Executed man may have been innocent....

[Psalm25Gomer]

Your thoughts?




http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/texas.execution.ap/index.html


HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- Doubts are being cast on the guilt of a Texas man executed more than a dozen years ago after the crime's lone witness recanted and a co-defendant said he allowed his friend to be falsely accused under police pressure, the Houston Chronicle reported Sunday.

Ruben Cantu was 17 in 1984 when he was charged with capital murder in the fatal shooting of a man during an attempted robbery in San Antonio. The victim was shot nine times with a rifle before the gunman unloaded more rounds into the only eyewitness.

The eyewitness, Juan Moreno, told the Chronicle that it wasn't Cantu who shot him. Moreno said he identified Cantu as the killer during his 1985 trial because he felt pressured and was afraid of authorities. (Watch the reporter investigating the case -- 3:16)

Meanwhile, Cantu's co-defendant, David Garza, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be accused, even though Cantu wasn't with him the night of the killing.

Cantu was executed at age 26. He had long professed his innocence.

"Part of me died when he died," said Garza, who was 15 at the time of the murder. "You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."

Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the panel's decision was the best they could do based on the information presented during the trial.

"With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information," Ward said. "The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that."

Sam D. Millsap Jr., then the Bexar County district attorney who decided to charge Cantu with capital murder, told the newspaper he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu's photo three separate times.

On the night of the attack, 19-year-old Moreno and his friend, 25-year-old Pedro Gomez, were sleeping in a house they were helping build for Moreno's brother. Burglars had recently struck, so they were guarding the home, located across the street from the trailer where Cantu lived.

Both were awoken by a pair of teenagers demanding money. The older of the two carried a .22-caliber rifle. Gomez was killed; Moreno was shot but survived.

Afterward, Moreno described his attackers as two Mexican-Americans he thought lived nearby.

After a South San Antonio High School teacher mentioned that students were saying Cantu had done the killing, police showed Moreno photos of five Hispanic men, including Cantu. Moreno, however, did not identify Cantu as his attacker and the case appeared closed.

About four months later, Cantu was involved in a bar shooting that injured an off-duty police officer. Cantu said the shooting erupted over a pool game and that he fired only when the officer flashed a gun and threatened him. The officer later said Cantu shot him four times in an unprovoked attack.

That case against Cantu was dropped.

"There was an overreaction, and some of the evidence may have been tainted. It could not be prosecuted," said former homicide Sgt. Bill Ewell, who oversaw the investigation.

Ewell, a friend of the officer, said the bar shooting prompted him to reopen the Gomez murder case.

He sent a bilingual homicide detective to show Cantu's photo to Moreno for the second time. Moreno still did not identify Cantu.

The next day, Ewell sent out a different bilingual detective who brought Moreno, who was then an illegal immigrant, back to the police station. Moreno was again shown Cantu's photo along with four others. The officer's report indicates that Moreno picked out Cantu, then signed and dated the back of the photo.

But the photo submitted into evidence at trial was not dated on the back, according to trial transcripts. Moreno said he felt compelled to do what police wanted, even though he knew it was wrong.

"The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer," Moreno said in a recent interview. "They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified."

Ewell, now retired, told the Chronicle, "I'm confident the right people were prosecuted."

[Healing Oil]

Can charges be brought on the witness who testified against Cantu?

[middletree]

Your thoughts?


Thoughts:

1. Those who insist on using the Law of Moses to justify the death penalty should pay heed to Numbers 35:40, Deut 17:6, and Deut 19:15. All state clearly that someone cannot be put to death for a murder if there was only one witness. I don't think we're under that Law, but it still seems like a good principle to follow.

2. I believe that it's possible that the one witness who says he was pressured into testifying was telling the truth. There are too many stories out there of DA's being more interested in getting the conviction than in finding the truth, for them to all be wrong.

Thanks for this, Leslee. I had not heard about this.

[oohmercyme]

I am opposed to capital punishment.

The justice system is not perfect and mistakes are made, there sure is no "undoing" the mistake after an execution.

That's the 10 second version of my opinion cuz I'm to knackered to write more :D

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I used to believe in the death penalty. But I thought about it for a while and I think that the loss of innocent lives like that of this Reuben Cantu indivdual are not worth going through. I'd go with a death penalty if the convict pleads guilty. Or as middletree mentioned, more than one witness or even undisputable evidence (like a video, house full of corpses etc).

[Gandalf]

I think the death penalty is just, especially considering Romans 13 (the governing authorities bear the sword (i.e. have the authority to use violence/cause death) as ministers of God's wrath on the unrighteous). I also think that a high standard of proof should be required to ensure the guilt of anyone convicted.

[middletree]

I also think that a high standard of proof should be required to ensure the guilt of anyone convicted.

And in this case, that criteria wasn't met. I wonder how many other people have been convicted and sentenced to prison or to death on the testimony of one witness who was coerced by prosecutors or police? I'll bet the number is very large.

[kh294God]

I don't believe in the death penalty because too innocent people have been put to death....DNA is a wonderful thing....I think the only way to okay a death penalty is if the evidence is there to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (until of beyond a reasonable doubt) and that DNA proves that no one else could have committed the crime. I think EVERYONE on death row should be given a DNA test prove once and for all if they are guilty or innocent. The great thing about DNA is it doesn't lie...and it's always there.!!Just my opinion

[Gandalf]

And in this case, that criteria wasn't met. I wonder how many other people have been convicted and sentenced to prison or to death on the testimony of one witness who was coerced by prosecutors or police? I'll bet the number is very large.
I agree that it seems likely this case was not properly prosecuted or decided. Was just pointing out that the general principle is still valid, though we should take more care to ensure it's properly executed.

[Howlin' Wolf]

I don't believe in the death penalty because too innocent people have been put to death....DNA is a wonderful thing....I think the only way to okay a death penalty is if the evidence is there to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (until of beyond a reasonable doubt) and that DNA proves that no one else could have committed the crime. I think EVERYONE on death row should be given a DNA test prove once and for all if they are guilty or innocent. The great thing about DNA is it doesn't lie...and it's always there.!!Just my opinion

DNA is a flawed system. there is a disease called Chimerism, in which people can have 2 sets of DNA in their body. A HAir sample may have a different DNA than their blood sample.

[middletree]

I agree that it seems likely this case was not properly prosecuted or decided. Was just pointing out that the general principle is still valid, though we should take more care to ensure it's properly executed.

Heh Heh Heh

You said executed

[mcgreen311]

Ruben Cantu was 17 in 1984 when he was charged with capital murder in the fatal shooting of a man during an attempted robbery in San Antonio.

Can you be tried as an adult at 17 in Texas or do they have the death penalty as a possibility for minors?

[mcgreen311]

Heh Heh Heh

You said executed

This thread has struck a low. :)

[kh294God]

DNA is a flawed system. there is a disease called Chimerism, in which people can have 2 sets of DNA in their body. A HAir sample may have a different DNA than their blood sample.
you may consider it to be a flawed system...(first I've heard) but I rather depend on a DNA sample than eye witness account because a person's memory is more flawed than DNA....

[kh294God]

Can you be tried as an adult at 17 in Texas or do they have the death penalty as a possibility for minors? each state has it's own law about when a person is older enough to be tried as an adult...17 is older enough in Texas....the average of the whole nation is 17...sad but true

[kh294God]

I believe that capital punishment, when thoroughly justified by the law, would be best enforced if done publicly and painfully. That may sound inhumane, but think about it:

Someone is convicted of, say, being a serial rapist and murderer. They sit on death row for twenty-x years while their case is deliberated, argued, and appealed, reagardless of guilt or innocence.

Then, if convicted, they get strapped to a table and injected with a high dose of several different chemicals; and the death is witnessed only by relatives or witness 99% of the time.

That isn't much of a detterant. If we're going to use capital punishment, it's my personal belief that it should be done in full view of the publilc, as a visual message to all would-be criminals. Of course, our American system of justice says that all defendants are "innocent until proven guilty;" which gives lawyers and amoral judges the perpetual chance to find ways around the law.

So the gist of what I'm saying is, if we're going to use capital punishment, I feel it should be conducted in such a way as to send a strong message. And if we're not going to use capital punishment, the convicted prisoner's life should be a life of hard labor, not a life of staring at four bare walls.

And back to the topic, I'd like to know why the witness didn't come out with this information before the execution.
the only (I feel) to make the capital punishment a statement of why not to commit treason, aggravated rape or 1st Degree Murder (the only crimes you can be put to death for) is not making it a public execution. The reason for that the majority of the public wouldn't view it as real because too much murder is depicted in TV shows and movies. I don't think the public would associate a public execution as real..(just my opinion)
and as for the last comment...the witness might've known who the real killer was (i don't know if he did or didn't JMO) so he might've been scared to come out before the executions. once again this all is just my opinion feel free to agree or disagree

[Gandalf]

There can be value in public executions, I suppose... but the goal of punishment should not be deterrence, but justice. The important question is what punishment is a just penalty for the crime, not how effective it is at deterring others. Fifty years in prison would certainly deter people from speeding, but it'd be an unjust and unreasonable penalty. Within the realm of just penalties, deterrence can be considered, but it shouldn't be the primary factor determining what punishment is used.

[Trillamum]

I agree with Steven, if someone deserves the death penalty, it should be carried out publicly and painfully. Teddy Roosevelt had a theory along these lines. Included in it was also that any man convicted of a violent crime against a woman or child (rape, molestation, abuse, etc.) should be publicly flogged. Smart man that Teddy....he's probably my favourite president of all time (and not just for that.)

[oohmercyme]

I believe that capital punishment, when thoroughly justified by the law, would be best enforced if done publicly and painfully. That may sound inhumane, but think about it.l


WOW! Knock me over with a feather.

It never fails to amaze me that we all read from the same Bible and serve the same God and have such vastly different opinions and interpretations on such matters.

[Howlin' Wolf]

WOW! Knock me over with a feather.

It never fails to amaze me that we all read from the same Bible and serve the same God and have such vastly different opinions and interpretations on such matters.
you read the bible and make it say what you want it to say. so it shouldnt amaze you that you have no clear contextual basis with which to interpret scripture. you twist it to support your pre-suppositions of what Christ is supposed to be.

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

so please, humor me, and show me how you fit this passage into your own theology

[oohmercyme]

Mr Tulip- based on your fubar'd post on the other thread, I can only assume that no matter what I say you will disagree (although clearly you are of the belief that you are always right, ergo, everyone else is wrong, and well, who am I to argue?). Since your post here appears to be coloured by you erroneously attributing comments to me on another thread, I think you will have to "humour" yourself.

Btw, your other post sounds like you are opposed to GWB and capital punishment, so i wonder why you are for it here? Maybe I got caught up in all the errors in your other diabtribe and missed what you intended to say.

(Regarding my "twisted theology" you'll love that I was raised in the TULIP tradition! I have only my American Calvinist education, at surprisingly enough, Calvin College, to blame. They not only provided me with a nice degree in social work, but this "tainted" worldview in which to see the world around me. Of course, I'd also like to thank, er, blame my Mom and Dad, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, my Sunday School and catechism teachers, and reformed Christian educators from grades 1-12 also interestingly enough at schools called Calvin, for not providing me with "a clear contextual basis for interpreting scripture". Oh how they have all lead me astray when you clearly have all the right answers.)

*For the record, I would not and do not assume that any of the above provides me (and me alone) with the only clear and correct interpretation of the Word.*

[Howlin' Wolf]

Mr Tulip- based on your fubar'd post on the other thread, I can only assume that no matter what I say you will disagree (although clearly you are of the belief that you are always right, ergo, everyone else is wrong, and well, who am I to argue?). Since your post here appears to be coloured by you erroneously attributing comments to me on another thread, I think you will have to "humour" yourself.

Btw, your other post sounds like you are opposed to GWB and capital punishment, so i wonder why you are for it here? Maybe I got caught up in all the errors in your other diabtribe and missed what you intended to say.

(Regarding my "twisted theology" you'll love that I was raised in the TULIP tradition! I have only my American Calvinist education, at surprisingly enough, Calvin College, to blame. They not only provided me with a nice degree in social work, but this "tainted" worldview in which to see the world around me. Of course, I'd also like to thank, er, blame my Mom and Dad, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, my Sunday School and catechism teachers, and reformed Christian educators from grades 1-12 also interestingly enough at schools called Calvin, for not providing me with "a clear contextual basis for interpreting scripture". Oh how they have all lead me astray when you clearly have all the right answers.)

*For the record, I would not and do not assume that any of the above provides me (and me alone) with the only clear and correct interpretation of the Word.*
nice dodge on scripture that contradicts your beliefs

[oohmercyme]

nice dodge
Goose. Gander.
Pot. Kettle.

*********
I will let others say it as they can say it better than I.

Those who support the death penalty often take Genesis 9:6 as their authority: "Who sheds man's blood will have his blood shed." This becomes their hermeneutical key, so that other scripture is interpreted as conforming to it. They contend Jesus gave no direct teaching on the subject, and did not challenge governmental authority. Those who oppose the death penalty take Jesus as Lord guiding their interpretation. Jesus' teachings and cross become their hermeneutical key, so other scripture is interpreted through Jesus. In Matthew 26:52, Jesus takes Genesis 9:6 as a prediction, not a command: "Who lives by the sword will die by the sword."
Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:38-48 that revenge and retaliation are wrong, and that instead we should follow Jesus' commands of love, forgiveness, and compassion. Jesus' forgiving the woman caught in adultery is relevant. Jesus' once-for-all death on the cross ended the need for sacrifices of expiation. The cross as death penalty discloses sin, not model behavior to be exemplified.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine .article&issue=soj0011&article=001141g

Moses was a murderer who God eventually called “friend.” Paul, an accomplice to the death of many Christians, was forgiven, transformed to God’s purposes and went on to write: “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all” (Rom. 11:32). Why are even many of us Christians so punishment-minded when God is so mercy-minded?
Women On The Row http://www.esa-online.org/prism/archives/1999/novdec99/women.html

The CRC (Christian Reformed Church) has declared that modern states are not obligated by Scripture, creed, or principle to institute and practice capital punishment. It does, however, recognize that Scripture acknowledges the right of modern states to institute and practice capital punishment if it is exercised with utmost restraint. http://209.200.88.167/pages/positions_capital_punish. cfm (Unfortunately they do not put the Acts of Synod and therefore the Biblical support, online/)

The basis for our beliefs comes directly from the Bible. Through the Old as well as New Testaments runs a theme that stresses the sacredness of human life because people are made in the image of God. Thus God's abhorrence of murder is made clear early on. While some allowance for capital punishment is made in the Old Testament, it is modified even there by cities of refuge to which the guilty can flee and by frequent reminders that "vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."
In the New Testament, the sacrificial expiation of guilt for murder, which was required inthe Old Testament, is now met by Christ's death. The cross now abolishes any Old Testament basis for capital punishment. In addition, the teachings of Jesus about revenge and turning the other cheek instruct us to love others despite their wrongs (Matthew 5:30-56). When Christ himself was executed, he set a model response by his dying words: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And when confronted directly with the question of what to do in a capital case in his own society' Christ responded, "if any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone" (John 8). Christ's model of love, forgiveness and reconciliation does not leave room for the penalty of death.

The Old Testament allows the death penalty to be applied in several cases, including adultery, accidental manslaughter and rebellious teenagers (Exodus 21). However, limitations are prominent. "An eye for an eye" was not a command to seek vengeance, but a limitation on retribution. The standard of proof for death penalty convictions was higher than the current "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and required absolute certainty of at least two eye witnesses (Deuteronomy 17 and 19). Additionally, unequal wealth and power and unequal justice were as much a sin as crimes.
Jesus built on the Old Testament tradition that life is sacred. Jesus teaches that we are to love and forgive those who harm us. If we love God, Jesus says we are obligated to show that love in our actions toward others. Christ moves us from the Old Testament perspective of limited retaliation to non-retaliation and active love (Romans 12, I John 4, Luke 6:27-36).
Christ was asked to rule on a death penalty case. His response: "Let one without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7).
Christ's death on the cross, itself an application of capital punishment, canceled the Old Testament basis of shedding blood to testify to life's sacredness (Hebrews 10). Christ died that others may live. By trading places with the guilty and the enemy, by dying in the place of the murderer Barabbas, Christ closed off any sacrificial reason for the death penalty.
Jesus did not die for some sinners. He died for all. Unless we believe that every person, whether murderer or not, is redeemable and must have the chance to be redeemed, there is no real gospel. To deprive a person of the possibility of reconciliation to God and humanity is the real tragedy of capital punishment. http://www.mcc.org/us/washington/issues/criminaljustice/deathpenalty.html

[kh294God]

i totally agree oohmercyme......i am firmly against the death penalty...and what started this thread is a perfect example of why....i grow tired of people using the "eye for an eye" bit as a defense in fair of the death penalty.....the ones that use that defense apparently doesn't read their Bible clearly or just choose to agree with what agrees with them....because when Jesus came to Earth and died on the cross He did away with the Old Testament ways of living (like offering burnt sacrifices because He was the ultimate sacrifice) once again this is just my opinion....feel free (anyone) to agree or disagree i can't stop you....

[Howlin' Wolf]

i knew that romans 13 wouldnt be dealt with

iused to ignore scripture when it conflicted with my beliefs too, so i wont hold it against you

[debt free gomer]

I apologize for my ignorance in advance...but does Romans 13 justify Dictatorship rule? Some really scary rulers come into mind.....

[Howlin' Wolf]

I apologize for my ignorance in advance...but does Romans 13 justify Dictatorship rule? Some really scary rulers come into mind.....
romans 13 justifies all rule....all rulers are servants of God, his agents of wrath. it says it pretty plainly

[oohmercyme]

i knew that romans 13 wouldnt be dealt with
To quote another "Nice dodge". How is it that you have determined that this chapter has precidence over the rest of the Bible?
i used to ignore scripture when it conflicted with my beliefs too, so i wont hold it against you
It's nice that you have the correct view of Scripture and you are willing to share it in such a positive way!

***

Romans 13

There have been Christians who have questioned the legitimacy of the state itself. Other Christians have taken the position that the government has a God-given authority such that it is not for a Christian to question what his government is doing, but simply to obey.

Neither of the above views will square with what the Scriptures teach about the Christian’s relation to the state. The first of these does not give due recognition to the God-given authority of the state. The second position above fails to recognize that the God-given authority of the state is not ultimate.

The first part of Romans 13 is often the focus of discussions of the Christian and his relation to the state. It is important that we understand both what Romans 13 affirms and what it does not affirm. In Romans 13 we are called upon to recognize and submit to the God-given authority of the civil government. "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (l3:l). So, Christian citizens owe the state obedience in all matters that are within that God-given authority.

However, Paul’s recognition of the God-given authority of the state may not be used to justify the conclusion that God wants us to obey every directive of every authority figure regardless of how that figure exercises his power. Only God has a sovereignty that is unlimited. Every human sovereignty is restricted by the higher claims of God’s commandments and limited to the sphere for which the authority was given.

It is important to reflect not only on what Romans 13 says but also on what other biblical materials have to say on the relation between the believer and the state. While biblical history illustrates over and over again that God in his sovereign purposes is able to use sinful kings and even heathen powers to achieve his redemptive goals, the biblical picture of civil authorities is not a very lofty one. In the biblical materials the state does not finally come through as an institution to which believers owe unquestioning allegiance. The Bible is full of warnings that sin may express itself in abuse of power.

Thus, in the biblical materials on the Christian and the state there is a kind of tension. There is need to recognize the God-given authority of the state and to discern where that authority requires loyal obedience. But there is also the need to recognize where the use of authority becomes sinful and where our deeper loyalty and obedience to God must prevail. While the state is called to serve as a minister of God and must be obeyed when it serves as such, Christians cannot uncritically obey the state on the assumption that it is always fulfilling that calling.

One of the key concepts in a discussion of ethical decisions is the conscience. Common to the various views is the recognition that the conscience is an inner voice addressing the individual concerning the rightness or wrongness of his conduct. In Romans 2:15 the Apostle Paul recognizes that even the "Gentiles" have consciences that accuse or excuse them. But various views differ on the question of whose voice it is that speaks within, with what authority it speaks and how seriously it is to be taken.

The Apostle Paul makes clear that the conscience is not to be treated simply as the voice of God, for the conscience can be weak, or mistaken, and does involve subjective judgment (I Corinthians 8). However, the conscience is also not to be lightly dismissed or treated with disrespect, for it is something important in one’s relation to one’s Lord. To "defile" or "wound" the conscience is a matter of serious spiritual consequences, as Paul sees it (I Corinthians 8:7-13).

While the voice of conscience is not simply the voice of God, it is also not simply a subjective judgment without objective reference. The voice of conscience is perhaps best described as the inner voice that testifies for the moral authorities we recognize. Some voice of conscience speaks to everyone (Romans 2:l5), but the content of that voice varies according to the authorities and standards which we consciously or unconsciously recognize. For some, the voice of conscience may merely reflect the values of family, friends, and society. But a sensitive Christian conscience is responsive to the values of the Christian fellowship, and, beyond these, to God as he reveals himself in the Scriptures, in his law, and in the person of Christ. The sanctified Christian conscience is one in which God’s law is "written in the heart" (Psalm 119:10, 11; II Corinthians 3:1-6, Hebrews 8:10, 11).

Thus the conscience of a Christian is very much involved in his commitment to his Lord. One cannot trample upon his conscience, or permit another to do so, without serious spiritual damage to his commitment (I Corinthians 8:7-13). To act in flagrant conflict with one’s conscience is moral suicide.

When the time for decision arrives, the church may not presume to dictate to the conscience of the individual. During the process of counsel, the believing fellowship may work hard in an effort to reshape the conscience of the individual so that he comes to a conclusion in harmony with the conscientious convictions of the larger fellowship. However, when the outcome of the process is clear, the church must urge the individual not to violate his own conscience but to act in integrity with his own conscientious conviction. In the final decision, the church may not appoint itself the ultimate judge over the individual, because not the church but Christ is the Lord of the conscience.

(Noted under Christian reponse to war and capital punishment. CRCNA)

[Gandalf]

I think the reason for bringing up Romans 13 to begin with though, is that it clearly says that valid governing authorities have the duty to use violence to execute the wrath of God on evildoers. Which people who hold power legitimately have the authority to do so is another question. But, if the validity of a government is accepted, its right and responsibility to use capital punishment (and war) as appropriate is stated there.

[Pouye]

To quote another "Nice dodge". How is it that you have determined that this chapter has precidence over the rest of the Bible?

It's nice that you have the correct view of Scripture and you are willing to share it in such a positive way!

***

Romans 13

There have been Christians who have questioned the legitimacy of the state itself. Other Christians have taken the position that the government has a God-given authority such that it is not for a Christian to question what his government is doing, but simply to obey.

Neither of the above views will square with what the Scriptures teach about the Christian’s relation to the state. The first of these does not give due recognition to the God-given authority of the state. The second position above fails to recognize that the God-given authority of the state is not ultimate.

The first part of Romans 13 is often the focus of discussions of the Christian and his relation to the state. It is important that we understand both what Romans 13 affirms and what it does not affirm. In Romans 13 we are called upon to recognize and submit to the God-given authority of the civil government. "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (l3:l). So, Christian citizens owe the state obedience in all matters that are within that God-given authority.

However, Paul’s recognition of the God-given authority of the state may not be used to justify the conclusion that God wants us to obey every directive of every authority figure regardless of how that figure exercises his power. Only God has a sovereignty that is unlimited. Every human sovereignty is restricted by the higher claims of God’s commandments and limited to the sphere for which the authority was given.

It is important to reflect not only on what Romans 13 says but also on what other biblical materials have to say on the relation between the believer and the state. While biblical history illustrates over and over again that God in his sovereign purposes is able to use sinful kings and even heathen powers to achieve his redemptive goals, the biblical picture of civil authorities is not a very lofty one. In the biblical materials the state does not finally come through as an institution to which believers owe unquestioning allegiance. The Bible is full of warnings that sin may express itself in abuse of power.

Thus, in the biblical materials on the Christian and the state there is a kind of tension. There is need to recognize the God-given authority of the state and to discern where that authority requires loyal obedience. But there is also the need to recognize where the use of authority becomes sinful and where our deeper loyalty and obedience to God must prevail. While the state is called to serve as a minister of God and must be obeyed when it serves as such, Christians cannot uncritically obey the state on the assumption that it is always fulfilling that calling.

One of the key concepts in a discussion of ethical decisions is the conscience. Common to the various views is the recognition that the conscience is an inner voice addressing the individual concerning the rightness or wrongness of his conduct. In Romans 2:15 the Apostle Paul recognizes that even the "Gentiles" have consciences that accuse or excuse them. But various views differ on the question of whose voice it is that speaks within, with what authority it speaks and how seriously it is to be taken.

The Apostle Paul makes clear that the conscience is not to be treated simply as the voice of God, for the conscience can be weak, or mistaken, and does involve subjective judgment (I Corinthians 8). However, the conscience is also not to be lightly dismissed or treated with disrespect, for it is something important in one’s relation to one’s Lord. To "defile" or "wound" the conscience is a matter of serious spiritual consequences, as Paul sees it (I Corinthians 8:7-13).

While the voice of conscience is not simply the voice of God, it is also not simply a subjective judgment without objective reference. The voice of conscience is perhaps best described as the inner voice that testifies for the moral authorities we recognize. Some voice of conscience speaks to everyone (Romans 2:l5), but the content of that voice varies according to the authorities and standards which we consciously or unconsciously recognize. For some, the voice of conscience may merely reflect the values of family, friends, and society. But a sensitive Christian conscience is responsive to the values of the Christian fellowship, and, beyond these, to God as he reveals himself in the Scriptures, in his law, and in the person of Christ. The sanctified Christian conscience is one in which God’s law is "written in the heart" (Psalm 119:10, 11; II Corinthians 3:1-6, Hebrews 8:10, 11).

Thus the conscience of a Christian is very much involved in his commitment to his Lord. One cannot trample upon his conscience, or permit another to do so, without serious spiritual damage to his commitment (I Corinthians 8:7-13). To act in flagrant conflict with one’s conscience is moral suicide.

When the time for decision arrives, the church may not presume to dictate to the conscience of the individual. During the process of counsel, the believing fellowship may work hard in an effort to reshape the conscience of the individual so that he comes to a conclusion in harmony with the conscientious convictions of the larger fellowship. However, when the outcome of the process is clear, the church must urge the individual not to violate his own conscience but to act in integrity with his own conscientious conviction. In the final decision, the church may not appoint itself the ultimate judge over the individual, because not the church but Christ is the Lord of the conscience.

(Noted under Christian reponse to war and capital punishment. CRCNA)

Wow, oohmercyme... you have put a lot of effort into researching this subject.

What is difficult for me is how to divide government/state/rulership with individual responsibility when the rulership is a democracy -- especially when Christians do not make up the majority.

This is very thought provoking:

"There is need to recognize the God-given authority of the state and to discern where that authority requires loyal obedience. But there is also the need to recognize where the use of authority becomes sinful and where our deeper loyalty and obedience to God must prevail. While the state is called to serve as a minister of God and must be obeyed when it serves as such, Christians cannot uncritically obey the state on the assumption that it is always fulfilling that calling."

I agree.

Rock

[oohmercyme]

I apologize for my ignorance in advance...but does Romans 13 justify Dictatorship rule? Some really scary rulers come into mind.....

romans 13 justifies all rule....all rulers are servants of God, his agents of wrath. it says it pretty plainly

Romans 13. 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Let's follow the logic of your statement for a moment. That all rulers are God's servants and should therefore be obeyed even if they act in a manner that is contrary to the will of God.

The rulers of a country decide that abortion is ok, therefore, Christians should not oppose that as God's agents have implemented such measures? Saddam Hussien? Adolf Hilter? Genocide? Invading another country? By your interpretation, Christians should not oppose these things. Is that really what God is telling us in those verses?

[ICarlson99]

I am opposed to capital punishment.

The justice system is not perfect and mistakes are made, there sure is no "undoing" the mistake after an execution.

That's the 10 second version of my opinion cuz I'm to knackered to write more :D

Was the justice system perfect during Old Testament times?

What's the appropriate societal justice for the murder of an innocent person?

I think capital punishment needs to be available, but agree with Gandalf that the burden must be quite high. The penalty should not be exacted of vengeance or anger, but of justice.

[Pouye]

Was the justice system perfect during Old Testament times?

What's the appropriate societal justice for the murder of an innocent person?

I think capital punishment needs to be available, but agree with Gandalf that the burden must be quite high. The penalty should not be exacted of vengeance or anger, but of justice.

One thing that I think wasn't really mentioned is the fact that this guy (Cantu) was a major trouble maker:

"About four months later, Cantu was involved in a bar shooting that injured an off-duty police officer. Cantu said the shooting erupted over a pool game and that he fired only when the officer flashed a gun and threatened him. The officer later said Cantu shot him four times in an unprovoked attack."

It looks to me like he tried to kill a man over something really stupid (a game of pool?). He obviously packed a gun, and was not afraid to use it on someone. It looks to me like the off-duty officer could not claim to be shot four times if he wasn't actually shot four times. If you shoot someone four times, you are trying to kill that person. The off-duty officer didn't fire a shot, because Cantu was the one doing all of the shooting. It looks to me like he dug his own grave. I don't see him as an innocent man at all, since he tried to kill a man over a game of pool. I'll bet Cantu had a rap sheet as long as his arm, too.

I'm not saying he deserved the death penalty, but when you go around doing crimes and shooting people, the law has a way of catching up to you.

Rock

[Howlin' Wolf]

Let's follow the logic of your statement for a moment. That all rulers are God's servants and should therefore be obeyed even if they act in a manner that is contrary to the will of God.

The rulers of a country decide that abortion is ok, therefore, Christians should not oppose that as God's agents have implemented such measures? Saddam Hussien? Adolf Hilter? Genocide? Invading another country? By your interpretation, Christians should not oppose these things. Is that really what God is telling us in those verses?
my logic?? how about re-read romans 13. i didnt add anything to that. it says what it says. so lets look at this through your example

in Paul's days, there was slavery. did he call for the abolition of slavery? in Paul's days, doctors didnt give abortions, instead unwanted babies were left on the side of the road for the wolves to eat. did Paul call for change? in Paul's day, the roman empire was constantly invading other lands. did Paul call for a new ceasar?
what does Jesus say. give to ceasar what is casear's. the same ceasar that allowed unwanted babies to be left for the wolves, condoned slavery, and endorsed capital punishment and war.

he shoots...he scores

[middletree]

my logic?? how about re-read romans 13. i didnt add anything to that. it says what it says. so lets look at this through your example

in Paul's days, there was slavery. did he call for the abolition of slavery? in Paul's days, doctors didnt give abortions, instead unwanted babies were left on the side of the road for the wolves to eat. did Paul call for change? in Paul's day, the roman empire was constantly invading other lands. did Paul call for a new ceasar?
what does Jesus say. give to ceasar what is casear's. the same ceasar that allowed unwanted babies to be left for the wolves, condoned slavery, and endorsed capital punishment and war.


Good points, Jason. I agree. I still think we are free to hold personal views and vote accordingly. But your point is that we are not to trust govt or laws to save us, and you are 100% on target.

The problem with our nation is spiritual. It's not a legal problem. If every citizen stopped breaking laws, stopped having abortion, stopped looking at p0rn, stopped fornicating, then we'd have a group of a few million believers, surrounded by over 200 million unbelievers bound for hell. The problem is a nation of people who don't know Jesus. No laws will change that.