Stoning to death in the OT and the situation now after the NT.

[Jedidiah]

I'm one of those few American Christians, though, that also opposes capital punishment entirely. I believe that while a person is still alive they still have an opportunity to make Christ Lord, and that the death penalty removes that opportunity. But I understand that there are plenty who would disagree, and I don't think their arguments are entirely faulty.

Do you believe that by Capital Punishment we can override God's will as to the possible repentance of the individual executed? Does not said individual have full opportunity to repent and submit to Christ when ever he or she dies?

[Darth Executor]

but if Christ did not condone the stoning of the Woman caught in adultery, neither should we.

Christ had no legal authority to execute her.

[Littlejoe]

Christ had no legal authority to execute her.

Irrelevant. He was asked his opinion and he gave it. Also, as the Son of God, he had the authority to forgive sin which is well documented.

[Darth Executor]

Irrelevant. He was asked his opinion and he gave it.

It's not irrelevant, and He wasn't "asked His opinion", they were trying to get Him to break Roman law:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

If Jesus consented to the execution, He broke Roman law. If He didn't, He broke Jewish law. So Jesus came up with a way to avoid doing either. What you are saying is that we shouldn't lawfully execute adulterers because Jesus didn't lynch a woman.

Also, as the Son of God, he had the authority to forgive sin which is well documented.

Not disputed. Also not relevant to whether we should execute adulterers.

[DesertBerean]

I think that some have indicated that a reason to show that the Pharisee's weren't serious about what they trying to do. The old trstament law in regards to stoning did include the men as well in order to be stoned.

I was about to point this out...that according to Moses, BOTH the man and woman committing adultery were supposed to be stoned to death. Jesus would have been right to demand that the man be produced as well. But as someone here pointed out, the Jews weren't allowed to impose capital punishment. Jesus chose not to "rock the boat", so to speak. He instead went to the root of the problem... all have sinned, so all were guilty under the law. He chose to confound the hypocrisy of the accusers with their own affirmation of the law.

[Paprika]

Do you believe that by Capital Punishment we can override God's will as to the possible repentance of the individual executed?

Capital punishment is not necessarily in contradiction with God's will, and is often how His authority is discharged.

But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

[Paprika]

OK, I have a question in regards to this. It's a hypothetical. If a country were to pass laws upholding the laws in Leviticus in regards to stoning, what should a Christians take on this be?

Hypotheticals are not needed; Calvin's Geneva executed some adulterers, though stoning was not the means of death.

[Darth Ovious]

Hypotheticals are not needed; Calvin's Geneva executed some adulterers, though stoning was not the means of death.

OK, I think a few people have established that hypotheticals are not really needed but I'm asking what your view on it is. Would you be fine with it? or would you reject it because of reasons stated in the new covenant?

[Paprika]

OK, I think a few people have established that hypotheticals are not really needed but I'm asking what your view on it is. Would you be fine with it? or would you reject it because of reasons stated in the new covenant?

I don't see any reason stated in the new covenant to reject it.

[KingsGambit]

In 1 Corinthians 6:10-11, Paul saw the committers of what might have originally been capital crimes to be redeemable under the new covenant (homosexuals in particular). I've seen it argued that Paul only grudgingly accepted their non-execution under Roman law, but such a view hardly seems to do justice to the tenor of Paul's writings.

[KingsGambit]

This is an interesting excerpt from one of JP Holding's articles:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lawrole.php

Could we? No -- let's keep something in mind about the Law. Deuteronomy is laid out in the form of an ancient treaty between a king and his vassals. It is in essence a contract between God and Israel. They "signed on" and agreed to enforce the penalties.

What's the equivalent now? We now have a new covenant or contract between Christ and the individual and the believer. The sins are paid for by Christ's blood, and he takes on the punihsment for the trangression of those who break God's law and accept his payment. The old covenant and our enmity with it is now abolished (Eph. 2:15). The non-believer, the witch, et al. aren't covered by this, but nor does our new contract contain specifications of enforcement -- that is now God's domain, with regard to each individual, on the basis of the new covenant terms.

I leave it for others to flesh out whether, as written, this would seem to exclude Christian support for executing murderers (which I know he does not have in mind based on his writings elsewhere where he is clear this does not violate Christian ethics).

[Darth Ovious]

This is an interesting excerpt from one of JP Holding's articles:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lawrole.php



I leave it for others to flesh out whether, as written, this would seem to exclude Christian support for executing murderers (which I know he does not have in mind based on his writings elsewhere where he is clear this does not violate Christian ethics).

Thanks KG. I have to admit that some of J.P.'s work has kind of influenced what I viewed before I started this thread.

[Paprika]

This is an interesting excerpt from one of JP Holding's articles:

Which is no objection to a society making a social contract amongst itself that certain behaviours would receive certain punishments.

[Adrift]

Do you believe that by Capital Punishment we can override God's will as to the possible repentance of the individual executed?

I don't believe in unconditional election, if that's what you're asking.

Does not said individual have full opportunity to repent and submit to Christ when ever he or she dies?

Christ is the final arbiter, of course, but no, I don't think it's the case that one has the ability to repent and submit to Christ once they're dead. If so, then I question why anyone would need to evangelize when Christ can do it himself when a person dies.

[Darth Executor]

I don't believe in unconditional election, if that's what you're asking.



Christ is the final arbiter, of course, but no, I don't think it's the case that one has the ability to repent and submit to Christ once they're dead. If so, then I question why anyone would need to evangelize when Christ can do it himself when a person dies.

What if capital punishment would have forced an individual to face his sinful nature and by taking it off the table the individual never comes to Christ?