[Vision2020] Trinity Festival protest

[Andreas Schou]

On 8/12/07, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> Mr. Gier disingenuously inquires:
>
> "I'm very curious why Crabtree did not finish his exegesis of Greg Dickison,
> the great Christ Church magistrate and jurist, who writes that "if we could
> have it our way," then there would be capital punishment for "kidnapping,
> sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents."
>
> And in reply all I can say in is, I did. It was a short, fairly straight
> forward piece, to have gone on at any greater length would have been to risk
> becoming... lets just say that long winded and pedantic is already covered
> on this list perfectly well by *others.*
>
> For the record taking two quotes and mashing them together to create the
> impression that someone has said something they haven't doesn't display very
> much intellectual honesty. (brief pause as I get over my surprise) Believe
> me, as often as your foolish friend hansen has cluttered up my inbox with
> the article in question, I'm quite sure that if the quoted phrase "if we
> could have it our way," then there would be capital punishment for
> "kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's
> parents." was contained therein I would have noticed. It wasn't
>
> Another case of repeat the lie often and loud. While this may be tactically
> strategic, it's morally bankrupt.

Okay, Gary, how about this? It's from another article, by the same
author. You can find it  here:
http://www.credenda.org/old/issues/vol3/magi3-11.htm


"There is one more step to take before we are ready to begin. In order
to enforce laws, there must be a punishment for violation. If biblical
law is to be biblically applied, then the biblical punishment must be
used. At this point a curious thing happens: we find that not all the
commandments have assigned punishments. Not so surprisingly, this
causes some problems of application. Several commandments have
punishments with which we are familiar, and for which we can readily
see the sense. You shall not murder is a good example (Ex. 20:13). We
can cite chapter and verse to show that a man shall be put to death if
he kills another with premeditation, and we accept this as valid (Ex.
21:12-14). However, what about coveting your neighbor's possessions
(Ex. 20:17)? Try as you might, you cannot find anything for the
magistrate to do when one charged with covetousness is brought before
him. Part of the problem lies in proving the guilt of someone accused
of a purely subjective violation, as it is impossible for one man to
judge the heart of another. So what about something more objective,
like drunkenness? If someone is drunk, he has clearly broken the law
of God (Eph. 5:18). Again, however, there is no assigned biblical
penalty.

This points out the difference between calling something a sin and
calling something a crime. A sin is any violation of God's law (1 Jn.
3:4). A crime is a violation of God's law which carries a temporal
punishment to be meted out by the civil authority. Crime is a subset
of sin. Thus, while all biblical crimes are sins, not all sins are
crimes.

Many Christians will have a problem with this when they realize that
many of the things which they rightly consider morally abhorrent were
perfectly legal in ancient Israel, and would again be legal in a
biblical society. We must keep in mind, however, the sovereignty of
God and the various jurisdictions He has assigned to different
governments He ordained. The lack of a civil penalty for a sin does
not mean that the sinner gets away with it. Punishment can also come
through the conscience, the family, the church, the nature of things,
and in the last judgment. No sin will ever go unpunished. The only
question is: which government was assigned to the task? When
punishment comes from a government which has no proper authority to
administer the penalty, the results are usurpation of the proper
authority, ineffective discipline, contempt for law, and, in the
temporal realm, abdication of responsibility by the authority which
was supposed to administer the penalty.

So it is important to realize that a civil government based on
biblical law would not be the oppressive system feared by
non-Christians. Of course, there would be laws enforced against
certain crimes which are currently ignored, such as homosexuality.
However, there would be much more freedom than exists at present. A
man could work at whatever job he pleased, he could do whatever he
wanted with his property, and he would be assured of protection
against the assaults of others. There would be no bureaucracies trying
to build a perfect society by regulating all of creation. In fact, it
is this very freedom that non-Christians fear, for it replaces the
messianic State, which they trust, with the sovereign God, whom they
hate.

The law of the Lord is perfect, and is something in which Christians
should find great delight (Ps. 19:7; 119). A government based on that
law would result in great freedom, and would be a witness to all
nations of the sovereignty and goodness of God."

Is this clear enough?

-- ACS