NJ abolishes death penalty
December 18th, 2007From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Gov. Corzine yesterday signed into law a measure to abolish the state’s death penalty, putting New Jersey into the vanguard of the fight against capital punishment.
With Corzine’s signature, New Jersey became the first state to remove the death penalty from the books since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976. Corzine said yesterday he saw a moral duty to end “state-endorsed killing.”
The Democratic governor said the death penalty amounted to an “endorsement of violence,” and as such it only “begets violence.”
Too bad he only sees a ‘moral duty’ to stop the ’state-endorsed killing’ of murderers and rapists and not of innocent unborn children.
I generally hold fairly conservative political views. However, the death penalty gives me some pause as a Christian. To me, when we maintain the death penalty we tell society that there are some people whose value as a human being is so debased that they are beyond hope, redemption, and reconciliation. To me, every human, criminal or not, is made in the image of God and can be redeemed. I’m not saying that every criminal can be released into society. But I am saying that if we are about the ministry of reconciliation, we need to think about this in terms of reconciling people to each other and to God.
I know the argument for capital punishment. We demonstrate our value of life by punishing those who take it. I have struggled between the two ideas for years but personally, I would have a hard time sending someone to die. The Christian view of justice should have reconciliation as an endpoint.
Ok. everybody can start flaming me.
To me, when we maintain the death penalty we tell society that there are some people whose value as a human being is so debased that they are beyond hope, redemption, and reconciliation.
I don’t think that to be a fair statement concerning the death penalty. Afterall God did not give those in positions of power the ability to bear and use the sword for nothing. The death penalty does not mean that one is beyond all hope. It means that they messed up in such a way as to commit a crime that has been deemed worthy of death by those God has placed in power to exact such a judgement. The death penalty is not used for stealing, lying, etc, but for the harshest of crimes. I think there is a difference.
j razz
“The Christian view of justice should have reconciliation as an endpoint.”
Why when that is not God’s view of justice? God’s justice has punishment for sin as the end point. All sin is punished by God either by punishing us personally for all eternity or by counting us righteous due to the punishment given to Jesus Christ.
Besides, reconciliation and redemption are not the function of the state. The church and the state have been ordained by God for different roles. The role of the state is to administer justice.
In the end though, we know from Genesis 9:6 that capital punishment for murder is a command of God, a command that has never been abrogated. That’s not to say we don’t sometimes show mercy but to take capital punishment off the table completely is to be disobedient to God. Its not up to us to decide this is an inappropriate punishment when God has spoken clearly on it.
Also, it is not up to us to usurp the government (which God established) and go kill those who have murdered so as to “uphold” that teaching of scripture. I just thought I would clarify.
j razz
“…the government (which God established)”
Nuts.
The only problem with that J Razz is that in a democratic society, we appoint the government officials through voting. And if you serve on a jury, you decide how the law should be applied when you enter deliberations. When I go into the jury room or voting booth, I bring my Christianity with me. So in a sense, I am the one wielding the sword.
Larry, as I read scripture, the purpose of God is the reconciliation of all things to himself. Sin got in the way of that. If punishment of sin were the end point, then Jesus would not have had to endure the cross. The point of the cross is to do away with sin so that reconciliation could take place.
Romans 13
If God has shown Himself to be trustworthy in other areas of life and never once has He ever been shown as one to lie, it would be unreasonable for me to assume that He is lying about such a thing as this.
j razz
So in a sense, I am the one wielding the sword.
Joel, I guess I fail to see where the problem lies in that. If the government has selected you for jury duty then is it not acceptable to see yourself as one who has been given that authority for the purpose of exacting judgement?
j razz
Joel I don’t disagree with what you wrote but I think we can separate redemption and forgiveness with the consequences of our sins.
As a whole, I think the death penalty would be more practical if it was practiced consistently. It will never be a deterrent to heinous crime unless it is used correctly.
j razz, the question is not one of authority. Of course I believe that government has the authority to use capital punishment. The question is, should we.
And Zoner, did Jesus make a mistake in the application of the law when he did not throw the first stone at the woman caught in adultery? He certainly seems to be inconsistent in his application of the death penalty. That is unless the law serves some larger purpose. Hmmm.
The Democratic governor said the death penalty amounted to an “endorsement of violence,” and as such it only “begets violence.”
Does the governor also think that imprisonment is an endorsement of kidnapping? Does levying fines beget robbery?
Putting the poor logic of New Jersey’s governor aside, I think the death penalty as currently practiced in the U.S. is incredibly unjust. Your odds of being executed go way up if your victim was a white female, if you are a black male, and if you can’t afford to hire a lawyer to defend you.
Joel, God’s ultimate purpose is to glorify Himself in all things. The cross did not “do away” with sin, the cross allowed God to justify those on whom he chose to shower His grace and mercy without compromising the justice that is part of His nature. Believer’s sins have still been punished, its just that they do not have to endure the punishment themselves. Reconciliation with God is not a function of His justice but of His grace and mercy. If God were but just with each of us, we would never be reconciled to Him.
As for the woman caught in adultery, Christ showed her mercy. However, we can’t compare the law that says adulterers should be executed with the command to execute murderers. The provision for capital punishment for adultery was in the Mosaic law and the laws of the nation of Israel. The command to punish murder with death goes back to the Noahic covenant, predating the law of Moses and the nation of Israel (or any nation for that matter) by hundreds of years. It therefore applies to all mankind for all time.
Joel,
I know that a death sentence would be a hard thing to hand down to anyone, but if the government put you in a position to make such a decision, would you be obligated to obey the government due to the command of scripture?
j razz
“…would you be obligated to obey the government due to the command of scripture?”
Only if you’re a Christian fundamentalist. Remember, separation of church and state is good. When the church is the state and the state is the church, that is bad.
Cineaste,
1. Both Joel and I hold Christ as Lord and Christ.
2. Scripture teaches us to obey the government placed over us (for our good) so long as it does not go against scripture. It does not teach us to impose Church rule.
j razz
“Scripture teaches us to obey the government placed over us (for our good) so long as it does not go against scripture.”
This religion gets enmeshed in politics though. Conservatives believe that liberals “go against scripture.” That’s a political stance that is being conflated with a religious stance.
Reading the posts so far, I get the impression you all are asking, “Would Jesus think abolishing the death penalty is a good thing?” My question more direct, “Is abolishing the death penalty a good thing?” I’d say, yes. Europe did it a long time ago. Their crime is low and they don’t have many people incarcerated at all.
Is Europe’s low crime and nominal incarcerations attached to them getting rid of the death penalty or are those things attributable to something other than?
Also, can you explain what you mean? I don’t see how it enmeshes itself in politics anymore than any other belief system/world view. I think it would be safe to say that one’s politics stem from their world view and not visa versa.
j razz
The command to punish murder with death goes back to the Noahic covenant…It therefore applies to all mankind for all time.
Larry, when you make scripture say “Thou shalt kill,” it sounds some alarms.
How is Larry “making the Scripture say” that murder is punishable by death? It’s obvious that Scripture does indeed say that.
“Also, can you explain what you mean? I don’t see how it enmeshes itself in politics…”
Well, are you able to think about and form an opinion about a political issue such as Corzine abolishing the death penalty without turning it into a religious issue? For example, without quoting scripture and resorting to religion, are you capable of articulating and supporting your beliefs about a political issue like this? I’m doubtful. My impression is that religion and politics are one and the same to the more “fundamentalist” evangelicals. It’s a lot like Islam in the sense that Muslim religious beliefs and Muslim politics go hand in hand; they are enmeshed.
“Is Europe’s low crime and nominal incarcerations attached to them getting rid of the death penalty or are those things attributable to something other than?”
Maybe. What do you think it is? Europe is very liberal and the most liberal of the European countries like Sweden, Norway, Iceland, etc. have the lowest crime, higher life expectancy, literacy, lower teenage pregnancy rates, higher standard of living, lower obesity, etc. than the very conservative United States.
Which Countries Set the Best Examples?
How is Larry “making the Scripture say” that murder is punishable by death?
What I’m taking issue to is that since the OT affirms capital punishment for murder, and then Larry says “It therefore applies to all mankind for all time,” that he is suggesting that to NOT issue capital punishment for murder is somehow evil or wrong, as if God was saying “Thou shalt kill the murderer” today, in our land.
If so, that is alarming.
If I am reading your statement wrong, Larry, and accusing you of implying something you are not, I apologize.
Nick, how do you deal with what Paul says about capital punishment in Romans 13?
Europe is very liberal and the most liberal of the European countries like Sweden, Norway, Iceland, etc. have the lowest crime, higher life expectancy, literacy, lower teenage pregnancy rates, higher standard of living, lower obesity, etc. than the very conservative United States.
Interesting that despite the obvious superiority of Scandanavia, immigrants from around the world continue to beat down doors and crawl over broken glass for a chance to live in the U.S.
Iceland, not so much.
“…immigrants from around the world continue to beat down doors and crawl over broken glass for a chance to live in the U.S.”
Maybe it has something to do with Iceland being an island nation and the U.S. being right next to Mexico
Also, check out the Asylum Seeker Acceptance Rates from the link.
“God’s ultimate purpose is to glorify Himself in all things.”
Larry,
I guess we are just gong to have to agree to disagree here. I see God’s ultimate purpose as reconciling the world to himself. Does that bring him glory? Absolutely.
“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
-2Corinthians 5:18-21
This passage tells me that God’s business is reconciliation. If we are going to be on his team, we have to be about that business as well. When we do that, we glorify him.
“The command to punish murder with death goes back to the Noahic covenant, predating the law of Moses and the nation of Israel (or any nation for that matter) by hundreds of years. It therefore applies to all mankind for all time.”
Are you saying that anyone who murders should be put to death no matter what?
Again, I’m not denying that a government has the authority to use capital punishment. What I am saying is that we are the government in a democratic society and we have to ask ourselves if we should actually use the provision.
I don’t know of anyone who believes that capital punishment should automatically be used in all cases of murder. Even in the OT David should have been executed. He had Uriah killed and committed adultery with his wife.
Cineaste,
The question Christians must ask is, “If Jesus were on a jury, would he vote to have someone executed?”
j razz,
I don’t know if you’ve ever sat on a jury but the purpose is not just to determine guilt, but to balance the law against the circumstances of the case. Mandatory sentences lead to some very poor applications of the law in my opinion. Deliberating on a jury is much more difficult than it seems. I was the foreman on a jury about 5 years ago. I had to look a guy and his family in the eye and tell him that he was going to be going to jail for the next 5 years. Was the verdict a just one? I believe it was. But it was allot more than just asking, “Did he do it?”
A jury has to decide what the verdict will say to the victim, the perpetrator, and the community at large. A good verdict, in my opinion, should offer punishment and hope to the guilty, a warning to others who would commit a similar crime and it should speak the values of the community.
Nick, how do you deal with what Paul says about capital punishment in Romans 13?
Tim, a lot could be sauid about that verse in Romans 13. I understand how people generally and Cristians spicifically can be in favor of the death penalty. I disagree, that is to say that my views differ and I would like to see the death penalty not used, much for the reasons Joel has mentioned in addition to others, but I understand how people could hold a different view.
What caught me off guard, though, was when it was suggested (at least as I took it, again, dont want to assume) that God expects us to use capital punishment today and that to not us it is evil, sinful, wrong, whatever. Certainly that is not suggested by Romans 13.
My impression is that religion and politics are one and the same to the more “fundamentalist” evangelicals.
Let me paint a more accurate picture for you. They are not one and the same. It is reasonable and consistent to allow one’s world view to dictate how they think about and involve themselves in other areas of life.
Let’s take you for instance. Your world view attempts to void itself of the presence of God and you long to find your joy in just living life (if Ikuri is an accurate portrayal of your world view).
If that world view that you hold does not dictate your actions, your thoughts and even your arguments here, then you would be inconsistent and your position on matters would be carried along as if by the wind.
So, politics and religion are not one in the same. Politics is guided by my world view, as is every other aspect of my life. I don’t think you would be any more willing than I would to set your world view aside whenver you need to make a decision on a matter (especially if you hold your world view with any esteem).
j razz
“They are not one and the same.”
Alright. Then are you able to think critically about and form an opinion about a political issue such as Corzine abolishing the death penalty without turning it into a religious issue? For example, without quoting scripture and resorting to religion, are you capable of articulating and supporting your beliefs about a political issue like this? I’m doubtful. If you can’t, then it’s obvious they are enmeshed.
I am sure that I am more than capable of doing that just as you are as we both have the faculties to do so. But the greater question is why would I be willing to do that? It makes no sense and the logic doesn’t follow. The same holds true for you. Why build an argument and strip out your foundation from it? That doesn’t make any sense and it is unreasonable to think that one should have to do it to think critically about a given topic.
There is a difference between two things being enmeshed and one flowing out of the other.
Take a look at the lyrics of this song, especially the second verse.
Derek Webb: King & a Kingdom
And here is a snippet of the song
You see, my world view is not enmeshed with politics, but my world view dictates what my politics look like as my politics flow from my world view. They are not on an even kelter and my view is similar to that found in the song listed above. I think you would assume that I vote straight down political lines, but I think you would be suprised Cineaste. I also think that your world view greatly influences how you live your life, how you vote, and how you train up your child(ren).
j razz
“You see, my world view is not enmeshed with politics, but my world view dictates what my politics look like as my politics flow from my world view.”
The second part of this sentence contradicts the first part.
“I am sure that I am more than capable of doing that…”
Then do it, J. I’d love to hear it.
Cineaste,
If you choose to perceive the two as being the same, that is your prerogative.
j razz
Your religion and your politics may not be one and the same, but they are enmeshed. I think you’re incapable of separating the two, J. It’s different when you talk about the BCS rankings. You have no problem separating religion from that but for anything political, you can’t help but turn it into a religious issue. For example, this thread’s topic.
Cineaste,
I don’t disagree with your conclusion concerning the BCS. The BCS rankings are meaningless and they do not affect my life or yours (I would care if I was on one of the teams that was ranked by the BCS and hence my world view would dictate that as well).
Here is my point though, anything of worth or that affects my life, or my family or the world in general, my world view will always dictate my actions and thoughts in regard to those issues. Again though, I would argue that politics is not on par with my world view, but my view of politics is built on the foundation of my world view. This holds true with everything else that affects me, my family or the world in general. The BCS rankings do not fit the bill as do numerous other things such as which stick of gum I choose to pull out of the winterfresh package to chew.
Does that make sense to you? I feel like I am talking in circles saying the same thing over and over. Don’t take that as a put down. I just want to get over this hump that you and I have been on for a while.
Does your world view not dictate how you act and how you formulate your opinions on things that matter?
j razz
“…but my view of politics is built on the foundation of my world view.”
This is my point. They are enmeshed with each other and you can’t separate them. You can reason with me and think critically about which stick of gum you choose to pull out of your pocket but you can’t do the same for politics. When you speak about the BCS, you can support your arguments directly by saying, “I think Hawaii should be in the final because of their record.” Everyone can follow that reasoning: fundamentalist Muslims, atheist Swedes, secular humanists, evangelicals, Buddhists, etc. We all share the ability to reason. When you speak about the death penalty, you don’t support your arguments directly like I do. When you try to support an argument with scripture and religion, it only makes sense to Jesus believers.
So, when I put the question that I asked you to myself, “Without quoting scripture and resorting to religion, are you capable of articulating and supporting your beliefs about a political issue like this?” the answer is, yes I can. My reasoning about the death penalty, my critical thinking, my world view (as you put it), is as universal, as understandable to all people regardless of culture as my reasoning for choosing a particular stick of gum from my pocket. It’s something they can all understand. When you tell a Japanese person that the death penalty is supported by Romans 13, she’ll respond with something like, “Who cares?” It sounds like so much nonsense to her. When I tell the same Japanese person that statistics show the death penalty reduces violent crime, that’s a point she can understand because it’s logical. Thus, I support my views more effectively by not resorting to religion and relying on reason.
Very interesting string, I like it. Great insights all around really. At the risk of wading into a conversation I feel is a bit over my head I just want to make a comment on Cineaste and j razz’s most recent posts.
It seems pretty common for athiests to ask believers to set their faith aside when arguing a seeminly secular issue like the death penalty. I don’t tihnk that is a fair expectation. The believer and the athiest will approach the same question with a different set of presuppositions. It is our presuppositions that will dictate what we think about any given subject.
Cineaste, for example lets take your argument for the death penalty that it reduces violent crime (maybe that was just an example you gave, I don’t mean to imply that you support the death penalty. I’ve actually not seen your opinion yet) That is only logical if both parties share the same presupposition that a reduction in violent crime is a good thing. That seems obvious and universal but you used a very subjective word in that argument, “good”. At the same time you could say that capital punishment, at least in Illinois, is much more costly than a sentance of natural life in prison which is bad. Two perfectly logical arguments but they are completely dependant on subjective concepts of good and bad.
Ultimately you have to rely on your world view, to borrow a phrase from j razz, to determine what good and bad is. This world view is your set of presuppositions which has no more merit than the presuppositions of a believer which boil down to the assumption that God determines what is good and bad and God’s determinations are revealed in the Bible.
That said, I have to confess that I am very torn over the issue of the death penalty. I agree with my brothers and sisters in Christ that we are to submit to the authority place over us. And that God’s OT laws require the death penalty. However I think one major difference is that Isreal was founded as a Theocracy where God appointed judges over the people and it is my belief that God gave those judges discernment to judge justly and accurately. We don’t live in a thoecracy, we live in a democracy where the burden of proving guilt is in the hands of fallible men and women. This fallibility has been proved out in Illinois not too long ago when former Governor Ryan released at least one person from death row after DNA evidence proved he was innocent. I’m too lazy to do the research, he actually commuted the sentance of every death row inmate, guilty or otherwise, but I know there was at least one who was proved to be innocent.
Yes we are obligated as Christians to submit ourselves to the authority that has been placed over us, but we the people also have the power to change that authority through our vote, another very distinct difference between the US and ancient Isreal.
Just to clarify my official stance on the death penalty, I am torn but about 95% of me is opposed to the death penalty.
I find the 5% of me that wants keep the death penalty is really not driven by the Bible at all but rather my sinful human desire to exact revenge. I don’t think that revenge is a valid reason to put someone to death especially when there is a possibility that the judgement of the jury could have been influenced by the emotional aspect of seeing the details of an especially vicious cirme that I might think deserves the death penalty.
I’m an engineer by profession, part of my job is to assess the risk of implementing an engineering decision. I personally think the risk of executing an innocent person is not justified. Also, and this one is for you Cineaste, I think the steps that our judicial system has taken to minimize that risk, multiple appeals for example, makes it too expensive to execute someone. Its easier and cheaper to lock them up for the rest of their natural lives.
Abe
I can separate my religion in talking about this issue.
As a people, we have agreed that we need laws and we desire a civilized society.
I think pre-meditated murder is a crime that when committed, it signifies that the perpetrator is no longer fit to remain a part of society.
If we were to execute all offenders of that particular crime, perhaps it would serve as a deterrent to future murders. We don’t know because we use it like a person who exercises 6 times a year. We have no idea what the long-term effects would be because we never follow through with it diligently.
Cineaste, I find it interesting that you believe that you have a universal world view, when in fact it is based upon atheism, which the majority of the world rejects. What I find interesting is that atheists claim theirs is not a religious position, yet when it comes to issues of separation of church and state, they argue as if it is. You really can’t have it both ways. But I digress.
One’s worldview does affect how they believe. And no one should be condemned for that. What you are asking is if Christians can defend any position outside of a uniquely Christian worldview (using supposed unbiased research - which doesn’t truly exist - and secular philosophical reasoning - which is constantly changing). And while that’s a vaild question, it’s not a valid assumption to require one to ignore their uniquely Christian worldview when taking a political position, when in fact holding to a Christian worldview in the political realm has often brought about great social change (such as the case with the abolition of slavery and with abortion).
The Founders held to a uniquely religious point of view, highly influenced by Christianity and that led them to state,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
And that worldview has historically been considered a reasonable and important approach to political thought. Thus the requirement to think outside of that worldview is neither historically legitimate or politically necessary, but rather a demand of only a strictly atheistic viewpoint, which contrary to your implications is certainly not universal.
“Cineaste, I find it interesting that you believe that you have a universal world view…”
For example, far more people can relate to the world view that argues “the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent because crime statistics in countries that have the death penalty show no decrease in crime over those who don’t have the death penalty.” In contrast, the Christian world view argues for or against the death penalty using scripture like Romans 13. While that’s fine and dandy for Christians, the rest of the world finds the logical argument from my “world view” far more compelling because Romans 13 means nothing to them. It’s like a Muslim quoting the Koran to support his argument for the death penalty to a Christian. The Muslim’s argument would be ineffective because it’s religious; in one ear and out the other for any non Muslims.
Cineaste, I personally suspect that a great many people support the death penalty for murderers, not because of an appeal to Romans 13, but because of a more basic appeal to the principle of lex talonis — proportionate punishment, described in the Old Testament as “eye for an eye.”
A person who takes a life no longer has the right to his own life: I think the justice of that concept is self-evident, but if you can point to a global survey that demonstrates that “far more people” oppose the death penalty than support it, I would appreciate your substantiating your controversial claim.
Cineaste, I am not sure you know what a worldview is. What you listed as an example is a merely an argument. The Christian worldview presupposes a God, not necessarily an inerrant Bible. It also presupposes natural law, as summed up in the 10 Commandments, which are the foundation of almost all modern Democratic nations. So when you continue to press the issue of Romans 13, you show that you really don’t understand, or are ignorant of, the argumentation of Christian philosophers and statesmen. What the Christian worldview actually presumes is exactly what the Founders presumed, as well as the 95% of the population in the U.S. who believe in a God.
But in case you don’t believe me, I suggest you actually go read some books or articles on the death penalty from Christian perspectives. Below are a couple of links where you could begin. Notice especially the appeal to natural law and to legal philosophy:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1452/Mark_Creech
http://www.americandaily.com/article/5134
Now these are merely a sampling and don’t even represent the best out there. But at least it is a start for you to rethink your narrow views about Christians.
I agree with Randle, I think there is a misunderstanding of the phrase world view. Cineaste, in your most recent posts you said, “The Christian world view argues…” A world view doesn’t argue, what you should have said was “A person holding to a Christian world would argue that….”
Someone with a Christian world view could certainly argue that the death penalty doesn’t deter violent crime, in fact I am inclined to agree with that statement. A world view is a fancy Christian pop phrase meaning the basic beliefs and assumptions regarding the nature of the world which guide thier thoughts and actions.
Everyone, athiest and believer alike, have assumptions regarding the nature of this world. You have no proof whatsoever that there is no God, you believe there isn’t one. That takes no more or less faith than to believe there is a God.
Speaking just for myself, for years I supported and defended the death penalty. When it came down to it though, the real appeal of the death penalty was that it satisfied my desire for revenge. My suspicion is that many Christians who couch the argument in religious terms, actually like the appeal to the part of all of us that seeks revenge.
One assumption that I think is often misleading is that because you have a Christian worldview, you must come to a set of pre-set conclusions. Christians can have the same set of assumptions about the world yet come to different conclusions about certain issues. The death penalty is one of them.
I wholeheartedly agree Joel.
Also, the oft quoted “eye for eye” concept was not to guarantee my right to revenge, rather it was intended to restrain revenge from escalating the violence committed against an innocent person.
My suspicion is that many Christians who couch the argument in religious terms, actually like the appeal to the part of all of us that seeks revenge.
That may be the case for some, Joel, but for me it’s a matter of justice, not revenge. I believe there are some offenses in which a death sentence is the only just sentence. Life in prison without the possibility of parole may be a just sentence in some cases, but I don’t think it is in all cases.
Life in prison without the possibility of parole may be a just sentence in some cases, but I don’t think it is in all cases.
And that justice extends to not only the one facing the sentence but also the tax payers who fit the bill for that life in prison or for the 12 appeals that take years to exhaust before the jury’s verdict is finally acted on.
j razz
I general agree with the concepts that both Abe and Joel have noted. I do have some differences though. I don’t think worldview is “fancy Christian pop phrase,” but simply a means of simplistically describing a complicated concept. It actually originated from German philosophy as a way to describe one’s overall philosophical position. So I think it’s a very helpful word and concept.
And I agree that there is no such thing as a definitive Christian worldview that encompasses all issues, but I do think there is certainly a way of looking at life that helps us to think through those issues. And it begins with understanding God as sovereign over His creation and in the process of bringing all things under the foot of Christ, the Savior of the World.
So we shouldn’t be surprised when we come to vastly different conclusions from those premises. But I don’t think it is fair to assert, as Joel has, “that many Christians who couch the argument in religious terms, actually like the appeal to the part of all of us that seeks revenge.” In fact, I think that the death penalty has nothing to do with revenge and much more to do with using the state as a means of fulfilling the wrath of God. And I think it gives Christians an opportunity to show mercy by not seeking that penalty when given that possibility by the State.
And I think that is what many don’t get in this debate. They cannot separate (or don’t see it as a possibility, to separate the morality and responsibility of the State from that of the individual). Paul does this clearly in Romans 13, but the early Americans and previously the English (and even earlier, the Reformers) also held this view.
And Abe, I think you’re right that “an eye for an eye” was not about revenge, but I don’t think it was about escalating violence. Rather, it seems to be placed as a deterrent for irresponsibility and crime. Just as a parent cannot threaten a child with punishment and continually withdraw that punishment when he or she disobeys, so cannot God. In fact, that is the very reason why Christ had to die in order for us to obtain eternal life through forgiveness and faith.
What’s amazing to me is how your view of the purposes of God effects your world view. If you believe that God’s purpose is primarily to bring all things under subjugation to Christ you will come to a totally different conclusion than if you see God’s work as being one of reconciliation.
D.R., Your criticism of my observation may be correct. I was speaking out of an assessment of my own motivations. I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the beliefs of others. But if our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees, it gives me pause when we cite “eye for an eye” passages to justify our positions on this issue.
In Jesus’ sermon on the mount, he seems to be pointing us beyond punishment and rights and “eye for an eye” to reconciliation.
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”
Matthew 5:21-24
Jesus seems to say that while we are not all technically guilty of murder, we aren’t innocent either. The “Therefore” in this passage is very important because it points us to specific behaviors and stances toward individuals. Jesus offers reconciliation as the endpoint here, not hellfire or the judgment of the Sanhedrin.
Is there anything more important than worshiping God? According to Jesus in this passage, there is. Reconciliation.
If you look at the passage that everyone sites at worship, Matthew 18:20. Jesus is talking about reconciliation there. I don’t understand how we can miss how close this idea is to the heart of God.
Joel,
I can appreciate how you read these texts, but I think you are missing something. You seem to suggest that reconciliation and judgment are somehow at odds with each other, when that need not be the case. It seems that the Bible teaches that God both is reconciling sinners to Himself through Christ united to Him by faith and ALSO bringing all things under His feet. The book of Revelation is very clear about how both occur at Judgment, with the righteous attaining eternal life and the unrighteous, eternal death.
In the end all sin must be paid for, either through the blood of Christ for those united to Christ through faith by means of grace, or by paying the penalty for those sins, which results in Hell.
Now, this is a much deeper discussion than simply the death penalty, but I think we must understand that the State cannot offer reconciliation, but only inflict punishment. It is the role of the Christian to bring reconciliation - at least that which is true.
Now, as for God’s ultimate purpose, I think Jonathan Edwards and the Westminster Confession are correct in concluding that the chief end of God is to glorify Himself. And He the means by which He accomplishes this is through both reconciliation and punishment - reconciling sinners to Himself through Christ and punishing sin by means of both temporal and eternal suffering.
Finally, while I think you are correct in understanding how individual Christians should act toward all men, I don’t think this passage applies to the responsibilities of the State, since the morality of the State is an altogether different matter than that of the Christian. And I think Paul affirms this in his reasoning in Romans 13.
“Cineaste, I am not sure you know what a worldview is.”
Notice, I put world view in quotes. The Christian world view is enmeshed with God beliefs. Mine isn’t. I rely on logic and reason more than scripture to support my arguments.
Sorry, parenthesis (as you put it) not quotes.
Cineaste, you still haven’t dealt with the fact that you indeed do have a worldview (atheism) that does affect your beliefs. And you continue to miss the point that the Christian worldview presupposes God, uses natural law reasoning, and appeals to moral philosophy, all of which concur with the vast majority of the U.S. (even without appealing to Scripture). Additionally, I really think you misunderstand and pidgeon-hole Christians in a rather narrow - and at times, almost ignorant - way. Again, you should read those articles I posted, which illustrate my point.
DR,
I guess I just disagree with Jonathan Edwards and how he views scripture. I hope that doesn’t disqualify me from being a Christian.
I see God’s justice and love both being fully expressed at the cross. While I think that these 2 concepts can be at odds, I see God being both eternally just and eternally loving at the same time.
I think you are right though about the limits of what the state can do in regards to justice. What it can do though is to recognize when reconciliation has taken place. Thankfully, our founders were wise enough to provide us with a trial-by-jury system that gives us an avenue of recognizing that.
Thanks for your comments and yor insight.
Joel,
I understand your disagreement and you are not alone in that regard. But I do hope you would consider further the idea that God’s chief end is His own glory. Here is an article I recommend, though Edwards’s The End For Which God Created the World would probably be the best way to go.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByDate/1457_Is_God_for_Us_or_for_Himself/
Thanks DR.
I’ve read the link and I’ll continue to think this over in my mind but at this point, I’m not in agreement with Edwards or Piper. And, like you said, I’m certainly not alone by any stretch.
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=Calvinism%2C+worst+face+of&id=761
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=Calvinism%2C+worst+face+of&id=762
Thanks for the link and your insight.
“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”
Joel, I think that even in that passage it is apparent that reconciliation is not the telos. Even after the reconciliation is complete, the man then is commanded to go back and offer his gift. He is to be reconciled so that he can offer up something to God.
I don’t think the chief aim here is reconciliation but that reconciliation leads to proper worship and that proper worship, in turn, glorifies God.
j razz
Yikes Joel, those links go with the post Tim wrote a couple weeks back about misunderstanding Calvinism. McGuiggan clearly doesn’t understand Calvinism and I would hope that you would consider some better sources that what you posted here. Still, the idea that the chief end of God is to glorify Himself is not a strictly Calvinistic idea. I know of several individuals (some who are professors at Seminaries) who believe that Edwards is write on God’s chief end, but wrong on election.
I may have missed something when we got side tracked on God’s chief purpose, but how does the death penalty glorify God anymore than life in prison???
I understand your earlier comment (D.R. I think) that the morality of the government and the morality of the individual are separate but doesn’t that attitude fly in the face of the Christian’s stance on the legality of abortion. In the case of the “right to life” we as Christians strive to make the morality of the state the same as the morality of Christians, why shouldn’t it be the case here as well?
I personally can’t get over the risk of executing an innocent person. That coupled with the lack of any evidence that capital punishment reduces violent crime, and the cost to society to acutally carry out a death sentance I don’t think we shou
Oops, I pulled the trigger too soon (so to speak)…I meant to finish that post with:
I don’t support capital punishment.
“I may have missed something when we got side tracked on God’s chief purpose, but how does the death penalty glorify God anymore than life in prison???”
What glorifies God is to believe His Word and honor it. Death is the punishment fixed by God for the taking of a human life (Genesis 9:6). We can certainly be concerned about the WAY a particular government implements capital punishment, however, I don’t think Christians can be opposed to it on principle, since God Himself is not only not opposed to it but has commanded it to be carried out in certain cases.
“I see God’s ultimate purpose as reconciling the world to himself.”
Sorry Joel, I’ve been behind on my reading here lately. Just looked at your quote cited above. One question I would have is, when will those cast into Hell for rejecting Christ be reconciled to God? I know you said ‘world’ here but in other posts I’m pretty sure you said ‘all things’ so that’s what’s driving my question. If by ‘world’ you mean something different than ‘all things’ my question may be moot.
“I don’t think Christians can be opposed to it on principle, since God Himself is not only not opposed to it but has commanded it to be carried out in certain cases.”
Thanks for the comments Larry. The fact that God created a provision for the death penalty did not mean that it was always carried out without mercy. See my earlier comments concerning Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. (God created a provision for divorce as well even though it was not God’s intent that anyone be divorced.) I wonder how many of us would have been on the side of the Pharisees in that situation. Again, did Jesus dishonor God by not carrying out the death sentence for this woman? I don’t think so even though that’s what the Law prescribed. His purpose was to reconcile her back to her community and to God. He saw God’s ultimate purpose where the woman’s accusers only saw God’s judgment on sin. Jesus clashes with the religious establishment again and again over this same principal.
“…when will those cast into Hell for rejecting Christ be reconciled to God?”
I think that CS Lewis is correct that hell is ultimately God honoring man’s request. If man continually says “no” to God. Then eventually God will honor that choice. The Jews believe that heaven is simply being close to God and hell by contrast is being wherever God is not. If man does not want to be close to God, then hell is the only alternative. It’s not God’s desire that any should be lost, but apparently it is the choice of some to be lost.
What I was referring to by “all things” was the entire creation mentioned in Romans 8:19-25 and Ephesians 1:10. This is a mystery of sorts but apparently, sin not only effects mankind but the creation as well.
I know that you don’t share my view of scripture here and I really don’t want to get into a big theological debate since the scope of this conversation is the death penalty. I’m not trying to convert you to my point of view but simply tell you where I am on this issue at the present time. I do however think it is interesting how our theological view influences how we see this particular issue.
“The fact that God created a provision for the death penalty did not mean that it was always carried out without mercy”
I’m 100% in agreement with you there. However, there’s a difference in saying mercy is sometimes in order and saying I don’t believe in the death penalty at all, under any circumstances.
I hope you guys had a good Christmas. Interesting to see this thread still hoppin.
Death is the punishment fixed by God for the taking of a human life
[T]here’s a difference in saying mercy is sometimes in order and saying I don’t believe in the death penalty at all, under any circumstances.
I don’t mean to shake the bee hive here, and get something started. Just 2 thoughts about these two comments above before I move on.
First, the top statement, though it may be different in reality and in the eyes of a Christian, it seems no different than saying something like “Allah requires a man’s hand to get cut off when he steals.” Both are extremist and quite scary, in my humble opinion.
Second, regarding the second statement, may I point out, Larry, that while what you say is true (i.e. mercy sometimes vs never the death penalty), there is also a difference between opposing the dealth penalty in our society, for 21st century Americans and saying that the death penalty is never okay under any circumstances. That is to say that one could oppose the death penalty in modern day America (as I do), but imagine a culture (or observe one from history) where the death penalty would be appropriate.
Changing gears a bit: While i think this is certainly an appropriate discussion, it may do us some good to “zoom-out” a bit and look at crime as a whole in the US. Something like 1 in 4 of all incarcerated criminals on the planet are Americans, and something like 1 in 3 african amercan males will spend time under legal restraint (these facts are not exact, but close, though I am going from memory). I think we can agree that something is broken (in either the system or the country), and this discussion would be less dire if violent crime was not such a problem.
Just a thought. I offer no answers. Only more questions that thicken the issue.
Death is the punishment fixed by God for the taking of a human life
First, the top statement, though it may be different in reality and in the eyes of a Christian, it seems no different than saying something like “Allah requires a man’s hand to get cut off when he steals.” Both are extremist and quite scary, in my humble opinion.
Nick, just b/c it is “extremist” does that make it wrong? Another example would be the gospel. Just b/c the gospel is extreme in its exclusivity does that make it wrong? And to take your argument further: Just because the gospel was the model God used for salvation back then, does that mean it is the only model He uses today?
Following that logic is scary to me. Nick, you may want to clarify your points a little. By the way, I hope you were able to celebrate Christmas with family and truly get to spend some time with the Lord over Christmas.
j razz
“That is to say that one could oppose the death penalty in modern day America (as I do), but imagine a culture (or observe one from history) where the death penalty would be appropriate.”
I would be interested to know what the culture you feel could implement the death penalty would look like. Paul had no problem pointing out Rome’s God-given authority as the civil government of his day to put criminals to death, does the Roman Empire fit your vision of a society where you could support the death penalty?
Thanks for the thoughts, j razz.
I agree that just because it is extremist it doesnt make it wrong. In a sense, the gospel is extreme as you say. Turn the other cheek is extreme. I guess to clarify, though, I meant extremest in the worst possible way, the way that the media means it about militant Muslims. There is often no logic in these kind of extremist assertions, simply a “God/Allah wants you dead” sort of thing. That scares me.
Now, as I have said, I can understand someone supporting the death penalty. I think it is appropriate to look at the issue from all angles and come to a conclusion that is both rational and consistent with Christ and scripture, all the while agreeing that capital punishment and how it works itself out today is not a central issue, and that my Christian brothers and sisters may disagree with me, and that’s okay. What I can’t understand is when someone says “God demands death for murderers. Once and for all. Period. Anything else is evil.” That doesnt seem to be a humble, truth seeking approach to this issue, but just religious dogma. It doesn’t leave room to say “let’s agree to disagree,” and instead says “you’re wrong and evil if you disagree.”
Let me say I have tried to be very careful to not put words in people’s mouths on this thread. I hope I have not done this. I will gladly retract if I have assumed falsy about someone’s position.
And to take your argument further: Just because the gospel was the model God used for salvation back then, does that mean it is the only model He uses today?
Now, jrazz, lastly let’s talk about the cultural issues. I think we would both agree that the gospel and capital punishment are very different issues. The gospel is Truth, it isn’t cultural, rather it trancends culture, it is the central issue of scripture and the life of Christ, etc. Capital punishment is a cultural issue, though it may be present in many cultures, it is certainly not a central issue of scripture or the life of Christ (in fact, we see Jesus resisting capital punishment) etc.
In regards to the covenant with Noah, let is be said that eating meant with blood in it is also part of that covenant, but those who are adamant about capital punishment dont seem as zealous about only eating steak medium well or well done.
Capital punishment is a cultural issue…
I would have a couple of questions on this:
1. Who says?
2. Let’s assume it is. The covenant with Noah was not ever mentioned again in the NT, but in Peter’s dream and by Paul’s admission, all things are pure, etc. The death penalty on the other hand was. It was carried over. To do away with such, one would need to explain away Romans 13.
Also, even though their is a difference between the gospel and the death penalty (we definitely agree here), the logic that you applied above still fits and that is what gave me room to give the example I did.
j razz
Paul had no problem pointing out Rome’s God-given authority as the civil government of his day to put criminals to death, does the Roman Empire fit your vision of a society where you could support the death penalty?
As I said before, a lot could be said about Romans 13, and that seems to be the proof text of this thread, so I’ll comment on it now.
Paul is saying that christians should be subject to sword-weilding authorities, but he is not suggesting that we should participate in it or support their violence. He makes it clear that this is one way God shows his wrath to bad people (basically that God can use evil governments as an instrument for Good), but it certainly is not the only way or necessarily the preferred way.
In addition, as John Howard Yoder points out, Romans 13 should be read as the continuation of romans 12, which, among other things tells us to bless those who persecute us, do not repay evil for evil, never avenge, but leave room for God’s wrath, for vengence is mine says the Lord, and instead to feed your enemies when they are hungry. It could also be noted that after the diatribe Paul offers on submission to authorities, he returns again to loving, even saying “Love does no harm to its neighbor.” (vs 10) It is in this larger context the Paul offers these thoughts about submission and obedince to the government.
Furthermore, since the vengence that God executes through the sword-weilding governments is the same Greek word for vengence that Christians were just forbiddon to exercise, Yoder argues that it seems to follow, “‘Vengence’ that is recognized as being within the providential control when exercized by government is the same ‘vengence’ that Christians are told not to exercize.”
It is also interesting that people jump to “the sword” referring specifically to capital punishment. While that is certainly included, “the sword” was a Roman symbol for authority and punishment, so capital punishment in the passage is in perifery at best, and the primary context being punishment in general.
Lastly, Larry, as far as an appropriate culture for capital punishment, I think the time God made the convenant with Noah certainly was the best time. they were starting a new culture from scratch, leaving the wickedness behind. If there was ever a time for that law, that was it.
“Lastly, Larry, as far as an appropriate culture for capital punishment, I think the time God made the convenant with Noah certainly was the best time. they were starting a new culture from scratch, leaving the wickedness behind. If there was ever a time for that law, that was it.”
First I would ask who the covenant made with Noah applied to? Was it just he and his immediate family or was it, like the covenant of works made with Adam for all subsequent generations? If the latter, at what point did culture change such that God’s command here was no longer applicable and what is the scriptural support for this command having been abrogated?
In the Romans 13 passage, Paul upholds the right of Rome to wield its authority. Paul could have easily condemned the idea of Rome’s use of capital punishment, but he did not. But at the same time, Paul is also introducing ideas which would prove incompatable with the existence of authoritarian governments. Eventually, Christian ideals lead to the establishment of democratically elected governments and human rights.
I see the same thing at work in an issue that was once just as hotly debated, slavery. Paul had the perfect opportunity to condemn the practice of slavery on his letter to Philemon. The fact that he didn’t was used by those who advocated slavery as a proof text to show that God approved of slavery. (Keep in mind that there was a provision for slavery on the OT as well.) Yes, Paul does not condemn slavery, yet he again introduces ideas that would prove to be incompatable with the practice and eventually lead to abolition. Does anyone here still advocate slavery? Why not?
I think what many of us who are against the death penalty see is that God introduces ideals that while not abolishing the death penalty outright, make it very difficult to justify or use in a democratic society. We cannot pass this off as a “government responsibility” because the government is us. Who how do we apply the Jesus principles of Matthew 5 in a jury room?
And finally, just because we find a provision for it in the Bible, it does not justify its use. The OT made a provision for divorce and many of the teachers of the law lined up behind it saying that God approved of divorce. Jesus corrects this error and reasserts God’s ideal for marriage in Matthew 19. What he is saying is that God’s provision for man’s sinfulness does not equal approval. I can’t help thinking that we sound just like those accusing the woman caught in adultery, justifying our actions by the OT provision.
Yeah, Larry, I agree that the covenant was not just made for Noah and his family but it seemed to be for all time. 2 things I’d say to that, though:
1. Do you only eat steak and other meat well done? Because the blood issue was certainly part of that covenant as well.
2. It comes down to the fact that I dont see the death penalty lining up with Jesus and his teachings, as well as the teachings of the early church and the message of reconciliation, restoration, and love. Though Jesus never explicitly “abrogates” that covenant, I think it seems clear from the rest of his life and the movement.
Amen, Joel.
Amen Larry! Why do taxpayers have to pay abortions that they don’t believe in via Planned Parenthood. A child dies even though they haven’t committed no crime, have been denied due process and all for profit. Capital punishment is not perfect but innocent people are not being killed left and right under it. Nearly 50 million innocent people have died via abortion, when the death penalty reaches that point, we’ll talk
“It comes down to the fact that I dont see the death penalty lining up with Jesus and his teachings, as well as the teachings of the early church and the message of reconciliation, restoration, and love.”
While I agree with you here Nick, I need to point out that not everyone sees the message of the early church as being one of “reconciliation, restoration and love.” That is a paradigm that drives your (and my) view of Jesus’ life and teaching. Others may not share this view that you and I tend to take for granted.
“Capital punishment is not perfect but innocent people are not being killed left and right under it.”
Are you saying that you are not bothered by capital punishment unless millions of innocent people are being killed? I completely understand the outrage over abortion but that’s another issue entirely. What if the one innocent person killed by capital punishment was your family member? Didn’t Jesus die by capital punishment? Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it is one that we should all be concerned with.
Are you saying that you are not bothered by capital punishment unless millions of innocent people are being killed?
I am saying that people on death row have appeals, stays and pardons that can save from the lethal injections. For the most part, wrongly imprisoned people do get freed and though it is a tragedy they were locked up to begin with executions of innocent prisoners are not standard. Execution of the unborn is standard procedure and there are no appeals, stays and pardons for them. They do not have access to the legal system.
As far as family members goes, my father was killed by a drunk driver and his murderer went free, so don’t tell me about the rights of criminals. My father’s murderer got COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR MURDER!!! WHERE’S HIS JUSTICE!!! I am a Black woman and my father was a White man-all I heard all my life from Black people is how White people get justice and Black people don’t! So where’s my father’s justice, he was supposed to be guaranteed it but the system let his death go unpaid for!
As far as Jesus is concerned yes he died by capital punishment but you are missing the whole point of his death. The manner of his death was brutal as to be no question that he was truly dead as to prove his resurrection. Without his death and resurrection, there would be no atonement, without his atonement we all be condemned to hell. I shudder and cringe when I think of his death and the torture he faced. But more than that I am deeply grateful and indebted that he willingly went through such pain and brutality in order to save the likes of me. I am humbled and I will forever love him for his willingness to die on the cross. There was a higher purpose for his death. There was no higher purpose for my father’s death, for the legal system’s betrayal, for the freedom of a killer.
Yes, a ‘provision’ was made for divorce even though divorce was against God’s will. However, we cannot say a ‘provision’ was made for capital punishment. The instructions to Noah were a command, not a provision in the face of disobedience.
Like it or not, there are different roles ordained by God for the Church, the Family and the Civil Government. When those roles become confused, we end up with problems. One glaring example I’ve read about of late is Huckabee’s helping parole a rapist while Governor of Arkansas because, among other things, he was told the guy had been ’saved’. The guy then turned around and raped and murdered a woman. Gov. Huckabee confused his role as a pastor with his role as the civil magistrate and a girl is needlessly dead because of it.
His reaction to the ’salvation’ of the rapist should have been “praise God, I’ll see him in heaven one day” but should have had no bearing on the penalty for the man’s crime.
I think one of the things we’re doing is playing the ‘if I was God…’ game. We don’t see any clear abrogation of capital punishment in scripture but we don’t like it so we’re assuming Jesus wouldn’t either because it violates some personal standard we have. People do that with lots of things…Jesus wouldn’t send anyone to hell, Jesus wouldn’t…fill in the blank. We all tend to do sometimes but its a bad way to do theology.
Larry, you still have not answered the objection about blood in meat, that is a part of the covenant you keep referring to.
Care to respond?
Nick,
I answered that a while back when I referred to Paul and Peter. Did I miss something?
j razz
Oh, okay. I missed that, J razz.
That isn’t really how covenants work, though. You dont keep parts of covenants and throw out others. If you keep the covenant, you have to keep all parts.
But what of Peter’s dream and of Paul concerning the meat sacrificed to idols? If it is laid before you do you eat it?
j razz
“Larry, you still have not answered the objection about blood in meat, that is a part of the covenant you keep referring to.”
We’re told not to consume blood in Genesis 9:4. I don’t drink blood do you? All the meat we eat here in the west is ‘bled’ when its slaughtered (as were the temple sacrifices in the O.T. that were eventually consumed by the priests) so its really not a matter of how well done its cooked. This is not a command forbid eating raw meat, it is a command not to consume blood. Do I think its still in force? Yes, that’s why I don’t drink blood.
We’re told not to consume blood in Genesis 9:4
Genesis 9:4
“But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.”
It is obvious that it is talking about eating meat with blood in it, not drinking blood. If you want to keep the 2nd part of the covenant, you have to keep the first. But, the truth is, this covenant is no longer in effect.
“It is obvious that it is talking about eating meat with blood”
Yep, that’s why its ‘bled out’ when slaughtered.
“Like it or not, there are different roles ordained by God for the Church, the Family and the Civil Government. When those roles become confused, we end up with problems.”
Larry, you are sounding more and more like Cineaste.
Yep, that’s why its ‘bled out’ when slaughtered.
Yeah, and that red stuff that flows out when you cut your steak, that’s called blood.
I think we have said all that can be said on this topic. You guys have said nothing to convince me that the death penalty is either prudent or right in our culture today. I’m fine to agree to disagree about this, but considering what some of you have said it doesn’t sound like you are.
Either way, I’m retiring from this thread.
Have a great week!
So the Roman’s 13 argument absolutely does not apply to the question of whether or not the death penalty is right or wrong.
Sorry I’ve been gone, I was in southern Illinois for a week and they’ve never heard of this crazy thing called the internet down there.
The basic application of Roman’s 13 I have heard is that we should support the death penalty because it is the law of the land and we are therefore obligated by Roman’s 13 to be in support of the death penalty. If that argument was valid then we would all be equally obligated to support abortion as it is also the law of the land.
I think from previous threads it is pretty clear that most people who frequent this blog do not support abotion. The original post was about NJ passing a law to abolish the death penalty, since that is now the law of that state would Larry have to change his stance on the death penalty if he were to move there? The question that we as Christians who live in America is do the laws of the land reflect our moral standard and if not, what can we do to change that.
The only way Roman’s 13 would apply in this case would be if someone on this thread were proposing some kind of rebellion against the government because of the death penalty. For instance I might suggest we all stop paying taxes until capital punishment is abolished, or commit some act of violence against an abortion clinic because I know abortion is wrong. Paul wrote Roman’s 13 because he new such action taken by Christians to force their morality on the general public would only serve as a detriment to the church and give the Roman authority grounds to further persecute them. In that case God is not glorified by his people.
It is imy opinion that God is glorified when his people use thier right to vote to change the laws of this land to reflect Christian values. Justice is certainly one of those values, I’m not suggesting that Jesus’ only message was one of love, grace, and forgiveness. Jesus set very high standards in regard to righteousness in his sermon on the mount. We also learn from Paul that the penalty for all sin is death, because of this God would be absolutely justified in wiping us all from the face of the earth.
I do believe that God’s ultimate purpose for creation is for His glory, but I feal that God’s glory is only furthered by the overarching Biblical concept of reconciliation. God’s glory is not diminished when a government does not enforce a death penalty, but God is glorified when his people administer justice with a bent towards mercy and grace rather than vengeance.
The previous post from Dena suggests to me that vengeance is the primary driver of her opinion on the death penalty. I believe that is common to many juries who are asked to consider a death penalty as well as many Christians who support it.
The previous post from Dena suggests to me that vengeance is the primary driver of her opinion on the death penalty.
Do I want vengeance for my father’s murderer, you bet I do but I would rather have God handle the vengeance part, he is so much better at it then I am. That whole frog and locust thing in the Old Testament-sheer genius! Truthfully, I think the death penalty is an easy way out for lowlives like my father’s killer. No I want immortality for them. I want them to live forever in pain and torment, never knowing a moment’s peace. I don’t want them to have the peace that comes with death. So do I want the death penalty? No it is too kind, too merciful.
If that argument was valid then we would all be equally obligated to support abortion as it is also the law of the land.
That is where you are wrong, Roe v. Wade IS NOT LAW!!! The Supreme Court set a precedent with Roe v. Wade that is all. Court cases are not law. Even Supreme Court cases. The only way it can become a law is if it was voted on by Congress and passed by the President, which it was not. If it was a Federal Amendment, which is it not. If it is law enacted by a proposition put forth to a vote by the voting population, which it did not. Therefore, in no way is Roe v. Wade a law and it should not be referred to as one because it is a lie! The only thing you can do legally with Roe is use it as a basis for your argument in a lawsuit. Beyond that it carries no more weight or validity than Plessy vs. Fergueson. Plessy upheld slavery while the 13th Amendment abolished it. So which should we follow? Plessy or the 13th Amendment? Just like Brown vs. Board of Education said separate but equal public schools were unconstitutional, it still wouldn’t mean squat without the various civil rights bills and acts enacted by then President Johnson to back them up on a permanent and federal level. For Brown without the federal acts could be overturned tomorrow otherwise. Therefore Roe is not a law, since it hasn’t gone through any strict passage procedure to become one.
I think the point is being missed that we are to follow the law so long as it does not contradict what God requires of us.
The death penalty? I think one would be hard pressed to say that the death penalty goes against what God has stated in scripture.
Abortion? I think one would be hard pressed to say that abortion does not go against what God has stated in scripture.
Do not confuse our government as the standard for absolute authority. God’s word to us is not the constitution, the supreme court rulings, etc. It is God’s word given to us via scripture. We must follow it first and foremost.
Dena,
I am not even going to pretend to think I know what you are going through/have gone through. I am though going to encourage you take a look at scripture concerning forgiveness and what part that plays in the life of a believer. Can you be angry? Yes. Can you be mad? Yes. But, forgiveness is a key concept when it comes to pleasing God. I know it must be easy to read the words, but I would encourage you to cry out to God to change your heart in this matter, to truly change your heart.
j razz
Thank you j razz for your kind words. Forgiveness is very hard and I have been trying for 23 years to do so. He took my father when I was 14, just when I needed him the most. I am now 37, I will be 38 on the 12th of next month. Yet it still feels like it happened yesterday. There are times when I think I have this forgiveness thing down and then my son does something terribly cute and I think to myself, my father will never get a chance to know his grandson. My mother died in 2005 but she at least got to know her youngest grandchild for a whole year and a half. I guess some days are just easier than others. Thank your for your understanding.
Thank you j razz for your kind words. Forgiveness is very hard and I have been trying for 23 years to do so. He took my father when I was 14, just when I needed him the most. I am now 37, I will be 38 on the 12th of next month. Yet it still feels like it happened yesterday. There are times when I think I have this forgiveness thing down and then my son does something terribly cute and I think to myself, my father will never get a chance to know his grandson. My mother died in 2005 but she at least got to know her youngest grandchild for a whole year and a half. I guess some days are just easier than others. Thank your for your understanding.