Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

 

That is a powerful statement Jesus made, and one that goes counter to a lot of our tendencies, but what exactly does mercy mean?

 

If an intruder breaks into my home with the intent to harm my family, what does mercy look like in that instance?

 

If a woman locks her kids in a car and then backs that car into a body of water, thereby drowning her kids, what does mercy look like in that situation?

 

I know those look like "gotcha" questions, but please believe me when I say that is not my intent.

Matthew 6:14-15

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses

 

John 8:3-11

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

 

Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

Matthew 26:52

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

 

Ezekiel 33:11

Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

 

Matthew 5:43-48

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

 

Romans 13:9

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

Ezekiel 33:14-19

Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he shall surely live. “Yet your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just,’ when it is their own way that is not just. When the righteous turns from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it.

 

Matthew 5:38-39

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

Acts 9:11-16

And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.” But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.

 

John 19:11

Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”

I'm not using OT Scriptures to justify the use of Capital Punishment today. I'm saying that there was clearly a point in history where God put a government in place (Israel) and He commanded that Capital Punishment be utilized.

 

It's not as clear in the New Testament, but I think a New Testament case (namely Romans 13) can be made for it.

 

 

If you use Rom 13 for Capital Punishment, you may have to use it to enforce other things that I don't believe God agreed with. (Slavery, Segregation, Abortion, et al) If the government is given authority for CP by that text, then it is likewise given authority in the other things as well if they are the law of the land.

Not meaning to pick Randy but God "allowed" for Capital Punishment. And if anything God wanted justice to be practiced. (See the Prophets) And as was evident in the fact that David did not get "the chair," nor did Absalom (Amnon's murder) and a host of other leaders - the practice of that punishment was far from the justice God envisioned.

 

I would add that under Jesus' description of "murder," (if you think it in your heart you are just as guilty) then we are all in need of the "needle." That's why Grace rules the day.

 

IMO, Paul's intent was to let the government govern, that is the role that God has given government. But it doesn't mean that God condones the actions of every government and that is especially true in dealing with items of justice. When the government stops practicing justice, it is the expectation of the people of God to challenge it.

 

I was waiting for your opinion on this, so I don't take it as picking. :thumb:

 

Question: Do you think justice sometimes requires the taking of life?

I'm against the death penalty in every possible way..morally, ethically, politically...any other -ly you've got.

 

I support the Catholic Church's position. The death penalty is not inherently immoral like abortion (despite what many Catholics believe the church teaches) but it is only moral when no other method is available to protect society. In the US, this would almost never happen. Our justice system and prison system are too solid. Now, in Mexico where Zeta's cartels are so well armed that there have been times where they have invaded prisons and released fellow Zeta's to put them back to work as killers, I think an argument could be made that execution may be able to be justified. In third world countries where war lords are sometimes as well armed as militaries, you may be able to argue for the death penalty.

If you use Rom 13 for Capital Punishment, you may have to use it to enforce other things that I don't believe God agreed with. (Slavery, Segregation, Abortion, et al) If the government is given authority for CP by that text, then it is likewise given authority in the other things as well if they are the law of the land.

 

So what, then, do you see being the meaning of Romans 13?

But there have been some.

 

True, just like people on death row. You're going to die, what additional punishment could be given to you should decide to kill a rival inmate? Somewhat similar to life in prison I assume.

I was waiting for your opinion on this, so I don't take it as picking. :thumb:

 

Question: Do you think justice sometimes requires the taking of life?

 

I would say anyone who has a sense of "Just War" theology and/or justice for certain crimes would agree there are times an moments when that is when Justice is served.

 

As for me and my faith, I have a problem with the Death Penalty because my aim as a Christian is not only justice but "redemption." My hope is that as long as life exists, Grace can win the day and Redemption is possible. The Death Penalty may "hasten" that decision or "cut it short." Because of this I believe that "justice" can be served through imprisonment and the hope is that "redemption" can take place in the life that is left.

 

Sounds like a political answer I know but it's the best I've got. I struggle with the application of what I am convicted by. My prayer is that God be found in what I do as much as what I say and because of that prayer I find it hard for me to sanction an execution as part of that.

 

I don't look down on others of faith or not of faith who feel differently. I just have a deep conviction that if I am to err, it should be on the side of mercy with the hope of redemption.

So what, then, do you see being the meaning of Romans 13?

 

To add to what Hatz says, I don't know if Rom 13 should be taken so widely to assume that unjust laws do not exist or should not be challenged. So I guess Rom 13 should be taken that the follower of Christ is obligated to obey the laws of a legitimate government (that could be difficult to define) but the follower is not obligated to the point of obeying unjust laws.

So what, then, do you see being the meaning of Romans 13?

 

Actually I believe Paul was trying to get the church to focus on faith and sharing Christ and leave the governing to the government.

 

But this is the dilemma of the church. I think of the Christians in the 30's and 40's in Germany that spoke out vs. the Nationalism of Fascism and paid the price for it. (Bonhoffer, Paul Schneider, among others) They struggled with the "sanction" of government in Romans 13 but determined that when the governing bodies practice evil, the Christian thing to do is resist and be prophetic.

 

I also think Paul is getting at the fact that we can not just disregard the role that government plays because God has designed humanity to have "administration" (i.e. government) not only so that anarchy does not rule the day but so that order can expand the hopes of God's Message. The "Pax Romana" was a huge benefit to Paul and the early church. It afforded the travel and sharing of the Christian faith in its formative centuries in a way that it could not have easily done without the Roman Control. It doesn't mean that what Rome did was all great, or even blessed by God but that the situation lent itself to aiding the growth of the church.

 

This is also the problem I see when the church tries to marry the government. (or vice versa) When that happens, the prophetic voice the church should bring is quieted and muffled. That's why I believe our founders saw the role of government as one of liberty so the churches could do what they were called to do, and the government provided justice and structure and freedom for all without entangling the two.

 

Sorry for the long answer and maybe even confusing one.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

 

#teamRandy

Actually I believe Paul was trying to get the church to focus on faith and sharing Christ and leave the governing to the government.

 

But this is the dilemma of the church. I think of the Christians in the 30's and 40's in Germany that spoke out vs. the Nationalism of Fascism and paid the price for it. (Bonhoffer, Paul Schneider, among others) They struggled with the "sanction" of government in Romans 13 but determined that when the governing bodies practice evil, the Christian thing to do is resist and be prophetic.

 

I also think Paul is getting at the fact that we can not just disregard the role that government plays because God has designed humanity to have "administration" (i.e. government) not only so that anarchy does not rule the day but so that order can expand the hopes of God's Message. The "Pax Romana" was a huge benefit to Paul and the early church. It afforded the travel and sharing of the Christian faith in its formative centuries in a way that it could not have easily done without the Roman Control. It doesn't mean that what Rome did was all great, or even blessed by God but that the situation lent itself to aiding the growth of the church.

 

This is also the problem I see when the church tries to marry the government. (or vice versa) When that happens, the prophetic voice the church should bring is quieted and muffled. That's why I believe our founders saw the role of government as one of liberty so the churches could do what they were called to do, and the government provided justice and structure and freedom for all without entangling the two.

 

Sorry for the long answer and maybe even confusing one.

 

Not confusing at all. I follow it. :thumb:

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

 

#teamRandy

 

 

:lol2:

I would say anyone who has a sense of "Just War" theology and/or justice for certain crimes would agree there are times an moments when that is when Justice is served.

 

As for me and my faith, I have a problem with the Death Penalty because my aim as a Christian is not only justice but "redemption." My hope is that as long as life exists, Grace can win the day and Redemption is possible. The Death Penalty may "hasten" that decision or "cut it short." Because of this I believe that "justice" can be served through imprisonment and the hope is that "redemption" can take place in the life that is left.

 

Sounds like a political answer I know but it's the best I've got. I struggle with the application of what I am convicted by. My prayer is that God be found in what I do as much as what I say and because of that prayer I find it hard for me to sanction an execution as part of that.

 

I don't look down on others of faith or not of faith who feel differently. I just have a deep conviction that if I am to err, it should be on the side of mercy with the hope of redemption.

 

Thanks for the answer. :thumb:

 

And I promise I'm not trying to be difficult, but as I see it, your reply (at least the very first part) would seem to validate what I have been trying to say--that one can find theological support for Capital Punishment. If we can find a theological foundation for a just war, where lives will surely be taken, is there not also such support for it on an individual basis?

 

When an enemy army invades a country/territory & takes innocent lives, how is that different from an individual invading a home and doing the same?

Not confusing at all. I follow it. :thumb:

 

Agreed. He put that very well - and for what it's worth, I'd have to agree with him.