Thread: Happy Michael Servetus Day?

If the guy was let alone to spread his lies, millions might have died. What if the Germans had executed Lenin rather than send him to Russia with gold? The Germans knew what would happen. They sent him to Russia knowing that he would cause the type of social unrest which would force Russian out of the war, and it worked. But was it right morally?

Servatus should be seen in that light. From a converso family in Spain, he spread Jewish objections of the Trinity where ever he went. His "discovery" of the pulmonary circulation of the blood was also plagiarised from a Jewish work not widely circulated at the time. He was kicked out of one city after another because of the civil unrest the authorities knew would be the end result of his teaching.

Originally Posted by TimV

If the guy was let alone to spread his lies, millions might have died. What if the Germans had executed Lenin rather than send him to Russia with gold? The Germans knew what would happen. They sent him to Russia knowing that he would cause the type of social unrest which would force Russian out of the war, and it worked. But was it right morally?

Servatus should be seen in that light. From a converso family in Spain, he spread Jewish objections of the Trinity where ever he went. His "discovery" of the pulmonary circulation of the blood was also plagiarised from a Jewish work not widely circulated at the time. He was kicked out of one city after another because of the civil unrest the authorities knew would be the end result of his teaching.

Exactly.

And for his sedition he was justly condemned to death.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Servetus was an incorrigible heretic, blasphemer of God and His ministers, and received a just punishment.

Exactly.


With the absence of a state run prison system and the nanny state mentality. The state wasn’t in a position to “incarcerate” Servetus, nor should they.

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).

If someone ever perfects time travel let's send the whole TBN line-up back to Old Geneva

Have you guys seen this?

Home- Servetus the Evangelical

Dr. White has responded. It seems as "Michael" has challenged Dr.White to a public debate which I am excited about! Dr. White posted the link of "Michael's" response. The Link is here...No one knows the identity of "Michael Servetus" and according to him he will make it known (I believe) on November 19?

http://servetustheevangelical.com/do...JamesWhite.pdf

Originally Posted by XBlackWaterX

Have you guys seen this?

Home- Servetus the Evangelical

Dr. White has responded. It seems as "Michael" has challenged Dr.White to a public debate which I am excited about! Dr. White posted the link of "Michael's" response. The Link is here...( No one knows the identity of "Michael Servetus" and according to him he will make it known (I believe) on November 19?

http://servetustheevangelical.com/do...JamesWhite.pdf

Hola, my name is Beza the Trinitarian

Originally Posted by XBlackWaterX

Have you guys seen this?

Home- Servetus the Evangelical

Dr. White has responded. It seems as "Michael" has challenged Dr.White to a public debate which I am excited about! Dr. White posted the link of "Michael's" response. The Link is here...No one knows the identity of "Michael Servetus" and according to him he will make it known (I believe) on November 19?

http://servetustheevangelical.com/do...JamesWhite.pdf

I just love the humility on his website. It so smacks of a Christlike character.



Everyone is out to make a name for himself.

Originally Posted by XBlackWaterX

Have you guys seen this?

Home- Servetus the Evangelical

Dr. White has responded. It seems as "Michael" has challenged Dr.White to a public debate which I am excited about! Dr. White posted the link of "Michael's" response. The Link is here...No one knows the identity of "Michael Servetus" and according to him he will make it known (I believe) on November 19?

http://servetustheevangelical.com/do...JamesWhite.pdf

Why debate this guy? I just read a bit of his stuff and he is not all that articulate, nor is he well-reasoned. Does this guy actually have any followers?

Another point worth mentioning is that in Calvin's personal correspondence with Servetus, he warned him not to come to Geneva, because of the consequences. When Servetus escaped from the RC lockup, he went to Geneva anyway.

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

Originally Posted by XBlackWaterX

Have you guys seen this?

Home- Servetus the Evangelical

Dr. White has responded. It seems as "Michael" has challenged Dr.White to a public debate which I am excited about! Dr. White posted the link of "Michael's" response. The Link is here...No one knows the identity of "Michael Servetus" and according to him he will make it known (I believe) on November 19?

http://servetustheevangelical.com/do...JamesWhite.pdf

Why debate this guy? I just read a bit of his stuff and he is not all that articulate, nor is he well-reasoned. Does this guy actually have any followers?

I say debate him to make an example of him!!

Im sure the online modalists are cheering him on.

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).

This is ridiculous comment. Maybe you should spend some time in countries where people actually are killed for what they think.

-----Added 10/28/2009 at 09:46:44 EST-----

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).

Absolutely ridiculous comment. Maybe you should spend some time in countries where people still are killed for what they think. Somebody somewhere no doubt thinks you should be killed for what you think. Youe attitude with the power to carry it out would be appalling.

Originally Posted by captivewill

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).

This is ridiculous comment. Maybe you should spend some time in countries where people actually are killed for what they think.

-----Added 10/28/2009 at 09:46:44 EST-----

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).

Absolutely ridiculous comment. Maybe you should spend some time in countries where people still are killed for what they think. Somebody somewhere no doubt thinks you should be killed for what you think. Youe attitude with the power to carry it out would be appalling.

I'm pretty sure ewenlin was just joking, but in defense of the theocrats on this thread, you should note (as has been stated already) that it is the deception they teach to massive followers that is at issue, not their private opinions.

It must be wonderful to have such intimate knowwledge of the Divine will of our Sovereign Lord. I can see why folks are wise to reject the union of church and state. Go olver to Nigeria or China and try to apply your horribly shallow and silly assumptions.

Some Alternatives to Church-State Separation

-----Added 10/28/2009 at 09:53:15 EST-----

Originally Posted by captivewill

It must be wonderful to have such intimate knowwledge of the Divine will of our Sovereign Lord. I can see why folks are wise to reject the union of church and state. Go olver to Nigeria or China and try to apply your horribly shallow and silly assumptions.

Church and State will always be United, the only question is if the State will be United with the Proper Church.

CT

Originally Posted by captivewill

It must be wonderful to have such intimate knowwledge of the Divine will of our Sovereign Lord. I can see why folks are wise to reject the union of church and state. Go olver to Nigeria or China and try to apply your horribly shallow and silly assumptions.

Before you throw out statements like this without having studied the matter (and before the mods get you for being rude after only 5 posts on here...) you might consider viewing some of the theonomy threads to get an idea of what they really believe. No one is suggesting we march over to China and start beheading them.

Originally Posted by captivewill

It must be wonderful to have such intimate knowwledge of the Divine will of our Sovereign Lord. I can see why folks are wise to reject the union of church and state. Go olver to Nigeria or China and try to apply your horribly shallow and silly assumptions.

William,

Before you throw out the entire Reformed tradition of the first few hundred years as using "horribly shallow and silly assumptions," and as presumptuously asserting some "intimate knowledge of the Divine will," I think some explanations would be in order. This is not to say you must agree with our older teachers, but I'm sure even those who disagree (and disagree vehemently!) do not find them using "horribly shallow and silly assumptions!" These were men who did all based only upon rigorous exegesis.

The older Reformed teachers saw the continuity of a certain moral principle between Old Testament Israel and modern, covenanted, Christian nations. Therefore, once the Word of God has spiritually converted a people and their magistrate, and they have been baptized and declared submission to the Lord, it became that Christian magistrate's duty to watch over the church with respect to it as an outward, civil body: thus to preserve its good order, to call synods when needed for peace and harmony of the church in his land, to ensure the ministry is discharging its duty, etc. See Westminster Larger Catechism Question 129. They saw it as his role as a superior to instruct and admonish his inferiors in the good.

They also taught that the rule of justice for *all* was none other than the natural law of God; that is, the Law written on the hearts of men. This includes the *substance* of all 10 of the 10 Commandments (certain positive aspects being mixed therein). For the Christian magistrate (or pre-Christian magistrate when the word of God came in the old days), all of the moral law, including the moral-positive elements became his rule of justice in this older Reformed teaching. Consider, for example, the King of Nineveh in the book of Jonah: does scripture seem to indicate that he did rightly or wrongly to issue a decree concerning the worship of the LORD? Or Nebuchadnezzar?

In maintaining order in his realm toward the church, then, the magistrate was seen to have the duty of preserving true teaching. Thus he could do two things: 1.) Establish *this* church as the true and official church in his realm; and 2.) Use his God-given authority to prevent the public teaching and spreading of heresy. No one has ever thought that the magistrate should punish someone simply for believing something different! What happened in the case of Servetus and Geneva was that one *extremely* notorious heretic, preaching against the most fundamental teaching of catholic Christianty, was ordered by the State to stay out of Geneva, as they had a care for the souls under them. He defiantly refused, and was accordingly arrested.

This, of course, is but a brief introduction; and it is not intended as an argument to convince you of any position: I merely hope to point out that what the older Reformed taught, even if you will think it wrong, did not rest on "horribly shallow and silly assumptions."

I'm not for burning, but I'd just be happy in our day if churches and denominations would consistently discipline members and ministers who teach heretical doctrines. Instead, too often, the leaven is allowed to remain in the lump of dough.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by captivewill

It must be wonderful to have such intimate knowwledge of the Divine will of our Sovereign Lord. I can see why folks are wise to reject the union of church and state. Go olver to Nigeria or China and try to apply your horribly shallow and silly assumptions.

William,

Before you throw out the entire Reformed tradition of the first few hundred years as using "horribly shallow and silly assumptions," and as presumptuously asserting some "intimate knowledge of the Divine will," I think some explanations would be in order. This is not to say you must agree with our older teachers, but I'm sure even those who disagree (and disagree vehemently!) do not find them using "horribly shallow and silly assumptions!" These were men who did all based only upon rigorous exegesis.

The older Reformed teachers saw the continuity of a certain moral principle between Old Testament Israel and modern, covenanted, Christian nations. Therefore, once the Word of God has spiritually converted a people and their magistrate, and they have been baptized and declared submission to the Lord, it became that Christian magistrate's duty to watch over the church with respect to it as an outward, civil body: thus to preserve its good order, to call synods when needed for peace and harmony of the church in his land, to ensure the ministry is discharging its duty, etc. See Westminster Larger Catechism Question 129. They saw it as his role as a superior to instruct and admonish his inferiors in the good.

They also taught that the rule of justice for *all* was none other than the natural law of God; that is, the Law written on the hearts of men. This includes the *substance* of all 10 of the 10 Commandments (certain positive aspects being mixed therein). For the Christian magistrate (or pre-Christian magistrate when the word of God came in the old days), all of the moral law, including the moral-positive elements became his rule of justice in this older Reformed teaching. Consider, for example, the King of Nineveh in the book of Jonah: does scripture seem to indicate that he did rightly or wrongly to issue a decree concerning the worship of the LORD? Or Nebuchadnezzar?

In maintaining order in his realm toward the church, then, the magistrate was seen to have the duty of preserving true teaching. Thus he could do two things: 1.) Establish *this* church as the true and official church in his realm; and 2.) Use his God-given authority to prevent the public teaching and spreading of heresy. No one has ever thought that the magistrate should punish someone simply for believing something different! What happened in the case of Servetus and Geneva was that one *extremely* notorious heretic, preaching against the most fundamental teaching of catholic Christianty, was ordered by the State to stay out of Geneva, as they had a care for the souls under them. He defiantly refused, and was accordingly arrested.

This, of course, is but a brief introduction; and it is not intended as an argument to convince you of any position: I merely hope to point out that what the older Reformed taught, even if you will think it wrong, did not rest on "horribly shallow and silly assumptions."

Thanks for a serious and reasoned reply. I did not mean to say that the reformers were silly and shallow but the comments of the posts to which I spoke. I do believe that experience in places that lack freedom of thought and speech would temper such unwise remarks. And I do not find any instruction of our Lord or of His apostles that would warrant our assumption of any complicity whatsoever in killing a person for speech or teaching. Freedom to rebut and respond...yes. But not to bear the sword.

Originally Posted by captivewill

And I do not find any instruction of our Lord or of His apostles that would warrant our assumption of any complicity whatsoever in killing a person for speech or teaching. Freedom to rebut and respond...yes. But not to bear the sword.

Of course, you will not find Jesus or His Apostles calling the Church to bear the magistrate's sword, any more than you will find our Lord telling the State to bear or educate children, as this is the family's business. Different jurisdictions have different tasks. Asserting the duty of the magistrate to put evil workers in terror by bearing a sword with which to kill them is not unChristian; on the contrary, denying this duty is to be a companion of murderers or souls and bodies.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I'm not for burning, but I'd just be happy in our day if churches and denominations would consistently discipline members and ministers who teach heretical doctrines. Instead, too often, the leaven is allowed to remain in the lump of dough.

Wouldn't that be the proper view of what general equity looks like in the NT Church?

...the New Testament church "fulfills the Old Testament theocracy" (Barker 1990, 95). In applying the Old Testament laws to the church, Paul did not apply them exactly as they were applied in the Old Testament. For instance, In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13). Furthermore, Paul's statement in verse 13 is a quotation of a formula found in Mosaic penal sanctions (Deut. 17:7, 12; 12:19; 19:21, 21:21; 22:21, 24: 24:7).

Third*Millennium*Ministries

Perg, the use of the term "general equity" in the confession (19.4) refers to that upon which "judicial laws" rest, given "to them also as a body politic." It is not talking about ecclesiastical discipline, but civil law. They are two separate things, for he (20.3) has not "the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

But, I don't want to go too far down this road, lest the thread get too far off its initial topic of Servetus.

I think it's worth noting that John Calvin's enemies were the ones in power at the time of the Servetus affair. For more information on this history, I'd suggest Appendix Two: Calvin and Servetus to the Calvin at 500 edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society's Quarterly Record. It can be read for free online at: http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr588.pdf

Originally Posted by captivewill

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).

This is ridiculous comment. Maybe you should spend some time in countries where people actually are killed for what they think.

-----Added 10/28/2009 at 09:46:44 EST-----

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).

Absolutely ridiculous comment. Maybe you should spend some time in countries where people still are killed for what they think. Somebody somewhere no doubt thinks you should be killed for what you think. Youe attitude with the power to carry it out would be appalling.

Elder Cassidy,

I seemed to have hit a sensitive issue there. It was never my intention to assert a modern day theocracy. I was merely drawing a hypothetical situation whereby one sees the vast difference between how heretics were handled then and now. Also, my comment was not directed at anyone or group of people in particular. Nevertheless I do realize I may have overstepped certain lines, evident by your response. I sincerely apologize if my comments offended you.

I too, know what it's like in countries where people are killed for what they think. I have friends who are pastors in certain countries in Asia who have experienced first hand physical persecution, as I myself hail from Asia. Though thankfully none of them have died... so far. Even so, I was never suggesting we kill people for what they thought. That would never happen, nor did it happen then in Servetus' time. It's about those who are vehemently opposing the orthodox truth and preaching contrary heresies. One would notice about the people I mentioned that they are all supposedly "teachers of the faith."

I should have kept in mind many on the PB are now in other parts of the world. Certain things that are close to the heart to some may easily be taken for granted by others. It is definitely an oversight on my part. Perhaps it's a cultural issue, perhaps I'm simply dense as I often am, perhaps I'm just young as I definitely am.

I'd ask that you grant a fellow brother in Christ a measure of grace, that we may strive to edify one another here on the Puritan Board. Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child. Where I stand among the PB, I am definitely one and may have so demonstrated.

Respectfully,
Ewen

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Originally Posted by captivewill

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).

This is ridiculous comment. Maybe you should spend some time in countries where people actually are killed for what they think.

-----Added 10/28/2009 at 09:46:44 EST-----

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).

Absolutely ridiculous comment. Maybe you should spend some time in countries where people still are killed for what they think. Somebody somewhere no doubt thinks you should be killed for what you think. Youe attitude with the power to carry it out would be appalling.

Elder Cassidy,

I seemed to have hit a sensitive issue there. It was never my intention to assert a modern day theocracy. I was merely drawing a hypothetical situation whereby one sees the vast difference between how heretics were handled then and now. Also, my comment was not directed at anyone or group of people in particular. Nevertheless I do realize I may have overstepped certain lines, evident by your response. I sincerely apologize if my comments offended you.

I too, know what it's like in countries where people are killed for what they think. I have friends who are pastors in certain countries in Asia who have experienced first hand physical persecution, as I myself hail from Asia. Though thankfully none of them have died... so far. Even so, I was never suggesting we kill people for what they thought. That would never happen, nor did it happen then in Servetus' time. It's about those who are vehemently opposing the orthodox truth and preaching contrary heresies. One would notice about the people I mentioned that they are all supposedly "teachers of the faith."

I should have kept in mind many on the PB are now in other parts of the world. Certain things that are close to the heart to some may easily be taken for granted by others. It is definitely an oversight on my part. Perhaps it's a cultural issue, perhaps I'm simply dense as I often am, perhaps I'm just young as I definitely am.

I'd ask that you grant a fellow brother in Christ a measure of grace, that we may strive to edify one another here on the Puritan Board. Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child. Where I stand among the PB, I am definitely one and may have so demonstrated.

Respectfully,
Ewen

Point well taken. Thank you for your clarification. I suspect that even with regard to appropriate cases in which the state should wield the sword I would exclude matters of speech and belief no matter how detestable. When states such as muslim states have such power the realities of the consequences to believers is most horrible. Paul and John and other apostles refuted and condemned heresy and apostasy in no uncertain terms but never did they recommend or condone killing them.

Why the comparison with Muslim States? What about here in the US a hundred years ago and the laws against blasphemy and filthy language? What harm did that cause? Surely you don't mean all speech should be free? Can you scream fire in a crowded theater?

Originally Posted by TimV

Why the comparison with Muslim States? What about here in the US a hundred years ago and the laws against blasphemy and filthy language? What harm did that cause? Surely you don't mean all speech should be free? Can you scream fire in a crowded theater?

Of course one should not cry fire unless there is indeed a fire. But do we kill people who do ?
But opinions about free speech are quite seperate from the teachings of scripture. The scriptures do not teach or commission the church to kill heretics or even apostates.

I will beat this horse just once more in this thread: the church did not kill Michael Servetus. He was punished by the state, in accordance with the laws of the state. End of story.

Originally Posted by captivewill

Originally Posted by TimV

Why the comparison with Muslim States? What about here in the US a hundred years ago and the laws against blasphemy and filthy language? What harm did that cause? Surely you don't mean all speech should be free? Can you scream fire in a crowded theater?

Of course one should not cry fire unless there is indeed a fire. But do we kill people who do ?
But opinions about free speech are quite seperate from the teachings of scripture. The scriptures do not teach or commission the church to kill heretics or even apostates.

Let someone get trampled by someone yelling fire in a crowded theater and see what happens.

CT

Reformed Answers: Calvin and Servetus

A good summary of the event, plus final thoughts on the incident which mirror my own.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Reformed Answers: Calvin and Servetus

A good summary of the event, plus final thoughts on the incident which mirror my own.

Sadly, this is the view of much of reformeddom. Enforcement of the Ten Commandments is reduced to only excommunication, or some unwarranted bifurcation of the Ten Commandments.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Reformed Answers: Calvin and Servetus

Calvin went to his deathbed believing that the execution was just because Servetus was a blasphemer and a heretic – a murderer of souls. I stand with Calvin in believing that the state is charged to uphold the law of God, however, I differ with him as to the best way that the state can do this.

This is the weakness and arbitrariness of non-reformed views of civil government: they make the magistrate a master rather than a deacon and liturgos of God. The magistrate is to do God's bidding with the sword, not his own.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Reformed Answers: Calvin and Servetus

Calvin went to his deathbed believing that the execution was just because Servetus was a blasphemer and a heretic – a murderer of souls. I stand with Calvin in believing that the state is charged to uphold the law of God, however, I differ with him as to the best way that the state can do this.

This is the weakness and arbitrariness of non-reformed views of civil government: they make the magistrate a master rather than a deacon and liturgos of God. The magistrate is to do God's bidding with the sword, not his own.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Wouldn't that be the proper view of what general equity looks like in the NT Church?

...the New Testament church "fulfills the Old Testament theocracy" (Barker 1990, 95). In applying the Old Testament laws to the church, Paul did not apply them exactly as they were applied in the Old Testament. For instance, In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13). Furthermore, Paul's statement in verse 13 is a quotation of a formula found in Mosaic penal sanctions (Deut. 17:7, 12; 12:19; 19:21, 21:21; 22:21, 24: 24:7).

Third*Millennium*Ministries

This is a little off target. It would be more correct to say "the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication" in the Church. Paul actually faced State trial and was charged for religious offences. For those offences he refused not to die, if he was guilty as charged.

Originally Posted by TimV

Why the comparison with Muslim States? What about here in the US a hundred years ago and the laws against blasphemy and filthy language? What harm did that cause? Surely you don't mean all speech should be free? Can you scream fire in a crowded theater?

Does anyone on this board remember that when that blasphemous movie""The last temptation of Christ"" was released it was banned in most Muslim nations on account of its blasphemy. The Muslims got it right in that instance!

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Servetus was an incorrigible heretic, blasphemer of God and His ministers, and received a just punishment.

But if God would justly mark our iniquity, we should all be immediately dispatched.

But if God would justly mark our iniquity, we should all be immediately dispatched.

So

a: No sin should ever be punished
b: All sin should be punished with death
c: We look to the Bible to determine when and how to punish sin
d: We look to the State to determine when and how to punish sin
e: We demand sins be punished or not depending how we feel
f: We come up with some really complicated theory about punishing sin

Does that pretty much cover the options? ;-)

I don't know.

But I am questioning the notion the death penalty for blasphemy is mandated for New Covenant states.

This should be in the theonomy section.

Death is always the just penalty for sin, as we learn from the Mosaic ceremonials and penology, as elsewhere in Scripture.

Whether modern states should inflict death for blasphemy as was prescribed under Moses, is another question.

[Moderator]
Let's try to keep the conversation as closely related to the Servetus incident as possible. Historical explanations of doctrinal positions to help people understand the circumstances of Geneva are certainly fine and helpful; but let's try to avoid turning this thread into a debate over penology.
[/Moderator]

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

But I am questioning the notion the death penalty for blasphemy is mandated for New Covenant states.

I am wondering if the concept of the "new covenant" is the problem. It would give the law a gracious aspect in terms of its third use which it does not ordinarily possess as a keeper of public order. So far as social justice is concerned, Romans 1:32 specifically teaches that capital punishment for a range of crimes other than murder is just or "worthy of death." Hebrews 2:2 says much the same with respect to the OT judicials by referring to the penology as "a just recompense of reward." We should be careful to avoid making the civil magistrate a redemptive institution with a gracious aspect, even under the recognition of the establishment principle.