Is that Fair?
Ten men stand before a judge. All ten men are guilty of murder. The judge pronounces the judgment of death by execution to the first nine men. To the tenth man, he turns and says, "You are pardoned."
Is that fair? (Friends, that is grace!)
Is that fair? (Friends, that is grace!)
posted by Christopher Redman at 11:58 AM
8 Comments:
CR,
Hope you are well today. I like your little illustration about fairness-- 10 murderers guilty with nine receiving what they deserved and the other receiving what he did not deserve.
I'm wondering now for those who hold justice supreme how they would view the judge. Would they see him as loving and kind and compassionate toward the one or would they immediately file impeachment charges against him for flaunting the law?
As for me, I think the latter. Have Mercy for Today and Peace for Tonight. With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
In the material world in which we live, I am sure that you are correct. In the eternal kingdom into which we have been called and adopted, the Judge determines justice. But, that's not fair sais the creature challenging his creator. For, who can resist His will?
But, who are you O' man...does not the Potter have power over the clay to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Rom 9)
BTW, the Judge had already placed a substitute in the execution chamber to satisfy the justice on behalf of the one who was pardoned.
CR,
Congradulations, my Brother. Your denial of analogous truth between our Lord and His creatures has just erased all meaning of virtue and vice.
We cannot look to our Lord for the way He is just because His is different. Even if it not only "looks" unjust, but it also, in this material world "is" unjust--no problem. Because God is God and we are us.
For some reason, my CR, that does not square with my brain on exactly how to be virtuous.
In addition, I wonder how that "God's justice cannot be followed in this material world" principle teases out with say, for example, love. How often I've been exhorted to "love selflessly" like God loves.
Or, since we possess distinctions in our love--say, love for our wives, in contrast to other men's wives--thus, it should not suprise us that God makes distinctions in His love for people, loving the elect with a special love, etc. I cannot see us having it both ways, my Brother.
Ummm. I hope you have a great day. With that, I am...
Peter
CR,
P.S.
I like the way you kinda "added" another little detail to the story afterward. I think I may try that on my next little story I pen. :-D
I am...Peter
All illustrations fall short at some point. The point of this illustration was to:
1) Establish that the Judge has the capacity to pardon or convict.
2) The criminals do not have an appeal or a claim of injustice because they are all guilty of the crime.
3) Isn't grace and justice mutally exclusive?
Justice is by the law, unambiguous, unflinching, and unmerciful.
Grace, however, is granting reprieve, a pardon where none is deserved.
Is not God both Just and Gracious? Is our Lord under any obligation or compulsion to give grace to all? If He is, what is the source of the obligation or compulsion?
Also, remember "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." They were both criminals. Jacob was every bit as deserving of death and judgment as Esau. By earthly standards, it seems to us that Esau was the better man than Jacob.
When I consider this text, I'm reminded that God hated Esau because of his sin. God loved Jacob in spite of his sin.
There is both Justice and Grace displayed and our Sovereign Lord gives both according to His pleasure.
CR,
I liked the way, my dear Brother, you avoided the post I offered. My real point was not about the illustration itself. That was just a litte funny I made.
Rather, my point, CR, is that by making "earthly" justice something non-analogous to "kingdom" justice, in the end, makes God an arbitrary Sovereign--He determines justice in an entirely different way for Him in distinction to His creatures.
If this is so, we simply have no way to compare God's justice with our sense of justice. My question, CR, is how does that principle tease out for example when we speak of God's love?
How often have I heard Calvinists in arguing for Unconditional Election maintain God possesses distinctions between His love for humans similarly to the way we possess distinctions in our love for one another. That is, I love my wife in a different way than I love other women, etc.
Thus, it should not surprise us if God loves the Elect in a different way from the non-Elect. Simply, God's love is analogous to our love. Why, then, if this is so, is God's justice not analogous to our justice?
I think viewed in this way, your distinction between "Kingdom" justice and "justice in the material world" appears weakened to an almost useless state.
Of course, this is only logic. So, I guess it does not count. Or worse still, perhaps it's my doggone heart acting up again :)
With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
You understand the term "monarchy" right? In a kingdom, the law of the land is according to the word of the king, right?
Our democratic republic is based on laws established by the Constitution. Our system of justice is very different than the system of justice established by a monarchy. In a monarchy, the king's word is the law and justice is according to His will. We, being creatures, are held accountable to a standard, a law, given to us by the Creator. The Creator, is a law unto Himself.
You stated: "...in the end, makes God an arbitrary Sovereign--He determines justice in an entirely different way for Him in distinction to His creatures."
Is not God entirely different than His creatures? "My ways are not your ways neither are your ways My ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than yours." (Paraphrased off the top of my head, GRACE :-))
I confess that I am uncomfortable with your term "arbitrary", ie: "makes God an Arbitrary Sovereign". By this statement, do you mean that God has no purpose in dispensing justice and grace to individuals? By your statement, God's purpose in election is meaningless, either for the elect or the non-elect. That, my friend, is unbiblical.
Note: Ephesians 1:5-6 where we are told that we were predestined according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace.
This, my brother, is not arbitrary. This is purposeful and there is no purpose higher than the glory of God. God's glory is ultimate, all else is penultimate.
As far as the subject of God's love, I would have to agree that God loves His chosen at a greater level than all His creation in general. Why? Because I have evidence from scripture.
In John 17, after Jesus has spoken of giving eternal life to "as many as You have given Him" (v. 2)and candidly expressing His prayer is "not for the world, but for those you have given Me" (v. 9)and further, He prayed for all who would believe in the future (v. 20); Jesus said, "...that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them (those given to Him by the Father) as You have loved Me."
For the arminian reading John 3:16, God's love only provides a possibility for salvation. In John 17, we find that God's love for His chosen is equal to the love He has for His own Son.
Peter, you bring up an entire dialogue with the subject of God's love. Where do you stand? How about articulating your views from scripture?
My Dear CR,
The assumption you seem to maintain is that in order for a position to be "scriptural", it must be heavily powdered with Scriptural verses. Evidently, that makes it "biblical".
From my vantage point, I would hope that, on whole, my philosophy and theology while not perfectly Biblical, is undergirded by Scripture, even if I do not so proof-text every statement I so assert.
I am afraid, CR, you still missed the question. While you did agree that God's love is analogous to our love for others, you did not say why His justice is not.
How is it, my Brother CR, that our sense of justice is non-analogous to God's? I agree His ways are above ours. But if you use that verse to demonstrate how God's just actions are dissimilar to our just actions, it seems to me you must also use the same reasoning to demonstrate how God's loving actions are dissimiliar to our loving actions as well.
John 3.16's Arminian reading? I haven't thought alot about that. I will say that it seems to turn John 3.16 on its head to read it any other way than the face value of the words, do you not agree, CR?
Another commenter wanted to say "God loved His justice and glory--even His own Self--so highly, He sent Jesus to the Cross. My simple response was John 3.16 which seems to clearly state that He loved the world so much, He gave His only Son...
Grace for this Evening and Peace for Tomorrow. With that, I am...
Peter
Post a Comment
<< Home