Reading the Church Fathers discussion

There have been two separate group discussions that seem to converge on the same topic: whether and how God executes justice on Earth, in this life and in the one to come. Is there such a thing as just war? Is eternal punishment or annihilation a just punishment of sin? The latter question is of course related to the foundational truth of Christianity: what Jesus suffered and accomplished on the Cross.

Let's contemplate and discuss these issues of divine justice.

Just for a fun test of our instinctive idea of justice, watch this 1-min video (be sure to turn the volume up so you can hear the dialogue), and tell us your first reaction...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=936Gh...

My first reaction, if I get the exchange right: wrong choice by the lawyer. No excuses for the behavior!

Marcus wrote: "My first reaction, if I get the exchange right: wrong choice by the lawyer. No excuses for the behavior!"

Spoken like a true judge. Just out of curiosity, if a lawyer in your court did that, what would you do?

My first reaction: he got what he deserved. I guess that is the difference between a law professional and a layperson.

He will be arrested immediately. Will probably serve five to ten years of prison.

I didn't get to see the video yet, so sorry to break the current line of thinking of the posts...
As I was still trying to think this all through from the prior discussions, it had me going back to the beginning, and realizing I'm not sure I understand fully the whole concept....maybe I don't understand sin...so which sin are we speaking about?... is there agreement on Original Sin? In the Protoevangelium, (Gen 3:15), God is responding to the disobedience by our first parents, who succumbed to the temptation of Satan (I think....maybe we don't agree on that?), and promises a Redeemer....so...this makes me think that, taking the overall view...Jesus' whole 'mission' for lack of a better word, was to conquer sin, which I assumed was primarily this Original Sin, which culminates in all our individual sins....so...if the Original Sin, was a sin against God, by God's very nature of being an eternal Being...that would make the sin against Him an eternal sin, no? Is this why, no mere man could ever accomplish a correction, or make amends, because no mere man could amend an eternal problem...thus explaining, why it had to be Jesus/God, out of His love and mercy, that offered Himself to make the correction....if any one is still following me...the consequence for sin thus appears to need to be an eternal one as the Sin is an eternal sin, i.e.: eternal reward or punishment, no? Which seems vastly different than when I sin against another mere human for which I can make amends essentially, as I can apologize to the person and even pay for any damage or just by time/effort attempt to make up somehow or to some degree for what I did....although even in this temporal sin example, confession to God is still necessary, as all our individual sins also have an element of sinning against God and His plan of how things should be...so, I'm really just trying to clarify my thoughts on the most elemental aspects of the discussion if any one would mind assisting. Thanks.
P.S. I realized as I was re-reading this, that sinning against God, is in essence, primarily, just choosing not to love God...and if one does not love God, it seems consistent and logical that an eternal existence away from God would be the logical, prudent outcome for someone who does not love God, and then if, once there, the unfortunately brutal Truth of the matter becomes manifest, and it is truly a living Hell, because one cannot lie or rationalize to themselves as they could on earth and go distract themselves with the selfish, sensual choice du jour...but have to be fully present to existence in the complete absence of God, and thus any Love, Beauty, Virtue, etc..etc...etc...it appears as if it would truly involve constant unremitting pain and agony, but was chosen only by the actual person who freely chose not to want or love God....see?? It all makes sense :)

whether and how God executes justice on Earth, in this life and in the one to come. Is there such a thing as just war? Is eternal punishment or annihilation a just punishment of sin?

There is an interesting convergence here. My question becomes: if you truly believe in a hell that lasts forever (eternal conscious torment, traditional view) and you truly believe you know Jesus, how heartless would you have to be to kill anyone in war or otherwise?

To put it another way, if I really believe I am going to be with God after death then I should be willing to lay down my life in hopes that the person taking my life may eventually repent.

The question becomes even more pointed, to me, when so many American Christians seem to think defending their rights with weapons is some sort of God-given beautiful thing.

Maybe if you are a Calvinist then taking life ends up falling into a sort of determinism - if the person you kill was not of the elect then your killing them is not a problem (perhaps even it is ordained by God).

Even if you take an annihilation view of hell, the question remains - who are you to end a person's chance at repentance?

As far as just war, I don't think there is a time for Christians to ever kill to defend their faith (the crusades were not a good idea). Whether individual Christians choose to be police or military is some matter of conscience. That said, too often this is a hypothetical discussion - unless you are in the military or politics, you won't ever have the chance to choose whether to go to war or not. But I do think the biggest sin of American Christians is nationalism, baptizing America's wars as it were. I don't even think we need to become totally pacifist, we just need a bit more Sermon on the Mount in how we look at the world. To put it another way, on a personal level, if the hypothetical person breaks into my house I should let them rob me because I should not be so attached to my possessions. Maybe I should, like Jesus, find a creative non-violent way to diffuse the situation. I shouldn't kill that person.

The last thing I'll say is that I hate the word "pacifism". The whole reason Christians in the early church (and people in the Bible) could choose not to fight is a reliance on God's justice. I do not execute justice on people, I may even let them harm or kill me, because I trust only God can execute justice. And God will. This is where punishment in the afterlife comes in. God will judge.

David wrote: "whether and how God executes justice on Earth, in this life and in the one to come. Is there such a thing as just war? Is eternal punishment or annihilation a just punishment of sin?

There is an i..."

I think in response to your first couple paragraphs I would say that I believe one has, at the point of death, one last chance to choose God or not; so in your example of time of war, if someone was killed, I do not know that that necessarily does not give them that last chance to choose, and even if it did not, God knows their heart, so I believe and trust God, that they end up exactly where they belong. Perfect justice could not result in anything else.
Regarding "just war theory", I think that gets into life being good, should be cherished, and one has a right to defend themselves and others in light of that concept, not in a selfish way, but in a life is good way.

David wrote: "..My question becomes: if you truly believe in a hell that lasts forever (eternal conscious torment, traditional view) and you truly believe you know Jesus, how heartless would you have to be to kill anyone in war or otherwise? .."

There are two things here: a) whether a man can be killed in the service of justice, b) whether a man has a chance for repentance

As I see it, no man is promised a long life, and a man can die any time due to a variety of causes. In other words, there is a finite window for repentance here on Earth. Whether that window is closed by sickness or death sentence, it doesn't affect his eternal destiny.

I would say that I believe one has, at the point of death, one last chance to choose God

Fair enough. :)

As I see it, no man is promised a long life, and a man can die any time due to a variety of causes. In other words, there is a finite window for repentance here on Earth. Whether that window is closed by sickness or death sentence, it doesn't affect his eternal destiny

I don't disagree necessarily, but I am trying to see this as non-abstract as possible. Would you, knowing your afterlife destiny, pull the trigger on someone, knowing they are not saved?

Unless, again, by "it doesn't affect his eternal destiny" you are taking a sort of deterministic approach, assuming the person is not the elect. Or perhaps Susan's idea that the person is given a final chance to choose God?

I hope that if my faith is worth anything, I'd die rather than kill. I'm not saying I would, I'm a pretty crappy Christian on my best days. I am saying I hope I would take up my cross and follow Jesus, as he calls us all to do.

David wrote: " Would you, knowing your afterlife destiny, pull the trigger on someone, knowing they are not saved? ..."

Practically speaking, I don't know my afterlife destiny, nor do I know anyone else's, and the chance of my pulling a trigger on someone is almost zero. But, if I ever were put into a situation where another person's life depends on my decision, I would not base my decision on what might or might not happen in the future, but whether justice requires that the person be punished by death, and leave the rest in God's hands.

David wrote: "I would say that I believe one has, at the point of death, one last chance to choose God

Fair enough. :)

As I see it, no man is promised a long life, and a man can die any time due to a variety ..."

I read Nemo's response after yours, and I was going to ask you David, what if you were saving another's life? It is sort of easy when it is our life we are willing to give up, but might not be so easy if you were called to save someone else's. Just wondering.

Thanks for the answer. I think one root of our disagreement may be in how we talk about justice and love. I've always heard people speak about God being a God of love and a God of justice. The more I reflect on the cross of Jesus, I see God's love as more powerful than God's justice. I am not denying God is Just, I am saying that God is more Loving than Just.

But yeah, my reflection comes on my trust in Jesus and that trust leading me to hope, as far as I can, that I have some assurance of my place in God's kingdom. I think it is why the testimony of the martyrs in the early church is so powerful and why the default position of the early church for a couple centuries was that Christians fight by dying; Christians do not kill.

Actually, your comment may demand a discussion of assurance in terms of salvation. "Practically speaking" plenty of Christians through the ages had confidence of their place with Jesus (early church martyrs and others).

I would go so far as to say, our refusal to live self-sacrificial lives (not just in literal death but in all things) is one reason why many skeptics shrug their shoulders at the church. We say we believe that there is more to this life, but do we deny it with our lifestyle?

what if you were saving another's life? It is sort of easy when it is our life we are willing to give up, but might not be so easy if you were called to save someone else's.

I totally agree. This is a tough question. My answer would encompass a few things:

1. I think I have the duty to lay down my life rather than harm others, but I do not have the duty to lay down someone else's life. So if I can save my 5 year old daughter (or your daughter, if you have one, for that matter) and doing so requires harming someone else then I think the right choice is to save the other innocent person. That said, I have heard of other Christians who wouldn't even do this (a friend once spoke of a missionary who had watched his wife die).

2. I still say our tendency to see violence as a first resort is a big problem. Sure we're dealing in all hypotheticals here, but whether saving myself or someone else, my hope is no one is killed. As I said before, this is why I am so disheartened when I hear Christians speak of how they would shoot an intruder in their house. Either we haven't fully understood Jesus or we're just not creative enough or something.

3. Along with 2, I would fear that if I tried to use violence I would probably make things worse. I don't own a weapon, am not a trained fighter. If a hypothetical person came into my house, I would do better talking to them and letting them take what they need. I think most people (criminals) in such situations do not want to harm others (some do to be sure) but want to steal stuff. My clumsy attempt to stop them could make things worse.

whether justice requires that the person be punished by death, and leave the rest in God's hands.

How would you know?

Are you talking about war? I do think the discussion for killing in war is different then killing in self-defense.

Are you talking about courts and the death penalty and such?

Or are you still talking about self-defense?

I tend to think that the justice and love of God cannot be separated, and any teaching that downplays either is unsound, if not pernicious. Love without justice is spoiling, and justice without love is tyranny. The Son of God dying on the Cross for mankind manifests the perfect unity of His love and justice.

This unity is manifested in both OT and NT, more in the form of a paradox. On the other hand, "You shall not kill", and "love your neighbour as yourself", on the other hand, God’s servants are "agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer", "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth".

We tend to fall off at either extremes. Some spoil those they care about for lack of justice and discernment, others become self-righteous and violent.

Well then call me pernicious! ;)

I'm not separating, there is justice. I just...well, I believe that if I got justice I'd be in a heap of trouble but thankfully God's chooses to show us love rather than justice.

I think your quote of Romans 13:4 ("agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer") is a bit misleading. Here Paul is describing what governments do, the job of governments. But this does not say that those governments are Christian in any way; Paul was living in Nero's reign after all. When Paul does tell Christians how to live he says:

19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good

When I read Romans 12-13 as a whole it appears Paul is telling Christians what they ought to do and part of this ought is to submit to governments. But his comments on what governments do is not part of what Christians ought to do. Or to put it another way, governments may play a role in justice (hopefully!) but Christians are commanded to love and leave justice to God.

David wrote: "Here Paul is describing what governments do, the job of governments. But this does not say that those governments are Christian in any way; ."

Governing authority is appointed by God, and is His servant. The vast majority of Christians are not appointed to govern, true, but those that are appointed have the authority and responsibility to execute justice on Earth as His servant.

I've wondered what is meant by "In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." It seemed out of place in that paragraph in Romans 12. But now I think Paul here is pointing out justice in the midst of love.

Christians are commanded to love, because Christ loved us first, and justice requires that we love others in return for this great love, that we freely give what we have freely received, i.e., love, forgiveness and blessings.

If an enemy does not repent and receive the love of Christ, the good ministered to him by Christians will become "burning coals on his head". It will serve as condemning evidence against him on the day of judgment. "For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required".

Since justice is good, to overcome evil with good also includes overcome evil with justice.

The vast majority of Christians are not appointed to govern, true, but those that are appointed have the authority and responsibility to execute justice on Earth as His servant

This is the question at issue. Paul does not say whether Christians take part in the government. Christians have taken part for centuries, thanks to the marriage of church and state post-Constantinte. Many Christians (Anabaptists specifically) think Christians should abstain. Even Richard Hayes, a NT scholar who is a Methodist, argues Christians shouldn't fight in war (can't recall if he said serve in government) in his book on New Testament Ethics.

If an enemy does not repent and receive the love of Christ, the good ministered to him by Christians will become "burning coals on his head". It will serve as condemning evidence against him on the day of judgment. "For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required".

100% agree (well, lets say 99%, never like agreeing 100%!)

Since justice is good, to overcome evil with good also includes overcome evil with justice.

I'm not sure I follow here. If we are talking about whether Christians kill (or harm others) in war or just in personal self-defense...well what are you saying? When I read Romans 12-13 I see it as echoing the Sermon on the Mount and Paul, like Jesus, is calling Christians to a different way of life. We don't kill people.

I guess the question would be, if you say we "overcome evil with justice" what does this mean practically? Do we humans have the delusion of grandeur to not just defend ourselves but to assume we are God's instruments for justice?

I'd say that if I was to feel compelled to harm someone in defense, my attitude would be "God, if I were Jesus I assume I could think of a better way but I can't so forgive me as I perform this act." The act is done knowing it is not perfect, perhaps a sort of lesser of two evils (imperfect humans can choose lesser of two evils; Jesus does not need to play such games).

The other attitude may be: "God is a God of justice and the other person is deserving of justice so bless my sword." I don't see that as following the way of Jesus.

David wrote: "..Paul does not say whether Christians take part in the government...."

Paul does say that governing authority is appointed by God, and is His servant. At the very least, government and Christianity are not contrary in principle. I see no reason why Christians should not participate in government. Human beings are God's instruments of justice. It is not a delusion of grandeur, it is Biblical teaching. If unbelievers are His instruments , how much more are Christians? God is Justice and Love in unity. If we are to imitate Him as children, we ought to strive for that unity as well.

The principle of justice should be consistently applied in both self-defence and in war, imo. If it is just to harm or kill another in self-defence, then there is such a thing as just war.

At the very least, government and Christianity are not contrary in principle. I see no reason why Christians should not participate in government.

You make it all sound so simple. I wish I had your confidence in my views.

Have you read Richard Hayes? John Howard Yoder? Stanley Hauerwas? 16th Century Anabaptists? Tertullian, Origen and the rest? I don't ask to say you have to read certain people to have an opinion. But again, I envy your confidence in the face of such diversity of mind and heart. My method is to hold my opinions loosely, recognizing far smarter people then me (not to mention holier) come down on both sides of the issue. I see plenty of reasons why Christians should participate in government and plenty of reasons why they shouldn't.

But again, I think we're not making a connection yet. If there is a situation where you need to defend yourself and/or others is the thought in your mind, in that moment, "Yaay, I am in instrument of God's justice and I'm going to kill this person!" then yes, that is a delusion of grandeur. If you go into the situation thinking you just might be performing God's justice, that is incredibly dangerous. Uncountable horrors and evils have been committed by people who think they are God's instruments of justice.

God is Justice and Love in unity. If we are to imitate Him as children, we ought to strive for that unity as well.

Here's the problem, and I guess we're not going to resolve this - Jesus explicitly commanded that anyone who comes after him must "deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." The cross is not just something to believe in so we can have the right understanding of how Jesus fixed our sin, it is the model for how we are to live (Philippians 2:4-11 - your attitude should be the same as Christ Jesus who, summing up, became human and died).

If anything, I think too many of us use God's justice as an excuse not to be loving. We fear the other so we justify war and violence to keep ourselves safe but call it justice so we can still believe we are on God's side.

The principle of justice should be consistently applied in both self-defence and in war, imo. If it is just to harm or kill another in self-defence, then there is such a thing as just war.

Forgive me, but what is this principle of justice? How do we know it? I know I have a book in my basement that lays out the list of qualifications a war must satisfy to be considered just (I'm just too lazy to go look for it right now). But as I said above, living here in America with Christians often the top cheerleaders for war...I guess I'd take some solid just war teaching since that would probably be much more peaceful than what we've been thinking in the past.

David wrote: "At the very least, government and Christianity are not contrary in principle. I see no reason why Christians should not participate in government.

You make it all sound so simple. I wish I had you..."

That's why I said "I see no reason", not "there is no reason". :) I haven't read the authors you mentioned, but I have read others who advocate Christian pacifism with very well-thought-out arguments. I just don't think they're as balanced as could be, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

No doubt the instrument of justice can be abused, and turned into instrument of wickedness, as we have the tendency to abuse the gift of God. But it doesn't follow that we should abandon the gift altogether. The right response is to exercise discernment and use the instrument as it is intended by God.

To deny ourselves also means to refrain from judging according to the flesh, but instead, judge according to the Spirit, with righteous judgment and discernment.

David wrote: " I think we're not making a connection yet. If there is a situation where you need to defend yourself and/or others is the thought in your mind, in that moment, "Yaay, I am in instrument of God's justice and I'm going to kill this person!".."

Well, I was once held at knife point by a few black youths in a poorly-lit area of my neighbourhood and demanded to turn over my wallet. The only thought that came to my mind was not to defend myself, but that their action was wrong and I tried to tell them that. They paid no attention to me, took my wallet and drove away. It was just before Christmas, and they tried to use my credit card to buy stuff, and were caught on the spot. The police later contacted me and asked me to identify them. Although I didn't try to avenge myself, I felt that justice was done nevertheless.

I've never been in a situation where I have to deliberate whether to use force on someone else. But if I ever were put into such a situation, I hope that I would do what I believe is right and just, and that, as I understand it, is to be God's instrument of justice.

Thanks for sharing that story.

Until we are in those situations it is hard to speculate. Your hope to do what is right...that's the best we can do on boards like this one.

David wrote: "Well then call me pernicious! ;)

I'm not separating, there is justice. I just...well, I believe that if I got justice I'd be in a heap of trouble but thankfully God's chooses to show us love rathe..."

Wouldn't this statement mean 1) you're rationalizing (which we all find it too easy to do, but still should hold each other accountable and call it out when it is expressed and help motivate each other to keep striving harder to become who we are called to be?) and 2) that you do not honestly believe that God is perfect? "God chooses to show us love rather than justice" would define an imbalance, an 'other than perfect', which I thought God could never be. I think Nemo is correct, that God cannot be separated. He just IS. And His IS is perfect love, perfect mercy, perfect justice, .....

"Just War Theory": at first, war sounds antithetical to Christianity since the 5th Commandment states, "Thou shalt not kill." However, the intent of the precept forbids the purposeful taking of a human life (Catechism #2307). Each person has a duty to preserve his life, and therefore has a right to legitimate self-defense. Although an act of self-defense may have a two-fold effect-the preservation of the person's life and the unfortunate taking of the aggressor's life-the first effect is intended while the second is not. In preserving its own life, a state-citizens and their governments-must strive to avoid war and settle disputes peacefully and justly. Nevertheless, "governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self defense, once all peace efforts have failed" (Vatican II....)...Just war theory establishes moral parameters for the declaration and waging of war....St. Augustine was the originator of the just war theory...which St. Thomas Aquinas later adapted and explicated in his Summa Theologiae. 1) Just cause, 2) Proper authority 3) Right intention 4) Last Resort 5) Proportionality 6) Probability of Success... still lots of grey area, but it appears if one respects and is grateful for the gift of life, it is not enough to just say Jesus said, "turn the other cheek" or no violence ever...that appears to allow abuse and unnecessary harm to this gift...it seems that would be almost like, suicide, when one is not protecting and preserving the life God gave to us. "Each person has a duty to preserve his life.." seems to imply there needs to be balance again, without obviously unnecessarily or out of proportion hurting someone.

Well balance position, Susan. I can live with that!

Wouldn't this statement mean 1) you're rationalizing (which we all find it too easy to do, but still

I don't think I am rationalizing. I find what I believe about Jesus and nonviolence much more challenging and difficult to live out then what I believed before. Rationalizing would be thinking Jesus calls us to lay down our lives and finding a way to explain that he actually doesn't.

(Note: that would be rationalizing for me, where I am at in my proverbial spiritual journey; I'm not implying what rationalizing would be for others).

Yes indeed, I believe God is perfect. I don't think any Christian, whatever you believe about violence, does not think God is perfect. One could even argue that it is a lack of trust in God's justice (in this life or the next) that causes Christians to take up weapons and kill.

As for balancing love and justice, I get it. I don't disagree that God is love and mercy and justice and goodness and beauty and so on and so forth. Perhaps it depends which atonement theory you prefer (if you like Anselm and substitution, then yeah, God is just by beating the crap out of Jesus on the cross instead of us). I think meditating on the Trinity is helpful - God eternally exists as three persons; this reveals that within the very understanding of who God is we see relationship. From forever, with no beginning, God is self-giving relationship (Father loves Son loves Spirit). God, as far as we can speak of the infinite, IS love. There is not justice or mercy yet because such things aren't necessary prior to human sin. Jesus reveals to us what love looks like and we are invited into this love through Jesus.

Each person has a duty to preserve his life, and therefore has a right to legitimate self-defense

I disagree. Jesus is very clear that our duty is to lay down our lives for others.

Nevertheless, "governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self defense, once all peace efforts have failed

Sure, sounds good. But this goes back to what I've tried to say. I don't think we all need to be pacifists, we just need a little more nonviolence. The six points of Just War would be a fantastic way to govern the USA! I'd argue that maybe no war since WWII has fit those qualifications of a Just War. So again, my prayer would be that Christians take Just War seriously and thus, instead of being cheerleaders for war, would call on our government to be slow to war.

it is not enough to just say Jesus said, "turn the other cheek"

Good, because while I find that verse challenging, my ideas do not flow from one prooftext. I believe the entire life of Jesus showed a different way to live; the only innocent man in history went to the cross, died a self-sacrificial death, and everything in the gospels shows this is our model for life. Get rid of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from the Bible and I'll rethink nonviolence as the best way to live.

David wrote: "One could even argue that it is a lack of trust in God's justice (in this life or the next) that causes Christians to take up weapons and kill.."

Indeed. Tolstoy, who gave a logical, thoughtful and comprehensive exposition of Christian pacifism/anarchism in his book The Kingdom of God is Within You, made that statement too. It was his work that compelled me to think more deeply about the Sermon on the Mount and take the challenge of Christian pacifism seriously.

I would argue that it is because of faith in God and His justice that Christians fight:

And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
Heb. 11:32-34

Each person has a duty to preserve his life, and therefore has a right to legitimate self-defense

I disagree. Jesus is very clear that our duty is to lay down our lives for others.

The purpose of laying down one's life is, to preserve the life of another, or, in Jesus's case, to bestow life on his brethren. If would be self-defeating to give life, but not preserve it at the same time. I think this is the argument for the sanctity of life.

Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
Genesis 9:6

God, as far as we can speak of the infinite, IS love. There is not justice or mercy yet because such things aren't necessary prior to human sin.

If you're saying that justice is not the eternal nature of God, but only love is. I would again disagree. As I understand it, justice is relational, just as love is. We don't speak of justice with regard to one person, but between persons. This justice is manifested in his dealings with men in various forms, including mercy, punishment and rewards.

Tolstoy, nice! One of my favorites!

I like that passage from Hebrews. I think you can admire the OT heroes and still see the fullest revelation in Jesus and thus his ethic is more determinative. In other words, Deborah stabs Sisera in the head with a tent peg but Jesus takes the tent peg in the head for us (that story is fresh in my mind because it was the kids lesson at church last week). We admire Deborah, but Jesus' way is greater.

I think your point about laying down one's life is a great counterpoint to what I said. If you run into a situation where you can become a martyr (which I don't think Tertullian was a fan of, if I recall he wrote a whole treatise on how it is okay to flee from persecution) or if you lay down your life foolishly that is not necessarily like Jesus. I think of Origen wanting to go get martyred and his parents hiding his clothes.

That's why I've always held this is an area Christians can and do disagree on AND I don't call myself a pacifist (its too easy to be nonviolent living in comfort where I live). Its why I've said over and over that Christians in America don't need to become pacifist, but we do need to repent of our love of violence and move about two steps towards nonviolence (in my experience, we don't get that balance everyone wants because we are too in love with violence, not too in love with peacemaking).

As far as your last point, I feel increasingly ignorant saying too much about how God works. I don't see how justice is a thing in within the relationship of Father-Son-Spirit. I agree the justice is manifest in dealing with men so I guess it was there before. Perhaps in some way justice towards men flows out of the eternal love. I mean, when I punish my kids it is not because I need justice towards them to restore our relationship; it is because I love them and in that moment punishment is what they need to grow into the people I want them to be.

So yeah, my off the cuff answer (until someone corrects me!) is that God in the Trinity is love and God creates humanity out of love and because of human sin God shows justice, which flows out of love.

Nemo wrote: "David wrote: "One could even argue that it is a lack of trust in God's justice (in this life or the next) that causes Christians to take up weapons and kill.."

Indeed. Tolstoy, who gave a logical,..."

Yes, I would agree David's answer seemed to imply God developed justice later. God is immutable I thought, so whatever He is, He had to have been and ever will be...I thought...

David wrote: "Tolstoy, nice! One of my favorites!"

Tolstoy seems to be a man with whom one can have a civil and rational dialogue about religion, and I wish I could talk with him in person. I admire his intellectual honesty very much, however, I also see in him a slippery slope from denying the Justice of God to denying the Divinity of Jesus and His Atonement on the Cross.

Christians in America don't need to become pacifist, but we do need to repent of our love of violence and move about two steps towards nonviolence

The majority of Christians I know personally are very loving and self-giving. This is what made Christianity appealing to my former atheist self. I'm quite frankly baffled and saddened by the physical and emotional violence I see online and in the news. ("Erbarme dich, mein Gott")

I feel increasingly ignorant saying too much about how God works. I don't see how justice is a thing in within the relationship of Father-Son-Spirit.

Needlessly to say I'm also ignorant. This thread is a learning opportunity for me.

A working definition of justice is "to give each his due". Jesus teaches his disciples to "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” There is also the command to "Honor your father". Jesus says that He seeks the glory of the Father and not His own. I would think this is one way justice is in the eternal nature of God.

The injustice of man is not rendering to God the things that are His, nor to his fellow men the things that are theirs, not even to himself the things that are his own.

My response to Tolstoy, and I read The Kingdom of God is Within You about five years ago, was that Christians (conservative evangelicals, the ones I grew up with) are much more forgiving of wrong action than wrong belief. I am not sure how Tolstoy lived, but it is interesting that, at least in my experience, you can make lots of mistakes in action but if you stray too "liberal" in your belief, then you're in trouble.

I do agree that most Christians are very loving and self-giving. I'm more talking about things like how evangelical Christians were more in favor of torturing terror suspects than any other (or how evangelicals are the top group now in favor of not welcoming refugees). Maybe it is just too easy to call yourself a Christian in America. Maybe it is easy to be loving and self-giving to people like us (so I'll love you but not "those people" who the news tells me is threatening me and who look different).

David wrote: "My response to Tolstoy, and I read The Kingdom of God is Within You about five years ago, was that Christians (conservative evangelicals, the ones I grew up with) are much more forgiving of wrong a..."

It seems to me that you over simplify quite a bit...
1) "mistakes in action"...we are all going to make them, no matter how hard we try, just because we are human...that does not seem to negate the fact that
2) right reason, forming a correct conscience (trying) and as closely adhering to what and how Jesus formed the Church is important. Look at all these Church Fathers, how arduously they worked and suffered to keep orthodoxy....
3) right thought aids in right actions....rationalization and disordered thought aids in .....big trouble, as we are experiencing every day....
I don't know that that concept should be maligned or ridiculed.
4) unfortunately we don't live in a world where evil does not exist. It would be nice, but it is not 'real'. People have to take care of their families and their safety as well as countries need to protect their citizens....
5) you seem to be saying that there is no logical or intelligent or prudent reason why we can not just let any person, from any place, at all times, just enter this or any other country for that matter. You seem to be saying anyone that disagrees with you, is racist, or xenophobic; exactly the way the media and so many others, are trying to frame it consistently at this point.
I find this way of thinking elitist, slanderous, naïve, and weak actually. How do you propose that we SOLVE any problems? Or are there no problems, therefore no solutions needed....just everyone holds hands and gets along? Sorry, but all of this is getting out of control, everyone calling everyone names and worse, whether there is justification or not...just wrong...

I find this way of thinking elitist, slanderous, naïve, and weak actually...

I'm sorry. I don't mean it like that.

I was just trying to say that in my experience (conservative evangelical upbringing in the USA) there is much more leniency for sin then for false belief. Maybe my experience is wrong, maybe your experience is different. Either way, in my experience you can never really be too conservative but step just a smidge on the liberal side and you're seen as a goner. You can believe that God determines everything, that every action in the universe was God's idea which means God causes all suffering and you're okay but if you question whether hell lasts forever you are seen as a heretic.

Again, its just my experience. It came up because we mentioned Tolstoy. I read Tolstoy at the same time I was reading Calvin and Theresa of Avila. A lot of my peers really like Calvin even though he had some very questionable acts (his role in killing Servetus for one) but those acts are forgiven because of his theology. A lot of my peers don't like Theresa because they see her Catholic beliefs as wrong and Tolstoy, as Nemo said, had lots of wrong beliefs. I personally found Theresa and Tolstoy's writings much more challenging in terms of daily living.

You seem to be saying anyone that disagrees with you, is racist, or xenophobic

Again, I apologize. If I seem to be saying such things, I'm sorry. Though please don't put words in my mouth.

but all of this is getting out of control, everyone calling everyone names and worse,

Who called anyone names? You all seem like wonderful people.

"My response to Tolstoy, and I read The Kingdom of God is Within You about five years ago, was that Christians (conservative evangelicals, the ones I grew up with) are much more forgiving of wrong action than wrong belief."

I think this is a fair assessment in my experience.

The unfortunate situation in the Middle East today can be blamed on a series of political failures that didn't begin in my lifetime, but were largely aggravated in my lifetime.

I would say the Christian thing to do is embrace everyone who seeks help. However I cannot look at this crisis without condemning the political meddling that destabilized Libya and the strategies that repeatedly failed in what it set out to do once fighting supremacy was achieved in Iraq the last time around.

Could we not spend the money to relocate people in their own region? Why continue to create vacuums to be filled by rogues and dictators? We need as a country to stop the schizophrenic back seat driving, this push-pull competition of ideology, Go in! No get out! No go in! No get out! is not helpful in the least.

Speaking of Calvin, after I read his Institutes, I read Introduction to a Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales, who was born a few years after Calvin's death, and appointed Bishop of Geneva, to counter the strong Calvinist influence there. I remember thinking to myself, if I had been a contemporary of Francis de Sales, I would probably have become a Catholic, because Calvin seemed quite a nasty individual, and might accuse me of heresy for disagreeing with him, whereas Francis de Sales was very gentle and peaceable. Having said that, I think the theology of Calvin is more systematic and rigorous than Francis de Sales, whose focus is on the inner life of the believers.

David wrote: "I find this way of thinking elitist, slanderous, naïve, and weak actually...

I'm sorry. I don't mean it like that.

I was just trying to say that in my experience (conservative evangelical upbring..."

"please don't put words in my mouth"... I accept what you are saying, but you stated "those people" who "look different"...intimating that, as a basis for any dissent to open borders. There could well be a prudent opposition to open borders that is not based on that they "look different", ie: racism or xenophobia. That may not have anything to do with anything, and yet it is the almost across the board, knee-jerk response to this topic.

There's ample third way discussion to be had, but is being overlooked because the right and the left would rather waste time arguing about slippery slopes and their lowest common denominators not in common.

Unfortunately our President's tact set the tone for the reactionaries on the left I'm afraid.

Is Trump a Calvinist? He certainly touted his Presbyterianism during campaign. So he's played into Protestantism, but is it genuine?

Aaron wrote: "Is Trump a Calvinist? He certainly touted his Presbyterianism during campaign. So he's played into Protestantism, but is it genuine? "

I remember once listening to a NPR program on the subject of religion. Someone who sounded like Bill Clinton called in, and the host actually called him "Mr. President". When asked about his religious views, he said, "I don't know what to believe". I suspect the same with Trump, though I frankly don't know nor care what his religious beliefs are, if any.

I'd prefer that we don't discuss U.S. politics here. I think it is unrealistic to expect to resolve current political conflicts in this forum. If people are interested in discussing specific issues affecting their personal or communal life as a Christian, I'd be happy to create a separate thread under "This Christian Life".

Okay, now I see the problem here. I made an offhanded comment and everyone took it as a new direction for discussion!

Here's what I wrote:
I do agree that most Christians are very loving and self-giving. I'm more talking about things like how evangelical Christians were more in favor of torturing terror suspects than any other (or how evangelicals are the top group now in favor of not welcoming refugees). Maybe it is just too easy to call yourself a Christian in America. Maybe it is easy to be loving and self-giving to people like us (so I'll love you but not "those people" who the news tells me is threatening me and who look different).

My main point, which directly relates to violence, was that evangelical Christians supported torture more than other groups (this was 5-8 years ago in a poll. I used parenthesis to make an aside that the same group that once supported torture is also in favor of closing borders to refugees.

It was in parenthesis. It was a sidenote.

So when I picked up again and said, "Maybe it is too easy to call yourself a Christian..." I was back to violence, not refugees. When I spoke of not loving "those people" I wasn't specifically thinking of refugees. I was trying to say that I live in a comfortable middle class neighborhood with mostly white educated people. It is easy to get along with people who look and talk like me. When I spoke of "those people" I had lots of images in mind: the Spanish speaking less educated immigrants in the city nearby, terrorists, people of different races, different political beliefs, etc.

I don't want to discuss current politics, sorry for my creation of that tangent.

Sorry I jumped in, but yes politics "matters of the people", Divine Justice...not so much.

Aaron wrote: "Sorry I jumped in, but yes politics "matters of the people", Divine Justice...not so much."

If all the people in a state believe the same God, then matters of the state would be inseparable from divine justice. In other words, the state would become a type of theocracy. But obviously the U.S. is not such a state. So I think is is better to separate the two topics.

As I see it, many who try to force the laws of their religion on other peoples are using religion as a means of power struggle, a Shillelagh to beat down others and elevate themselves. In other words, they are self-serving, not serving God. If they have applied the same strict moral laws in their own lives, and not pick and choose to suit themselves, they would have seen their own moral failings clearly, and become more compassionate toward others.

Well if we were to just discuss theology, but yes you are right it's all connected in how each person sees their faith playing out in the world and in civil life. Speaking of NPR, Nemo probably heard it, but there was an interview I caught with the evangelical leaders on this topic of religion or faith and law. Wish I could remember who was being interviewed and who the interviewer was.

Woops here I am talking about "Nemo" thinking I was responding to David hah! Blame it on youtube.

Susan wrote: "..2) right reason, forming a correct conscience (trying) and as closely adhering to what and how Jesus formed the Church is important. Look at all these Church Fathers, how arduously they worked and suffered to keep orthodoxy....
3) right thought aids in right actions...."

I agree. "Right action" presupposes "right belief" - we cannot choose to do right unless we know what is right.

The early Church Fathers vigorously defended orthodoxy, because Christian theology is the foundation of Christian ethics. In their response to the charge of atheism, they demonstrated that Christians worshippped the true God by contrasting the actions of pagan idol worshippers with those of Christians.

“We must act at once by the authority of God, and according to the justice of God; and that, when these two conditions are not united, sin is contracted; whether it be by taking away life with his authority, but without his justice; or by taking it away with justice, but without his authority. From this indispensable connection it follows, according to St. Augustine, “that he who, without proper authority, kills a criminal, becomes a criminal himself, chiefly for this reason, that he usurps an authority which God has not given him”; and on the other hand, magistrates, though they possess this authority, are nevertheless chargeable with murder, if, contrary to the laws which they are bound to follow, they inflict death on an innocent man.”
--Blaise Pascal, “The Provincial Letters.”

A few days ago I read a NPR report that Pope Francis denounces the death penalty on the ground that “it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and is leading the Catholic Church to work for its abolition worldwide

Catholic philosopher Edward Feser argued for the death penalty

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2...

and Eastern Orthodox philosopher David Bentley Hart against it.

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2...

Recently, I came across some interesting reviews (two by members of this group, and one by a Catholic professor) of David Bentley Hart's new book That All Shall Be Saved.

Edward Feser, his "old sparring partner", also wrote a substantive critique of Hart's arguments from a Thomistic perspective two years ago.

As an armchair Augustinian, I'm sorely tempted to respond to Hart's critique of the traditional doctrine of eternal punishment, although I have not read Hart's book, but only learned about his arguments second-hand from these reviews.

I'm hoping that we, as a community, can have a productive discussion of this topic, and I welcome all to participate and give their two-cents worth, especially fans of David Bentley Hart.

For starters, one main objection to the doctrine of eternal punishment is that it is incompatible with goodness and love, at least love as we understand it.

I suspect what underlies this objection is the presumption that pain and suffering is evil. Eternal punishment causes unending pain, it must be incompatible with the goodness of God. In other words, the problem of evil which is perhaps the strongest argument against the existence of God, is also the strongest argument against the doctrine of eternal punishment. By strongest, I mean it has the most emotional appeal and force, though not rationally compelling.

To make an obvious logical point: If it is moral and reasonable to believe in a loving God in the face of pain and suffering, then it is also moral and reasonable to believe in eternal punishment.

When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices; and when the wicked perish, there is jubilation.
Proverbs 11:10 (NRSV)

Another argument for universal salvation is that there can be no perfect happiness in heaven if there is suffering in hell. For one would have to be heartless to not feel sorrow for the suffering.

Needless to say, we know nothing about the psychology of heavenly or hellish beings, and I cannot imagine what constitutes the bliss of heaven. However, if happiness in heaven is analogous to happiness on earth, flawed beings as we are, then, I'd say unashamedly that our happiness is immensely enhanced by the suffering of the wicked: One would have to be heartless and immoral not to rejoice at the total defeat, suffering and destruction of the wicked.