Justice and Mercy

[aiki]

Fair enough. But my point still stands: how can he be perfectly just and perfectly merciful? The former implies he punishes people, while the latter implies he absolves them.

He does both perfectly, without contradiction between the two. We see that mercy and punishment are not mutually exclusive in our own world, so why the confusion about how God exercises these two things on a divine level? As I have noted already, generally speaking God's justice waits upon the exercise of His mercy. This is seen very clearly in the gospel. God's holy justice demands satisfaction concerning all who sin (that means every human being). God has ordained in His absolute sovereignty that "the wages of sin is death" and that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." This death, the punishment for sin, is experienced ultimately and eternally in Hell. But God is not just holy and just; He is also merciful and loving. Consequently, He has made a way to fulfill the demands of His holy justice against sinners while at the same time extending mercy to them. He accomplished this through the sacrificial shedding of the blood of His only Son, Jesus Christ, for your sin and mine. Jesus became the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." In so doing he both satisfied God's justice and expressed the incredible depths of God's mercy toward wicked humanity. As one would expect, God's justice and mercy find equal and harmonious expression in His actions toward us. If we reject God's gift of salvation, His awesome expression of mercy toward us, then we can expect only finally His terrible justice.

I call it one religious text amongst many, a collection of texts compiled over the a period of about 4000 years (the oral tradition of Bronze-age nomads, letters sent by early Christians, etc).

Then you have not studied the nature of the Bible very closely. What you have done above is painted a caricature of the Bible. In reality, the Bible is an amazingly cohesive, unified text - especially given its highly unusual construction.

Not to mention the fact that the exact texts used in the Bible differs from tradition to tradition (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Protestants, etc, all compile different texts and call it 'the' Bible).

The differences are not perhaps as significant as you may think. And there are some 25,000 extant ancient manuscripts of Scripture by which any and every translation may be judged as accurate or not. No other historical text in existence can boast any where near as many supporting ancient manuscripts. The contention that the proliferation of Bible versions somehow erodes the accurateness of the Bible is not, then, in light of these facts, justified.

Peace.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

He does both perfectly, without contradiction between the two. We see that mercy and punishment are not mutually exclusive in our own world, so why the confusion about how God exercises these two things on a divine level?

I'd argue that they are mutually exclusive in our world.

As I have noted already, generally speaking God's justice waits upon the exercise of His mercy. This is seen very clearly in the gospel. God's holy justice demands satisfaction concerning all who sin (that means every human being). God has ordained in His absolute sovereignty that "the wages of sin is death" and that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." This death, the punishment for sin, is experienced ultimately and eternally in Hell.

Which is another thing I don't understand: if God has absolute sovereignty, why would he wilfully choose to send us to an eternity in Hell to pay for our sins? Why not absolve us there and then? Especially since he later on sends Jesus to die for us, thus negating the whole thing.

But God is not just holy and just; He is also merciful and loving. Consequently, He has made a way to fulfill the demands of His holy justice against sinners while at the same time extending mercy to them. He accomplished this through the sacrificial shedding of the blood of His only Son, Jesus Christ, for your sin and mine. Jesus became the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." In so doing he both satisfied God's justice and expressed the incredible depths of God's mercy toward wicked humanity. As one would expect, God's justice and mercy find equal and harmonious expression in His actions toward us. If we reject God's gift of salvation, His awesome expression of mercy toward us, then we can expect only finally His terrible justice.

That fact that we are capable of rejecting God's gift shows that it isn't a gift at all: we have to do something in order to get it. It's not mercy, it's blackmail.

I'd also argue that he was never just in the first place: the cards were stacked against us as far back as Eden.

But the point is that God's mercy (giving us a way achieve salvation) and God's justice (condemning us to an eternity in Hell) are still mutually exclusive. At the very least, he is compromising his justice to satisfy his mercy: justice is not being carried out.

Then you have not studied the nature of the Bible very closely. What you have done above is painted a caricature of the Bible. In reality, the Bible is an amazingly cohesive, unified text - especially given its highly unusual construction.

I disagree that it is as cohesive as you claim. I'd argue further, but I think we're veering off-topic.

 

[aiki]

I'd argue that they are mutually exclusive in our world.

Perhaps sometimes, yes, but not always. Unlike God, our world is not perfect.

Which is another thing I don't understand: if God has absolute sovereignty, why would he wilfully choose to send us to an eternity in Hell to pay for our sins? Why not absolve us there and then? Especially since he later on sends Jesus to die for us, thus negating the whole thing.

Maybe I don't quite understand your question but if God simply absolved us of our sin, without satisfying the demands of His perfect justice and holiness, He would be an accomplice of sorts to our sin. He could not then be a holy or a just God; He would, in fact, be an evil one.

That fact that we are capable of rejecting God's gift shows that it isn't a gift at all: we have to do something in order to get it. It's not mercy, it's blackmail.

Any gift that is given must be received. In this respect you are correct: the one to whom a gift is given must accept it. Would a gift be a gift if one could not reject it? Can one force a gift on another and legitimately call it a gift?

If you're dangling from the edge of a cliff and someone offers you their hand to pull you up to safety and they say, "Grab on or you'll fall to your death!", is that blackmail?

I'd also argue that he was never just in the first place: the cards were stacked against us as far back as Eden.

Well, if that's how you choose to see things, I can hardly stop you. I think your animosity toward God may be warping how you see things regarding Him, but if you are determined not to see Him as He is, then so be it.

But the point is that God's mercy (giving us a way achieve salvation) and God's justice (condemning us to an eternity in Hell) are still mutually exclusive. At the very least, he is compromising his justice to satisfy his mercy: justice is not being carried out.

Justice has been carried out - at least as far as God and our sin is concerned. Christ's perfect sacrifice fully satisfied God's justice and holiness. It was in the midst of this atonement for our sin, however, that God exemplified His mercy. The method which God used to fulfill the demands of His holy justice was itself merciful toward us. He took upon Himself the responsibility for bearing the consequences of our sin, allowing us to escape the wrath of His holy justice. In so doing He made the cross of Christ a place where both justice and mercy were completely expressed.

Peace.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe I don't quite understand your question but if God simply absolved us of our sin, without satisfying the demands of His perfect justice and holiness, He would be an accomplice of sorts to our sin. He could not then be a holy or a just God; He would, in fact, be an evil one.

On the contrary, he would be a perfectly merciful one. That's the point of mercy: absolving someone even though they are deserving of punishment. Unless you're saying that mercy is evil...

But I do see where you're coming from: God was just in that the punishment was carried out, and God was merciful in that he sent someone to take the punishment in our stead. While I have some issues with the argument, I do see what you're trying to say.
Unless I've got that completely wrong .

Any gift that is given must be received. In this respect you are correct: the one to whom a gift is given must accept it. Would a gift be a gift if one could not reject it? Can one force a gift on another and legitimately call it a gift?

I suppose not. But does it matter what we call it?

If you're dangling from the edge of a cliff and someone offers you their hand to pull you up to safety and they say, "Grab on or you'll fall to your death!", is that blackmail?

If they were the ones who put you there in the first place, and if they require you to renounce your faith before they'll pull you up... yes, that's blackmail.

Well, if that's how you choose to see things, I can hardly stop you. I think your animosity toward God may be warping how you see things regarding Him, but if you are determined not to see Him as He is, then so be it.

Don't read so much into what I say. Obviously I want to see him for what he is; why would I do anything else? And how can I have animosity towards something I don't even think exists?

Do you have animosity towards Zeus?

Justice has been carried out - at least as far as God and our sin is concerned. Christ's perfect sacrifice fully satisfied God's justice and holiness. It was in the midst of this atonement for our sin, however, that God exemplified His mercy. The method which God used to fulfill the demands of His holy justice was itself merciful toward us. He took upon Himself the responsibility for bearing the consequences of our sin, allowing us to escape the wrath of His holy justice. In so doing He made the cross of Christ a place where both justice and mercy were completely expressed.

If Christ was punished instead of us, how is that justice? If the non-believer is still going to be punished, how is that mercy?

I'm not trying to be obstinate or difficult, I'm just trying to understand .

 

[ephraimanesti]

I disagree that our finite crimes are worthy of infinite punishment, but I agree that this is merciful.

MY BROTHER,

When you consider that the "infinite punishment" you speak of, which is eternal separation from our God whose Love and Presence in our lives we have steadfastly spurned despite God's every effort to the contrary, it appears to me to be a case of the punishment fitting the crime--God, in effect, sorrowfully allowing us to suffer the consequences we ourselves have requested.

How is that just? Surely punishment is only just when placed on the guilty party, not a willing substitute?

The point of the Gospel--the Good News--is that we, the guilty, were IN Christ, the Innocent One, when He suffered and died on our behalf. We were also IN Christ when He was resurrected and glorified by His Father. We have "been there and done that" in the person of our Lord.

I'm just trying to figure out what you mean when you say God is both just and merciful. As far as I can tell, they are mutually exclusive qualities:

Only to our very limited and egocentric way of thinking. For our God who IS Love, they are mutually INCLUSIVE qualities.

does God punish or absolve the guilty?

Yes.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[aiki]

On the contrary, he would be a perfectly merciful one. That's the point of mercy: absolving someone even though they are deserving of punishment. Unless you're saying that mercy is evil...

Yes, well, as I've noted before, God's mercy is perfect because it is in correct balance with His other attributes, like justice and holiness. What I think you are describing above is mercy without boundaries, untempered by any other consideration or value. Do you really think this is perfect mercy?

But I do see where you're coming from: God was just in that the punishment was carried out, and God was merciful in that he sent someone to take the punishment in our stead. While I have some issues with the argument, I do see what you're trying to say.
Unless I've got that completely wrong

No, you've got it - more or less.

I suppose not. But does it matter what we call it?

I think so. The idea of a gift carries with it particular aspects that distinguish it from other things. Calling a gift what it is limits confusion, don't you think?

If you're dangling from the edge of a cliff and someone offers you their hand to pull you up to safety and they say, "Grab on or you'll fall to your death!", is that blackmail?

If they were the ones who put you there in the first place, and if they require you to renounce your faith before they'll pull you up... yes, that's blackmail.

I was speaking strictly of using a potential threat to encourage the acceptance of a beneficial offer. There are many instances where doing so is completely appropriate. My analogy wasn't intended to parallel anything else.

Don't read so much into what I say. Obviously I want to see him for what he is; why would I do anything else? And how can I have animosity towards something I don't even think exists?

Do you have animosity towards Zeus?

Well, if the God Christian's serve doesn't exist, what difference does it make to you whether or not you see Him accurately? I couldn't care less if I have a clear picture of Zeus or not. I certainly don't go on Zeus-dedicated websites questioning his nature. What would be the point? He doesn't exist.

Is your interest simply academic? Is it just idle curiosity?

If Christ was punished instead of us, how is that justice? If the non-believer is still going to be punished, how is that mercy?

I'm not trying to be obstinate or difficult, I'm just trying to understand.

Christ offered himself willingly for you and I. He wasn't forced into the sacrifice that he made of himself for our sin. He chose to take our punishment upon himself knowing that his perfect life would satisfy once for all the demands of God's holy justice.

God's mercy is a gift, not an imposition. He doesn't force us to accept His mercy; one can walk away from it (through disbelief) and thereby void its salvationary effect upon oneself.

I hope you do come to truly understand.

Peace to you.

 

[Van]

Hi Wiccan Child,

I have not read through all the responses, so please pardon me if my response is redundant.

Your first premise is that mercy and justice are mutually exclusive, as in showing mercy is unjust. I think this idea is invalid. Mercy perfects justice. The real complaint is God sovereignly treating folks differently, having mercy upon whom He has mercy.
So it comes down to wanting to call the shots and not accepting that God calls the shots.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When you consider that the "infinite punishment" you speak of, which is eternal separation from our God whose Love and Presence in our lives we have steadfastly spurned despite God's every effort to the contrary, it appears to me to be a case of the punishment fitting the crime--God, in effect, sorrowfully allowing us to suffer the consequences we ourselves have requested.

First, no one requests punishment (bar sadists): those destined for Hell are those who don't believe they're going to Hell in the first place. How can they request something they don't believe in? How can they request something that they wouldn't want even if they did believe?

Second, I disagree that God has made any "effort to the contrary". I hardly see giant flaming letters in the sky proclaiming our fate .

The point of the Gospel--the Good News--is that we, the guilty, were IN Christ, the Innocent One, when He suffered and died on our behalf. We were also IN Christ when He was resurrected and glorified by His Father. We have "been there and done that" in the person of our Lord.

But we quite clearly haven't. I wasn't even born when Jesus was crucified.

Only to our very limited and egocentric way of thinking. For our God who IS Love, they are mutually INCLUSIVE qualities.

It has nothing to do with our limited and egocentric way of thinking. It's simple logic: elementary set theory requires that God cannot be both just and merciful, simply because a just act is not merciful, and vice versa.

Though you have attempted to explain how God can be both just and merciful, I don't think you have done so successfully: Jesus' sacrifice absolved us of punishment, which is not just (we, the guilty, will never be punished for our crimes).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hi Wiccan Child,

I have not read through all the responses, so please pardon me if my response is redundant.

Your first premise is that mercy and justice are mutually exclusive, as in showing mercy is unjust. I think this idea is invalid. Mercy perfects justice.

Could you elaborate? How does mercy 'perfect' justice?

The real complaint is God sovereignly treating folks differently, having mercy upon whom He has mercy.
So it comes down to wanting to call the shots and not accepting that God calls the shots.

I disagree: it is the conflicting qualities attributed to God by Christians (and other theists) that this thread is about. While I also have issues with God's alleged sovereignty being a get-out-of-jail-free card, that's another issue entirely.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, well, as I've noted before, God's mercy is perfect because it is in correct balance with His other attributes, like justice and holiness. What I think you are describing above is mercy without boundaries, untempered by any other consideration or value. Do you really think this is perfect mercy?

Yes. Otherwise, God isn't as merciful as theists claim him to be, which is the crux of the issue.

I think so. The idea of a gift carries with it particular aspects that distinguish it from other things. Calling a gift what it is limits confusion, don't you think?

True, but I don't think that it qualifies as a 'gift'. Typically, a gift-giver doesn't require something from the recipient; otherwise, at best it's an exchange of goods and/or services, and at worst it's blackmail.

I was speaking strictly of using a potential threat to encourage the acceptance of a beneficial offer. There are many instances where doing so is completely appropriate. My analogy wasn't intended to parallel anything else.

Mine was . In your hypothetical, assuming nothing untoward, no, it isn't blackmail. But my analogy was designed to better reflect the issue at hand: God demands we love and believe in him; if we don't, he will let us suffer for eternity. Free will or not, this doesn't sound like the actions of a justand/or merciful deity.

Well, if the God Christian's serve doesn't exist, what difference does it make to you whether or not you see Him accurately? I couldn't care less if I have a clear picture of Zeus or not. I certainly don't go on Zeus-dedicated websites questioning his nature. What would be the point? He doesn't exist.

I would: to talk to a modern-day believer in Twelve Olympians would be fascinating. Since I am not so obtuse as to not see what you're actually talking about, I feel I should explain my reasons for being here. I don't believe in God, Jesus, or anything in Christian mythology/theology. I come here because I enjoy discussion and debate (hence why I reside mostly in the Physical Sciences subforum), and because I have genuine questions pertaining to (my understanding of) Christianity.
This thread is one such question: as I understand it, the Christian God is typically ascribe two incompatible traits (he is said to be all-just and all-merciful), and I want to know how Christians reconcile the apparent paradox.

And to be frank, I am tired of Christians questioning my motives, or assuming I 'hate' God or that I want to be 'free from accountability'. At least the Exploring Christianity subforum is free from such prejudiced members .

Is your interest simply academic? Is it just idle curiosity?

Yes. Whatever conclusion I come to, my beliefs are unlikely to change (though I've always wondered what would happen if I were 'witnessed' to...).

Christ offered himself willingly for you and I. He wasn't forced into the sacrifice that he made of himself for our sin. He chose to take our punishment upon himself knowing that his perfect life would satisfy once for all the demands of God's holy justice.

Willingly or not, I don't think that one taking the punishment of another satisfies justice. The whole point is that the guilty party is deserving of punishment: if they don't receive it, justice has not been carried out.

 

[Van]

Hi Wiccan Child, you say mercy is in conflict with justice. And as I have pointed out, that is a false premise. And as they are not in conflict, there are no "conflicting qualities" attributed to God by Christians."

You ask how mercy perfects justice? To advocate justice without mercy suggests a lack of charity and intolerance toward others. Therefore, you are advocating for "conflicting qualities" while God's attributes actually fit together without conflict.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hi Wiccan Child, you say mercy is in conflict with justice. And as I have pointed out, that is a false premise. And as they are not in conflict, there are no "conflicting qualities" attributed to God by Christians."

The point of this thread is to justify that claim. You say they are not in conflict, I say they are.

You ask how mercy perfects justice? To advocate justice without mercy suggests a lack of charity and intolerance toward others.

How so?

Therefore, you are advocating for "conflicting qualities" while God's attributes actually fit together without conflict.

To be just, one punishes the guilty as is their due. To be merciful, one absolves of them of punishment even though they deserve it. To be both just and merciful, then, is to both punish and not punish the guilty party. Since this is impossible, I contend that mercy and justice are mutually exclusive.

 

[Van]

To be just does not require punishing someone at all. To be unjust is to treat others worse than they deserve, but to treat them better is not unjust, it is mercy.

 

[ephraimanesti]

First, no one requests punishment (bar sadists): those destined for Hell are those who don't believe they're going to Hell in the first place. How can they request something they don't believe in? How can they request something that they wouldn't want even if they did believe?

MY DEAR FRIEND,

"Hell" is eternal separation from God's Love. Those choosing to "go to hell" are those who have spurned God's proffered Love during this lifetime by sinning against that Love through willful disobedience and transgression against God's Commandments or, more extremely, through a willful lack of belief in God's very existence to which even nature gives ample evidence and for which there is no viable excuse--"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against allthe godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--His eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."(Romans 1:18-20)

Second, I disagree that God has made any "effort to the contrary". I hardly see giant flaming letters in the sky proclaiming our fate .

See above. Willful blindness to the Truth does not hold up in our courts of law nor in God's Court. You don't see because you choose to ignore the "giant flaming letters in the sky" and elsewhere which millions upon millions have indeed seen and headed since mankind's beginning.

But we quite clearly haven't. I wasn't even born when Jesus was crucified.

God places those who in faith surrender to Christ, INTO Him at the time of His death and resurrection--in the same fashion that all mankind is considered to have been IN Adam when he sinned. We who believe hung of the Cross with Christ just as surely as those who refuse to believe transgressed in the Garden.

It has nothing to do with our limited and egocentric way of thinking. It's simple logic: elementary set theory requires that God cannot be both just and merciful, simply because a just act is not merciful, and vice versa.

Given that God, through the Gospel, states otherwise, your "simple logic" has no validity in the real world. Who are we to listen to--God's Truth set forth in His Word or an atheist's "logic" proposed as an alternative to that Truth? Unfortunately for atheists, wishful thinking doesn't make reality disappear or provide a viable excuse for disbelief. As Solomon wrote, "There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."(Proverbs 14:12)

Though you have attempted to explain how God can be both just and merciful, I don't think you have done so successfully: Jesus' sacrifice absolved us of punishment, which is not just (we, the guilty, will never be punished for our crimes).

Well, speaking parenthetically, i have suffered a great deal of punishment for my sins. i just praise God that the punishment is temporal and that i have ultimately been forgiven through the blood of Jesus. Forgiveness doesn't make the pain of seeing what my sins have wrought magically disappear, but the healing process is indeed salutary and further evidence of God's amazing grace!

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim