•

Gordon E. Olsen,  Professor of Theology at Baylor University, recently declared capital punishment a "heresy" and judged those who support it to be worthy of church discipline.

If Olson wishes to argue that our current justice system is not reliable enough to justify using the death penalty, he could make that argument.  But that is not what he is doing here.

In "The Heresy of Capital Punishment" Olson (without a single Scripture reference) makes an absolute statement about what Jesus would do, setting the Son against His Father in the Noahic Covenant.

In the comments thread, one of the objections against using God's Covenant to support capital punishment goes, "if we use Moses to support capital punishment, we must also advocate killing adulterers, rebellious children and witches."

Not so.

In the Mosaic Covenant, God made a covenant with the Hebrew nation.  In the Noahic Covenant, God made a covenant with all of mankind.  In this covenant, God makes it clear that because of the preciousness of "imageo Dei" (the image of God) the taking of a human life warrants a punishment in kind.

Genesis 9:5-6

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image

Genesis 9:11-12

I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations

God prescribed the death penalty, in the Noahic Covenant, for those who shed the blood of humans, whether man or beast, with the rainbow as the sign and seal, for "ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS" We find no mention of adultery, witches, rebellious children in this covenant with mankind, for all future generations.

The ESV Study Notes says here:

Human life is to be valued so highly that it is protected by this system of punishment because God made man in his own image, and so to murder another human being is to murder what is most like God, and is thus implicitly an attack on God himself. Many would see this statement as establishing the moral principle permitting the death penalty in cases of murder—with the understanding that the person charged would have been justly tried and his guilt established beyond any reasonable doubt (cf. the OT requirement of two or three witnesses, Deut. 19:15; repeated in the NT, e. g., Matt. 18:16; Heb. 10:28). A further requirement is that such a death- penalty verdict must always be carried out under the jurisdiction of the established authorities (cf. Deut. 19:15–21; Rom. 13:1–5). The difficulty of establishing guilt beyond any reasonable doubt and the difficulty of ensuring justice in a modern, complex urban society (as compared to an ancient village- based society) underscore the great care and caution that must be taken in applying this principle today.

This study note is important because Olson repeatedly ascribes  "blood lust" to those who support capital punishment.  This shows a lack of understanding between personal retribution and an adjudicated verdict carried out under the jurisdiction of the established authorities.

In the face of God's covenant with "all future generations," the accusation of "heresy"seems misplaced.  But he does make the accusation, teaching that he believes supporting capital punishment should be addressed through "church discipline."

"Sin" is addressed through church discipline...church discipline ends with excommunication and being treated as an unbeliever (Matt. 18:15-17.). The brunt of Olson's teaching says that those of us who believe that God's covenant with all of mankind, and all future generations says that: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" are in sin.

Olson writes:

I believe Christian churches of all kinds ought to do more to oppose capital punishment. They ought, at the very least, to declare it incompatible with Christian faith and put members who openly believe in it under some kind of discipline (not necessarily excommunication but at least forbidding them to teach it in the ecclesial context). And those who practice it, actively seeking it and participating in it, should be excommunicated from Christian churches. It ought to be a matter of status confessionis—as apartheid was declared by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches which helped lead to its downfall in South Africa.

There are three segments to the above paragraph.  We can call it the "doctrine of shut up"

1 - declare "it" incompatible with Christianity (shut up

2 - or come under church discipline (or we'll make you shut up)

3 - status confessionis - (if we can't make you shut up, we'll kick you out.)

Kevin DeYoung said, about "status confessionis:" It means that a particular doctrine is essential to who we are as a church. If something is status confessionis it means this is a make or break issue. It means that the church will not tolerate others views on this matter.

So, in short, God the Father, in the Noahic Covenant with mankind, for all future generations says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

Roger Olson says, "we should not tolerate that."

 

• 1 Comment

•

Yesterday I wrote about what a "license" does and what it means for marriage.

If...

  • A license grants you permission to do that which is otherwise illegal....

    • then...

  • (in non-common law states) it is illegal for Christians to marry unless they gain the state's permission first.

    • The Gospel Coalition asked a couple of years ago

    Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    It seems to me, that at this point, the state has the right to divorce the civil from the religious (courthouse wedding, etc.) but the religious does not have the right to divorce the religious from the civil (it is illegal to have a Christian wedding without the state's permission.

    (caveat: common law states have specific criteria to be met in order to qualify as a "common law marriage. There are a couple of states that require that in order for a common law marriage to be "official" it must be registered with the state [but with no prior permission from the state needed] In common law states, one could have a religious ceremony without having to get the state's permission, thus divorcing the religious from the civil)

    I have made it known that I refuse to be married in a state with a "gender neutral" license (such as California.) I am NOT "party B"

    I believe the time is coming when the definition of "marriage" as required by the state, will be so far astray of the definition of "marriage" as defined by God, that Christians will, with clean conscience, reject civil marriage.

    The question is: do we provide "test cases" now? or wait until persecution begins?

    •

    This article at the Gospel Coalition was written nearly two years ago.

    TGC Asks: Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    In the last few months, we've been discussing this a lot. At what point does the state give up the right to define marriage for Christians? If the state forfeits that right, by defining "marriage" in such a way that it no longer resemble's God's definition, is a Christian obligated to have the state's permission to call themselves "married"?

    Let's start with the "permission" part.

    In Michigan,

  • there is still a law on the books against cohabitation - a heterosexual couple may not live together without being married
  • a heterosexual couple is required to have a marriage license before being married.
  • it is illegal for a pastor to officiate in a marriage ceremony unless the couple has a state-issued marriage license.

    • In order to live together in marriage, a couple in Michigan must have a marriage license; they must have the State's permission to marry.

    Why do I use the word "permission"? It's the word "license"

    What does a driver's license to? It gives you permission to drive and it's illegal to drive without one.
    Hunting license? It gives you permission to drive and it's illegal to hunt without one.
    Concealed Carry License? It gives you permission to carry a concealed weapon and it's illegal to carry without one.

    Through a license, the States grant you permission to do something that is otherwise illegal.

    With that logic, it is ILLEGAL to call oneself "married" unless the State has given you permission to do so.

    At what point did the State get the authority to define marriage in such a way that we must have the State's permission to marry?

    The "State" has married the Christian wedding ceremony and the civil rite to the point that you MAY NOT have a Christian wedding Ceremony WITHOUT the civil rite.

    TGC Asks: Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    •

    Since I Rob Bell's Mars Hill is only a few miles from where I live (he's gone, church is still there), I sort of keep an eye.

    Here is Michael Kruger's review of Bell's new book, "What We Talk About When We Talk About God"

    In the end, my overall concern about this volume is a simple one: it is not Christian. Bell's makeover of Christianity has changed it into something entirely different. It is not Christianity at all, it is modern liberalism. It is the same liberalism that Machen fought in the 1920's and the same liberalism prevalent in far too many churches today. It is the liberalism that teaches that God exists and that Jesus is the source of our happiness and our fulfillment, but all of this comes apart from any real mention of sin, judgment, and the cross. It is the liberalism that says we can know nothing for sure, except of course, that those "fundamentalists" are wrong. It is the liberalism that appeals to the Bible from time to time, but then simply ignores large portions of it.

    ~~~

    How To Read a Book

    Not so much for the "how to read" but the "how to review" if the "answer these four questions" segment:

    1. What is the book about, as a whole?
    2. What is being said, in detail, and how?
    3. Is the book true, in whole or in part?
    4. What of it? What's the significance, and how?

    ~~~

    Same sex "marriage" round up

    The Witherspoon Institute focuses not on the "marriage" but how it will affect religious liberty

    ~~~

    abortion / gun rights (yes)

    "A Good Question" via Gay Patriot

    “Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?“ Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?”

    •
    ★★★★★★

    "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Lorraine Boettner

    For a beginner to Reformed theology, this book will give the basics of TULIP in an accessible way. If you are firmly already in the "ANTI-" camp, don't bother reading the book, you'll hate it. But if you want to learn about the theology, with an open mind, this is a great place to start.

    This book begins at the beginning. Boettner teaches in this book that all of "TULIP" stands or falls together and starts with the "T" - total depravity.

    For Boettner, the sovereignty of God is something to be glorified, not hated. We deserve nothing from God, and the idea that He saves some at all is a testament to goodness.

    Each segment is supported with Scripture, and explained thoroughly.

    There is a little bit of "here's where the other side is wrong" - and sometimes in not very graceful language - but even those are framed in "here's why from Scripture"

    I read the Amazon reviews and there were a few of "one-star" reviews. ALL of these were not based on the writing of the book, but on their disagreement with Calvinism.

    • 1 Comment

    •

    Christian who is politically conservative?
    Christian who is theologically conservative?

    My Political Views
    I am a right social moderate
    Right: 3.54, Authoritarian: 0.54

    Political Spectrum Quiz

    I am, first and foremost, Christian.

    Theologically, I am 100% Reformed.

    Based on the chart here, I'm a theological conservative, but on others, I miss the mark on 7-day creationism.

    I find it interesting the (generally and broadly) those who fall mostly in the "liberal" description are not willing to identify with that descriptor.

    But if a person who fall into the "conservative" side gets called "conservative, their reply is more likely to be "thank you."

    I started this post a few days ago, and honestly don't remember where I was going with it.

    Probably because I do post on theology and I do post on politics.

    For me, "conservative" is a handy way to let folks know up front what mind set I'm working from.

    •

    Within a few days, SCOTUS will be delivering decisions on same sex "marriage."

    That means that, as Tim Challies said:

    once marriage has been redefined away from the union of one man to one woman, it seems almost impossible not to see it also expand to include polygamous relationships

    1. Given that Scripture never "moves the definition of marriage" away from polygamy

      Bathsheba was David's WIFE

     

      Rachel was Jacob's WIFE

     

      Gideon had many WIVES

     

      Jehovah had Israel and Judah

    2. Given that (as I pointed out a couple of days ago) we must not call "sin" that which God does not call "sin"

    3. Given that "where there is no law, there is no sin."

    ...Christians should NOT be lumping polygamy in with same sex "marriage."

    One is called "marriage" and the other is called "abomination."

    This is purely from a Biblical view, not touching (yet) politics in today's world.

    Does this mean that I think Christian evangelicals should embrace and practice polygamy? No, but I think that if a converted Mormon or Muslim shows up in our churches with plural wives, we should accept their marriages.

    •

    So...Im reading in 1 Thessalonians....v. 4

    For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction

    The conviction, the power and the Holy Spirit came not as the result of our choice, but of God's choice.

    😉

    • 1 Comment

    •

    This debate is "heating up" because of the battle over same-sex "marriage" - and some folks are saying the one of the problems with legalizing same-sex "marriage" is that it could lead to polygamy. (Reminds me of a joke my husband used to tell: Why does Bob Jones University forbid dancing? It could lead to sex standing up)

    I have read in both blogs and their comments section that "homosexuality and polygamy are equal (sins).

    ~~~

    (side note: 1 Cor. 6:9-10: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality(**), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

    **or Old Testament patriarchs

    ~~~

    First: I am not "pro-polygamy" in the sense that I believe it's the right think for everybody.

    I am not (NOT) pro-polygamy in the sense that it's what I want for myself.

    I simply cannot call "sin" what Scripture does not call "sin." I'm happily (and truly) Reformed and the first Sola is "Sola Scriptura." Scripture is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. We must not call evil...good. But we must also not call "sin" that which God does not call "sin."

    Our Holy Father does not regulate "sin" - He forbids it.

    Like all things, polygamy can (and is) abused, but if we call all things "sin" that some people abuse...we would not even be able to eat!

    Our Holy Father does not describe Himself, even in metaphors, that portray Him as doing anything that is "sin.". Isaiah 3:6-10 gives us Jehovah and his wives, faithless Israel and treacherous Judah. I believe that polygamy, in and of itself, cannot be "sin" or Jehovah would have chosen a different metaphor.

    Our Holy Father does not give us sinful things. in 2 Samuel 12 we read that Jehovah had delivered Saul's wives into David's arms. One can hardly say that polygamy made David commit adultery and kill Uriah! Greed and Lust did that.

    God could have put an asterisk after the Leverite marriage law...but He didn't. The God who told His people not to wear cloth made out of blended linen and wool, could have told His people to take only one wife...but He didn't.

    God didn't forbid business, He regulated it.
    He didn't forbid marriage, He regulated it.
    He didn't forbid polygamy, He regulated it.

    If you want to make an argument that it leads to bad things (so does parenthood, if you ask Abel,) that's fine. But that's not the argument I see being made.

    If you want to make an argument that in the New Testament, leaders are forbidden to have more than one wife, that's fine. But that's not the argument I see being made.

    Don't call "sin" that which God does not call "sin."