My debate with Bob Enyart

[Jefferson]

Hey, congratulations Dwayne. You won Knights "Post of the Day" with that one. I'll respond to you via email or PM. I don't want to reopen this because I'm involved with too many other things right now, both on TOL and otherwise.

Jeff

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Hey, congratulations Dwayne. You won Knights "Post of the Day" with that one. I'll respond to you via email or PM. I don't want to reopen this because I'm involved with too many other things right now, both on TOL and otherwise.

Jeff

What can I say? It was a well thought out, nicely formatted informative post!

 

[1Way]

Jefferson - I still am looking forward to hearing your responses, private or public. If you were so certain about some of the things that you have presented, then I would hope that you would still share them freely. I really hate the idea of missing out on standing corrected from so much error. And consider all those who might benefit from our discussion. Or has my contribution somehow changed things that dramatically that nothing more need be shared? Just wondering.

 

[1Way]

Jefferson – Here’s a friendly reminder of where we were last.

Jefferson – Hey friend, I just read most of this thread. I’m usually way to busy to respond as I’m gone all week driving truck OTR, and have many things to catch up on like moving for example. I hope you will entreat me with yet another response.

I agree with you about how capitol punishment is carried out has moral implications that can be beneficial to a society and that we should be careful to not stray from the written word. And that for example, prolonged torture is wrong and is not a Godly punishment.

Morality and absolutes
You hold that capitol punishment for a “"non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, capitol offense” is a moral issue. In other words, it would be “wrong” to do otherwise. For example, to execute by drowning a murderer who drowned their victim(s), that would be wrong. But where I come from, morality is an issue of absolute right and wrong, it doesn’t change from time to time. So what about Cain and Able? Was God wrong for contradicting what you evidently hold is a moral issue? Wasn’t that a case of “non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, capitol offense.”? Even if it was one of those exceptions you keep mentioning, do you think that God could violate a moral issue? You don’t deny that (true) morality is absolute, do you?

? hmmmmm ?
Why do you keep saying, “the body of Christ dispensation”, instead of the “dispensation of mystery”, or the “dispensation of grace”, for example?

Details verses big picture
As to the issue of Romans 13 and “bearing” the sword verses “keeping” the sword, your point in part being that your view is more active and fitting, and ours is less active and less fitting. On the contrary, your view is more passive and ours more active.


Here’s the text.

“Romans 13:4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil.”

-- God’s purposeful sword bearing minister --
-- an avenger -- to [execute] wrath -- on the criminal --

That is a picture of active use, a present active threat, avenging against a criminal, executing wrath on the criminal. These ideas of godly wrath and vengeance are within the context of righteous judgment against the evil doer. To “avenge” and to “execute” wrath does not lend to a police officer packing just in case a crime might happen. To “avenge” and to “execute wrath” usually means that the crime already happened, and that judgment has already passed. See Romans 12:9 below.

So, I think your view turns the “bearing of the sword” into a more passive and undeveloped potential role than the idea presented of the sword’s active use in “executing wrath and vengeance” “on” the criminal. If not, then what’s the difference between “repaying after the fact” and (“prepaying” if you will) “packing” in advance before hand?

When is Godly wrath and vengeance normally executed on the criminal?
How does the old saying go?

Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but [rather] give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance [is] Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.

Repay? Is the packing police man bearing arms to repay “passed tense”. Or isn’t he generally packing to take care of present and perhaps future or potential threats, and to protect his own life and the lives of the innocent in so doing? I.E. a prophylactic safeguard, not as much one of repayment.

Who generally, and without doubt, rules and governs a land?
Lastly, consider who is named as the sword bearer. The governing authority, what do those words bring to mind?

- Judges, rulers, magistrates, etc.
- Military, police, soldiers, armies, etc.

Sure they can overlap ideas, buy you are distinguishing between the two. I doubt it if those societies back then separated their military from civilian protection. But, if God intended a police or military idea, either would normally represent a large numerous and less distinct group of people who actually does not have inherent authority and are governed by their own rulers, as compared to magistrates and rulers, who are generally considered the few or the distinct or the one (guy in charge), and they are the seat or location of authority. So why instead of military, did He say, the “governing authorities” and “rulers” and “the authority” (verse 3), and “he” in verse 4? All of which have the idea of ruling judicial authority, and lend far better to the few or the singular and those who rule over others than it would armies and military who are governed by their governors. Armies and police themselves don’t rule a land, they answer to the lands laws and magistrates created by its rulers. So, it’s not about military; it’s about rulers who are in governing authority, and they appropriately preside over capitol punishment and the like.

1Way

 

[1Way]

Jefferson – And here’s the very last post on topic.

Jefferson, you responded to Bob Enyart thus:

Now, with that foundation laid out, I will now respond to the individual verses with which you are attempting to rebut my position:

Fire
Lev 20:14 'If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire…’

Joshua 7:25 shows that when this law was applied, these criminals were to be stoned first and then their dead bodies were to be burned: "And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, AFTER they had stoned them with stones." This shows that the verses which command capital criminals to be burned refers to their already dead bodies being burned after they had first been stoned.

Just looking at the books mentioned, didn’t Lev happen first? So how would a subsequent event shape or define an earlier one? And even if it didn’t happen that way, not all accounts happen like you seem to think it must. I grant that being stoned generally means to be put to death. Yet death did not always happen even when a multitude did it, remember Paul in Acts 14:19. Also, couldn’t two separate events happen in different unrelated ways? Sometimes death by fire, sometimes death by stoning, sometimes death by stoning and then fire after death, perhaps sometimes stoning and then fire until finally dead.

Who is to say that the capitol offender was necessarily already dead before being burned? I could easily understand that the fire could have served much like the breaking of the legs for crucifixion, to hasten the death in some difficult or prolonged circumstances. Although a sword or ax or spear would have been a quicker and simpler “hastening” method, than builder a fire for execution.

Sure, stoning could end the life of a person with just one stone on the temple for example, but on the other hand, it could easily go on for hours and hours for many different reasons. Perhaps the executioners didn’t have large enough rocks, or strong enough executioners, or enough executioners, or enough good rocks to go around, or the perhaps the capitol offender was really strong or especially quick or resilient, or perhaps the executioners were weak from a bad harvest or drought, or a lack of sleep, or weak from widespread sickness, or weather could made the execution unusually difficult, or their aim just wasn’t as good as it was when they were younger, etc, etc, etc. So, I don’t think it is a great stretch to suggest that under less than ideal circumstances, some assistance might be needed, especially to keep a righteous execution from turning into a prolonged and thus evil torture session.

The passage just says which happened first. Is there a passage that says that they burned them only after they were dead?

Man, what a terrible thing to consider, being stoned to death and such. But it is comforting to know that God would rather that happen to the (few) wicked capitol offenders, than to have terrible crimes happen to the innocent (masses).

I have to admit, it does seem possible that perhaps stoning is the preferred or allowed method under those circumstances, but on the other hand, the other methods mentioned were ok for other circumstances. So, apparently you seem to think that the various military and ceremonial issues alter things enough to present “implied” biblical precedents.

If I’m off base on the issue of morality from my previous post, I hope you will explain what you meant instead. Thanks.

1Way

To posterity!

 

[Jefferson]

Okay, I'm a bit more freed up with time so . . .

Originally posted by 1Way
But where I come from, morality is an issue of absolute right and wrong, it doesn’t change from time to time. So what about Cain and Able? Was God wrong for contradicting what you evidently hold is a moral issue?

The law was not yet given when Cain slew Able, therefore the death penalty could not morally be applied to Cain. For example, in Bob Enyart's Constitution of America, he states that the government should execute people who commit abortion after the new law is enacted. Those who committed abortions before the new law is enacted would not be prosecuted.

? hmmmmm ?
Why do you keep saying, “the body of Christ dispensation”, instead of the “dispensation of mystery”, or the “dispensation of grace”, for example?

I think all 3 are fine. Do you see a problem with the term "the body of Christ dispensation?"

To “avenge” and to “execute” wrath does not lend to a police officer packing just in case a crime might happen. To “avenge” and to “execute wrath” usually means that the crime already happened, and that judgment has already passed. See Romans 12:9 below.

Both executioners as well as police officers on "the beat" can avenge and execute wrath. I think the key word in the verse is "bears." It doesn't say God's minister "posesses" the sword (the way the state "posesses" an electric chair). It says he "bears" the sword. He carries it around with him. That's what police officers do. They carry their weapons around with them.

So, I think your view turns the “bearing of the sword” into a more passive and undeveloped potential role than the idea presented of the sword’s active use in “executing wrath and vengeance” “on” the criminal. If not, then what’s the difference between “repaying after the fact” and (“prepaying” if you will) “packing” in advance before hand?

I don't think criminals who get shot by police officers think those officers are very "passive."

Is the packing police man bearing arms to repay “passed tense”. Or isn’t he generally packing to take care of present and perhaps future or potential threats, and to protect his own life and the lives of the innocent in so doing? I.E. a prophylactic safeguard, not as much one of repayment.

The police officer's bearing arms does both. It prevents crimes from happening but if they do happen, the criminal often never survives the day to see his day in court.

So why instead of military, did He say, the “governing authorities” and “rulers” and “the authority” (verse 3), and “he” in verse 4? All of which have the idea of ruling judicial authority, and lend far better to the few or the singular and those who rule over others than it would armies and military who are governed by their governors. Armies and police themselves don’t rule a land, they answer to the lands laws and magistrates created by its rulers. So, it’s not about military; it’s about rulers who are in governing authority, and they appropriately preside over capitol punishment and the like.

But did Ceasar personally bear a sword? Did Ceasar personally execute people? I don't think so. So the "authorities" here can't primarily be referring to law makers but rather the military/police.

Just looking at the books mentioned, didn’t Lev happen first? So how would a subsequent event shape or define an earlier one?

I would imagine the people back then had more detailed knowledge of Moses' law than we do.

And even if it didn’t happen that way, not all accounts happen like you seem to think it must. I grant that being stoned generally means to be put to death. Yet death did not always happen even when a multitude did it, remember Paul in Acts 14:19. Also, couldn’t two separate events happen in different unrelated ways? Sometimes death by fire, sometimes death by stoning, sometimes death by stoning and then fire after death, perhaps sometimes stoning and then fire until finally dead.

I suppose. I'm just warry of adding to scripture.

Who is to say that the capitol offender was necessarily already dead before being burned?

Well, the verse doesn't say either way if the person was dead or alive before he was burned but I think it strongly implies they were dead.

Sure, stoning could end the life of a person with just one stone on the temple for example, but on the other hand, it could easily go on for hours and hours for many different reasons.

I don't think so. That would be torture and as you correctly said, "prolonged torture is wrong and is not a Godly punishment." God would not command something that would result in ungodly torture.

Perhaps the executioners didn’t have large enough rocks, or strong enough executioners, or enough executioners, or enough good rocks to go around, or the perhaps the capitol offender was really strong or especially quick or resilient, or perhaps the executioners were weak from a bad harvest or drought, or a lack of sleep, or weak from widespread sickness, or weather could made the execution unusually difficult, or their aim just wasn’t as good as it was when they were younger, etc, etc, etc.

What executioners? The entire community participated, young and old alike. Firm and infirm. Strong and weak.

The passage just says which happened first. Is there a passage that says that they burned them only after they were dead?

Like I said, I think the passage strongly implies that they already were dead.

Sorry for the delayed response.

 

[1Way]

Jefferson - Now it's my turn to take a break from posting. But I am looking forward to more. I wont have much time for the next several weeks, but I will try to post a little something on the one day or so that I have off work each week.