...blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle.".

End quote.

You see, God provided for David, His servant, through giving him the ability to execute just

violence against those who tried to destroy him, his family, and the people of Israel.

God is sovereign, and David knew that.

But this did not remove David's responsibility to protect his people, even militarily.

And in the same way, the fact that God is sovereign today, as He always is, does not take away your ability

to protect yourself or your family.

Exodus 22 verse 2 says this, quote,.

"...if a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood guilt for him.".

You see, according to God's law, if a man uses violence to protect his goods from being stolen,

even lethal force, that is permissible under Biblical circumstances.

So how much more permissible would it be for this same man to protect his wife and his children from being killed?

The sovereignty of God argument, then, for gun control simply proves nothing.

God in His sovereign will has allowed people to practice Biblical self -defense.

His Word tells us this.

And that is not against God's sovereignty, it is the result of God's sovereignty.

But let's hear his next argument.

Watch this.

I have to ultimately say this is exactly what Romans 12 is doing, saying you don't do these things because vengeance is mine, it's mine to repay.

So the second Biblical example that Andrew Wilson provides is that Romans chapter 12 tells us not to

take vengeance on our enemies.

Romans 12, 19 says, quote,.

"...beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God.

For it is written, quote, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.".

Here's the argument, effectively.

You can't defend yourself against someone like Hitler, because that's the Lord's job, to execute vengeance, not yours.

And again, unfortunately, this Christian pacifist argument will not work at all either, because it's been

taken out of context.

In the very next chapter, Romans 13, 4 says this, quote,.

"...for he, the governing authority, is God's servant for your good.

But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is the servant of God, an

avenger, who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.".

End quote.

So the governing authority is allowed to execute lethal force on those who deserve it.

Therefore, it is entirely in keeping with Scripture for a government to protect its citizens, say, from

Hitler and his unprovoked attack on them.

In fact, any ethical and biblical government has a responsibility, not just a right, to use

violence against someone like Hitler, according to this passage.

So not only does this book of Romans not prove Andrew Wilson's point about World War II, it actually proves that his

point is completely wrong.

Yes, vengeance belongs to the Lord, but the Lord says that He executes vengeance through the violence of a

just human government.

And with that, let's turn to his third and final biblical example.

Watch this.

And I think in the Sermon on the Mount, again, I think if you read the Sermon on the Mount and say, what does this say I should do with Hitler,

you'd go, yeah, I think that means you might have to say, I don't resist.

So here, Andrew cites the Sermon on the Mount.

Most likely, he's referencing Matthew 5 .39, in which Jesus says this, quote, But I say to you,

do not resist the one who is evil.

But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

End quote.

So the argument is, obviously Christians shouldn't own guns, why would we need guns?

If someone shoots you in one leg, you're supposed to turn the other leg to them and let them shoot you there too.

We should not oppose Hitler with our military.

Jesus says, do not oppose the one who is evil.

See, it's right there in the Bible.

But again, as you may expect, this has all been taken completely out of context.

First off, the passage is not talking about valid self -defense.

It's talking about personal retaliation, personal revenge.

Specifically, the text talks about being slapped in the face.

And of course, many commentators have made the case that this refers to a sort of backhanded slap, meant to insult

the person but not to hurt them severely.

You can sort of think about a situation in which a servant is being belittled by a rich man or his master.

If the servant retaliates with violence, it will lead to a heavier attack against him in turn, and

things will escalate.

But if the servant simply absorbs the insulting slap and refuses to react in kind, the rich

man will walk away, having successfully insulted him.

But this is completely different when compared to self -defense.

Turning the other cheek means that you don't avenge a personal slight against you with violence, which is

entirely biblical.

But turning the other cheek has nothing to do with Hitler or someone else who comes into your house with a gun.

Again, God's sovereignty does not remove the option of self -defense.

Romans 12 does not remove the option of self -defense either.

And finally, the Sermon on the Mount certainly does not remove the option of self -defense.

Not one of Andrew Wilson's biblical examples are relevant to this topic.

In fact, his example from Romans dismantled his entire perspective.

The fact is, Exodus 22 verse 2 gives people the right to defend themselves and their families and their

property using lethal force within biblical parameters.

We can't forget that last part.

In modern times, this would obviously include the use of firearms.

Romans 13 .4 gives the government both the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens from

foreign and domestic wrongdoers using lethal force.

In fact, they are called God's instrument of vengeance in the world when they do this.

So there is absolutely no consistent or biblical argument that can be used against lawful gun

ownership, and this video of Andrew Wilson demonstrates that quite effectively.

I pray that this has been a blessing to you.

And please know this, I do not offer any of this correction from a high and mighty position.

I am nothing but a wretched sinner saved by the grace of Jesus Christ.

So let's pray for TGC and for Andrew Wilson that they would stop spreading this unbiblical pacifism by

God's grace and turn to the truth of God's Word.

Thank you so much for watching that video.

Please give us a like and subscribe so that you don't miss any content.

Also, don't forget to subscribe to our Rumble channel as well, just in case YouTube ever takes us down.

The link is in the description.

And before you go, take a look at this list here.

These are the people who make all of the free content you see on this channel possible with their monthly support.

Today's highlighted channel supporter is Sean.

If you also want to help and become part of the solution today, hit the link in the description.

Your support keeps us independent and helps us immensely here on the channel.

So I hope you'll consider joining the Truth Army today.

And until next time, fight for truth, never surrender, and keep your eyes open.

Thank you and God bless.