The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[eider]

Theocracy is "rule by God", making God the government, and humans the citizens.

And no, it wasn't written for a theocracy. It was written for a monarchy (law for the king to keep a copy of the law on him; God doesn't need to keep a copy of the law, because He revealed them).



And I'm asking WHICH of those laws tells the government to take money from the citizens to give to the poor?

Answer: NONE.

Not one of the poor/needy laws tell the government to take money from the people in the nation (including those who work for the government) and give it to the poor. The laws are for the individual to follow.

That's just not correct.
The Laws in the first five books were not for Kings, but for a people.
I find it extremely strange that a person is prepared to pay up for vast military strength, for law forces, for many public services, for education etc but who tries to evade or avoid following laws from the same bible that demand that you will support the poor, lend to the poor, not press the poor under duress and much more.

It's just extreme cherry-picking, I think. This rejection of written laws to suit one's taste seems to be a kind of anarchy. I don't think you judge rightly at all. :idunno:

 

[eider]

The point again was 'taxes' vs giving. I don't neglect the poor but again, how would you know? God knows, but how would you or I know if someone saw someone who was poor and in need?

It's not about 'giving' as in charity. It's about a Law that requires, demands, orders that a people will follow certain disciplines. You surely can't quote one set of laws which you want to follow and then dodge and duck one that you don't?

Inductive or deductive on these?

Ducking?

1) The Law was talking about sharing crops and clothes, not money. 2) If we were Jews today, we might need to think about cash, but we need to accurately figure out what is applied to Christians. 3) It seems, to me, we are a little off the OP, but I am interested in where you are headed and how it might more directly apply. For me, this part of the conversation was to contest exactly how taxes are applied to a people and my analysis leads me to believe that scriptures for Christians talk about giving and not about tithing. There would have been no need for Paul to ever be a tent-maker if tithing was directly applied to the church. Btw, I'd think God can do whatever He wants with 10%. I'm not really against that, but against thing out of balance. The scriptures about giving first to the church, before taking care of your family, for instance, is important to my understanding. I've had pastors try to tell me "No! That's over and above your tithe!" Seems almost identical to what the Pharisees contested and so I began really questioning what was biblical and what was pharisaical at the time. ]1 Timothy 5:8[/URL]

The law was about giving up VALUE because most exchanges were in kind.
I was quoting from a set of laws which Christians will rush to when it suits them, but who retreat to the NT when they don't want to do something that is required in the OT.
The laws were written down in the bible......... why would Christians support the war machines and law forces etc but discard the cohesion of 'everybody will be looked after'?

 

[glorydaz]

That's just not correct.
The Laws in the first five books were not for Kings, but for a people.
I find it extremely strange that a person is prepared to pay up for vast military strength, for law forces, for many public services, for education etc but who tries to evade or avoid following laws from the same bible that demand that you will support the poor, lend to the poor, not press the poor under duress and much more.

It's just extreme cherry-picking, I think. This rejection of written laws to suit one's taste seems to be a kind of anarchy. I don't think you judge rightly at all. :idunno:

Demand is not a part of the Gospel of Grace.

 

[eider]

Demand is not a part of the Gospel of Grace.

Mandatory laws are Demands.
If you support Paul's Gospel of Grace, then I won't ever see you ducking back in to the OT to press for various executions.

And if you support the Gospel of Grace, then I'd expect you to live with grace. I've never seen much of that in you.

 

[Lon]

It's not about 'giving' as in charity. It's about a Law that requires, demands, orders that a people will follow certain disciplines. You surely can't quote one set of laws which you want to follow and then dodge and duck one that you don't?

No, I agree. The difference here is that one is a law to be followed, the other is a guideline to be incorporated into one's life to please his/her Lord.
The Law is about conforming to Christ. The other is about benefitting people, either by choice or coercion and is not about changing one's morality.

Ducking?

Iow, are you reading from scripture or into it? I'm seeing disparagement between what Scripture says, and what you are saying on a couple of them.

The law was about giving up VALUE because most exchanges were in kind.
I was quoting from a set of laws which Christians will rush to when it suits them, but who retreat to the NT when they don't want to do something that is required in the OT.

You do the same. When is the last time you stoned a homosexual to death? It is important to realize you are not under the Law, but under the motivation of love and grace, in Christ.

The laws were written down in the bible......... why would Christians support the war machines and law forces etc but discard the cohesion of 'everybody will be looked after'?

The difference here, is that the tithe was very very different from taxes. This discussion is about how taxes should work, how they should be enforced etc. My point in entering thread was simply to question whether you can use any scripture in support of taxes. I don't think we 'render unto an American Caesar, the government, what is government's. We are the government (by and for the people) in these united states. Again, where Town and I disagree, is in a way, he believes in an oligarchy where the 'smarter' or more 'legally minded' run this country. :nono: I disagree. Jesus said the greater is the servant. Government agents everywhere are servants hired by me and you. They, are the hired hands. We do need to pay wages (taxes) but only in as much as they are serving well. We should be able to fire them. Some of our government regulations, like a lifetime appointment for SCOTUS, need to be rethought as to whether they are actually serving us well or not (imho).

The bottom line? I tend to disagree with those who try to equate scriptural directives across-board, without the necessary exegesis and proper interpretation THEN proper application of any given scripture. More often than not, we don't directly apply O.T. directives. We rather, learn a principle in a broader sense, and learn to appreciate that principle. Another example: We recognize the requirement of sacrifice and cost regarding sin. It'd be VERY wrong to make a sacrifice today. As I said, even you understand some O.T. you simply do not and cannot follow.

 

[ok doser]

When is the last time you stoned a homosexual to death?

you'll probably have to press him, but i'd like to see him answer this one

 

[genuineoriginal]

Mandatory laws are Demands.
If you support Paul's Gospel of Grace, then I won't ever see you ducking back in to the OT to press for various executions.

And if you support the Gospel of Grace, then I'd expect you to live with grace. I've never seen much of that in you.

Without the death penalty, the Gospel of Grace is meaningless.

 

[eider]

No, I agree. The difference here is that one is a law to be followed, the other is a guideline to be incorporated into one's life to please his/her Lord.
The Law is about conforming to Christ. The other is about benefitting people, either by choice or coercion and is not about changing one's morality.


Iow, are you reading from scripture or into it? I'm seeing disparagement between what Scripture says, and what you are saying on a couple of them.



You do the same. When is the last time you stoned a homosexual to death? It is important to realize you are not under the Law, but under the motivation of love and grace, in Christ.



The difference here, is that the tithe was very very different from taxes. This discussion is about how taxes should work, how they should be enforced etc. My point in entering thread was simply to question whether you can use any scripture in support of taxes. I don't think we 'render unto an American Caesar, the government, what is government's. We are the government (by and for the people) in these united states. Again, where Town and I disagree, is in a way, he believes in an oligarchy where the 'smarter' or more 'legally minded' run this country. :nono: I disagree. Jesus said the greater is the servant. Government agents everywhere are servants hired by me and you. They, are the hired hands. We do need to pay wages (taxes) but only in as much as they are serving well. We should be able to fire them. Some of our government regulations, like a lifetime appointment for SCOTUS, need to be rethought as to whether they are actually serving us well or not (imho).

The bottom line? I tend to disagree with those who try to equate scriptural directives across-board, without the necessary exegesis and proper interpretation THEN proper application of any given scripture. More often than not, we don't directly apply O.T. directives. We rather, learn a principle in a broader sense, and learn to appreciate that principle. Another example: We recognize the requirement of sacrifice and cost regarding sin. It'd be VERY wrong to make a sacrifice today. As I said, even you understand some O.T. you simply do not and cannot follow.

I read all of your post. I am responding 'in short' because it is so late.
You asked when did I last stone a homosexual......... in reply I ask, 'why did you pick that law out of 507 laws'? So many folks go straight to the adultery and homosexual offences, ignoring the fact that they bust hundreds of laws that could have brought down death sentences upon them.

Fact is, the OT laws demanded hundreds of obediences for the strength, cohesion, security, increase and success of the people. Not one of the laws cannot be explained as a support for one or all of the above, and yet Christians do tend to dump hundreds whilst grasping for a few. And then, when faced with such accusations, they race into the warmth of the New Testament for righteousness. The sacrificial laws are not included in the 507.

The Old laws demanded that the people would support and provide for the poor....... that is a law, and if governments would wish to provide military protection, criminal and civil law, etc.... then it certainly should make provision for poor and needy at the expense of the people, as clearly shown in the OT. Paul never repealed that, and I do wonder why so many Christians reach for Paul's teachings before those of Jesus.

 

[eider]

Without the death penalty, the Gospel of Grace is meaningless.

OK...... please quote from the Gospel of Grace about this.
:idunno:

Where did Jesus push for a criminal death penalty?

 

[intojoy]

OK...... please quote from the Gospel of Grace about this.
:idunno:

Where did Jesus push for a criminal death penalty?

The Noahic Covenant is an everlasting covenant and thus its provisions are still in effect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

OK...... please quote from the Gospel of Grace about this.
:idunno:

Where did Jesus push for a criminal death penalty?

Without Christ being put to death for our sins (for the wages of sin is death), no man could ever be saved (Psalm 49:7-9, 15).

 

[Town Heretic]

Without Christ being put to death for our sins (for the wages of sin is death), no man could ever be saved (Psalm 49:7-9, 15).

And at the same time he illustrates the problem with the DP beyond that moment, as he was innocent.

 

[glorydaz]

Mandatory laws are Demands.
If you support Paul's Gospel of Grace, then I won't ever see you ducking back in to the OT to press for various executions.

And if you support the Gospel of Grace, then I'd expect you to live with grace. I've never seen much of that in you.

Grace is God's...He gives and I receive.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And at the same time he illustrates the problem with the DP beyond that moment, as he was innocent.

So was Paul wrong when he affirmed the death penalty for crimes worthy of death?

For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.” - Acts 25:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts25:11&version=NKJV

He upheld the death penalty by saying this.

Jesus died on the cross not to show that the death penalty was unjust, he died on the cross BECAUSE he was innocent, but he became sin for us, and paid the debt owed. He wasn't showing it was problematic. He was affirming it. If there was something wrong with the death penalty, Jesus wouldn't have come to earth specifically to be put to death for our sins.

Again, the wages of sin is death. Jesus was put to death on the cross to pay those wages.

That's not "illustrating a problem" with the death penalty. That's affirming the death penalty.

Also, God isn't schizophrenic. In the Old Testament, he commands the death penalty for those worthy of death. That standard of justice has not nor ever will change.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Mandatory laws are Demands.
If you support Paul's Gospel of Grace, then I won't ever see you ducking back in to the OT to press for various executions.

And if you support the Gospel of Grace, then I'd expect you to live with grace. I've never seen much of that in you.

You're trying to apply the fact that Christians are not under the law to the entire world.

The world is still under the law, until they come to Christ. We, as Christians, establish the law, for the law is not made for the righteous, but for the wicked.

Christians are made righteous. The world remains wicked.

Who do you think the law would apply to?

 

[Town Heretic]

So was Paul wrong when he affirmed the death penalty for crimes worthy of death?

For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.” - Acts 25:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts25:11&version=NKJV

He upheld the death penalty by saying this.

No, he upheld his submission to lawful authorities, as he should.

Jesus died on the cross not to show that the death penalty was unjust, he died on the cross BECAUSE he was innocent, but he became sin for us, and paid the debt owed.

I'm not in any part confused about why Christ died. I never said that he died to address the death penalty. Why would I? It's the worst possible illustration of the rightness of the thing, because what happened was a miscarriage of justice.

He wasn't showing it was problematic. He was affirming it.

No, he wasn't. You don't affirm the just nature of a thing by unjust application as illustration.

If there was something wrong with the death penalty, Jesus wouldn't have come to earth specifically to be put to death for our sins.

That doesn't logically follow. It was a necessary instrument for our sake. It doesn't follow that there's nothing wrong with it absent God's design and/or in the present. I'll come back to this in a moment.

Again, the wages of sin is death. Jesus was put to death on the cross to pay those wages.

Completely agree. And before Christ it took our deaths to pay a moral penalty for particular sins.

That's not "illustrating a problem" with the death penalty. That's affirming the death penalty.

No and for the reasons noted above.

Also, God isn't schizophrenic.

Right.

In the Old Testament, he commands the death penalty for those worthy of death. That standard of justice has not nor ever will change.

In order, he did and you're missing the point. Why was the death penalty just/required? Because only our blood would suffice. Christ paid that price. The DP was a moral instrument and the penalty for certain moral offenses was death. The standard didn't change, only the method of payment.

 

[ok doser]

... the wages of sin is death....

right, that's never changed

soft-hearted (and soft headed) libs want to re-write that to read:

"...the wages of sin used to be death, but now they are forgiveness, tolerance, diversity and inclusion..."

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, he upheld his submission to lawful authorities, as he should.

And in doing so, He thereby affirmed the government's right to put people to death.

I'm not in any part confused about why Christ died. I never said that he died to address the death penalty.

Except you did.

And at the same time He illustrates the problem with the DP beyond that moment, as he was innocent.

Please try to keep yourself consistent.

Why would I? It's the worst possible illustration of the rightness of the thing, because what happened was a miscarriage of justice.

Of course it was. And yet, God used that miscarriage of justice to reconcile the entire world.

Just because it was a miscarriage of justice does not mean the death penalty is bad.

No, he wasn't. You don't affirm the just nature of a thing by unjust application as illustration.

On the other hand, using someone's misuse of the authority given to them to reconcile the entire world does not mean that that person doesn't have the authority in the first place.

That doesn't logically follow. It was a necessary instrument for our sake. It doesn't follow that there's nothing wrong with it absent God's design and/or in the present. I'll come back to this in a moment.

If there was something wrong with a death penalty for crimes that are worthy of death, then God's standard of justice would not include death for the penalty of sin.

It's as simple as that.

Completely agree. And before Christ it took our deaths to pay a moral penalty for particular sins.

Before Christ, animal sacrifices were used to "pay" for sin, even though the death of an animal would never be enough to pay compensation for a man's life. Instead, God was looking forward to the time when He would send His son to be the sacrifice. God NEVER required a human sacrifice to pay for the sin of any of His people.

No and for the reasons noted above.

See above.

Right.

I'm glad you agree, yet you seem to think that God must have gone to counseling or something in the intertestament period, and now he's nicer, and doesn't require the death penalty for crimes worthy of death.

Am I wrong?

Because if someone does something worthy of death, as Paul says, even a believer (such as Paul), then they recognize (even if they won't acknowledge it) that they are rightly being put to death.

Paul was affirming the death penalty as being just. But he wasn't about to let himself be put to death unjustly.

Christ willingly went to the cross, even though He was innocent, to become sin for us.

How much more should Christians be willing to be put to death for doing something worthy of death.

And how much more even than that should those who are indeed worthy of death be put to death by the authority.

In order, he did

Then that right there settles it. God requires the death penalty for those who commit a crime worthy of death. Are you going to argue that the standard of justice for one who commits such a crime has changed? Because God has not.

and you're missing the point.

How? If the death penalty is a just punishment for capital crimes, then it has always been and always will be a just punishment for those crimes. The standard has not changed, otherwise it wouldn't be a standard.

Why was the death penalty just/required? Because only our blood would suffice. Christ paid that price. The DP was a moral instrument and the penalty for certain moral offenses was death. The standard didn't change, only the method of payment.

And yet, Christ's blood only applies to those, and for eternal life with Him, not for our life here on this earth, who have accepted His gift of salvation. Again, even Paul did not object, if he had been guilty of a capital crime, to being put to death for committing such a crime.

Christ's blood does not apply to those who reject Him. ONLY if they humble themselves and accept His gift of salvation. Which is why we continue to establish the law, which says to put capital criminals to death, because the law is a tutor to bring man to God, to show that they cannot be righteous without Him, that they themselves will suffer eternal death if they reject HIS righteousness. Because if a man does not fear death in this life, how will he ever fear eternal death and separation from his Creator in the hereafter?

 

[jgarden]

1 John 1:8-10
************************************************** **********************
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

What's "dangerously unhinged" is putting one's faith in a president who doesn't believe in asking God's forgiveness from sin because, unlike the rest of us, he thinks he possesses the ability to self-correct any mistakes without God!

That admission alone should trigger all the warning bells and whistles that this is an individual who doesn't see the need to seek God's forgiveness from sin - the Bible is quite explicit that there are no individuals without sin and anybody who thinks they have the ability to self-correct without seeking God's guidance is delusional!

 

[Town Heretic]

And in doing so, He thereby affirmed the government's right to put people to death.

Their right to make and enforce laws of all sorts. Absolutely. And one of the great things about our form of government is that we can change those laws, which I favor on the point.

Except you did. Please try to keep yourself consistent.

I didn't, though to be clearer I could have said, that his death illustrates the problem with the death penalty. That's implied, but I can see where you read it the way you did.

Of course it was. And yet, God used that miscarriage of justice to reconcile the entire world. Just because it was a miscarriage of justice does not mean the death penalty is bad.

It's an illustration of the inherent problem of a penalty that cannot be met with recompense. If we falsely imprison a man at least we can make some restitution and release him. My first argument against the DP is in that problem. We do and know that we do what we have no right to. And given the irreversible nature of that failure it is unique.

On the other hand, using someone's misuse of the authority given to them to reconcile the entire world does not mean that that person doesn't have the authority in the first place.

This has never been about authority. I've read Romans. I've read 1st Peter, and my objection isn't that governments can't, but that they shouldn't. And I've just told you one of the reasons why, if I hadn't already (I'm talking to a couple of people in a couple of places about this, so I can't recall precisely where we are in the conversation as I type this).

If there was something wrong with a death penalty for crimes that are worthy of death, then God's standard of justice would not include death for the penalty of sin. It's as simple as that.

Or, God instituted something necessary and just, hard as the law was hard before Christ, under a different system wherein certainty of guilt was required, meaning only the guilty should be put to death and put to death for a moral offense. Then Christ came.

Before Christ, animal sacrifices were used to "pay" for sin, even though the death of an animal would never be enough to pay compensation for a man's life. Instead, God was looking forward to the time when He would send His son to be the sacrifice. God NEVER required a human sacrifice to pay for the sin of any of His people.

Animal for most. Not for a few sins. For a few the blood of the sinner was required. Recall, this is not a secular command in a secular state, concerned with the secular repercussions of the act.

Am I wrong?

You are. The law served a number of purposes. One of those was to illustrate our inability to meet the demands of justice, our need for intercession and mercy. God doesn't have to change anything about His nature to alter His relation with us (see: covenants).

Because if someone does something worthy of death, as Paul says, even a believer (such as Paul), then they recognize (even if they won't acknowledge it) that they are rightly being put to death.

I've answered on what Paul literally said. Your understanding of it is just that. So I'm leaving off you repeating what you'd stated earlier and my inevitable repetition in response to the same points.

Then that right there settles it. God requires the death penalty for those who commit a crime worthy of death. Are you going to argue that the standard of justice for one who commits such a crime has changed? Because God has not.

Answered above.

And yet, Christ's blood only applies to those, and for eternal life with Him, not for our life here on this earth, who have accepted His gift of salvation.

I think you have to hold that to hold onto your position. Obviously, I don't relegate the sacrifice of Christ in this world merely to the next. The woman he pardoned at the well wasn't pardoned only for the next world. I think it's broader and bigger than you credit.

Christ's does not apply to those who reject Him. ONLY if they humble themselves and accept His gift of salvation.

The woman at the well hadn't. But I'd be willing to bet she strove mightily in gratitude to meet his prohibition.

...if a man does not fear death in this life, how will he ever fear eternal death and separation from his Creator in the hereafter?

Every man fears death, unless he's insane, in which case nothing will move him. It isn't a want of fear of death that moves men to sin, which is why Solomon and David, for all their reasons to be grateful and obedient, for all their wisdom and blessing, sinned.