ECT Let's Define Terms

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Everyone who even claims to be a Christian will tell you that God is just and kind and righteous and loving. But I'd venture to say that most of them do not actually believe this. Of course, they wholeheartedly and sincerely insist that they do believe it and would perhaps even be willing to die in defense of the claim.

So why do I say that they don't believe it?

Well, it has to do with the definition of the terms justice, righteousness, kindness and love. If a Calvinist, for example, believed that the word justice meant what it actually means, they'd drop 90% of their doctrine like a hot rock. And it isn't just, or even primarily Calvinists either. Catholicism, the largest sect of Christianity in existence doesn't understand what these concepts mean either, which explains their stance on the death penalty and the rest of their left-wing socio-political positions. In fact, I'd venture to say that a very large percentage of the disagreements that exist throughout the church has as much to do with the definition of these terms as it has to do with anything else.

I, therefore, thought it might be a good idea to post a thread where I define these terms for everyone and thereby clear up all the confusion! (That's a joke!)

Ready? Here we go....

Justice happens when one is treated in a manner consistent with their actions (whether in thought or deed).
Justice can manifest in the form of a positive reward for the good one does or a negative punishment for the evil one commits.

The principle of justice is most clearly communicated in Jesus' "Golden Rule". "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

People don't want their neighbor to steal from them, so don't steal from your neighbor.

If you do steal from your neighbor, justice would have it done to you as you sought to do to your neighbor, thus you should restore your neighbor whole and pay him restitution. Thus the biblical idea of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

This concept of justice applies directly to God and to the way in which He responds to us.

Ezekiel 18: 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.​

Righteousness:
Righteousness is nearly synonymous with justice. In many languages, 'just' and 'righteous' are the same word. Righteousness then is acting justly.

Love:
Love is a complex thing to define. Many languages have several words for all the different ideas that are caught up in the single English word, "love".

99.9% of the church, along with a similar percentage of the rest of the world, believes that love is self-immolation, that it is self-sacrifice for no reward, that the truest love has no motive and no cause. They believe that to love someone for their virtues is not love at all. The bible very simply does not teach anything like this. In fact, this idea of love is a primary premise of leftist thinking and it's logical conclusion is Communism. The bible teaches that it is the one who does rightly that will live (see Ezekiel 18, 2 Chronicles 19:2, Matthew 25 & elsewhere).

You might object and say that God died on the cross, forfeiting His very life for us. (John 3:16)

I'd respond, AMEN! Did He do that for nothing? Does God get nothing in exchange for the price He paid? Does He not desire to spend eternity loving and being loved by us? He absolutely does desire that and that is exactly what God purchased for Himself at Calvary and He counted that cost as a worthy exchange. We are God's pearl of great price. Thank you, Lord Jesus!

Thus love is not arbitrary and is not in contradiction to justice. How could it be? Is God not both just and loving? Can God contradict Himself? Certainly not!

So to state affirmative definition of love, rather that discussing what love is not...

To love someone one means that you have their best interests at heart.

Do not be tempted to add "above your own interests" to that definition! To do so would not be biblical nor just. Notice what God says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18 & Matthew 5:43). It does not say that you should love your neighbor more than yourself. Which is not to say, by the way, that we should not be humble. Indeed, looking at life with a view to the eternal, it is to our benefit (i.e. in our own best interest) to have an attitude of humility and treat other as though they were more important than ourselves (even knowing that they are in fact not any more or less important) (Philippians 2:3-4).

Kindness:
Just as righteousness is essentially synonymous with justice, so also is kindness synonymous with love. If love is an attitude toward others then kindness is the action that results from it. Kindness then is ACTING in another best interest.

The critical mistake many Christians make is believing that to be kind means to be nice. Nothing could be further from the truth! Very often, being nice is the exact opposite of being kind and being kind is very often anything but nice. It was, for example, not nice for God to remove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden but it was kind. Otherwise, they'd have eaten of the Tree of Life and lived forever in their fallen state (Genesis 3:22).

So, that's just four terms and really only two primary concepts, and what I've written here is clearly an incomplete definition of even those four terms but there are several more terms that Christians misunderstand and formulate whole doctrinal systems around erroneous definitions of. The term "sovereign" is one major example but there are obviously a great many others. Perhaps, as time allows, I'll expand on these and add others.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The only negative response I got to the opening post was a private message from Jacob that read...

"No Clete."

That was it! That was the whole private message! He disagreed with me so vehemently that he had to form his two-syllable response and send it to me personally! Incredible!


Has the quality of the opposition sunk so low around here that an entirely mindless two-word response is all they can muster?

That's not simply a rhetorical question, either. I don't remember the last time I saw a substantive post on any topic from any of the posters around here that I would have expected to object to the opening post. It's as if they all collectively decided to stop participating. They all seem to have resorted to spouting one-liners and/or posting bald proclamations with no argument to support them and/or posting verses of scripture without any commentary or analysis of any kind. Not that I read anywhere near every post on TOL but they've definitely become far fewer and further between. How boring is that?!
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Everyone who even claims to be a Christian will tell you that God is just and kind and righteous and loving. But I'd venture to say that most of them do not actually believe this. Of course, they wholeheartedly and sincerely insist that they do believe it and would perhaps even be willing to die in defense of the claim.

So why do I say that they don't believe it?

Well, it has to do with the definition of the terms justice, righteousness, kindness and love. If a Calvinist, for example, believed that the word justice meant what it actually means, they'd drop 90% of their doctrine like a hot rock. And it isn't just, or even primarily Calvinists either. Catholicism, the largest sect of Christianity in existence doesn't understand what these concepts mean either, which explains their stance on the death penalty and the rest of their left-wing socio-political positions. In fact, I'd venture to say that a very large percentage of the disagreements that exist throughout the church has as much to do with the definition of these terms as it has to do with anything else.

I, therefore, thought it might be a good idea to post a thread where I define these terms for everyone and thereby clear up all the confusion! (That's a joke!)

Ready? Here we go....

Justice happens when one is treated in a manner consistent with their actions (whether in thought or deed).
Justice can manifest in the form of a positive reward for the good one does or a negative punishment for the evil one commits.

The principle of justice is most clearly communicated in Jesus' "Golden Rule". "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

People don't want their neighbor to steal from them, so don't steal from your neighbor.

If you do steal from your neighbor, justice would have it done to you as you sought to do to your neighbor, thus you should restore your neighbor whole and pay him restitution. Thus the biblical idea of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

This concept of justice applies directly to God and to the way in which He responds to us.

Ezekiel 18: 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.​

Righteousness:
Righteousness is nearly synonymous with justice. In many languages, 'just' and 'righteous' are the same word. Righteousness then is acting justly.

Love:
Love is a complex thing to define. Many languages have several words for all the different ideas that are caught up in the single English word, "love".

99.9% of the church, along with a similar percentage of the rest of the world, believes that love is self-immolation, that it is self-sacrifice for no reward, that the truest love has no motive and no cause. They believe that to love someone for their virtues is not love at all. The bible very simply does not teach anything like this. In fact, this idea of love is a primary premise of leftist thinking and it's logical conclusion is Communism. The bible teaches that it is the one who does rightly that will live (see Ezekiel 18, 2 Chronicles 19:2, Matthew 25 & elsewhere).

You might object and say that God died on the cross, forfeiting His very life for us. (John 3:16)

I'd respond, AMEN! Did He do that for nothing? Does God get nothing in exchange for the price He paid? Does He not desire to spend eternity loving and being loved by us? He absolutely does desire that and that is exactly what God purchased for Himself at Calvary and He counted that cost as a worthy exchange. We are God's pearl of great price. Thank you, Lord Jesus!

Thus love is not arbitrary and is not in contradiction to justice. How could it be? Is God not both just and loving? Can God contradict Himself? Certainly not!

So to state affirmative definition of love, rather that discussing what love is not...

To love someone one means that you have their best interests at heart.

Do not be tempted to add "above your own interests" to that definition! To do so would not be biblical nor just. Notice what God says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18 & Matthew 5:43). It does not say that you should love your neighbor more than yourself. Which is not to say, by the way, that we should not be humble. Indeed, looking at life with a view to the eternal, it is to our benefit (i.e. in our own best interest) to have an attitude of humility and treat other as though they were more important than ourselves (even knowing that they are in fact not any more or less important) (Philippians 2:3-4).

Kindness:
Just as righteousness is essentially synonymous with justice, so also is kindness synonymous with love. If love is an attitude toward others then kindness is the action that results from it. Kindness then is ACTING in another best interest.

The critical mistake many Christians make is believing that to be kind means to be nice. Nothing could be further from the truth! Very often, being nice is the exact opposite of being kind and being kind is very often anything but nice. It was, for example, not nice for God to remove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden but it was kind. Otherwise, they'd have eaten of the Tree of Life and lived forever in their fallen state (Genesis 3:22).

So, that's just four terms and really only two primary concepts, and what I've written here is clearly an incomplete definition of even those four terms but there are several more terms that Christians misunderstand and formulate whole doctrinal systems around erroneous definitions of. The term "sovereign" is one major example but there are obviously a great many others. Perhaps, as time allows, I'll expand on these and add others.

Resting in Him,
Clete



In my reading, righteousness is slightly more of a personal or moral concern than the English justice. The root is 'dikaio'. It has to cover Jesus' decision to get baptized 'to fulfill all righteousness' and the Gospel event which is the 'righteousness of God' and also some Spirit-produced Christian actions such as Rom 8:4. 8:4 is an involved statement about how justification and personal transformation are related. Justification is to be declared righteous by the Judge, even if on account of a sub, but the recipient of that news is personally changed resulting in 'dikaioma' in that person because of the work of the Spirit. The same verse is also showing that this kind of righteousness is not produced by the person who does the Law out of carnal reasons. That's what Paul was like in his former life. They are actually obeying 'sarka'--human nature--which is also the term for the old Israel that is not the Israel that exists by faith.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
The only negative response I got to the opening post was a private message from Jacob that read...

"No Clete."

That was it! That was the whole private message! He disagreed with me so vehemently that he had to form his two-syllable response and send it to me personally! Incredible!


Has the quality of the opposition sunk so low around here that an entirely mindless two-word response is all they can muster?

That's not simply a rhetorical question, either. I don't remember the last time I saw a substantive post on any topic from any of the posters around here that I would have expected to object to the opening post. It's as if they all collectively decided to stop participating. They all seem to have resorted to spouting one-liners and/or posting bald proclamations with no argument to support them and/or posting verses of scripture without any commentary or analysis of any kind. Not that I read anywhere near every post on TOL but they've definitely become far fewer and further between. How boring is that?!

There's way too much "Cutting and Pasting" of Scriptures coming from certain posters. It's as if they think the rest of us don't have access to a Bible. A forum is for discussion. To post random Scripture verses without commentary makes no sense, at all?
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
There's way too much "Cutting and Pasting" of Scriptures coming from certain posters. It's as if they think the rest of us don't have access to a Bible. A forum is for discussion. To post random Scripture verses without commentary makes no sense, at all?


That's right. I'm glad they are familiar enough with Scripture to do so, but we should all have Bibles out on our desks. Or tabs.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
In my reading, righteousness is slightly more of a personal or moral concern than the English justice. The root is 'dikaio'. It has to cover Jesus' decision to get baptized 'to fulfill all righteousness' and the Gospel event which is the 'righteousness of God' and also some Spirit-produced Christian actions such as Rom 8:4. 8:4 is an involved statement about how justification and personal transformation are related. Justification is to be declared righteous by the Judge, even if on account of a sub, but the recipient of that news is personally changed resulting in 'dikaioma' in that person because of the work of the Spirit. The same verse is also showing that this kind of righteousness is not produced by the person who does the Law out of carnal reasons. That's what Paul was like in his former life. They are actually obeying 'sarka'--human nature--which is also the term for the old Israel that is not the Israel that exists by faith.

I don't think anything you've said here contradicts the opening post. There is, however, no question that all of the words I discuss in the OP have spheres of meaning, the edges of which are somewhat fuzzy and overlapping and extend well beyond the things I've said about them. The OP is not intended as an exhaustive definition but just an attempt to communicate the core meaning of the terms.

It certainly was not my intent to imply that the English words righteousness and justice are perfectly synonymous. They are, however, very very closely related concepts. In the Hebrew it's not even two separate words (See Strong's 6662). In the Hebrew, the difference is determined entirely by the context.
 

Danoh

New member
That's right. I'm glad they are familiar enough with Scripture to do so, but we should all have Bibles out on our desks. Or tabs.

Leave it to you: a fraud who basically parrots the labors of others in combination with your own delusions added to theirs - leave it to you to agree with the fraud Gross Nick: who's own m.o. is much like your own.

It is no surprise then, that - often - when either of you cite a few words from one Scripture or another; you cite said lines absent of their actual word order.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Leave it to you: a fraud who basically parrots the labors of others in combination with your own delusions added to theirs - leave it to you to agree with the fraud Gross Nick: who's own m.o. is much like your own.

It is no surprise then, that - often - when either of you cite a few words from one Scripture or another; you cite said lines absent of their actual word order.

That's enough of that.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
The mystery of the gospel is that a just God can declare some men righteous who personally are not righteous:

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is made known, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe" (Ro.3:21-22).​
 

Danoh

New member
The mystery of the gospel is that a just God can declare some men righteous who personally are not righteous:

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is made known, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe" (Ro.3:21-22).​

How is that the mystery of the gospel if that is a feature of Israel's promised New Covenant as well?
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
It is a mystery because it was never prophesised.



No, no. It is not the mystery of the Gospel that God does that, and it was prophesied. Both wrong.

The closest mystery to this that Jerry is thinking of is Eph 3:5,6 which is that the Gospel, not the Law, is how Jews and Gentiles are unified. There is no mystery that they would be unified in Christ.

2, Since Gen 3 it was prophesied. Since Gen 12, 15 it was prophesied that the Seed would be a common blessing to all nations.
 

Danoh

New member
No, no. It is not the mystery of the Gospel that God does that, and it was prophesied. Both wrong.

The closest mystery to this that Jerry is thinking of is Eph 3:5,6 which is that the Gospel, not the Law, is how Jews and Gentiles are unified. There is no mystery that they would be unified in Christ.

2, Since Gen 3 it was prophesied. Since Gen 12, 15 it was prophesied that the Seed would be a common blessing to all nations.

Someone needs to call the Fonz - IP's jukebox is stuck on his own reasoning :chuckle:
 
Top