Divine Justice

[Zaatar71]

You misunderstand. I was not suggesting a solution. I was pointing out that the judicial philosophy held determines how salvation is viewed, especially when salvation itself is viewed as a divine righteousness through the Law (a judicial act).

But you are at the topic of the OP.

The Biblical test states that those who are saved are made a new creation, will be conformed into the image of Christ, will be refined, that God will remove their old heart and spirit and give them a new one, they will be reborn, they die to sin, they put to death the "old man:, etc.

We agree on passages. God does not "clear rhe guilty" or "punish the righteous" as both are abominations.


My question is why could God not make us new creations? Why could God not conform us into the image on Christ. I mean, there is no condemnation in Christ so problem solved.

God would have justly put to death sin in us. We would no longer be guilty.


Your answer seems to be that justice does not work that way, but why should we simoly accept your judicial philosophy as the correct one? Why should we look for salvation to be a justification through the law at all?

John, It seems as if you are straining and over thinking this!
That is the exact Person Jesus Came.
Gal.4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

This is A legal transaction. It is not just free forgiveness, We have been redeemed, and bought with a price.
The price is the blood of the Lamb, being Slain, in our place. He was not just a crime victim of evildoers. He was the Lamb Slain, crushed, sin bearer, substitute, Passover.

 

[Silverhair]

In order to allow God those get them born again, His divine wrath towards them as sinners must get appeased/satisfied, He cannot just see their are repenting and want to get save, so he just forgets their sins then

The bible would indicate that God can do just that;

Isa 45:22 "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith,...

And why does He do this?

Isa 43:25 "I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins.

 

[JonC]

No sin in this world goes without the wrath of God.

@Charlie24

This is what I was trying to get at. And where we disagree.

You are somebody that considers his words rather than becoming defensive, which I greatly appreciate. I believe you can seriously address the topic, as I am not looking for a defence but an explanation and am asking questions for my own edification.


Please do me the favor of honestly considering my position so that I can hopefully understand yours.

Under the law the sinner is punished and the righteous is blessed. So under the law the wicked will receive the pu ishment the law requires. I think that is simple (and I think we agree on that).

BUT what if God's righteousness is manifested apart from the law. Note - NOT contradicting the law but fulfilling the requirements of the law in a way not of the law itself?

Suppose, for example, that instead of punishing the sinner (or the sins of the sinner transferred to Christ) God did something foreign to the law that meets the just requirements of the law.

Instead of achieving righteousness through the law, suppose God demonstrated this righteousness by literally making the guilty person a new creation and conforming that person into the image of Christ.

At Judgment that person would actually be righteous (literally conformed into to the image of Christ). He would have died to sin (the "old man" would not longer exist).

One objection, obviously, is how could this be? How can somebody already born be reborn. My answer is that what is born of the flesh is flesh and will perish. What is born of the Spirit is spirit and does not die. We are reborn and only that which is reborn passes to life (we, at Judgment, will have been refined ss one regimes gold or silver, the guilty "old man" will no longer exist).


Why would a righteousness apart from the law that makes the sinner into a new creation not satisfy the demands of the law?

 

[JonC]

That's because Christ death for them provided the Justice that their guilt deserved. God did not just forgive them apart from Justice being satisfied for them.

But why would justice not be satisfied if God made the guilty literally a new creation (made the man "not guilty"?

I understand that this would be a righteousness apart from the law rather than through the law.

The law demands the wicked be punished.

If God made the wicked to be a new creation, if God actually succeeded in conforming this man into the image of Christ, then the "old man" woukd no longer exist and at Judgment he woukd stand before God as a new creation (innocent of sin).



My question is why would this righteousness apart from the law not also fulfill the requirements of the law?

The wicked would still be punished at the judgment.

But the new creation would literally be righteous (God would have succeeded in comforming us into the image of Christ).

 

[JonC]

John, It seems as if you are straining and over thinking this!
That is the exact Person Jesus Came.
Gal.4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

This is A legal transaction. It is not just free forgiveness, We have been redeemed, and bought with a price.
The price is the blood of the Lamb, being Slain, in our place. He was not just a crime victim of evildoers. He was the Lamb Slain, crushed, sin bearer, substitute, Passover.

No, I am not straining over this. I do not believe you are either.

We are considering how divine justice e is met, but understanding divine justice differently.

I agree that Christ was made under the law. He bore our sin, came under the curse for us, was made to be a curse for us.

I am asking you to address where we are viewing divine justice differently so we can understand one another's views.


I believe that Christ came under the law and fulfilled this law (whete we could not). Men are under the law, sp to redeem us from sin and death (our failure under the law) it was necessary for Jesus to me made like the brethren.
Where we differ is how we are actualky made righteous.

You present, if I understand you correctly, our redemption as being a manifestation of the righteous of God through the law. Jesus suffered the penality of the law in our stead so that that debt to the law is fulfilled on our behalf.


My view is that our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law, that God fulfilled the law in that at Judgment we will have been regined, cleansed, made new creations in Christ. At Judgment God will have successfully completed transforming us into the image of Christ. We will be righteous, not deserving of punishment, glorified. The "old man" will no longer exist.

The law is fulfilled (the wicked will be punished but we will not be wicked) in a way that is a righteousness apart from the law itself.

 

[Charlie24]

@Charlie24

This is what I was trying to get at. And where we disagree.

You are somebody that considers his words rather than becoming defensive, which I greatly appreciate. I believe you can seriously address the topic, as I am not looking for a defence but an explanation and am asking questions for my own edification.


Please do me the favor of honestly considering my position so that I can hopefully understand yours.

Under the law the sinner is punished and the righteous is blessed. So under the law the wicked will receive the pu ishment the law requires. I think that is simple (and I think we agree on that).

BUT what if God's righteousness is manifested apart from the law. Note - NOT contradicting the law but fulfilling the requirements of the law in a way not of the law itself?

Suppose, for example, that instead of punishing the sinner (or the sins of the sinner transferred to Christ) God did something foreign to the law that meets the just requirements of the law.

Instead of achieving righteousness through the law, suppose God demonstrated this righteousness by literally making the guilty person a new creation and conforming that person into the image of Christ.

At Judgment that person would actually be righteous (literally conformed into to the image of Christ). He would have died to sin (the "old man" would not longer exist).

One objection, obviously, is how could this be? How can somebody already born be reborn. My answer is that what is born of the flesh is flesh and will perish. What is born of the Spirit is spirit and does not die. We are reborn and only that which is reborn passes to life (we, at Judgment, will have been refined ss one regimes gold or silver, the guilty "old man" will no longer exist).


Why would a righteousness apart from the law that makes the sinner into a new creation not satisfy the demands of the law?

The way I see it, Jon, is that God is a Holy God that despises sin, and cannot tolerate it.

"By sending His Son to condemn sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. 8:3-4

The righteousness is in the Law, but fallen man cannot keep the Law. We are talking about the moral Law, the 10 Commandments. This is God's standard of righteousness.

For this reason Paul said the, "the Law brings forth death" because we can't keep it. But Christ did keep it, and through faith in Him we meet the demands of the Law in Him. By faith in Christ we are Law keepers in the sight of God, perfect without blemish. But in reality we are none of this because we still sin by our fallen nature.

I see Christ taking the full punishment for my sins in order for me to have the opportunity to be reconciled to God from my sin. But to benefit from this reconciliation I must choose Christ. If not, the wrath of God abides on me and I will receive my just reward of eternal separation from God.

The righteousness apart from the keeping of God's Law is what I have gained through Christ. All by the Father's mercy and grace. Otherwise there would be no hope.

This is the only way I know to answer your question.

 

[Mur]

This supposed that Christ died for every individual , He didn't , He died only for the elect so the non-elect sins remain counted against them, Justice for them is the lake of fire

Your doctrinal claim would be more persuasive with scripture.

 

[Brightfame52]

But why would justice not be satisfied if God made the guilty literally a new creation (made the man "not guilty"?

Because they were guilty duh. Maybe you need to study what Justice means

 

[Brightfame52]

Your doctrinal claim would be more persuasive with scripture.

I've showed scripture before

 

[Mur]

I've showed scripture before

You're welcome.

 

[JonC]

The way I see it, Jon, is that God is a Holy God that despises sin, and cannot tolerate it.

"By sending His Son to condemn sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. 8:3-4

The righteousness is in the Law, but fallen man cannot keep the Law. We are talking about the moral Law, the 10 Commandments. This is God's standard of righteousness.

For this reason Paul said the, "the Law brings forth death" because we can't keep it. But Christ did keep it, and through faith in Him we meet the demands of the Law in Him. By faith in Christ we are Law keepers in the sight of God, perfect without blemish. But in reality we are none of this because we still sin by our fallen nature.

I see Christ taking the full punishment for my sins in order for me to have the opportunity to be reconciled to God from my sin. But to benefit from this reconciliation I must choose Christ. If not, the wrath of God abides on me and I will receive my just reward of eternal separation from God.

The righteousness apart from the keeping of God's Law is what I have gained through Christ. All by the Father's mercy and grace. Otherwise there would be no hope.

This is the only way I know to answer your question.

I agree with most of what you say. I think maybe I did not pose my question wrll. I am having problems finding how to phrase it, so please bear with me a bit longer.

I absolutely agree that God is holy and He will punish the wivked. When we sin we are actively disobeying God.

God IS the standard of righteousness.

Bear with me on the next part as a stumble through my question.

The law is perfect. God's law is God's standard.

The law demands the wicked be punished and the righteous be justified.
But no man is justified under the law (we all fall short and earn condemnation).

God will judge all people at "the Judgment", "on that day". It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

I think we agree so far. Now the hard part (my question).

At the Judgment those in Christ will have been "regined", "made new creations in Christ". We will have been "conformed into the imahe of Christ". We will have "died to sin . Our old heart snd spirit will no longer e ist. God will have given us a new heart and spirit. The "old man" will mo longer exist. We will have "been made righteous in Christ".

IF at judgment God will have been successful in what He said He predestined us for in Christ
IF God will have succeeded in "refining" us, "cleansing" us
IF God will have been able to "make us a new creation in Christ"
IF God will have "conformed us into the image of Christ"

Then why would Jesus have had to suffer the punishment for the sins of an "old man" that does not even exist when God judges?


It seems that your position places the Father under the law, that this law requires God to punish offenses (as Calvin developed, to "to avenge the law".

But what if God fulfilled the law in Christ (and in us through Him) rather than articulating redemption through the law? This would folliw Scripture (literally, the biblical text). So I think it should be considered.

The only thing absent is if God Himself is bound by the law to an action (if God has to punish sinful actions regardless of the actual sinner).

 

[Zaatar71]

The bible would indicate that God can do just that;

Isa 45:22 "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith,...

And why does He do this?

Isa 43:25 "I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins.

Sh, What you are missing is the fact that God can forget about our sins, because Jesus as the Lamb of God took the penalty we rightly deserved, and fully made a complete atonement for those sins. As propitiation the WRATH DUE US, WAS TURNRED AWAY.

 

[Charlie24]

I agree with most of what you say. I think maybe I did not pose my question wrll. I am having problems finding how to phrase it, so please bear with me a bit longer.

I absolutely agree that God is holy and He will punish the wivked. When we sin we are actively disobeying God.

God IS the standard of righteousness.

Bear with me on the next part as a stumble through my question.

The law is perfect. God's law is God's standard.

The law demands the wicked be punished and the righteous be justified.
But no man is justified under the law (we all fall short and earn condemnation).

God will judge all people at "the Judgment", "on that day". It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

I think we agree so far. Now the hard part (my question).

At the Judgment those in Christ will have been "regined", "made new creations in Christ". We will have been "conformed into the imahe of Christ". We will have "died to sin . Our old heart snd spirit will no longer e ist. God will have given us a new heart and spirit. The "old man" will mo longer exist. We will have "been made righteous in Christ".

IF at judgment God will have been successful in what He said He predestined us for in Christ
IF God will have succeeded in "refining" us, "cleansing" us
IF God will have been able to "make us a new creation in Christ"
IF God will have "conformed us into the image of Christ"

Then why would Jesus have had to suffer the punishment for the sins of an "old man" that does not even exist when God judges?


It seems that your position places the Father under the law, that this law requires God to punish offenses (as Calvin developed, to "to avenge the law".

But what if God fulfilled the law in Christ (and in us through Him) rather than articulating redemption through the law? This would folliw Scripture (literally, the biblical text). So I think it should be considered.

The only thing absent is if God Himself is bound by the law to an action (if God has to punish sinful actions regardless of the actual sinner).

Yes, this is some heavy duty stuff we're dealing with here, and there are so many different views on the need for reconciliation.

We know that Christ reconciled us to God, without this happening there could be no salvation. And He did it while we were yet sinners.

Not for a select few, but for the whole world.

Reconcile in the way Christ did it for us is "katalasso" it means to change the relation of hostile parties into a relation of peace.

Why would Christ have to do this?

This is God's first move toward man, and in return man moves toward God which he was unable to do on his own. God is not hostile toward man, man is hostile toward God. Paul said that "while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son."

God doesn't need to be reconciled, it's man that has a problem with God and has to be reconciled.

 

[Charlie24]

Yes, this is some heavy duty stuff we're dealing with here, and there are so many different views on the need for reconciliation.

We know that Christ reconciled us to God, without this happening there could be no salvation. And He did it while we were yet sinners.

Not for a select few, but for the whole world.

Reconcile in the way Christ did it for us is "katalasso" it means to change the relation of hostile parties into a relation of peace.

Why would Christ have to do this?

This is God's first move toward man, and in return man moves toward God which he was unable to do on his own. God is not hostile toward man, man is hostile toward God. Paul said that "while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son."

God doesn't need to be reconciled, it's man that has a problem with God and has to be reconciled.

I don't claim to right about everything!

What I see in God's reconciliation through Christ is God saying, I love you, this is what I have done for you, I have made a way for your sins to be forgiven and be a part of my family, despite your inability and the condition you're in.

 

[Charlie24]

I don't claim to right about everything!

What I see in God's reconciliation through Christ is God saying, I love you, this is what I have done for you, I have made a way for your sins to be forgiven and be a part of my family, despite your inability and the condition you're in.

Now concerning the wrath of God on sin, which is what this is all about, is as you have said, it's not clearly written in Scripture that wrath was placed on Christ.

I see the concept of it, and believe it was, but neither of us with our theories can prove our points directly from Scripture.

 

[Silverhair]

Sh, What you are missing is the fact that God can forget about our sins, because Jesus as the Lamb of God took the penalty we rightly deserved, and fully made a complete atonement for those sins. As propitiation the WRATH DUE US, WAS TURNRED AWAY.

You said I have missed something but then agreed with me when you said "God can forget about our sins,"

Since God is Omniscient He does not actually forget but rather chooses not to bring to mind the sins of those that trust in Him. Which if you read my post Divine Justice you will see that is what I had said.

I agree that the anger of God was turned away by the propitious act of Christ Jesus. Those that have trusted in God will not have to suffer the judgement of God while those that have rejected Him will be judged for their sins and condemned.

 

[JonC]

Yes, this is some heavy duty stuff we're dealing with here, and there are so many different views on the need for reconciliation.

We know that Christ reconciled us to God, without this happening there could be no salvation. And He did it while we were yet sinners.

Not for a select few, but for the whole world.

Reconcile in the way Christ did it for us is "katalasso" it means to change the relation of hostile parties into a relation of peace.

Why would Christ have to do this?

This is God's first move toward man, and in return man moves toward God which he was unable to do on his own. God is not hostile toward man, man is hostile toward God. Paul said that "while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son."

God doesn't need to be reconciled, it's man that has a problem with God and has to be reconciled.

There is nothing here that I disagree with (suprized?).

I think the difference between our views is not in what needed to be done to reconcile man to God.

I think we both agree that at Judgment those who are saved have been made new creations, they have been "refined", the "old man" no longer exists and man is completely conformed into the image of Christ. I think we agree here because we have touched on this being what we are now predestined to become.

So the actual reconciliation of man has nothing to do with Jesus suffering punishment for our sins instead of us. We woukd be reconciled simply by being made into Christ's image.

This also has nothing to do with God judging sinners. The sinner (this "old man") will not exist at Judgment for those who believe. It does not matter to that "new creation" (this brother of Christ) if the sins of the "old man. he was is punished or not.


I think the difference may be what demands the law makes upon God.

Is God bound by the law in such a way that He must redeem men through the law ? I say "no .
Why? Because the law is a reflection of God's nature, but so is grace. These two do not violate one another, even though Scripture presents them differently.

NOTE - I am not saying God violates the law, only that God fulfills the requirements of the law in a means other than through the law itself (another act of creation).

 

[JonC]

Now concerning the wrath of God on sin, which is what this is all about, is as you have said, it's not clearly written in Scripture that wrath was placed on Christ.

I see the concept of it, and believe it was, but neither of us with our theories can prove our points directly from Scripture.

The difference here is what I am saying is what is written in the biblicsl text.

You are correct that the theory you speak of is not actually in the Bible. It is what men have reasoned out of the Bible. That in itself does not make it wrong.

What you are using is "systematic theology". This goes through the Bible as a whole, gathers principles and ideas about related topics, looks through related historical theologies, considers philosophical views concerning the issue, and tries to develop a reasomable doctrine.

People who agree with the reasoning accept the doctrine while people who disagree reject it.

This was my field of study, and I loved it (maybe too much at the time, it csn bevome a "rabbit hole" as these doctrines are constructed over centuries).

BUT that does not mean your conclusion is wrong.

It does, however, mean that if any one part that comes from man is wrong then it is wrong.

That is why we disagree. I do not believe the judicial philosophy behind Penal Substitution Theory accurately reflects divine justice.


The wicked will be punished (perish, be condemned, cast into the Lake of Fire, expercent the second death).

This is not because divine justice demands it but because God is holy. God does not have to punish the wicked, but at Judgment this is what God will do.

The law does not demand that God punished sins. Divine justice does not demand that God will punish sins. The law and justice tells us what God will do when He judges the nations.

If we are still the "old man" and not conformed to the image of Christ at Judgment we are condemned.

 

[Charlie24]

There is nothing here that I disagree with (suprized?).

I think the difference between our views is not in what needed to be done to reconcile man to God.

I think we both agree that at Judgment those who are saved have been made new creations, they have been "refined", the "old man" no longer exists and man is completely conformed into the image of Christ. I think we agree here because we have touched on this being what we are now predestined to become.

So the actual reconciliation of man has nothing to do with Jesus suffering punishment for our sins instead of us. We woukd be reconciled simply by being made into Christ's image.

This also has nothing to do with God judging sinners. The sinner (this "old man") will not exist at Judgment for those who believe. It does not matter to that "new creation" (this brother of Christ) if the sins of the "old man. he was is punished or not.


I think the difference may be what demands the law makes upon God.

Is God bound by the law in such a way that He must redeem men through the law ? I say "no .
Why? Because the law is a reflection of God's nature, but so is grace. These two do not violate one another, even though Scripture presents them differently.

NOTE - I am not saying God violates the law, only that God fulfills the requirements of the law in a means other than through the law itself (another act of creation).

My point and where we disagree (and it's no big deal to me) I see the punishment for my sins being placed on Christ. As I see no sin goes unpunished. As I have said somewhere else, my sins since becoming a believer have been placed on Christ. He has carried my sins past, present and future. The reason I have remorse over my sin and see myself as unworthy to even be considered by Him for salvation.

I see the reconciliation of man through Christ as having everything to do with making justification possible for me by Christ bearing my sin. My sins were not simply overlooked, I was bought with a price, paid for by my Savior. I am not my own any more, I belong to Him.

But we are approaching this from different angles, a different way of seeing justice.

 

[Charlie24]

The difference here is what I am saying is what is written in the biblicsl text.

You are correct that the theory you speak of is not actually in the Bible. It is what men have reasoned out of the Bible. That in itself does not make it wrong.

What you are using is "systematic theology". This goes through the Bible as a whole, gathers principles and ideas about related topics, looks through related historical theologies, considers philosophical views concerning the issue, and tries to develop a reasomable doctrine.

People who agree with the reasoning accept the doctrine while people who disagree reject it.

This was my field of study, and I loved it (maybe too much at the time, it csn bevome a "rabbit hole" as these doctrines are constructed over centuries).

BUT that does not mean your conclusion is wrong.

It does, however, mean that if any one part that comes from man is wrong then it is wrong.

That is why we disagree. I do not believe the judicial philosophy behind Penal Substitution Theory accurately reflects divine justice.


The wicked will be punished (perish, be condemned, cast into the Lake of Fire, expercent the second death).

This is not because divine justice demands it but because God is holy. God does not have to punish the wicked, but at Judgment this is what God will do.

The law does not demand that God punished sins. Divine justice does not demand that God will punish sins. The law and justice tells us what God will do when He judges the nations.

If we are still the "old man" and not conformed to the image of Christ at Judgment we are condemned.

We agree on many things but not here on the Law and Divine justice. lol.

No two people on earth agree on the same things from A-Z in Scripture.