-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Just how smart are these never Trumpers?
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
Sorry, Zaac, but that's not true
-----
edited to be more specific about what I was addressing.
That's nothing but an argument from silence. He did not restrict capital punishment, and there is no reason to believe he deviated from Noahide commandments on this point.
The burden of proof is on the person trying to argue for discontinuation, and, given Jesus' lack of statements on the topic and Paul's discussion in Romans 13, that's an uphill battle.
Apparently you have missed all the videos I have posted of him attacking the very foundation of Conservativism. Remember this is the guy that had his Party boo Cruz saying vote for pro Constitution candidate. This is the candidate who had people removed for holding the Constitution. Laura Ingram a Trump supporter wrote a scathing article about those of us who still think the Constitution is relevant. So that is at least 3 times since securing the nomination the Trump Party attacked the Constitution.
This is a guy who said in his speech that only he (the strong man) can solve the problems which is the antithesis of Conservativism and individualism.
This is a guy who wants to try citizens at Gitmo contrary to the bill of rights.
This is the guy who wants to sue and or jail any reporter that writes something he does not like which is the antithesis of the 1st amendment.
This is a guy who makes a judgement about a judged because of her last name, which is identity politics not Conservativism and Individualism.
If you are OK with all of the above that is fine, but it is not Conservative. All of the above is authoritarian.
As far as separation of powers that has been under attack for years and Trump himself talks about how he will use the pen better than Obama did.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Zaac
Well-Known Member
There's a BIG reason to believe He did.
Christians just can't seem to listen. He didn't restrict the government from doing it anymore than He restricted them from sanctioning divorce.
But contrary to what the GOVERNMENT sanctions, the Cross and everything about it and the exampled character of Jesus throughout the NT says that CHRISTIANS who know forgiveness should not be advocating death for the SAME thing that Scripture says they are guilty.
There's a BIG reason to believe He did.
Christians just can't seem to listen. He didn't restrict the government from doing it anymore than He restricted them from sanctioning divorce.
But contrary to what the GOVERNMENT sanctions, the Cross and everything about it and the exampled character of Jesus throughout the NT says that CHRISTIANS who know forgiveness should not be advocating death for the SAME thing that Scripture says they are guilty.
The "GOVERNMENT" is an AGENT of GOD'S wrath.
"For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Romans 13:4 (NKJV)
It's not Christians who can't seem to listen. We just disagree. The death penalty is supported by the New Testament, period. It's not just the government. It's ordained by God, just as it was in the Old Testament.
You'll fall all over yourself to find ways to support legalized abortion, but you won't accept that the Bible explicitly describes the death penalty as being an element of God's wrath, as mediated through the government. That's ridiculous.
OH....and let the record show this---
Paul wrote these words while under the same government (the Roman Empire) that crucified Jesus.
Yeah I wasn't in on those. I really haven't seen him attacking conservatism though. The things you listed do not prove out as of yet. We'll see I guess if he gets in.
Twist on words in order to support your position. There's a difference between "restricting" and "authorizing."
Governments, by the decree identified in Romans, are authorized to utilize the death penalty.
It's not that they're "not restricted"; it's that scripture says they ARE to execute wrath upon those that do evil.
Again, word play. Your argument is hinged upon "if we commit any sin, we are guilty of them all"; but what you're trying to confuse others with is the individual as opposed to the government. Individuals should exercise forgiveness; governments should exercise judgment.
Now, which Christians here are advocating death for anyone?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Precisely. But EVERYTHING that Jesus did and testified of shows that He does NOT intend for us to act like the government.
Again, I didn't say it wasn't supported. As you noted, God allows the GOVERNMENT to use it as a form of punishment. He has not said for Christians to advocate that as it goes against the purpose of the Cross. It's ordained of God for the GOVERNMENT. It is not ordained of God post-Cross as the Way that the Christian should advocate.
HE didn't tell Peter to put down his sword only
You'll fall all over yourself to find ways to support legalized abortion, but you won't accept that the Bible explicitly describes the death penalty as being an element of God's wrath, as mediated through the government. That's ridiculous.
And thus, proving what I wrote previously about Zaac confusing the difference between individual and government....
There's a difference between acknowledging that the death penalty is ordained of God, and advocating for and/or supporting it. Zaac has shown this by admitting that God allows it. Thus, the discussion is technically over; both sides agree on this point.
The additional point is whether individuals are advocating for and/or supporting the death penalty. The problem is the confusion about who is actually advocating for and/or supporting it. One could make the feasible argument that by admitting that God allows it, Zaac supports the death penalty. Alternatively, the argument could be made that if we agree not to have a death penalty, are we in violation of scripture, since we all agree that God actually has made it a responsibility of the government to be an instrument of wrath for Him?
So for this additional point, an agreement must be reached on what the terms "advocate for" and "support" actually mean in regards to the death penalty.
That's an assertion for which you lack sufficient evidence.
In reality, what you are saying is that Christians should not support what God has ordained as a way of punishing evil. God doesn't merely "allow" the government to act in this way. He actively uses the government as an agent to accomplish his will.
As I noted above, it's not that he "allows" but that he actively uses the government as his agent. There's quite a difference between the two. God is not merely going along with what already is in place.
It's important to note that I'm not saying Christians should be enthusiastic about the death penalty by any means. In fact, I think life without parole is a better option in many cases. IMO, only the most heinous crimes with clear, practically airtight evidence should lead to the death penalty.
I would even be in favor of requiring some form of standard more strict than "Beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to sentence a person to death.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
You must not have read your Bible lately.
In reality, I said what I said.
others
He "actively" used the Babylonians the Assyrians and many others to discipline the Israelites. That doesn't mean they are any less in Hell today.
And I submit again that post-Cross, Christians should be uninclined to make even that declaration when Scripture says you deserve the same thing for committing the same trespass.
That type of subjectivity is no different than folks saying they are Christians while picking and choosing which parts of Scripture THEY believe to be correct.
Do you beyond a reasonable doubt deserve death?
Not in the last couple hours, so I suppose not.
But they were also never agents of good, either. Governments are agents of doing good and punishing evil.
And I submit that I disagree. There is nothing wrong with supporting a legitimate punishment. To follow your logic, if we can't punish with death because we deserve death, we also can't punish with confinement because we deserve it as well (Hell--inescapable confinement).
Ultimately, since we are all guilty, why punish anyone at all? Grace for everyone, right?
Discussing the standards under which a punishment should be applied isn't the same as cherry-picking Scripture. It's a policy discussion.
From God's perspective? Not anymore because Christ paid the penalty.
From the state's perspective? No, because I haven't committed any capital crimes.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
There is no difference between what God did with them and what HE chooses to do with today's governments.
I agree. So in accordance with Scripture, you and I are both guilty of murder. What's a legitimate punishment for us?
Nice try. But there is a stark difference between confining and killing. God didn't say "thou shall not confine".
The government can punish whomever they choose to punish in whatever manner they choose.
And we aren't talking just any vague punishment. We're talking about ending a life. And if you don't get that, you shouldn't ever mention anything about abortion.
Naah. It's cherry-picking alright.
Have you not the mind of Christ?
I haven't said the state couldn't sanction capital punishment.
I said Christians should not after the Cross.
No. Judgment upon the nation of Israel is a qualitatively different event.
Death, which is the penalty Christ paid for us.
He also didn't say, "Thou shalt not execute murderers." In fact, he actually did say to execute them.
Within reason. God's granting authority to governments is not carte blanche to support injustice.
It was just a reductio ad absurdum argument.
It's subjective, but it's not cherry-picking. I'm saying the the standard for capital punishment should be so high that the guilt of the criminal is beyond question.
I'm not sure what your point is. If you prefer that I clarify my statement, I have committed sins that would be worthy of death. However, those sins are covered because I have been justified. I no longer "deserve" death in a legal sense because the punishment has already been completed. If I were not justified, then I would indeed deserve death.
I don't know why the cross is the definitive factor here. God is the same God prior to the cross and after the cross. The message of the cross changes things for us, obviously, but I just don't see a solid New Testament case for not supporting capital punishment as an appropriate punishment for murder.
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if capital punishment were ended. I don't think Paul envisioned a requirement to have capital punishment in a society like ours.
If If I were on a jury, I'd probably vote against it in almost every case. (And possibly every case. I really am not sure how I would do with 100% certainty.) I don't "like" capital punishment, personally. I think life without parole is a better (and usually cheaper) punishment, but because Scripture affirms capital punishment as a function of the state, I can't reject its legitimacy.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Qualitatively, yes. Principle wise, nope.
So why would those who have been forgiven and given a reprieve from death advocate it for someone else who has committed, SCRIPTURALLY, the same sin?
Where does HE tell Christians to advocate executing them? Again, unless we are demanding the same thing for ourselves, we above all others should recognize the hypocrisy of such a stance.
I didn't say anything about supporting what they do. I said they can do what they want.
It's been 30 years since I took Latin.
It's crazy for Christians to support taking someone's life for doing the same thing that you and I do.
That's my point. You're supposed to think like Christ. And knowing that Christ has forgiven you for things equally worthy of death, what good sense would it make to advocate that same death for someone else?
As grace and mercy were extended to us, we should ALWAYS, when it comes to life and death, ask for grace and mercy for our neighbors.
The Cross is the definitive factor because Jesus Christ completed the Law on the Cross. They didn't have to stone each other anymore as HE demonstrated during His ministry.
The new way said that He wanted us to show mercy even as He did unto the thief. HE was pleading for mercy for us even as they hung Him on that Cross.
You don't see a solid NT case for why Christians who have been pardoned from death should not be advocating death for another?
We're talking past each other a bit, so what I will say is this---I'm not out there looking for blood. I'm not a fan of death. I wouldn't ask anyone to do what I wouldn't do myself, and I know I couldn't execute someone in my right mind.
I'm also not a fan of the death penalty for other reasons. One of the reasons I don't like the death penalty is the psychological effect it can have on the executioners (primarily) and the observers (secondarily).
If I could wave a magic wand, I'd eliminate the death penalty and replace it with life without parole. One reason for this is the disproportionate effect on minorities. The other is the possibility of conviction of the innocent. These factors are why I would otherwise raise a very high standard so that practically no one would be executed. The expense of the appellate process is another reason I'd drop the death penalty.
But I must, per Scripture, support the right of the state to institute capital punishment, even if as a matter of policy I would prefer an alternative.
I'm also not a fan of the death penalty for other reasons. One of the reasons I don't like the death penalty is the psychological effect it can have on the executioners (primarily) and the observers (secondarily).
If I could wave a magic wand, I'd eliminate the death penalty and replace it with life without parole. One reason for this is the disproportionate effect on minorities. The other is the possibility of conviction of the innocent. These factors are why I would otherwise raise a very high standard so that practically no one would be executed. The expense of the appellate process is another reason I'd drop the death penalty.
But I must, per Scripture, support the right of the state to institute capital punishment, even if as a matter of policy I would prefer an alternative.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Where have I said anything against a state's right to institute capital punishment? I've spoken about what Christians should not be advocating.
OK so Trump is hated within the establishment, but...
Not only is the system "rigged" you believe it should be "rigged" or some "reworking the rules" be done even more so that only the RNC power people get to choose the nominee like the DNC with "Super Delegates" or some other rigging system?
What's wrong with a raw popular count of the people, by the people for the people's nominee?
Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.
Abraham Lincoln
HankD