Legal Consequence of Confessing Sins to one another

[Abiding in His Word]

OK, we're not likely to come to an agreement regarding the necessity of obedience to both the spiritual and the legal/governing authority per Romans 13. But I'd like to present how I see the verse about the priests being guiltless and then I'll leave it be.

Because the law of the Pharisees was the law of the authorities in charge, their law is no different than Roman law or United States law. But I think that is different than the Law Christ was talking about when referring to the priests who are "guiltless". I believe Christ is using a higher law, a law at the level to which Pharisees raised their own law, as an example.

The Pharisees had begun to raise the importance of the Talmud/Oral law as equally authoritative as the Mosaic Law. So looking at the verse about the innocence of the priests.

Mat 12:5 "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?

Again, the issue or focus is the sabbath. The Pharisees had added so many rules and restrictions to the Sabbath rest, that Jesus had to remind them that the priests had a responsibility to offer sacrifices on the Sabbath. Those sacrifices necessitated offering the regular daily offering plus an additional offering of two lambs. The preparation and actual activity surrounding the sacrifice was considered servile work by the Pharisees if I remember correctly and that's why Jesus said they were guiltless. There was preparation of the animals for sacrifice; i.e. slaughter, skinning, etc. They were not violating the Sabbath but performing the requirements of the law for the Levites and priests. That's how they were keeping the Lord's day holy.

That's why Jesus said the priests were not guilty...because the Pharisees were accusing Jesus of breaking the law at every possible opportunity, especially those of the Sabbath.

But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath."

In Matthew 5:1-8 the word Sabbath occurs 8 times (NASB) so it's obvious to me that the Pharisees were trying to accuse Jesus and Jesus was refuting their legalistic additions and misinterpretations of the Sabbath. I do not see Jesus advocating nor encouraging nor permitting violation of any law ever.

I always learn from these discussions and though sometimes we disagree, I respect the fact that study and different views serve a purpose and bring us a better understanding of the whole picture.

Thanks for making us dig deeper, Keith.

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

Thanks for your time. Always a pleasure.

In closing yours and my discussion, my understanding is:
The governing authorities made laws, (yes, adding to the law of God), nevertheless these laws were the laws of the land. The governing authorities enforced those laws with police, courts, sentences, and punishments, just as any other governing authority enforces the laws of the land. Christ deliberately, knowingly, violated these laws, teaching his disciples to do the same. He was arrested, tried, sentenced, and executed under the authority of these governing authorities.

The authorities laws and understanding were wrong and resulted in "condemning the guiltless". Christ attributed this erroneous teaching to not understanding God when He said:"I desire mercy not Sacrifice".

Today, we, as Christians, still understand there are times we are forced to choose between what God wants from us and what the governing authorities want from us. When that conflict occurs, we are to remember Christ's teaching and choose what God wants from us, even should that decision brings us under arrest.

If a brother or sister in Christ confesses their sin to us, we are to be merciful, not quick to sacrifice them to the legal system for our personal and group benefit, even when the laws of the land demand such sacrifice.

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

May I just post one more comment, please? I have thought and thought and have a few more things to add to the discussion. I don't have time until later today, but I do want to share a few more thoughts. Hope you won't mind, Keith.

[Abiding in His Word]

Keith, I have noticed your strong focus on trust, mercy, and confidentiality throughout this thread. I disagreed strongly with the verses you quoted to support your position and most likely came across like the gestapo in my unwavering stance in interpreting those passages differently than you.

Generally, believe it or not, I tend not to be "black or white" type thinker, but lean more toward consideration of the gray areas. This is what I think you have done in this thread. And after some thought, I could be wrong, but I suspect there is a specific reason or situation that led to your willingness to consider more than the justice option, but to the compassion and mercy possibility as well. Again, I could be wrong, but those thoughts brought to mind some scripture that may support your choice of actions rather than just considering the justice aspect. You are correct that we are often faced with very difficult choices and decisions and there may be extenuating circumstances known only to the one who is expected to hold them in confidence.

My first thought involves my confession about stealing a nickle candy bar about 60+ yrs. ago. Were I to confess that to anyone and gotten carted off to the police station, no doubt we'd have been dismissed with a "tsk-tsk", a wink and a nod. So, some elements that must be considered are obviously age and the severity of the action. That act, even though, it was a spiritual sin as well as theft according to the law, it was not deserving of even a minor legal punishment.

Then I was reminded of God's design for marriage, the practice of concubines, and slavery. But when God was establishing Israel as a nation, they fought wars with the surrounding nations. Being primarily agricultural, tribal, tent-dwelling nations, the loss of men as a result of war would leave hundred/thousands of women and children without resources to survive. God recognized the plight that would face these survivors and they were spared and integrated into the tribes of the Israelites. God did, however, in his wisdom and compassion, set boundaries on the treatment of those who would likely become bondservants and wives. So, difficult situations demanded less-than-perfect solutions. But they were compassionate as much as could be afforded in the circumstances.

We know multiple wives became prevalent even against the perfect design of marriage. Then as these increased and men began to put away their wives for any reason (due to the available of more women?) Moses saw the plight of women being put out without recourse or resources. If they remarried, they would be guilty of adultery so they were left in a difficult if not hopeless situation. This was happening as the result of men's hard hearts, so while again, it was not God's perfect solution, one that would serve to both make it more difficult for men to easily put their wives out and allow some recourse for those women at the same time, the solution was the issuance of a Writ of Divorce. Difficult situations demanded less-than-perfect solutions.

And last but not least, was God's mercy and compassion in designating a statute establishing cities of refuge. These were cities where one who was guilty of murdering his neighbor unintentionally could find asylum. This was different than the death penalty for deliberate, premeditated murder as it shows God's understanding of human nature and the desire of some for vengeance without knowledge of all the facts. You can find references to cities of refuge in Deut. 4 and 19. And once again I see difficult situations and less-than-perfect solutions but nevertheless ones that reflect mercy toward sinners of a serious nature.

My conclusion is I am agreement that there might be extenuating circumstances that lead to difficult choices for a Christian. I have, however, strong reservations about making this a blanket permission to ignore available professional or legal treatment or experts in the appropriate field to evaluate the best path to assure the best outcome for the sinner in question. Sometimes what appears to be overwhelmingly difficult choices for us would be much less difficult for those whose expertise qualifies them to see situations more clearly.

This is not to minimize the importance of obedience to civil and federal laws in addition to scriptural, spiritual ones.

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

I think you have summed up the conversation well and the viewers heard good arguments on both sides.

Keith

[keithareilly]

Abiding said,

You said Jesus deliberately, knowingly violated the law. Are you saying Jesus deliberately, knowingly violated God's law/Mosaic Law or the Roman/government law. Because violating either would be sin and yet you post a verse that contains the word "guiltless" to prove your point (evidently) that one can break the law and still be innocent.

Why do you think violating Roman/government law would have been a sin?

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

Why do you think violating Roman/government law would have been a sin?

I don't understand why you might think it wouldn't be a sin. Don't you think if Jesus refused to pay taxes, it would have been a sin? And if Joseph and Mary refused to travel to Bethlehem for the required census, wouldn't that have been disobedient to Roman law? Didn't Paul say if we oppose the laws and ordinances ordained by God, we would receive condemnation?

So, yes, we must obey God's laws when government laws conflict with them. The Jews living in Ephesus, for example, would not worship at the Temple of Artemis. And Daniel received special permission to abstain from certain foods offered him as well as his refusal to comply with other rules.

There was a considerable amount of cooperation between the Roman government in the 1st century and the Jewish population regarding their refusal to worship the gods of the Romans, etc. and they were excused from other practices that were contrary to God's laws and conflicted with their beliefs. This might be comparable to our government not interfering with individual churches and the various denominations.

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

I am actually curious as to why you believe breaking Roman/government law was sin.
Breaking God's law, OK, but why Roman/government law?

Keith

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

An answer to why I don't think breaking the Roman/government laws are sin.

For the sake of simplicity lets limit God's Law and Roman law to 3 laws each.

God's Laws
1) Worship only God,
2) Do not murder,
3) Do not commit adultery,

Roman/government Law
1) Do not Murder,
2) Worship the sun god twice a day,
3) Salute government officials when in their presence

I broke the Roman/government Law.
Question: Did I sin?
Answer: if the Roman/government law I broke is: Do not murder then Yes, I sinned else No, I did not sin.

In the garden of Eden there was only one law. Do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Both Eve and Adam ate of the tree. Both broke the law, Eve ate first, yet, sin entered through Adam not Eve.
Adam sinned, Eve did not. How can this be?

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

Roman/government Law
1) Do not Murder,
2) Worship the sun god twice a day,
3) Salute government officials when in their presence

I'm not sure about the three laws you mentioned here. But it doesn't matter imo what the Roman law entailed. I just see scripture telling us we are to be subject to governing authorities:

Luke 20:25 And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

1Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority

Titus 3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed...

Rom 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities

In addition to the examples I gave above; i.e. Joseph & Mary complying with the census, paying taxes, we find the Emperor Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome and Priscilla and Aquila left as commanded and found their way to Corinth where they met Paul.

I broke the Roman/government Law.
Question: Did I sin?
Answer: if the Roman/government law I broke is: Do not murder then Yes, I sinned else No, I did not sin.

All unrighteousness is sin. Whether it's God's law or government law because technically Paul tells us it's a system established by God for a purpose.

In the garden of Eden there was only one law. Do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Both Eve and Adam ate of the tree. Both broke the law, Eve ate first, yet, sin entered through Adam not Eve.
Adam sinned, Eve did not. How can this be?

This is the difference between intentional and unintentional sin. (ref: the cities of refuge above). Scripture clearly tells us Adam's sin was disobedience and tried to hide his sin.

Job 31:33 "Have I covered my transgressions like Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,
Hos. 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.
Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Rom. 5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

1Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
Rom_5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
1Tim 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived....

Eve's was deceived.

2Cor. 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
1Tim 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

One was intentional; the other unintentional. No one intentionally sets out to be deceived but if we define sin as "missing the mark", or failing in what God's wish is for us, then Eve sinned as well. The difference is between deliberate, intentional and unintentionally being tricked.

ETA: There's an interesting story in 1 Kings 13 about a prophet of God who is deceived by another prophet. It's no wonder there are so many warnings in scripture about not being deceived.

[keithareilly]

OK,

So you believe that sin is the breaking of the union of men's laws and God's laws.
I don't see that supported in scripture. Yes, we are to abide by men's laws, but breaking them is not sin.
This is why Christ did not sin when he broke the law of men (Pharisees).

The Jews elevated their law to the level of God's law, they did this by saying that their laws were God's law thus making a union of men's laws and God's laws, therefore, men who broke their law were sinning because they were breaking God's law when in fact they were breaking Jewish law not God's law. We sin when we break God's law as Adam broke it, not when we break men's laws as Christ and the disciples broke it.

Do we come under judgment for breaking men's laws? Certainly we do, we are arrested, tried, sentenced, and condemned to what ever sentence the authorities hand down. But, that does not make breaking men's law sinful.

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

Do we come under judgment for breaking men's laws? Certainly we do, we are arrested, tried, sentenced, and condemned to what ever sentence the authorities hand down. But, that does not make breaking men's law sinful.

What type of "breakage" of "men's laws" would you be arrested, tried, sentenced, and condemned for?

[keithareilly]

OK, I fixed my spelling mistakes.

Any type I get caught breaking I suppose.
I do try my best to avoid coming under the judgment of men though, they are not righteous judges.

Be reconciled on the way to the officials, else we are turned over to the authorities.
Work thing out amongst the believers, do not go to the unjust for judgment.
Obey the laws of the land lest you come under judgment/condemnation.

Why, men are such unjust judges they would condemn someone for eating or healing a man.
Best to avoid coming under their judgment altogether.

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

I think I missed the joke...

I was just being silly...using the word breakage.

Any type I get caught breaking I suppose.

If you don't get caught it's still been broken, hasn't it? If you break any law, i.e. theft, murder, tax evasion, fraud, assault, selling drugs, kidnapping, etc. then you would be arrested, tried, tried, sentenced, and condemned. Which of those crimes would you (or God) consider "not sinful?"

I do try my best to avoid coming under the judgment of men though, they are not righteous judges.

All judges are unrighteous? And what about the witnesses and jurors and attorneys? All unrighteous? I served on a jury and I'm not unrighteous. It was a drunken driver case and the judge was very fair in his judgement and the jurors were very conscientious in their deliberations.

Be reconciled on the way to the officials, else we are turned over to the authorities.
Work thing out amongst the believers, do not go to the unjust for judgment.
Obey the laws of the land lest you come under judgment/condemnation.

This is good advice in certain situations for sure. For example, if you owe a debt and have not paid it, and the lender is demanding payment, rather than involving the small-claims court, make arrangements for payments agreeable to both. If you have done shoddy workmanship on someone's home without being a licensed handyman, for example, and you make a mess or leave unfinished work, and the home owner wants a refund, find a way to either get the work done correctly or give her a refund. This avoids the issue going to court to get justice for the homeowner. If you borrowed a lawnmower from a neighbor and failed to return it because you broke it, go to him and explain to see how you can make it right. If you back into a car accidentally pulling out of a parking space and it causes a very minor dent, talk it over to see how he wants to handle the situation to make him happy without having to report it to the insurers which might incur higher rates.

These are examples of reconciliation that could avoid having them turned over to the authorities. It does not mean to hide illegal activities.

[keithareilly]

Ok,

I was being silly too.


Yes, we are to be subject to the authorities placed over us. I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is that breaking the laws of men is sin.

It is about Jurisdictions. Breaking God's law is sin. Breaking men's law is not.

In the example I gave, worshipping the sun god is men's law. If you think breaking of men's law is sin then failing to worship the sun god is sinful. We know that not to be true, so we have a point were keeping men's law is sinful instead of breaking men's law is sinful. How do we know this, because God's law says worship God alone. Therefore, because God's law says worship God alone, worshipping another god is sinful with no respect to what men's law say about it. Men's law does not necessarily shine a light on sin, God's law does.

Ideally, in a just society, men's law and God's law are one in the same. But, men want to take control of creation so they make up their own laws attempting to nullify God's law, replacing God with themselves. This was so with the Jews who were nullifying God's law with their own. Giving money to the temple (the priests) instead of honoring your parents for example. (Mark 7:10-3)

So uniting God's law and men's law and saying breaking men's law is the same as sin (breaking God's law) is not correct.
Only breaking God's law is sin.

Edited 6.22.15 and 6.23.15 to add:
If we cross reference men's law against God's laws to determine whether or not any men's law require us to commit sin (as in worshipping another God), then we recognize God's law as the authority for defining sin, furthermore, we are also recognizing men's laws is not the authority on sin and therefore, breaking men's laws is not by definition sin. If we think breaking men's laws is by definition sin, then, we have no need to cross reference men's laws against God's laws; instead we just keep all men's law, for if breaking men's law is by definition sin, there is no need to cross reference any of men's laws against God's laws to see if we sin by keeping any of men's laws.

Keith

[keithareilly]

Abiding wrote

I suspect there is a specific reason or situation that led to your willingness to consider more than the justice option, but to the compassion and mercy possibility as well.

You are correct.

Matthew18:23-33
23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.[a] 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.[b] 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant[c] fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii,[d] and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’

I had too much debt.

Keith

[keithareilly]

Reposting a summary of thought here as to why I don't think breaking men's law is sin.
The original post was edited the following.

If we cross reference men's law against God's laws to determine whether or not any men's law require us to commit sin (as in worshipping another God), then we recognize God's law as the authority for defining sin, furthermore, we are also recognizing men's laws is not the authority on sin and therefore, breaking men's laws is not by definition sin. If we think breaking men's laws is by definition sin, then, we have no need to cross reference men's laws against God's laws; instead we just keep all men's law, for if breaking men's law is by definition sin, there is no need to cross reference any of men's laws against God's laws to see if we sin by keeping any of men's laws.

Keith

[HighBeams]

Keith, I've been reading this thread, and I'm not sure I'm quite understanding your differentiation between God's law and man's law. Are you saying that, unless man's law has a direct correlation to God's stated law in the Bible, then you do not sin when you break any of man's laws?

If that is so, then do you run red lights or stop signs at intersections when, in your opinion, there's no one else coming? When you're in a hurry, do you have no problem parking in spaces marked as "Handicapped" if you do not have a legal handicap with the accompanying placard? Do you choose not to slow down to the stated speed in construction zones, even when there are workers there?


The purpose of many of our non-Biblical laws is to keep people safe. Unfortunately, people tend to make unsafe choices and deliberately flout the laws. Sometimes those unsafe choices prove to the lawbreaker just why that law is in place. If you have caused an accident with dire or life-threatening injuries to someone because you flouted the manmade law, would you view that as "well, I'm sorry someone got hurt/died because of my choice, but at least I didn't sin against God."? Do you not believe that our justice system should punish you for your deliberate choice?

Romans 13:1-7 ESV / 114 helpful votes

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...

[keithareilly]

Highbeams,

As we are under faith in Christ not the Law, we are free, free to do the good we were created to do. We are not to use that freedom as a license to sin. We use that freedom to do the greater good, for example, speeding to get someone to the hospital lest they die.

The verses in Romans 13 address how we behave having freedom. We are free from the law; yet, we are to voluntarily submit to the authorities because it is good (usually). We are reminded that God sets up authorities to accomplish good and that obeying men's laws is not (usually) in conflict with doing the good we are to do as subjects of the Kingdom of Heaven. We are ambassadors from God and should behave as such, not like children who still need the law as our schoolmaster. We are called to be adults choosing good, even the greater good, yet the greatest good.

The question of the topic is about which is doing the greater good. Is the greater good having mercy on our brothers and sisters who are struggling with sin, breaking the law of men in the process, or is the greater good keeping the law of men yet betraying the trust of God's elect and sabotaging the oneness Christ wants for all of us.


I believe the greater good is found in mercy, trust, oneness.

Keith

[keithareilly]

Highbeams said

Are you saying that, unless man's law has a direct correlation to God's stated law in the Bible, then you do not sin when you break any of man's laws?

Yes, this is what I am saying. The correlation is higher than you might expect.

Consider:
The sum of the Law is: Love God with your all (Paraphrase) and your neighbor as yourself.
Parking in a handicap spot inappropriately is not loving my handicapped neighbor.
Speeding through a work zone is not loving my neighbor working in the zone.
Do you see the how even traffic laws are evidence God sets up authorities?

Keith

[Jay Ross]

Highbeams said

Are you saying that, unless man's law has a direct correlation to God's stated law in the Bible, then you do not sin when you break any of man's laws?

Yes, this is what I am saying. The correlation is higher than you might expect.

Consider:
The sum of the Law is: Love God with your all (Paraphrase) and your neighbor as yourself.
Parking in a handicap spot inappropriately is not loving my handicapped neighbor.
Speeding through a work zone is not loving my neighbor working in the zone.
Do you see the how even traffic laws are evidence God sets up authorities?

Keith

keith, you have to separate out the manifestations of the root sin that causes all of the manifested sins that are observable by others to see what the real sin is.

The small sample you gave above is systematic of the underlying sin of turning away from God.

That is the real sin that the people see. The suggested band aid coverup treatment of the sins that manifest themselves because of the primary sin only makes the primary sin seem more prominent to others.

The sin we must always deal with is the primary sin of turning away from God. "Fixing" it such that the manifested sins are dealt with by asking the Lord to forgive us for "speeding" does not cut it with God because we are not acknowledging the root cause of our "sin" of having turned away from God and seeking forgiveness for that.

Lord if I could fix my inappropriate speeding in restricted speed zones without dealing with any other sin, then I would be in a better place with you.

Right, I now add "hiding my real sin from God" to my list of manifested sins against God.

Sadly I will keep spiraling down the slippery slope of despair until I recognize my primary sin.

Sadly when I do recognize my primary sin and ask God to forgive me of that sin, people will not forgive me because I have not publicly dealt with all of the manifested sins that they saw and as such they do not believe that I have repented at all.

Now is God's business their business and if it is then who is really their God?

[HighBeams]

Highbeams,

As we are under faith in Christ not the Law, we are free, free to do the good we were created to do. We are not to use that freedom as a license to sin. We use that freedom to do the greater good, for example, speeding to get someone to the hospital lest they die.

The verses in Romans 13 address how we behave having freedom. We are free from the law; yet, we are to voluntarily submit to the authorities because it is good (usually). We are reminded that God sets up authorities to accomplish good and that obeying men's laws is not (usually) in conflict with doing the good we are to do as subjects of the Kingdom of Heaven. We are ambassadors from God and should behave as such, not like children who still need the law as our schoolmaster. We are called to be adults choosing good, even the greater good, yet the greatest good.

The question of the topic is about which is doing the greater good. Is the greater good having mercy on our brothers and sisters who are struggling with sin, breaking the law of men in the process, or is the greater good keeping the law of men yet betraying the trust of God's elect and sabotaging the oneness Christ wants for all of us.


I believe the greater good is found in mercy, trust, oneness.

Keith

Okay, I get what you're saying about the "Greater Good". I agree that, for the repentant sinner/lawbreaker, "mercy, trust, and oneness" is a good and Biblical attitude that we should take toward that person's spiritual wellbeing. However, I do not believe that you are doing anyone -- the predator or the victims -- any favors by extending a mercy that is not yours to extend according to the law. The law -- put in place for the protection of innocents and particularly children -- says that if you have knowledge of sexual misconduct (especially forced) by someone against a weaker someone, then you are obligated to stop the misconduct by reporting the misconduct to the police/judicial system and let them sort out the greater good. The primary reason for making the offense known to authorities is because the majority of predators will not stop the misconduct on their own and will, in fact, go even deeper into the misconduct if nothing stops them. For those predators who would perhaps like to stop, they are generally unable to do so on their own on a permanent basis without help and personal restrictions/boundaries.

[keithareilly]

Highbeams wrote

The primary reason for making the offense known to authorities is because the majority of predators will not stop the misconduct on their own and will, in fact, go even deeper into the misconduct if nothing stops them. For those predators who would perhaps like to stop, they are generally unable to do so on their own on a permanent basis without help and personal restrictions/boundaries.

Here are the scriptures supporting the position to turn a believer over to authorities (to be executed if necessary).
No indication here the believer struggles or confesses sin; they may be using their freedom as license to sin.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5
5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. 3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.


The primary motivation for turning a believer over to the authorities is love and mercy for the believer.
Again, Love and mercy, doing what is in the believer's best interest is the primary motivation.
Adam and Eve both ate of the tree, but only Adam sinned. Consequently, our motivation for turning a believer over determines whether we sin or not by doing so.

Also, please note I mentioned no specific crime when I opened this topic.

Keith

[imirish01]

It is not uncommon for Christians to want to have mercy on obvious sinners, such as those involved in criminal behavior. However, Christians tend to forget that mercy is also extended to the "victim (not necessarily criminal victim)." Mercy on the offender can be putting them in jail and giving them a "time out," per se, to sit and think about it. Offenders can get very caught up in the world of sin and its lusts, that a time out in jail is just what they need to clear their heads and hear from the Lord.

Again, I believe in mercy, but God shows mercy to us in so many ways, even if He takes away our freedom. Figuratively and literally.

[sacredcowbasher]

It is not uncommon for Christians to want to have mercy on obvious sinners, such as those involved in criminal behavior. However, Christians tend to forget that mercy is also extended to the "victim (not necessarily criminal victim)." Mercy on the offender can be putting them in jail and giving them a "time out," per se, to sit and think about it. Offenders can get very caught up in the world of sin and its lusts, that a time out in jail is just what they need to clear their heads and hear from the Lord.

Again, I believe in mercy, but God shows mercy to us in so many ways, even if He takes away our freedom. Figuratively and literally.

Good post imirish01, I appreciate you bringing this point out. I know I needed to hear it.