Hi there,
So there is a simple distinction to make - which I want to explore here, because I want to go beyond the limits of the stated subject - between a legal and a non-legal object: there is opinion, and there is law. An opinion is not a legal object, but may influence the Law; a law is a legal object, and may bring about a change to the Law, or its interpretation. So, what do we do, when an opinion, goes against the Law? What 'law' do we invoke, to determine whether the opinion is influenncing the Law in the right way? That comes down to conviction, I think (I am learning this as I type!).
Conviction, tells us, whether an opinion or its influence is too much; it (a conviction) also tells us, when the Law insufficiently recognizes the opinion, as influencing a 'law' or 'set of laws' the wrong way. We should be able to hold the opinion, and see the clarity, determination and interpretation of the Law or one of the Law's laws that it brings. Clarity, because it sets us apart from not being able to fulfil the 'Law'; determination, because it evaluates resistance to the Law or obedience to it; and interpretation, because every instance of the Law being fulfilled as directed by the weight of the opinion, exists according to the interpretation of that opinion (for the sake of the Law).
If conviction has a place with the Law, because of an opinion, then where that conviction is from, is undoubtedly important (both to the Law and the opinion that influences it) - or rather who that conviction is from! If we trust the opinion of a righteous man, because he has fulfilled the Law many ways, evidently his opinion will matter more. If we distrust the opinion of a lazy man, because he has no familiarity with the Law or its fulfilment, the lack of evidence, will cause us to doubt and disregard his opinion. Now what if they are in dispute with one another?
If the righteous and the lazy are at odds with each other, the right opinion cannot be decided by the Law, since both have equally valid expectations that their opinion be respected (in the case of the righteous man) or left as it is (in the case of the lazy man). Special Justice, must therefore be called into response: what justice is at stake of being fulfilled or not fulfilled? Now you say "but Justice, isn't the Law?!" and you are right, but the Law can only operate when the expectation in lieu of the Law is unopposed, that is, free to be acted on regardless of which specific opinion gives the best interpretation and therefore outcome. So you say "then let them fulfil the Law, each to their own?!" and while this sounds moral, unforunately it is an appeal to "hope".
Giving place to hope, while the Law is in question regarding Justice, delays Justice and contravenes the Law - "how?" because both parties already had hope in the Law! The Law does not get in the way of having an opinion, even if it is not a legal object (and how I wish people understood that! But I digress), which gives Hope to all, that their conduct as regards their opinion, does not disqualify them from fulfilling the Law, in a way that gives them some kind of Justice and Hope. Now before you say "but I said Hope and Justice could go together" I am still talking about the Hope that was already in the Law: No one gives place to Hope in the Law, without first placing trust in Justice - we must resolve to execute Justice in the Law.
What does this mean "execute justice in the Law"? It means that the opinion, must temporarily be treated as a existing in the place of a legal object, that is, we must consider what would happen to the Law, if the opinion was more than an opinion. This exonerates Justice from being in danger of being unable to fulfil the Law. Thus the Righteous Man and the Lazy Man have different outcomes: the righteous man, gets rest from his labours, without lack, and the lazy man, gets rest from work to come, without being interfered with. So can these two agree? If the opinion is, that every man rests differently for different reasons - yes!, there is hope of reward (for the righteous) and reason (for the lazy). This then can be completed in the Law, because the righteous influence gathers rewards to where they can be enjoyed and the lazy gathers reason to look beyond the Law, where he can sustain himself without reward, to receive justification.
So we have found harmony, despite one opinion being different to another and neither being actual laws, that can be used to force a particular outcome or difference, which would violate the Law's preservation of opinion. And that is where I hit upon what I was interested in (when starting this thread), how do we preserve opinion, when it is not a legal object? This comes down to the truth, which presides over both the Law and the influence of it. What is truth? (as Pilate famously asked) Truth is the assembly of all opinion and every fact. If an opinion cannot produce a fact (as we have proven divergent opinion can achieve, that is, divergent opinions can be seen from either direction, where two are in conflict) it has no moral utility (partially right, most of the time, is moral); if the fact it produces is wrong, it must change; if fact cannot produce an opinion, it has no righteous utility; if the opinions created by a fact clash, the best opinion must be established morally (that is, which opinion can best be fulfilled as partially right, most of the time). These things go together, to establish a world in which the harmony between opinion and Law is effective and strong.
But now, do we forget what is moral, because we have succeeded in creating agreement between opinion, fact and law? No, the point is to exercise what is moral, because the agreement we have created is special - the righteous and the lazy can see eye to eye, because of the effectiveness and strenth of the interpretation of the Law from differing perspectives. This is power! It shows that no opinion can be discounted, if it sheds light on some aspect of the fulfilment of the Law. If the fulfilment of the Law is preeminent, then influence over the Law, is at a premium! This makes fulfilling the Law meaningful. Especially since every opinion, but that which is in opposition to God, has a way of being established. You don't say "in my opinion, I don't need the Law" it is the Law that justifies you having an opinion! (And that because it does not do away with that, which is not immediately an object of the Law)
I hope you can see then, that finding ways to justify opinions, is lawful. It should be of some encouragement to you (whatever your opinion - selah)!
God bless.
So there is a simple distinction to make - which I want to explore here, because I want to go beyond the limits of the stated subject - between a legal and a non-legal object: there is opinion, and there is law. An opinion is not a legal object, but may influence the Law; a law is a legal object, and may bring about a change to the Law, or its interpretation. So, what do we do, when an opinion, goes against the Law? What 'law' do we invoke, to determine whether the opinion is influenncing the Law in the right way? That comes down to conviction, I think (I am learning this as I type!).
Conviction, tells us, whether an opinion or its influence is too much; it (a conviction) also tells us, when the Law insufficiently recognizes the opinion, as influencing a 'law' or 'set of laws' the wrong way. We should be able to hold the opinion, and see the clarity, determination and interpretation of the Law or one of the Law's laws that it brings. Clarity, because it sets us apart from not being able to fulfil the 'Law'; determination, because it evaluates resistance to the Law or obedience to it; and interpretation, because every instance of the Law being fulfilled as directed by the weight of the opinion, exists according to the interpretation of that opinion (for the sake of the Law).
If conviction has a place with the Law, because of an opinion, then where that conviction is from, is undoubtedly important (both to the Law and the opinion that influences it) - or rather who that conviction is from! If we trust the opinion of a righteous man, because he has fulfilled the Law many ways, evidently his opinion will matter more. If we distrust the opinion of a lazy man, because he has no familiarity with the Law or its fulfilment, the lack of evidence, will cause us to doubt and disregard his opinion. Now what if they are in dispute with one another?
If the righteous and the lazy are at odds with each other, the right opinion cannot be decided by the Law, since both have equally valid expectations that their opinion be respected (in the case of the righteous man) or left as it is (in the case of the lazy man). Special Justice, must therefore be called into response: what justice is at stake of being fulfilled or not fulfilled? Now you say "but Justice, isn't the Law?!" and you are right, but the Law can only operate when the expectation in lieu of the Law is unopposed, that is, free to be acted on regardless of which specific opinion gives the best interpretation and therefore outcome. So you say "then let them fulfil the Law, each to their own?!" and while this sounds moral, unforunately it is an appeal to "hope".
Giving place to hope, while the Law is in question regarding Justice, delays Justice and contravenes the Law - "how?" because both parties already had hope in the Law! The Law does not get in the way of having an opinion, even if it is not a legal object (and how I wish people understood that! But I digress), which gives Hope to all, that their conduct as regards their opinion, does not disqualify them from fulfilling the Law, in a way that gives them some kind of Justice and Hope. Now before you say "but I said Hope and Justice could go together" I am still talking about the Hope that was already in the Law: No one gives place to Hope in the Law, without first placing trust in Justice - we must resolve to execute Justice in the Law.
What does this mean "execute justice in the Law"? It means that the opinion, must temporarily be treated as a existing in the place of a legal object, that is, we must consider what would happen to the Law, if the opinion was more than an opinion. This exonerates Justice from being in danger of being unable to fulfil the Law. Thus the Righteous Man and the Lazy Man have different outcomes: the righteous man, gets rest from his labours, without lack, and the lazy man, gets rest from work to come, without being interfered with. So can these two agree? If the opinion is, that every man rests differently for different reasons - yes!, there is hope of reward (for the righteous) and reason (for the lazy). This then can be completed in the Law, because the righteous influence gathers rewards to where they can be enjoyed and the lazy gathers reason to look beyond the Law, where he can sustain himself without reward, to receive justification.
So we have found harmony, despite one opinion being different to another and neither being actual laws, that can be used to force a particular outcome or difference, which would violate the Law's preservation of opinion. And that is where I hit upon what I was interested in (when starting this thread), how do we preserve opinion, when it is not a legal object? This comes down to the truth, which presides over both the Law and the influence of it. What is truth? (as Pilate famously asked) Truth is the assembly of all opinion and every fact. If an opinion cannot produce a fact (as we have proven divergent opinion can achieve, that is, divergent opinions can be seen from either direction, where two are in conflict) it has no moral utility (partially right, most of the time, is moral); if the fact it produces is wrong, it must change; if fact cannot produce an opinion, it has no righteous utility; if the opinions created by a fact clash, the best opinion must be established morally (that is, which opinion can best be fulfilled as partially right, most of the time). These things go together, to establish a world in which the harmony between opinion and Law is effective and strong.
But now, do we forget what is moral, because we have succeeded in creating agreement between opinion, fact and law? No, the point is to exercise what is moral, because the agreement we have created is special - the righteous and the lazy can see eye to eye, because of the effectiveness and strenth of the interpretation of the Law from differing perspectives. This is power! It shows that no opinion can be discounted, if it sheds light on some aspect of the fulfilment of the Law. If the fulfilment of the Law is preeminent, then influence over the Law, is at a premium! This makes fulfilling the Law meaningful. Especially since every opinion, but that which is in opposition to God, has a way of being established. You don't say "in my opinion, I don't need the Law" it is the Law that justifies you having an opinion! (And that because it does not do away with that, which is not immediately an object of the Law)
I hope you can see then, that finding ways to justify opinions, is lawful. It should be of some encouragement to you (whatever your opinion - selah)!
God bless.
