Do you find the death penalty to be ethical? What is your view on it?

[SeventhFisherofMen]

You’re the one who keeps bringing up forgiveness in lieu of the death penalty. Forgiveness doesn’t mean lesser punishment. It means that the sin is no longer held against the sinner.


“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
“Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”
— Romans 4:7-8

Forgiving someone who sins against me is not the same thing as letting crime go unpunished.

So then using your logic what is the punishment of sin we are forgiven by Jesus? When we get to Heaven, what punishment will be given for the forgiven sins we've repented of?

 

[Hammster]

So then using your logic what is the punishment of sin we are forgiven by Jesus? When we get to Heaven, what punishment will be given for the forgiven sins we've repented of?

Jesus took that punishment.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Jesus took that punishment.

Did he also not die for the murderer in question you keep asking if we should forgive?

 

[Hammster]

Did he also not die for the murderer in question you keep asking if we should forgive?

For the sake of this discussion, I’ll say yes.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Would you not question the kings law to kill Daniel? God saved Daniel because no one was willing to step in and question the king, but I can tell you there are a lot of laws that have been written in history that should have been questioned long before they were changed, and no amount of pointing to Romans 13 will make those flawed laws sound any more logical.

First of all, God did not spare Daniel because nobody was willing to question the king. In fact, the king himself grieved the entire time Daniel was in the den. Yet it seems that nobody questions the king's decision to have the other servants executed in Daniels place even though they legally did nothing wrong. You will not find anyone screaming, Yes, I broke the law because it was a stupid law. Therefore I don't deserve to be punished." God spared Daniel to reveal His glory to the king and condition the kings heart for an eventual Israelite freedom.

Of course, lets not forget the circumstances surrounding Jesus and Barabas. But the bottom line is this, you will not find one example anywhere in scripture in which any godly person deliberately violated a law they believed unjust and did anything other than welcome the consequences for the glory of God. There is really only three options:
1. Obey the laws established by the authority because all authority has been established by God.
2. Be willing to suffer the consequences for violating those laws for regardless of the reason.
3. Work within the legal avenues to have the laws changed with an understanding that if such efforts fail, it is solely because God has allowed it for His purposes.

 

[RDKirk]

Ya I thought more Christians would be in favor of forgiveness, not that punishment is bad but a system that is willing to forgive people and give them an opportunity to repent and change. People preach about forgiveness all the time, but apparently it's easier to know Jesus forgives than for us people to actually forgive others as well.

What is strange is that in America when the government decides to be merciful, it's Christians who protest most loudly, "No mercy! Execute him!"

It's as though Christians don't realize that the Romans 13 that gives the king the authority to use the sword is the same Romans 13 that gives the king the authority to withhold the sword.

 

[RDKirk]

Actually, Romans 13 gives the rulers the authority to act as ministers of God. Their rule must be in line with the will of God.

As Paul was writing Romans 13, Caesar was not ruling in accordance with Mosaic Law, so that's not what Paul meant.

 

[RDKirk]

First of all, God did not spare Daniel because nobody was willing to question the king. In fact, the king himself grieved the entire time Daniel was in the den. Yet it seems that nobody questions the king's decision to have the other servants executed in Daniels place even though they legally did nothing wrong. You will not find anyone screaming, Yes, I broke the law because it was a stupid law. Therefore I don't deserve to be punished." God spared Daniel to reveal His glory to the king and condition the kings heart for an eventual Israelite freedom.

Of course, lets not forget the circumstances surrounding Jesus and Barabas. But the bottom line is this, you will not find one example anywhere in scripture in which any godly person deliberately violated a law they believed unjust and did anything other than welcome the consequences for the glory of God. There is really only three options:
1. Obey the laws established by the authority because all authority has been established by God.
2. Be willing to suffer the consequences for violating those laws for regardless of the reason.
3. Work within the legal avenues to have the laws changed with an understanding that if such efforts fail, it is solely because God has allowed it for His purposes.

So that also means that when the king decides to be merciful to the guilty, Christians should accept that ruling...right?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

So that also means that when the king decides to be merciful to the guilty, Christians should accept that ruling...right?

Yes.

 

[Hammster]

As Paul was writing Romans 13, Caesar was not ruling in accordance with Mosaic Law, so that's not what Paul meant.

That’s not true. Caesar didn’t go off the rails until later. But the principle applies. Government is the deacon of God, and must act accordingly.

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk said: ↑
As Paul was writing Romans 13, Caesar was not ruling in accordance with Mosaic Law, so that's not what Paul meant.

That’s not true. Caesar didn’t go off the rails until later. But the principle applies. Government is the deacon of God, and must act accordingly.

Excuse me...are you asserting that Nero at any time was ruling in accordance with Mosaic Law?

 

[Hammster]

RDKirk said: ↑
As Paul was writing Romans 13, Caesar was not ruling in accordance with Mosaic Law, so that's not what Paul meant.



Excuse me...are you asserting that Nero at any time was ruling in accordance with Mosaic Law?

Not intentionally. But where he acted according to what God desires, then yes.

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk said: ↑
As Paul was writing Romans 13, Caesar was not ruling in accordance with Mosaic Law, so that's not what Paul meant.



Excuse me...are you asserting that Nero at any time was ruling in accordance with Mosaic Law?

Not intentionally. But where he acted according to what God desires, then yes.

So, then by your response, sometimes Nero ruled according to what God desires and sometimes he didn't.

Rather like flipping a coin, which obviates your previous statement from post #73

Actually, Romans 13 gives the rulers the authority to act as ministers of God. Their rule must be in line with the will of God.

 

[Hammster]

RDKirk said: ↑
As Paul was writing Romans 13, Caesar was not ruling in accordance with Mosaic Law, so that's not what Paul meant.



Excuse me...are you asserting that Nero at any time was ruling in accordance with Mosaic Law?



So, then by your response, sometimes Nero ruled according to what God desires and sometimes he didn't.

Rather like flipping a coin, which obviates your previous statement from post #73

How is it like flipping a coin? God has standards for everyone, not just Christians. We all need to be perfect and holy. It’s commanded. We all, also, know right from wrong since we are made in His image. So rulers need to lead as if they are God’s deacons. When they do well, it’s good. When they don’t, it’s bad.

 

[Miles]

I oppose the death penalty, because innocent people have been executed for crimes that they didn't commit. In my opinion, it's not worth the risk of killing an innocent person, even when they "obviously" did it. For the death penalty to be considered, the state has what appears to be strong evidence against the accused. Including those times when the accused are later proven to be innocent.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

You must allow for Romans 13, too,
...or remove it from your Bible.

What about what Jesus taught contrary to what the old testament taught? Should you only keep Romans 13 in your Bible but ignore Jesus teaching mercy on multiple occasions? You cannot put a human ruler's law above what Jesus Himself taught

 

[Hammster]

What about what Jesus taught contrary to what the old testament taught? Should you only keep Romans 13 in your Bible but ignore Jesus teaching mercy on multiple occasions? You cannot put a human ruler's law above what Jesus Himself taught

Jesus didn’t contradict Himself.

 

[Sabertooth]

Should you only keep Romans 13 in your Bible but ignore Jesus teaching mercy on multiple occasions? You cannot put a human ruler's law above what Jesus Himself taught

You will have to cancel Paul before you can make that argument.

Forgiveness has its place, but judgment does, too.*
And God has circumvented the penal system (which He set up) when He saw fit to do so [e.g. Acts 12:3-19].

*Ananias & Sapphira [Acts 5:1-11] were an example of the latter.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

You will have to cancel Paul before you can make that argument.

Forgiveness has its place, but judgment does, too.*
And God has circumvented the penal system (which He set up) when He saw fit to do so [e.g. Acts 12:3-19].

*Ananias & Sapphira [Acts 5:1-11] were an example of the latter.

It's not circumventing Paul to recommend we not kill people as punishment for a crime. There are other punishments besides the death penalty.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Jesus didn’t contradict Himself.

Correct.