Need eg of justice requiring repentance/forgiven/reconcile?

[Alex_Smith]

Having a discussion on FB with our friend Theopologetics and one of my points is that if you annihilate someone it denies justice because victims won’t be able to receive an apology (repentance) from perpetrators, they won’t be able to give forgiveness back to the perpetrator, and neither will be able to reconcile the relationship. I thought this was quite a Biblical way of looking at justice, but he said it wasn’t so I said the Cross linked them, but that didn’t help.

I have a few ideas where to look for examples e.g. Jonah or Joseph or Luke 17:3-4, or allowing people to legitimately settle on way to court but would appreciate any help!

[corpselight]

to me that seems fairly obvious…will post if i think of a specific example, though.

but seriously, it seems obvious that oblivion solves nothing…unless one thinks of the wicked as rotten teeth that have to just be pulled for a healthy mouth.
but this leaves obvious gaps, too lol

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

Having a discussion on FB with our friend Theopologetics and one of my points is that if you annihilate someone it denies justice because victims won’t be able to receive an apology (repentance) from perpetrators, they won’t be able to give forgiveness back to the perpetrator, and neither will be able to reconcile the relationship. I thought this was quite a Biblical way of looking at justice, but he said it wasn’t so I said the Cross linked them, but that didn’t help.

I have a few ideas where to look for examples e.g. Jonah or Joseph or Luke 17:3-4, or allowing people to legitimately settle on way to court but would appreciate any help!

I think you’re pretty spot on Alex. Justice is all about the restoration of relationships. That’s why I reject Annihilationism and capital punishment. The Anabaptists especially should be able to point you in the right direction on this topic. I’ll try and have a look for you tomorrow (it’s really late and I’m about to go to bed) but I don’t think I have much on this topic anyway. But I recommend you check out some articles from Ted Grimsrud on his blog Peace Theology. I generally find him to be both challenging and informative, and he has some particularly good thoughts on restorative justice that may help you. Amos is a very interesting book. The only problem with your discussion is that changing from punitive justice to restorative justice can be a pretty big UR-like paradigm shift, so it might take an awful lot to convince your friend (especially if he wants to uphold doctrines like PSA). Godspeed with it though!

[JasonPratt]

Yay! Chris is a good opponent. I wish he was more active here.

Justice in the NT is the same term often translated as righteousness, {dikaiosune}, the compound word “fair-togetherness”. Any action that ultimately frustrates the fulfillment of fair-togetherness between persons cannot be justice.

I don’t think anyone can cogently deny that reconciliation (down-reachment, or down-up-reachment, in the NT) involves the fulfillment of fair-togetherness between persons. To act to fulfill reconciliation is basic justice (even if that involves punishment of doers of injustice along the way). To act ultimately against fulfilling reconciliation would be unjust. So again, anyone refusing to be reconciled with God, or even with any creature one has sinned against, is acting unjustly. (I can’t imagine any Christian even distantly supposing otherwise!)

God (per the famous text from Col 1) acts to reconcile to Himself all things needing reconciliation, whether those things are in heaven or on earth. That’s literally another way of saying God acts toward fulfilling dikaiosune, fair-togetherness, between persons.

If God annihilates sinners, God is acting to ensure that there cannot possibly be reconciliation and the fulfillment of fair-togetherness between those sinners and those they have sinned against (first and always against God Himself, but also against any creatures they have sinned against, too.) God Himself would thus be ultimately fulfilling non-fair-togetherness, i.e. to fulfill unrighteousness, injustice. God would also be acting at direct odds to His action to reconcile all things to Himself (whether things on the earth or things in the heaven), schisming against His very purpose of the cross. It would be God Who was authoritatively making the blood of the cross null and void.

If sinners annihilate themselves, that would also be to ultimately fulfill injustice, making it impossible for them to be reconciled with those they have sinned against. It would also either require the authoritative permission of God by Whom all things continue holding together (also per Col 1, not incidentally), or else the proposition tacitly denies even supernaturalistic theism, much moreso trinitarian theism.

This is topically linked to the concept of ortho-trin being uniquely and exclusively ground for universal reconciliation (of one or another kind); uniquely strong compared to any other type of theism, and exclusively Kath in soteriology over against a Calv or Arm variant (including such variants in the ancient “katholic” communions, ironically.)

Which is a topic Chris was hoping to discuss with me on his radio show sometime early this year.

At any rate, there are numerous texts from the OT which involve repentant sinners, previously punished by God, and restored by God to loyal fellowship with God, praising God for His justice; and there are direct callbacks to this in the NT occasionally, especially in RevJohn and the Pauline epistles. Leaving aside whether these repentant sinners were saved post-mortem and/or in the Day of the Lord to come, it ought to be sufficiently obvious that only the unfallen and the repentant and reconciled former sinners can value the justice of God at all; and that only if a sinner is penitent, forgiven and reconciled can they come to value the justice of God’s whole-ruination of sinners (including themselves). Even Arms and Calvs recognize this when they pray the Psalm for God to pulverize (or make contrite) our stubborn hearts (although they may not recognize this is also what Psalm 23 is talking about when we pray for goodness and mercy most certainly to pursue us for all the days of our soul, with the intention to overthrow us as rebels against goodness and mercy. But they might recognize it in being comforted by the rod as well as the staff of God in the same Psalm!)

Which I would say also has relation to the proper translation of 2 Thess 1. As Chris will hopefully recall. But the principle holds even if the translation there could mean something else than sinners coming to value the justice of God’s whole-ruination.

But annihilated sinners cannot ever possibly come to value God’s justice. And God in annihilating them, or in authoritatively permitting themselves to render themselves permanently incapable of repentance (assuming that’s even possible, although I think it is totally illogical to say that God respects someone’s free will enough to let them destroy their own free will, much moreso to do it for them), will have been the one authoritatively responsible for ensuring that they cannot ever possibly come to value justice.

When Christ, although sinless Himself, insists on being baptized by the Baptist, He does so literally “in order to fulfill all fair-togetherness”. If Christ annihilates sinners, He acts against His own baptism; they are not even washed in the baptism of John shared by Jesus, much less washed in the Spirit (or?) even in fire!–the fire of Christ hasn’t washed them but permanently eliminated any possibility of fair-togetherness being fulfilled in regard to them!

It is said that God judges the earth (and even wages war against sinners) in “fair-togetherness”. For example Acts 17:31, a judging that involves the charge that all persons everywhere are to repent, v.30; in Rev 19:11 Christ judges and battles in fair-togetherness, smiting the pagans and shepherding them with an iron rod (exactly as in the Hebrew of Psalm 23!) If God annihilates them, then He acts against His own judgment and righteousness in waging war, and against His own charge that all persons everywhere are to repent, and against His own shepherding with the rod of iron.

In Romans 3:25-26, God does not only display fair-togetherness by being one Who makes just whoever is out of the faith of Jesus in the sense of those who are in the faith of Jesus, but explicitly by purposing Christ Jesus as a mercy-seat for those who are currently outside the faith of Jesus (else they could never come into the faith in His blood), even going so far as to pass over the penalties of sins which occurred before in the forbearance of God. The fair-togetherness of God is not only for those who are already loyal to God (which I am not convinced the Greek here is even talking about in any regard), but for those who are not already loyal to God so that they may someday be loyal to God through Christ Jesus and the faith in His blood. God justifies, brings to actually be just, those who are irreverent (as per Rom 4:5, out of too many examples to even begin mentioning). This is all entirely straightforward and coherent; and explains how (per 3:3) our own injustice (non-fair-togetherness) commends God’s fair-togetherness, without negating God’s judgment of the world in sin, nor God’s indignation on the unjust, nor allowing that we ought to do evil so that good may come.

But if God annihilates sinners, or by His authority allows them to annihilate themselves, He acts finally to authoritatively frustrate His own action of fair-togetherness displayed by saving sinners from their sins!

More examples could be adduced, but I’m out of time for the morning. Considering that Edward Fudge will be in Middle Tennessee this summer at the Christian Scholars’ Conference (on a panel with Tom Talbott and Jim Walls no less), I’m hoping to spar quite a bit with Chris in preparation and connection to that.

[Sherman]

Having a discussion on FB with our friend Theopologetics and one of my points is that if you annihilate someone it denies justice because victims won’t be able to receive an apology (repentance) from perpetrators, they won’t be able to give forgiveness back to the perpetrator, and neither will be able to reconcile the relationship. I thought this was quite a Biblical way of looking at justice, but he said it wasn’t so I said the Cross linked them, but that didn’t help.

I have a few ideas where to look for examples e.g. Jonah or Joseph or Luke 17:3-4, or allowing people to legitimately settle on way to court but would appreciate any help!

Ask the mother whose rebellious estranged unbelieving son who dies in a car accedent, ask her if her son being ultimately annihilated is just or right, her never being reconciled to her son is right? Ask the husband whose wife commits adultery and ends up broken, lost, dying on drugs; ask him if his ex-wife being annihilated is just, right, the way things should be. Ask the son whose family is torn apart by the divorce of his parents with one or both of his parents being consumed by bitterness and unforgiveness and ultimately perishing from cancer caused by that bitterness, dying never having forgiven one another, ask him if them being annihilated is just, good, or right.

In all of these examples, and in all examples where there is true unconditional and committed love, nothing less than full reconciliation is right or just!

[Caroleem]

In all of these examples, and in all examples where there is true unconditional and committed love, nothing less than full reconciliation is right or just!

Amen!

[JasonPratt]

Ask the mother whose rebellious estranged unbelieving son who dies in a car accedent, ask her if her son being ultimately annihilated is just or right, her never being reconciled to her son is right? (Etc.)

I know what you’re saying, but Chris might well reply that he wants evidence that this is a Biblical concept of justice.

Chris comes from the Calvinists, who have a strong tradition of regarding God’s justice as something alien to our fallen ethical standards which require our disciplinary acceptance of scriptural revelation to correct. i.e. X may look unjust to us, but the Bible says X so we have to accept it and learn to like it or be found unfaithful to God.

Chris doesn’t strike me as being nearly as Klingonish about this as some other Calvs I’ve run across; and there are some things to be said in favor of that line of approach.

One answer to this from Kaths (and from some Arms) might be: the letter kills; it is the Spirit that gives life! But I’m not sure quoting St. Paul on that (which could be considered quite out of context) will be a sufficient answer for someone looking for validation of a concept along this line.

[Theopologetics]

I know what you’re saying, but Chris might well reply that he wants evidence that this is a Biblical concept of justice.

Chris comes from the Calvinists, who have a strong tradition of regarding God’s justice as something alien to our fallen ethical standards which require our disciplinary acceptance of scriptural revelation to correct. i.e. X may look unjust to us, but the Bible says X so we have to accept it and learn to like it or be found unfaithful to God.

Chris doesn’t strike me as being nearly as Klingonish about this as some other Calvs I’ve run across; and there are some things to be said in favor of that line of approach.

Thanks, Jason I think this is a mostly fair assessment, with the exception of the “learn to like it” statement. I would further clarify that it’s not that God’s justice is completely alien to our fallen nature, but rather that our sense of justice has been marred to one extent or another by the fall. What’s more, this “sense” is highly subjective, and what’s still more, not every individual will “sense” the same thing under identical circumstances. And I’ll add that in these specific examples, what one “senses” is to one extent or another impacted by one’s relationship with the hypothetical deceased; one may not “sense” the same thing about Hitler or myriad other wicked men. And so, whatever we “sense” to be just or unjust must be tested against the only objective, perfect standard: God’s revealed Word.

Yay! Chris is a good opponent. I wish he was more active here.

Thanks While I do frequently take a “peek” here, I’m not more active because I’d rather have more proponents of either side of the issue engage, which I haven’t felt in the past is likely, and because I’d like my listeners to see the interaction and engage, which won’t likely happen here. I’ve interacted a lot with Alex and one or two other EU’s at my podcast Facebook page, where I’ve also recently made some comments in response to your earlier post above So feel free to “Like” the page and go toe to toe with me there!

Which is a topic Chris was hoping to discuss with me on his radio show sometime early this year.

I’m still thinking about it

[Cindy_Skillman]

The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. (John 6:63 HCSB)

Jesus says pretty much the same thing here . . .

[Alex_Smith]

Thanks for the suggestions. Intuitively it makes sense to me, and like Sherman, I can think of many real life examples, however, neither matter to Chris unless I can prove it, fairly explicitly, from the Bible. Having been a conservative Presbyterian most of my adult life, I respect that.

Unfortunately I don’t think Jason is on FB! so I’ll copy some of Chris’ reply here:

Justice in the NT is the same term often translated as righteousness, {dikaiosune}, the compound word “fair-togetherness”.

He’s baldly asserted here that justice == righteousness (I’m using programming syntax there ), but I disagree. There are, in fact, other words translated “justice”.

For example, κρίσις (krisis) is sometimes translated “justice” (more often “judgment”) and in John 5:24 is said to be that which believers will avoid, instead going into eternal life. But numerous passages speak about the krisis that awaits the unredeemed.

Another word sometimes translated “justice” is ἐκδικέω (ekdikeō), which refers to vengeance, vindication. And in Rom 12:9, Paul says not to seek it oneself, but instead to allow God to exhibit His wrath.

Another is δίκη (dikē), and Jude 7 says Sodom and Gomorrah suffered it when they were demolished by eternal fire, serving as an example of what awaits the wicked.

Another one is ἔνδικος (endikos), and in Romans 3:8 Paul says “their condemnation is just (endikos),” that word “condemnation” being used in Jude 1:4 for which Sodom and Gomorrah are said to have served as an example. Endikos is also used in Hebrews 2:2, which speaks of the “just penalty” received by those who disobeyed the requiements of the Law, many of which included death.

Death IS a just penalty for sin, and God IS just in bringing about the death of those who deserve it.

So Jason’s whole argument starts off with 4 flat tires, since in fact the biblical concept of justice DOES allow God to annihilate the wicked.

There’s another problem with Jason’s argument right off the bat. I can’t find evidence that δικαιοσύνη is “the compound word ‘fair-togetherness,’” but even if it is, this commits the etymological fallacy, “a linguistical misconception based on the idea that the etymology of a word or phrase is its actual meaning.” The word’s actual meaning is something like the state of guiltlessness.

If, in fact, the word is a compound of words which could be translated “fair” and “together,” I wouldn’t be terribly surprised. The root word δίκη refers to what is “proper” or “fitting” or “right.” I’m guessing this is what Jason is referring to as the part of the word which means “fair.” But all this tells us is that if this is the compound word Jason claims it is, the meaning of guiltlessness comes from fulfilling the duties imposed upon one party by another. And it just means God is consistent with His own standard.

So I don’t think any argument is sound which is based so heavily upon the alleged meaning of “fair-togetherness” for “righteousnesness.” As passages I’ve already cited demonstrate, God is just, guiltless, in destroying those who deserve to be destroyed.

And EVEN IF we were willing to grant that it means “fair-togetherness,” the argument presumes that the only kind of “fairness” between persons is reconciliation. But in fact, it may be fair for one who has sinned against another to be destroyed. So there’s just no merit to Jason’s argument.

One more comment until you have the time to respond: attempts at extrapolations from texts on the fatherhood of God and applications of compound words and the like, while important issues to discuss, nevertheless are secondary to what the Scripture actually says awaits the unredeemed at the judgment.

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

Yup, I don’t have anything for you Alex. But other people seem to have covered it I still recommend Grimsrud though. He has a nice introduction entitled ‘Biblical bases for restorative justice’ that he gave as a lecture to EMU students. I recommend reading the full article, even though it’s only an introduction and probably not convincing. A summary of that lecture:

1. Justice is a main characteristic of God—who creates out of a wish for relationships with creatures and who seeks endlessly to restore those relationships when they are broken.

2. God responds to the alienation and brokenness that came to characterize the human situation with a long-term commitment to bring healing through the formation of a particular community of people who would know God’s shalom and share that widely, blessing all the families of the earth.

3. This community gained concrete guidance from the giving of Torah, a detailed blueprint for the faithful society that had at its center strong concerns for the inclusion of vulnerable people as full participants. Justice has to do with caring for the vulnerable when they are treated in hurtful ways—and with directly challenging social dynamics that are hurtful.

4. Jesus emphasizes that living as part of his people involves seeking justice, even to the point of facing persecution for doing so. Such “seeking justice” for him included at its heart caring especially for vulnerable people (as Torah commands), acting to restore them to the community, and opening up the concept of “neighbor” (meaning, in part, one who deserves being treated justly) to enemies.

5. Paul directly links “justice” with “salvation”—arguing that Jesus’ faithfulness brought about healing of brokenness and alienation as a manifestation of God’s justice. “The justice of God” is all about restoring wholeness in relationships—with God and with other human beings.

6. One of Paul’s central themes, “justification,” deals with God’s work of making humanity whole. A person is “justified” by trusting in and following Jesus’ way—including, at its heart, reconciliation with a wide variety of other people and creating community with former enemies.

7. “Justice” in the Bible is restorative, through and through. The Bible’s God is “just” especially in that God seeks to bring about healing in relationships, transform alienation into community, restore offenders into God’s family, and bless all the families of the earth.

[Theopologetics]

Unfortunately I don’t think Jason is on FB!

Well he’ll have to get on it, if we’re going to dialogue meaningfully on this issue, for the reasons I gave above Alternatively, he’s free to email me and discuss it privately, or perhaps in a closed thread. The point being, I want either to do it on my podcast Facebook page where EU’s and my more traditional listeners can all engage in the discussion together, or I want to do it in such a way that I don’t have to field contributions from 18 different EU’s all by myself

[Alex_Smith]

Yup, I don’t have anything for you Alex. But other people seem to have covered it I still recommend Grimsrud though. He has a nice introduction entitled ‘Biblical bases for restorative justice’ that he gave as a lecture to EMU students. I recommend reading the full article, even though it’s only an introduction and probably not convincing.

That’s ok, thanks for the link. I agree with Ted Grimsrud, but he needs to back it up with verses (which I’m sure he could do ).

Unfortunately I don’t think Jason is on FB!

Well he’ll have to get on it, if we’re going to dialogue meaningfully on this issue, for the reasons I gave above Alternatively, he’s free to email me and discuss it privately, or perhaps in a closed thread. The point being, I want either to do it on my podcast Facebook page where EU’s and my more traditional listeners can all engage in the discussion together, or I want to do it in such a way that I don’t have to field contributions from 18 different EU’s all by myself

that’s totally fine, I think most people find it hard to respond to multiple people at once, anyway my posts are randomly changing direction enough as it is!

[corpselight]

well even if Theo doesn’t want to discuss it here, it’s still worth us discussing, i guess…

God is just, yes…but He’s more than just. He is merciful.
the example of Sodom and Gomorrha was given above, but though they were annihilated, isn’t there a mention of them being restored somewhere? does anyone know of verses that say that? i don’t mean the bit where Jesus said “it’ll be more tolerant for them than for you”.
some examples in the OT of annihilation followed by resurrection exist as well. Ezekiel 37 is one, but there’s one in Isaiah somewhere about shades not rising from certain dead and then later on those same shades rising.

also, the most damning Scriptural evidence against annihilation (or any form of permanent punishment) is that death is the last enemy to be destroyed. supported by the fact that death and the grave are thrown into the lake of fire and destroyed.
we are told that our works are tried by fire, but that even if they burn we ourselves will survive, but we will suffer loss.

back to justice:
the old argument (George Macdonald, i think) runs that if someone takes your watch, and then goes to prison for it (our concept of justice) then you still don’t have your watch.
if your watch is returned, do you still want the person to go to jail? maybe you do…from a sense of revenge. God however says to forgive your enemies. if your watch is returned, and you don’t forgive, you are lining yourself up for the debtors’ gaol (as Jesus said of the wicked servant who could not forgive a debt despite being forgiven), whatever form that takes.
if someone murders your loved one, and they are executed for it, your loved one is still dead.
God however offers your loved one back…and after being shown you how much you owe Him, do you still clamour for revenge? that’s all annihilation or ECT would be.

God is just in destroying wickedness, but He is merciful in restoring sinners. wickedness and death will be annihilated…not people.

[Theopologetics]

well even if Theo doesn’t want to discuss it here, it’s still worth us discussing, i guess…

Perhaps it goes without saying, but I have some thoughts on your post If you’re interested, you should post it on my podcast Facebook page, and we can discuss it, and hopefully we’ll get more of a variety of input. The page is at facebook.com/#!/pages/Theop … 1961582513.

[JasonPratt]

Thanks, Jason I think this is a mostly fair assessment, with the exception of the “learn to like it” statement.

I’ve run into more Calvinists than not who insist that we are going to learn to like God’s true notions of justice and had better start now (or be in rebellion against God, though not hopelessly so if we’re of the elect of course. )

Usually, in my experience, it is Arminians who allow that we won’t necessarily ever learn to like some things of God’s true justice (with a minority claiming we ought to learn to like it all now, and will learn to like it all later.) I’ve met and read a few Calvinists who allow that we won’t necessarily ever learn to like some things of God’s true justice (such as what happens to the non-elect, or to some of them anyway), but as a general rule they’re the ones I find most often affirming that the elect will join God in rejoicing over the hopeless punishment of the non-elect.

Typically I find the doctrinal difference in that attitude spread comes from regarding the ultimately lost sinners as being Calv non-elect or not. Arminians are more likely to regard the loss of sinners, for whom Christ died to save, as being an unspeakable tragedy (thus something no one could really like, including God); Calvinists are more likely to regard the loss of sinners for whom Christ didn’t die as God’s intention from the beginning for the purpose of exhibiting His righteous justice and mercy (to the elect, and even in some ways to the non-elect)–thus as something the elect should and will very rightly rejoice about. Each side has scriptural testimony for this, naturally.

Anyway, you didn’t strike me as being the sort to rejoice over the punishment of the non-elect (except maybe insofar as they are annihilated and so their punishment comes to an end), thus “not so Klingonish” about this. But you do come from the tradition that more strongly emphasizes (than Arminians generally) rejoicing over the fate of the lost; and which tends to explain any current lack of such rejoicing among the elect as a result of God’s notions of justice being entirely foreign to our fallen nature’s expectations of justice (in proportion that our nature is still fallen), which even the elect are still in the process of recovering from by God’s grace (some people moreso than others.)

Which doesn’t run against your further clarification, I think:

I would further clarify that it’s not that God’s justice is completely alien to our fallen nature, but rather that our sense of justice has been marred to one extent or another by the fall. What’s more, this “sense” is highly subjective, and what’s still more, not every individual will “sense” the same thing under identical circumstances. And I’ll add that in these specific examples, what one “senses” is to one extent or another impacted by one’s relationship with the hypothetical deceased; one may not “sense” the same thing about Hitler or myriad other wicked men. And so, whatever we “sense” to be just or unjust must be tested against the only objective, perfect standard: God’s revealed Word.

How in principle does that say anything against how I originally described the doctrinal situation? When the subjective “senses” of the elect are eventually adjusted so that they are no longer marred by the fall, we will sense the same thing about our fallen loved one as we sense about Hitler or myriad other wicked men, yes? Until then, if we happen not to (quite subjectively) “like” the fate of our non-elect loved one, that’s because our sense of justice has been marred to one extent or another by the fall, and while emotionally our fallen nature may not be adjusted to this yet we should at least be able to rationally test our sense of like or dislike about the fate of this or that non-elect person against the only objective, perfect standard: God’s revealed Word. i.e. our fallen ethical standards (and the subjective feelings which wrongly result from this) require our disciplinary acceptance of scriptural revelation to correct.

It may be blunt to put it this way, but how is that in principle different from saying “X may look unjust to us, but the Bible says X so we have to accept it and learn to like it or be found unfaithful to God”?

I’ve interacted a lot with Alex and one or two other EU’s at my podcast Facebook page, where I’ve also recently made some comments in response to your earlier post above So feel free to “Like” the page and go toe to toe with me there! …] The point being, I want either to do it on my podcast Facebook page where EU’s and my more traditional listeners can all engage in the discussion together, or I want to do it in such a way that I don’t have to field contributions from 18 different EU’s all by myself

I totally sympathize; but Facebook allowed someone to hack one of my connected email accounts last year, using my account as a location to spawn spam (probably virus laden) to everyone on my account (including to my most beloved, which I regard, subjectively or otherwise , as being a specially onerous violation.) So, I terminated my Facebook account and won’t be going back to that anytime soon.

Can people who are not registered with Facebook comment on a FB page now? (Or even read it?)

[JasonPratt]

The page is at facebook.com/#!/pages/Theop … 1961582513.

I clicked and was able to read what was on the… wall? But I couldn’t find where you were commenting on my reply to Alex, or even discussing the topic at all, whether I sorted by “Top Posts” or “Recent”.

Kids and their newfangled… things! http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/oldie.gif

[corpselight]

The page is at facebook.com/#!/pages/Theop … 1961582513.

I clicked and was able to read what was on the… wall? But I couldn’t find where you were commenting on my reply to Alex, or even discussing the topic at all, whether I sorted by “Top Posts” or “Recent”.

Kids and their newfangled… things! http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/oldie.gif

i’m on FB, but i hate it

[corpselight]

well even if Theo doesn’t want to discuss it here, it’s still worth us discussing, i guess…

Perhaps it goes without saying, but I have some thoughts on your post If you’re interested, you should post it on my podcast Facebook page, and we can discuss it, and hopefully we’ll get more of a variety of input. The page is at facebook.com/#!/pages/Theop … 1961582513.

i really hate FB lol though i’m on it. don’t really enjoy debating on it either

[Theopologetics]

I’ve run into more Calvinists than not who insist that we are going to learn to like God’s true notions of justice and had better start now (or be in rebellion against God, though not hopelessly so if we’re of the elect of course. )

Well I’m not one of them. I don’t think we’re called to “like” God’s justice on this side of the resurrection when it comes to the damnation of the unredeemed, I just think we’re called to accept whatever the Bible says as being true–whether we like it or not. But sure, I do believe that on the other side of the resurrection, we will freely and truly acknowledge the justice of God, “sensing” that it is righteous, even when it comes to the destruction of those whom we loved in life. But that will be because we have been glorified, and see things more fully than we had before.

How in principle does that say anything against how I originally described the doctrinal situation? When the subjective “senses” of the elect are eventually adjusted so that they are no longer marred by the fall, we will sense the same thing about our fallen loved one as we sense about Hitler or myriad other wicked men, yes? Until then, if we happen not to (quite subjectively) “like” the fate of our non-elect loved one, that’s because our sense of justice has been marred to one extent or another by the fall, and while emotionally our fallen nature may not be adjusted to this yet we should at least be able to rationally test our sense of like or dislike about the fate of this or that non-elect person against the only objective, perfect standard: God’s revealed Word. i.e. our fallen ethical standards (and the subjective feelings which wrongly result from this) require our disciplinary acceptance of scriptural revelation to correct.

It may be blunt to put it this way, but how is that in principle different from saying “X may look unjust to us, but the Bible says X so we have to accept it and learn to like it or be found unfaithful to God”?

You misunderstood my point, but that was probably my fault. What you’re responding to above had nothing to do with my objection to the “learn to like it” assessment; rather, it was clarifying why it is I think what the Bible says must take precedence over anything we “sense” is true about justice. The point being, while we do retain a certain measure of a sense of justice, for the many reasons I gave that sense cannot be trusted to tell us what a just God will or will not do with the wicked, and we must subject that sense to the objective Word of God.

I totally sympathize; but Facebook allowed someone to hack one of my connected email accounts last year, using my account as a location to spawn spam (probably virus laden) to everyone on my account (including to my most beloved, which I regard, subjectively or otherwise , as being a specially onerous violation.) So, I terminated my Facebook account and won’t be going back to that anytime soon.

You could always create a dummy email address and use that to sign up for a dummy FB account just for the purpose of debating me on my FB page j/k

Can people who are not registered with Facebook comment on a FB page now? (Or even read it?)…I clicked and was able to read what was on the… wall? But I couldn’t find where you were commenting on my reply to Alex, or even discussing the topic at all, whether I sorted by “Top Posts” or “Recent”.

Well apparently people who are not registered with Facebook CAN read a FB page, if you were able to I don’t know if you can comment. If you go back to the Theopologetics wall, look for a link posted by Alex to a page whose title includes, “Musings about Universalism.” Better yet, just go here: facebook.com/#!/permalink.p … 1961582513.

Alternatively, if you want to start a thread just between you and me, where we can discuss your “fair-togetherness” argument while everyone else looks on, that’d be fine. It’s just that I have a hard enough time keeping up with Alex’s comments alone, that if I have to keep with his, and yours, and those of a dozen other EU’s, all by myself, I’d never get anything else done!