I did not miss your point, Roger. It's just that you and I have a completely different understanding of Scripture. I read Scripture and see that justice WAS met in the divine sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Not justice from my perspective (God knows I do not want Him to render justice to ME...for I do not want to get what I deserve from God). But rather, justice from His perspective was done.
Thus this definition of "justice" SUCCEEDS: "People getting what they deserve, whether good or bad." Thank God I do not receive justice from Him, but rather mercy.
Roger, are you challenging the definition of justice I offered? Or are you saying that God is not just, because He does not save everyone, even though it would be "easy" for Him to do so? Or are you offering some sort of universalist theory that in the end, God will save everyone? I'm not sure where you are going here?
Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. To pretend that we can pit one part of Scripture against another and "take" the parts we "prefer" is to deny the Truth of the wholeness of the Word of God, correct?
Now I'm the one who is asking, "How could you arrive at your idea from reading the Book of Esther?"
You say the principles found in Esther "make a good argument for countries to arm themselves," but not for the ordinary, every day citizens to also keep and bear arms. So...is that what happened in the story? Did the army of Persia protect the Jews? King Xerxes certainly could have ordered his soldiers to protect the Jews. But he didn't.
Getting back to the fundamental question I posed: Does Scripture contain the principle found in our 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
You may not personally agree with that principle. That is a matter of your own personal conscience. But you don't get to ignore the fact that the principle exists within Scripture, nor can your own personal preference bind the consciences of your brothers and sisters in Christ.
I contend that determining whether or not we deserve something is a fairly objective proposition, and should always be done following Biblical standards, as you rightly suggest.
Let's look at your example of the psalmist crying out for justice for the poor. I contend that he was crying out for...well..justice for the poor. Exactly what he said. He wanted the poor to be treated fairly (as they deserve) by those in power. Not taken advantage of (which would be something the poor do not deserve). Not denied proper legal justice (also something they do not deserve). That their private property rights would be respected (something they deserve). But not that the poor get to steal other people's private property simply because they are poor (because that would be something they do not deserve). That's how this definition of "Justice" works.
The Bible also encourages CHARITY for the poor. But that does not mean that charity and justice are the same thing...they are not. They are 2 separate values.
The problem is that "Justice" has become a subjective, nebulous, catch-all word that basically means "whatever I personally think is good." That, most certainly, is not the Scriptural idea of justice.
Luke 18:1-8 is an example of justice without love.
When we conflate, confuse, and ignore the actual meaning of things, we are exalting ourselves to a position of authority that no human should occupy. We end up with a concept of "justice" that is essentially "justice is whatever I personally favor."
By "objective" I don't mean commonly-held. And I certainly don't base it on human standards. I totally agree with you that our standards are found in Scripture and God's law.
By "objective" I mean clear & definitive.
We can objectively know what we deserve by examining God's law and assessing cause & resulting effect. Choices & resulting consequences. Actions & resulting outcomes.
The modern definition of "justice" ignores these things, making "justice" completely subjective.
Things can kiss without conflating. In this case, you are actually conflating the words "kiss" and "conflate."
8 - )
Obviously there are other values and virtues that make justice better. Peace would be one them. Also grace, mercy, charity, and love. But you are tossing all of those virtues into a big pot and calling it "justice" stew. Every time you add one more virtue to "justice," you diminish both justice and the thing you have conflated with it.
Ice cream and root beer go great together. But root beer is not ice cream. They are 2 distinct things.
Mark, aren't you leaping from "love and justice SHOULD go together" to "love and justice MUST go together."
I intentionally spoke of defining in my article because it seems that people are getting very good at mashing concepts together, but not so good at defining them.
"Love" is something distinct, is it not? Likewise, "Justice" is something distinct, is it not?
It seems very obvious to me WHY so many people want to expand "justice" into an all-encompassing mish-mash of good vibes. Because if they can accomplish this, they can slap the label "justice" or "injustice" on anything they want to. Then they can compel their neighbors to support their "just" cause.
Eric, thank you for providing a deep Scriptural context to this discussion.
I have used this example to explain the difference between a good and bad definition of justice. Imagine that you go on a sky-diving trip. At 20,000 feet, you decide that the laws of physics don't apply to you, and you jump out without a parachute. Naturally, you plummet to your death. Has justice been done? Using the bad definitions of justice such as "Achieving shalom" or "Restoring creation to God's intended purpose" or "Making things right," you would have to say that a grave INJUSTICE has been done. You're dead! Your wife is now a widow. Your children will grow up without their father. Your friends have lost a loved one. Nothing good came of you falling to your death. Certainly nothing was "made right" or "restored" to the way God originally wanted it. There is no shalom. Just the opposite.
But...using a good definition of justice (one where we actually attempt to impart a useful meaning to the word), we would say that justice HAS been done. You got what you deserve. The laws of nature and of nature's God dictate that if a 180 pound human jumps out of a plane at 20,000 feet without a parachute, that person is going to die. Choice = consequence. Behavior = result. That is justice.
By the way, the person using a bad definition of justice would probably say there was a systemic injustice present, and would call for greater regulation of the sky-diving industry.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Ah, but others ARE saying they are the same thing. That was the point of my article.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I did not miss your point, Roger. It's just that you and I have a completely different understanding of Scripture. I read Scripture and see that justice WAS met in the divine sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Not justice from my perspective (God knows I do not want Him to render justice to ME...for I do not want to get what I deserve from God). But rather, justice from His perspective was done.
Thus this definition of "justice" SUCCEEDS: "People getting what they deserve, whether good or bad." Thank God I do not receive justice from Him, but rather mercy.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Roger, are you challenging the definition of justice I offered? Or are you saying that God is not just, because He does not save everyone, even though it would be "easy" for Him to do so? Or are you offering some sort of universalist theory that in the end, God will save everyone? I'm not sure where you are going here?
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. To pretend that we can pit one part of Scripture against another and "take" the parts we "prefer" is to deny the Truth of the wholeness of the Word of God, correct?
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
Now I'm the one who is asking, "How could you arrive at your idea from reading the Book of Esther?"
You say the principles found in Esther "make a good argument for countries to arm themselves," but not for the ordinary, every day citizens to also keep and bear arms. So...is that what happened in the story? Did the army of Persia protect the Jews? King Xerxes certainly could have ordered his soldiers to protect the Jews. But he didn't.
Getting back to the fundamental question I posed: Does Scripture contain the principle found in our 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
You may not personally agree with that principle. That is a matter of your own personal conscience. But you don't get to ignore the fact that the principle exists within Scripture, nor can your own personal preference bind the consciences of your brothers and sisters in Christ.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Thanks for the feedback, Bill.
I contend that determining whether or not we deserve something is a fairly objective proposition, and should always be done following Biblical standards, as you rightly suggest.
Let's look at your example of the psalmist crying out for justice for the poor. I contend that he was crying out for...well..justice for the poor. Exactly what he said. He wanted the poor to be treated fairly (as they deserve) by those in power. Not taken advantage of (which would be something the poor do not deserve). Not denied proper legal justice (also something they do not deserve). That their private property rights would be respected (something they deserve). But not that the poor get to steal other people's private property simply because they are poor (because that would be something they do not deserve). That's how this definition of "Justice" works.
The Bible also encourages CHARITY for the poor. But that does not mean that charity and justice are the same thing...they are not. They are 2 separate values.
The problem is that "Justice" has become a subjective, nebulous, catch-all word that basically means "whatever I personally think is good." That, most certainly, is not the Scriptural idea of justice.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Luke 18:1-8 is an example of justice without love.
When we conflate, confuse, and ignore the actual meaning of things, we are exalting ourselves to a position of authority that no human should occupy. We end up with a concept of "justice" that is essentially "justice is whatever I personally favor."
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
By "objective" I don't mean commonly-held. And I certainly don't base it on human standards. I totally agree with you that our standards are found in Scripture and God's law.
By "objective" I mean clear & definitive.
We can objectively know what we deserve by examining God's law and assessing cause & resulting effect. Choices & resulting consequences. Actions & resulting outcomes.
The modern definition of "justice" ignores these things, making "justice" completely subjective.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Kris, it's good to hear from you again.
Things can kiss without conflating. In this case, you are actually conflating the words "kiss" and "conflate."
8 - )
Obviously there are other values and virtues that make justice better. Peace would be one them. Also grace, mercy, charity, and love. But you are tossing all of those virtues into a big pot and calling it "justice" stew. Every time you add one more virtue to "justice," you diminish both justice and the thing you have conflated with it.
Ice cream and root beer go great together. But root beer is not ice cream. They are 2 distinct things.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Kris, when God created Adam and Eve in the Garden, was there peace?
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Mark, aren't you leaping from "love and justice SHOULD go together" to "love and justice MUST go together."
I intentionally spoke of defining in my article because it seems that people are getting very good at mashing concepts together, but not so good at defining them.
"Love" is something distinct, is it not? Likewise, "Justice" is something distinct, is it not?
It seems very obvious to me WHY so many people want to expand "justice" into an all-encompassing mish-mash of good vibes. Because if they can accomplish this, they can slap the label "justice" or "injustice" on anything they want to. Then they can compel their neighbors to support their "just" cause.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Eric, thank you for providing a deep Scriptural context to this discussion.
I have used this example to explain the difference between a good and bad definition of justice. Imagine that you go on a sky-diving trip. At 20,000 feet, you decide that the laws of physics don't apply to you, and you jump out without a parachute. Naturally, you plummet to your death. Has justice been done? Using the bad definitions of justice such as "Achieving shalom" or "Restoring creation to God's intended purpose" or "Making things right," you would have to say that a grave INJUSTICE has been done. You're dead! Your wife is now a widow. Your children will grow up without their father. Your friends have lost a loved one. Nothing good came of you falling to your death. Certainly nothing was "made right" or "restored" to the way God originally wanted it. There is no shalom. Just the opposite.
But...using a good definition of justice (one where we actually attempt to impart a useful meaning to the word), we would say that justice HAS been done. You got what you deserve. The laws of nature and of nature's God dictate that if a 180 pound human jumps out of a plane at 20,000 feet without a parachute, that person is going to die. Choice = consequence. Behavior = result. That is justice.
By the way, the person using a bad definition of justice would probably say there was a systemic injustice present, and would call for greater regulation of the sky-diving industry.