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:
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:
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 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 ).
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! 
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.
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’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:
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 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?)
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
i really hate FB lol though i’m on it. don’t really enjoy debating on it either 
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.
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.
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
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!
Yep, my previous post was high on the emotional side of arguments, and many people disregard any emotional considerations as valid appeals. I just like to throw them in to help theology stay rooted in real-life, not just theory or accademia. I find that far too often accademia and theology is isolated from real life.
Concerning people appealing to God’s definition of love, justice, mercy, etc. being different from our definition/standards, yes that’s a common approach. It’s a way of saying that though this doesn’t make sense to me, I accept it as true and you should too. Which really doesn’t make much sense to me. God gave us a mind and, I think, expects us to use it. And scripture is full of admonitions to seek knowledge and wisdom. I appreciate the definition of Theology as being “Faith seeking understanding”. We trust in God thus we seek to understand Him better.
Concerning justice being defined, I believe this implies things being made right. And frankly, I don’t see either ECT or annihilation as “making things right”. It doesn’t overcome evil with good, but propogates more evil, especially in ECT. In ECT there is no end to evil or the kingdom of darkness.
I totally agree.
So I’ll have to go with Alex’s report I guess (until I find which thread at FB the conversation is taking place in. Or someone tells me. 
)
I’m wondering what you were disagreeing with there. That the term more usually translated “righteousness” is sometimes also translated “justice”? (But you only said there are other words translated justice, not that that term is not sometimes translated “justice”.)
That righteousness as a concept is equivalent to or parallel to or corresponds with justice??! (I’m unsure which meaning of “==” you’re appealing to there.) If that is what you were disagreeing with, I do not think you are going to get far along that route!
I suspect from how you follow up that you were disagreeing that justice necessarily has anything to do with “fair-togetherness”. (Not the same as disagreeing that justice has anything at all to do with “fair-togetherness”; although if that is what you meant to deny instead then you are going to quickly run up against a huge number of Biblical counterexamples, not even counting severe trinitarian theism coherency problems. Although I would say ortho-trin coherency is a very severe problem to any disagreement that justice necessarily has to do with the fulfillment of fair-togetherness between persons, too. Not a problem for non-trinitarians, of course, but something I take very seriously as a trinitarian theologian and apologist. 
)
Since I didn’t infer or assert or baldly assert that only {dikaiosunē} is ever translated “justice”, then appealing to other terms sometimes also translated “justice” will only be a rebuttal if (1) it is assumed or otherwise argued that “justice” is a proper translation for them (instead of, for example, “crisis”); and if (2) the term usage examples indicate that the “justice” there =/= {dikaiosunē}.
I have exactly no problem at all affirming that there is a crisis awaiting the unredeemed; and that the unredeemed shall be raised to a resurrection of crisis instead of a resurrection of eonian life; and that this crisis involves justice; and that this crisis involves righteousness; and that this crisis still involves God acting to fulfill fair-togetherness with impenitent sinners (even if as impenitent sinners the impenitent sinners aren’t yet acting to fulfill fair-togetherness, {dikaiosunē}, righteousness, justice.)
Nor does John 5:24, or its immediate or local contexts, have even the slightest thing to say against any of that. Nor do they have the slightest thing to say in favor of the notion that “justice” at least sometimes has nothing to do with fulfilling fair-togetherness among persons (much less that “justice” at least sometimes =/= righteousness even if righteousness somehow doesn’t mean what it reads in Greek.)
(Neither, to be fair, do I find anything there or nearby pointing directly or indirectly to a hopeful crisis. The contexts are only about there being a crisis coming to impenitent sinners, not about whether it is hopeful or hopeless for those in the crisis.)
I would argue that translating “crisis” as “justice” here is not well-advised, as it is not necessary and will only lead to (or express) a belief that the redeemed avoid justice somehow, by God being unjust to them for example (which I have heard Christians actually dare to say, although it boggles my mind that Christians of all people should hope for injustice and much moreso for the injustice of God!) Even to translate it so that the redeemed shall avoid “judgment” runs against Biblical testimony elsewhere that even the elect shall be judged (for example that we shall be judged righteous!)
It is not that such translations are wrong by “crisis” having nothing to do with justice and with judgment; I affirm above (and again here) that it does, and strongly so. But “crisis” is both accurate in itself and non-contradictive to Biblical testimony elsewhere in a non-controversial fashion. There are times it could be translated “justice” or “judgment” without harm (although more sloppily so as “justice”), but this is not one of them.
(You meant verse 19, which I corrected for your quote.)
{ekdikeo} means out-justing, justice going forth, which obviously I have no remote disagreement about.
Even less (if that was possible) do I have any disagreement that God does this in order to vindicate sinners, which is exactly what the two or three scriptural references St. Paul provides there and immediately afterward at verse 20 are about, as well as the immediate and local contexts of Rom 12:19. Although I suspect you meant to vindicate Himself (which I also have no disagreement about, although the OT refs aren’t only about vindicating God and the righteous).
Nor do I have any disagreement that, against impenitent sinners, God’s vindication involves wrath.
Unless the contexts of Rom 12 are supposed to be saying that we should do good and bless and be merciful to sinners and let God be the one Who does evil to sinners (which would mean that we are supposed to be more merciful than God, and in fact to go against God in our regard to sinners, not even counting whether this makes sense in context of the OT verses being adduced by St. Paul there); then Rom 12:19 would mean that we should “give a place to” (the literal Greek there) or conform with the merciful wrath of God which blesses sinners and leads them to repentance, overcoming evil with good and rejoicing in hope, acting to be at peace with all men insofar as it depends upon us (ourselves and God), instead of seeking our own revenge apart from God and His goodness: a revenge that (being apart from God and so therefore sinful) would have nothing to do with fulfilling fair-togetherness between sinners and ourselves unlike what is expressed in the contexts of 12:19 including in Paul’s OT references. A justice apart from God is no real justice at all. Relatedly, the one who practices righteousness (fair-togetherness, dikaiosunē) is righteous (just, {dikaios}) as God is righteous (just, {dikaios}). Indeed, if you know that God is just {dikaios}, you know that all {pas} those who also practice righteousness {dikaiosunē} are begotten out of Him (are born again). (1 John 2:29; 3:7)
I may mention that this comports utterly well with God being intrinsically and essentially a fulfillment of fair-togetherness between persons in His own active self-existence upon which all reality depends: acting against that would be to take our own revenge apart from God. Something that trinitarian theists like myself ought to especially appreciate.
Although even annihilationists think Sodom will rise again (before being annihilated); and God thinks Sodom will be reconciled with His other rebel daughters, especially Israel despite her having sinned even worse than Sodom, in the Day of the Lord to come (Ezekiel chapter 16, call that a metaphor or poetic language as you wish. Whoever God is really talking about, Sodom or a nation being analogized as Sodom, will be just as dead in their sins by the time of the Day of the Lord to come. And by the same token, if they’re reconciled to Israel and along with Israel to God in that Day to come, Sodom itself has no less hope.)
Be that as it may. I have less than no problem affirming that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the justice of eonian fire, and even were wholly ruined by it, no more than I have any problem affirming that impenitent sinners will be wholly-ruined by the justice {dikē} of the eonian fire of YHWH at the coming of the Day of the Lord (in 2 Thess 1:9, and in Isaiah 2 through 5). Which you might have remembered, seeing as how I was the one who insisted on translating the same term as “justice” there in my debate with TFan.
I also have less than no problem affirming that Sodom shall come to value the justice of their whole-ruination, as promised by God in the OT, no more than I have any problem affirming that sinners shall come to value-revere the justice of YHWH’s whole-ruination of them by fire in the Day of the Lord to come (as in 2 Thess 1:9 and in Isaiah 2 through 5).
The term usage there is utterly consonant with justice == fair-togetherness. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn’t have argued so when translating the term there as “justice” myself, both at Jude 7 (in my Jude 6 portion of the debate with TFan, though naturally we focused more on verse 6 and its terminology) and at 2 Thess 1:9. (And in verses prior to v.9 for that matter.)
Admittedly, the terminology of Jude 7 is also consonant enough with an attempt at coming up with a justice that does not necessarily have to be about fair-togetherness (since the word ‘togetherness’ {sunē} isn’t included there along with ‘just’ or ‘fair’), and there are no immediate or local or citational contexts in that particular place pointing toward {dikaiosunē} being ultimately accomplished with Sodom. (As I granted in my side of that debate; although I also pointed to at least one place in the OT directly involving the situation of verse 6, though not cited at verse 6, which I would include in an analysis of how verse 6 should be soteriologically interpreted. But as that would have been strictly outside the range of discussion, and as I had much larger fish to fry–pardon the pun --I left that alone for listeners to follow up on if they wanted to.)
Literally it means “in-just”; and the term for condemnation there is {krima} which involves judging someone as having committed injustice. (It’s the same word from which we derive “crime”, although we use it as a noun in English today not a verb, and about the unjust deed judged against, not about the judgment of the deed.)
Even {krima} doesn’t intrinsically involve hopeless judgment, as the scriptures testify that all redeemed sinners were once under the same {krima} (something even Calvinists acknowledge about the elect–Rom 3:9-10 immediately afterward being one such testimony about this although not using {krima} per se); much less does {endikos} necessarily involve a fulfillment of non-fair-togetherness between persons. Nor is there anything (either way) about that at Rom 3:8 or its immediate or local contexts (regarding the particular people St. Paul is speaking of as insulting Christians with the charge that Christians do evil so that good may come.)
A penalty (so far as it goes) that even repentant sinners still must pay sooner or later; thus not in itself anything to do with fulfilling non-fair-togetherness instead of {dikaiosunē}.
Nor does the fact that impenitent sinners who neglect so great a salvation (from v.3–a salvation that includes rebel gods eventually worshiping the Son when the Father leads Him back into the inhabitations, putting those who trusted in the rebel gods to shame, per 1:6 citing Psalm 97:7) shall even less escape the endikos payment, mean that God will not act to fulfill {dikaiosunē} with them. On the contrary, it is manifestly the impenitent sinners neglecting so great a salvation who are refusing to fulfill {dikaiosunē}, fair-togetherness! But their injustice, unrighteousness, does not mean God shall be similarly unjust, unrighteous, even to them.
I entirely agree and have never once disagreed, ever.
What we disagree about is whether that death is ever a hopeless one, one that does not fulfill {dikaiosunē} fair-togetherness.
My argument wasn’t running on those tires; but since you bring them up I’d say they are quite brimful of {dikaiosunē}! 
Or at worst don’t testify against {dikaiosunē}, fair-togetherness.
Notably, not one of the verses you cited talked about annihilation per se (although that could perhaps be read into some of them), and at least one of them (Rom 12:19) was very much about the total antithesis of annihilation per se.
(I am quite aware that any proper hermeneutic requires at least as much eisegesis as exegesis; otherwise sentences and even words would all stand apart from one another leaving us even to guess anew at meanings of the same words from instance to instance. I’m not calling coup against reading annihilation into most of the verses you cited; I’m only pointing out that you aren’t reading it out of them, so citing them for purpose of testifying that they allow God to annihilate the wicked is fuzzy at best. I would however have to strongly object to any attempt at reading annihilation not only out of but into Rom 12:19 and its contexts. Or ECT, for what it’s worth. )
If anything John 5:24 and its contexts talked about the wicked being brought back to life for judgment, not about their annihilation.
Jude 7 doesn’t say the wicked of Sodom were annihilated at the time of their destruction, and doesn’t contradict Biblical testimony elsewhere of them being brought back (for salvation and/or otherwise). The example of their destruction in the past as a figure, strictly applied, would be that the wicked in the Day of the Lord to come will be destroyed and brought back, just like Sodom was destroyed in the past and will be brought back. (But I wouldn’t press that application.)
Rom 3:8 has nothing to say about the insulters dying at all, in annihilation or otherwise, now or in the Day of the Lord to come.
Heb 2:2 has nothing to say about those who neglect so great a salvation being annihilated at any time (although nothing specifically to say against it either I suppose, although I would say it’s referencing the greatness of a salvation where rebel gods certainly will not be annihilated.)
This is often obscured in dictionaries and concordances, unfortunately. It’s the adjective form of {dikē}, {dikao} (Strong’s #1342) compounded with {sun} (a primary preposition for union, Strong’s #4862), with a long eta at the end to shift {sun} out of prepositional status making the term a noun. It is an extremely straightforward compound word.
AMG’s Annotated Strong’s Greek Dictionary of the New Testament (included in the NASB Key-Word Study Bible), is usually very stringent about reporting where the portions of a word come from, even when they aren’t what we would consider in English compound words. But they flat out omit the important and clear {sune} in deriving the origin of {dikaiosunē}, despite going far out of their way to trace that term’s inclusion in other compound words. Despite this, all their definitions for it (of which they have several) involve one or more persons effectively operating to fulfill fair-togetherness with other persons (though they don’t put it in such words).
Knoch’s Concordance translates both portions of the word “just-togetherness”; but since he converted to UR in the process of doing his concordant literal translation that might be considered bias I suppose. (Unlike the NASV and AMG, who didn’t bother to mention the second half at all. 
)
Vine’s Complete Expository doesn’t bother to mention the meaning of either part of the word, but they aren’t good about doing that anyway in other examples (so at least they’re being consistent). No one in their right mind would suppose the fact they don’t directly translate the first part of the word as the adjective form of “just” means it has nothing to do with justice; but strangely their exposition on the term never mentions “justice” or being “just”, and (less strangely) has almost nothing to do with persons being fair to one another together (although they acknowledge that the term can have something to do with God fulfilling His promises. Conformity to the will of God might be perceived along that line, too, although Vine does nothing to help the reader understand it that way.) The editors render the term to mean in effect “that which is right” (or “rightwiseness”–which btw is how we got to “righteousness” in English–basically we’re mispronouncing the older English translation today 
), which is right in itself or legally right by commanded declaration of God. For Vine, religious duties like alms-giving are only or primarily about obeying the law, not about coherent personal relationships per se (although they acknowledge that righteousness is unattainable by obedience to any law.) Vine’s notion of righteousness is quite legalistic, so it is no surprise that the editors (quoting Vine and Hogg from their commentary on Galatians) basically ignore the second half of the word altogether.
Thayer’s Lexicon only bothers to mention the word’s connection to {dikaios}, and never once in its extensive commentary on it mentions the second half of the word. Perhaps coincidentally, very little of Thayer’s commentary on the term involves the fulfillment of personal relationships fairly between people.
JCSM.org in reporting from Strong’s Dictionary only lists the derivation from {dikaios} without mentioning {sun}.
Those are the sources I have immediately at hand, but I think the pattern will follow out: dictionaries and concordances will tend to simply avoid mentioning what the {sune} there is for, even when they have no problem mentioning what that term is for in many other words. But that isn’t because {sune} is some typical grammatic suffix appended to {dike} when it changes from a noun to another kind of noun based on the adjective form of the first kind of noun.
I am very well aware of the etymological fallacy, so I am consequently also very well aware that the charge of its fallacy cannot be simply thrown at a term on the basis of appealing to the clear meaning of its constituent parts.
Standard operating procedure is to treat the clear meaning of the constituent parts of a word as indicating by their combination the meaning and intended use of the word as the first conclusion; to be overthrown in regard to a broad setting of the word only if context indicates an author or authors in that setting commonly use the word in a fashion not contiguous with what would otherwise be the literal (including compounded) meaning of the word–and even then the cautious linguist would keep an eye out for meaningful application of the word in regard to its literality. It would be venial to call in the etymological fallacy against someone who appeals to (for example) a term for grace or forgiveness that literally means joy if what he wants to talk about is the importance of the joy of God, even though people in the setting mean more (not less) than any mere joy. (A topic not unrelated to NT studies, btw. )
The test here is whether the term “just-” or “fair-togetherness” (more literally it means “just-togetherness”, but I find people have a better idea what I’m talking about if I say “fair” instead) can be meaningfully applied in context in a large majority of cases. If so, then propositions that the term means something other than fair-togetherness (and especially something outright opposite to fair-togetherness) ought in themselves to be reassessed as faulty translations, even in cases of proposed minority exceptions.
So for example if Christ wages war in {dikaiosunē}, but by far most uses of {dikaiosunē} in related texts can be read in non-controversial fashions (even if previously unrecognized) as involving fair-togetherness between persons being fulfilled, then at most this would be a strange exception if the kings of the earth whom He thus shepherds with his rod of iron are thereby put into a state where fair-togetherness cannot be fulfilled with them. But if there is evidence of kings of the earth afterward leading their nations into the New Jersualem in loyalty to God and in union with the people who were already redeemed (and whom they were previously sinning against as well as against God), then the term itself would be evidence that this other evidence ought to be interpreted as meaning the same kings are in view, and that Christ’s shepherding of them with the rod of iron, although certainly punitive, was both corrective in intention (as “shepherding with the rod of iron” is typically understood elsewhere in the scriptures) and ultimately successful.
And I discovered almost ten years ago that by far most uses of {dikaiosunē} in the NT can be read as involving fair-togetherness between persons being fulfilled in non-controversial fashions (even though I had not previously thought of reading them that way. On the contrary, doing so as an interpretative exercise substantially improved and clarified my understanding and appreciation of the scriptures.) Consequently when, during that word-study, I ran across RevJohn 19, I realized I ought to keep an eye out for those kings of the earth again: an expectation that was unexpectedly fulfilled in a way that coherently synched up with other nearby issues.
God’s own righteousness, which is entirely consonant with my definitional usage, absolutely does NOT involve some legal guiltlessness that comes from God fulfilling duties imposed upon Him by another person. Something Calvinists of all people ought to be specially well aware of. But more importantly, this is something that trinitarian theists of all people (Calvs included) ought to be specially well aware of.
In a very truncated or even withered sense, this kind of guiltlessness might by metaphor be described as fair-togetherness, I suppose; but no one anywhere (especially no Calvinist, and rightly so!) thinks St. Paul means that the righteousness of the elect comes from fulfilling the duties imposed on persons (in the Law or otherwise) by God.
I’m honestly amazed that you even tried such a rebuttal. (Maybe you meant something else but were typing quickly and didn’t realize what you were typing. God knows, it happens to me sometimes. )
Um… did you forget to grant it means “togetherness” in there, after granting hypothetically for sake of argument that it means “togetherness”?
If so, you should have written “And EVEN IF we were willing to grant that it means ‘fair-togetherness,’ the argument presumes that the only kind of ‘fair-togetherness’ between persons is reconciliation.”
(If not, I have another guess as to what you were trying to do afterward; you can skip the next few paragraphs if you want.)
You are entirely welcome to try coming up with another kind of ‘fair-togetherness’ between persons that does not involve reconciliation between them where one has sinned against the other. But I don’t foresee any success coming from that attempt. You’d have to… oh, for example… eliminate the ‘togetherness’ out of the term {dikaiosunē} while still hypothetically granting it means ‘fair-togetherness’, for that to seem even initially plausible as an attempt.
So, repairing what your argument here hypothetically granted, in order for you to try to show that even hypothetically granting it doesn’t allow any merit to my argument: “But in fact, EVEN IF we were willing to grant that {dikaiosunē} means ‘fair-togetherness,’ it may still be fair-togetherness for one who has sinned against another to be destroyed.”
I think you’re pretty well aware that such a result would involve no togetherness at all anymore if the destruction of the sinner is annihilation (of the type proposed by annihilationists anyway). How that would still amount to fair-togetherness will be rather a challenge to establish, I think!
On the other hand, you might have meant to try to challenge a presumption on my part that the only kind of fairness involves righteousness. So, EVEN IF you were willing to grant that “righteousness” in NT Greek means fair-togetherness, you would reply that there can be other kinds of fairness between persons which involve unrighteousness (non-fair-togetherness, still hypothetically granting the meaning of the term for purposes of showing that even granting it doesn’t allow any solid merit to my application of it: there can be fairness between people that have nothing to do with righteousness anyway regardless of what its meaning really is, whether its meaning is fair-togetherness or something else.)
If that was what you meant instead, I think I can say it would be informative to see you try! 
I’ve been working on this reply off and on all day, and I haven’t read further down the thread; moreover I’m going to be out of state on a business trip for most of tomorrow, so it may be Saturday at the earliest that I can continue downthread from here. (Some of what I’ve said may have already been mentioned by others when I post this. At least I hope so! 
)
Chris,
Having caught up further on the thread, I’ll need to repost my reply over there (or have a mod or admin do it while I’m out), and follow up your comments here there, too. Some of what I said may need correction in light of what you went on to say (I don’t know, I very briefly skimmed the rest of the thread before leaving for supper tonight).
Alex can tick that thread you set up over to the one-on-one category (if it isn’t there already) so you don’t feel mobbed, if you like. I’ll try to follow up there instead of here, if so.
I’ll also hunt up the FB thread you indicated, when I get back, and try to incorporate material there for our discussion afterward.
Jason, rather than defend the arguments I gave (not that I think they were in error, although I did make them a little hastily), I’d like to start from the beginning in that other thread I mentioned, if that’s OK with you. I just recently posted there with some reasons why I’m doubtful that δικαιοσύνη is a composite of σύν and δίκαιος, and that even if it is, σύν must carry the meaning of “togetherness.” If you don’t mind, let’s start from there in that post, and if we reach an agreement that δικαιοσύνη does, in fact, mean “just-togetherness,” we’ll discuss the implications then. Is that OK?
Just thought I’d point out a little more. Basically, δικαιοσύνη (righteousness) speaks of things being right, being the way they should be, conforming to the will of God. I especially appreciate the concept of things being the way they should be. Righteous people are living in conformity with God’s will. Their relationship with God has been restored. They have been and are reconciled to God. There is no enmity between them and God. It is more than justice; it is things being made right. It is a relational term as well as cosmological, state-of-being.
1343 δικαιοσύνη [dikaiosune /dik·ah·yos·oo·nay/] n f. From 1342; TDNT 2:192; TDNTA 168; GK 1466; 92 occurrences; AV translates as “righteousness” 92 times. 1 in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God. 1a the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God. 1b integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting. 2 in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due. (Strong, J. 1996. The exhaustive concordance of the Bible).
1466 δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē), ης (ēs), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ DBLHebr 7406, 7407; Str 1343; TDNT 2.192—1. LN 88.13 righteousness, what is right, justice (Mt 5:10; 2Jn 9 v.r.); 2. LN 34.46 be put right with, be in adj. **right relationship with **(Ro 1:17); 3. LN 53.4 religious observances, act. of righteousness, i.e., practices required by adj. religion (Mt 6:1), for another interp, see next; 4. LN 57.111 charity, alms, gifts of mercy (Mt 6:1), for another interp, see prior (Swanson, J. 1997. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains)
1465 δίκαιος (dikaios), αία (aia), ον (on): adj.; ≡ DBLHebr 7404, 7406; Str 1342; TDNT 2.182—1. LN 88.12 righteous, just, upright, i.e., being in accordance with God’s compelling standards (Mt 1:19); 2. LN 34.47 be put right with, **pertaining to be in right relationship with someone **(Ro 1:17); 3. LN 66.5 proper, right in the sense of being fully justified (Php 1:7) (Swanson, J. 1997. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains)
Of course this word is used in many contexts, various ones talking about living right, acting right, right relationship with God and with one another. Ultimately though righteousness, things being made right, is only seen in Universal Reconciliation. If one person forever rejects right relationship with God then things are ultimately not “right”. In my previous post I simply listed a few examples of people who if thier loved one was annihilated, much less relegated to ECT, things could never be “right”.
This is our hope, our prayer, our faith, that God will make all things right! Thus we pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is done in heaven. From one perspective, if all are not saved in the eternal, in heaven, then there is no use in us praying for people to be saved today. Why? Because if they are not ultimately saved, then they will not get saved today, so why pray. And if it’s not God’s will for everyone to be saved, if it is God’s will for some to be lost, then praying for these whom it’s the will of God to not be saved, to be saved, is praying against the will of God.
To me, the only way to truly pray in faith asking for God to accomplish His will on earth (in the present) is to be confident that such is His accomplished will in heaven (in the eternal).
In Calvinism, if it is not God’s will for some to be saved then praying for God to save someone whom He ultimately chooses to not save is useless. In Arminianism, if ultimately it is man’s will that triumphs, then “praying” for God to save someone who chooses to not be saved, well, such to is useless. Is it any wonder then that prayerlessness is so rampant in Christendom.
Righteousness and justice, the way things should be, imply reconciliation! If God loves everyone and anyone is not ultimately reconciled to Him, then things are never right, the way things should be, and righteousness and justice are never completely attained!
Chris,
Back from trip; and yes, that’s fine.
Sherman,
Thanks for more refs! I note none of them bother to mention the other word comprising dikaiosune. (I had suspected from other sources that Strong’s wouldn’t but I don’t have a copy of Strong’s at hand, although I have a bead on a nice used copy.)
Readers on this thread should definitely look into Chris (Theopologetic’s) much better thread on {dikaiosune} here, if you haven’t done so already. I have to acknowledge that that rebuttal case is very strong (so far!)
I would prefer that other members’ discussion of it be here instead of there, so as not to swamp Chris however. I’ll have some comments about it over there presently.
