Could a Christian Get Away with Murder?

[Baptist Renegade]

I am thinking of some comments made on the O. J. thread so here is the hypothetical situation:

1. A "Professing Christian" commits the heinous crime of murder for whatever reason. This is not self defense or justifiable homicide, it is a cold-blooded murder for which justice should be served.
2. This murdering defendent is able to convince a jury that he/she is innocent and is declared "not guilty." Case is dismissed, defendent is exonerated and walks free.
3. This person never speaks of this deed ever, not even a "death bed" confession.
4. They possessed a genuine saving faith and therefore declared "Justified" and enters into the presence of the Lord!
5. Since our sins are removed as far as the East is from the West, it is never brought up on the day of judgment.

Is such a scenario even possible? Why or why not?

I will reserve my opinion for now...

 

[abcaines]

No one commits a crime like murder as you have described out of the blue. A person, whether a believer or not, has to go through an incredible hardening process in order to step up to such a crime. Your post murder scenario as given, would also be an expected outcome of such a hardened heart.

Such a hardening of one's heart would be a difficult thing for a genuine believer to do. He would have to steadfastly harden his heart in the face of personal conviction from the Holy Spirit. In fact, such resistance to the Holy Spirit would be a problem for anyone attempting to make an argument that such a person is a genuine believer.

 

[Ransom]

Is such a scenario even possible? Why or why not?

Does a person who genuinely confesses Christ have the option of refusing to confess to such a serious crime?

I would say that is lying by omission, and evidence the murder was never truly repented of. Committing a murder isn't some small, easily forgotten sin. It's the defining event of a person's life. No one cared about OJ's Heismann trophy after 1994.

 

[Ransom]

A legal aside for those with a better law education than mine: The principle of double jeopardy says you can't be tried twice for the same crime. Does that also apply when the accused himself admits his own guilt, after his acquittal?

 

[aleshanee]

A legal aside for those with a better law education than mine: The principle of double jeopardy says you can't be tried twice for the same crime. Does that also apply when the accused himself admits his own guilt, after his acquittal?

it can happen.... but not by the same authority for the same crime.... ....however... other authorites can take action for related crimes or situations they might have jurisdiction over...... (thus the reason civil courts can find a person responsible for the results of a crime and forced to pay monetary settlements to the victims even after he was acquitted of criminal acts)....... . ..

but according to official original documents on the issue - the united states operates under a system of dual sovereignty, with the federal government representing the supreme law of the land but nonetheless having limited, enumerated powers, while the states retain independent sovereignty and plenary police powers.... .. which means if the state finds you not guilty you could still be tried by the federal government for crimes covered under federal law....

but with the federal government now operatiing multiple agencies like the FBI... BATF ...DEA... and even the IRS..(agencies that did not exist when the u.s. constitution was written).. and who have been given massive police powers.... it has become very complicated - and technically could put people in double or even triple jeopardy for the same crimes whether they confess or not....

and then of course theoretically a person could also be hauled into the same court and tried for perjury if there is evidence he lied while giving testimony during his trial...... ....that could open a new can of worms altogether and i am not sure if it has ever happened in the united states.... ...

 

[abcaines]

but according to official original documents on the issue - the united states operates under a system of dual sovereignty, with the federal government representing the supreme law of the land but nonetheless having limited, enumerated powers, while the states retain independent sovereignty and plenary police powers.... .. which means if the state finds you not guilty you could still be tried by the federal government for crimes covered under federal law....

Which is exactly what happened to the officers in the Rodney King incident.

In my work at the time, I got to know the parents of one of those officers. They were a great family who fostered special needs children. From the few interactions I had with them beyond our professional relationship, I think they were very strong believers. I expect to see see them in Heaven receiving a boatload of rewards for their faithfulness to the children they served.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

No one commits a crime like murder as you have described out of the blue. A person, whether a believer or not, has to go through an incredible hardening process in order to step up to such a crime. Your post murder scenario as given, would also be an expected outcome of such a hardened heart.

Such a hardening of one's heart would be a difficult thing for a genuine believer to do. He would have to steadfastly harden his heart in the face of personal conviction from the Holy Spirit. In fact, such resistance to the Holy Spirit would be a problem for anyone attempting to make an argument that such a person is a genuine believer.

I think we are on the exact same page here!

Long story short, I do not a genuine Christian could get away with sin! Unsaved people are eaten up by their conscience all the time and end up turning themselves in for such crimes. How much more for someone who is a blood-bought Christian who has the indwelling Holy Spirit?

A Christian is most certainly capable of the sin of murder but God will not allow them to get away with it in this life! He will either bring his child to repentance, to confess and take ownership of their crime, and be accepting of the consequences, or he will ensure the evidence is compelling to the extent that a conviction is inevitable! No one gets away with sin.

I do not believe that a child of God could become so hardened as you say. I do not think God would allow it and I think you (and everyone else here) knows all the verses we could cite that would substantiate this. If someone were able to take such a sin to the grave, I would be confident in saying the person was most likely unregenerate and they will give account to God for this heinous sin!

I don't believe that OJ ever spoke publicly regarding any relationship or faith in Christ nor did he exemplify the characteristics of a regenerate man (although I thought he seemed like a "nice guy" prior to 1994 based upon his public persona but I digress...). I would say that if by some chance he was truly saved, then OJ was genuinely innocent this whole time. What we know from the public records speaks otherwise.

 

[Ransom]

it can happen.... but not by the same authority for the same crime.... ....however... other authorites can take action for related crimes or situations they might have jurisdiction over...... (thus the reason civil courts can find a person responsible for the results of a crime and forced to pay monetary settlements to the victims even after he was acquitted of criminal acts)....... . ..

Sure, or if a state court acquits him, a federal court might take some interest.

After posting that, I looked into this. Turns out the answer is yes, double jeopardy still applies even when the accused confesses after being acquitted. One, a confession is not evidence, and people will lie to get credit for things they didn't do. To convict the accused, his confession would still need to be tested in court--which it can't. Two, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and post-trial confession or not, they failed to do that.

So OJ didn't even have to title his book If I Did It.

 

[sword]

No one commits a crime like murder as you have described out of the blue. A person, whether a believer or not, has to go through an incredible hardening process in order to step up to such a crime. Your post murder scenario as given, would also be an expected outcome of such a hardened heart.

Such a hardening of one's heart would be a difficult thing for a genuine believer to do. He would have to steadfastly harden his heart in the face of personal conviction from the Holy Spirit. In fact, such resistance to the Holy Spirit would be a problem for anyone attempting to make an argument that such a person is a genuine believer.

I have heard of a number of cases of a perfectly normal induvidual , as a result of a rape or murder of a close relative, kill the perpetrator in a fit of rage. Where as this is still murder I find it very different than one who kills for financial gain or some twisted or evil motive.

King David, of the Bible, murdered Uriah and God forgave him and used him. He did face difficulty as a result of his sin.

 

[abcaines]

I have heard of a number of cases of a perfectly normal induvidual , as a result of a rape or murder of a close relitive, kill the perpetrator in a fit of rage. Where as this is still murder I find it very different than one who kills for financial gain or some twisted or evil motive.

Indeed. Still, a hardness of heart and rejection of the Holy Spirit's conviction is required. Actually, I can more easily understand a believer committing murder under the scenarios you pose than the scenarios BR did.

Funny, I heard a quip from Ruth Graham when asked if she ever considered divorcing Billy: "Divorce, no. Murder, yes."

 

[Ransom]

I have heard of a number of cases of a perfectly normal induvidual , as a result of a rape or murder of a close relitive, kill the perpetrator in a fit of rage. Where as this is still murder I find it very different than one who kills for financial gain or some twisted or evil motive.

King David, of the Bible, murdered Uriah and God forgave him and used him. He did face difficulty as a result of his sin.

I think we would all agree that a genuine Christian could be capable of committing a murder.

The original question was more complex: whether a genuine Christian could commit a murder, get away with it, and conceal his guilt all the way to the grave.

 

[Ekklesian]

The original question was more complex: whether a genuine Christian could commit a murder, get away with it, and conceal his guilt all the way to the grave.

Yes. If shame were the reason for the concealment.

 

[Ekklesian]

Funny, I heard a quip from Ruth Graham when asked if she ever considered divorcing Billy: "Divorce, no. Murder, yes."

Indeed.