What is our obligation as Christians

It is moralism. Moralism is trying to force moral behavior without the Gospel. That is exactly what the pharisees did. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus noted that we look on the outside to determine moral behavior, but lust, greed, hate are all a part of the same law (the 10 commandments) that still makes us guilty. The solution is not more laws, the solution is the Gospel.

Now, to an extent I want conformity to certain ideals (we all do). However, I believe that is best done in a family and in church where we can saturate it with the Gospel, that moralism is dead but the Gospel is alive.

Let me explain what we do with our children. When they do something wrong, we do talk to them about the wrong, but show them the solution is not "trying harder" but repentance towards God and believe on His Son. Only God can enact true change in a a person.

Change without God doing the change is moralism.

 

Really, you want to pass laws that "keep people from displaying their immoral hearts..."

Jesus said if you look upon a woman and lust after her, you have committed adultery in your heart. That certainly falls under the category of displaying an immoral heart.

According to God's moral standards in the O.T., adultery is punishable by death. So, if you are consistent, you want the government to pass a law that gives the death penalty for everyone who looks at a woman and lusts after her.

God commands us to pray. That is a moral standard. It certainly displays an immoral heart if someone isn't praying on a regular basis. Should there be legislation requiring a certain amount of prayer from each citizen each day? How do you enforce that, exactly?

The Taliban would take whips to citizens to force them to pray 5 times a day. That is a government attempting to force its religious morality on its citizens.

You cannot achieve righteousness based on law. Gal. 3:21 "....For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law"

and Gal. 5:4-5

"You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace (5) For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness."

Righteousness is not achieved by law. You at odds with scripture on this issue.

peace to youraying:

 

And this is where the distinction lies. I believe it is all about the Gospel and not moralism.

 

I believe Jesus was pretty clear on our responsibility ... when he said:

 

As shown in the teaching and life of Christ. Remember Christ rejected the command of an "eye for an eye".

Please do not highjack this thread

 

Free,

I am not antinomian, I merely see Romans 2 as showing moralism as insufficient. I believe in the 10 commandments, but the law brings death, not life. What brings life is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The solution to our ills is not moralism, but the Gospel. I do not jettison God's law, but see it what it is, death without the Gospel.

 

There is a distinction, the Sermon on the Mount was individual retribution. God never took the sword from the state. Applying the Sermon on the Mount whose goal was individual righteousness to a state is taking it beyond the scope of the Sermon on the Mount.

I think the States have a right to enact a death penalty.

 

The State is made up of people and thus what the State does must be cone by individuals. Murder by the State is murder done by individuals and thus Christ did away with it IMHO.

We are as a State and as individuals to treat others as we want to be treated.

 

That is rather a stretch. God did not change his standard from Genesis for a death penalty. This has been a judicial law given rightfully to the state.

In the Sermon on the Mount, the issue was directly related to a heart issue, not a physical one. The individuals they are talking to are those who may have been harmed individually. The issue is not about vengeance or the state. In fact, he clarifies that this is about the individual being offended in that context by saying if someone slaps you on the cheek to give the other one to him. The issue is a heart issue of the one who was wronged to not hate the one who has wronged him. However, it does not say a police officer cannot stop the crime. It does not say that the state doesn't have the right and responsibility to protect the individual. Rather, it says the individual who is wronged should love the offender despite his actions.

A state still must and should enact standards to protect their citizenry. "An eye for an eye" did not overturn the death penalty, but overturned the idea that you can harbor bitterness and should seek individual justice. Yet, if you were to harm me and a police officer tasered you, they would not violate this passage. Nor would a state who sees you committed a capitol murder who sentenced you to death.

 

Ruiz, I think you are right on track. The track record of liberal policies and ideologies in our current criminal justice system and we see corrections worsening. If anything, our prisons are training grounds for the criminally minded. Death row is nothing but a money making scheme as lawyers stretch out the process with hundreds and hundreds of hours charged to the taxpayer.

 

A most liberal and incorrect interpretation. Many who consider themselves conservative end up making very liberal interpretations so scripture will say what they want it to say and not what it really says.

Actually you are the liberal on this one as you are trying to say what Jesus did not teach and you are taking a liberal interpretation.

What Christ taught for the individual is also what he expects from those who are individuals as well as the heads of state. A State cannot make a command or give orders unless an individual gives the order ... and that individual is responsible for the decisions he/she makes for themselves and for the State.

[/QUOTE]

 

Now that is rich! YOU calling me a liberal. :laugh:[/QUOTE]

Some of your interpretations are liberal. How is this so? A liberal interpretation is one that tries to make the Bible say something it does not say. That you have done and I have noticed a number of conservatives and fundamentalists on the board do this when they try to force the Bible to support a non-Christlike belief.

No offense meant, just the truth as I see it.