The fellow who did the shooting here was a member of a local Baptist church. A person from the church told me the man's wife took to "whoredoms" on him awhile back and that even the man she was seeing was taunting him. Of course this is second hand and can't be verified. One thing is certain-a man is dead and a father is behind bars. If the civil magistrate was doing it's part according to the law of God the man may still be alive. What think ye children?

Police: Tensions crested in shooting - Roanoke.com

Pro 6:26 For by means of a whorish woman [a man is brought] to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.
Pro 6:27 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?
Pro 6:28 Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?
Pro 6:29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.
Pro 6:30 [Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;
Pro 6:31 But [if] he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
Pro 6:32 [But] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he [that] doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
Pro 6:33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
Pro 6:34 For jealousy [is] the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.
Pro 6:35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.

__________________
1689 Baptist Confession

Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley, Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly.
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
www.wildernessroadbaptist.org

"No-fault" divorce laws that don't consider "who violated the bonds of matrimony" (i.e., who committed adultery during the marriage and who did not) except when it comes to the division of the marital estate are responsible for much of this sort of thing. These laws are an outrage.

There are statutes in the family law codes of many states that prohibit adultery. But they're never enforced. A long time ago, while in the employ of a general civil practice, I held my nose and wrote an appellate brief in which my boss wanted me to argue, based on precedent, that "just because" a wife had had an affair with her husband's brother was not a reason that she shouldn't be awarded the marital home in the property judgment. "Adultery per se is never prosecuted in this state," I had to argue. The appellate panel awarded the house to the wife. Disgusting outcome.

Yes, I think adultery should be prosecuted in the civil courts.

__________________
Margaret
Free Church of Scotland [Continuing]
Michigan

"He must increase, but I must decrease." - John 3:30

Should the State enforce laws against adultery? - Yes.

Will the State do so? - No, not until God grants repentance and faith.

And let me go ahead and "drop the other shoe". To what extend should the State prosecute those found guilty of adultery? - To the fullest extent of Biblical Law. Yes, that means the death penalty, but only in so far as the State is Biblically oriented and has the proper laws enacted (i.e. laws that align with "The Law").


*Running for cover now*

[Seriously though, I have to go out on some sales calls. Will be back later today to take my lumps. ]

__________________
~James Helbert~, Wytheville, VA
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCUS
TheBibleAlone.com / The Edinburgh Inn
"Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” - Zechariah 3:2

It seems our nation and our courts are falling deeper and deeper into depravity and rebellion.

Maybe not the death penalty, but one things for sure. There should be penaltys for adultery that would make your ears tingle. Maybe something along multi thouand dollar fines with jailtime and public flogging.

If the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed were correct, the decalogue is a reflection of the natural law (a corollary to the republication doctrine). We don't need to appeal to Mosaic case/civil law to argue for civil enforcement of the second table.

The family is the basic, creational, natural, social unit. Adultery is a crime against nature. It violates the social contract implicit in the marriage vows (whether taken in church or before the magistrate). It weakens and essential relation and destabilizes a community. It is also a form of theft.

A marriage is a civil, not just religious, covenant. Transgression of the marriage covenant is a transgression of a civil covenant. Every transgression of the civil covenant, e.g. the reckless use of an auto or firearm is punishable by the magistrate.

We don't want the magistrate punishing sins of the heart but we dot want him punishing crimes against nature and the civil contract implicit in nature and social relations. That's why he bears the sword.

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

Yes, I think we should.

From a law enforcement perspective ... We would need to hire a lot more officers.

__________________
Dan
Member, Soaring Oaks Presbyterian (PCA)
www.soaringoaks.org
Northern California
The duty of a theologian is, not to please the ear with empty sounds, but to confirm the conscience by teaching things which are true, certain and profitable.
John Calvin, 1559

Adultery, solicitation of prostitutes, strip clubs, divorce, p-rn, homosexuality --all contribute to societal breakdown, and should be penalized by the law.

I don't agree that we have to have a "christian" state (whatever that is) to do this. This is general equity, folks. The nuclear family needs to be protected, and things that contribute to its breakdown criminalized.

__________________
Kenneth A. Pierce
Senior Minister
Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA)
5301 Old Canton Rd.
Jackson, MS 39211
(601)977-0774
www.trinitychurchpca.com

Agreed!!!

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church

Student of Theology
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
My Blog

In most states, you can get out of a 25-year marriage easier than you can get out of a contract to buy a car, put a new roof on your house, etc., etc. (Kids are usually grown and gone by then; when they're minors, they put a "crimp" in the divorce proceedings & hold up the inevitable process by a few months... )

The whole thing makes me sick.

"Go and sin no more," said Jesus to the woman caught "in the act." Adultery is forgiveable - but one must bear the reasonable consequences. David did: God made Him bear them. Who bears the consequences anymore, except in states where the property settlement is going to be more favorable to the non-adulterer?

Jesus did, however, expect the woman literally to abstain from adultery for the rest of her life...

That is just crazy talk there Gal220.

"Money cannot buy a husband's jealous eye."

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"Send Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey with haste, that they may lack nothing." -Titus 3:13
http://foolish-wisdom.blogspot.com/

Derek Webb?

__________________
--chRis
Psalm 115:1

Christopher Reeder
Husband to Kara, Father to Abigail (7), Caleb (6), Grace (4 1/2), Zoë (2 1/2), Elijah (1) and Baby Girl due 8/6/08

Member: Pilgrim Presbyterian Church (OPC), Raleigh, NC

Isn't adultery a punishable crime in the military? Or did I just make that up? I know I heard it from somewhere .

__________________
Nikki Edmond
New Beginnings Believers Bible Fellowship (Family's Church), Non-Denom
Los Angeles, CA
www.haveatulip.com - Chat Room for Reformed Believers
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

When I was in the Air Force from '77 to '85 it was.

Let me see if I can explain my thinking. [I apologize beforehand for my poor written communication skills.]

1. It appears, from 2 Samuel 12:13, that David expected death as his punishment. But Nathan informs him that God had granted him a special dispensation of forgiveness and that he would not die.

2. Where do we get the idea that the punishments prescribed in the OT Civil Law were the only punishments available to the magistrates? Things like circumstances, repentance (or at least one's attitude toward repentance), and recidivism would have all been taken into account. Not all rebellious children were to be put to death. Only those who were unrepentant and continued in the behavior. Judges were expected to wise in knowing how to apply the Law, and the better part of wisdom is knowing when and when not to show mercy (IMO).

3. The reason Jesus "let the woman go" is twofold. A) He was not at that time a legitimate civil magistrate; and B) there were no witnesses left to accuse the woman. Therefore, she could not be civilly judged at this time and place, though He did pronounce spiritual judgment on her sin, forgave her of that sin, and commanded her not to ever repeat the sin.

So though the death penalty could be applied in certain circumstances, given godly and wise judges, it is not the only and certainly not the first penalty to be applied. Also, it is never the purview of the Church to civilly judge anyone. The job of the Church is to preach against sin, demand that sinners repent, instruct them how to repent, and point them to the Source of forgiveness.

I hope that makes some sense.

Blessings,

If a child results from this, the state already does punish the male participant. Why not just take the next step and punish both?

__________________
Scott Kessler
Covenant Community OPC
Staunton, VA
Covenant Theology
Christian Skepticism
Christianity In History

Scott, you are right again! Unfortunately, with the rise of autonomous man and the depreciation of natural law, we are left with positive law. As taught by "genuises" like Lawrence Tribe, learned by the young lawyers in their JD coursework, upheld by the lower courts, and finally enshrined in legal precedent by the SCOTUS, we are expected to believe that "right" is whatever democratic consensus or "might" says it is.

Is it any wonder in our "judge not" era that no fault divorce would be the order of the day? I'm surprised we still win convictions in criminal trials in this country. Out here in LALA land, nobody wants to judge anybody's life. [The only thing our culture remembers from the Bible is a verse they can't even get straight in the interpretation or application]

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

but lala land is fun

__________________
Jeff Rod
Eastwood Presbyterian Church PCA
member.
webpage: myspace.com/reformationforever

To live a simple, peaceable life before God
To owe as little as possible, to few as possible.

correct me if im wrong, but what do these phrases have in common

1) dont judge me
2) you cant judge me

it would seem in simplistic terms that saying "dont judge me" is short for saying "you (can not, may not) judge my actions of motives" which is a judgement stating what one can and cant do?

hence a more correct statement would be "im both sure and unsure that you can and cant judge me"?????