Zach:  I'm going to first try to do some housekeeping and see if I can list the points of disagreement.  Stop me if I misrepresent you.

Jeff:  I'm easy!  We'll do it that way.

1.  Is it wrong to do something that is otherwise good, if the bad consequences outweigh the good?  Basically, do the ends justify the means?

I would say good actions are good precisely because they have good consequences.  Good ends do NOT justify evil means.

2.  What is the proper relationship between Christians and the avengers of Rom 13?  Should we seek to be instruments of God's wrath or evil deterence?

The proper relationship is to support the "authorities" to the extent that you can help them do their proper job.  When the government becomes unjust or tyrannical, our degree of cooperation with it should be restricted based on our assessment of whether we are contributing to the legitimate end of the state.  This requires wisdom and judgement.

3.  Is the story of Jesus' encounter with the adulterous woman normative for all Christian encounters with sin?

We should forgive because we have been forgiven.  But aiding the authorities in their proper role of deterrence is not contradictory to forgiveness.  But if a person repents of their evil with the intent "to go and sin no more," it would not be appropriate to report their criminal behavior to the "authorities."

4.  Does God appoint people to execute his punishment, or does he accept unappointed punishment as satisfying his own?

God does not appoint particular persons in all cases like He did with Saul.  God sanctioned just deterrence after the flood.  Israel was given specific punitive actions for other specific evils.  Rom. seems, to me, to rest on those precedents.  The way particular "authorities" come about historically is a combination of the choices of men and the providence of God.

5.  Does God's use of governmental punishment condone it?

God doesn't use ALL governmental action.  God has nothing to do with unjust governmental action.  Just like God has nothing to do with parental abuse, but He sanctions proper child discipline.

6.  Did Jesus come to call for repentance, live a good life, or both?

When one repents, he/she is turning from a bad life to a good life.  So both.  But Christ had already said that only "few" of his generation would enter life.  He was under no illusion about any prospects of a mass repentance.  Like Jeremiah before him, he knew that most of them were too hardened - so hardened, in fact, that they wouldn't believe even if he were raised from the dead.

7.  Do Jesus' appeals to the intent of the Law exclude him from having anything truly new to say?  (Can we say that since Jesus appealed to intent concerning divorce, he must also do the same with punishment?)

He did indeed have new things - like the mysteries of the kingdom.  But since there are so many cases where he demonstrated that he wasn't trying to overturn the Law, the burden of proof is on the contrary position.  I have provided the reasons why I am convinced the contextual evidence gives us no such warrant in the case of the adulterous woman.

8.  Can part of scripture be concidered not normative based on the testimony of other parts?  Or, must we take or leave the normativeness of all scripture as whole?

We should give all scripture the benefit of the doubt as long as there is reasonable doubt.  Otherwise, we are claiming the right to trump the only communal basis of our faith unreasonably.

9.  Is Jesus only known to us through scripture, or do we have the Holy Spirit (who works both inside and outside of the Bible)?

I don't rule out revelation by extra-scriptural means since scripture, itself, speaks of it.  What I rule out is the right of an individual to trump scripture based on private revelation unless that revelation is confirmed with signs and wonders or something analogous.  Paul said we are not to judge another man's servant by our own private judgement.  Christ said "why call ye me lord, lord and do not the things I say."  Our master is Christ.  I have no right to trump his words recorded in scripture on the basis of the unconfirmed claims of another.

10.  Is moral perfection a requirement to punish?

We are agreed that Moses didn't require perfection.  So unless you can provide clear evidence in later revelation, I have no reason to change my mind.  If moral perfection is required for the "authorities" to deter evil by depriving criminals of life, liberty, or property, then it would necessarily follow, it seems, that parents can never discipline their children to deter evil in them.

11.  Can someone consistently kill and forgive?

If not, then it would seem that parents cannot discipline children AND consistently forgive them.  I truly can't see the difference.  Parental and governmental powers do not exist independently in humans, intrinsically.  They are authorized by God.

Zach, some things came up today that might necessitate the postponement of my last and longer post.  So I wanted to address a couple of points in the interim.

First, when I say God delegated to man the "authority" to "punish," I am not saying that God delegated to man the "authority" to punish for his own purposes and according to his own standards.  In that sense, the authorities are not really punishing, per se, so much as they are rendering justice (tit for tat) as a means of deterrence.  To the extent that it IS punishment, it is so because God RECKONS it as such.  In other words, it counts towards God's punishment of those evil-doers for their works.  So for humans, it's for deterrence.  For God, it counts as His punishment.  Thus, when the authorities render to evil-doers anything other than a just recompense, they are acting outside of their delegated authority and are morally wrong for doing so.  That's why even the founders spoke of "cruel and unusual punishment" as unjust. 

This is why I see God’s “authorizing” of just recompense for deterrence purposes as completely analogous to God’s “authorizing” parents to discipline their children.  Whether you agree with corporeal punishment or not is irrelevant to my point.  The fact is, disciplinary action implemented by parents is action that would be morally wrong if done for any other purpose than discipline.  And the discipline that is authorized by God is not just any discipline, it is the “discipline of the Lord.”   The parents are simply authorized to carry it out, just as the governmental “authorities” are authorized to carry out just recompense for the sake of deterrence.  Each has it’s specifically authorized actions since each has its own ends which are only attainable by exercising the proper means.

From this discussion, I hope it is clear that I’m not saying that either governments or parents have the right to punish, per se.  They have the right and duty to deter and discipline, respectively.  And like I said, I have not yet contended that the role of a Christian is to do anything more than pay taxes to the state.  But given that we can legitimately subsidize the state, it is a fair question as to whether there might ever be circumstances where being on a jury or reporting crime is legitimate.  I am not, however, suggesting that it is always our duty to do so in some legalistic sense.  Each case would have to be justified on the principles involved in the matter. 

Second is the issue of ends justifying means.  You say it is me that holds to ends justifying means:

I advocated doing good despite the evil that may come.  Your view is the one that justifies otherwise evil acts on the basis of the good that will result.  Your criticism only makes sense if Christians have a kind of omniscience foreign even to God.

Let me address each point separately.  As to the claim that I’m justifying “otherwise evil acts on the basis of the good that will result,” this is not my position.  I understand Paul to be saying in Rom. 13 that God has ordained the “authorities” to this very ministry of good.  When the government ceases to praise good and terrify evil, it is not doing it’s ministry properly – it is not being a minister of good any more than an abusive parent is disciplining.  It is you who holds that God providentially works government action to the good.  I believe God can do that and has done that, but not that He necessarily does.  Just like He can providentially work anyone’s evil to a good end (like Joseph’s brothers), but does not necessarily always do so.  I can only know government is ministering unto good when they are justly deterring evil and praising good.

But more specifically, it seems to me that you are holding quintessentially to a “ends justifies the means” position.  Why?  Because you believe governments are doing evil – even murdering.  And yet you pay them taxes.  If you were to pay any other person to murder someone, would you not be guilty as an accomplice?  Why, then, are you not analogously guilty in the case of paying the state to help them “murder” (by your opinion)?  Paul says we are to have no fellowship with other men’s sins.  James says we are to remain spotless from the world.  How can we be so if we are subsidizing murder?  Your answer seems to be, “because God works their evil unto good.”  How is that not the true “ends justifies the means” position?  My position doesn't count all government action as evil as your position does. 

As for saying that my view “only makes sense if Christians have a kind of omniscience foreign even to God,”  I would reply, thus:  It requires no omniscience to know that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is as just a recompense as one can imagine this side of death.  Nor does it require omniscience to know that the anticipation of pain or suffering deters - even if not equally for all people.  The only question is, has God delegated the authority to exercise HIS punishment (not our punishment) for the purposes of deterrence in this life.  It would seem that at least in the case of Noah and the Israelites, He has.  Thus, it is only epistemologically fair to read Rom. 13 and see if it can be read that way in as perspicuous a manner as any other interpretation.  But we can address that later, if you wish. 

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/12/2005 8:24:01 PM (GMT-5)

Zach, I think we need to back up and work on definitions cause I think we're using different ones.

Jeff:  From this discussion, I hope it is clear that I’m not saying that either governments or parents have the right to punish, per se.  They have the right and duty to deter and discipline, respectively.
 
Zach:  I agree.  They have every right (and duty) to deter and discipline.

Jeff:  By my definition, it cannot be true that it is one's right or duty to murder.  So how do you define "right" and "duty" in such a way to account for the government's "right" and "duty" to murder?

Zach:  Giving money to people who ask is a basically good action (means).

Jeff:  What is a "basically" good action as opposed to a NON-basically good action or other kind of good action?

Jeff:  From this discussion, I hope it is clear that I’m not saying that either governments or parents have the right to punish, per se.  They have the right and duty to deter and discipline, respectively.
 
Zach:  I agree.  They have every right (and duty) to deter and discipline.

Jeff:  By my definition, it cannot be true that it is one's right or duty to murder.  So how do you define "right" and "duty" in such a way to account for the government's "right" and "duty" to murder?

Zach:  I never said the government (or any other human) had the right or duty to murder.  They do it and it's evil.  God takes this evil act and uses it for good.  There are other ways to deter and discipline.

Jeff:  Earlier you had said, "God can use the evil actions of a government to execute his punishment, but that doesn't make the human acts less evil.  The government's murder of a murderer is evil, but can still be considered part of God's judgement."  So I thought you were arguing as Albert (Humphrey Bogart) does, saying the government has some legal right to kill but not a moral right.  If not, then what do you mean when you say, "they have every right (and duty) to deter?"

Jeff:  What is a "basically" good action as opposed to a NON-basically good action or other kind of good action?

Zach: I mean apart from its consequences and ends vs. means talk, sharing is good.  Only under ends justifying the means reasoning (which I don't hold to) does such a distinction between good and basically good make sense.

Jeff:  But suppose someone says, "Hey Zach, I need to buy a gun to kill my wife, so would you share about $100 of your spare cash with me?"  Would such sharing be basically good in this scenario?  Would you have no moral accountability if you gave him the $100 and he bought a gun with it and killed his wife just like said he would do?

Zach:  The government has the right and duty to deter and discipline.  It does not have the right or duty to kill.  Big difference.

Jeff:   OK.  Then before we proceed, let me get clear on this one point.  What means can the state rightfully and dutifully employ to deter?  Can it imprison?  Can it give 39 stripes?  What exactly?

Jeff:  But suppose someone says, "Hey Zach, I need to buy a gun to kill my wife, so would you share about $100 of your spare cash with me?"  Would such sharing be basically good in this scenario?  Would you have no moral accountability if you gave him the $100 and he bought a gun with it and killed his wife just like said he would do?

Zach:  What about this scenario?  Joe Shmoe cries out to heaven, "If God gives me breath to live through today, I will kill my wife, tomorrow."  Would such sharing be basically good in this scenario?  Would God have no moral accountability if he gave breath to Joe knowing his heart and seeing that he would act as he promised?

Jeff:  In my view, God has no moral accountability at all.  Who would He be accountable to?  Or if He is, I don't see how we could determine it philosophically or scripturally.  But I still need to know the answer to my original question to proceed.  I'm trying to get your definition of what constitutes moral accountability for humans.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/16/2005 12:10:26 PM (GMT-5)

Jeff:   OK.  Then before we proceed, let me get clear on this one point.  What means can the state rightfully and dutifully employ to deter?  Can it imprison?  Can it give 39 stripes?  What exactly?

Zach:  The state (or any other human individual or institution) can use loving, non-coercive, non-violent means.  These terms may not be exact, but they are fairly good modern English terms for summarizing Jesus' ethics.  39 stripes is not Christ-like.  Imprisonment I don't see as Christ-like either.  We can do the things that Jesus did and preached.  We can love, heal, teach, rebuke, serve, sacrifice, and pray.  By doing these things we address the root problems, the most effective means of deterence.  It has been shown time and again that deterence through punishment does not work unless taken to an almost fascist extreme, and even then it doesn't work in the long run.  Capital punishment has been shown not to deter murder.  Mandatory prision sentences have been proven to actually increase drug usage.  I follow Jesus' teaching because He's my lord, but I also believe that Jesus was pretty smart and knew that these methods only make things worse.

Zach:  What about this scenario?  Joe Shmoe cries out to heaven, "If God gives me breath to live through today, I will kill my wife, tomorrow."  Would such sharing be basically good in this scenario?  Would God have no moral accountability if he gave breath to Joe knowing his heart and seeing that he would act as he promised?

Jeff:  In my view, God has no moral accountability at all.  Who would He be accountable to?  Or if He is, I don't see how we could determine it philosophically or scripturally.  But I still need to know the answer to my original question to proceed.  I'm trying to get your definition of what constitutes moral accountability for humans.

Zach:  Let's say He's accountable to himself, to his own words.  Regardless, my sharing a gun is the same as God's sharing breath.  If my sharing is sin, so is his.  God allows all sorts of opportunities for people to sin and hurt others (Cain and Abel).  Am I greater than my Father?  Should I exercise more authority than he?

To get to the point, refusing to force into submission someone who I think might do wrong (I'm not God; I don't know for sure) is not the same as committing their crime with them.  If my friend asks for my gun, I give it (assuming a city-dwelling Christian like myself even owns one in the first place).  I would try to talk him out of murder.  I would tell everyone who might help.  I'd warn his wife to hide.  I'd help her hide.  If he found her, I'd jump in front of the bullet.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/16/2005 2:39:12 PM (GMT-5)

Zach:  The state (or any other human individual or institution) can use loving, non-coercive, non-violent means.  These terms may not be exact, but they are fairly good modern English terms for summarizing Jesus' ethics.  39 stripes is not Christ-like.  Imprisonment I don't see as Christ-like either.  We can do the things that Jesus did and preached.  We can love, heal, teach, rebuke, serve, sacrifice, and pray.  By doing these things we address the root problems, the most effective means of deterence.  It has been shown time and again that deterence through punishment does not work unless taken to an almost fascist extreme, and even then it doesn't work in the long run.  Capital punishment has been shown not to deter murder.

Jeff:  OK, I think I'm following you.  This is pretty much Albert's position, too - that the very essence of the state (i.e., bearing not the SWORD in vain) is intrinsically wrong.  I would debate the point that capital punishment does not deter, but I would agree that it doesn't deter very much the way it is implemented now days.  Justice needs to be speedy to have a meaningfully deterring affect.  And prisons are cess pools of iniquity.  I think it's noteworthy that there were no prisons in the Mosaic system.

Zach:  Let's say He's accountable to himself, to his own words.  Regardless, my sharing a gun is the same as God's sharing breath.  If my sharing is sin, so is his.  God allows all sorts of opportunities for people to sin and hurt others (Cain and Abel).  Am I greater than my Father?  Should I exercise more authority than he?

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/16/2005 8:11:48 PM (GMT-5)

Jeff:  OK, I think I'm following you.  This is pretty much Albert's position, too - that the very essence of the state (i.e., bearing not the SWORD in vain) is intrinsically wrong.  I would debate the point that capital punishment does not deter, but I would agree that it doesn't deter very much the way it is implemented now days.  Justice needs to be speedy to have a meaningfully deterring affect.  And prisons are cess pools of iniquity.  I think it's noteworthy that there were no prisons in the Mosaic system.

Zach:  I think it's noteworthy that Jesus broke the Mosaic system.  I do agree though.  Immediate consequenced probably would make punishment more effective at detering, but it is also noteworthy that the Mosaic system had due process.  Whenever I digress into discussions about effectiveness on this subject, I still hold that effective or not we must obey Jesus.

Zach:  Let's say He's accountable to himself, to his own words.  Regardless, my sharing a gun is the same as God's sharing breath.  If my sharing is sin, so is his.  God allows all sorts of opportunities for people to sin and hurt others (Cain and Abel).  Am I greater than my Father?  Should I exercise more authority than he?

Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/16/2005 10:44:16 PM (GMT-5)

Zach:  You're reasoning is based on the assumption that you can know for certain when evil is about to be done.  Mine assumes that Christ's love is so strong it can stop a hate-filled husband from murdering his wife.

Jeff:  This seems like a false dichotomy to me.  I am not assuming anything in the case I'm supposing.  It seems that you're assuming that he WON'T kill his wife.  I confess that I don't know if he will or not.  But the ONLY thing I have to go on in this case is my knowledge of what he SAID he would do.  If I knew him well enough to know that he was joking, I would laugh and realize he wasn't really asking for a $100 in the first place.  So the only way it could be wrong for me to NOT give him the $100 is if there is an absolute rule to give to everyone who asks, unconditionally.  But I see other verses that seem to rule that out.  Like "it is not for one to have pressure and the other to have ease," and "he who does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel," and "do good unto all men, especially those who believe,"  etc.  These verses seem to suggest that there are considerations to weigh.  And Christ did say to use judgement.  So I don't see how I'm disobeying Christ by judging.

Zach:  You think stopping bad ends is a justification for using bad means.

Jeff:  No.  I disagree with you that it is always intrinsically wrong or evil to NOT give money.

Zach:  But how can you ever apply your thinking in real life.

Jeff:  It can be difficult, to be sure.  But God promises that He will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able.  And I don't see how the example I gave is difficult at all.  If, indeed, we are never to use judgement to determine what to do, can you help me out, here?  You have claimed the ability to deduce which verses aren't authoritative, so maybe you can tell me what the absolute rules of life are.  I, on the other hand, don't claim to have such an ability and am stuck with the difficulty of understanding verses consistently and inductively.

Zach:  An illustration in the book that I like is of a man with a rifle pointed from across the street at a playground.  Another man walks over one of the region's many hills to see this scene and he has a gun with one bullet.  Thinking that the ends justify the means, our hero aims his gun at the man with the rifle and fires.  The man with the rifle falls down dead.  As the hero continues making his way down the road, more and more of the landscape becomes visible around the hills.  He looks to the playground and sees a bear crashing through the fence and killing all the children inside.  Our hero had trusted his "certain" knowledge of what was about to happen and ended up destroying these children's only hope of salvation.   Ends justifying the means reasoning assumes knowledge unavailable to man.  There are hills we can't see around.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/17/2005 6:41:08 PM (GMT-5)

Jeff:  This seems like a false dichotomy to me.  I am not assuming anything in the case I'm supposing.  It seems that you're assuming that he WON'T kill his wife.  I confess that I don't know if he will or not.  But the ONLY thing I have to go on in this case is my knowledge of what he SAID he would do.  If I knew him well enough to know that he was joking, I would laugh and realize he wasn't really asking for a $100 in the first place.  So the only way it could be wrong for me to NOT give him the $100 is if there is an absolute rule to give to everyone who asks, unconditionally.  But I see other verses that seem to rule that out.  Like "it is not for one to have pressure and the other to have ease," and "he who does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel," and "do good unto all men, especially those who believe,"  etc.  These verses seem to suggest that there are considerations to weigh.  And Christ did say to use judgement.  So I don't see how I'm disobeying Christ by judging.

Zach:  I'm assuming he might not do it.  Therefore I cannot treat it as a certainty.  God would hold more responsibility over his actions than I would since he has more knowledge and more control.  If I am to blame for giving him a gun, God is to blame for giving him the eyesight to aim it.

I don't see how the verses you quoted apply.  Do good to all men would seem to include the husband in your story.

Jeff:  No.  I disagree with you that it is always intrinsically wrong or evil to NOT give money.

Zach:  That's why elsewhere I've been using the term "basically" good or evil.  I thought it was misleading you, so I stopped using it.  Ignoring exceptions like angry husbands (which we disagree on), I think we can both agree that sharing is good.

Jeff:  It can be difficult, to be sure.  But God promises that He will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able.  And I don't see how the example I gave is difficult at all.  If, indeed, we are never to use judgement to determine what to do, can you help me out, here?  You have claimed the ability to deduce which verses aren't authoritative, so maybe you can tell me what the absolute rules of life are.  I, on the other hand, don't claim to have such an ability and am stuck with the difficulty of understanding verses consistently and inductively.

Zach:  I claim the ability to read the scriptures.  There is not that much deduction going on.  If it's in the imperative, it's a command.  We should notice who the audience was of biblical passages.  Things like that.  Maybe there is a place for fancy hermeneutics, but here I'm just trying to read it as it's written.  Taking verses like "he who does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel," to mean "don't provide for people who you think will do evil with your provision" requires much more nuanced deduction than what I've proposed.

Jeff:  Casuistry is problematic, to be sure.  But to consistently live your "way," I still must know absolutely which rules are to be unconditionally obeyed.  There is room for error either way.  Can you not see this?   Or do you claim perfect understanding about these absolute rules which require no judgment and what verses say what they are?  

Zach:  Parts of the Bible can be confusing, but quite often the immediate context lets us know if absolute, unconditional rules are being given.  What is done in opposition to my claim is to take Jesus' plainly absolute statements (for his followers) like "love your neighbor" and make them to be less than absolute because of our prior sense of morality.

Zach:  Parts of the Bible can be confusing, but quite often the immediate context lets us know if absolute, unconditional rules are being given.  What is done in opposition to my claim is to take Jesus' plainly absolute statements (for his followers) like "love your neighbor" and make them to be less than absolute because of our prior sense of morality.

Jeff:  It seems that I cannot say anything in a way where you see what I'm saying.  So let's get back to my last request.  Can you help ME see how you do it?  Give me some examples of what you consider absolute and unconditional commands and why you think the context "lets us know" this.  And then explain to me how to apply conditional commands in a way which requires no judgement of the kind you claim requires omniscience.  I think we're ALL agreed that love thy neighbor is fundamental to all duties to our fellow-man.  I just don't believe, YET, that any other command IS absolute.  Indeed, it seems to me that Christ was making JUST that point in his teachings.  So could you help me understand your method?

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/18/2005 8:01:23 PM (GMT-5)

The reason why this is confusing to me is that loving my neighbor as myself would lead me to respond just the opposite of you, in these two cases.  It's about how you know that your way is the true way of love that I'm asking for help on.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/19/2005 6:18:14 AM (GMT-5)