The rather clear message is that serious punishments for serious crimes are somehow to be almost relished. I find this odd and disturbing.
Certainly there should exist a certain sadness that it has come to the point where a serious punishment has to be meted out against a serious criminal, however having admitted that there should be sadness that it has come to this, we should relish whenever justice, as God defines justice, is meted out. What, does Zrimec think that we should somehow lament that justice is being done or that God’s law is being honored?
Steve Zrimec needs to read Edwards where he preaches on and on about this subject in terms of God’s justice seen at the last day. Edward’s had no problems whatsoever relishing in God’s justice being seen.
What we have here are people who are more pious than God. If God rejoices and relishes in His law being upheld should we not rejoice and relish with him? Are we more pious than God?
When a judge hands down a capital sentence (something with which I have no problem per se) it seems to me the fitting and wise posture would be less relish and more sobriety. Any wise judge who has a sense of what is right, true and good will tell you it gives him or her no pleasure to have to conclude a heinous matter with an equally heinous sentence. It actually causes more pain and confusion. There is nothing “beautiful and glorious” about any of it. And wise victims know the same thing.
This is mere liberal hand wringing over the sadness of what is happening to the victim (criminal) while forgetting how the criminal has violated God’s glory by violating God’s just standard. Does Steve expect me to weep when a child rapist and murderer is sentenced with a just sentence? No, I will not weep, but I will relish that the criminal has been handed down a sentence that fits the crime. I am not taking delight that the person became a criminal or that the criminal is going to be vanquished, but I am taking delight and relishing in the fact that justice is being done. Indeed, there is only one thing that could make me relish the sentence even more and that is if the criminal repented and trusted Christ before the just sentence was visited upon him.
Steve and Darryl, are both caught up in feeling sorry for the criminal while forgetting both the human victim and the assault on God’s glory that the criminal attacked in the crime committed. Steve and Darryl would have us weep over justice, in a criminal setting, being upheld.
Now, the typical comeback to this is that … “Well, we are sinners to and we deserve death as well, and so we should be slow about being too delighted with justice.” This statement confuses matters. One can still be delighted with justice while praying that grace visits the criminal before the sentence is passed on them. Personally, I believe it is wicked not to delight in God’s justice being upheld in criminal settings.
Steve Zrimec wrote,
“To love the law of God is not the same as to relish its doling out.”
This is just plain stupid.
This is like saying … “I love the law of God but I hate seeing it applied.”
Moreover, and again, the OT laws being cited here have not to do with creating the Good Society. They have to do with what it means to work out our salvation by God in the person and work of Jesus. Those are two very different things. Those who want the Good Society convey a chilling relish, one that should demand a lot more outrage than has been seen here (and I’m not given to outrage). Those who understand this was all a typological pointing to God’s salvation of his people show, well, a more careful handling of the matter.
Zrimec assumes what he has not yet proved. The moral law and the case law was about creating the good society. The moral law and the case law was fulfilled in Christ but the Scripture never teach that the moral law and the general equity of the case law was abrogated. Steve assumes all this but this is the matter under contention.
But at least we are beginning to see the reasons for all the competing outrage. Steve apparently believes that he has muted his outrage. I know that I have muted mine. I believe Steve and Darryl are public square anti-nomian heretics who show their despising of God and His grace by their despising of God’s Holy Law. They likewise have a equally low estimate of me. It is obvious that we are serving different Gods.
“So if it’s a confession that God’s law were wise and glorious, no problem. Just be sure it is understood that such a confession is not as one who quests the Good Society, but rather as one who is a miserable sinner whose only help is in the name of the Lord our God, who made heaven and earth.”
Steve, seems to think he gets brownie points for admitting he is a miserable sinner. Nobody here disagrees with the fact that either Steve is or they themselves are miserable sinners. That is not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is … “Who’s Laws should we be ruled by?” Zrimec and Hart, being more pious than God, desire to be ruled by Natural law. Those who honor the plain meaning of Scripture desire to honor God’s law. Nobody gets brownie points for admitting they are sinners.
These people disgust me. They really do.
And I am glad that I disgust them.