Dr. House argued that capital punishment is not only condoned but also commanded by God in the Old Testament, and he used New Testament passages to affirm those commands were universal and unchanging. His arguments relied heavily on his interpretion of Genesis 9 (the Noachian Covenant) as a universal mandate establishing God's relationship to man, and man's relationship to each other. Unfortunately, I felt he took the "easy" way out by claiming that the entire Mosaic Law had been invalidated by Christ and therefore was not relevant to his case. I think a more fair analysis would have been to divide the Mosaic Laws into moral, religous, and legal subcomponents and deal with each separately.

Dr. Yoder used a standard "Christ-transforming-culture" argument to assert that God's acceptance of capital punishment has changed from Biblical times to today. The themes of Christ's teachings have helped evolve modern culture past the need for retribution-based systems of punishment (i.e., some Scriptures have to be interpreted in terms of the cultural bias of its authors). Yoder explains away the Noachian Covenant as a reflection of an obsolete era and basis his arguments primarily on John 8, where Jesus pardons an alduteress about to be stoned to death.

I really enjoyed seeing this contemporary issue discussed from Scriptural postions. Both men made interesting arguments, but I felt Dr. Yoder did not respect or believe in the infallibility of Scripture and tried to use secular sources (modern psychology and social science) to bend his interpretations.