U.S. Nears 1,000th Execution Since 1977

Both are equal since the Word Incarnate wrote the Word written through the inspiration of the human writers of the Bible.

 

Therefore the latter must be interpreted according to the former.

 

Why?

2 Tim. 3:16 (ESV)
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

We can't pick and choose our favorite parts to overrule the parts we don't like, Matt.

 

That's not what I'm saying. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. It's nothing to do with picking and choosing Scripture it is about correctly and consistently interpreting it.

 

Then I guess I disagree with your hermeneutics, Matt.

 

Fair enough

 

Apologies for yet another double-post but I think the difference in the hermeneutic lies in a difference in the way we view being a Christian. For me, it's about following and having a relationship with a Person primarily, not a Book. That's not to say that the Book isn't germane and important - of course it is - but simply that the Person is the focus of my obedience and adoration.

I don't want to derail this thread any further with this tangent and we are way past the ten page mark as it is and I think it's run its course, but feel free to start a discussion in the Other Religions forum if you want to explore this point further.

[Carp tryping ]

 

HermenWHOtic ?!?!?!!

 

For me, too.

 

Excellent. We can at least agree on something

 

No, you ignore the fact that it wasn't different for some reason.</font>[/QUOTE]So committing adultery is the same as murder? Wow ... That's an interesting proposition I haven 't heard even the most liberal among us state.

That is not helpful since you have not expressed what is wrong with the position I stated.

Because God, in whose image we are made, commanded it. Why isn't that good enough for you?

Not at all.

Adequate for what? Why didn't God say that was adequate? God seemed clearly to have a different opinion. Tell us why we should go with yours over his.

Neither. We know nothing about the Word incarnate without the word written. This is a false dichotomy. You talk about having a relationshiop with a person rather than a book. Who would argue with that? That is not the issue.

We are talking about having a relationship with a person. That Person established the principle of Gen 9:6 and it is hard to imagine how you would have a relationship with Him while telling Him He is wrong. Perhaps I am simplistic, but that would seem to kind of damage the relationship.

It is just a false dichotomy. You have created a "really important part" of Scripture, but Scripture teaches no such things. 2 Peter 3:1 puts the OT and NT on the same par with the commands of Christ. You have no scriptural basis on which to prioritize them as you have done.

 

PL, I don't propose to rehash the tired old arguments which have already been stated on this thread; everything you asked has been answered by me according to what I find revealed by God in Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. Let's just leave at the fact that I, along with most British Christians, have a different hermeneutic on this issue to you, KenH (to whom kudos for summing it up so well) and doubtless many other American Christians. I guess that brings me back to my 'cross-cultural differences' point of about 100 pages ago. Let's just leave it at that, eh?

 

We can certainly "leave it at that," but there are some real issues that are very troubling beyond the level of capital punishment. These are at the level of the basic doctrine of Scripture. I can't help but think yours is defective, not intentionally on your part, but that hardly helps.

The question is, Did you actually find this revealed, or did you read it in? Very clearly, John 8 and Gen 9 have nothing in common. It is bad hermeneutics, exegesis, and application to tie them together, regardless of which side of the pond you are in. They are talking about two very different things (adultery and murder), and two very different foundations (the Law and the image of God in man). There is nothing in common between them.

The question never was whether or not you answered something per se, but whether your answers were legitimate in their handling of Scripture. And in that, we find them wanting in terms of exegesis and application.

 

I've skipped on down to the end of the thread so I can get this post in. Perhaps someone already posted this.

RE Genesis 9:3-4
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Check your State government laws and you will find that slaughtered animals must be drained of blood before they are marketed.

Check your hunting laws. If you shoot a deer you must hang it and drain the blood.

HankD

 

The question is, Did you actually find this revealed, or did you read it in? Very clearly, John 8 and Gen 9 have nothing in common. It is bad hermeneutics, exegesis, and application to tie them together, regardless of which side of the pond you are in. They are talking about two very different things (adultery and murder), and two very different foundations (the Law and the image of God in man). There is nothing in common between them.

The question never was whether or not you answered something per se, but whether your answers were legitimate in their handling of Scripture. And in that, we find them wanting in terms of exegesis and application. </font>[/QUOTE]Funnily enough, I think the same about your methodology. I would not be so bold as to say that I rely on my own interpretation but rather I listen to the Church - the Body of Christ - as to how Scripture is interpreted...and the overwhelming majority of Christians do not find your interpretation of Gen 9 to be at all consistent with the rest of Scripture and the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

To expand on the methodology further, if I want to know about JRR Tolkien, I can read Humphrey Carpenter's excellent biography of him. Or I can talk to the people who knew him - his family and friends. Better still, I can do both. It is the same with Jesus Christ: yes, I can and should read His Word written, but I should also listen to His Body, which is the Church (Acts 9:4-5; Col 1:18; Eph 1:22-23). The two are in harmony not in conflict; for me to accept your rendering of Gen 9 would be to create a conflict that should not be there - and in fact isn't there at all. I don't have a problem with that. I'm suprised that you do.

 

Matt says...

I agree with Pastor Larry's (and others) exegesis of Genesis 9.

I also agree with your statement that the supposed conflict "isn't there at all".

Because I agree with others that the blood-for-blood retribution is at the level of government.

So, although I as an individual Christian as a citizen of a nation in the inhabited world may not personally support the death penalty for murder, I know and understand that it is still God's standing mandate at the level of government.

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 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.

Words and phrases such as "terror", "be afraid", "sword", "revenger" and "execute wrath" along with the historical evidence of an enforced death penalty recorded in the NT indicate to me that Genesis 9 was then and still is God's general mandate (blood for blood).

1 Peter 2
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

There is no conflict within Pastor Larry's view.

A personal conflict may arise when the State requests that you cross over into the governmental level and sit on a jury for murder.

Here in the USA, for those states which uphold the death penalty you may refuse by expressing your individual opposition to the death penalty at jury selection time.

The questions involve not only if you support the death penalty but if you as a jury member could impose the sentence. You can say "yes" to the first and then "no" to the second or simply "no" to the first and either way be eliminated.

HankD

 

The overwhelming majority of Christians? Really? Based on what? You are desiring that your little slice of "Christianity" (whose Christianity I won't vouch for) be the "overwhelming majority of Christians."

Second, the church is subject to the Scripture. The overwhelming majority of Christians felt like slavery was right and proper. Now, do you want to follow them? I didn't think so.

So we should throw out your method for obvious reasons.

We know nothing about Christ except for his word. This is that same dichotomy we already talked about. Your analogy doesn't work because it isn't equal.

As I have pointed out, you are the one creating the conflict. My position has no conflict at all.

 

The overwhelming majority of Christians? Really? Based on what? You are desiring that your little slice of "Christianity" (whose Christianity I won't vouch for) be the "overwhelming majority of Christians." </font>[/QUOTE]How and who are you to define who are Christians and who are not? It's nowhere near a 'little slice' of Christianity; if anything, it is your narrow exclusivist branch of fundamentalism (whose Christianity I cannot vouch for either)which is the 'little slice'. I very much doubt that you view anyone outside of that spectrum as being Proper Christians(TM) but that is a matter for you and I suspect that you will find heaven to be uncomfortably crowded when you turn up there.

Absolute rubbish. Couldn't disagree more.If it wasn't for the Church we wouldn't have the Scriptures in the first place. The two form a synergy.
"So we should throw out your method for obvious reasons" (to quote you back)

Ditto. We know Christ through His Church which is His Body (unless you want to ignore or 'explain away' the Scriptures I earlier quoted in my last post (a tactic of which you appear to be accusing me)

No. Regrettably, you are the one creating the conflict between your interpretation of Scripture and Christ and His Church. I have no such conflict.

 

Sorry for double-post, but like I said to KenH, if you want to discuss methodology for Scriptural interpretation, why not start another thread in Other Religions to continue this tangent? I'd rather not derail this thread further, which is well past its sell-by date in any event.

Leaving aside, therefore, the theological points we've been debating, there is an overwhelming practical reason for avoiding CP, and that is wrongful conviction. In the UK, there have been three women in the last decade wrongly convicted of murdering their infant children. In each case, the guilty verdicts were returned on the basis of flawed - indeed fraudulent evidence of a so-called expert paediatric evidence (as it turned out). If we had CP, all three women would be dead by now...

 

Wow, Matt, did I hit a little close to hom for you there? The longer this goes, the more tenuous your position gets, but why lash out at me? I dont' get that.

I am not. I am questioning your ability to do so. You talk of your English Christianity as the vast majority of Christians. I disagree with that. In fact, the Christians of England are a very small minority of Christianity.

Second, I can't vouch for anyone's Christianity. The Bible says that we will know them by their fruits, by their following Christ. We are left to question the Christianiity of those who will not do that, even when it is a difficult, counter cultural thing to do.

But my point was that you can't define what "the overwhelming majority of Christians" believe by comparing it to your small world. And I would not compare it to mine.

I guess it all depends on perspective. But compared to other countries, all the Christians in England are a "small slice" no matter how you cut it.

How would you know who heaven will be filled with and what would surprise me? You and I have had very little interaction here, Matt. For you to be so judgmental seems a bit over the top. What exactly is my "narrow exclusivist branch of fundmentalism"? And how would you know how I view others?

Absolute rubbish. Couldn't disagree more.If it wasn't for the Church we wouldn't have the Scriptures in the first place. The two form a synergy.
"So we should throw out your method for obvious reasons" (to quote you back)</font>[/QUOTE]This is a theological issue. The Scriptures existed withotu the Church. The church didn't bring the Scriptures into existence. There is a synergy of sorts with respect to preservation, but that is divine providence at work. The church is subject to Scripture. God has called the church to obey what he has said in his word (1 Tim 3:15; etc.) The Scriptures are not subject ot the church.

Ditto. We know Christ through His Church which is His Body (unless you want to ignore or 'explain away' the Scriptures I earlier quoted in my last post (a tactic of which you appear to be accusing me)</font>[/QUOTE]How does the church know Christ? From where do they get that information except his Word? That is the problem Matt. YOu have bought a very Catholic and inadequate view of the Scriptures. The Bible is the foundation on which the church is built. The message of Christ through which we are saved is found in the revealed word of God. Apart from the Scripture, there is no church.

I have yet to explain away one passage of Scriputre. I have very patiently and repeatedly shown from Scripture the correct interpretation. You have not.

Where is the conflict? Show us this. You have yet to show any conflict between me and the Scripture and Christ. I have shown a direct conflict with you.