God's Justice is God's Mercy

[aspen]

I am really starting to believe that part of our human reality is viewing everything through the lens of dualism. As I have mentioned before, perhaps it is a consequence of the Fall. In any case, when it comes to God's mercy and His justice - it is natural to see the two characteristics as separate - even opposites, like left and right. Yet, I think, from a Kingdom perspective, God's mercy is His justice and His justice is His mercy - so as I have said before - Hell is both justice and mercy. His disciple is also a mercy and a justice - He is creating citizens of Heaven, as we speak! God is the ultimate reality - and the more real something is, the simpler it is - God is Good, Merciful, and Just; all at once. It is our limitations that compartmentalize the world around us. God is 'all in all' - whole.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi aspen,

It has taken me a long time to understand Jesus Christ's death was because of God's justice, and that without it, there could be no expression of mercy to fallen man. If it were not such an extreme solution, one could carry on thinking there is something 'good' in human kind. I am against the total depravity jargon of certain theologicial constructs, and yet it doesn't take much intelligence to see that the bloodshed, violence and cruelty in this world - perpetuated by people towards people - has a sinister root which mankind finds uncontrollable. All that said, the miracle of salvation which God envisaged for us, necessitates our total compliance with Him, to have executed within ourselves that same death by which we are freed from sin's power. God can be merciful only to sinners who seek refuge in the death of Jesus Christ. There is no other Saviour from God's wrath against sin.

 

[MTPockets]

Hi! 'Aspen' and 'DragonFly'

The expressed view of 'Aspen' saying, "God's mercy is His justice and His justice is His mercy", is indeed intriguing.
However his additional comment saying, "Hell is both justice and mercy", is a rather shivering logic to me.
Ummm, 'DragonFly' mentioned something which caused me pause and I'd like to throw in my two-cents in concerning it.
'DragonFly' wrote, "Jesus Christ's death was because of God's justice, and that without it, there could be no expression of mercy to fallen man".
While I can agree with the basic sentiment of the statement, it seems to me to be a rather convoluted comprehension about the heavenly transaction which satisfied the demand of the Pearl Merchant.
Take a closer look at the Parable of the Pearl, (Matt 13:45-46).

The typical understanding of this parable is that people are diligently seeking for fine pearls (wealth, fame, worldly knowledge, etc ) and all become disappointed with their possessions. Only the pearl of great value [Jesus Christ] can satisfy these seekers. Those who discover the pearl of great value decidedly forfeit everything they value in exchange for the pearl of great price. Although this is an enticing understanding, I've learned this interpretation to be error.

Although it's true that we should seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, it is not a biblical idea that the Kingdom is for sale. Nor should be be found confessing that Christ might be somehow exchanged for natural possessions or position. The parable states clearly that the merchant sold all he had to buy the pearl of great value. It's simply untrue that we might possess Jesus through strenuous effort, with abstinence or with the sacrifice of earthly possessions. When Simon the magician offered him money to receive the gift of God, Peter said to him: "Your silver perish with you because you thought you would obtain the gift of God with money". Obtaining the Kingdom of God can never be related to giving money or goods or to the offer of human effort and sacrifice. We receive it through grace, by faith, at no price.

There is again another interpretation which some hold and which seems to have more ground in Scripture. In lieu of Phil 2:7-8, some say that no one sacrificed everything as completely as Christ when He came to the earth in the form of a weak, needy child who, when grown up, volunteered to lay down His life. With this interpretation, the pearl is said to be the human soul and the pearl of great value is the church which is saved from the mire of the earth.

At least this interpretation has the advantage not being based on the erroneous idea that man is not thoroughly and fully depraved; but comparable to a blemished pearl. Also true is that Jesus sold all He had. But aside from this, the interpretation isn't quite consistent. They claim that the pearls are human souls which Jesus seeks and that He purchased these pearls by giving all He had. But this interpretation compels us to assume that Jesus relinquishes all the souls He had acquired to buy one special pearl: the church. In addition, clearly Jesus is not a merchant in "human souls", (Rev 18:13).

1Peter 5:8 tells us that the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. As such, he lustfully seeks men in the manner attributed to the merchant who sought fine pearls to add them to his possessions.
Even though this parable does not make specific mention of how the merchant obtained the pearls, our Bible tells us that the evil one is not averse to robbery; for he comes "to steal and to kill and to destroy".
Of worthy significance is that the pearls were not the merchant's property from their very beginning and neither are human beings the devil's property from the moment of their birth. Although it does not take long before man develops ties with the realm of darkness, he is not subject to damnation from the moment of his birth. Because the imagination of his heart is evil from his youth, (Gen 8:21, man turns aside and he does wrong and becomes useless, (Rom 3:12). This is the way in which man is "sold under sin", (Rom 7:14). Gradually, the enemy overpowers man; often to such a degree that the inner existence of a man risks becoming occupied territory. So it is that the evil one acquires men in the way with which the merchant acquired his pearls: one-by-one.


So it was, that while the devil was prowling about, stealing, robbing, destroying, he encountered the Son of man. A pearl of such exceeding beauty he had never saw before. It was perfect and without blemish. First, the devil attempted to obtain Jesus in his usual manner; just as he had overpowered so many countless other human beings. Jesus was exposed to his temptations and pressures, but He did not deviate from the right way nor yield to the evil one. He successfully resisted the devil and, because of the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in Him, the devil had to flee from Him. Jesus wore the armor of God, the armor of the Holy Spirit, and stood fast in the evil day. He carried out His duty, He persevered and remained the property of His Father.

But the devil is an obsessed spirit. He desired Jesus at any cost, just as the merchant wanted the pearl.
Then God said to him, "Give me all the pearls you have and I will surrender to you the Son of my love, a pearl of exceeding beauty". To explain it further: a beautiful gold coin to be exchanged for a thousand tarnished copper cents. So Jesus, the Pearl of Great Value, was exchanged for all the guilt-laden, damaged and injured human beings of all times and all places. He was "put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification", (Rom 4:25). He received the wages of sin: death. Death "had dominion over Him", (Rom 6:9).

He, the pearl merchant, gave all he had for that one precious pearl. Unlike the parable of the Treasure In The Field, this parable does not say that "in his joy he goes". Whatever his acquisitions, the devil will never know joy, for joy belongs to the Kingdom of God.

Jesus' blood, His life, was the price by which the Father regained possession of the entire human race.
In this parable Jesus explained the heavenly transaction between God and the devil. By doing so He gave us insight into the things of the unseen world. The disciples did not understand the parable but later they would understand. Thus on the isle of Patmos John saw another image. He beheld the city of God, new Jerusalem, which is built up of living and precious stones. He saw the jewels and the gates of pearl: as many pictures of a saved and delivered humanity.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi MTPockets,

I didn't emphasise the necessity for God's wrath against sin to be satisfied. That's another aspect of His justice.

I will need more time to finish chewing over your Pearl Merchant interpretation, but at face value I have a few things against it, not the least of which is the suggestion that man is born free from the power of sin - even though you say he is bound to sin in time. What's the difference between that and Rom 5:12? But if you do insist, it is out of line with Rom 5:14 completely.

Then, the idea that the devil gave up all the souls he had held in bondage by Jesus giving Himself to the devil, doesn't really sit well with me.

What happened on the cross was that Jesus broke Satan's hold on mankind. That's how the souls were released. They were old sparring partners. Jesus watched Satan fall from heaven.

Seeing the treasure in the field as the Church - the prospective Bride - is more in line with John 3:16, with the world being the field. This would go along with the ancients appreciation that life comes from God, and their idea that one could be slung out of 'the bundle of life' if one was an enemy to God. Hence the later references to having one's name blotted out of the book of life. The book of life had every name in it originally, but as the generations rise and pass away, some/many people have their names blotted out because of their unbelief.

1 Samuel 25:29 Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life

with the LORD thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, [as out] of the middle of a sling. ​

As you say, we can never give natural things to 'purchase' our salvation or in exchange for our souls, but, the Lord was able to give His life, which is of infinite worth, to repossess His creation back from Satan's control - because there was something very special buried there, which He wanted valued even more highly. His desire to possess us, is what brought the kingdom of heaven nigh to us.


These are my first impressions.

 

[aspen]

As far as Hell being God's Mercy and His Justice - I am not saying that Hell is going to be a good place - I am just agreeing with CS Lewis that Hell will be preferable for the unredeemed, who will be unable to tolerate being in the presence of a holy God.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi aspen,

I didn't remember CS Lewis had said that.

But what about Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there],?

Paul Washer says hell is hell because God is there!

 

[aspen]

Hi aspen,

I didn't remember CS Lewis had said that.

But what about Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there],?

Paul Washer says hell is hell because God is there!

Have you read "The Great Divorce"?

Interesting idea about Hell - but God cannot be around sin.

 

[Kidron]

Hell is both justice and mercy.

More theories ^^^^^^^^^^ emerge from the crack pipe of this forums most devout secular humanist..



K

 

[aspen]

More theories ^^^^^^^^^^ emerge from the crack pipe of this forums most devout secular humanist..



K

I am just wondering, have you ever agreed with anyone on this forum? And if so, have you ever written a response without being insulting or sarcastic? Based on your track record, it looks like you are only here to pick fights with people and brag about your high opinion of yourself - how boring is that?

 

[dragonfly]

Hi aspen,

Have you read "The Great Divorce"?

Interesting idea about Hell - but God cannot be around sin.

I have, but it's such a while ago that it's not clear in my memory now. I began it again a few years ago, and was a bit bored, so I put it away!


Don't you think that when CS Lewis was writing, he was addressing many things at once, weaving them into a strange wonderland for the purpose of making people think - but not particularly to evangelise them. He was so high profile in his day because of his conversion, that his style was very much of his own era and is less understandable by the common man today, than it was then.

'but God cannot be around sin'

We are all very familiar with this idea, but I think it has been popularised by religionists rather than restricted to the real issue at stake - because of sin, namely, fellowship with the Father.

I know you hang question marks over scripture in different places but we are safer to take Moses' word for how things are/were, than we are to take any modern secularists' word about scripture.

With that in mind, think back to the garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve remained while God Himself made coats of skins for them. He was there. It has been suggested that this was the first animal sacrifice for sin to be covered.

Then think about the wickeness on earth before the Flood. Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:14) and that included Noah and his family. We hear nothing of the sacrifices that were made in those days, and yet God Himself came to the Ark after all who should be inside were safely installed, and He shut them in.

Look at Israel in the wilderness a relatively few days after the first Passover, Exodus 24:11. It was not until after the golden calf had been made (after that event) that God told Moses He would withdraw His visible presence from them. If you think about that in the context of preceding generations, it raises a question: had God ever been invisible to man before then? Then think of all the times Moses - not formally a priest - was in God's presence. And there were many others who experienced the power of God or answers to prayer in a miraculous way. God was not afar off from His people. Deuteronomy 30:14

All I'm saying is, for all that God 'cannot be around sin', His determination to maintain a relationship with Adam set the precedent for centuries to come. What went missing in the garden of Eden was communion with God. The barrier to communion - the overpowering strength of sin in mankind - was what Jesus dealt with on the cross. Hebrews 2:9, 14, 15; 2 Timothy 1:10.

That was the 'victory' over sin and death which caused Him to cry, 'It is finished!' Since the New Covenant began, the gospel of Jesus Christ is that we can, again, have fellowship with the Father.

God has shown how close to sinners He is wiling to get in life, and I can't see a reason for that to be different in death.

I once heard a stirring sermon on Lazarus and the rich man, in which the preacher emphasised this point - that 'when you die, you wake up!' It is fair comment, and food for thought, for sure. Dan 12:2

 

[aspen]

Hi aspen,




I have, but it's such a while ago that it's not clear in my memory now. I began it again a few years ago, and was a bit bored, so I put it away!


Don't you think that when CS Lewis was writing, he was addressing many things at once, weaving them into a strange wonderland for the purpose of making people think - but not particularly to evangelise them. He was so high profile in his day because of his conversion, that his style was very much of his own era and is less understandable by the common man today, than it was then.

'but God cannot be around sin'

We are all very familiar with this idea, but I think it has been popularised by religionists rather than restricted to the real issue at stake - because of sin, namely, fellowship with the Father.

I know you hang question marks over scripture in different places but we are safer to take Moses' word for how things are/were, than we are to take any modern secularists' word about scripture.

With that in mind, think back to the garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve remained while God Himself made coats of skins for them. He was there. It has been suggested that this was the first animal sacrifice for sin to be covered.

Then think about the wickeness on earth before the Flood. Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:14) and that included Noah and his family. We hear nothing of the sacrifices that were made in those days, and yet God Himself came to the Ark after all who should be inside were safely installed, and He shut them in.

Look at Israel in the wilderness a relatively few days after the first Passover, Exodus 24:11. It was not until after the golden calf had been made (after that event) that God told Moses He would withdraw His visible presence from them. If you think about that in the context of preceding generations, it raises a question: had God ever been invisible to man before then? Then think of all the times Moses - not formally a priest - was in God's presence. And there were many others who experienced the power of God or answers to prayer in a miraculous way. God was not afar off from His people. Deuteronomy 30:14

All I'm saying is, for all that God 'cannot be around sin', His determination to maintain a relationship with Adam set the precedent for centuries to come. What went missing in the garden of Eden was communion with God. The barrier to communion - the overpowering strength of sin in mankind - was what Jesus dealt with on the cross. Hebrews 2:9, 14, 15; 2 Timothy 1:10.

That was the 'victory' over sin and death which caused Him to cry, 'It is finished!' Since the New Covenant began, the gospel of Jesus Christ is that we can, again, have fellowship with the Father.

God has shown how close to sinners He is wiling to get in life, and I can't see a reason for that to be different in death.

I once heard a stirring sermon on Lazarus and the rich man, in which the preacher emphasised this point - that 'when you die, you wake up!' It is fair comment, and food for thought, for sure. Dan 12:2

Yeah, Lewis is a bit dated - he was entrenched in Modernism, but many Fundamentalists are still part of that age, as well. He was also practically a Neoplatonist. Here is why I brought up "The Great Divorce" - the characters in the book were not real enough to survive in Heaven - they were like ghosts. They shredded their feet just by walking across the grass because it was more real than they were. In the end, the welcomed, without insight. the chance to go back to Hell.

I am not going to argue if God can be around sin or not - I just mentioned it because it is in the Bible. Obviously, God can be around sin in one sense because He lives inside Christians and we are still sinners (yes Episkopos, your objection to this idea is noted)

As far as putting question marks on scripture - I value scripture a great deal. I value it whether it is a literal account of history or an inspired story. I think one of the limitations left over from Modernism is to dismiss anything that is not literal. It my opinion, trying to determine whether something really happened in the Bible misses the point of the story in most cases - it is about as relevant as trying to determine whether or not Jesus talked about real people in His parables or just made them up - who cares, right? The point of a parable is the moral of the story.

 

[Foreigner]

As far as Hell being God's Mercy and His Justice - I am not saying that Hell is going to be a good place - I am just agreeing with CS Lewis that Hell will be preferable for the unredeemed, who will be unable to tolerate being in the presence of a holy God.

-- It's nice that you are agreeing with C.S. Lewis, but even C.S. Lewis admitted that just because they are his opinions doesn't mean they are fact. (For the record, I am a HUGE C.S. Lewis fan.)


Matt 25 already shows your opinion on this matter to be incorrect:

God seperated the sheep from the goats.
The goats who were headed for hell stood there waiting their turn to hear from God, not wishing they could get out of there as soon as possible because they were "unable to tolerate being in the presence of a holy God."

When God said "Depart from me" they weren't overcome with pain and angony because they were "unable to tolerate being in the presence of a holy God." Just with sheer panic that they were going to be cast away from God and Heaven

They stood there and asked when specifically they did not feed, clothe, visit, etc. and then stood there while God gave them the rundown.
Again, they were conversing with God, hoping that they will be able to stay, NOT wanting to get out of there as soon as possible because they were "unable to tolerate being in the presence of a holy God."

Hell is a lot of things, but it is NOT the LESSER of any unpleasant option.






,

 

[aspen]

-- It's nice that you are agreeing with C.S. Lewis, but even C.S. Lewis admitted that just because they are his opinions doesn't mean they are fact. (For the record, I am a HUGE C.S. Lewis fan.)

Please do not tell me that you are confusing my opinion with fact again - com'mon Foreigner! Do we have to have this discussion every time I post my opinion? If it is ok for Lewis to write entire books without chapter 1 clearly stating that his words are opinion and not inspired by God, don't you think it is ok for me to write a post on a message board without having to sit you down and explain the difference between opinion and inspiration? Honestly!

Matt 25 already shows your opinion on this matter to be incorrect:

God seperated the sheep from the goats.
The goats who were headed for hell stood there waiting their turn to hear from God, not wishing they could get out of there as soon as possible because they were "unable to tolerate being in the presence of a holy God."

When God said "Depart from me" they weren't overcome with pain and angony because they were "unable to tolerate being in the presence of a holy God." Just with sheer panic that they were going to be cast away from God and Heaven

They stood there and asked when specifically they did not feed, clothe, visit, etc. and then stood there while God gave them the rundown.
Again, they were conversing with God, hoping that they will be able to stay, NOT wanting to get out of there as soon as possible because they were "unable to tolerate being in the presence of a holy God."

Well, if you are going to be that concrete about a story, perhaps Jesus was just judging the farm animals in Heaven. Are you honestly suggesting that this story is about the feelings of the damned? The story is a warning against believing you have all the right answers as a Christian, but failing to act on them. What will you do if Heaven and the Judgment are not exactly like they are described in scripture??

Hell is a lot of things, but it is NOT the LESSER of any unpleasant option.

Well, I guess another option is that God really is vindictive and sadistic - a guy who enjoys handing out punishment that is so beyond reason and His own teachings on mercy and forgiveness that it results in a defamation of His character if we accept the common interpretation. For me, as always it comes down to God's character; if the common interpretation of scripture takes away from God's character, it must be misunderstood.

 

[Foreigner]

"Please do not tell me that you are confusing my opinion with fact again - com'mon Foreigner!" - Aspen

-- Aspen, I never took what you said as a claim of fact. What you say here rarely ever has any connection with fact.




"Well, if you are going to be that concrete about a story, perhaps Jesus was just judging the farm animals in Heaven. Are you honestly suggesting that this story is about the feelings of the damned? The story is a warning against believing you have all the right answers as a Christian, but failing to act on them. What will you do if Heaven and the Judgment are not exactly like they are described in scripture??" - Aspen

-- You have again taken refuge in the ridiculous. The story story of "The Sheep and the Goats" is about.....wait for it.......farm animals.
Yup, God is judging the animals because they didn't visit the sick to give them comfort, didn't allow themselves to be slaughtered to feed the poor, or give up their fur to clothe the naked. Aspen, what you resort to makes it difficult to ever take your seriously. My obvious mistake is that sometimes I try to. I guess I should apologize for that.

And I never once said the story was about "the feelings of the damned." It is obvious to everyone (including you) that it is about how important it is to fulfill the commision that God puts upon all Christians and that there are repercussions if we don't.

But it ALSO shows that those who are damned are not going to be relieved to go to hell because they were "unable to tolerate being in the presence of a holy God."




What will you do if Heaven and the Judgment are not exactly like they are described in scripture??" - Aspen

-- Not worried about what Heaven is going to be like. Man does not have the capability to understand it. All I know is that it will be better than I could ever imagine.
As far as Judgment, leave it to you to think that God's Judgment could be different from how the inspired Scripture tells us it will be.
Sooooo - again, in your opinion - our loving God would judge us by a standard that He doesn't share with us?
Yup, you're on a roll




"Well, I guess another option is that God really is vindictive and sadistic - a guy who enjoys handingout punishment that is so beyond reason and His own teachings on mercy and forgiveness that it results in a defamation of His character if we accept the common interpretation." - Aspen

-- Except that neither I nor anyone else here had said anything at all that even suggests this tripe.
You say the strangest things when you are desperate to be relevant.




.

 

[aspen]

After looking at your responses to my post, a couple of days ago, I decided I must be missing at least some small amount of new or insightful information because all I could see at the time was sarcasm and ridicule; so I thought I would wait a few days and then come back for a second look......

Still, nothing.....?

Surprisingly, all you have been able to offer is the equivalency of toilet papering my post with your words.

how disappointing.....

 

[Mungo]

I am really starting to believe that part of our human reality is viewing everything through the lens of dualism. As I have mentioned before, perhaps it is a consequence of the Fall. In any case, when it comes to God's mercy and His justice - it is natural to see the two characteristics as separate - even opposites, like left and right. Yet, I think, from a Kingdom perspective, God's mercy is His justice and His justice is His mercy - so as I have said before - Hell is both justice and mercy. His disciple is also a mercy and a justice - He is creating citizens of Heaven, as we speak! God is the ultimate reality - and the more real something is, the simpler it is - God is Good, Merciful, and Just; all at once. It is our limitations that compartmentalize the world around us. God is 'all in all' - whole.

I think another aspect of God's justice and mercy is how we approach him.

If we do not know him as the Merciful Father then we are left with approaching him as the Just Judge.

Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me." (Jn 14:6)

and also "No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.” (Lk 10:22)

I take that to mean that we cannot know God as Father except through knowing Jesus.

If we do not know Jesus then we can only approach God as the Just Judge.

 

[Episkopos]

I am really starting to believe that part of our human reality is viewing everything through the lens of dualism. As I have mentioned before, perhaps it is a consequence of the Fall. In any case, when it comes to God's mercy and His justice - it is natural to see the two characteristics as separate - even opposites, like left and right. Yet, I think, from a Kingdom perspective, God's mercy is His justice and His justice is His mercy - so as I have said before - Hell is both justice and mercy. His disciple is also a mercy and a justice - He is creating citizens of Heaven, as we speak! God is the ultimate reality - and the more real something is, the simpler it is - God is Good, Merciful, and Just; all at once. It is our limitations that compartmentalize the world around us. God is 'all in all' - whole.

I think the error happens when we try to apply God's way to ourselves. We take what is God centered and kingdom centered and make it man-centered. The same skewed understanding happens when we try to interpret the scriptures for ourselves. People will place themselves according to their personality type. Downcast people will see all the condemnation verses and happy go lucky people will see all the promise verses. But none of it is true. We don't create reality through our own senses...we either perceive reality as it really is...or live in a fantasy world. I think that many have opted for a view that corresponds with their own state rather than be subject to the viewpoint of God on the matter.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Episkopos,

I think that many have opted for a view that corresponds with their own state rather than be subject to the viewpoint of God on the matter.

To become subject to God, one must recognise that we are here to obey Him as Christ obeyed. And then the problem arises of how to deal with the waywardness of one's own heart - which has its own self-centred agenda.

The same skewed understanding happens when we try to interpret the scriptures for ourselves. People will place themselves according to their personality type. Downcast people will see all the condemnation verses and happy go lucky people will see all the promise verses. But none of it is true.

I don't think you mean that 'none of the scriptures is true'. You mean that how those you described have interpreted them, is only partly true - if they have not received condemnation when it is due, and, they not received the promises which are true.