Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16178 | ||
The terrorists who attacked two days ago were indeed extremely arrogant to believe that they had the right to end all of those lives. I completely agree with you that what they did was wrong, sinful, and will (barring true repentance) result in them spending eternity in hell. However, my point is that just because they sinned does not give us, as Christians, license to go against the will of God. I believe the death penalty to be wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. You also point out that the freedoms which I enjoy today were bought by the deaths of the people who have in the past tried to take it away. On the one hand, I have a great appreciation for their sacrifice. On the other hand, I feel that the cost was greater than the reward. I realise that by not defending my freedom (to the point of killing), I could end up losing it. However, I can't justify ending another person's life (and chance for redemption), just so that I can have the freedoms in this life that I so enjoy. Finally, I'd like to respond to is your point that we don't live in Utopia, and therefore my ideas just won't work. You imply that I am irrationally idealistic and optimistic, and you would not at all be the first or the last person to see me that way:) However, I believe that just becuase the world is not perfect, does not mean that we shouldn't do our part to live that way (as much as possible). I also believe that our actions should be based on what is right, not what is effective. We should not refuse to kill our enemies because we believe that they will stop on their own, or because we know that God will stop them for us (although this might happen). Instead we should refuse to kill our enemies because it is right, and be willing to live with the consequences. Once again, I would like to say that I understand that this is an issue which Christians can be and are on both sides of. I hope that through this thread people from both perspectives will be able to see each others interpretation of scripture which leads to their conclusions. P.S. Charis, you consistently share excellent posts with this forum. Therefore, I was dissapointed at your last statement, characterizing the belief of "free will" as putting salvation in the hand of humans own "whim and fancy". This is not at all a fair or accurate portrayal of the beliefs of a very large number of committed Christians. |
||||||
2 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | kalos | 16180 | ||
You write: "However, my point is that just because they sinned does not give us, as Christians, license to go against the will of God. I believe the death penalty to be wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right." I write: It is absurd to say that we as Christians do not have a license to go against the will of God, implying that capital punishment is not the will of God. You will find the will of God plainly revealed in His Word, the Bible. In plain, unambiguous language God taught both IN the Law and BEFORE the Law that "whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed." (What part of this do you not undestand?) Ceremonial law (sacrifices, purifications, etc.) may change from OT to NT. But, since it *was not* morally wrong to execute murderers, as commanded by God Himself, then it still is not wrong. Hel-lo? God's moral law never has changed and never will. The fact that you believe the death penalty to be wrong does not make it wrong. I base my beliefs not upon what Sir Pent says, but upon what the Bible says in plain, unambiguous language. It may be that it is time to put an end to this thread. No one can change your mind, and you cannot change what the Bible SAYS and MEANS. So what is the point of continuing this thread? |
||||||
3 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16191 | ||
My belief IS based on the Bible, Kalos, I understand that you think it is "absurd" to believe "that capital punishment is not the will of God". I also understand that you have a biblical basis for that belief (almost exclusively from the Old Testament). What I hope that you can begin to understand is that I too have a biblical basis (incorporating the Old and New Testaments) for my belief. The death penalty is not wrong because Sir Pent says it is. It is wrong because the Bible in it's entirety says that it is. I will attempt to (using many biblical passages) explain to you my reasoning for this belief. Let me begin by agreeing with you that in ancient Israel, it was right to kill people for certain reasons. For instance God specifically commanded stoning to death for certain sins (1 Samuel 15), and specifically commanded killing certain kings and enemy nations (Exodus 19:10-13). However, I the Bible also documents a fundamental change that occurred, which causes killing for any reason to no longer be an appropriate action. This fundamental change happended between Christ's death and resurrection. During that time, Jesus preached to all the people who had died before that time (1 Peter 3:19). Therefore, it seems that although the people in the OT were killed in the body, they still had a chance to later hear Christ's message to them. However, from that time on, people have had the opportunity to hear the message of salvation during this lifetime, so that when they die, their eternity is set (Hebrews 9:27). This is why I think that killing people now is so terrible. It not only kills their body, but also takes away any chance that they would later come to know Christ and be saved. I think that it is interesting and somewhat supportive that never in the NT is it presented as good for a human to kill someone. In fact the only times when death is seen as a good thing, it is done by God Himself or His angels. Some instances are Annanias and his wife Saphira (Acts 5:1-10), King Herrod (Acts 12:21-23). I want to close by just restating that the point I am making is that the system changed, not that God changed. (James 1:17) I think that the sacrificial system of the Old Testament is a good parallel. In the Old Testament it was not morally wrong to kill a sheep for the reason of cleansing of sin. However, there was a fundamental change in the system (Christ death once for all), which makes it now morally wrong for a Christian to go around killing sheep to cleanse themselves from sin. Of course, the change with regards to sacrifices is much more obvious in the Bible, and that's why we don't have modern Christians discussing it on internet forums. I believe it is because the change with regards to killing people is less obvious that there is such confusion today. |
||||||
4 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Morant61 | 16197 | ||
Greetings Sir! While I can respect your belief, I must say that it is based upon two assumptions about what the New Testament says, not on what the text actually says. 1) You have assumed that there has been a fundamental change, but there is not one text that says that. 2) You have assumed that the everyone who died in the OT times had the opportunity to accept Christ, most would argue that Christ only preached to the righteous who were in the paradise side of Sheol/Hades. Like I said, I would stand behind your right to reject the death penalty. But, I would not believe that one can make a moral case for that position from Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16212 | ||
Tim, While I, too, can respect your belief, I would have to disagree with your interpretation of the passage in 1 Peter, chapter 3. Verse 19 does not say Christ "preached to the righteous spirits", it just says He "preached to the spirits". That seems to be pretty all inclusive. Also if you look at the context of the next verse, it even seems to imply that Jesus specifically preached to the unrighteous, or those who were disobedient towards God. I would be surprised if most Christians would believe in the limited interpretation that you propose. It does not seem to match up at all with what the biblical context clearly seems to indicate. 1 Peter 3 18: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19: in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20: who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. |
||||||
6 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Morant61 | 16216 | ||
Greetings Sir! I hope you did not get the idea that I was being dogmatic about 1 Peter 3:18-20. My main point was that there is no clear reference to either of your assumptions in Scripture. Having said that, I did a little more reading on the passage. There are basically three differenct views on the passage, along with four imporant questions. The three views are: 1) Christ went to a place where evil spirits are impriosoned (whether up or down). 2) That Christ went to Hades and preached to OT saints or all OT people. The purpose was either to proclaim victory or to allow repentance. 3) That Christ preached through Noah to those who were alive before the time of the flood. The Questions are: 1) When did Christ go? Was it before or after His resurrection? 2) Where did Christ go? 3) To whom did Christ go? Does the term "disobedient spirits" refer to non-human evil spirits, to dead people, or to living people before the flood? 4) What did He preach? Was it the Gospel (the term isn't used here)? Was it simply an anouncement of victory? As these views and questions make clear, there is not established orthodox position concerning this passage. There are strong and weak points for each view. None of them answer all of the questions. For instance, if you see the passage as referring to all the dead, then why does v. 20 seem to limit it to those who did not obey during the days of Noah? I am not willing to say I am right or that you are wrong on this passage! There are simply to many questions. Either way though, nothing is said in this passage about the death penalty. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16347 | ||
Tim, After looking up "dogmatic" in the dictionary I found that it meant "dictorial". After looking up "dictorial" in the dictionary, I found that it meant a "total or absolute ruler". At that point I decided for sure that I did not find you last point to be dogmatic at all :) As for your comments on the passage in 1 Peter, I think that it's really not that complicated. I think that if a person just reads the verses below, it God?s message would be pretty obvious. However, I will try to respond to your points. You mentioned that there are three different views of these verses. 1. Christ went up or down. (I say it doesn't matter what direction He went) 2. Christ preached to Old Testament people. (I say that is correct) 3. Christ preached through Noah. (I say this goes against the passage clearly saying that Christ preached Himself, and if through anybody, it would be the Holy Spirit). You also mentioned that there are four different questions on these verses. 1. When did Christ go, before or after resurrection? (I say it doesn't matter, the point remains that he preached to the people who had died in the past) 2. Where did Christ go? (I say it doesn't matter, the point remains that he preached to the people who had died in the past) 3. Did Christ preach to people who died in the past or to demons? (I say that it is obvious in the passage that He preached to humans) 4. What message did Christ preach? (Although it is not difinatively stated, I think it is obvious from the context of verse 18 that this passage is talking about salvation, and would therefore have to assume that it is most likely that salvation was Christ's message) My overall point is that these "views" and "questions" are actually not a big deal at all. Let's just look at what the verses say, and add as little of our own interpretation as possible. I am not saying that you are doing that, just that the commentators that you quoted seem to be doing that. 1 Peter chapter 3 (I used NRSV last time, so this time I?ll quote NIV) 18. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19. through whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison 20. who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, |
||||||
8 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Morant61 | 16637 | ||
Greetings Sir! Thanks for your response! Allow me to address your comments! I believe that you have understated both the complexity and the importance of the issues surrounding this passage. You said: "1. When did Christ go, before or after resurrection? (I say it doesn't matter, the point remains that he preached to the people who had died in the past)" The question of when is important for the following reason. Most would say that Christ went to the "prison" while He was in the grave. However, if the passage is refering to an event that occured after the resurrection, the "prison" may be some place other than the abode of the dead. You said: "2. Where did Christ go? (I say it doesn't matter, the point remains that he preached to the people who had died in the past)" I contend that this is a vital question. If the "prison" refers to the abode of the dead, then obviously He preached to the dead. However, if the "prison" refers to some other place, then the audience may have been different. You said: "3. Did Christ preach to people who died in the past or to demons? (I say that it is obvious in the passage that He preached to humans)" However, it is not obvious that "spirits" refers to humans. You said: "4. What message did Christ preach? (Although it is not difinatively stated, I think it is obvious from the context of verse 18 that this passage is talking about salvation, and would therefore have to assume that it is most likely that salvation was Christ's message)" Again, the content of the message is not spelled out. My point isn't really to debate the meaning of the passage. I was simply making that case that there are several valid ways of looking at this passage. The main reason I got involved in this thread though was to ask for your Biblical basis for saying that there has been a change in status concerning the death penalty. Your assumption seems to be (correct me if I have misunderstood you) that God allowed it in the Old Testament simply because those who were killed would get a later chance at salvation, but now they won't, so God has changed His position on it. My contention is that this entire view is based upon a lot of assumptions that are not supported by Scripture for the following reasons: 1) The New Testament never condemns the death penalty. 2) There is no clear Scripture that indicates that the wicked in the Old Testament were given a second chance. While I can understand your thinking, I just don't see the Scriptural support for it. Please note that I am not critical of your personal position, just the Scriptural support for it. I believe that we all have the responsiblity, as I pointed out in my discussion with Nolan, to be passive in our personal relationships. However, I view the death penalty as a government right and responsiblity. Thus, while I may personally forgive someone who harms me or my family, though I do believe we have the responsiblity to protect our family to the best of our ability. No where in Scripture is the government given a command to forgive. It is the governments responsiblity to administer and enforce the law. So, while I don't have the right to administer the death penalty, except in self-defense of myself or my family, the government does. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16645 | ||
Dear Tim, You have some good points, and I agree that it is theoretically possible to interpret the passage in 1 Peter 3:18-20 differently than I suggest. However, I still think that the most common interpretation is also by far the most logical. Your questions 1 and 2 indicate that Jesus could have gone to a different prison than the one that the dead from the past were in. Once again, just looking at the verses, it says Jesus preached to "the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago ... while the ark was being built". I think it's safe to say that all the people who were alive when the ark was being built were dead. Your question 3 indicates that the "spirits" might not be human. I think there is a vast amount of Biblical support that angels and demons are not put into any kind of prison until the end of time. There are also numerous passages which refer to Hades/Sheol, and the people that have died inhabiting them while waiting for the judgement. It definately seems to be most logical that the "spirits" were the people who had died during Old Testament times. Your question 4 indicates that the message Christ preached is not clearly indicated. However verse 18 starts with "For Christ died for sins once for all", and verse 20 talks about the salvation of Noah and his family on the ark. "In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water." Based on the context that verse 19 is both preceeded and followed by verses about salvation, I would find it to be quite a stretch to assume Jesus message was about anything else. I guess to sum up, I agree that there could be other ways to look at this, but they just don't make much sense. I also want to say that I understand where you are coming from. If you don't find this passage to be convincing that Christ gave a second chance to the people who died before He came to die for our sins, then you would not see the change that I see between the Old and New Testaments. I also understand that you do not see any New Testament passage which specifically condemns the death penalty. Let me just share one more passage of scripture, 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 talks about how we should no longer fight wars like the rest of the world, yet in the Old Testament there are many times when God commands the Israelites to fight wars. I think this is another good example of a place that indicates that something big has changed. "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds." (2 Cor 10:3-4) |
||||||
10 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Morant61 | 16648 | ||
Greetings Sir! Thanks for your response my friend! Overall, I think a view similar to yours is most likely. I was simply trying to point out that it is a very difficult passage. Since it is such a debatable passage, I would be reluctant to build a major belief upon it. For instance, one problem with saying that it refers to all the dead is the point that you made concerning those spirits who were alive during the time of Noah. Why does he restrict it to just them? Why not all dead? I don't know! :-0 Concerning the possibility that their might be spirits imprisoned somewhere now, Jude 6 does support that possibilty. It says, "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day." 2 Peter 2:4 also supports this concept, " For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;" Apparently, some angels were so wicked that God imprisoned them. One of the newer views of the "prison" passages is that Christ went to were these angels are imprisoned and proclaimed victory to them. You mentioned 2 Cor. 10:3-4! This seems to be a reference to spiritual warfare, not necessarily an indication that war is no longer valid. Whether or not we totally agree on this issue, we can definitely agree that we need more peace in this world. That peace will have to come from Christians, since man in his depravity in incapable of achieving it. Your Brother in Christ (and fellow trekkie), Tim Moran |
||||||
11 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16653 | ||
Dear Tim, Thanks for pointing out those refs about angels in prison. I would have to agree with you that I suppose there are some there. Overall, it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject of the war and the death penalty. It's too bad though, because if one doesn't see that things have changed from the Old to New Testament in that area, then one has to come up with another explanation for why a loving and just God would command his people to go kill entire cities (including women and children). I of course have heard many explanations for this, and there's probably another thread on that already. But they all seem either arbitrary (which of course, God is entitled to be if He wants to) or Machievellian (sp?) in that "the ends justified the means" (preserving the purity of Israel justified the extermination of the contaminants in the land). However, that's a little outside the scope of this thread. When it all comes down to it, we do agree that we need more peace in the world, and the Jesus is the only way to get there completely. Live long and prosper :) |
||||||