Without fault

[Josh]

Passing judgment simply means observing that has happened.

Could you expand on this? I am not certain of what you mean or how you arrived here.

If someone decides to speed 65 in 25 zone, they are guilty of speeding. The judge doesn’t somehow force a fine on them, but rather merely observes the evidence that they did indeed speed, and that the sentence for such speeding is the fine according to law.

1 Timothy 1:15 seems to be in the present tense. As in, the phase is "of whom I am chief." You are right, though, that the context of this passage is about his earlier life.

I appreciate the example of Ananias, but I do not see how you can go from that passage to saying Peter condemned them to hell at that moment. It may be that we are using different definitions of the word judgement or that I have imputed an understanding of that word onto the things you are saying. So I guess I will just reiterate my first question about what you mean by your definition of passing judgement.

Peter passed judgment. He told them they had lied.

God is the one condemned and executed the sentence. They had committed a death sin and refused to repent. Peter had the authority to tell them in no uncertain terms that they had sinned, and that they would face the penalty for that sin.

For what it’s worth, I find it interesting how eager modern day Christians want to explain away this story - it is very clear that God considers it perfectly just to immediately kill a converted, baptised Christian who intentionally lies, and the apostles issued a warning that such a thing may very well happen. This should give us pause to realise how serious sin is.

[Soloist]

I think that commandments like “do not murder” and “do not commit adultery” are still binding today, even if governments don’t always enforce them.

Jesus offers salvation and forgiveness of sins, but only so far as sinners are willing to confess their sins and turn away from them.

The issue is you arguing for the fire from heaven in the hand God has given the sword.

[Josh]

I think that commandments like “do not murder” and “do not commit adultery” are still binding today, even if governments don’t always enforce them.

Jesus offers salvation and forgiveness of sins, but only so far as sinners are willing to confess their sins and turn away from them.

The issue is you arguing for the fire from heaven in the hand God has given the sword.

I make an argument that we can see how God institutes earthly governments in the law (certainly better than any other earthly government). It is obvious that things like “do not murder” are still an expectation any reasonable person should have, and that it is the duty of governments to pass judgment and sentence on those who do commit murder.

What puzzles me are those who argue that Christians should somehow be opposed to this. Jesus never lobbied for the thief in the cross to be paroled for his crime. Instead, Jesus offered him salvation, and the thief accepted. The earthly penalty for his crime remained.

[Neto]

This is where the verse "Judge not lest you be judged" is misinterpreted, and misused. I think that the meaning is clearly a reprimand against judging based on one's own criteria. So it is not just unrighteously judging the person, it is also judging the Law itself, saying that God isn't making a right determination of righteousness and sin. "Judging" according to God's righteous truth is just acknowledging where and how it has been violated, and recognizing the penalty He has set for sin.

[Soloist]

I make an argument that we can see how God institutes earthly governments in the law (certainly better than any other earthly government). It is obvious that things like “do not murder” are still an expectation any reasonable person should have, and that it is the duty of governments to pass judgment and sentence on those who do commit murder.

What puzzles me are those who argue that Christians should somehow be opposed to this. Jesus never lobbied for the thief in the cross to be paroled for his crime. Instead, Jesus offered him salvation, and the thief accepted. The earthly penalty for his crime remained.

What puzzles me is how Jesus didn’t condemn the adulteress, but you would have.
Also, last I checked, He never lobbied for that thief to be on the cross.
I have no problem accepting that the government has the right to wield the sword. I have a problem with Christians cheering on the death of the wicked in this life. Those same Christians cheered the death of innocent so-called witches. Cheered for the death of the martyrs as heretics, I have no problem judging people who claim the name of Christ by New Testament standards. I see no place for me to judge the lost by Old Testament law.
To restate it again I have no problem with the government doing what they see fit for justice. I have a problem with Christians advocating for old testament law to be that measure. It wasn’t that long ago that people would’ve been killed for homosexuality, witchcraft and several other things. Death cuts off chance of redemption and I firmly believe as Christians we should hope for the most opportunities possible not for speedy death of the lost.

[Josh]

wasn’t that long ago that people would’ve been killed for homosexuality, witchcraft and several other things.

I’m not seeing the problem. The Bible explicitly states witchcraft is worthy of death.

Death cuts off chance of redemption and I firmly believe as Christians we should hope for the most opportunities possible not for speedy death of the lost.

No, it doesn’t. Nothing stops the redemptive power of Christ, as we see in the example of the thief on the cross. If a soul is repentant, they can seek salvation before it is too late.

It is utterly bizarre to think we need to prolong the life of people who in turn kill other people so that somehow the former can… have more of a time window to say the sinner’s prayer? What about the innocent victims who get killed when murderers are on the loose? Shouldn’t they get “redemption opportunities”?

[Soloist]

I’m not seeing the problem. The Bible explicitly states witchcraft is worthy of death.

I’m thankful you and I don’t vote.

[Josh]

I’m not seeing the problem. The Bible explicitly states witchcraft is worthy of death.

I’m thankful you and I don’t vote.

I’m not sure what that has to do with affirming God’s word:

You must not allow a sorceress to live.

I don’t think the New Testament somehow repealed God’s commandments not to practice witchcraft and sorcery. The penalty for these things is still death, and a government would be will within natural law to judge and sentence for such wicked acts. Another example would be:

Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.

I hope we can agree it would be part of the proper function of government and law to judge and sentence anyone who sacrifices a child to Moloch.

[Coifi]

Passing judgment simply means observing that has happened.

Could you expand on this? I am not certain of what you mean or how you arrived here.

If someone decides to speed 65 in 25 zone, they are guilty of speeding. The judge doesn’t somehow force a fine on them, but rather merely observes the evidence that they did indeed speed, and that the sentence for such speeding is the fine according to law.

Thanks! That does clear things up a bit. I still happen to disagree, though. I do not believe that we Christians are called to be code enforcers, observing other people's sins so that we can deal out the appropriate fines according to the law. I have two immediate concerns about this approach: a) it makes humans the final interpreters of God's laws (like how a judge in a US court case gets the final say to what the law says) b) he who is without sin cast the first stone/remove the log in your own eye first. I would propose that it is better to judge our own selves harshly and then to be merciful to others.

Peter passed judgment. He told them they had lied.

God is the one condemned and executed the sentence. They had committed a death sin and refused to repent. Peter had the authority to tell them in no uncertain terms that they had sinned, and that they would face the penalty for that sin.

It seems to me that your idea of judgement is acknowledging "action X is sin" AND dealing out some sort of punishment for it. While I certainly understand the former, I balk at the later. I do not believe Christians should not be gavel-wielders, dealing out punishments according to our own interpretations of Divine Law. At least, not without first being harsh judges of ourselves.

That brings me to a final issue I have. In the way you've described, humans are the judges and God is the executioner. That doesn't seem right. See James 4:12.

For what it’s worth, I find it interesting how eager modern day Christians want to explain away this story - it is very clear that God considers it perfectly just to immediately kill a converted, baptised Christian who intentionally lies, and the apostles issued a warning that such a thing may very well happen. This should give us pause to realise how serious sin is.

I'm sure some people want to explain this story away. I understand why folks would squirm when they heard the story (that may be the point). In case it was not clear, though, I'm not explaining it away. I'm disagreeing with how you are understanding and appling it.

[Josh]

That is not my position. We are called to judge and God passes the sentence. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, God’s sentence was death.

Christians absolutely are called to judge disputes amongst themselves and also to judge wicked sinners and excommunicate them. That is the entire topic of 1 Co 5 & 6.