Bayside Church

Thanks for your comments Rob. I totally agree with you. We have to show a different way. Violence is not the answer. I read a book recently called Frida - a women who had lived through the genocide in Rwanda - she saw her family and many others murdered - what she lived through is beyond my comprehension. She came to know Jesus and the big thing for her healing was forgiveness. Corrie Ten-Boom was another with a similar experience. If only we would learn from the greatest - Jesus Christ who offers his total forgiveness. Votes: +0

I do not believe in capital punishment - the three 'Bali Bombers' should have been kept out of the public arena instead of being glorifed for what they achieved over the last five years. Justice has not been served by their death as it will not undo the tragedy they created nor will it heal the hearts of family and friends of those lost. I believe that these men are now truly suffering for their sins Votes: +0

There is so much growing space in your comments space to question ourselves, our reasons,our hearts.I too feel our own hatred allowed them "shine" in the media we were better to pray for our enemies as to heal any hatred we may or may not have had within ourselves because is that not what they had towards us that in it self is a mighty weapon it can be like Cancer a silent killer of our own soul . Votes: +0

It does seem that everyone wants to receive grace when they are the perpetrator, but revenge when the victim. Ultimately a true and heartfelt repentance for the crime is what we are after from the perpetrators. While we wait for that to occur there needs to be consequences for their actions such as their removal from society and freedoms, as Rob indicated, but always with the eventual hope of repentance. The use of capital punishment denies the victims the opportunity to see that the perpetrators have reached that point of repentance. Granted we don't know what happens in their last moments, when they may in fact and truth be very repentant, but that only affects them personally as we the victims don't get to see the change.
In cases like the Bali bombers and others, where I suspect their hearts are so hardened that it is unlikely for there to ever be true repentance, I would expect that life without parole would be required. If for no other reason than to protect the rest of society from their future actions as if they have not had a change of heart then they are likely to take further action again. Votes: +0

Rob mentions that he is "personally against the death penalty" and that "capital punishment only serves to make us as barbaric as those we condemn." It needs to be noted that Rob's objection to the death penalty is clearly subjective with no Biblical support. In fact, the Bible clearly supports the death penalty. For example:
In the book of Genesis we are first introduced to the death penalty. In chapter 2, man was first warned that if he disobeyed God’s commands then death would be the result. As a consequence of man’s sin, not only did he experience spiritual death (alienation from God), but man was also condemned to physical death (he would no longer live forever but would eventually die).

The Fall of Man had a detrimental effect not only on man’s relationship with God, but also with man’s relationship to fellow human beings. In Genesis 9:6, God said to Noah, Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

So, the message from God was very clear. God placed such a high value on human life that if a human life was taken, then the offender’s life was expected in return.

Also, as Jesus was about to be arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter drew his sword to defend Jesus and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Jesus rebuked him and said, Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword [Matt. 26:52].

Although Peter may have been courageous by displaying his loyalty to Jesus, Jesus, not only realising that Peter would be risking his own life, also correctly affirmed the right of the authorities to take Peter’s life [execute him] if he killed the servant of the high priest.

In other words, if Peter resorted to the sword, then he would be punished by the sword.

In Luke 23, one of the criminals who was being put to death along side Jesus said to the other one, …we are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve[v.41].

It needs to be noted that this particular criminal didn’t make excuses for his crime but accepted the punishment [execution] that he deserved.

It should also be stressed that Jesus didn’t condemn the death penalty, but he did forgive the repentant sinner. We see that although the criminal may have made his peace with God, he still had to pay the penalty for his crime.

Finally, in Romans 13 Paul mentions that it is God who has established the authorities on earth and that they have His divine blessing to punish those that break the law. Even to the point of bearing the sword [v. 4] if the need arises.

With regards to this, John Stott comments: “The restraint and punishment of evil are universally recognised as primary responsibilities of the state. Since the word for 'sword' (machaira) has occurred earlier in the letter to indicate death (8:35), and since it was used of execution, it seems clear that Paul means it here as a symbol of capital punishment. God had justified to Noah as affirming the unique value of the life of His image-bearers. The taking of human life is such a heinous offence that it deserves the forfeiture of the murderer's life. [So it is evident then] When the state punishes evildoers, it is functioning as 'the servant of God to execute His wrath' upon them.”

Also, when Paul was being tried before Caesar’s court, he said, If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. It is quite clear that Paul is not condemning the death penalty; in fact, he is endorsing it (Acts 25:11).

Why Capital Punishment?
What are the reasons for, and benefits of the death penalty?

Firstly it is Scriptural
- It was initiated by God
- It was affirmed by Jesus
- It was reaffirmed by Paul

Secondly, because of its Social Consequences
- It sends a clear message to all that such behaviour will not be tolerated in society.
- It guarantees society that such a person will not commit the same crime twice.
- It protects society from such evil persons.
- It releases society of the enormous financial burden of having to imprison the criminal.
- Most importantly, it is the appropriate punishment for a capital crime.

For Rob to suggest that capital punishment is “barbaric” is an insult to the very God who commanded it.

Although no one in their right mind wants to see another human being lose their life for any reason, the death penalty should be an exception. In his book, Now, that’s a Good Question, R.C. Sproul comments: “… The Bible [Gen. 9:6] says that human life is so sacred, so precious, so holy – human life has so much dignity – that if with malice of forethought you wantonly destroy another human being, you thereby forfeit your own right to life. God doesn’t merely allow the execution of murderers; he commands it.”

John Stott The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester: IVP, 1994), p. 344-345.
R.C. Sproule Now, That’s a Good Question Tyndale House, 1996), p. 460.

Votes: +0

It's important not to change the meaning of justice in the process of advocating for mercy. If we lose the meaning of justice, we lose the meaning of mercy. It might be commendable to allow mercy to triumph over judgment - but that's different to confusing justice by labeling a legal sytem as "unjust" if it doesn't show mercy. Showing mercy shouldn't change the definition of justice. It may be commendable to call for mercy to be shown towards a convicted criminal on death-row - but that's different to going so far as to change the meaning of justice by now labeling a justice system "unjust" if, instead of showing mercy, it executes justice. The introduction of God's grace didn't change the meaning of God's Law - otherwise, grace is no more grace. I'm not necessarily against the alternative of tougher sentencing, so long as we're careful to label this as "mercy" instead of as some new standard of "justice". No prisons existed in the civil system which Moses gave to Israel. The one instance of God requiring a person to be held in ward, was only so that the person's punishment could be determined, and it lasted only a matter of days - imprisonment was never used as a punishment, in Moses' civil system. The reason is obvious. Let's say somebody was a thief. In Moses' system, the thief was required to pay restitution to his victim, and in some cases, to add a little extra for his trouble. The victim is restored; the criminal puts his wrongdoing behind him - and everybody moves on. But under a prison system, the victim is not restored; the State makes the victim a double-victim by using the victim's money (through taxation) to support the prisoner while he's taken out of the work-force and put in jail; then instead of being able to move on, the criminal leaves jail with a criminal record: there is no real closure for either party. So, by asking for longer prison terms, you are acting inflicting a cost upon the victims of crime. So, if we choose to do that, we need to be careful to label it for what it is - it's great "mercy" - rather than changing the meaning of justice. To reverse our definition of justice is actually to inflict an injustice upon the victim's of crime, whose money we would be using. Votes: +0