Did you read my question at all? I did not ask you who should punish. I asked you this question—please read carefully: What punishment should be exacted on a kidnapper, and upon what basis do we determine its equity?
Adultery and homosexuality in the moral law
- Thread starter Von
- Start date
- Status
Did you read my question at all? I did not ask you who should punish. I asked you this question—please read carefully: What punishment should be exacted on a kidnapper, and upon what basis do we determine its equity?
Deleted User 21
Puritan Board Freshman
His son did die, though.
Absolum didn't have to. He violated a lot of Stuff. Did he Call his Dad out? This is becoming hypothetical now. His son died for violating a lot of things. We can discuss this.
If Absalom was upset with his Dad he should have respected him enough to tell him. He should have told him where the sin lay. He just usurped wanting a Kingdom as it appears. That is wrong. God would have given it to someone who loved him maybe. We can not know this on this side.
Last edited:
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
I thought he was referring to David's infant son he had with Bathsheba, but I may be wrong.
God showed grace towards David by not demanding death, but David faced consequences for sinning.
Both died because of his sin. Sorry if I took it for the wrong one. King David had to lament both. But when it came to who ruled he had to fight for more than one. His sin was great. He became lax on many fronts and presumed too much for many years.
Henry Hall
Puritan Board Freshman
Define “Theonomy.”
Last edited:
Not only hypothetical, but bad hermeneutically, as well.
Folks, we follow first and foremost the commands of Scripture. Of course, God can and does work outside of these norms in Scripture, but that is his prerogative, and it by no means negates what he has given us to be normative in our lives—his law. Statements that begin with "Yes, but God did this thing one time" are why we have women preachers, faith healers, and Charismatics, among other things.
When I was in the AOG, 2 main issues were failure to see that Acts recorded the transition from Old to New Covenant, and that what was done was not meant to be normative.
Isn't it holding that society today are meant to rule and governed by the OT Law of Isreal?
You do realize that what you said here undermines your entire argument against the death penalty for adultery on the basis of a narrative, right?
Theonomy is simply the belief that the Law of God is the moral standard for all of life—the civil just as much as the individual.
Not really undermining it though, as the command of death for murder predate Mosaic Law, and us binding for all time, while the deslth pensly for other sins given to Isreal.
That's not the point, though. Your argument was that because God did not demand the death penalty for David's murder, it no longer has to be applied today. In your argument, it doesn't matter when a law was instituted; the bare fact that God once did something different removes obligation to it. And your comment above regarding the improper application of Acts did in fact undermine this argument.
I am saying that since the Lord gave to us the death penalthy for murder before the Mosaic Law, that is one that is permanent to us, and yet even then God can chooise to exercise grace to spare one gulity of that crime, so we can enforce death for murderers still, but not needed to be every time.
I’m not sure how I can respond to so self-contradictory a post.
Please help me with your understanding here, as the Lord gave to us in Genesis 9:6 the prohibition against murder, and established the death penalty for that crime, which he reinforced to us in Romans, but the other various death penalties proscribed for sins against tthe Mosaic Law seemed to not been carried over into the New Covenant era. Those would still be sins committed against His Moral Law, and yet not rtequiring to have the death penalty applied towards them. I know Pul gave to the government right to execute judgment for God for murder, but what other crimes were tostill fall under that listing is what I am asking?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
You keep asserting that. You've never proven it. Not once.
The key question is whether they would still be crimes? Assuming they would be, what is the just punishment? What is the criteria for a just punishment? You have never answered that question.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The notion that only the death penalty for murder applies today is not confessional. While the entire Mosaic judicial law is not binding in the new covenant, nevertheless, the laws of common or general equity do still apply to modern nations, as they are based on natural law and so not confined to Old Testament Israel.
Are you saying that for the Moral law of God to be upheld today, that all of the sins done that received dealth penalty still would apply today, even in nations not applying biblical morality, such as in Islamic nations?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The subject is a bit more nuanced than that description would imply. My position is that while not each and every Mosaic death penalty applies today (as there were some that were unique to Israel), many of them are part of natural-moral law and may be applied (at the very least) as the maximum punishment for the crimes in question.
Jesus with the audultress in John 8, and the life of the Apostle Paul, show to us that the Moral Law of God cam be broken still, and yet not have the necessity of the dealth penalty must be applied every time to have it upheld. Why I cannot answer exactly from scriptures what is a fair punishemnt is due to it not clearly spelled out to us now under the NC, as it would seem to be taken case by case, and in the light of situtaions and just how much the person was transgressing . Someone like a John Newton did horrible sins as a master slave trader, and yet did not the Lord forgive him and use him in a might fashion to get slavery abolish eventually in England?
I think that we can come to an agreement on this, based upon that position, as would we not agree that the dealth penalty could still be potentially applied, but not required every time to be applied?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
If it is not spelled out for us in the NC, then how can you know it?
You are confusing sins with crimes, as what Newton did was sinful but still legal.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Yes, that would be correct as far as I am concerned.
Henry Hall
Puritan Board Freshman
Without distinguishing between such "as a body politic" and otherwise, as moral and otherwise? No.
Here is another angle on David's situation:-
It seems to be taken for granted that David committed a crime but did he? There was nothing illegal about sending Uriah to battle. There was nothing wrong with his commander following orders. Uriah may have survived the battle, even when the other troops withdrew. Others died too. The problem was that God knew David’s murderous reasons, but only God knew. David could not have been prosecuted in a court of law because there was no evidence. Even after Nathan exposed him there was so still no actual crime. Terrible motives but no crime to work with. Lots of men were put at the battlefront that day, and who knows the reasons that the commander put them there. Maybe he got rid of men he did not like in that way also. Who knows. An example of the difference between sins and crimes. No such distinction on judgment Day, but there is in this life.
So David was not “let off” a crime. There was no crime.
His affair though was an open sin and crime, and one that the Law demand the death penalty for, but God showed him grace.
Yes, and if God ever tells any current civil magistrate to have mercy on a criminal, then by all means. However, there is nowhere in Scripture that tells civil magistrates to do so. In fact, the only passage directly addressing the civil magistrate's role in society describes it only as an avenger of God's wrath.
True, but the main question is do we always execute the death penalty, or are their times grace should be shown?
- Status