# Definition of Justice



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2015)

In one sentence how would you define "Justice"? I understand the nuances can cover what we call God's "righteousness," but I am thinking mainly of justice in the social sphere. I tentatively offer Nicholas Wolterstorff's definition:

C1: Justice is when everyone, including the widow and orphan, gets to experience Shalom.


----------



## rickclayfan (Nov 1, 2015)

A habit of the mind, giving to every one his due. - Cicero


----------



## Reformed Fox (Nov 1, 2015)

When you mention of the social sphere are you speaking of Christians specifically, or all members of a given society? Speaking very broadly, I would define justice as the defense of individual rights (principally life liberty, and property) and the equitable punishment of rights violators. To this one could add a few more requirements such as respect for agreements and opposition to falsehoods, but not very much else. Obviously Christians are held to a more specific code of conduct, but I am not certain how broadly you are casting your net, so to speak.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2015)

Reformed Fox said:


> When you mention of the social sphere are you speaking of Christians specifically, or all members of a given society? Speaking very broadly, I would define justice as the defense of individual rights (principally life liberty, and property) and the equitable punishment of rights violators. To this one could add a few more requirements such as respect for agreements and opposition to falsehoods, but not very much else. Obviously Christians are held to a more specific code of conduct, but I am not certain how broadly you are casting your net, so to speak.



I am assuming the society has both Christians and non-Christians in it. To clarify:

(1*) Would justice be merely negative (e.g. punishing wrong) or also positive (rewarding righteousness)?


----------



## Justified (Nov 1, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Reformed Fox said:
> 
> 
> > When you mention of the social sphere are you speaking of Christians specifically, or all members of a given society? Speaking very broadly, I would define justice as the defense of individual rights (principally life liberty, and property) and the equitable punishment of rights violators. To this one could add a few more requirements such as respect for agreements and opposition to falsehoods, but not very much else. Obviously Christians are held to a more specific code of conduct, but I am not certain how broadly you are casting your net, so to speak.
> ...


Justice certainly involves both.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2015)

Justified said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Fox said:
> ...



That's my general working conclusion for the moment.


----------



## Miss Marple (Nov 1, 2015)

A perfect application of God's civil laws.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 1, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> A perfect application of God's civil laws.



More specifically, the "general equity" of the Law. Although, this could only be done if the nation was truly Christian. However, the civil magistrate is still obligated to obey God's Law even if they are pagan. Thus, this only solidifies the furtherance of coals heaping on their heads.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Nov 1, 2015)

To ReformedReidian, I am inclined to define justice in negative terms. Justice in my mind is a legal concept tied to equity and fairness as opposed to obedience. Also, that which is right and good and true is not necessarily just (maintaining a balanced diet for example). Adherence to God's law is proper and good, but not just. 

We may get bogged down in a semantics game to a degree but I contend that justice covers a far more narrow degree than most people wish to admit and broadening the term "justice" devalues the term.


----------



## Justified (Nov 1, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> In one sentence how would you define "Justice"? I understand the nuances can cover what we call God's "righteousness," but I am thinking mainly of justice in the social sphere. I tentatively offer Nicholas Wolterstorff's definition:
> 
> C1: Justice is when everyone, including the widow and orphan, gets to experience Shalom.


Important question: is this possible without a Christian magistrate? Since for the present time I've drifted from neo-2k, I'm inclined to say no. I think this may only be possible with a Christian magistrate, but haven't thought through it yet.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 1, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> C1: Justice is when everyone, including the widow and orphan, gets to experience Shalom.



That's a pretty good description of a state of justice. Reminds me of Micah 4:4: 

"But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it."

But, as has been suggested here and there above, justice encompasses a lot of different things.

There's criminal justice: determining guilt and measuring punishment according to law. Justice in that sense is the application of legal principles covering retribution, restitution, deterrence, equity, and mercy.

Then there is civil justice: making someone whole for a wrong done to him. It does not necessarily involve punishment.

Then we have the phrase like in Hebrews 12:23: "just men made perfect." That implies justification--a legal declaration of one's status as being at peace with God, but obviously not yet completed in being made perfect.

Of course, there is social justice. As much maligned as it deservedly is because of its mangling by logical positivistic contemporaries, we are brought back to the plain and right ideal that widows and orphans should not be oppressed, and a just society would see to it that they were taken care of. That's what the quote (and Micah) seems to be talking about.


----------



## timfost (Nov 1, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> In one sentence how would you define "Justice"?



_A thorough testing and application of the law in relation to the one's actions._

I don't think that justice itself is positive or negative but is rather the testing of the full extent of the law. The _verdict_ based on the application of the law is either positive or negative when one is found innocent or guilty. Many times we use justice in relation to the negative verdict since fallen man is always found guilty when the law is applied and justice realized.

What is amazing about the nature of justification is that for those who have faith, God would be unjust to condemn them because He has applied the perfect standard of the law and reckons us guiltless because we are found in Christ.

That's amazing grace and every reason to live according to His perfect law out of thankfulness for such redemption!


----------



## Reformed Fox (Nov 2, 2015)

Although, those who are justified have faith only because God wills it to be so. "After" justification it would be unjust for God to condemn those with faith but "before" justification the choice is His. I do not believe that the granting of faith itself (or lack thereof) could be considered just (or unjust).


----------



## Toasty (Nov 2, 2015)

Justice has to do with giving someone what they deserve. The elect get grace and mercy, but the non-elect get justice.

I have seen some bumper stickers that say, "Work for Justice." What does justice mean in that case?


----------



## timfost (Nov 2, 2015)

Reformed Fox said:


> I do not believe that the granting of faith itself (or lack thereof) could be considered just (or unjust).



I agree. The granting of faith is grace. In God's economy, this is used so that He is just and the justifier of the one who had faith in Jesus.



Toasty said:


> The elect get grace and mercy, but the non-elect get justice.



I think this may be oversimplified a little. Justice is served when the law is applied. If one is guiltless, justice would be served and applied in his acquittal. Therefore justice is not only applied to the reprobate but also top the elect. Likewise, the reprobate receive temporal mercy (common grace), so applying justice alone to them only deals with their eternal state, not their temporal state.

At least this is how I understand the term. I'm open to being wrong, though.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 2, 2015)

Justified said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > In one sentence how would you define "Justice"? I understand the nuances can cover what we call God's "righteousness," but I am thinking mainly of justice in the social sphere. I tentatively offer Nicholas Wolterstorff's definition:
> ...



If we see "attainability" along a continuum, then it is possible to a degree.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 2, 2015)

timfost said:


> A thorough testing and application of the law in relation to the one's actions.



This is certainly true but I don't think it defines justice. I can't look at this and say whether action _x_ is just or not.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Nov 2, 2015)

Toasty said:


> Justice has to do with giving someone what they deserve. The elect get grace and mercy, but the non-elect get justice.



For clarification, are you saying that the elect deserve mercy? I would not phrase it as such. Mercy is never deserved but is rather something "extra" so to speak. Also, the elect receive justice. Saints receive their just deserts just like all other fallen creatures. The difference is that saints have someone else to pay the ransom.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 3, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> Of course, there is social justice. As much maligned as it deservedly is because of its mangling by logical positivistic contemporaries, we are brought back to the plain and right ideal that widows and orphans should not be oppressed, and a just society would see to it that they were taken care of. That's what the quote (and Micah) seems to be talking about.



But isn't the oppression of widows and orphans already condemned as an example of criminal injustice in the Hebrew world which expected the families and the communities of those afflicted to step in and help? Shouldn't we avoid the term social justice entirely because of the mangling it has endured?


----------



## MW (Nov 3, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> In one sentence how would you define "Justice"?



Giving to each person his due.

I would be against defining justice in terms of specific causes, as those causes will end up creating their own normative values and tip the scales in the favour of abnormality.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 4, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> > ReformedReidian said:
> ...



Since justice can only be defined as God being the standard for justice, then only a Christian Nation can attain justice more closely to what the standard is. The Law is the standard. So, fundamentally I would say there is no theoretical attainability since we know the truth. To say such a thing would be to go out of bounds scripturally.


----------



## ZackF (Nov 4, 2015)

I've heard of the definition, "right relationship between persons."


----------



## jandrusk (Nov 4, 2015)

Only the application of the standard of God's law upon men's action will enforce a righteous system of justice. Everything else is purely subjective. The non-Christian can only enforce a righteous concept of justice when they borrow from the Christian worldview.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 4, 2015)

Would you then say that there haven't been any just societies apart from some Christian ones? Augustine vacillated on this point in City of God Book 19.


----------



## MW (Nov 4, 2015)

As soon as one speaks about the "application" of law he has introduced a subjective element which shows that something more is needed than a bare appeal to God's law as the objective standard. One has to speak of man's law somewhere in the process.

Christianity itself is subject to law and justice. That being the case, Christianity cannot be the standard of law and justice. To speak of Christian society begs the question, Which one?


----------



## Reformed Fox (Nov 5, 2015)

Similarly whatever justice might be, it can only be properly understood by God. Man's perspective is warped by his sin.

This reminds me how in common law criminal justice systems their is a tacit admission that society can only do so well. Sometimes the innocent are punished. Sometimes we do not know how to appropriately deal with societal problems. Conviction requires that one be shown guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" as opposed to an absolute proof or merely a slight burden of evidence. We need to live with such limitations but God, clearly, does not.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 6, 2015)

MW said:


> Christianity cannot be the standard of law and justice. To speak of Christian society begs the question, Which one?



Many of the Westminster Divines would disagree with this (Rutherford, Gillespie for example) and the Scottish Covenanters would as well. It is interesting because the condition for the Scots to join the assembly was that the Divines had to sign the Solemn League and Covenant. Likewise, the Establishment principle (the original Civil Magistrate chapter) still applies.

On another note, this is easily answered if one uses the term "general equity" in it's original context. The Moral and Judicial laws give THE standard by which a society ought to function. It's not a matter of looking in human history past to see "which" Christian society, but rather looking to THE biblical standard, I.E. The Law.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 6, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Would you then say that there haven't been any just societies apart from some Christian ones? Augustine vacillated on this point in City of God Book 19.



There have been more faithful examples than others (Rome in the 4th-5th century with the reign of Constantine and a few others, Geneva during Calvin's time, Scotland during the Covenanters, etc.). However, we have to understand that these nations were obedient to God's Law because they were Christian. They confessed Christ as Lord collectively as a nation. Thus, they as a nation were obedient to Christ because they confessed their love for Christ (John 14:15).


----------



## Shimei (Nov 6, 2015)

I think of Justice as a Scale or balance which does not contradict itself in favor one way or another.

For example, Apologetics Press has it, "if God is truly good (and He is), then He cannot tolerate or overlook evil. He did not overlook the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:17-19), Cain (Genesis 4:11-13), Saul (1 Samuel 15:26), or David (2 Samuel 12:8-10), and He certainly will not overlook sin in the modern world. However, God has mercifully provided a way for sinners to escape His wrath: He sacrificed His spotless, sinless Son. Christ was the only One Who was qualified to be a sacrifice for sin, and because He never sinned, His pure blood can wash away our sins (Revelation 1:5; Hebrews 13:20), allowing us to stand justified before God on the Day of Judgment (Titus 3:7; Hebrews 10:19). However, we must take the necessary steps to appropriate that blood to our souls (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12).

The justice and mercy of God have never contradicted each other. In fact, our perfect Creator balances the two qualities masterfully. If that were not true, the psalmist would not have been able to proclaim, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face” (Psalm 89:14, emp. added)."

I also think of the Lex Talionis as a balanced form of Justice - the law of retaliation equivalent to an offense, yet the punishment is proportionate and does not exceed for a misdeed or wrongdoing.


----------



## MW (Nov 6, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Many of the Westminster Divines would disagree with this (Rutherford, Gillespie for example) and the Scottish Covenanters would as well. It is interesting because the condition for the Scots to join the assembly was that the Divines had to sign the Solemn League and Covenant. Likewise, the Establishment principle (the original Civil Magistrate chapter) still applies.



You are confusing issues. My statement is fully supported by Rutherford, Gillespie, the Westminster divines, the Westminster Confession's chapter on the civil magistrate, the Solemn League and Covenant, and the establishment principle. To have an establishment one has to recognise the natural validity of the magistrate's authority as a magistrate.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 6, 2015)

MW said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Many of the Westminster Divines would disagree with this (Rutherford, Gillespie for example) and the Scottish Covenanters would as well. It is interesting because the condition for the Scots to join the assembly was that the Divines had to sign the Solemn League and Covenant. Likewise, the Establishment principle (the original Civil Magistrate chapter) still applies.
> ...



How am I confusing the issues. Did you not say this: "Christianity cannot be the standard of law and justice" ? Christianity IS the standard because Christ is the standard. How is that confusing? Separating the Law from Christ is absurd. Christianity is the standard because anything else is idolatry.


----------



## MW (Nov 6, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Christianity IS the standard because Christ is the standard. How is that confusing? Separating the Law from Christ is absurd. Christianity is the standard because anything else is idolatry.



Christ came to fulfil the law, so the law must have an authority in and of itself. Christ came to save sinners, which presupposes man has already sinned against the law. If that doesn't make sense to you then you likely have some major issues to work out with your ethical system.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 6, 2015)

MW said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity IS the standard because Christ is the standard. How is that confusing? Separating the Law from Christ is absurd. Christianity is the standard because anything else is idolatry.
> ...



Yes and I agree. What I disagree with is saying that Christianity is not the standard. Being that Christianity is defined by following Christ, it is the only standard.

"If you love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15. 

Also, the Law cannot be separated from Christ (nor antithetical to Christ) because the Law is the mirror image of God's character. The Law comes from God. This is shown to us when God prefaces the Law with "I am the Lord".


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 6, 2015)

MW said:


> your ethical system.



By the way, if it isn't apparent by now, my ethical system is the same as the divines, the covenanters, or just plainly the Bible, I.E. Theonomic.  (But that's a different discussion)


----------



## MW (Nov 7, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Yes and I agree. What I disagree with is saying that Christianity is not the standard. Being that Christianity is defined by following Christ, it is the only standard.



What you affirm in one sentence you deny in the next.

Your transcendental idea of Christianity denies fundamentals of the Christian system. Christ was made under the law. Christ fulfilled the law. Christ suffered the punishment of the law. If the law is not a standard in and of itself you cannot affirm that Christ has done anything in relation to the law as a standard in itself.

Please take some time to think about it. The way you are stating the matter you are missing basic principles of the Westminster Confession.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 7, 2015)

MW said:


> Christ was made under the law. Christ fulfilled the law. Christ suffered the punishment of the law. If the law is not a standard in and of itself you cannot affirm that Christ has done anything in relation to the law as a standard in itself.



Rev. Winzer,

I do not think you understand what I am saying. I do not need a lesson on fundamentals that we both agree on. What I keep coming back to, that it seems you refuse to address, is that you are separating the Law from Christ (as if they are at odds with one another).

However, I can see where I am wrong in that the wordage I am using might imply that I am equating Christianity with the Law. I want to make it clear that I am not equating the two.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 7, 2015)

MW said:


> As soon as one speaks about the "application" of law he has introduced a subjective element which shows that something more is needed than a bare appeal to God's law as the objective standard.



Going back and thinking about your statement here, I find my disagreement with the "application" portion. Christianity is the "application" of THE Law. Christianity is in obedience to the Law on two fronts: 1) because Christ was obedient for us, and 2) we are now more able to obey the Law by making a "bare appeal" to the Law.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 7, 2015)

MW said:


> What you affirm in one sentence you deny in the next.



This doesn't explain anything other then being a blanket statement for nothing.



MW said:


> Your transcendental idea of Christianity denies fundamentals of the Christian system.



Again, blanket statement with no interaction or substance. 



MW said:


> Christ was made under the law. Christ fulfilled the law. Christ suffered the punishment of the law.



Yes, and? What does this have to do with the discussion? Of course this is true, because without this, we are all doomed.



MW said:


> If the law is not a standard in and of itself you cannot affirm that Christ has done anything in relation to the law as a standard in itself.



You should change the article "a" to "the" since the Law is the only standard.



MW said:


> Please take some time to think about it. The way you are stating the matter you are missing basic principles of the Westminster Confession.



This is just insulting. The correction should be made that I am missing basic principles of YOUR interpretation of the Westminster Confession, or you just misunderstand what I am saying.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 7, 2015)

Here are my notes on Augustine's City of God, Book 19. I am loosely following Oliver O'Donovan's near-perfect discussion in _Bonds of Imperfection_.

From Bonds of Imperfection

A thing’s end is its perfection. The summum bonum is that object for which other objects are sought, but which is sought only for itself. 

“Moral philosophy must be social philosophy.”

Book 2 flashback: traditional Roman teaching had no inherent tradition of moral teaching. 

res publica: 

true right (ius) implies obedience to the true God; for right-ness (iustitia) “is the virtue that assigns everyone his due, and there can be no rightness when the worship owed to the Creator is offered instead to unclean demons” (53). 

The whole of Book 19 can be summarized along three points:
An eschatological claim: the supreme good is perfect peace (19.11-12)
A negative conclusion: relative to the perfect peace, our life is most unhappy.
A qualification of this negative conclusion: we can have relative happiness if we make our life a means to the summum bonum.

Communis Usus

each city has its own end.
Augustine is not saying that the two cities get along together by having a common use of means towards different ends. The connective phrase ita etiam connects chapter 16 with the first line of chapter 17: the comparison is between the earthly city and the earthly household

Consensus of Wills

But what of the obvious fact that the Two Cities do seem to “get along” from time to time? For one, we note that members of the heavenly city use the earthly as a means to an end; whereas the earthly city sees itself as an end. There is no tertium quid between the two cities, no neutral space. The agreement can only be on a surface level of means, and only that.

Ius and Iustitia

Augustine notes that “ius” flows from the source of iustitia (19.21). There can be no iustitia common to the two cities because the earthly city does not deal or participate in the forgiveness of sins (Ep. 140.72; Spirit and the Letter 32.56). Iustitia, nonetheless, is not at the forefront of Augustine’s concerns. 

If a state does display some virtues but it relates to some object other than God, then it is disorder (19.14-16). This insight allows Augustine to say that there is some relative order and good in a state, but gives him the space to critique the State. (Interestingly, Augustine has no vision for political programs; sorry, Reconstructionists). 

O’Donovan then outlines a pyramid of ascending orders of peace in the universe (rerum omnium). I will number them but I can’t reproduce the pyramidal scheme here. The numbers aren’t of greater importance to lesser, or vice-versa. Rather, beginning with (1) it is a continual movement outward. 
(10) ?
(9) peace of the heavenly city
(8) peace of the city
(7) peace of the household (19.14-16)
(6) pax hominum (Peace of Rome? or basic Peace between men)
(5) peace with God
(4) Body-soul union
(3) rational soul
(2) irrational passions
Body

The relation between peace and order is one of definition. The peace of any household is the tranquility of order.

Household (Domus)

It is an ordered harmony of giving and receiving commands. Unlike the City, though, the commands are not given from a desire to dominate, but from compassionate acceptance of responsibility.

Augustine does not try to “transform” society. It is impossible to read Book 19 or the whole City of God that way. Rather, he “transvalues” society’s structures (O’Donovan 68).


----------



## Justified (Nov 7, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > What you affirm in one sentence you deny in the next.
> ...


I think what Rev. Winzer is getting at is this:

(1) Christ=law (think of the = as identity)
(2) Christ came to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17)
(3) Christ came to fulfill Christ. (follows from 1 and 2)
~(3) This is meaningless.

On another note, I think Winzer, myself included, is uncomfortable equating the moral law with Christianity or even the application of Christianity. Christianity as a religion sets forth many divine truths, the law being one of them. However, the moral law is just one of many things subsumed under what we call Christianity. To say that the moral law as such is an application of Christianity is a category mistake.

Mr. Winzer or Andrew, correct me if I'm misunderstanding either of you.


----------



## MW (Nov 8, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> This is just insulting. The correction should be made that I am missing basic principles of YOUR interpretation of the Westminster Confession, or you just misunderstand what I am saying.



I didn't read anything about YOUR interpretation when you claimed many of the Westminster divines would disagree with my statement. It looks like double standards are at work here.

It goes without saying that what I write is my interpretation. It is silly to require someone to preface everything that is said with the qualifier that it is his interpretation.

I have shown quite clearly that your transcendental view of Christianity is contrary to basic principles concerning Christ's relationship to the law. Man is under law by nature apart from Christ. That is the standard which judges him a sinner. That is the standard Christ came to magnify by His obedience and sufferings. Since it is a standard apart from Christ, it is obvious that Christ Himself is not the standard.

I am sorry you cannot see the flaw in your position and that you find it insulting when I point out that flaw. You need to rethink what you are saying. Your position has serious consequences to the basic reformed soteriology of the Westminster standards.


----------



## MW (Nov 8, 2015)

Justified said:


> On another note, I think Winzer, myself included, is uncomfortable equating the moral law with Christianity or even the application of Christianity. Christianity as a religion sets forth many divine truths, the law being one of them. However, the moral law is just one of many things subsumed under what we call Christianity. To say that the moral law as such is an application of Christianity is a category mistake.



Well observed, Evan.


----------



## jandrusk (Nov 9, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Would you then say that there haven't been any just societies apart from some Christian ones? Augustine vacillated on this point in City of God Book 19.



What I'm saying is that there can be no "just" societies without the application of God's law to that system. I would have to back and ready the City of God reference, but if he's deviating from God's law then his argument is not valid and only God's word is authoritative, no Augustine's word.


----------



## Justified (Nov 9, 2015)

jandrusk said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Would you then say that there haven't been any just societies apart from some Christian ones? Augustine vacillated on this point in City of God Book 19.
> ...


God's law is also known through natural law. So if a society, albeit not Christian, applies the natural law to the civil realm, they would be to one degree or another a just society.

Now, we do have to understand that natural law is not exhaustive and that unbelievers suppress the truth in unrighteousness. In a word, I don't think you or Jacob's position are necessarily conflicting.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2015)

jandrusk said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Would you then say that there haven't been any just societies apart from some Christian ones? Augustine vacillated on this point in City of God Book 19.
> ...



I am not saying we should go with Augustine's word over God's. I am saying that Justice exists on a continuum, otherwise we will have a very stunted view of 
a) ancient societies
b) the law of nations
c) Calvin's use of the law of nations
d) natural revelation

I think ultimately the non-theistic view of justice runs into difficulties, but I can point to a number of theonomic failures as well (Moscow, ID anyone?).

Further, I am more interested in whether O'Donovan's reading of Augustine fails to obtain. If it does fail, I would like to see where.


----------



## MW (Nov 9, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> I think ultimately the non-theistic view of justice runs into difficulties



Is there a "non-theistic view of justice?" The source of law and justice must be the "god" whose the society is, and whom the society serves.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > I think ultimately the non-theistic view of justice runs into difficulties
> ...



I am sure there is a view of justice that non-theists hold. I don't know what it is. I think Augustine thought Varro pointed towards some view. I agree with O'Donovan's reading of Augustine that any non-Christian view, speaking simplistically, will ultimately fail. I said ultimately, not immediately, for some non-Christian societies are obviously more just than others.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 9, 2015)

deleted this post due to reflection. And yes, Christ is our righteousness. I made a correction in light of misunderstanding.


----------



## MW (Nov 10, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I guess being conformed to the image of Christ doesn't have weight.



Your original assertion was, "Christianity IS the standard because Christ is the standard." This is the point to which I objected with regard to the law. Conformity to the image of Christ has importance within the context of sanctification, but it is not all that the Bible teaches concerning the law. The law has a place and function which it could not have if your position were admitted.




Andrew P.C. said:


> Separating the Law from Christ in regards of the nature of Christ's character as God is NOT biblical.



The law derives its authority from being the law of God. But Christ is not only God. He is the God-man. Christ means the Anointed One.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Yet, you are neglecting the fact that Christ is the standard for OUR righteousness.



Christ is not the standard for our righteousness; He is our righteousness. A fact that is only possible because He fulfilled the law as the standard for righteousness.



> Saying that I can't see the "flaw" in my position sounds quite arrogant. Maybe you should deal in specifics instead of general, blanket statements.



Double-standards again.

I have been dealing with specifics, but you keep overlooking them in your zeal to justify a position which cannot bear the weight of specifics.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 10, 2015)

Upon reflection last night I see where I was wrong. Ontologically my statement is wrong. The Law is the standard (which is what I should have just stuck with) but I will say that only a Christian society or nation can truly be a just society or nation. If it does not follow God's Law, then it is unjust. There is either just or unjust laws. Man's laws, if apart from God's Law, are unjust laws.


----------



## MW (Nov 10, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Upon reflection last night I see where I was wrong. Ontologically my statement is wrong. The Law is the standard (which is what I should have just stuck with) but I will say that only a Christian society or nation can truly be a just society or nation. If it does not follow God's Law, then it is unjust. There is either just or unjust laws. Man's laws, if apart from God's Law, are unjust laws.



That is a much better way of looking at it. It maintains the proper and natural authority of the law. It also means the "Christian society" does not become a standard in and of itself merely because it is "Christian," but remains subject to the law as the standard by which it may be judged.


----------

