Is capital punishment right when God says "thou shalt not kill"?

Does God's Word support capital punishment?

Yes. God's decree to Noah in Genesis 9:6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:6 has never been rescinded, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." In Romans 13:4" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:4 we read about civil leaders, '...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." The reference to "the sword" would indicate that civil rulers have the God-given right - and responsibility – to execute capital punishment when it is necessary to do so justly. However, the Word of God does protect the innocent by teaching that there should be clear proof of guilt before anyone is put to death. We read in Deuteronomy 17:6," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 17:6, "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death."

W. Gustafson

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is there a difference in the treatment of those put away from the assembly and those who leave the f

Is there a difference in the treatment of those put away from the assembly and those who leave the fellowship?

Those put away from the assembly have the additional stipulation "with such an one no not to eat" (1 Corinthians 5:11)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11). Social interaction with them must cease. This is not the case with one who voluntarily leaves the fellowship. Social interaction may, however, decline because he begins to form associations that are spiritually detrimental. When every spiritual effort has been made to encourage a believer to remain in the assembly and still he persists in leaving, the assembly should be sadly informed of this decision. This, though, is different from his being put away. Both an individual put away and one who leaves the fellowship should always be treated with courtesy and kindness. The concern of all the assembly should be for the spiritual restoration and recovery of both. Consistent public and private prayer to this end is appropriate. Every contact with such individuals should be influenced by a desire that they will submit to the Lord and His Word for their own spiritual benefit.

These cases differ somewhat in their return to the assembly. Greater caution may be suitable for those put away. In both cases, their attendance as they "sit back" at assembly meetings indicates some degree of recovery. Also, before either is received back into the fellowship, he should give evidence that his spiritual strength has been restored, that the reason for his leaving has been judged before the Lord, and that his motivation for returning is spiritual. Appropriate questions about the person’s life and doctrine must be asked by the elders, although in a considerate manner.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the "Christian Right" a mistake?

What drives the present marriage of evangelicals and politics?

At least four misunderstandings contribute to this.

1. A wrong prophetic view. Reform theologians, not expecting a Millennium, thought society could be "saved" without Christ’s coming. Some millennialists forget these roots of their crusade.

2. A wrong ecclesiastical view. Responsibility for "church action" belongs to a local church. "The Church" never refers to all believers on earth. Tragic events, like Hitler’s madness, moved some to think the church has a responsibility to withstand immoral governmental policy We are to "do good unto all men," but assemblies uphold truth (1 Timothy 3:15)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:15) by proclaiming it, not by confronting governments.

3. A wrong world view. This is not a Christian world. Christian principles are diametrically opposed to society’s standards. Imposing them is not possible and not workable, apart from Christ’s coming reign.

4. A wrong dispensational view. God’s Old Testament focus was the nation of Israel. Now, His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36);" TARGET="_blank">John 18:36); He is saving individuals "out of the world" (John 17:14, 16;" TARGET="_blank">John 17:14, 16; Acts 15:14)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:14). If we understand this distinction, we won’t make Old Testament kings (and other worthies) our models for political action. Despite our nationalism, the only government that will bring God’s will to earth is future. Until then, our responsibility is to rescue men from the "kingdoms of this world."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

When did God create Satan and the angels?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL in your answer. You may optionally include an email address. Answers will be reviewed.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Satan the Lucifer in Isaiah 14?

What is the meaning of verse 13 in Isaiah 14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 14?

The previous chapter begins Isaiah’s burden against Babylon and blends statements about Babylon’s total devastation (yet future, Isaiah 13:9-13, 20;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 13:9-13, 20; Revelation 18:21-23)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 18:21-23) with her overthrow by the Medes in 539 BC (vv 7, 8; 21:2-4; Dan 5:25-31)." TARGET="_blank">Dan 5:25-31). Chapter 14 continues and extends the thought. God’s judgment on Babylon in 538 BC would assure Israel of God’s millennial blessing on Israel. What was going to happen, when some from Israel returned from Babylon (now past, see Ezra, Nehemiah), foreshadows Israel’s yet-future return from the nations and her ascendancy. Likewise, the proverb (vv. 4-20) that Israel takes up against the king of Babylon may have this same duality - bringing together Babylon’s kings (like Belshazzar in the past) and all kings who attempt what Babylon’s kings hoped to accomplish. That includes the Beast, the future "Man of Sin." Babylon’s king fell (Dan 5:30)." TARGET="_blank">Dan 5:30). Political, infernal, and internal national results follow (Isa 14:4-11)." TARGET="_blank">Isa 14:4-11).

Some able commentators apply the next verse to the exalted brilliance of the king this proverb addresses. He became so great and boasted such power. Though proud, he had fallen ("cut down") like a tree. Masterfully, the following verse portrays the thinking of a Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:22, 30, 31)," TARGET="_blank">Dan 4:22, 30, 31), a Belshazzar (5:23), as well as the Beast (7:23, 25; 2Th 2:4;" TARGET="_blank">2Th 2:4; Rev 13:4-6)." TARGET="_blank">Rev 13:4-6). Each of those Babylonian kings (the first kings during the "Times of the Gentiles," Luke 21:24;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 21:24; Dan 2:31-44)" TARGET="_blank">Dan 2:31-44) and the Beast (the last of those kings) was (or will be) opposed to God and His people, lifted up with pride, and judged as was the devil (1Ti 3:6)." TARGET="_blank">1Ti 3:6). Each reflects the consummate pride of Satan, who uses each one, particularly the Beast. But, this is a proverb or simile. None of those men were capable of the full extent of pride the devil expressed. None had been exalted so high or would be so shamefully defeated as he.

Therefore, this section of the proverb (vv. 12-15) is about Satan himself, Lucifer. This proverb, combined with Isaiah’s poetic style, uses figurative language (the morning, cut down, stars of God, mount of the congregation, sides of the north, heights of the clouds); it addresses Lucifer for at least two reasons. First, just as Satan, a greater than earth’s greatest kings and lifted up with unmatched pride, could not rival God, so neither could those proud kings prosper in opposing God and His people. Second, this passage exposes Satan as the instigator behind those kings and all else that opposes God’s people.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How should a Christian pray for political events?

For what did Paul exhort prayer (1 Timothy 2:1-2)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:1-2)?

The Lord’s "world view" ("In the world ye shall have tribulation," John 16:33)," TARGET="_blank">John 16:33), Paul’s eventual martyrdom, and the context make it doubtful that he requested prayer for a government favorable to Christian living and the spread of the gospel.

Leading "a quiet and peaceable life" certainly is "good and acceptable" (verse 3), but the context more likely describes praying "for all men" (verse 1) as being "acceptable" to God, "Who will have all men to be saved." By repeating "all men," Paul encouraged prayer for the salvation of all men.

Even though the government was acting immorally in opposing the gospel and imprisoning its messengers, Christian piety and morality ("godliness and honesty") remained unchanged. Believers would live in quietness (externally "aloof from political agitation," Vincent) and peace (inwardly calm) by keeping their focus and praying for the salvation of all men, including cruel kings. Whatever the condition of government may be, our mission in the world is to see men saved.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

how should we handle alcohol and smoking habits before our children?

Having unsaved in-laws at holiday gatherings in the home, how should we handle their alcohol and smoking habits before our children?

As a believer you are responsible for your home and children as part of your testimony Parents are to raise children in the Lord's fear and love (Ephesians 6:4)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:4). Smoking and consuming alcoholic beverages are clearly inconsistent with Christian testimony (Colossians 3:5" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:5 and 1 Peter 4:3)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 4:3). While you cannot change your in-law's behavior, you can control the sphere of your responsibility. It is better that you kindly and clearly inform any invited guests who may normally smoke or drink alcohol that you have established principles in your family refraining from these. Ask them to respect your rules (1 Timothy 3:4)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:4). Consistency with your convictions will make a definite impression and provoke consideration of your faith and devotion.

J. Smith

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a Christian be gay or homosexual?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL and email address in your answer.

Answers will be reviewed.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I help a new believer who has little experience in spiritual matters?

In general, how should we help new believers who have no assembly background?

Accept the new believers as a brother or sister in Christ, regardless of class, culture, economic status, intelligence, social graces, fashion preference, or Bible knowledge. We are their family. Pray for these new believers. They face opposition from their relatives; they struggle with many serious temptations which before salvation were no problem to them. Pray for those who have been used by the Spirit in their salvation; they need wisdom to help the new believer get a good spiritual start.

If the new believer asks your advice, give it gently; you don’t know his load limit. If you feel the new believer needs your correction, don’t assume you know how best to speak to him. Instead, go to the person God has used in his salvation; tell this believer your concerns and trust him to know how to most effectively communicate to the new believer the truth that concerns you.

That believer may have worked long and hard for years to see this person saved. It is patently unfair to destroy that believer’s work by stumbling the new believer. Those who assume that their winsome charm and superior knowledge will enable them to correct a new believer are the most likely to stumble him.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a Christian believe in Evolution?

EVOLUTION
Can a Christian believe in Evolution?

It is sad to think that anyone “naming the name of Christ” should forsake the clear testimony of God’s Word for the fable of “Evolution”— “Science falsely so-called.” The former declares that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1; see also Hebrews 11:3)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:3). Later we read, “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light” (v. 3); “Let the waters bring forth abundantly” (v. 20); “Let the earth bring forth the living creature” (v. 24); “God created man in his own image” (v. 27); and in chap. 2. 7, we have the detailed account of this; “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.” Of course the most cursory reader of Gen. i, can see that God’s method in Creation was one of progression, from—the inorganic to the organic,— vegetation, fish, fowl, beasts, and lastly, man. We know, moreover, by experience of the things around us, that there is room within the species for the most wonderful variations (e.g., men, dogs, pigeons, etc.).

Ill-informed persons confuse this with “Evolution,” and they profess to be “evolutionists” because of such facts, which are undisputed. But “Evolution” properly so-called is supposed to account for the development of new species of plants or animals, either by mutation or by minute modification. Its teaching is that everything organic began with a cell (possibly more than one, but perhaps only one), and evolved by minute variations, into the myriads of “species” in the world, brought about by “natural selection,” securing “the survival of the fittest” during the course of “a struggle for existence.” Can anything be conceived more wildly improbable? It is only one more proof of “the Fall,” that otherwise sensible men can be found gullible enough to believe it. For such a process has never been proved to have taken place in nature.

Now, Science is something known, so that it is very unscientific to be an Evolutionist, seeing that evolu- tion is not something known; it has not even attained to the dignity of a theory, but is a mere hypothesis. The late Lord Kelvin, perhaps the greatest scientist since Newton, said in one of his last addresses, “I marvel at the undue haste with which teachers in our universities ‘ and preachers in our pulpits are restating truths in terms of Evolution, while Evolution itself remains an unproved hypothesis in the laboratories of Science” (my emphasis). Not only is Evolution a direct attack on the Creatorship of God, negativing the Scriptural account of the origin of things, but it denies the fall of man, and so inevitably the need of atonement and also, logically, the work of Christ. Shallow thinkers may profess to be able to believe the Scriptures and Evolution, but intelligent believers subject to the Word, and clear-headed agnostics, like Huxley, see clearly that the two are mutually incompatible. Evolutionists in the meanwhile continue to utter discordant cries hardly agreeing upon a single point, except that their pet hypothesis is true. Our choice simply lies between God as Creator and His Word for it, or everything its own creator and man’s word for it.

William Hoste

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu