> > ...where you make a statement that I am so incapable of comprehending that I lack the ability to refute it.
>
> Well, this is a difference in our POV. If you really believe that an unsaved person is going to Hell when he dies, and you condemn him to death, you're condemning him to Hell, correct?

No. One, as you yourself said earlier, we can't tell who is saved and who is not, and as far as human government is concerned, it is irrelevant. Illegal acts are punished according to human laws, and if those laws and punishments are ones God endorses, then rightly so. If a death sentence is just, then it is just, regardless of what consequence it has on one's eternal fate. You can't just arbitrary transfer the responsibility for what happens as a consequence to what initiates the sequence of cause and effect. People going to hell just doesn't "happen." God is a person who consciously judges -- flawlessly righteously, I might add. God is not a passive natural law of the universe that can be treated as a disinterested, non-active entity in a cause-and-effect chain.

> > > ...And the Bible tells us that we will be held accountable for those who failed to receive the Gospel as a result of our (in)actions; their blood is on our hands.
> >
> > Book, chapter, verse, please?
>
> All right, I apologize. I shouldn't have said that as though it were a quote (although I didn't put it in quotation marks), because it isn't; it's a phrase that's been ringing in my head from various sermons, tracts, etc. that I've been reading and listening to over the years.
>
> But I think the idea is there in the Bible; Matthew 28:19-20, the Great Commission, tells us we're basically still here to spread the Gospel (not the only reason we're on Earth, but one of the big ones). I Corinthians 10:13-15; God calls everyone to repentance, but they *can't* repent unless we give them the Gospel. Matthew 18:14; God doesn't want *anyone* to be lost. I Corinthians 9:16-22; Paul himself bent over backwards and did everything at all in his power so that he could save as many as possible. I Corinthians 3:9-15; our missionary work (the work of Paul and Apollos) is building the temple of God (not only the physical body, but our physical works in life), and we will be judged in the afterlife for how well we build. And so on.

Yet no one dies before God's grace grants him chances to turn to him, and everyone is responsible for his or her own actions (barring mental disability, which, I believe, God takes into consideration and acts justly thereon). No one goes to hell without refusing the terms on which one obtains mercy from it. I am not responsible for someone else going to hell -- as much as it is my duty and responsibility, as a servant of Christ to take what steps the Bible indicates to spread the gospel and so forth.

> Our *job* is to bring people to Christ, to save souls, even the most depraved.

Our job is to witness, evangelize, and all that -- even to the most depraved -- but it is God that does not just the saving part but the work in the heart that leads up to the acceptance of Christ in the first place. The act of witnessing is more of a catalyst than a cause. It may sound like I'm being overly nitpicky here, but the distinction has significant bearing on the distribution of responsibility under discussion here.

> (Especially the most depraved; Matthew 9:12-13.) There will be judgment of the saved, not for whether we are guilty or innocent, but of, in our innocence, how much positive good we have done in the world (the Parable of the Talents comes to mind, as does that of the Sheep and the Goats). God *does* care very much about each and every sinner, and, as a corollary, cares very much about how we treat each and every sinner.

Agreed.

> I'm not sure I agree with this. What is the fundamental difference between death by lynch mob and capital punishment?

Um. God respects the rule of human law (except where it conflicts with his own). This is not a greatly kept biblical secret.

Spiritual marriage is sex; yet God still wants us to marry in accordance with the laws of the land, rather than just up and deciding to seal the deal. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, but private citizens don't have the right to tax mandatorily, or take back what is given. Later in this post you point out that government *can* do things that private citizens cannot, but your stated reasons don't substantiate some of the things government can do (such as taxation) nor do I see that the line drawn at capital punishment is other than arbitrary.

> Yes, Paul said the government has the power of the sword to enforce fairness and security, but the "sword" doesn't necessarily mean killing.

What else do you do with a sword? Role-play? Lop off fingers? Smoke a peace pipe and hack down a peace tree?

I think agreeing to disagree, as you suggest later, is probably the best idea. I'm tired of this thread and lack the motivation to dig up hard references, especially since I think you and I are the only ones left reading this. I do respect your logic and position, inasmuch as I disagree with it, and that's not a statement I am generally able to bring myself to make. The paradox of me is that I can usually see both sides of any given argument, and yet I am very opinionated on most things.