Currently, Rebecca is stating that the same action cannot be both Justice and Grace to the same person. This is because Justice is getting exactly what you deserve, and Grace is getting better than what you deserve. For the sake of the conversation on that thread, I am accepting those definitions of Justice and Grace (mostly because I think our disagreement will end up not being over these terms).
However, I feel that there is something wrong with those definitions, but I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it. I think that the Justice definition is probabky OK. However, the Grace definition is a bit worrysome. Without a doubt, this is how Grace has been defined in dictionaries and seminaries. But I think that there is something more to it.
Grace is not so much an action or a transaction like Justice. Rather it is an attitude towards the recipient--an intention on the part of the giver. This invariably translates into action, so Grace is not without an action component. But the action is related to Grace the same way that Works are related to Faith--not part of the actual definition, but an inevitable result and companion of Faith.
When you hear that someone is gracious, you don't generally think of someone who is coldly unfair in your favor. You think of warmth of attitude and intention. That attitude results in you getting better than you deserve.
On the flip side, if someone gives you more than you deserve, but does so in a hateful manner, you are unlikely to call that "Grace". For example, if you are arguing with a Customer Support person who is cursing you out and finally gives you what you want plus a coupon just to shut you up all the while holding you in contempt and derision, that just doesn't feel like Grace to me.
What do you guys think? Is grace only about the action disregarding the attitude? Or does the attitide and intention play a role?