Mercy or Permissiveness?

R

roadsign Jan 21, 2006

The gospel message is all about mercy, as modeled and taught by Christ. Mercy triumphs over judgment. Yet, I find that mercy is often replaced by permissiveness, that is, an antinomian mindset that turns a blind eye to sin, and makes no effort to see it eradicated. On the other hand mercy is viewed as permissiveness by those who believe that deserved punishment is the way to eradicate sinful patterns. For them “too much love” is viewed as “too much permissiveness, or spoiling”.Some think they’ve solved this problem by given this advice: “You need a balance between love and discipline”. To me, that statement reveals a gross misunderstanding of love, mercy, and discipline. Could this be because of an inability to differentiate between mercy and permissiveness? Any thoughts?What really is mercy? Has anyone struggled with this issue? Diane

Q

Quickend Jan 21, 2006

I'm not sure if I get the nature of the question. Let me say briefly that to my understanding, mercy is by nature part permissive.To exhibit mercy we must allow for either no consequence or at times a lesser or delayed consequence. Mercy Has a component of permissiveness and so it is often misstaken as such.Just Thinking,Robert.H

sermonindex Jan 21, 2006

Hi Diane,You asked if any of us stuggled with this.Yes, I did very much so, because I always leaned more toward mercy for a good part of my life and 'after saved life'. Lots of years after.Till I became Sola-Scriptura by God letting me know that my thoughts are not His. That my 'mercy' was 'human mercy'. Different from His of course. Posting sola-scriptura, hasn't worked too well on forums for me, because folks want to talk about what they think, so I'll give an analogy for how I see your question and to explain my answer.Analogy ~Your 13 year old son, suddenly becomes very interested in electricity, because he's being drawn that way and everything around him seems to have it mentioned in it or used in it and he knows someday he wants to be an Electrician.You find him in his room, toying with electricity... so at first, you calmly and lovingly explain to him that he is not ready for that, his age does not permit him to become an Electrician, and try to explain the dangers of his involvement and even go so far as to get him a book on it, just so you can better explain the dangers of it, and so on.Next week, despite all that you've done above, he's back at it. You know he's endangering himself, so you try once more.He insists in his own mind that this is what he wants and sees adults doing it, so he persists and once again, you find out he's messing with this again ... that was designed for our good, but not at his age, lack of understanding of what it is really intended for entirely, and it's dangers to him in his present state or age.How long will you allow it to go on ? And what measures do you think you may have to go to, in order to get him to stop until "the time is right" for him to use electricity, to the depths that he's desiring ?Mercy & Love are all but synonomous, they go hand in hand ... so that is how I see "permissiveness".Because to change the story above ... "We" are God's children .... the electricity is sin ... a sin such as sex let's say. Anything that has a good purpose, but when not according to God's direction book, it will endanger our lives and spiritual lives. We can only look into His Directional book to know how to answer your question.To me it's that simple.If my 3 year old, likes to run across the street without adult supervision, and makes a habit of it, despite our talks ... what is the merciful/loving way of handling that also ... as with the 13 year old above ?I'd still rather answer with Bible only, but, I read stories once in a while too.Hope you and Kity are well :-). Annie

C

CJaKfOrEsT Jan 21, 2006

I think I'll be struggling with this, one way or another, until either He comes, or I go;-). For me, the following verse aides me greatly in the struggle - Matt 9:13 "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."I also don't buy into the whole "You need a balance between love and discipline" thing. In God's ecconomy love is more often than not expressed as discpline. For me, I run on a philosophy that says the there can be no forgiveness where their is no wrong doing. If I falsely accuse you of doing something wrong of me, it would be offensive for me to forgive you, for I'm the one who has wronged you.Many fall for the trap of assuring the guilty that their crime was "not so bad" in an attempt to be "loving". If there crime is "not so bad", then why do they have need of forgiveness?The secret to mercy is to maintain the guilt of the sinner, while letting them off the hook for anything they've done against us, all the while accepting that wrong has been done. This is perfectly expressed by Jesus' words, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do." He never took away their guilt in the action, but He gave up His right to justice in the situation.How is this different to "balancing between love and discipline", simple. Watering down sin is not love nor discipline, for it blocks the guilty for the only way to the atonement (ie, "Godly sorrow worketh repentance") and without faith in the atonement, their can be no righteousness. Exacting revenge (ie, "I just want to see them come to justice" kind of attitude) is neither discipline or love, for it merely solidifies the guilt of the guilty, and portrays an image that God will not forgive the guilty.This in no way takes away the individual responsability of either the offender or the offended, as God can move outside of ourselves. The question is simply the personal obedience of the individual. We do our bit, and leave the rest to God. This is true "faith".To quote Oswald Chambers, "Trust God, ad do the next thing."Blessings.

R

roadsign Jan 22, 2006

To exhibit mercy we must allow for either no consequence or at times a lesser or delayed consequence. Mercy has a component of permissiveness and so it is often mistaken as such. I say it a bit differently: Mercy never permits sin, but it forgives it, and absolves the sinner of the deserved punishment. I suspect that is what you are really tryingto say. I wouldn't think that permissiveness includes absolving the punishment, if it means permitting the sin as acceptable (no need for punishment).CJ said: The secret to mercy is to maintain the guilt of the sinner, while letting them off the hook for anything they've done against us, all the while accepting that wrong has been done. I think this says it well. And yes, it is hard to practice it. There is a tendency to substitute mercy with permissiveness, thus, never enabling the sinner (including ourselves) to experience Christ’s mercy and grace. CJ, did the O Chambers quote get chopped a bit? It doesn’t make sense, and I'm curious what it is supposed to say. MeAgain, I think that your analogy was dealing with issues of discipline (teaching) rather than mercy. You seem to be troubled that some of us here don't like to use Scripture all the time, where as you do. Am I right: You seem also to feel that some do not appreciate your use of Scripture. From what I have seen, I have come to suspect that the difficulty may not be merely on everybody else's side. While it is of utmost importance to value Scripture as our supreme authority, I suggest that you also value and respect the thought processes of others. After all, listening is love in action. Be sensitive for the Spirit of the law. And God may speak to you through some faultering saints on this site. It has happened to me many times. Diane

sermonindex Jan 22, 2006

Hi Diane, About your ending lines to me ... We spoke about "Mercy" on Dorcas' thread on "what manner of spirit ...". I tried to explain "Mercy/love in action" on that thread.And on your Love thread said, Love "is" also an action and Nothing Less. Not feelings and not talk.If I could just explain, because you're misunderstanding my point and seeming to judge some here. (Maybe your mercy is being tested :)But you said ... """MeAgain, I think that your analogy was dealing with issues of discipline (teaching) rather than mercy."""About your sentence I just quoted ... Is Heb. 12 on Chastisement NOT "Mercy" ? Or Love ?See, that's where I have problems splitting up God's character into our terms on individual "virtues" without seeing the Whole of What/Who God "IS" and we can only do so by taking the Whole of "what is written".Whatever "virtue" is brought up ... whether "Love" or now "Mercy", what we're discussing is The Nature or Character or Image of God Himself (and prayerfully, not human virtues) ... so I find it hard, to not use 'Scripture only' when describing HIM, in fear of dishonoring His Character. He's demanded "Spirit and Truth" and not my words to worship, serve or 'explain' Him.He "IS" Love. So to define, "Love", is to define the only LIVING Example's actions.He was there at creation and He was there at the destruction of Sodom ... Yet He 'is' Love/Mercy/Etc.Do you see my reasoning now, and not that I feel I am any loftier nor better than anyone else ???The bigger God gets to me the more of the worm I see that I am. "HE" is better described by His Own Words ... not mine.I tried to explain "love in action" on that thread by Dorcas and on yours on Love.I am a Senior Citizen & Ill folks advocate ... we listen ... as you admonished just now that I should learn to 'listen'. And I really listen when other's are describing The One True Perfect God with their own words.His so called "virtues" are not His virtues, they are HIM. If a person's "thought processes" are not Scriptural on Love/mercy/etc, whatever God IS, that should compel us to bring in His Word on the matter.His Love to you Diane.Annie

C

CJaKfOrEsT Jan 22, 2006

roadsign wrote:CJ, did the O Chambers quote get chopped a bit? It doesn’t make sense, and I'm curious what it is supposed to say. Well firstly, it was chopped a bit...the "ad" should be "and":oops:. The quote is out of his biography "Abandoned to God". This was something that he said to his then fiance Biddy to reassure her that everything will be alright when they get married, in spite of their having no fixed income, address or even preplanned minitry dates period a month or two. In reading the book, one quickly learns that the statement "Trust God and do the next thing" somes up his life, described by others as a living embodiment of the Sermon on the Mount.OC copped alot of flac for never rationalised a difficult statement in scripture, to the point of "Giving to all that asked", even when he knew they were taking advantage of him. This statement could also be stated by quoting what would appear to be Ravenhill's favourite hymn, "Trut and obey, for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey".Want to know the secret behind the wisdomed contained in "My Utmost.." and I believe that it is OC consitant adhearance to this philosophy, which is the only means I know to maintain a constant simplistic fellowship with God, without "taking the reigns back" from Him.Anyway, it's alot easier than trying to second guess God all the time. Applied to forgiveness, I let the guy off the hook. If God decides to bless him, then that's none of my business. I just go onto the "next thing" He has for me, rejoicing over the fact that He allowed me the opportunity to glorify Him.

C

CJaKfOrEsT Jan 22, 2006

MeAgain wrote:And I really listen when other's are describing The One True Perfect God with their own words.His so called "virtues" are not His virtues, they are HIM. If a person's "thought processes" are not Scriptural on Love/mercy/etc, whatever God IS, that should compel us to bring in His Word on the matter.Wow...this is a beatiful statement, and cuts straight to the heart of the matter. I could see this in what you had already said, however some are too busy looking for fault in words (hence people like me can tend to be a little "over cautious" in our turn of phrase - this place can do that to you:-)). Early on in my visiting here, there were exhortations from a few of us to focus more on what we agree upon, than what we disagree upon. This led to incredible unity in the forums, which, in my observations, we seem to be losing again (this isn't a bad thing, it simply means that more people are coming in, who will have the opportunity to learn humility, however frustrating that may be - and it took me while when I first came).May I suggest to anyone who feels the need to bring correction (and this isn't directed to anyone specific per se) seek to bring clarity first, and you may uncover a difficulty to express oneself (just talk to Mike B (crsschk)about that one:-P) rather than error in doctrine. After all, compare any of us to the likes of Chambers or Tozer, and we all come short...let alone to the one to be compared to, our Lord Jesus Christ.Blessings.

C

crsschk Jan 22, 2006

Early on in my visiting here, there were exhortations from a few of us to focus more on what we agree upon, than what we disagree upon. This led to incredible unity in the forums, which, in my observations, we seem to be losing again (this isn't a bad thing, it simply means that more people are coming in, who will have the opportunity to learn humility, however frustrating that may be - and it took me while when I first came).Thanks Aaron, for noticing the prediciment...