Just or Merciful

[Moral Orel]

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,

The two concepts I described in the OP are in direct contrast with one another. You cannot do both of those things. If they are not "practicing justice" and "practicing mercy" then you tell me what words describe those concepts.

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.

On the contrary. I clearly defined the terms in the OP and it's you folk that are fighting about my word choice without offering an attempt at correction.

What I can surmise is that you folks would use the words "justice" and "mercy" for the concepts I've described, but you want to talk about some other stuff that you think is "justice" and "mercy".

 

[Halbhh]

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?

Both --

Justice:

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.


Mercy:

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So, you see @Moral Orel, He is like you'd want from your own parent: fairness, justness, but also mercy freely given, generously, to us when we repent.

Also, I think that's close to the the ideal parent in the most common viewpoint of the majority (or plurality) of people around the world.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

No contradiction. I could be just as adamant about your 'contradiction'-- the fact you just used the word "punishment" here, instead of mere payment concerning debt.

When you say, "They didn't earn it", I assume you mean, they didn't earn Jesus' payment. They are not absolved without punishment. They are only absolved of their sin. JESUS took their punishment. The punishment STILL HAPPENED.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The two concepts I described in the OP are in direct contrast with one another. You cannot do both of those things. If they are not "practicing justice" and "practicing mercy" then you tell me what words describe those concepts.

Of course they are "in direct contrast", regardless of how awkward that sounds to say; they do by definition have a contrast. They don't, however, contradict. God can do both, but to show mercy to some he had to punish Christ.

The English is pretty clear, though. If I were to say, God has justice and mercy on Ninevah, it would be both. His justice was delayed, because of his mercy. Nevertheless, we given no indication that we will be seeing Ninevites in Heaven. There is no contradiction.

On the contrary. I clearly defined the terms in the OP and it's you folk that are fighting about my word choice without offering an attempt at correction.

What I can surmise is that you folks would use the words "justice" and "mercy" for the concepts I've described, but you want to talk about some other stuff that you think is "justice" and "mercy".

To your definitions you have added your narrative, i.e. that the two words contradict. You further added to their meaning your notion that God cannot do both. Both those statements modify otherwise usual meaning. Neither one of your 'facts' you have added there, belong to the definition of those two words.

 

[Paulomycin]

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

Then just say "dictionary" and let's not be coy about it, okay?

Voluntary = not forced.

We agree on this definition. Accepted.

Unjust specifically refers to a violation of justice.

If I actually said that, then it's 100% my mistake, since it can be so easily misconstrued and exploited to your advantage. This will motivate me to be even more of a pedantic lawyer from now on.

*searching*

That particular word only comes up under your name. Please quote me verbatum where I stated "unjust" or ever agreed with your choice of "unjust."

If you can come up with the post, then please do not accuse me of lying, and please be intellectually charitable enough to allow me to clarify what I really meant. But you need to bring the exact quote from me before moving forward.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then just say "dictionary" and let's not be coy about it, okay?

I said "common usage" because that's what you said we should use.

We agree on this definition. Accepted.

Good. Then paying someone to serve my prison sentence for murder isn't an injustice.

If I actually said that, then it's 100% my mistake, since it can be so easily misconstrued and exploited to your advantage. This will motivate me to be even more of a pedantic lawyer from now on.

*searching*

That particular word only comes up under your name. Please quote me verbatum where I stated "unjust" or ever agreed with your choice of "unjust."

If you can come up with the post, then please do not accuse me of lying, and please be intellectually charitable enough to allow me to clarify what I really meant. But you need to bring the exact quote from me before moving forward.

Here is your post in its entirety:

Both. Because mercy, by definition, is not just. . .but mercy is not injustice either.
Mercy is also undeserved (by definition).
Therefore, mercy and justice are compatible.

And here's the dictionary definition of unjust before you accuse me of a bad paraphrase:

unjust
[ uhn-juhst ]
adjective
not just; lacking in justice or fairness: unjust criticism; an unjust ruler.

Getting something you don't deserve is unjust.

 

[Moral Orel]

No contradiction. I could be just as adamant about your 'contradiction'-- the fact you just used the word "punishment" here, instead of mere payment concerning debt.

Yes, I pointed out that the deserving aren't punished because it's mere debt.

When you say, "They didn't earn it", I assume you mean, they didn't earn Jesus' payment. They are not absolved without punishment. They are only absolved of their sin. JESUS took their punishment. The punishment STILL HAPPENED.

Yes, they are absolved without receiving punishment. The punishment happened to someone who didn't deserve to be punished. So that's double not practicing justice.

Of course they are "in direct contrast", regardless of how awkward that sounds to say; they do by definition have a contrast. They don't, however, contradict. God can do both, but to show mercy to some he had to punish Christ.

Okay, so your retort is that he can do one at one time and one at a different time; and he can do one for one person and one to a different person. They can't be done at the same time to the same person, however. Since this inconsistency has nothing to do with people earning it or being owed or being deserving, is being inconsistent just? If so, how so?

The English is pretty clear, though. If I were to say, God has justice and mercy on Ninevah, it would be both. His justice was delayed, because of his mercy. Nevertheless, we given no indication that we will be seeing Ninevites in Heaven. There is no contradiction.

God had mercy on Ninevah in that He didn't destroy them then. When the folks died, some received justice through being punished for their sins, and some received no punishment at all for their sins thereby not receiving justice.

To your definitions you have added your narrative, i.e. that the two words contradict. You further added to their meaning your notion that God cannot do both. Both those statements modify otherwise usual meaning. Neither one of your 'facts' you have added there, belong to the definition of those two words.

Okay, glad that's settled. I'm done asking what other words I have described and everyone dodging the question, so it must be that I have described justice and mercy accurately.

 

[Paulomycin]

I said "common usage" because that's what you said we should use.

Oh, so you are trying to avoid dictionaries. Very telling.

Good. Then paying someone to serve my prison sentence for murder isn't an injustice.

You're just repeating a bad analogy that was already flawed at "paying."

And here's the dictionary definition of unjust before you accuse me of a bad paraphrase:

Don't strain a muscle with that reach. I still didn't say "unjust." I deliberately said "not justice." Just like any other thing is "not justice," like cake, or bowling balls, or dryer lint.

Getting something you don't deserve is unjust.

^ More assertions without evidence or explanation. But I see you've decided to decline the offer of mercy. So be it. Your funeral.

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh, so you are trying to avoid dictionaries. Very telling.

I've been citing the dictionary, so this is false.

You're just repeating a bad analogy that was already flawed at "paying."

False. You said it needed to be voluntary, my analogy is of a person voluntarily going to prison. There's nothing wrong with my analogy. A person who does deserve punishment doesn't receive punishment because someone who doesn't deserve punishment does receive punishment. I even granted your demand that it be voluntary. This is not justice as per the definition already cited and agreed to by you.

Don't strain a muscle with that reach. I still didn't say "unjust." I deliberately said "not justice." Just like any other thing is "not justice," like cake, or bowling balls, or dryer lint.

False. You are misquoting yourself. You said "not just".

^ More assertions without evidence or explanation. But I see you've decided to decline the offer of mercy. So be it. Your funeral.

False. I've already cited the dictionary definitions of unjust and justice, the latter of which you explicitly agreed to. This is already in evidence.

 

[Moral Orel]

Justice:

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

This sounds like works gets you into Heaven. I don't recall now, did you participate in my thread "Are you doing enough?" about what you must do to earn salvation?

 

[Paulomycin]

I've been citing the dictionary, so this is false.

Right, but I'm pretty sure you're looking for a way out of it.

False. You said it needed to be voluntary, my analogy is of a person voluntarily going to prison.

voluntary ≠ paid

False. You are misquoting yourself. You said "not just".

Wow. Not everything that is "not justice" is unjust.

False. I've already cited the dictionary definitions of unjust and justice, the latter of which you explicitly agreed to. This is already in evidence.

Now you're not even paying attention to what I wrote.

 

[Moral Orel]

Right, but I'm pretty sure you're looking for a way out of it.

False. Citing the dictionary is winning my points since you've declared it authoritative.

voluntary ≠ paid

False. Already cited that definition.

Wow. Not everything that is "not justice" is unjust.

You are still misquoting yourself. While this statement is true, it has no bearing on the conversation. Things which are "by definition not just" are unjust. See the definition of "unjust" in post 126.

Now you're not even paying attention to what I wrote.

False.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, they are absolved without receiving punishment. The punishment happened to someone who didn't deserve to be punished. So that's double not practicing justice.

Oh, without "receiving" punishment! Well, that isn't what you said. That's a whole different question. You keep sloughing sloppily from one vague notion to make it result in another. Justice required punishment --payment. Christ took it on our behalf. I'm sure you will get the chance to reprimand him for being unjust.

 

[Moral Orel]

Justice required punishment --payment.

Right, so your problem with my description of practicing justice is that I didn't describe mere debt, something transferable from person to person. We have a word for debt, it's "debt". Justice is something else entirely.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Right, so your problem with my description of practicing justice is that I didn't describe mere debt, something transferable from person to person. We have a word for debt, it's "debt". Justice is something else entirely.

Back to the OP, then, thank you. You said that God cannot do both justice and mercy. Now do you see yet how God can indeed do both?

 

[Moral Orel]

Back to the OP, then, thank you. You said that God cannot do both justice and mercy. Now do you see yet how God can indeed do both?

I already addressed this in #127 and you ignored it.

 

[Halbhh]

This sounds like works gets you into Heaven. I don't recall now, did you participate in my thread "Are you doing enough?" about what you must do to earn salvation?

We can't earn salvation. Those without works though don't have the necessary faith that allows salvation.

 

[Moral Orel]

We can't earn salvation.

But you just quoted a passage that said good people get good stuff. "God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.'” He is paying you for good works.

 

[Halbhh]

But you just quoted a passage that said good people get good stuff. "God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.'” He is paying you for good works.

Indeed.

So, here's the single most helpful short passage that puts all the basics together:

1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live...gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts....

4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
Ephesians 2 NIV

This passage does help lay out the basics: that we are saved only through pure Grace alone, a total gift, which we cannot merit on our own.
But that's not the end. It's not usually the case someone is saved and then they immediately pass on (not for most!).

So --> having been changed/renewed/cleansed and given a new heart (if we fully believe in Christ saving us), we are then ready to do the good works that God has prepared for us to do. i.e. -- with a heart that is grateful and has a renewal of love in it, we are much more ready to love all we meet.

It's very helpful if there are remaining questions -- like me: I had questions! -- to read verses 1-17 here:
John 15 NIV

That will help a lot I think -- it helped me -- to understand how we do the "good works which God has prepared for us to do".

 

[Paulomycin]

False. Citing the dictionary is winning my points since you've declared it authoritative.

You wish. Everyone knows a dictionary is more authoritative about common use than merely vague appeals to "common usage."

False. Already cited that definition.

It's still your contradiction.

voluntary ≠ paid

While this statement is true, it has no bearing on the conversation. Things which are "by definition not just" are unjust.

So "cake" is morally unjust? RGB codes are unjust? Vinyl records are unjust? I can't believe I'm even having this discussion. You're literally arguing that everything in the entire universe that is "not justice" is bad. Permission to lol hysterically, please.

False.

^ Bare assertion without support.