Just or Merciful

[Moral Orel]

Now, I agree with the above, because believers are saved by grace and mercy.

- Grace, by definition, is not owed (no one is entitled to it).
- Mercy, by definition, is not owed (no one is entitled to that either).
- Everyone is born in sin and deserves nothing less than God's eternal retributive justice.
- Part of becoming a believer is admitting to God that you deserve nothing less than God's eternal retributive justice.

Good. Then we're agreed that God doesn't practice justice for some people.

Here, I'll help you out:

1. Everyone deserves punishment.
2. God is consistently just.
3. Punishment is not prevented, but rather it is poured out equally, and upon everyone equally.
4. Jesus Christ presents Himself as the substitute for God's wrath; standing in-place of all believers (who still justly deserve punishment, regardless).
5. God's eternal wrath upon eternal cosmic treason (sin) is satisfied when Jesus stands as substitute. <-- This is called, "simul justus et peccator," or "righteous (or justified), and sinners at the same time." Why? Because the sinners worthy of God's wrath are covered by the atoning death of Christ.

This was determined before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:3-6, Matthew 25:34-40, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:9, & Hebrews 4:3.

Thus, God is not guilty of an injustice. The sin is already fully judged, or paid in full, "tetelestai!" as Jesus said on the cross.

Okay, but there are people who deserve punishment that aren't getting punished. And this is good, yes?

 

[Paulomycin]

Good. Then we're agreed that God doesn't practice justice for some people.

I see you're answering as you go. . .

Okay, but there are people who deserve punishment that aren't getting punished. And this is good, yes?

. . .or maybe you're not reading it at all. Justice is served. Punishment is executed upon all.

Why can't Christ stand in your place?

Why can't Christ be the good you can't be?

Grace and mercy are not injustice, and you can't explain otherwise, because you keep evading it.

 

[Moral Orel]

. . .or maybe you're not reading it at all. Justice is served. Punishment is executed upon all.

Why can't Christ stand in your place?

Punishment is experienced. If Christ stands in my place, then I experience no punishment. Punishment isn't executed on me. If I am sentenced to a firing squad, and someone jumps in the way of the bullets, I was not punished.

 

[Paulomycin]

Punishment is experienced.

Where do all your arbitrary "rules" come from? Where are your external citations for correction? It's as-if you had nothing more than the mere subjective will to hit "reply," but no objective reason to do so.

If Christ stands in my place, then I experience no punishment. Punishment isn't executed on me. If I am sentenced to a firing squad, and someone jumps in the way of the bullets, I was not punished.

Do you comprehend the concept of "substitute?"

 

[Moral Orel]

Where do all your arbitrary "rules" come from? Where are your external citations for correction? It's as-if you had nothing more than the mere subjective will to hit "reply," but no objective reason to do so.

The common usage of words. I thought that was authoritative with you. If I murder someone, and the judge sentences my neighbor to prison while I stay free, have I been punished? He experienced prison, I did not. Punishment is experienced. Debts can be paid by whoever. But we aren't talking about debt, we're talking about punishment.

Do you comprehend the concept of "substitute?"

Yes. Do you? Jesus, as the substitute, experienced punishment so I don't have to.

You've already agreed that practicing mercy is to spare people from punishment they deserve. If all folks are punished, then no one is spared, and God never shows mercy. Does God ever practice mercy?

 

[Paulomycin]

The common usage of words.

Which anyone can re-interpret and equivocate anytime.

Nothing shady at all about that, noooooo. . . It's almost like you're looking for space to equivocate.

I thought that was authoritative with you. If I murder someone, and the judge sentences my neighbor to prison while I stay free, have I been punished? He experienced prison, I did not.

That's injustice, because your neighbor didn't volunteer. And that's the little twist you added to that.

Yes. Do you? Jesus, as the substitute, experienced punishment so I don't have to.

Voluntarily. Deliberately, and for those who would believe in Him.

You've already agreed that practicing mercy is to spare people from punishment they deserve.

And mercy is not injustice. <-- I assume you do comprehend this. Correct?

If all folks are punished, then no one is spared, and God never shows mercy. Does God ever practice mercy?

Yes, through God the Son.

 

[Moral Orel]

Which anyone can re-interpret and equivocate anytime.

Nothing shady at all about that, noooooo. . . It's almost like you're looking for space to equivocate.

You said common use is prescriptive and prevents equivocation first so that's what we're going with:

Common-use makes them prescriptive, or else everyone has a license to equivocate and lie.

That's injustice, because your neighbor didn't volunteer. And that's the little twist you added to that.

And if he does volunteer, then it's not injustice. Say I murder someone, get convicted, and pay someone to serve my sentence for me. They're happy to do it, but the victim's family wants to see me punished. This is not injustice.

Voluntarily. Deliberately, and for those who would believe in Him.

Okay, just wanted to make sure that we were back on the same page. Not everyone who deserves to get punished actually gets punished.

And mercy is not injustice. <-- I assume you do comprehend this. Correct?

No, actually, I don't. You said mercy is unjust but it isn't injustice. What's the difference?

 

[Paulomycin]

You said common use is prescriptive and prevents equivocation first so that's what we're going with:

Common use based on clear dictionary definitions. I don't want any room for equivocation.

And if he does volunteer, then it's not injustice. Say I murder someone, get convicted, and pay someone to serve my sentence for me. They're happy to do it, but the victim's family wants to see me punished. This is not injustice.

I clearly said "voluntary," and not "paid." Try again.

No, actually, I don't. You said mercy is unjust but it isn't injustice. What's the difference?

There are loads of abstract concepts that aren't justice. "Injustice" specifically refers to a violation of justice. And you can't demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Does God practice justice, or does God practice mercy?

I would say that practicing justice is to ensure that people get punishments they deserve.

And I would say that practicing mercy is to spare people from punishments they deserve.

Clearly, it isn't possible to do both, so which does God practice?

Sure it is possible to practice mercy and judgement! Jesus took the punishment of those to whom God chose to show mercy.

When Scripture says, "Mercy triumphs over judgement." it doesn't mean he stops being just!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then why is it just for God to prevent retributive justice? If retributive justice is good, then no retributive justice is bad.

Where do you see that God prevented retributive justice.

(Btw, I can't speak for Paulo here. Maybe he meant to imply that he was wrong to be thinking in terms of retributive justice, but frankly, there is something to God saying, :Vengeance is mine." I think God's justice is very much retributive; sin is more than a simple legal debt --it is a crime against God himself, it is the creature calling its own Creator a liar or irrelevant. It WILL be answered in kind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm accepting that God can get around to dispensing justice on His schedule. Folks who get mercy never get justice. That's the issue. It's unjust to prevent punishment for people who deserve punishment.

So all those folks from Ninevah --we are going to see them in Heaven?? Wow.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're focusing on my choice of words to represent the concepts I've described instead of looking at the concepts themselves. I think my word choice is fitting, but if it's not, are the concepts I've described unbiblical?

Regardless of this whole discussion, and since you want to return to #1, your presupposition that mercy and justice are incompatible is false. And it has been shown false several times on this thread. You have yet to answer how they are not false, you have not refuted the claim that God carried out his justice (concerning those to whom he chose to have mercy) on Christ,

 

[Mark Quayle]

Punishment is experienced. If Christ stands in my place, then I experience no punishment. Punishment isn't executed on me. If I am sentenced to a firing squad, and someone jumps in the way of the bullets, I was not punished.

The question is not what a person experiences. The OP presupposes God cannot be just AND merciful simultaneously. What any person receives is irrelevant to what God can or cannot do.

God's justice is satisfied by Christ's substitution on behalf of those to whom he chose to have mercy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And mercy is not injustice. <-- I assume you do comprehend this. Correct?

Yes, through God the Son.

No, actually, I don't. You said mercy is unjust but it isn't injustice. What's the difference?

It occurs to me here, that there may be an assumption on Moral Orel's part (And common to maybe even most of Christendom) that God's choice of recipients of his mercy is entirely arbitrary.

Perhaps this discussion could even be used in some way to logically show that justice demands that his election (and even his creation of the elect) MUST be specific and not arbitrary. I'm not sure how to go about it, though.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, actually, I don't. You said mercy is unjust but it isn't injustice. What's the difference?

I'm not going to go back and find the quote, but I think you may have misquoted Paulomycin. But if can quote him saying it the way you put it, please don't quote it here without quoting also the context.

He said mercy is not injustice, and that there is a difference between un-justice and injustice (my hyphen). You may take the implication to make your statement, but you are then ignoring his point, or distracting away from his point, not to mention sloughing the use of his words.

He was obviously saying that mercy is neither injustice nor justice. Paulo said that 'mercy is by definition not directly related to justice', which is not wrong, but it is not as pointed a way to say it, as to change the order of the words, to say that 'by definition, mercy is not directly related to justice'. Either way, you seem to either want to fight about words to distract from the logic, or you want to slough the use of words to derail your own thread (granted, you may not be doing this consciously). You are making a mess here.

 

[Moral Orel]

Common use based on clear dictionary definitions. I don't want any room for equivocation.

You haven't added anything new. Dictionaries describe the common usage of words.

I clearly said "voluntary," and not "paid." Try again.

Voluntary = not forced.

voluntary
adjective

vol·un·tary | \ ˈvä-lən-ˌter-ē \
Definition of voluntary

1: proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
// a voluntary action
// voluntary cooperation

There are loads of abstract concepts that aren't justice. "Injustice" specifically refers to a violation of justice. And you can't demonstrate otherwise.

Unjust specifically refers to a violation of justice.

unjust
adjective

un·just | \ ˌən-ˈjəst \
Definition of unjust

1: characterized by injustice : UNFAIR
2 archaic : DISHONEST, FAITHLESS

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You haven't added anything new. Dictionaries describe the common usage of words.

Voluntary = not forced.

voluntary
adjective

vol·un·tary | \ ˈvä-lən-ˌter-ē \
Definition of voluntary

1: proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
// a voluntary action
// voluntary cooperation


Unjust specifically refers to a violation of justice.

unjust
adjective

un·just | \ ˌən-ˈjəst \
Definition of unjust

1: characterized by injustice : UNFAIR
2 archaic : DISHONEST, FAITHLESS

Ok. Then it's time for you to pull out a dictionary that actually describes the "common usage" of whatever words you think are being pulled and contrasted here. A dictionary in English isn't going to cut it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're focusing on my choice of words to represent the concepts I've described instead of looking at the concepts themselves. I think my word choice is fitting, but if it's not, are the concepts I've described unbiblical?

Yep.

 

[Moral Orel]

Where do you see that God prevented retributive justice.

Everyone that Jesus saves is spared from retributive justice. Retributive justice says that if you cause something bad, you should receive something bad. Retributive justice is much more clearly defined than ambiguously stating "justice".

(Btw, I can't speak for Paulo here. Maybe he meant to imply that he was wrong to be thinking in terms of retributive justice, but frankly, there is something to God saying, :Vengeance is mine." I think God's justice is very much retributive; sin is more than a simple legal debt --it is a crime against God himself, it is the creature calling its own Creator a liar or irrelevant. It WILL be answered in kind.

And that's wherein lies your contradiction. Christians who go to Heaven receive no retribution because Jesus paid their debt. They didn't earn it, it isn't owed to them, they are absolved without punishment.

If Jesus can take the punishment in your place, how is it more than a simple debt?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yep.

K.