Board index ‹ Capital Punishment

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the clarification. You are mixing apples and oranges. You ask rhetorically if God values salvation over justice. That's a false dichotomy, like, "Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?" It's false to create a situation where God has to choose between salvation and justice.

Likewise, you wonder if God values free will over the life of the victim. That's a false dichotomy as well. Free will is a necessary aspect of humanity (without which there would be no reason, no science, and none of the fundamental human traits such as love, kindness, or forgiveness). We cannot put God in a position where he has to choose between fundamental human attributes and the right to life. And since your hypothetical is not only unrealistic but impossible, it also is a creating a false situation. Therefore the conclusions you draw ("neither the deceased victim nor human society benefit from the murderer's execution") are based on a set of false premises and cannot derive from the argument.

My argument is that for justice to exist in the world, there must be fair retribution for criminal activity. If we remove retribution from the picture, unpunished crime will become normative behavior in society, we will witness the perpetual oppression of the innocent, and anarchy, corruption, and violence will reign in culture instead peace, justice, and civility.

[Regnis Numis]

> This is a response of asking rhetorical questions, not of any rebuttal to the point I was making. You want to know why I believe in punishing the perpetrator despite that it might not be a deterrent to the next guy. My response is because it is just to punish the guilty for crimes done. I don't feel as if your questions address the point, but rather inquire about theological extensions of my reason.

I'd say the root cause behind our disagreement lies in the fact that you're a deontologist while I'm a consequentialist over the issue of capital punishment.

> I already responded to this in an earlier comment. I said, "but we know that it does [deter]. We see it every time there are riots and looting in the cities. When looters think they can get away with it without facing punishment, they steal from local stores, not as part of their protest but simply to get away with crime. I can also speak for myself (and I presume for others) that the prospect of getting a ticket keeps me driving a reasonable speed—and drivers routinely slow down when they see a cop. The fear of prosecution is a great deterrent to people stealing, cheating, and murder. We all know that fear is a powerful motivator. It's very possible that hardcore criminals are not deterred by the prospect, but intuition and reason tells us all that we know fear of punishment is what restrains our corrupt behavior."

And I've already addressed this point in another comment with the following: "Firstly, you cannot tell me that you "know" capital punishment deters crime without providing concrete evidence. Secondly, both of your examples (i.e. looting and speeding) describe how a high risk of getting caught would deter crime, not how the severity of legal punishment deters crime. The likelihood of getting caught and the severity of a penalty are two independent dimensions under a rule of law."

> Therefore attaining heaven is being rewarded for the merits and works of Jesus, but the degrees of reward in heaven are based on our works and merits. How much and what type of reward we receive, beyond access to heaven itself, is based on our own record.

Is God examining our works alone or balancing them with our sins to decide our degree of reward?

> When judgment is pronounced on saved sinners, Jesus will bear the due punishment for them.

So Jesus hasn't actually bore the penalty of their sins yet? Then what was the purpose of the Cross? And what specific kind of punishment will Jesus bear for them?

Also, your statement basically confirms that not all human sinners will receive the punishment they deserve, thanks to Jesus' substitutionary atonement, so aren't you going to retract your earlier claim here, specifically the statement: "In answer to your second question, all human sinners will get the punishment they deserve after death". I'll drop this minor issue once you've admitted your error.

> Third, He wasn't saving humankind from Himself as much as He was saving humankind from the results of man's own behavior. We brought the wrath of God upon ourselves; God didn't initiate it.

Since God will pronounce judgment upon unsaved sinners, He is the one enforcing the "results of man's own behavior". Thus, it seems to me that He is saving mankind from Himself. Moreover, if God didn't initiate His own wrath, then does this mean He has no self-control? Or are you saying that God is voluntarily unleashing His wrath upon us, but it's our own fault because we sinned and didn't accept His grace?

> By our sin we brought the punishment of spiritual death upon ourselves. The penalty Jesus is saving us from is the penalty of spiritual separation that we began.

Then shouldn't Jesus be suffering spiritual separation in our stead?

> There is a strong belief that Jesus went to hell and broke the locks, so to speak, so that no one had to stay there except by their own choice. He took out any who would come to him, and hell has no hold on any who choose him now.

I don't see how this explains what kind of penalty Jesus actually suffered.

> If you have a debt, and someone offers to pay it for you, it doesn't get paid unless you accept the offer. If you tell the benefactor to get lost, the debt is still on your shoulders.

Except Jesus already became human and died on the Cross before we even accepted His offer of salvation. It's like paying off somebody's financial debt before approaching him with the offer to do so.

[jimwalton]

> I'd say the root cause behind our disagreement lies in the fact that you're a deontologist while I'm a consequentialist over the issue of capital punishment.

This could very well be the case. I do take a deontological position.

> "Firstly, you cannot tell me that you "know" capital punishment deters crime without providing concrete evidence.

Yes, you did say this. At core, as I've stated, we punish as an exercise of justice. Whether it deters or not is peripheral. I think it deters, you think it doesn't. The research bears out your position, but practicality and experience bears out mine, to a limited extent. I think we're starting to repeat ourselves, which is usually an indicator that the discussion has passed its peak.

> Is God examining our works alone or balancing them with our sins to decide our degree of reward?

Everything is on the table for the judgment to be fair.

> So Jesus hasn't actually bore the penalty of their sins yet?

I guess I misspoke. He has actually already taken the penalty on himself at the cross.

> Since God will pronounce judgment upon unsaved sinners, He is the one enforcing the "results of man's own behavior". Thus, it seems to me that He is saving mankind from Himself.

God is certainly the one enforcing the judgment; because of his omniscience and inherent righteousness, he is the only one worthy to do it fairly. But as I said, he is not saving mankind from himself. The necessary consequent for sin is death. By sinning we brought death on ourselves. "God's wrath" is an idiom expressing that the universe necessarily works in this way. Separation from life brings death—there are no other choices. Separation from God means that we bear the circumstance of non-union with him, the term of which is "wrath." People are slaves to sin by their own recognizance, and they incur the "wages" of that "labor" by their own doing. That state is described as "God's wrath."

> Then shouldn't Jesus be suffering spiritual separation in our stead?

He incurred the separation on the cross and possibly immediately following his death. Once the separation was legally satisfied, it didn't have to perpetuate to have fulfilled the requirements of the law. Instead, he broke the power of sin and death, showing that the separation need not be final. The details of the law were satisfied, the breach was healed, and now the free gift of salvation can be legitimately offered.

> Except Jesus already became human and died on the Cross before we even accepted His offer of salvation. It's like paying off somebody's financial debt before approaching him with the offer to do so.

The payment is just an offer. Even though, so to speak, the money was deposited in an account 2000 years ago as warranty, the offer is made to each one of us individually: Come to Jesus. Your debt can be paid. The money is already in an escrow account, just waiting for you to approve the transaction.

[Regnis Numis]

> He incurred the separation on the cross and possibly immediately following his death. Once the separation was legally satisfied, it didn't have to perpetuate to have fulfilled the requirements of the law.

Since each person is guilty of a different set of sins, I assume there are varying levels of intensity and duration regarding each sinner's spiritual separation. Hence, how could Jesus logically bear the spiritual penalty of all mankind when each person deserves a different penalty, unless He literally endured the individual penalty of each and every saved sinner once at a time while He was in Hell?

> The payment is just an offer. Even though, so to speak, the money was deposited in an account 2000 years ago as warranty, the offer is made to each one of us individually: Come to Jesus. Your debt can be paid. The money is already in an escrow account, just waiting for you to approve the transaction.

Even as you approve the transaction of money in an escrow account, there's always a physical process by which the money reaches its recipient. The approval of a transaction doesn't automatically equal a transaction. Likewise, I assume the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice doesn't automatically entail salvation without a spiritual process taking place along the way. Would you care to describe how accepting Christ's sacrifice leads to salvation?

As a side note, I've discovered an online document here which reconciles capital punishment with rehabilitation by asserting that the prospect of death may actually spur rehabilitation through an offender's character transformation rather than the offender's effects on society. I think this would help strengthen your argument, as I do see validity in the idea that the weight of one's punishment could facilitate reflection over the gravity of one's crimes, possibly leading to repentance and therefore salvation.

[jimwalton]

> I assume there are varying levels of intensity and duration regarding each sinner's spiritual separation.

This is correct, as far as we can tell from the Bible. There are degrees of intensity and duration of punishment in hell, and there are degrees of reward in heaven.

> Hence, how could Jesus logically bear the spiritual penalty of all mankind when each person deserves a different penalty, unless He literally endured the individual penalty of each and every saved sinner once at a time while He was in Hell?

It's not purely a logical scenario, but more a legal and theological reality. When we look at what the Bible teaches about atonement, there is no single analogy or explanation that adequately and fully covers what is happening there. Atonement is a ransom, a debt-repayment, a propitiation, a substitution, and more. So when I use an analogy of a sacrifice, or a debtor, or whatever, they are all inadequate in themselves to cover the full gamut of what atonement truly is. It's a complex and multi-faceted event. Jesus doesn't have to literally endured the individual penalty of each, just as he didn't have to suffer the exact suffering of each human to represent their suffering (he never experiences labor and delivery, for instance, or the death of a baby he delivered), or didn't have to die every possible death to have experienced death for us (he never died from cancer). What he did fulfilled legal and theological requirements, according to the Bible, and therefore "counts" as bearing the penalty for humankind.

> Even as you approve the transaction of money in an escrow account, there's always a physical process by which the money reaches its recipient.

You're right that every analogy falls short in some way and has loopholes in its attempt to explain the original. We can only take the analogies as analogies to help us understand, not as models to offer a full explanation.

> Would you care to describe how accepting Christ's sacrifice leads to salvation?

What the Bible says is that we all deserve death, which is the "salary" for our sin. It's the natural and necessary result of what we have done. Jesus died in our place (substitutionary atonement)—a widespread conceptual practice in the ancient world: all kinds of things could substitute for a wide range of other things, depending on the exact issue (blood sacrifice, grain sacrifice, incense, scapegoat, etc.). Jesus took our sins upon himself, died in our place, broke the power of sin and death by rising from the dead, and offers to us the free gift of eternal life because he has done it all. Our position is then to accept or reject the offer. The decision is ours. He has paved the way for the salvation of all: paid the debt, so to speak. If we accept the gift, we can appropriate the benefits by faith. If we refuse the gift, the inevitable and necessary consequence is continued separation from God.

> As a side note, I've discovered an online document here (https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/46/4/Articles/46-4_Ryan.pdf) which reconciles capital punishment with rehabilitation

Thanks for the reference. I'll check it out.

[Regnis Numis]

> Our position is then to accept or reject the offer. The decision is ours. He has paved the way for the salvation of all: paid the debt, so to speak. If we accept the gift, we can appropriate the benefits by faith. If we refuse the gift, the inevitable and necessary consequence is continued separation from God.

But why place mankind in a position to choose between salvation or separation? Why can't God simply bring everyone to Heaven automatically since Jesus paid our debt and broke the power of sin and death? Or if God doesn't appreciate the unrepentant presence of the wicked and thus can't bring everyone, then why can't He still at least bring virtuous souls to Heaven, regardless of faith in Christ? If it's to respect people's free will to decide whether to be with Him, then why not instead bring virtuous souls to experience Heaven firsthand before letting them decide whether to stay or depart?

[jimwalton]

> But why place mankind in a position to choose between salvation or separation?

It's not that we've been placed in that position, but those are the only two choices. It's like pregnant or not. One can't ask why we have to choose between preggo or not: you either are or you aren't. There's no in-between. The Bible perceives the world as binary: either having the nature of Jesus in you or not having it. You either are or you aren't. If you choose against having Jesus in you (i.e., salvation, regeneration, born again, saved, one with God, in Christ, etc.) the only other possibility to salvation is separation (not having Jesus in you, unregenerate, not one with God, not in Christ).

> Why can't God simply bring everyone to Heaven automatically since Jesus paid our debt and broke the power of sin and death?

Because it's a relationship, and it's based in love. Just try sometime to force someone to love you. It doesn't work that way, and can't. "Love" that is forced isn't love at all. If Jesus paid for your debt and drags you into heaven kicking and screaming, there's nothing "love" about it. There's no relationship, but instead only antagonism. This isn't "religion," which is unfortunately how many people wrongly perceive all these things, but Christianity—it's how to know God and have a relationship with Him. It's the whole story of the Bible.

> Or if God doesn't appreciate the unrepentant presence of the wicked and thus can't bring everyone, then why can't He still at least bring virtuous souls to Heaven, regardless of faith in Christ?

Virtue is not the criteria for a love relationship. "Oh, well you're a good person so I'll fall in love with you." Ridiculous. I don't love my wife because she's a good person. Goodness isn't the criteria for love, but is rather mostly unrelated.

[Regnis Numis]

> Because it's a relationship, and it's based in love. Just try sometime to force someone to love you. It doesn't work that way, and can't. "Love" that is forced isn't love at all. If Jesus paid for your debt and drags you into heaven kicking and screaming, there's nothing "love" about it.

Bringing human souls to Heaven isn't the same thing as forcing them to love you. And couldn't God allow human souls the freedom to stay or leave after giving them a firsthand experience of Heaven?

> Virtue is not the criteria for a love relationship. "Oh, well you're a good person so I'll fall in love with you." Ridiculous. I don't love my wife because she's a good person. Goodness isn't the criteria for love, but is rather mostly unrelated.

Firstly, I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to claim a person's good nature has no influence on whether you foster a loving relationship with him/her. Secondly, perhaps "virtuous" isn't quite the right word, as I'm trying to refer to people whose hearts are oriented towards righteousness. Such people may range from saints who've performed numerous great works to criminals who've expressed remorse for their crimes and sincerely wish to atone. I'm wondering if God could bring them to Heaven, regardless of faith in Christ.

[jimwalton]

> Bringing human souls to Heaven isn't the same thing as forcing them to love you.

I'm glad you said this, because it reveals a common misunderstanding. Heaven is not so much a place as it is being in the presence of God in loving relationship. My wife grew up in Vermont, and she loves to go there. Her father has now died, and her mother probably has only a short time left. I've asked her if she wants to move there and live there, and she said, "Of course not. The only reason I want to be in Vermont is to be with my family. If they're not there, Vermont has no attraction for me." So it is with heaven. "Being in heaven" is nothing but being in loving relationship with God. You're thinking of it as a place of bliss and comfort, but the Bible portrays it as being in loving relationship with God.

[Regnis Numis]

> "Being in heaven" is nothing but being in loving relationship with God. You're thinking of it as a place of bliss and comfort, but the Bible portrays it as being in loving relationship with God.

Since God is omnipresent (implying we're in God's presence) and Christians share a loving relationship with God, would you say Christians are in Heaven right now despite living on Earth?

Also, if Heaven isn't a place but a relationship, then how would you explain why Matthew frequently alludes to the "kingdom" of Heaven? What about Matthew 7:21, 12:50, 18:10, 18:14, or 23:9 which all state God the Father is in Heaven? What about how God refers to Heaven as His throne in Isaiah 66:1 and Acts 7:49? What about how God established His throne in Heaven, according to Psalm 103:19? Or the fact that Revelation 21 promises a new heaven and earth, as the first heaven and earth pass away? If Heaven wasn't a place, then why would Jesus say He is going to His Father's house to prepare a place for His disciples in John 14:2? Or how could Jesus have descended from and reascended to Heaven, according to John 3:13? I apologize for citing so many biblical verses at once, but I want to leave no stone unturned.