death penalty?

[TC]

For those that wish to disregard Gen 9:6, it is on you prove that the covenent God made with Noah has been set aside. To do this all you have to do is show when a worldwide flood has destroyed the entire Earth after Noah's flood. I see a rainbow every time it rains - which is the sign that God gave to remember the covenant he made with Noah. So, it is on you to disprove it. Until then the covenent stands and so does the death penalty for murder.

 

[LeBuick]

YOur arguments do not stand in relation to historical christianity on this issue or scripture.

He that is without sin - had nothing to do with them wanting to stone her for sin - per say- , but more so because they were more guilty than she was- AND THEY KNEW IT. Where scripture speaks - let it speak, and where it stays silent, let it be forced to say our views.

We don't have to guess what Jesus was trying to say, he made it very plain;

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

The NT Church and Christ is all about forgiveness not comdemnation. Then he gave us this piece of advice which fits the stonning of the woman;

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

He begins by telling us to stop judging one another. We are so busy seeing the sin's of others that we fail to see our own sin. So Jesus said, look here, anybody here that doesn't have any sin's of their own step right up and toss the first rock. I'll even give you a good rock.

Now there was only one person there who fit this bill but did you notice he didn't throw any stones? I'm not saying the law was abolished but I somehow believe we never understood the full meaning of the law. Jesus didn't say I'll give you a new law, he explained to us the one that existed.

 

[LeBuick]

For those that wish to disregard Gen 9:6, it is on you prove that the covenent God made with Noah has been set aside. To do this all you have to do is show when a worldwide flood has destroyed the entire Earth after Noah's flood. I see a rainbow every time it rains - which is the sign that God gave to remember the covenant he made with Noah. So, it is on you to disprove it. Until then the covenent stands and so does the death penalty for murder.

Deuteronomy 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Please post a picture of your gate with the comandments written there on.

 

[TC]

I don't have to. God's covenant with Noah was before the law and still stands today. If you wish to deny it, then the impetus is on you to prove it.

 

[LeBuick]

I don't have to. God's covenant with Noah was before the law and still stands today. If you wish to deny it, then the impetus is on you to prove it.

I showed you God's covenant with Moses. Are you impying we keep the earlier covenants but disgard the later? What I'm saying is if you don't keep one then you might as well not keep any, sin is sin.

 

[gekko]

Amen for your last post LeBuick. you took the words out of my mouth - let me try to expand a little.

God's covenant with Noah was before the law and still stands today.

like LeBuick said - keep the earlier but disregard the latter covenant? the covenant with moses is a lot stronger then that with noah - although they are on the same level (hope that makes sense?)

if you want to use Genesis 9:6 to support the death penalty - that covenant with noah.

then I will use exodus 20 (ten commandments) - law of moses (since you say that the death penalty in Gen. 9:6 is a law) - the covenant with moses i'll say - for us to absolutely remember the sabbath and to keep it holy.

have you kept the sabbath holy? have you remembered it? gosh - its one day in seven and God made you and everything around you - is it really that hard to devote a whole day alone with God?

the law was once written in stone - it is now written on our hearts
(2 corinthians 3:something... 6?)

i liked what was previous said... he who is without sin - may flip the switch... may inject with the needle... etc.
---

God bless

 

[TC]

It has been God who has kept Noah's covenant as evidenced by the fact that he has not destroyed the Earth by a worldwide flood since Noah's flood. OTOH, Paul writes that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. But now that we are in Christ, we are no longer under the schoolmaster.

 

[Rachel]

I vote yes.

 

[LeBuick]

It has been God who has kept Noah's covenant as evidenced by the fact that he has not destroyed the Earth by a worldwide flood since Noah's flood. OTOH, Paul writes that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. But now that we are in Christ, we are no longer under the schoolmaster.

Good points guys, God has kept his end of the deal but in the case of Noah, the covenant is really one sided. God's. And he has kept it but not destroying the "world" by flood. Now preach that sermon in New Orleans.

 

[canadyjd]

Jesus was showing the spiritual aspect of a physical issue due to the fact some figured there was nothing wrong if they did it in the privacy of their own hearts and therefore not Sin. But it does not do away with the fact the physical just like the spiritual have consiquences to those actions.

Huh????

And yet we find God said to do it.

To whom? To Christians? Even Gen. 9 doesn't say "you go out and make sure that if someone kills another person they get the death penalty." God says "I will require it" They will be killed "by man". Just because God uses evil people to accomplish His purposes doesn't mean we have to support the death penalty.

That these governments set up wield their sword for a reason. What do you think a sword is used for?

Roms. 13 is a warning to Christians not to rebel against the governement over taxes (v.6). The "sword" is an image of authority, not the death penalty. The punishment for rebellion was by crucifixon, not the "sword".

Do we find the apostles sharing with the Jews that stoning is baaaaad?

You must think the Apostles enjoyed watching Steven being stoned to death, huh? Paul was stoned and left for dead. Do you think Paul thought stoning was baaaaaad?

We find in scripture much discipline and even that which is tant amount to spiritual death given by the church - to shun those who live a lifestyle of sin. Cut them off from fellowship, until they repent.

Spiritual death is a condition the church cannot place on anyone. The purpose of Church discipline is to restore the wayward member to fellowship with God and man.

YOur arguments do not stand in relation to historical christianity on this issue or scripture.

You are obviously ignorant of historical Christianity. The early church was nearly unanimous in opposition to the death penalty and military service. Maybe it was bacause of all the Christians being killed. When the Church became the "Official" state religion, the leadership used the death penalty to gain power over their opponents. And so, 1000 years of "dark ages" prevailed with the Bishop of Rome in charge.

He that is without sin - had nothing to do with them wanting to stone her for sin - per say- , but more so because they were more guilty than she was- AND THEY KNEW IT. Where scripture speaks - let it speak, and where it stays silent, let it be forced to say our views.

Jesus is obviously referring to Deut. 17:6-7. Just as the Jews couldn't keep the rest of the Old Testament Laws, they couldn't implement the death penalty correctly either. Jesus changes the standard for implementing the death penalty from "two or three witnesses throwing the first stones" to "He that is without sin" implementing the death penalty. That excludes everyone but God.

God established the Death penalty, Yes or No?

No. Death (and the death penalty) came about because of rebellion against God. God uses all things to accomplish His will however. That doesn't mean Christians should seek or support the death penalty.

Did Jesus do away with the civil laws God inacted, Yes or No? If Yes scripture please.

No. Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law. We now live under grace and are called to be different from the world.

Does the scripture ever state the sentence of death is wrong, Yes or No? If yes, Scripture please.

No. Scripture does state, however, that men don't have the wisdom to implement the death penalty, and that only God has the Divine Wisdom and Righteousness to make those decisions.

Scripture also tells us to follow the example of perfect patience that our Lord Jesus demonstrated to Paul the murderer when He showed him mercy.

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

No. Scripture does state, however, that men don't have the wisdom to implement the death penalty, and that only God has the Divine Wisdom and Righteousness to make those decisions.

Where does it say this?

 

[Jerome]

You are obviously ignorant of historical Christianity. The early church was nearly unanimous in opposition to the death penalty and military service. Maybe it was bacause of all the Christians being killed. When the Church became the "Official" state religion, the leadership used the death penalty to gain power over their opponents. And so, 1000 years of "dark ages" prevailed with the Bishop of Rome in charge.

from the essay Crime, the Christian and Capital Justice by J. Daryl Charles:
Throughout the centuries the Church has, broadly speaking, defended the right of the state to impose capital punishment for certain heinous crimes. Among the Church fathers one finds varying perspectives on the death penalty though a general recognition of the state’s responsibility in implementing capital justice. Tertullian (late second century) and Lactantius (late third century) affirmed that, in the case of murder, divine law consistently required a life for a life. Theodosius II (mid-fifth century), who called for the Council of Ephesus (431) in the hope of settling the Nestorian controversy, enacted a legal code specifying capital crimes. While Augustine among others acknowledged the role of the state in mediating capital sanctions, various councils from the seventh century (Eleventh Council of Toledo) to the thirteenth (Fourth Lateran Council) followed the lead of Leo the Great (fifth century) in seeking to forbid clerics from engagement in matters of capital justice. The patristic and medieval periods in the main suggest the Church’s tacit recognition of capital punishment.

 

[canadyjd]

from the essay Crime, the Christian and Capital Justice by J. Daryl Charles:
Throughout the centuries the Church has, broadly speaking, defended the right of the state to impose capital punishment for certain heinous crimes. Among the Church fathers one finds varying perspectives on the death penalty though a general recognition of the state’s responsibility in implementing capital justice. Tertullian (late second century) and Lactantius (late third century) affirmed that, in the case of murder, divine law consistently required a life for a life. Theodosius II (mid-fifth century), who called for the Council of Ephesus (431) in the hope of settling the Nestorian controversy, enacted a legal code specifying capital crimes. While Augustine among others acknowledged the role of the state in mediating capital sanctions, various councils from the seventh century (Eleventh Council of Toledo) to the thirteenth (Fourth Lateran Council) followed the lead of Leo the Great (fifth century) in seeking to forbid clerics from engagement in matters of capital justice. The patristic and medieval periods in the main suggest the Church’s tacit recognition of capital punishment.

Here is one I found.

Views of the early Christian Movements:

During the first few centuries after Jesus' execution, Christians were instructed to not participate in the execution of a criminal, to not attend public executions, and even to not lay a charge against a person if it might possibly eventually result in their execution. 1
Clement of Rome, Justine Martyr and other Christian writers who discussed capital punishment during the first three centuries after Jesus' execution were absolutely opposed to it.
One example is Lactantius (260 to 330 CE) who is primarily known for his books "Introduction to True Religion" and "The Divine Institutes." He wrote in The Divine Institutes, Book 6, Chapter 20:
"When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Thus it is not lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself. Nor is it [lawful] to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature."
This rigid opposition to the death penalty during the first few centuries of the Christian movement appears to have been motivated by…..

http://www.religioustolerance.org/executi.htm

Do you find it strange that Mr. Charles insinuates that Lactantius supported the death penalty, when Lactantius's writings indicate he was against it?

Other than that, I don't know that what you quoted was much different from what I said earlier. When the church became the offical religion of the State of Rome, the support for the death penalty grew, especially as a way to weed out heretics and other undesireables.

Looking back, however, I wince at my words to you about being "ignorant" of Christian history. I understand there are a lot of views out there and this issue has never had uniformed support for either position. My apology to you for my choice of words.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Marcia: Where does it say this?

Marcia, you know how much I appreciate your opinion in most matters. However, we are going to disagree on this one, that much is sure.

I am hesitant to spend a lot of time proving the obvious, when you have simply dismissed out of hand what I have written about this issue earlier. Please don't think I am being rude, because that is not my intention.

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, you know how much I appreciate your opinion in most matters. However, we are going to disagree on this one, that much is sure.

I am hesitant to spend a lot of time proving the obvious, when you have simply dismissed out of hand what I have written about this issue earlier. Please don't think I am being rude, because that is not my intention.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I haven't dismissed anything out of hand - I just disagreed.

Also, I just asked a simple question about something you posted. You said that scripture tells us that men don't have the wisdom to implement the death penalty and I asked where does it say this. I don't see what the problem is with me asking that question.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Governments put people to death. We must submit to authority, but should Christians be in favour or vote for that which goes against ones views or beliefs?

Sometimes I think Christians spend too much time ( thoughts ) in the world and not enough in heaven. We are to set our minds above and not down here on earth.

Christ said 'Forgive them Father'.

Miss that then you miss Christianity. Tell me, for crucifying the One and Only Son of God, what should be the punishment? Yet Christ said forgive them!

The only argument you can put forward is about knowing what we do.

That is an interesting point.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Sorry, double post?

David

 

[Pastor Larry]

Several points that are getting overlooked.

1. The church is not given the responsibility to pursue capital punishment, nor are Christians, nor are unbelievers. It is the responsibility of government as government. Vigilante justice is murder.

2. Gen 9:6 is pre-law, and is based on eternal truth. Someone tried to ask where the commandments on the door post were. That is totally irrelevant. It fails to note the reality that Deut is the Law, which began in Exod 20. Gen 9:6 is pre-Law, which dates centuries before the Law.

3. Gen 9:6 and capital punishment is based on the fact that man is in God’s image. We can do away with the death penalty for murder as soon as man is no longer in God’s image.

4. The NT teaching on grace and forgiveness in no way conflicts with the biblical teaching on justice and punishment. A parent can forgive his teenager for blowing curfew by two hours. The parent can also (and should) enforce a punishment such as grounding. These two things do not conflict in Scripture. They only conflict in some people’s minds.

5. It is totally absurd to say that we can put someone in jail in the name of forgiveness and grace but not put them to death. That makes no sense, unless you have a radical redefinition of forgiveness and grace.

In the end, capital punishment is a very severe punishment that must be used, but only when there is no doubt about the guilt of the party. God says capital punishment honors his image and who are we to disagree??/ Unless you think you know more than God. In which case, may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Sometimes I think Christians spend too much time in the world and not enough in heaven. We are to set our minds above and not down here on earth.

The 'sweet by and by' is going to be wonderful, but we have to live in the 'here and now'...

 

[David Michael Harris]

The 'sweet by and by' is going to be wonderful, but we have to live in the 'here and now'...

Actually I think it is very important, it effects the Church.

You state the obvious, next you will say we are all sinners.