The death penalty

3,531 Views | 108 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Frok
SoulSlaveAG2005
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As a Catholic convert this is one teaching I always struggled with personally. Prior to my conversion I was ardently pro death penalty, very vindictive and justice oriented.

However, as I became a Christian and really dug into being pro life and consistent in my faith, I could no longer justify supporting capital punishment. ( note I'm not against self defense or just war, and please don't derail this thread)

Pope Francis and the Church has clarified its position on the death penalty, and I think in a positive update. Previously the teaching walked a fine line that allowed for a few exceptions, which practically were not tenable.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-45042130

On a lighter side, I am sure forum 16 will hear the story and we can get our weekly pope is a commie, Catholics bash fest in.
This message has been approved by Brad, Jerry and Mitch..
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't think the Catholic church change its teachings.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am not Catholic and agree with you. And the Pope.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

"inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person"
Yep.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

On a lighter side, I am sure forum 16 will hear the story and we can get our weekly pope is a commie, Catholics bash fest in.
That's a pretty safe prediction. Here is their thread. Already seeing that catholics don't read their bible and something something "old testimate".
SoulSlaveAG2005
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

Quote:

On a lighter side, I am sure forum 16 will hear the story and we can get our weekly pope is a commie, Catholics bash fest in.
That's a pretty safe prediction. Here is their thread. Already seeing that catholics don't read their bible and something something "old testimate".



At least I beat them by 4 minutes...



This message has been approved by Brad, Jerry and Mitch..
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In all seriousness, I think this issue highlights a major problem with a flat reading of scripture. The pro-death penalty side will always cite the OT, while ignoring the instance of Christ being presented with a death penalty case and His response. There's no need to refer to Christ's teachings on it because they already have their justification in the OT.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Civil punishment is a moral norm which continues to the new testament (Rom. 13).
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

Civil punishment is a moral norm which continues to the new testament (Rom. 13).
Nothing in Romans 13 says we, as the church, are supposed to endorse or support the actions of the state that are contrary to life.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

Civil punishment is a moral norm which continues to the new testament (Rom. 13).
Nothing in Romans 13 says we, as the church, are supposed to endorse or support the actions of the state that are contrary to life.
Not all actions, but it does say he is a minister of God who does not bear the sword in vain and executes wrath upon those who do evil. If he executed wrath upon those who do good, it would be an injustice.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Without the death penalty Christ would not have gone to the cross for our sins.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

Civil punishment is a moral norm which continues to the new testament (Rom. 13).
Nothing in Romans 13 says we, as the church, are supposed to endorse or support the actions of the state that are contrary to life.
Not all actions, but it does say he is a minister of God who does not bear the sword in vain and executes wrath upon those who do evil. If he executed wrath upon those who do good, it would be an injustice.
Again, nothing in that means that His church is to endorse or support those actions that destroy the image of God. Romans 12 lays out how the follower of Christ is to be.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Without the death penalty Christ would not have gone to the cross for our sins.
I don't think the execution of an innocent man really makes the case to support the death penalty.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

Frok said:

Without the death penalty Christ would not have gone to the cross for our sins.
I don't think the execution of an innocent man really makes the case to support the death penalty.


I wasn't really making a case, just pointed out the big role it played. Plus we've all been given the death penalty from God for our sin whether we are in Christ or not.

I'm okay with not having the death penalty. But to say the bible clearly prohibits it is way too simplistic to me.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

Civil punishment is a moral norm which continues to the new testament (Rom. 13).
Nothing in Romans 13 says we, as the church, are supposed to endorse or support the actions of the state that are contrary to life.
Not all actions, but it does say he is a minister of God who does not bear the sword in vain and executes wrath upon those who do evil. If he executed wrath upon those who do good, it would be an injustice.
Again, nothing in that means that His church is to endorse or support those actions that destroy the image of God. Romans 12 lays out how the follower of Christ is to be.
I'm trying to understand where you come up with "nothing in that means."

What do these mean to you?
-minister of God
-bears the sword
-executes wrath upon those who do evil
SoulSlaveAG2005
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

RetiredAg said:

Frok said:

Without the death penalty Christ would not have gone to the cross for our sins.
I don't think the execution of an innocent man really makes the case to support the death penalty.


I wasn't really making a case, just pointed out the big role it played. Plus we've all been given the death penalty from God for our sin whether we are in Christ or not.

I'm okay with not having the death penalty. But to say the bible clearly prohibits it is way too simplistic to me.


I wouldn't say the Bible specifically prohibits it... I would argue that it is not for humans to administer death as punishment and that the Tradition, tradition and the Bible are tools to teach us our role in Gods plan and that we are to be stewards of Life.
This message has been approved by Brad, Jerry and Mitch..
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

Civil punishment is a moral norm which continues to the new testament (Rom. 13).
Nothing in Romans 13 says we, as the church, are supposed to endorse or support the actions of the state that are contrary to life.
Not all actions, but it does say he is a minister of God who does not bear the sword in vain and executes wrath upon those who do evil. If he executed wrath upon those who do good, it would be an injustice.
Again, nothing in that means that His church is to endorse or support those actions that destroy the image of God. Romans 12 lays out how the follower of Christ is to be.
I'm trying to understand where you come up with "nothing in that means."

What do these mean to you?
-minister of God
-bears the sword
-executes wrath upon those who do evil
That God can work even through violent and evil men for His greater purpose. We see it throughout the Scriptures. Nebuchadnezzar, Caesar, the Assyrians, Pharoah, etc. How many times do we see ancient powers "execute judgement" on the Israelites, only to have it turned around on them. Their actions aren't endorsed by God, but God can work through them.

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lincoln, Washington, etc. God can work through the violence of all manner of evil, but that doesn't mean He endorses the evil.

That God can work through evil institutions doesn't mean His church should be in the business of endorsing or supporting the state's actions. We live peaceably with others. We witness to a different Kingdom.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

Civil punishment is a moral norm which continues to the new testament (Rom. 13).
Nothing in Romans 13 says we, as the church, are supposed to endorse or support the actions of the state that are contrary to life.
Not all actions, but it does say he is a minister of God who does not bear the sword in vain and executes wrath upon those who do evil. If he executed wrath upon those who do good, it would be an injustice.
Again, nothing in that means that His church is to endorse or support those actions that destroy the image of God. Romans 12 lays out how the follower of Christ is to be.
I'm trying to understand where you come up with "nothing in that means."

What do these mean to you?
-minister of God
-bears the sword
-executes wrath upon those who do evil
That God can work even through violent and evil men for His greater purpose. We see it throughout the Scriptures. Nebuchadnezzar, Caesar, the Assyrians, Pharoah, etc. How many times do we see ancient powers "execute judgement" on the Israelites, only to have it turned around on them. Their actions aren't endorsed by God, but God can work through them.

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lincoln, Washington, etc. God can work through the violence of all manner of evil, but that doesn't mean He endorses the evil.
for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Rom. 13:4
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

Civil punishment is a moral norm which continues to the new testament (Rom. 13).
Nothing in Romans 13 says we, as the church, are supposed to endorse or support the actions of the state that are contrary to life.
Not all actions, but it does say he is a minister of God who does not bear the sword in vain and executes wrath upon those who do evil. If he executed wrath upon those who do good, it would be an injustice.
Again, nothing in that means that His church is to endorse or support those actions that destroy the image of God. Romans 12 lays out how the follower of Christ is to be.
I'm trying to understand where you come up with "nothing in that means."

What do these mean to you?
-minister of God
-bears the sword
-executes wrath upon those who do evil
That God can work even through violent and evil men for His greater purpose. We see it throughout the Scriptures. Nebuchadnezzar, Caesar, the Assyrians, Pharoah, etc. How many times do we see ancient powers "execute judgement" on the Israelites, only to have it turned around on them. Their actions aren't endorsed by God, but God can work through them.

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lincoln, Washington, etc. God can work through the violence of all manner of evil, but that doesn't mean He endorses the evil.
for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Rom. 13:4
The state is often a threat to the good and executes wrath upon him that does good. Christ is a great example of this.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

for he is the minister of God to thee for good

So was Hitler a minister of God to "thee for good"?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"We Christians cannot endure to see a man being put to death, even justly."
~ Athenagoras (133AD 190AD)

"For when God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those beings which are esteemed lawful among men.Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all, but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal."
~ Lactantius, instructor of Constantine's son (240AD 320AD)

This was a pretty standard teaching among the early church. I've yet to find a single church father in support of capital punishment for the first 300 years of the church. I will concede that such an endorsement may exist, but I have yet to find it.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

Quote:

for he is the minister of God to thee for good

So was Hitler a minister of God to "thee for good"?

No. He executed wrath upon those who do good and it was an injustice.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The question should be is capital punishment in and of itself a good thing?

God commands early on in the bible that anyone who sheds innocent blood is not worthy of his own life.

6"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.


Now if we determine our justice system is not reliable then I understand avoiding the death penalty. But to say that God doesn't allow for us to execute murderers just doesn't hold water IMO.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.
It says rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. There are countless rulers throughout every nation's history that are a cause of fear for good behavior. We see it throughout American history as well. You are adding asterisks where there are none. Or, you are just misinterpreting the passage.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:


Quote:

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.
It says rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. There are countless rulers throughout every nation's history that are a cause of fear for good behavior. We see it throughout American history as well. You are adding asterisks where there are none. Or, you are just misinterpreting the passage.
The passage is about rulers. Not specific rulers.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

Quote:

for he is the minister of God to thee for good

So was Hitler a minister of God to "thee for good"?



Given that you can quote church fathers you undoubtedly realize they lived under Roman rule and that the Romans weren't nice people either. I don't know that I'd say Hitler is an objectively worse person than they were, so perhaps your criticism is not only shortsighted but misguided. What was Paul saying when he wrote it, and would inserting Hitler make it different?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:


Quote:

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.
It says rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. There are countless rulers throughout every nation's history that are a cause of fear for good behavior. We see it throughout American history as well. You are adding asterisks where there are none. Or, you are just misinterpreting the passage.
The passage is about rulers. Not specific rulers.
Yes, and there are countless rulers that cause fear for good behavior, but not evil. It's inherent in the violent systems they rule over.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

RetiredAg said:

Quote:

for he is the minister of God to thee for good

So was Hitler a minister of God to "thee for good"?



Given that you can quote church fathers you undoubtedly realize they lived under Roman rule and that the Romans weren't nice people either. I don't know that I'd say Hitler is an objectively worse person than they were, so perhaps your criticism is not only shortsighted but misguided. What was Paul saying when he wrote it, and would inserting Hitler make it different?
Sorry if criticizing Hitler offended you. I did reference Caesar earlier if you prefer. Yes, they lived under an evil state when Paul wrote those words, so perhaps Paul meant something other than to endorse the actions of the state. As we see with the quotes referenced above, the early church views of capital punishment didn't include some asterisk to differentiate between "good state" and "evil state".
Marco Esquandolas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Y'all make the mistake of thinking Protestants who are fine with the state killing people give a single fck about the early church fathers.

Try to wrap your brain around the cognitive dissonance of these people you'd see if the state started forced sterilization and a one child policy. It would take on material properties and be detectable from space.

dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think Paul was writing specifically about his time period to people living then. He had no idea who Hitler was. And God does give us wisdom, discernment, logic, and reason. This broad brush of equating all countries and governments to Caesar is wrong imho.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The state will do what the state does. The church, though, is called to love our enemies, not seek revenge, turn the other cheek, and put away our sword. That was a pretty standard teaching in the early church. God can absolutely use the evil actions of a state to bring about good, but that isn't an endorsement of the state's actions, but a testament of God's ability to bring about good in spite of evil.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Marco Esquandolas said:

Y'all make the mistake of thinking Protestants who are fine with the state killing people give a single fck about the early church fathers.
I will say that I never once heard of a single church father from before the Reformation, outside of Augustine, growing up in Baptist churches. We don't hear them in Church of Christ either, although our preaching minister has begun to include some as of late. It's a shame because so much wisdom is lost when we ignore them.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I will admit, I could very well be wrong. I used to be adamantly pro-death penalty back in my violent days. I just am unable to read the scriptures through a cruciform lens, or the early church fathers, and come away in support of state-sanctioned killing, even of those we consider just to kill.

And on that, I'll bow out because my position is obvious, I do not wish to overtake this thread and I'm trying to get better at not getting entangled in these endless back-and-forths where we just restate our positions over and over again, but in different ways. Peace to you all.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

AGC said:

RetiredAg said:

Quote:

for he is the minister of God to thee for good

So was Hitler a minister of God to "thee for good"?



Given that you can quote church fathers you undoubtedly realize they lived under Roman rule and that the Romans weren't nice people either. I don't know that I'd say Hitler is an objectively worse person than they were, so perhaps your criticism is not only shortsighted but misguided. What was Paul saying when he wrote it, and would inserting Hitler make it different?
Sorry if criticizing Hitler offended you. I did reference Caesar earlier if you prefer. Yes, they lived under an evil state when Paul wrote those words, so perhaps Paul meant something other than to endorse the actions of the state. As we see with the quotes referenced above, the early church views of capital punishment didn't include some asterisk to differentiate between "good state" and "evil state".


Offended by you criticizing Hitler? What the hell is wrong with you? For all the crap you give MQB you're not exactly out of line with his posts right now.

The point is that Romans were brutal and Paul was well aware of the government's power over human life when he wrote that.

Edit: To add, every Christian should be well aware of their brutality (such as crucifiction, stoning, torture, etc. just from the deaths of the apostles). And your response is, "but Hitler"? That's just underwhelmingly blase, as if you haven't actually contemplated just how vicious they were.
Marco Esquandolas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I mean you sort of have to give the RCC props for trying to be consistent about being "pro-life" in a way that many Protestants just aren't interested in being.
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.