Like Button

Friday, February 19, 2016

Outrageous Justice

There are, in God's nature, three interlinked attributes -- justice, grace, and mercy. Justice is that which is right, deserved, earned, owed. Grace is being given the good which is not earned or owed. Mercy is not being given the punishment that is earned or owed. Thus, both grace and mercy, in a sense, are justice denied.

In the Old Testament, God's justice was assumed. When God told Abraham about His plan to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham's question (rhetorical) was, "Will not the Judge of all the earth do what is right?" (Gen 18:25). That is, "Of course He will!" And ... He did. So in earlier days of Christianity there was a philosophical problem dealing with grace and mercy. How can a just God be gracious and merciful? How can a just God not be just?

We're long past that today. Many of us have moved beyond the concept of a just God and have landed squarely on a merciful God. Indeed, it is hotly debated in some circles that God cannot be just. Oh, no, they don't make that argument. What they say is "God will not judge people; He's gracious." They say, "God wouldn't send people to Hell; He's too merciful." They pit God's grace and mercy against ultimate justice and leave God without the latter. Try as you might to argue that God is just and God does damn those who deserve it, you will be met with stiff with resistance because "My God is a kind, loving, merciful God who shows grace, not wrath." This translates into Rob Bell's Love Wins or universalism or simply skipping over the plain texts that say otherwise.

This approach of pitting one attribute against another is not new. People do it with Scripture all the time. "Well, this passage opposes that one" (technically, "appears to oppose"), "so this one is right and that one is wrong." There is no effort to align them or adjust our own understanding. "Jesus nullified much of the Old Testament" or "Paul nullified the Law" or "The love and compassion of Christ nullified the wrath and justice of God", and we're at rest again. Except we aren't. We've simply created a contradiction that must be resolved.

There was a time when believers were amazed by grace. Why? Because grace was opposed to justice, and justice was right, was what was deserved, was what was expected. But we became accustomed to His grace. And now we demand it. No justice will do. The justice of God is outrageous and won't be tolerated. All I can say is tell it to the Judge. See how that goes for you. We need to see how God's grace and mercy work with His justice, not in opposition to it. Only then do grace and mercy become amazing and God is magnified.

52 comments:

Bob said...

let me see if i got this right.

the same people that believe that Jesus died to save them from the wrath of God, no longer believe that the wrath of God still exist?
Do some believe that mercy/Grace replaced justice?
is it possible, that mercy cannot be administered without justice being somehow satisfied.
it seems that justice must always be satisfied first, Mercy/Grace come second. in the case of the Christian, he/she receives Mercy because Justice was carried out on the innocent one Jesus. the wrath of God was applied to Jesus.
so what about those not covered by the Blood? the wrath of God remains, and justice will be swift.

Stan said...

Yes, some believe that mercy and grace replace justice, that God just forgives without satisfying justice.

Bob said...

Rom 3:20 For no one will be JUSTIFIED in His sight by the works of the law, because the knowledge of sin comes through the law. HCSB

Rom 3:28 For we conclude that a man is JUSTIFIED by faith apart from the works of the law. HCSB
1Cor 6:11 And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God.

God is Just and Justify-er,
it seems that Justice is necessary , but Grace and Mercy are optional.
Romans 9:15 I will have mercy upon whom i will have mercy, i will have compassion on whom i will have compassion.

Stan said...

Yes, indeed, justice is necessary and the glorious message of Romans 3 is that He is both just and justifier, but tell that to those who are perfectly appalled at the justice and wrath of God and feel they have the "high ground" in removing His justice in favor of His mercy. They don't normally let the Bible dissuade them.

Stan said...

Sorry, Dan T, still not reading your comments. Remember:

1. "Here's a comment. Who is it from?"

2. "Oh, it's from Dan T." Delete.

No reading. No interacting. No idea what you're saying or trying to say. Nothing prevents you from jabbering on, of course, but neither I nor anyone else knows what your comments here are.

Craig said...

Stan,

I understand that in the case of Dan, that you no commenting policy is (in a sense) justice. I understand and appreciate that. However, I suspect that whatever he said in his comment was both creative and entertaining, so there is a sense in which I would like to see you lean to the grace/mercy side in certain cases.


As far as the topic of the post, as usual you are spot on. There are way too many folks who insist that grace/mercy is the defining characteristic of God and that justice is essentially an outmoded concept. Certainly this requires the setting aside of a significant amount of scripture and creatively interpreting a lot more. But when has that stopped those on the progressive side.

Bob,

I would suggest that a good percentage of the folks that want to eliminate justice have also either eliminated the atonement part of Christ's death or have chosen to interpret it in some sort of non literal sense which has the same effect.

Craig said...

I could be wrong, but without justice don't grace and mercy become somewhat meaningless?

Bob said...

one Sunday at church the pastor said that people no longer respond to being told that they are sinners and going to Hell. so now we will address their sense of brokenness. by doing so we can explain that the solution to their sense of brokenness is Jesus. so using that analogy, we completely dismiss the fact that judgment has come because they are enemy's of God. they are broken because they are sinners, they are enemy's of God under condemnation. instead we are trying to appeal to the fallen man by, sympathizing with his rebellion. milk toast theology to sooth hurtful feelings of lost. how can we appreciate what Grace and Mercy contain until we fully understand the nature of our redemption "from God's wrath."

Stan said...

Craig, I've tried "leaning to the grace/mercy" side with Dan. He's used it to continue the running battle that got him evicted. I suppose, if someone else wanted to waste their time dueling with him, I could let him comment on, but I've come to the Prov 26:4 condition. Besides, I do harbor some concern that his approach will encourage others in his direction. Christians of an earlier age burned people like him at a stake to avoid allowing his heresies to infect others. Isn't his own blog sufficient?

On your other point, indeed it is true that it is not possible to know grace and mercy without justice. Grace without justice is cheap. And anyone that says that God can merely be gracious and merciful has no conception of the nature of sin.

David said...

Bob, I don't believe justice is the part of God and grace and mercy are results. I believe that God is justice, mercy, and grace. Always has been, always will. Remember, His plan from the beginning was for Christ to be the appeasement of His justice. Adam didn't sin and God had to scramble to figure out how to be all three. God can't be only just and not gracious and merciful just as much as He can't be gracious and merciful without being just. They are all so intertwined with who He is that if you lose one, you lose them all and He ceases to be God.

David said...

Stan is being gracious by not subjecting is to the insanity that is Dan T.

Craig said...

Stan,

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your reasons for banning Dan, nor am I suggesting that you shouldn't be able to control who comments on your blog. I even share some of your concern that others might be swayed by his positions. The other side of that is that I also see value in allowing his points of view to be contrasted with others and it's hard to ignore the fact that the creativity and flexibility inherent in his comments is entertaining if nothing else. But, I fully support people establishing and sticking too whatever rules they feel are appropriate for their blogs.

Completely agree that without justice grace is so cheap as to be meaningless. The other thing is that to suggest that Christ fulfilling the Law is equivalent to Jesus nullifying the Law is to completely misrepresent Christ's role in relationship to the Law.


David,

I see your point.

Dan Trabue said...

I do harbor some concern that his approach will encourage others in his direction.

This is very interesting and, it seems to me, the heart of the fear of many conservative types: You fear that my arguments will ultimately win people over, that your arguments can't stand on their own against my arguments (however poorly I may portray them/fail in my ability to make my case).

If that is the case, what does that say about the strength of your convictions/arguments? It appears you're saying... "In an even exchange of ideas, people will be won over by the arguments of those with whom I disagree..."

Myself, I stand by my/our arguments and believe they can stand on their own and God can reveal God's Self and that people can make up their own minds. Your approach appears to be a very fear-based one. Is that fair? If not, why not?

Stan said...

Craig, this is the kind of nonsense I was talking about. Dan T thinks that my concern for misguided people like him is a concern from weakness. Dan T thinks that historical, orthodox, biblical Christianity is a position of weakness. Dan T thinks that minds are won by making the most winning arguments. Dan T is confused. But no amount of discussion, requests, imploring, reasoning, argumentation, evidence, or dialog will stay him from the swift leap into insanity.

I do think it is for grace on my part that I prevent him from commenting. It is amusing that you think of this as creative, flexible, and entertaining. Okay, I can see flexible. He isn't stuck in any rigid "These words mean something" or "Logic dictates ...", let alone "The Bible says ..."

Craig said...

Stan,

That is an excellent example, and I completely understand your concern. It does seem to me that if one is confident in ones position and truly believes that their position is correct that one would almost welcome those ideas being tested and jump at the opportunity to demonstrate how right those arguments are. I agree that Dan does dismiss historic Orthodox Christianity as unable to compete with his positions which are firmly grounded in his reason.

As you note his positions are certainly flexible, and frequently require a fair degree of creativity to reach. Personally I find the efforts folks like Dan go to in order to come up with this stuff fairly entertaining.

As I said, I see the justice in your position of banning Dan, I can also see that there is a degree of grace in limiting the exposure of some of these ideas as well. Ultimately it comes down to what you are comfortable with, I've just always enjoyed how well you have parried Dan's arguments.

Stan said...

In truth, I've allowed a lot of exposure from Dan T come through this blog. Years of it. It was, in fact, his personal attacks on me and my family along with his complete inability to apologize (which you've seen, too, I believe) which was the final violation of the "Let's keep it friendly" rule. Seems to be too easy to abide by, but apparently not. I do allow a lot of dissension on my blog. Lots of people with ideas different and even opposed to mine can merrily comment away here. I'm clearly not afraid to have opposing views represented. But, of course, "He won't let me comment, so he's lying and scared of me" is the only possible conclusion. Creative? Yes. Flexible? Sort of. Entertaining? Not so much.

My "duels" with Dan have always been precisely so that other readers can see his error and the reasons that biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity disagrees with him. I ended up wondering if my readers didn't understand that.

Craig said...

I know you have, and you've handled his stuff quite well. I do understand the desire to ban him and the behavior that prompts it.

Stan said...

I just wanted to express my admiration for your patience and persistence in addressing him on your blog. My hat's off to you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Craig,

By allowing Dan to broadcast his heresy and other false teachings on everyone else's blogs, we give him an open forum. He is a time waster, his name links to his blogs which lead people to them for learning more of his false teachings and heresy and no one else should be led to a site like that. He refuses to remain civil in discussions and virtually always resorts to name-calling. He is not a Christian and yet pretends to be one while worshiping a God and Christ of his own making.

Titus 3:10 says, "Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them." Dan has been warned innumerable times about his false teachings by numerous Christian bloggers. Titus says to give them only a second chance.

The man is foolish and is looking for encouragement as well as justification. Publishing his comments gives him his desire to spread his false teaching while pretending to just be asking questions. I recommend NO ONE give him a voice on their blogs. He's had his chances on too many and it's time to have him totally banned from any discourse on any subject.

Stan said...

Oh, sure, Glenn, go all "bibley" on us. No, I'm kidding. I think I've done Prov 26:5 enough and have now arrived at Prov 26:4. You're right. There have been far more than "warn them a second time" events. It is my intention to have nothing to do with him. Except, of course, to pray. But I'm sure that's just offensive to him.

David said...

Craig, the reason Dan T is such a pain to allow in the discussion is because he always resorts to manipulation, emotion, Science, anecdotal evidence, and naysayying. The only argument he never uses is actual Scripture. Whenever Scripture is used by others to defend their position, all He does is either accuse them of speaking for God or claiming it doesn't actually mean what it looks like it means. I guess if you don't care about the topic or don't participate, I could see how he could be entertaining, but trying to discuss something with him only ends up being frustrating and fruitless. His clear attempts at manipulating you for an agreement with him are the most frustrating and conniving. He has been debated into the ground many times before and continues to refuse to either admit defeat or leave. He is nothing more than the most persistent troll in the history of the internet.

Bob said...

back to the subject of Justice
David you are so smart sometimes you make my head spin.
i believe that your assessment of God's character is fine. but what i am trying to show is a correlation to cause. mercy and Grace do not manifest themselves until there is a primary cause. the primary cause is Sin against God. therefore Justice must be satisfied.
consider the order of operations: Sin, offence against God, justice must be served, judgement must be made, the sinner suffers, God is exonerated of all blame. justice is complete. these conditions are born of necessity.
Mercy and Grace are not born of necessity, they are optional. if God did not provide Christ as a sacrifice, he would still be gracious and merciful. the character traits do not define God, rather God defines the character traits. this is why we marvel at God's Grace, because He was never required to express it, and yet he did.

Craig said...

Glenn,

While not disagreeing with your assessment, Dan has ample places on the internet where he can post without challenge. At least when he posts at places like this his views will be challenged and contrasted with more Orthodox positions.


David,
Again, I agree with your assessment of what Dan offers in terms of support for his positions but these are the only places where his positions aren't just accepted. As far as interesting, I do find it interesting to see what he comes up with and how far he will go in order to hang on to his position no matter how logically inconsistent or untenable his position is.

Clearly, I support Stan in terms of setting the rules and tone for his blog and I am aware of what prompted him to make the choice he has made. I was just pointing out that while his treatment of Dan is clearly just, that grace/mercy are also options in this context. I've certainly deleted comments from Dan and limited his ability to comment, because of all the reasons enumerated here, but I can understand why others react differently.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Craig,

It matters not that Dan can post other places without challenge - we can't patrol the Internet. The point is that we are told in Scripture to warn such a person twice and then have nothing to do with him. We are also told to not answer a fool according to his folly. He is a time-waster who takes away our time which can be better used elsewhere - proper stewardship. And he will not change regardless of how much correction he is given.

If you choose to allow him to continue on your blog, fine, but don't make the rest of us out to be wrong for banning him.

Stan said...

Glenn, I think Craig is "wishing", not making us out to be wrong (as evidenced by his " I support Stan in terms of setting the rules and tone for his blog.").

Craig said...

Glenn,

I've been consistently clear throughout this entire thread, that I do not have a problem with anyone who chooses to ban Dan. In my first comment I stated that for Stan to have prevented Dan from commenting was justice and as such is completely appropriate. It appears the only ting you're wrong about is my position on how others deal with Dan.

David said...

Bob, I agree with your casaul correlation. However, I don't think God could not have sent His Son and still be gracious. Merciful maybe, but not gracious. He was merciful when He didn't outright condemn Adam and Eve to death. He was only gracious when He sent His Son as the appeasement of Justice (and by that I include the planning of the gift). Certainly, if He did not, we would have a different definition for grace since He defines it. But because He did, we can know grace, and Him "needing" to be gracious as part of Him being Him doesn't lessen the graciousness, in my opinion.

As for any intelligence I appear to impress you with, thank Stan. Most everything I know theologically is from him. (Apples falling and all that I guess.)

David said...

Craig, guess that's just a difference between you and me. You find his thinking interesting, I find it frustrating. When someone needs to jump through that many hoops to hold onto a belief, they are either messing with you or fooling themselves, either of which are dissatisfying.

David said...

And Stan, if all this talk about Dan causes him to harass you all the more, I apologize.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Craig,

The fact that you keep trying to get Stan to allow Dan, and that you keep giving reasons why we should continue discussions with Dan, certainly makes me infer that you are therefore critical of those who ban him.

Craig said...

Glenn,

You are free to infer whatever you like. Just be aware that the comments I have made have clearly supported Stan's prerogative to prevent Dan from commenting. As a matter of fact, the comment immediately above your second comment is pretty clear about my actual position.

David,

I admit I do find it frustrating as well, but given the increase of people who think and argue like Dan I find it worthwhile to observe what he does. And yes, I do find it interesting in a certain sense.

David said...

When he was frequently commenting, it got to the point that I would just skip over his inane babbling and read the responses to him.

Craig said...

David,

I occasionally do that when Dan is going back and forth with someone else, as he can repeat himself quite a bit.

Craig said...

"Jesus’ platform is peace through justice. You build peace by making sure everyone has enough. You build bridges. You educate. You heal. You practice an open table. When people have access, freedom, autonomy, enough, you get peace for everyone."

Back to the topic, Stan, what do you think about this definition of justice?

Stan said...

Wait ... comments that are on topic?? I'm not sure I know what to do with that? (Kidding, of course.)

What an interesting definition! Nonsense, of course. I mean, look it up in the dictionary and you won't find that anywhere. It is speaking about "social justice", I assume, where "others have more than me" (basically) is regarded as "unjust". I do like the sentiment even if it is blind and foolish, ignoring the fact that "access, freedom, and autonomy" do not fix the sin problem. (Autonomy isn't even biblical.) Further, I cannot even begin to imagine where the premise comes from: "Jesus’ platform is peace through justice." Nothing like it in Scripture, but I suppose if you're going to make up a definition, you can make up a platform for Jesus.

Biblical justice is "balancing the books", righting the wrong. It is upholding good and punishing evil. Justice is treating people fairly, doing what is right. (The basic definition behind the word "justice" is "that which is right".)

Craig said...

I know how unrealistic on topic comments are.

You've got to love what people cook up.

David said...

Maybe you got the quote backwards? I can see how that might make sense if justice were through peace (completely wrong, but at least understandable). Nothing in that paragraph mentions anything about how the justice would be obtained, only the peace.

Craig said...

The quote isn't backwards, it may be incoherent, but it's exactly what the pastor meant to say.

Stan said...

Is that a Shuckism?

Craig said...

Why yes it is. Good eye. He hasn't been blogging much but his sermons are still available.

Stan said...

Yeah, I figured. Of course, calling them "sermons" stretches the definition of that word, doesn't it? :)

And expecting a pastor who is a self-avowed atheist denying Scripture and even the existence of Jesus to get "Jesus' platform" right is a bit of a reach.

Craig said...

Slander, and gossip, and misrepresentation, oh my!

I guess Dan laid the smack down on you and Glenn.



Yes, I suspect that it's really Shuck's platform that he'd like to impose of Jesus. You know the Jesus who isn't God and who probably didn't say 90% of what He's credited with saying, that Jesus.

Stan said...

Where did he do that? Slandering and gossiping and misrepresenting me somewhere?

As seems to be the constant state of things, there seems to be a flood of terms to which I say, "You keep using that word; I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Slander: "oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed."

It can't be slander if 1) it's written and not oral and 2) if it is in agreement with the person or person who claims it about themselves. (Nor can it be "misrepresenting". But apparently it is only you and I who can "misrepresent", right? Or maybe it's just me. And Glenn? Sigh. Can't keep up.)

Gossip? Maybe. Except gossip is typically with malice intended and I'm pretty sure that Shuck would say that we are rightly representing his views even if he thinks we're wrong in disagreeing with him. No malice, with the possible exception of the dislike of the idea of people calling themselves Christian pastors who are self-professed atheists, a clear contradiction in terms.

Craig said...

The complaining about the gossip and slander etc. is over at Dan's. It's pretty predictable any time he get's discussed. It's interesting that he complains that he can't defend himself, then proceeds to publish an entire post about how badly he is treated. It seems like he has a perfect forum to defend himself and has the ability if he chooses to block or otherwise limit comments that he doesn't like.

Sorry for any confusion, I thought the use of "gossip" and "slander" would lead you to Dan.

Stan said...

Sorry for the confusion myself. I understood who "he" was that was complaining about slander and gossip. Certainly not Shuck. But we were talking about Shuck, so it could only be "slander and gossip and misrepresenting" Shuck about which he who shall not be named could complain, right?

Craig said...

No problem. The difference between Shuck and Dan is that Shuck revels in people talking about how outrageous he is and Dan gets defensive.

Shuck's own words are plenty to represent him.

Stan said...

Thanks for the heads up, Craig. I was wrong. He was complaining about the conversation that was about him and was not complaining about anything about Shuck. My mistake.

Craig said...

No problem, just his standard shtick.

David said...

So, is slander is oral, what would be the written/typed equivalent? Sounds like it might just be a problem of the dictionary not keeping up with the times since most people's "conversations" aren't in the oral format.

Stan said...

The written equivalent is libel. Of course, you're right, in that much of our "conversation" these days is written, but the legal profession would tell you that slander is oral and libel is written.

Craig said...

Dan uses the term slander because it's something he found in the Bible. Now just because the term slander is in the Bible doesn't make slander wrong. But it's a great way to sound sanctimonious and quote proof texts. So, it really works for Dan. I've tried to explain the difference but the legal details aren't that important when you can use scripture to beat up on people.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I will bet anything that all of Dan's complaints about us on his own blog totally misrepresents us anyway. He is widely know for misrepresenting his opponent's position.