What a neat, yet typical, leftist antinomian appeal to the emotions.
When Paul identifies capital crimes in Romans chapter 1 and then concludes by saying "those who do such things are worthy of death", he declares that Aquila and everyone who thinks like him are wrong.
Worthy means "deserving". It means that those who commit such things DESERVE the death penalty. If you DESERVE something, that means you OUGHT to receive it. If a person DESERVES to be praised, then it is WRONG not to praise them. If a person DESERVES to be executed by the state, then it is wrong, an act of injustice, for the state to fail to execute them. The only exception to this rule is in the case of PARDON. It is perfectly right for government (whether man's, or God's) to PARDON the condemned criminal upon certain conditions. In the case of God's Kingdom government, those conditions include not only the Atonement of Christ but the repentance of the condemned.
Those who argue against this truth, like you try to do, reveal the legalistic religion they actually believe in. They do not actually believe anyone DESERVES death for their crimes against God. Rather, they actually feel that God OWES salvation and forgiveness and mercy to them. They view sin as a sickness or a sad circumstance rather than as what it really is - WILLFUL CRIME. As such, when this topic is brought up, they invariably, predictably, and necessarily argue against the DESERT of punishment.
Paul very clearly, in
Romans 13, stated that the enforcement power of the state is designed by God to punish evil, and that the enforcers bear the sword for that very reason. Swords are designed to kill. Paul in
Romans 13 taught explicitly that the state's executioners are Divinely appointed to punish evil. Furthermore, that anyone who resists that authority (like yourself, here arguing that various classes of criminals are NOT actually deserving of death and should NOT be punished) is actually resisting God.
There are certain crimes that God has judged worthy of death, sentence to be carried out by society. Paul in
Romans 1 affirms the righteous judgments of God concerning these offenders. Jesus did likewise:
John 8:3-11 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, (4) They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. (5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? (6) This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. (7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (8) And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. (9) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. (10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? (11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
What everyone likes to miss in this account is the fact that Jesus did in fact concur with the sentence of God against adulterers. He insisted that the woman be put to death. But He insisted it be done according to the law of God. Which required the witnesses to be first to execute sentence once sentence had been handed down. The problem was the woman had been "caught in the act" but the man she was caught in the act with was mysteriously nowhere to be found. The witnesses therefore were in violation of the law, and thus were guilty of sin. Thus, Jesus said "whoever is without sin let him cast the first stone". They knew, and anyone else present could plainly see, they were NOT without sin. And if they condemned the woman they condemned themselves as well.
Not because "putting adulterers to death is bad" but because it wasn't being done according to the righteous judgment of God.
And therefore, He said He did not condemn the woman. Why? Because He's sweet and liberal and votes for Bernie Sanders? No. It is because there were no witnesses against her that could stand in court. It would be SIN to condemn her under those circumstances.
Nobody is thirsting for people to die. God Himself says He prefers the sinner repent rather than die (
Ezekiel 33:11). But this by no means that judgment is suspended, no punishment of evil should ever take place, and the laws and judgments of God have been abrogated. That is sheer anarchy.
Imagine a man, convicted of a crime, sentenced to die, then given a pardon. Rather than using his newfound second chance to go and tell others to get straight and avoid the fate he almost suffered, instead he now goes about and argues against the punishment of criminals. He rants how anyone who upholds the law against crime is just evil-minded and mean-spirited. Only fellow criminals would agree with such a person. Everyone else would conclude the guy was never reformed, and that the pardon was wasted on him.
Threaded Mode
