The Catholic Church Opposes the Death Penalty. Why Don't White Catholics?

TNR ^ | 03/07/2015 | Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig

[PapaNew]

Of course, but you miss the point. We all have unbelief issues.

The question for all time and eternity is one question ONLY: what are you going to do with Jesus Christ?

Again, HE is the issue, not our sin. But, of course if we reject Him and fail to accept him then, yes, we die in our sins, but needlessly because our salvation is absolutely free to us and has already been purchased for us. If I refuse that gift of salvation then, yes, I have needlessly carried all my sin into eternity.

But none of this nullifies the fact that our sinful acts have all been fully paid for and already judged.

[xone]

s I said, you don’t know where Ananias and his wife ended up for sure and neither do I, nor do you know exactly why they died,

The dispute is over the temporal consequences of sin. The Bible is clear that there are. Paul was very specific about who executes that judgement.

neither do I, nor do you know exactly why they died

Acts 5:Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last.

.......And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last.

11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

Yeah, the church there knew, so do we.

you don’t base doctrine on conjecture about one semi-murky incident.

Not basing doctrine on this 'non-murky' incident, the governmental authority established by God is well documented in Scripture. Your viewpoint is the one lacking experiential or scriptural evidence.

[daniel1212]

Likewise, one is condemned not because of what he does, but because he has refused to receive Jesus Christ.

You just reiterating your fantasy regardless of what i explained and showed you clearly from Scripture. Even souls who never heard of Christ will be condemned for their sins, just those who rejected the gospel clearly.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. (Matthew 25:41-43)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works . (Revelation 20:12)

Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. (1 Peter 2:14)

Give it up!

[.45 Long Colt]

I don’t misunderstand you. You made a grand sweeping statement in your initial comment that is contrary to the Scriptures and it’s rather easy to prove.

Carefully read John 10:26, to the crowd Jesus said, “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” It is crucial to notice what He did NOT say. He did not say: “Ye are not my sheep because ye believe not.” Instead He said, “ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep.” This means if they were His sheep they would be believers and they would be among those for whom He gave His life.

“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” John 10:11

John 10:27-29
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Your theology elevates man and gives you reason to boast. You get the glory for being smart enough to believe.

But the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace (unmerited favor), it’s a gift from God, accordingly the Lord gets all the glory. It also teaches that men are dead in sin and cannot believe unless they are born again.

All the believing ones will certainly be saved, but they believe because He enabled them to do so! The psalmist said, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” (Psalm 110:3) The day of HIS power HE makes them willing. It’s all about HIM.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

[Mark17]

Do you accept that unbelief is a sin?

I believe that would be the only sin that God made no provision for, correct? So, am I correct in saying that Jesus died for all sins, but one?

[PapaNew]

You switch back and forth between "consequences" and "judgment and condemnation" as though they are the same thing which they most certainly are not. The Bible tells us WHAT Ananias and his wife did that was sinful, but does not tell us explicitly they were punished and condemned for their sin. Yes, the death of Ananias and his wife was probably a consequence of their sin in the same way as death is a CONSEQUENCE of jumping off a tall building. But that's not the same as being JUDGED and CONDEMNED for jumping off the tall building.

[xone]

You have contended from the first that because of Christ's sacrifice that there should be no earthly consequence for sin (death penalty). When shown that 'judgment and condemnation' and 'consequences' do occur you get riled up. One is God's arena exclusively, the other He has delegated to governments as scripture says.

The Bible tells us WHAT Ananias and his wife did that was sinful, but does not tell us explicitly they were punished and condemned for their sin.

From the exchange with Peter, it does appear that they sinned against the Holy Spirit, there was no repentance, they died in the context of the conversation. I'm sure the events were unrelated. Their death was a graphic example of 'temporal consequences'. As to their "judgment and condemnation" I can safely leave that to the Lord. However, based upon the scripture, I can safely say that avoiding a similar situation for myself would be imperative. Thankfully the Holy Spirit restrains me and repentance offers forgiveness when I fail.

[PapaNew]

am I correct in saying that Jesus died for all sins, but one

Well, I think it's putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable. The issue is not sin but Jesus Christ. God's plan for man is the gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ through which he finds redemption and forgiveness. When you put sin at the center instead of Jesus Christ, you lose the focus of the gospel of grace because Jesus has taken away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

But, yes, if one dies without receiving Jesus then he dies in his sins but needlessly. It's like you've got a $1 million in the bank and you die penniless because you never went to the bank to get your money. He was rich but he died poor. In the same way, his sins were paid for, but he didn't take the free gift of salvation from Jesus and so he died as though his sins were not paid for - an eternal tragedy and mistake.

Back to the point: Jesus has died for the sins of the whole world so the death penalty is a second punishment for the same crime which is unjust double jeopardy.

[PapaNew]

I never said there should be no earthly CONSEQUENCE from sin. I have said PUNISHMENT by death is unjust.

And I have listed what I consider to be valid consequences for criminal acts: Restraint, deterrence, restoration, and rehabilitation.

[PapaNew]

Try to get what I’m saying here.

If one dies without receiving Jesus then he dies in his sins but needlessly. It’s like you’ve got a $1 million in the bank and you die penniless because you never went to the bank to get your money. He was rich but he died poor. In the same way, his sins were paid for, but he didn’t take the free gift of salvation from Jesus and so he died as though his sins were not paid for - an eternal tragedy and mistake.

Also you are confusing God’s final judgment on souls who haven’t received forgiveness through Jesus Christ with how man handles or should handle capital crime.

Back to the point: Jesus has died for the sins of the whole world so the death penalty is a second punishment for the same crime which is unjust double jeopardy. The “punishment” spoken of in 1 Peter 2:14 does not expressly condone the death penalty. More likely it is “punishment” along the lines of incarceration for restraint, deterrence, and restitution.

[Tao Yin]

So it is OK to support unjust acts because we live in a sinful world? Something wrong there. We're supposed to shine lights in the darkness, not applaud and support the darkness.

Though shalt not commit murder, does not mean though shall not kill. Murder is an unjust act and darkness. Killing may be just, depending on the situation. The state does have the sword for a reason.

[PapaNew]

The state does have the sword for a reason.

Yes, but as we all know, the state can be very unjust with that sword. More people have been killed by their own governments than by all the invading armies of the world.

The just use of the sword is for the purposes of protecting the lives and freedoms of others and enforcing arrest and incarceration of probable criminals for just reasons of restraint, restitution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. If you resist a cop, you may get killed but that is more like being killed in a war, not for the purpose of sentencing you to death for an act.

[xone]

I have said PUNISHMENT by death is unjust.

And whose decision is that according to the Bible? Whether you think it is unjust is immaterial, work to change the law if it offends you. I've seen what your listing of valid consequences are, I find them lacking, the Bible finds the sociology behind them invalid.

[daniel1212]

didn’t take the free gift of salvation from Jesus and so he died as though his sins were not paid

Which was my point. They are punished for their sins, and in relation to their culpability in the light of grace given, because they rejected the One who provided forgiveness for them.

Back to the point: Jesus has died for the sins of the whole world so the death penalty is a second punishment for the same crime which is unjust double jeopardy.

Wrong, not only because

1. (again and again) what Christ did is not effectually unless one believes, and, 2. The atonement of Christ delivered believers from Divine wrath but it does not pertain to the justice system on earth. God can forgive a murderer here but His word upholds the right of the state to execute vengeance.

You keep on contradicting Scripture which clearly states that the atonement of Christ does not avail the lost anything, but who will face he Lord "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 1:8)

And which warns believers and all of the power of the state, to "be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Romans 13:4) \

he “punishment” spoken of in 1 Peter 2:14 does not expressly condone the death penalty. More likely it is “punishment” along the lines of incarceration for restraint, deterrence, and restitution.

Wrong. The word for punish there and which they are sent to to execute is the word (ekdikēsis) for vengeance, 4 Luk_21:22, Rom_12:19, 2Th_1:8, Heb_10:30 avenge, 2 Luk_18:7-8 (2) avenged, 1 Act_7:24 punishment, 1 1Pe_2:14 revenge, 1 2Co_7:11

Scripture thus teaches just the opposite of you, which wrongly charges it with sanctioning "unjust double jeopardy." REPENT!

[PapaNew]

what Christ did is not effectually unless one believes

Wrong: ("again and again") Scripture declares unequivocally that Christ died for the sins of the whole world (John 1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 John 2:2). If you don't like that, take it up with God. Your argument is with Him, not me. Nowhere does the Bible say that he died only for those who received Him. That doesn't even make any sense. He died ONCE FOR ALL (Heb 10:10). He died for everyone.

But that's only half of the story. The other half is what sinful man does with Jesus Christ. The transaction of eternal life hasn't been completed until one receives Jesus Christ. If he refuses Jesus Christ, he dies in his sins AS IF Jesus hadn't already paid the price. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Jesus already died for that man's sins.

[daniel1212]

what Christ did is not effectually unless one believes

That doesn't even make any sense. He died ONCE FOR ALL (Heb 10:10). He died for everyone.

The first sentence has been your problem right alone, that of your inability to see what Scripture plainly and consistently says, versus your absurd conclusions.

That "what Christ did is not effectually unless one believes" is not at all contrary to the fact that He died for all, but somehow you cannot see that, nor that they are therefore punished for their sins in the Lake of Fire, and can be in this life as well by death. As can believers according to God, as the state deals with retribution in this life, not the next.

I have provided you multiple Scriptures in refutation of your reasoning, but as your remain recalcitrant and unreason-able then this exchange hardly needs to end.

[Springfield Reformer]

If he refuses Jesus Christ, he dies in his sins AS IF Jesus hadn't already paid the price. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Jesus already died for that man's sins.

Then follow that logic to its self-consistent endpoint.  Jesus died for all sins.  Unbelief is a sin.  Therefore Jesus died for all unbelief.  Therefore, no one should go to hell for their unbelief.  Nor would they go to hell for anything else, as all those sins have been paid for as well.  So on the universalist's theory of atonement (which is NOT well-founded Scripturally as you errantly suggest) , there can be no double jeopardy because there will be no eternal punishment for anyone.  Hell will be empty.  So if we send some folks to the electric chair or the injection room or the gallows or the chopping block, it doesn't matter.  If we murder them outright, it doesn't matter. It's all sin, and all sin has been forgiven, because it has all been paid for by Jesus.  So all moral questions, including the question of belief, cease to have any meaning. Party on, do whatever you want.  Nothing has any consequences. That's the path created by universal, absolute atonement.  

If you would draw an exception for unbelief, you would have to invent that from thin air. There is no Scriptural basis for it. Unbelief is sin.  What was the first sin?  Was it the physical act of eating a piece of fruit? Or was it doubting God, disbelieving what God hath said?  The first, most basic sin is unbelief.  It is the fountain out of which all other sins flow.  We set our own judgment up as an idol and worship its sayings as more important, more credible than God's.  If there is no punishment for the sin of unbelief, then there is no justice at all.

But if there IS a just punishment for the sin of unbelief, it is the one thing above all others for which Christ must have died, or else we are all lost.  And if Christ died for it, for our unbelief, then it is most certainly double jeopardy for us to be punished for it, if Christ has already paid for it with His own life, and the debt settled with the finalizing words, "It is finished."  God will not punish twice for the same sin.  To accuse God of such an amoral caprice is to deny His righteousness right down to its core.

So then why will Hell not be empty?  Because those who never come to belief, those whom God has left in their rebellious state, who are not among the elect, still have all their sins as yet unpaid, and it is not double jeopardy that they should have to pay for them, but true justice.

Peace,

SR

[PapaNew]

You ignore that it take two (Christ and the unbeliever) to complete the transaction for eternal life. You also ignore the clear unequivocal statements in Scripture that Christ died for all. You confuse the completion of the transaction with the part Christ has already completed.

[PapaNew]

Scripture declares unequivocally that Christ died for the sins of the whole world (John 1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 John 2:2). Nowhere does the Bible say that he died only for those who received Him. That doesn't even make any sense. He died ONCE FOR ALL (Heb 10:10). He died for everyone.

But that's only half of the story. The other half is what sinful man does with Jesus Christ. The transaction of eternal life hasn't been completed until one receives Jesus Christ. If he refuses Jesus Christ, he dies in his sins AS IF Jesus hadn't already paid the price. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Jesus already died for that man's sins.

Don't ignore the fact that it takes two (Christ and the unbeliever) to complete the transaction for eternal life. Don't ignore the clear unequivocal statements in Scripture that Christ died for all and don't confuse the completion of the whole transaction with the part Christ has already completed.

[Springfield Reformer]

The logic stands. If your interpretation of those passages is correct (and it is not), then there will be no one in Hell. Do you deny that unbelief is a sin? Do you deny that it has been paid for in the death of Christ? Then on what charge will the lost be sent to eternal punishment in Hell? Name the charge.

Peace,

SR