In scriptural terms there is only one Law - and that Law is Jesus Christ Himself. He is the Lawgiver and the Law. He gave the Law to Moses as a witness to Himself, an icon of Himself. This Law was not abrogated or canceled in any way, but revealed and fulfilled in Himself. Everything the Mosaic Law says is witness to a reality about God, and that reality is explicitly revealed to us in the Man Jesus Christ. God doesn't cancel covenants.

aggiedad20 said:

---

Religious liberals always use passages that are misunderstood or misapplied as an attempt to justify their defiance to God. The thief on the Cross comes to mind and the adulterous woman is no different. How many witnesses were there? How many were necessary under Mosaic Law? Where are the men? Weren't they subject to the death penalty as well? To say Christ used this encounter to forbid justice is laughable and more evidence how Scripture is consistently taken out of context by those who wish to feel more intellectually compassionate.

---

There's no such thing as "intellectually" compassionate. God is our ideal as revealed through Jesus Christ. Becoming His slave means loving all men as He loves all men; forgiving all as He forgives all. This is not defiance to God, but instead obedience.

People get forgiveness all confused, they think somehow forgiveness changes consequence. It doesn't. If a man is murdered, and the family of the murdered man says I don't press charges, I forgive the killer - even if society says, ok, you're free, that doesn't fix anything. The innocent is still dead. The murderer is still a murderer. A judge and jury executing the guilty party fixes none of this. It is only fixed and restored in Jesus Christ, which is why truly He is the judge.

There's no argument here against secular justice, but Christians must always acknowledge two things: secular justice and the justice of God are never the same thing; and two, that saying to your brother "you fool" is as damning as murder.

We Christians should never judge anyone's soul for anything.

k2aggie07 said:

---

In scriptural terms there is only one Law - and that Law is Jesus Christ Himself. He is the Lawgiver and the Law. He gave the Law to Moses as a witness to Himself, an icon of Himself. This Law was not abrogated or canceled in any way, but revealed and fulfilled in Himself. Everything the Mosaic Law says is witness to a reality about God, and that reality is explicitly revealed to us in the Man Jesus Christ. God doesn't cancel covenants.

---

Thank you for the explanation. I suppose "replaced" was a poor choice of words. I understand what you're saying, and I agree. I'm just confused as to what 94chem is implying.

Mister Word Salad Extraordinaire himself says there's no such thing as intellectual compassion, therefore it must be true...shocker lol

God ordained the death penalty and Romans 13:1-4 clearly teaches that government has the God-ordained duty to uphold law & order thereby protecting its citizenry. The sword referenced is the death penalty. There are several other NT passages supporting capital punishment. To argue against it is in fact, defiance to the Supreme Law Giver. Period.

k2aggie07 said:

---

In scriptural terms there is only one Law - and that Law is Jesus Christ Himself. He is the Lawgiver and the Law. He gave the Law to Moses as a witness to Himself, an icon of Himself. This Law was not abrogated or canceled in any way, but revealed and fulfilled in Himself. Everything the Mosaic Law says is witness to a reality about God, and that reality is explicitly revealed to us in the Man Jesus Christ. God doesn't cancel covenants.

---

So you still keep the Sabbath? Got it

aggiedad20 said:

---

Mister Word Salad Extraordinaire himself says there's no such thing as intellectual compassion, therefore it must be true...shocker lol

God ordained the death penalty and Romans 13:1-4 clearly teaches that government has the God-ordained duty to uphold law & order thereby protecting its citizenry. The sword referenced is the death penalty. There are several other NT passages supporting capital punishment. To argue against it is in fact, defiance to the Supreme Law Giver. Period.

---

what I was trying to explain is there is no reality behind intellectual compassion. There is either compassion or there isn't. If you meant intellectual as a code word for false or hollow, then I suppose we agree.

I think you are misinterpreting Romans 13. Yes, the secular government works God's will. All things work for His will. What of it? What does the secular government have to do with the Church? Is the secular government the Church? It wasn't at the time St Paul wrote. So are you arguing that Rome was holy or just in their application of the death penalty? Or are you arguing that we live today by the Mosaic Law, which does prescribe the death penalty. Do you follow all of it, along with the government structure it used to determine the death penalty?

Jesus Christ said that those who live by the sword die by it.

If the authority to kill for wrongdoing belongs to Caesar, render unto Caesar what is his. Don't arrogate that authority to the faithful.

aggiedad20 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

In scriptural terms there is only one Law - and that Law is Jesus Christ Himself. He is the Lawgiver and the Law. He gave the Law to Moses as a witness to Himself, an icon of Himself. This Law was not abrogated or canceled in any way, but revealed and fulfilled in Himself. Everything the Mosaic Law says is witness to a reality about God, and that reality is explicitly revealed to us in the Man Jesus Christ. God doesn't cancel covenants.

---

So you still keep the Sabbath? Got it

---

We live in the eschaton, the perpetual eighth day. The Law is fulfilled in Christ's person. What the Jews did by Law on the Sabbath the Christian should do every day. Much like the tithe; the Jew tithes 10%, the Christian should offer his entire life.

So the Christian keeps the Law, yes. Anyone who doesn't keep the spirit of the Law doesn't know Christ, as both St Paul and St John teach us.

Don't be ridiculous...oh wait, I remember now the struggles you ignore with Scripture. No one is advocating for a theocracy or Sunday morning hangings.

Christians can and should support GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED capital punishment this side of the Cross and those who don't are in defiance of what God has ordained for His creation. Romans 13 picks up from Rom 12 and illustrates simply HOW God takes vengeance, through organized civil governance. Christians aren't to seek personal vengeance because God wants gov authorities to administer the death penalty and in doing so, protecting His people.

aggiedad20 said:

---

Don't be ridiculous...oh wait, I remember now the struggles you ignore with Scripture. No one is advocating for a theocracy or Sunday morning hangings.

Christians can and should support GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED capital punishment this side of the Cross and those who don't are in defiance of what God has ordained for His creation. Romans 13 picks up from Rom 12 and illustrates simply HOW God takes vengeance, through organized civil governance. Christians aren't to seek personal vengeance because God wants gov authorities to administer the death penalty and in doing so, protecting His people.

---

I don't know that we've ever actually even spoken together before. I'm not sure why you're opening this with insults, but forgive me for whatever I said that upset you.

I didn't suggest anyone was advocating for a theocracy or Sunday morning hangings.

However, I do not think there is any way to say that Christians should support the government killing people, for any reason, in a blanket way. Christians are not citizens of this world. Christians are members of the Kingdom which is coming (cf John 18:36, 1 Peter 2:11).

God didn't not ordain killing for His creation. To do this ascribes evil to God; death and humans killing one another (for whatever reason) are not part of the intended creation. They are features of a fallen world that has been corrupted by sin and death. Christians are not members of the world after being baptized. We have died to this world, and the sin in it (Romans 7:6, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 4:24).

It's a pretty broad leap to go from "bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" and "be at peace with all men" and "never avenge yourself" and "overcome evil with good" to this idea that other people will punish and hurt and kill bad people for you, on God's behalf. No, that is not the conclusion we should draw from Romans 13. It isn't showing that there's some kind of justice in this age. If anything, we know that this age is not just. The rulers of this age do not understand and are coming to nothing (1 Cor 2:6-8). We aren't promise justice in this age, but in the age that is coming.

God doesn't want anyone to die. He tells us that three times in Ezekiel - 18:23, 18:32, and again in 33:11.

"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"

"For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."


"Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'

In Isaiah 55:7 the scriptures say - Let the wicked man forsake his own way and the unrighteous man his own thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that He may have compassion, and to our God, for He will freely pardon.

St Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:4 that God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So then, what do we learn from Romans 13? We don't have to speculate, St Paul summarizes it right there:

Quote:

---

Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

---

Not much in there about God wanting the government to go around killing people. On the contrary, what St Paul is saying is that we should be subject to the authorities because even the secular authorities uphold the law of God when they punish people who do wrong. This says nothing whatsoever about wanting the government to kill evildoers.

I think there is a big danger to ascribing the hand of God to the actions of secular powers. We know two things: God is sovereign, and His will is not thwarted. But we also know that the rulers of this world and the secular powers are no friends to Him.

Christians can't be idealists, by the ideals of this world. Only pragmatists. I'm not against the death penalty. But I'm certainly not for it, and I don't delude myself that somehow governments are doing God's work when they end peoples lives. Whether that is by capital punishment or war doesn't really matter. Death - even justified executions - are features of the fallen world, and should be mourned, not praised.

God doesn't need governments to protect His people.

Pure lunacy...and the Kingdom has come my friend, otherwise known as the church

aggiedad20 said:

---

Pure lunacy...and the Kingdom has come my friend, otherwise know as the church

---

You berate me for not quoting scripture, and call me crazy when I do. I'm a pragmatist. I know that there are bad people who will kill and hurt. Wars are a reality of the fallen world, just like murders and all other kinds of evil. So we need soldiers and police. But we don't hope for executions, or pray for wars. We forgive those who curse us, overcome evil with good. Even great evils! Doesn't it follow that the greater the evils, the greater the good required? Christ died for all men, even the worst of them. That's what St Paul says - "And some of you were such" (1 Cor 6:11). We should love all men, without exception, because He did first. He is "the Savior of all men, especially of believers."

Would you execute someone yourself? Be the one on the firing squad? I wouldn't. I can't in good conscience. How can I do that with someone I am commanded to love, to pray for -- a person Christ Jesus died for? So, then I find myself unable to advocate for someone else to do what I am unwilling to do myself. I think anyone who would do otherwise is a coward, worse than a coward.

In this way, there is no such thing as "government". It isn't some abstract thing, some fiction or idea. Only people, doing their jobs, for better or worse. What is unjust for one to do is unjust for the many to do collectively. And what is just for the many to do collectively must be just for the one man to do individually; because at the end of the day, one man does it. A man will not be judged for what he did on behalf of the people. He will be judged for what he did, himself. This is what the scriptures teach us.

//////


Sure, the kingdom of God is and is coming. The scripture speaks of it both ways. Of course you know in the Lord's prayer, he teaches us to pray -- your kingdom come. And Christ teaches the parable in Luke 19 - "A certain man of noble birth proceeded to a distant country, to receive for himself a kingdom and to return." Or the parable of the fishing net, the kingdom catches all and at the end, it separates mankind. The kingdom is here, but it is also coming.

Quote:

---

You berate me for not quoting scripture, and call me crazy when I do. I'm a pragmatist.

---

You know better. You know this isn't going to end well.

94chem said:

---

Then it sounds like your issue is with government.

---

duh!

It's the government which enforces a death penalty.

If it was the Lion's Club, my issue would be with the Lion's Club.

aggiedad20 said:

---

Religious liberals always use passages that are misunderstood or misapplied as an attempt to justify their defiance to God. The thief on the Cross comes to mind and the adulterous woman is no different. How many witnesses were there? How many were necessary under Mosaic Law? Where are the men? Weren't they subject to the death penalty as well? To say Christ used this encounter to forbid justice is laughable and more evidence how Scripture is consistently taken out of context by those who wish to feel more intellectually compassionate.

---

First, I'm not a "religious liberal". I'm a Christian. Was Athenagoras a "religious liberal"? What about Lactantius? Tertullian? Clement? Were they attempting to justify defiance to God? Also, when Christ addressed the issue of the adulterous woman, He didn't say "let he who was a properly recognized witness of this act cast the first stone". He didn't say "when you come back with the proper number of witnesses, or the man involved, then you may cast the first stone". He said "let he without sin cast the first stone". That includes anyone, no matter how many witnesses they had or if they had all offending parties there. And nobody is saying that Christ forbids "justice". It's a difference on how "justice" is viewed, whether it be retributive or restorative.

But let's say your understanding of Romans 13 is correct. Nothing in that says the Church is bound to endorse the actions of the state. Let's say the state is just in seeking revenge against those who break their rules. We submit to that, but nothing requires that we endorse, or champion, it. Also, since you seem to rely heavily on Romans 13, I do have an unrelated question. I try to ask this of anyone who constantly runs to that verse to defend the actions of the state. Do you believe the Founding Fathers violated Romans 13 in waging a violent rebellion against their "governing authorities"?

PacifistAg said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

On a moral/philosophical level, opposition to it seems a fairly recent concept.

---

Not really. I'd argue Christ's comments when the adulterous woman was brought to Him was clearly anti-death penalty. When presented the situation to sanction it, He responded w/ His famous line of "let him without sin cast the first stone".

But then we look at other church fathers within the ante-Nicene period, it is clear that, at the very least, it was a view that existed at the time. Some of our Orthodox brothers can probably provide more input, as they seem far more educated on the teachings of the early church. Here are some that would lead me to believe that there was a prominent anti-death penalty camp:

Quote:

---

"Above all Christians are not allowed to correct by violence sinful wrongdoings."
~ Clement of Alexandria

---

Quote:

---

"The Christian does not hurt even his enemy."
~ Tertullian

---

Quote:

---

"We Christians cannot endure to see a man being put to death, even justly."
~ Athenagoras

---

Quote:

---

"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

---

I don't think it was so much a matter of whether or not capital punishment was just, but that it was an act that destroyed those who bore God's image. Clearly the church seemed to veer far from these teachings, as we see throughout the middle ages especially, but a moral/philosophical argument against capital punishment has at least existed for 2,000 years.

---

Perhaps the concept itself isn't that novel, but it carrying the day as official policy or practice certainly is. The Roman Catholic Church thought it was such a great idea, they basically administered it themselves for a while and as late as the 1950's seemed to see it as a purely civil matter with the soul and life of the condemned being separate matters for saving.

It's a big change, a welcome one in my mind, but it is a stark change in position over a very short period of time. It's not a refinement, a clarification or some other semantic justification, it's a moral issue and the RCC doesn't have a traditionally consistent message. That's a problem for the RCC, and perhaps no one else.

Quote:

---

it's a moral issue and the RCC doesn't have a traditionally consistent message. That's a problem for the RCC, and perhaps no one else.

---

Absolutely agree. I believe we started seeing the change when the Church began to acquire political power, and as a result, the power to be executioner. I do see more and more followers of Christ reject policies such as this, albeit many do so because of a lack of trust in the government to administer it without error, which is unacceptable given the gravity of taking a life. But, any opposition, no matter the reason, is much welcomed.

Just because something is permitted, does not mean it is best practice.

Automated Chatbot said:

---

Did Christ turn weapons into garden tools? Would be nice to see you, or Claiborne, or Marty get as riled up about 3,000 babies slaughtered each and every day as ya'll do against the Pro 2A crowd.

---

ok psycho

Killing is justified as long as it's done by the government powers and not by the church......