- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (8/18)
- Next Post »A La Carte (8/19)
The Death Penalty on Trial
- 08/18/09
- 65
That the Bible advocates and even commands the enforcement of the death penalty seems almost like it should be beyond controversy. The dignity God gives to humans, created as they are in his image, demands the utmost penalty for those who would recklessly and deliberately destroy life. Yet controversy abounds with many of those who profess Christ insisting that a God of love and justice would never endorse the use of this ultimate human punishment.
Into the midst of this controversy wades Ron Gleason, pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Yorba Linda, California in his new book The Death Penalty on Trial. Written primarily for Christians, so they can support the death penalty and do so coherently from moral, historical and biblical perspectives, this book offers a thorough defense of the death penalty and a defense against the arguments, both secular and Christian, so often lodged against it. Gleason sets the book firmly in the context of church history, looking first to the death penalty in history and then in the history of the church, showing how through the years the majority of Christians have believed that the Bible gives license to the state to execute those guilty of murder. He looks as well to the Old and the New Testament. Though it is difficult to deny that God supports capital punishment in the Old Covenant, many Christians have argued that it should no longer apply in the New. Arguing straight from Scripture, Gleason shows convincingly that this is simply not the case--the New Testament assumes capital punishment and insists upon the right of those in authority to enforce it. The government, after all, (as we learn in Romans 13) does not bear the sword in vain, but is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Gleason dedicates a chapter to answering the objections of secularists and another to answer the objections of Christians (though, surprisingly, many of the objections are not far removed from one another). Writing as an American to a primarily American audience, he questions whether the death penalty can be considered cruel and unusual punishment and shows how the framers of the Constitution clearly believed in the capital punishment. He answers objections that the death penalty devalues human life (showing that, in fact, the opposite is the case) and that it has not been proven to be an effective deterrent (to which he responds, in part, that at the very least it is a deterrent to the one who has been executed). When looking to the arguments of Christians he answers objections that Jesus' new ethics removed the need for the death penalty, that those who are forgiven by Christ ought to be forgiven by men and that the death penalty is an affront to God's justice. In each case he answers well from Scripture or from plain reason. It bears mention here that Gleason is Presbyterian and at times his book is a little more Presbyterian-friendly than Baptist-friendly. This is to say that he would acknowledge a level of continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament that many Baptists might deny. But though this may affect one or two of his arguments, it certainly does not detract much from the power of his arguments.
A theme that runs throughout the book is this: all murder is killing but not all killing is murder. Thus a person who murders another can be justly executed by the governing authorities without multiplying the evil. To kill a murderer is not to commit another murder. Rather, terrible though it is to have to take a life, it is an act of justice and a fitting penalty for one who would destroy a person made in God's image.
This is the first book I've read by Gleason, an old family friend and my former pastor from his years ministering here in the Toronto area. I was impressed with the logic and the fluidity of his writing as well as with the power of his arguments. The book is well-researched and well-documented, drawing from a wide range of sources. And though, as a scholar, Gleason could easily have written an academic treatise, this book is suitable for the rest of us. His argument are as easy to follow and digest as they are to read. Though it deals with a niche topic, this book deals with an important one and I commend it to you.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (65)
It is clear in Scripture that the government does bear the sword to preserve justice. One concern though, is that American courts are notoriously fallible. In situations where someone is convicted of a crime they did not commit, the government is no longer preserving justice, but perpetuating injustice. It could be argued that taking a life without cause is the ultimate injustice (in human terms) therefor the State should not take a life since it its courts are so fallible.
I am personally not opposed to the death penalty, but I don't have a clear answer to this argument. Does Gleason touch on it any?
Gary,
He does touch on this. Essentially his answer is that Old Testament courts were also fallible and God continued to insist on using the death penalty. It may not be the answer people want, but it strikes me as legitimate, at the very least.
I know this is a book review, so if this touches on stuff it shouldn't, please delete the comment. No harm done. I just have thoughts, that's all.
While I don't think that God is an unjust God, he isn't unmerciful either. I'm pretty sure that I should have been put to death, according to Levitical code, long ago and that wasn't even for murder! Therefore, what laws are believers considering to be condemnable to death? Just murder? Murder and rape? Or the entire law in the Old Testament, since that is where many of American Evangelical reasons for the death penalty come from.
Furthermore, like the commenter above, our court system is fallible. On top of that, America is not a theocracy. Therefore, honestly, Biblical code that we may believe in might not hold sway here.
It still goes back to the mercy part though. Were it not for the blood of Christ, you and I would be in the same position. If I refuse to believe that my sin is as punishable by hell as the murderer, then I would need to read the Bible again.
It seems to me that the continuity between Old and New Testaments Gleason sees as a Presbyterian would significantly impact the argument of his book. (I haven't read it, and Tim has, so I'm no authority here.) Dan (#3) raises an excellent question: what is the basis for which crimes are punishable by death, and which aren't? The OT standard was much lower than murder. And doesn't the fact that OT Israel was a theocracy make a difference in questions of civil government?
The "sword" in Rom. 13 shouldn't be understood as necessarily indicating the death penalty. It could just as easily represent punishment and penal intervention in general.
Tim, I haven't read the book so my statement here is not directed at Gleason's material, but rather at your review: As a committed, conservative, Reformed Christian who is less certain about this issue than some, I would appreciate a less dogmatic, "this-is-so-obvious" attitude in your addressing of the issue. You opened the review declaring that this issue "should be beyond controversy," and I find that discussions that begin with such a rigid disposition generally don't lead to productive places, but make people on the other side of the issue defensive at the start. Just my 2 cents.
Most of my life I had been in favor of the death penalty. Now I am not so much in favor. Too often now sentences have been overturned due to DNA testing. Death Row is predominantly African-American. The poor do not have access to good representation. Even today I am pulled both ways.
A member of our church was on a jury of a murder trial, he voted in favor of death. Our church is Anabapist, a peace church, and the member I would be sure would have been against death. But I guess being on the jury makes you see things different. The convicted was white, and he appealed direct to the US Supreme Court yesterday, 5-4 against him, so wealth and race were not issues here.
This update: "Thirty-three-year-old Jason Getsy was pronounced dead at 10:29 a.m."
I'm not convinced that in the light of the new testament we can either condone or condemn the death penalty. It is a state issue. I am from the UK, and I have no desire for the death penalty to be reinstated, but I don't particularly have any problem with other countries having it as long as it is administered as justly as humanly possible. Rom 13 seems to justify it, but not command it.
If we are taking OT law to justify it, then we shouldn't limit it to murder, don't forget:Rebellious ChildrenBlasphemersHomosexualsAdulterersetc etc....
"To kill a murderer is not to commit another murder."
Amen.
I'd like to get this book.
There are times justice is called for. A man who rapes and tortures a young girl, and then kills her, should he not be put to death. He took her right to life away. I believe he just forfieted his. And he won't be tortured, and raped, but simply put to sleep with a needle. And he will be given the right ot make his peace with the Lord, and call upon a minister of the Word.
The death penalty is good, and very biblical.
Dan,
It is not the state's job to be merciful. It is the state's job to ensure justice. From a biblical perspective and an American perspective. So to argue against the death penalty you would need to demonstrate why it is unjust.
I would echo the comments by Dan, Kyle & ianmcn, namely if one is going to argue in favour of the death penalty from the OT, for what offense(s) would it apply?
What would Jesus have to say about this?
Nick,
It goes back again to the difference between the state and God. It has been pointed out already that there are no theocracies anymore. The state isn't supposed to ensure justice for God. It is supposed to ensure justice amongst its members. Putting a homosexual, or any sinner, to death would justice as it pertains to God (thus he could justly impose such policies among the Israelites)...but not as it relates to the relationship between the government and its members. Therefore there is no biblical warrant for the death penalty for homosexuals/rebellious kids in a non-theocracy. However, operating under the idea that the state's role is to ensure justice for its members, the death penalty for murderers would still be necessary.
There's a quick, not very thorough answer.
joey, I think you make a good, pragmatic argument, but I'm still not convinced it's one that can be clearly supported biblically. As far as I see it, the only clear commandments for putting someone to death for a crime/sin is from the OT, and then you really have to include them all. It is up to an individual state to decide whether or not the death penalty plays a part in their (God ordained) system of justice and what crimes deserve it.
Jeff, Jesus would say that while His justice will be fulfilled finally, perfectly and to our minds, quite messily (Rev 14:19-20), it it His will that His justice still be done by the intermediary means He sets up and tears down (i.e. governments). We must not forget that the Jesus who had little children on His knee and would not break a bruised reed (Isa 42:3) is the same Jesus who will mercilessly slaughter millions (if not billions) on that fateful Day, whose blood will run in rivers, doling out to every unbeliever exactly what they deserve.
ianmcn,
Thanks...pragmatic arguments are fun, but certainly no good if they can't be demonstrated as biblical. Do you agree with the premise that one of the primary roles of government, from a biblical perspective, is to ensure justice?
If the government is supposed to carry out God's justice and wrath through the death penalty and other means, it seems to me that biblically speaking, the death penalty can be sufficiently argued to apply to any sin, to whatever extent the government decides is just. It is up to individual governments set up and torn down by God to judge what is a just and pragmatic use of the death penalty in their widely differing societies (some theocratic, others secular, etc...).
"..and then you really have to include them all." -ian
Why is that?
A friend and i have been in debate on this issue for the last month now, he arguing for, myself arguing against. We are Canadians and Canada does not have the death penalty as a method of punishment for the courts to use. If we did, i don't think i would oppose it, but the question is should Christians seek it? My argument is, how can we try to see one aspect of the law brought into effect without the whole law being upheld, as Paul points out in Galatians 5. Because logically we must conclude that if we are going to support the death penalty for murder, we must also support the death penalty for all of the other sins which the law says warrant sin, such as adultery, cursing parents, homosexuality, sorcery, using the Lord's name improperly, kidnapping, incest. Unless a person is prepared to fight for the whole law, they had best not fight for part of the law.
Also too, Jesus is merciful to the woman caught in adultery, and God is merciful to Cain who kills his brother Abel. I don't believe that the only just solution must be death all the time. you can read some of my more detailed arguments on my blog
Brett,
I mean this as an honest question....
You feel as if your interpretation of Revelation supersedes all of Jesus' teaching and Jesus' example set forth in the rest of the New Testament?
I personally feel all four Gospels are in direct opposition to the argument you laid out from two verses in Revelation. If that is too broad of a scope, I will simply set forth the Sermon on the Mount as an example.
To those arguing that if we base the support for the death penalty then we need to impose that penalty for other crimes such as blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, etc, does Genesis 9:6 make any difference to the argument?
Genesis 9:6 was not a specific command given to ethnic Israel. But rather it seems to be a much more overarching principle. Do you agree or disagree?
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Study+Guide+Chapter/45-100
Jeff said..."What would Jesus have to say about this?"
He outlined in the bible very clearly what He has said about this. It's just a matter of submission.Read through the link I provided, if you disagree with the verses provided, then your objection is with God. Sometimes we have to submit whether we like it or not, and if we don't like it, maybe we have a poor understanding of the true nature and character of God, and thus need to repent of our sin and submit to Christ(God) and what He has said throughout scripture.
Remember the whole bible is red letter, not just parts of the new testament.
Joey, Do you agree with the premise that one of the primary roles of government, from a biblical perspective, is to ensure justice?
Yes, I do believe that. I also believe that it is their prerogative to have a death penalty. What I do not believe is that Christians can argue that the death penalty is biblically commanded (which seems to be what some are arguing here) for the sin of murder.
ianmcn said
"As far as I see it, the only clear commandments for putting someone to death for a crime/sin is from the OT, and then you really have to include them all. It is up to an individual state to decide whether or not the death penalty plays a part in their (God ordained) system of justice and what crimes deserve it."
Sean said
"If the government is supposed to carry out God’s justice and wrath through the death penalty and other means, it seems to me that biblically speaking, the death penalty can be sufficiently argued to apply to any sin, to whatever extent the government decides is just. It is up to individual governments set up and torn down by God to judge what is a just and pragmatic use of the death penalty in their widely differing societies (some theocratic, others secular, etc...)"
"My argument is, how can we try to see one aspect of the law brought into effect without the whole law being upheld, as Paul points out in Galatians 5. Because logically we must conclude that if we are going to support the death penalty for murder, we must also support the death penalty for all of the other sins which the law says warrant sin, such as adultery, cursing parents, homosexuality, sorcery, using the Lord’s name improperly, kidnapping, incest. Unless a person is prepared to fight for the whole law, they had best not fight for part of the law."
All of those arguments are ignoring the fact that no one who is pro death penalty is defending it by saying its because God told Israel specifically to impose the death penalty. Unlike all the other sins mentioned, there is a specific principle of justice that is stated in the bible for why government should impose a death penalty in the case of murder, every time.
Eye for an eye. This is not the way Christians relate to each other, but in the governments case, it has to be impartial. That is the point. The minute is starts doling out punishment that is less than just it is not doing its job. This doesn't mean that all sins aren't deserving of death...as it relates to God...but obviously, at least I hope its obvious, not all sin is equally deserving of punishment as it relates to anybody other than God.
Now to determine what is exactly just for each crime as it relates to the government/member relationship...its not exactly clear in every case...but it is clear in the case of murder. Gen 9:6 makes it very clear. The only fitting punishment for destroying an image bearer...is to be destroyed.
ianmcn,
Ok that helps me understand you thanks.
Paul says the law is good, holy and spiritual. It's a good guide for us. Paul says the law is unlawful people. Paul goes to the law quite a bit.
The law says "a life for a life". So if someone murders, then that someone forfeits his life. Seems like a good law from our Lord.
Peter says: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good."
The Emperor's governors punished murders how?
The death penalty is a horrible thing to have to have in place. But God knew He needed it in place for His beloved Israel, how much more for nations. Where else will they understand how to judge evil and criminals if not from God's truth?
The Bible clearly states that death for the wicked is sometimes appropriate. And when someone is condemned to death we should be sad in one sense, but also glad that justice has been done.
I must agree with ianmcn on this one... If you're going to say things like "the Bible advocates and even commands the enforcement of the death penalty" in defense of capital punishment for committing murder, then you must also support the same penalty for "Rebellious Children, Blasphemers, Homosexuals, Adulterers, etc."
donsands, don't you see the reasoning going on here?1. If the bible advocates/commands the death penalty for a crime, then the death penalty should be issued by the state.2. Murder is such a crime.3. Conclusion: the death penalty should be issued against murderers by the state.
The same logic flows for other offenses. Simply replace premise #2 with the other offenses listed above. They're all clearly described in the OT law.
Paul nailed it.
The death penalty was instituted for murder before the Law was given. As one who feels the entire OT Law was fulfilled and abolished by Christ, I see Rom. 13 as reaffirming the right of government to put people to death and look to Gen. 9:6 as a timeless principle that murderers deserve death.
The other OT crimes deserving of death (homosexuality, etc.) therefore do not apply.
I get tired of people invoking Romans 13 in this case since that passage seems so clearly to be descriptive rather than normative. Paul is saying you will be in trouble with the state if you break the laws of the state and anyway God allows the state to exist. (How could it exist otherwise?)
There has been no death penalty in Canada for several decades yet our murder rate is lower than that of the US (a socioeconomically similar society) and has continued in a long-term downward trend. If the Canadian system seems to be working better than a comparable system that does have the death penalty, should it not continue in the same fashion if, after all, the goal is justice?
Not having completely researched the issue, I would be surprised if anyone could draw an iron clad argument from scripture that believers are enjoined to influence their governments to adopt (or retain) capital punishment. As in, "you're sinning if you oppose the death penalty".
The same is true in the opposite direction. I can't see an iron clad argument for the idea that believers are enjoined to influence their governments to avoid capital punishment.
Personally, I'm inclined to err on the side of mercy given God will ultimately judge every man or woman and given that I, like every death row inmate, am also deserving of death.
Why are you people makeing such a confusing mess of scripture, it's pretty clear, leave your theology and presuppositions at the door when you open your bible. This has never really been an issue in the history of the church other than the last 60 years.
I always find it amazing when people stand and presume that this generation has FINALLY figured it all out, and every other generation (reformed, puritan, early church fathers) all got it wrong, as though we are so much smarter, wiser, or holier then them.
I know this sounds rather harsh, but I mean really....who do we think we are makeing the bible mean and say what we want and need it to say to support our opinions. Yikes!
Obviously this is a touch issue. I have heard arguments on both sides of the coin. It seems that many liberals ranging from movies (Dead Man Walking) to books (The Chamber by John Grisham) want to deal with the issue. It is good to see a Christian perspective on the death penalty. Thanks Tim for the review. I hope to get the book soon.
Support for the death penalty for murder should be based on the command given to Noah, Genesis 9:6 only. Trying to base it on the New Testament is based on the "Christian nation" covenant theology doctrines that James 4:4 specifically rejects. Now Genesis 9:6 was given to the entire human race, so the entire human race - including all governments - must respect it or come under judgment. However, basing it on the Old Testament law is trying to pretend that the old covenant was never broken by Israel and superseded by the new covenant, and it is trying to put Christians (and non-Christians) under bondage to the law whose curse is death. Christians are pilgrims. We are in the world not of it, and our job is to preach the gospel, not trying to cram our morality down the throats of the unregenerate, especially if that morality is Old Testament morality when Christians are supposed to be living by the Sermon on the Mount and the New Testament epistles to begin with. Jesus Christ came to save souls, not nations or cultures. Jesus Christ did not die on a cross in order to wax the floors and polish the doorknobs on a ship that is sinking anyway. When will these people acknowledge that the idea that the church should join with the state to impose Old Testament law on people never existed in church history until Constantine, over 300 years after the time of Christ? Take away the church-state idea and the Old Testament law returns to the purpose that the Bible says: a schoolmaster to point us to Christ and that which convicts sinners of their need for the gospel.
"..given that I, like every death row inmate, am also deserving of death." -JPH
really? Did you murder someone?
"The same logic flows for other offenses. Simply replace premise #2 with the other offenses listed above. They’re all clearly described in the OT law." -robut
Amen. I'm good with this, because God is good with this. God's law is holy, good, and spiritual. I'm not one to knock His law.
But you seem to think we shouldn't be killing murders. Is that what you think robut?
Sorry, "Trying to base it on the New Testament”" should have been "trying to base it on the Mosaic law."
Curtis #29:
Should I point out other things Christendom has historically not had a problem with that, presumably, you reject? How about "killing blasphemers"? How about "enslaving nonbelievers"?
Job #31:
Amen.
donsands #32:
You ask "really? Did you murder someone?" In the Matthew 5 sense, very much so.
Also, to be clear, in your response to robut you're advocating the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery and blasphemy. Is that correct?
"But you seem to think we shouldn’t be killing murders. Is that what you think robut?"
donsands: While I haven't sorted through the complex social and ethical issues that would make me comfortable with a decision either way, I definitely do not think that the OT law or even Gen 9:6 is sufficient for ongoing support of the death penalty in the modern world.
"Also, to be clear, in your response to robut you’re advocating the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery and blasphemy. Is that correct?"
One thing is for sure, God advocated it. That's crystal clear.
Why do you think God gave the command to kill these sinners?
"You ask “really? Did you murder someone?” In the Matthew 5 sense, very much so." -JPH
So you think people should be incarcerated for hating people? And then put on death row?
"I definitely do not think that the OT law or even Gen 9:6 is sufficient for ongoing support of the death penalty in the modern world."-robut
fair enough.
Lord bless and keep you.
For those citing Gen 9:6 as a timeless principle not affected at all by the ministry and teaching of Jesus, I have this question for you: Jesus' blood was shed at the hands of men, (theologically, you and me) that death represented all of our sins - so even if we haven't committed murder in the literal sense, spiritually we all contributed to the murder of Christ through our sins. Yet for those of us who have repented and turned from our former ways, far from finding ourselves under the penalty of death, have been granted eternal life. Does this not have any bearing on the issue?
J.P.H.Are you referencing Catholic religion when you say "Christendom", if you are, that's a different religion, they don't even have justification right, they are not Christian, though a few within may have it right, but that remains to be seen. My wife was saved out of Catholisism several years ago, she'd be the first to say it is false and demonic, even though her mother is still ensnared. Sad but true.
ianmcnWe died with Christ.
ianmcn,
By your reasoning then, should there be no punishment for murder at all? If we can't impose the death penalty based on the fact that we all murdered Christ...then by that same token, we can't really even incarcerate anyone either, because then we would have to incarcerate ourselves. No one is saying that we are not equally guilty before God, but that has nothing to do with the enforcement of punishment for crimes. As a Christian we recognize that we are no better than the murderer, but we also realize that when you commit a crime, it can't go unaccounted for.
joey, By your reasoning then, should there be no punishment for murder at all?
By the church, no. By the state, yes. As I've explained before, I am reasonable ambivalent regarding the death penalty as such (I would neither fight for it or against it), what I do not believe is that scripture can be rightly used to either fight for or against state instituted death penalty. As Dan points out above, Romans 13 is descriptive, not normative.
Curtis, ok - you got me there. Perhaps not the best argument.
One thing is for sure, God advocated it. That’s crystal clear. Why do you think God gave the command to kill these sinners?
Yes, God did advocate it. Because he was setting apart Israel as a holy nation; a beacon to the other peoples that surrounded it. But you still didn't answer my question. Do you advocate the death penalty for those practices today? So you think people should be incarcerated for hating people? And then put on death row?
No, I don't think that. But, like those who have murdered, I am just as deserving of eternal death. Are you referencing Catholic religion when you say “Christendom”
No. Just "Christian cultures" in general. For instance, protestants in Calvin's day clearly had no problem with burning heretics. Do you think we should burn heretics today?
J.P.H. said..."For instance, protestants in Calvin’s day clearly had no problem with burning heretics. Do you think we should burn heretics today? "
I don't doubt some who attatch themselves to Christianity have commited much evil in the name of Christ, and some even today sin grievously, but can you site a reference where they had "no problem" burning heretics, that's a rather foolish comment.
No I don't think heretics should be burned, at least not in this life, they should be reproved, rebuked, and exposed and shut out of the church and roles of leadership, not aloud to teach in Christian churches. We know God has reserved a more severe punishment for those who lead Gods people into sin, they will have their day before the Lord, vengence belongs to the Lord. But we must pray for false teachers, that they may repent of their sin, and come to Christ. Honestly, I think we should all be burned alive forever, that's what God says, but thank God for free grace, and His saving hand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gub5uaiT3fo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eyoutube%2Ecom%2Fuser%2Fillbehonest&feature=player_profilepage
"Do you advocate the death penalty for those practices today?"
If a nation had the law of God set forth as god gave it to Moses, and this nation lived by these holy laws, then God would be pleased, for it is His law that is holy, good, and spiritual.
Is there a different way God is working in the world today? Yes He is, but His law is good and perfect.
When He says to kill someone, then that is holy, good and spiritual.
And there are laws God will always have within this world.
From an early commet by me: --Peter says: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.”
The Emperor’s governors punished murders how?--
I would say there's no doubt they were killed.
And, one more thought, in this world when people are judged by other people, we are so tainted that our judgments will never be perfect, or even close.
I look to God's law. It's His truth we can lean on. Yes it was for His people Israel, but it's still holy, good, and spiritual.
I think we lean toward thinking killing some one who curses his parents is absurd, don't we. But God says it's holy, good, and spiritual, and He commends it, though of course He certain doesn't take pleasure in the death of wicked people.
can you site a reference where they had “no problem” burning heretics
Calvin certainly thought it was appropriate. He even wrote a treatise defending the practice. From what I've read, this view seems to have been fairly normative among everyday Christians at the time. Way back in comment #29 you seemed to criticizing who "suddenly" feel that they've somehow "figured out" a given moral or theological issue that has, historically been considered fairly "settled". The implication is that the modern questioners are acting arrogantly when they presume to overturn tradition. In mentioning the burning of heretics, I'm trying to point out that not all established traditional beliefs are, in fact, correct or worth defending.
If a nation had the law of God set forth as god gave it to Moses
I'd really just like to hear a "yes" or "no". If there were a national referendum on whether those found guilty of homosexuality (or adultery, or blasphemy...) should be executed, would you vote "yes" or "no"?
Can you direct me toward what Calvin wrote stating that burning heretics was appropriate. I've been working through his commentaries, and have started reading the Institutes of Christian religion, and several other small writtings, but have not yet come accross this. Who published the treatise, as I can't find it. I do know he sought mercy for a heretic, on at least one occasion, after much pleading for repentance. Furthermore I know he prayed much like David did in the Psalms for the destruction of the wicked, and for true repentance to come upon those opposed to the Gospel. How is that wrong?
From what I've read of Calvin, so far, I can't see him having "no problem" killing heretics. Could you perhaps be embelishing the facts a little?
"I’d really just like to hear a “yes” or “no”. If there were a national referendum on whether those found guilty of homosexuality (or adultery, or blasphemy...) should be executed, would you vote “yes” or “no”?"
How about if there were a referendum to inact the whole law of God our Creator into the law books? I would vote yes. For the whole law of God is holy and good. It is also spiritual.But I never would divorce it from the Gospel. The good news of Jesus Christ.
As the Apostle quites the OT to Timothy: "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." 1 Tim. 1:8-11
And another thought hit me. Why doesn't Israel inact their biblical laws, since they reject Christ? The nation of Israel surely could live by the law of God, and should, since they are still waiting for the Messiah.
Can you direct me toward what Calvin wrote stating that burning heretics was appropriate.
Check out "Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra Trinitate, contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti Hispani". I haven't read the text, but its cited multiple places as being Calvin's "defense" of the decision to execute Servetus for heresy.
How about if there were a referendum to inact the whole law of God our Creator into the law books? I would vote yes.
So you would put homosexuals to death. Got it.