Definition of Justice

[RamistThomist]

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]

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

 

[Reformed Fox]

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]

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]

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)?

Justice certainly involves both.

 

[RamistThomist]

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)?

Justice certainly involves both.

That's my general working conclusion for the moment.

 

[Miss Marple]

A perfect application of God's civil laws.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.

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

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]

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

 

[jandrusk]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.]

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]

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]

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.