Divine Justice

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate holds a philosophy of divine justice that focuses on sins and requires that God punish sins irrespective of the person who committed the sin. God removes our sins from us and puts us on Jesus (at this point the sins are not on us) and God is required to punish these sins because it is what justice demands. If God does not punish these sins then God is not just. While not the most common way of understanding divine justice, I believe that this is a common philosophy within Christian belief.

This is the philosophy called legal humanism (a 16th century French philosophy) and can be expressed, borrowing from John Calvin, in the idea that the role of a judge is to avenge the law. This philosophy proved inadequate as it was not concerned with reducing crime, reconciling the criminal, society as a whole, or even the victim of a crime. It’s sole concern was balancing a legal ledger (restoring a debt to the law).

While this philosophy influenced Western law (particularly in the area of contractual arrangements) it gained life in Calvinism as it became the basis for the theology itself in regard to the Atonement.

Calvin determined the purpose of the Atonement was to restore legal justice (legal justice vs other forms such as moral justice, social justice, etc.).

I intend this thread to discuss justice itself. What is the purpose of justice, particularly divine justice?

Reading threads regarding the Atonement it seems to me that many unresolved and unexplored differences come from presuppositions and assumptions. How we view justice in general, the purpose of justice, what justice accomplishes, etc. is dependent on our understanding of justice.

 

[JonC]

I believe that justice exceeds the law. In regard to divine justice I believe that God is the standard. So I believe that the righteousness of God was expressed in the law (the law was one manifestation of God’s righteousness) but the work of Christ and even Christ Himself is another expression of God’s righteousness (a righteousness apart from the law). God’s righteousness is different from the law.

Where some believe that we fall short of God’s glory because we have sinned, I believe that we sin because we fall short of God’s glory. Sins are manifestations of a “mind set on the flesh” (sins are the fruit of such a condition).

I view the ultimate role of the law to be showing us our status in relation to God’s glory (in relation to God’s righteousness). The law shows us that we sin and seeing that we sin we know that we fall short of the glory of God.

So where Calvinistic Atonement views Christ’s work as a matter of the law, I believe that the Atonement is a matter of us falling short of God’s glory. Justice itself is the righteousness of God rather than one manifestation of this righteousness.



To illustrate:

Calvinistic Atonement would view my sins as being placed on Jesus and Jesus experiencing that punishment so that God would be just in forgiving me. I steal a baseball. That sin (theft) is placed on Jesus. Jesus experiences my punishment and I am cleared of that sin.



Another option is I steal a baseball. In Christ I am made a new creation. I am no longer a thief. Justice has been accomplished but not through the law. Yet this justice fulfills the demands of the law (God will punish the wicked when God judges man, but I am not among the wicked).

Justice in this view is ontological. It is a reconciliation rather than an accounting.

 

[37818]

Among Holy Scripture held in common.

Romans 3:23-26, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[JonC]

Among Holy Scripture held in common.

Romans 3:23-26, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Yes. We all agree on the passages but how we understand the Atonement depends on the philosophies we hold.

Now. Romans 3:23-26 is often taken out of context. Many (especially those who hold to Calvinism) use it to identify a "problem" solved by the Atonement. Since they hold Calvin's philosophy of justice they conclude that God must "avenge the law" to be just. So He punishes sins laid on Christ in order to forgive those sins (and this means He is just and justifies the sinner).

BUT the problem with that argument is that Paul is not speaking of God being just and justifying sinners by Christ's death. Paul is explanning why God did not punish the sins committed under the Old Covenant but instead waited until this manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law was revealed.

That said, God is just and He justifies sinners.

 

[37818]

That said, God is just and He justifies sinners

Whom believe in Him through Christ. Romans 3:26.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate holds a philosophy of divine justice that focuses on sins and requires that God punish sins irrespective of the person who committed the sin. God removes our sins from us and puts us on Jesus (at this point the sins are not on us) and God is required to punish these sins because it is what justice demands. If God does not punish these sins then God is not just. While not the most common way of understanding divine justice, I believe that this is a common philosophy within Christian belief.

As so often, you have it exactly back to front. The Lord Jesus willingly pays the penalty for our sins, and then God removes our sins from us. Thereby God is just and the justifier of sinners.
This is not philosophy, it's theology 101. I have no time to post more, but this is really all that is necessary.

 

[JonC]

As so often, you have it exactly back to front. The Lord Jesus willingly pays the penalty for our sins, and then God removes our sins from us. Thereby God is just and the justifier of sinners.
This is not philosophy, it's theology 101. I have no time to post more, but this is really all that is necessary.

My point is that if we understand the Atonement to be a matter of the law then the philosophy we hold (of justice) dictates how we will view what was accomplished.

Paul uses "just and the justifier of sinners" NOT to explain the Atonement but to explain why God did not punish the wicked prior to the New Covenant (the sentences surrounding "Just and the justifier of sinners" is important.

My point is that anybody who does not share your philosophy of justice and your assumption that the Atonement was to address legal justice will not agree with your theory of Atonement.


For my part, I believe you have the tail wagging the dog. I believe we sin because we fall short of the glory of God (that sins are manifestations or "fruit" of a "mind set on the flesh") so I view the Atonement as focused on "making is new creations in Christ".

You seem to believe that falling short of God's glory is because of sin so the Atonement focuses on conduct (our sins) as violations of the law (legal justice).


I not only believe legal humanism falls short of divine justice (and justice in general) but I also believe that the Atonement is the righteousness of God (the same righteousness manifested through the law) manifested apart from the law. The requirements of the law are met, but not through the law itself. At the "court" (Judgment) the wicked will be cast out (punished) and the righteous justified.


The Atonement as addressing the human condition (falling short of the glory of God) fulfills the righteousness of God manifested through the law ("on that day", the "Day of Judgment", we will have been "conformed into the image of Christ", "made a new creation in Christ", "refined", "dead to sin". God will have "taken out our old heart", "taken out our old spirit", "given us a new heart". The "old man" will not exist. We will be righteous. Justice will be accomplished as we will justly inherit life.


One problem with your view, other than the presupposed philosophies, is that it accomplishes nothing in terms of man's actual salvation. All Christ's death accomplishes is God punishing our sins without punishing us. We are still the ones who committed the sins. We are still wicked. God just punished our sins. So you have an Atonement without reconciliation and must look to a "part 2" to take care of man being in a state short of God's glory.

You have adopted Calvin's philosophy that, borrowing from his words, the role of the judge is to avenge the law. So you present the Atonement as paying a type of debt. I believe that the role of the judge is to effect reconciliation (either of man or of a state within society). So I view the Atonement as reconciling man to God by addresding man having fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[JesusFan]

As so often, you have it exactly back to front. The Lord Jesus willingly pays the penalty for our sins, and then God removes our sins from us. Thereby God is just and the justifier of sinners.
This is not philosophy, it's theology 101. I have no time to post more, but this is really all that is necessary.

JonC must have overlooked these OT passages then
The "OT cup of wrath" is a biblical metaphor, primarily from the Old Testament, that symbolizes the fullness of God's judgment and punishment for sin. It represents the wrath poured out on a sinful nation or individual, and it is often depicted as a cup from which they must drink and face consequences like staggering, death, and torment. In Christian theology, Jesus is said to have "drunk the cup" of wrath on the cross to save humanity from having to drink it themselves.

Symbolic meaning

• Divine wrath and judgment: The cup represents the complete and utter pouring out of God's anger against sin.
• Consequences of sin: To "drink the cup of wrath" means to face the full punishment for one's sins. This includes not only physical consequences but also mental torment and separation from God.
• A universal threat: Throughout the Old Testament, prophets like Jeremiah were told to carry this cup to various nations, signifying that all who rebel against God would face His judgment.

How it connects to the New Testament and Jesus

• Jesus' agony in the garden: In the New Testament, Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me" (Matthew 26:39). He understood this "cup" to be the wrath of God that he was about to bear for humanity's sins.
• • The crucifixion: Jesus ultimately submitted to God's will, drinking the cup of wrath on the cross. His sacrifice is seen as the way for people to be saved from drinking it themselves.
  • The choice for humanity: According to this theological view, humanity faces a choice: either they face God's wrath themselves, or they can accept Jesus' sacrifice to take that punishment.

Key verses

• Jeremiah 25:15: "Take this cup of the wine of wrath from my hand and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it".
• Isaiah 51:17: "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which has drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of his fury; you have drunk the cup of staggering, and drained it to the dregs".
• Revelation 14:10: "...he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night...".

 

[JonC]

Some things that we have to ask is the reason we choose one idea of justice over another.

@Martin Marprelate believes that divine justice is legal justice, particularly legal humanism. One reason that this is a common view among many (not speaking for any member in particular) is that this is the legal philosophy of John Calvin and his theory of atonement is based on this philosophy.

Other people, like those involved in “social gospel” movements, assume that justice is not legal justice but instead social justice. Rather than viewing justice as a matter of the law, of adhering strictly to legal procedure, this philosophy views justice as creating equality in society.

Another concept of justice is the Ancient Hebrew understanding. They understood Tzedek (righteousness, uprightness) to be the ideal state that should exist in the world. Tzedakah (charity) is distributive justice. But these are perminently intertwined (two aspects of the same thing). This idea of justice is primarily restorative and focuses on “making things right”, rather than punitive (although punishment is included with the end goal of restoring what was lost in injustice or unrighteousness).

The ancient Hebrew concept of justice has the goal of restoring to a state in alignment with God’s character. Divine justice includes Rachamim and Hanun (mercy and grace) alongside one another. The Old Testament sacrificial system, for example, was a method of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world) by allowing the relationship with God to be restored after a transgression. The focus was repentance (a movement from disobedience to obedience, in this case) as expressed through sacrifice.

I personally lean towards the Hebrew concept of justice. One reason is it makes sence to me. Another is that this is the type of justice we see in Scripture. It fits the biblical text perfectly (without having to account for what any other philosophy demands).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

JonC must have overlooked these OT passages then
The "OT cup of wrath" is a biblical metaphor, primarily from the Old Testament, that symbolizes the fullness of God's judgment and punishment for sin. It represents the wrath poured out on a sinful nation or individual, and it is often depicted as a cup from which they must drink and face consequences like staggering, death, and torment. In Christian theology, Jesus is said to have "drunk the cup" of wrath on the cross to save humanity from having to drink it themselves.

Symbolic meaning

• Divine wrath and judgment: The cup represents the complete and utter pouring out of God's anger against sin.
• Consequences of sin: To "drink the cup of wrath" means to face the full punishment for one's sins. This includes not only physical consequences but also mental torment and separation from God.
• A universal threat: Throughout the Old Testament, prophets like Jeremiah were told to carry this cup to various nations, signifying that all who rebel against God would face His judgment.

How it connects to the New Testament and Jesus

• Jesus' agony in the garden: In the New Testament, Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me" (Matthew 26:39). He understood this "cup" to be the wrath of God that he was about to bear for humanity's sins.
• • The crucifixion: Jesus ultimately submitted to God's will, drinking the cup of wrath on the cross. His sacrifice is seen as the way for people to be saved from drinking it themselves.
  • The choice for humanity: According to this theological view, humanity faces a choice: either they face God's wrath themselves, or they can accept Jesus' sacrifice to take that punishment.

Key verses

• Jeremiah 25:15: "Take this cup of the wine of wrath from my hand and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it".
• Isaiah 51:17: "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which has drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of his fury; you have drunk the cup of staggering, and drained it to the dregs".
• Revelation 14:10: "...he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night...".

Quite right! Good post! There is another couple of verses from the Psalms that are helpful here.
Psalm 60:1-3. 'O God, You have cast us off; You have broken us down; You have been displeased; Oh, restore us again!
You have made the earth tremble; You have broken it; heal its breaches, for it is shaking.
You have shown Your people hard things; You have made us drink the wine of confusion.'
Psalm 75:6-8. 'For exaltation comes neither from the from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south.
But God is the Judge; He puts down one, and exalts another. For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is fully mixed and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain down and drink.'

But as you say, the Lord Jesus drained that cup on our behalf, so save us from having to drink it ourselves.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Some things that we have to ask is the reason we choose one idea of justice over another.

@Martin Marprelate believes that divine justice is legal justice, particularly legal humanism. One reason that this is a common view among many (not speaking for any member in particular) is that this is the legal philosophy of John Calvin and his theory of atonement is based on this philosophy.

Other people, like those involved in “social gospel” movements, assume that justice is not legal justice but instead social justice. Rather than viewing justice as a matter of the law, of adhering strictly to legal procedure, this philosophy views justice as creating equality in society.

Another concept of justice is the Ancient Hebrew understanding. They understood Tzedek (righteousness, uprightness) to be the ideal state that should exist in the world. Tzedakah (charity) is distributive justice. But these are perminently intertwined (two aspects of the same thing). This idea of justice is primarily restorative and focuses on “making things right”, rather than punitive (although punishment is included with the end goal of restoring what was lost in injustice or unrighteousness).

The ancient Hebrew concept of justice has the goal of restoring to a state in alignment with God’s character. Divine justice includes Rachamim and Hanun (mercy and grace) alongside one another. The Old Testament sacrificial system, for example, was a method of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world) by allowing the relationship with God to be restored after a transgression. The focus was repentance (a movement from disobedience to obedience, in this case) as expressed through sacrifice.

I personally lean towards the Hebrew concept of justice. One reason is it makes sence to me. Another is that this is the type of justice we see in Scripture. It fits the biblical text perfectly (without having to account for what any other philosophy demands).

If you could possibly find a way to quote me, or if you could find some Scripture to give us to support your point, that might give you some credibility. But as it is, I'm afraid you have none. You continually accuse me of following Calvin, when in fact I have read very little of him as I constantly explain to you and as you continually take no notice.

 

[Zaatar71]

A.W.Pink says
Here again the design of Christ’s mission is clearly stated. God sent His Son here in order that (1) the punishment of His peoples’ guilt should be inflicted upon their Head, (2) that the righteous requirements of the law — perfect obedience — might be met by Him for us. This righteousness is said to be “fulfilled in us” because representatively, we were “in Christ” our Surety: He obeyed the law not only “for” our good, but so that His obedience should become actually ours by imputation; and thus Christ purchased for us a title to Heaven.

A parallel passage to Romans 8:3,4 is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” The purpose of Christ’s vicarious life and death was that a perfect righteousness should be wrought out for His people and imputed to them by God, so that they might exclaim, “In the Lord have I righteousness” ( Isaiah 45:24).

This will come before us more fully when we take up the results of Christ’s Satisfaction, yet a few words upon it are here in place. The righteousness of the believer is wholly objective; that is to say, it is something altogether outside of himself. This is clear from the antithesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21. Christ was “made sin” not inherently, but imputatively, by the guilt of His people being legally transferred to Him.

In like manner, they are “made the righteousness of God in Him”, not “in themselves,” by Christ’s righteousness being legally reckoned to their account. In the repute of God, Christ and His people constitute one mystical person, hence it is that their sins were imputed to Him, and that His righteousness is imputed to them, and therefore we read: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” ( Romans 10:4). “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” ( 1 Peter 3:18).

This wondrous declaration gives us a remarkably clear view of the substitutionary punishment which Christ endured, with the design thereof, namely, to restore His people to priestly nearness and service to God. Four things in it are worthy of our most close attention.

 

[JonC]

If you could possibly find a way to quote me, or if you could find some Scripture to give us to support your point, that might give you some credibility. But as it is, I'm afraid you have none. You continually accuse me of following Calvin, when in fact I have read very little of him as I constantly explain to you and as you continually take no notice.

Sure.

It would mean that sin was not punished and that therefore God was not a just judge, and also that Christ died for nothing.

The above is a perfect example of Calvin's philosophy of justice, and why he said that the purpose of justice is to avenge the law.

I have not accused you of following Calvin. I doubt you have read much of Calvin. I am only saying that your philosophy of divine justice is legal justice, specifically legal humanism. You also assume that the purpose of the atonement is to satisfy this justice (the demands of the law) in order to clear the sinner.

Christ's death, under your theory, had no redemptive purpose.

 

[JonC]

A.W.Pink says
Here again the design of Christ’s mission is clearly stated. God sent His Son here in order that (1) the punishment of His peoples’ guilt should be inflicted upon their Head, (2) that the righteous requirements of the law — perfect obedience — might be met by Him for us. This righteousness is said to be “fulfilled in us” because representatively, we were “in Christ” our Surety: He obeyed the law not only “for” our good, but so that His obedience should become actually ours by imputation; and thus Christ purchased for us a title to Heaven.

A parallel passage to Romans 8:3,4 is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” The purpose of Christ’s vicarious life and death was that a perfect righteousness should be wrought out for His people and imputed to them by God, so that they might exclaim, “In the Lord have I righteousness” ( Isaiah 45:24).

This will come before us more fully when we take up the results of Christ’s Satisfaction, yet a few words upon it are here in place. The righteousness of the believer is wholly objective; that is to say, it is something altogether outside of himself. This is clear from the antithesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21. Christ was “made sin” not inherently, but imputatively, by the guilt of His people being legally transferred to Him.

In like manner, they are “made the righteousness of God in Him”, not “in themselves,” by Christ’s righteousness being legally reckoned to their account. In the repute of God, Christ and His people constitute one mystical person, hence it is that their sins were imputed to Him, and that His righteousness is imputed to them, and therefore we read: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” ( Romans 10:4). “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” ( 1 Peter 3:18).

This wondrous declaration gives us a remarkably clear view of the substitutionary punishment which Christ endured, with the design thereof, namely, to restore His people to priestly nearness and service to God. Four things in it are worthy of our most close attention.

Off topic, but still demonstrates my point.

Why does Pink assume that we will not actually be "conformed into the image of Christ", "made new creations", "glorified", etc?

The answer is because that would nullify his theology. Calvinism cannot accept that our salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law because it views God's righteousness itself as legal justice.

This is what I mean by the assumptions and presuppositions people bring into Scripture will dictate their conclusions.


If you held a different philosophy of justice, say social justice, then your conclusions would be entirely different.

If you held the Hebrew idea of justice then your conclusions would be entirely different.


Holding a legal justice philosophy (legal humanism) dictates how you view divine justice. Positioning the Atonement under the law (under that philosophy) dictates what you believe the Atonement accomplished and how it was wrought.


What must happen for you to legitimate discuss the Atonement with those outside of your sect is you need to address and explain why the philosophy you hold is correct.


Theology 101 - first address the presuppositions.

 

[Zaatar71]

Off topic, but still demonstrates my point.

Why does Pink assume that we will not actually be "conformed into the image of Christ", "made new creations", "glorified", etc?

The answer is because that would nullify his theology. Calvinism cannot accept that our salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law because it views God's righteousness itself as legal justice.

This is what I mean by the assumptions and presuppositions people bring into Scripture will dictate their conclusions.


If you held a different philosophy of justice, say social justice, then your conclusions would be entirely different.

If you held the Hebrew idea of justice then your conclusions would be entirely different.


Holding a legal justice philosophy (legal humanism) dictates how you view divine justice. Positioning the Atonement under the law (under that philosophy) dictates what you believe the Atonement accomplished and how it was wrought.


What must happen for you to legitimate discuss the Atonement with those outside of your sect is you need to address and explain why the philosophy you hold is correct.


Theology 101 - first address the presuppositions.

Pink does not deny those things. Your theology is confused,and upside down, so you do not understand Pink.
Meaning of the phrase

• A.W. Pink: This is a reference to Arthur W. Pink, a prominent Calvinist theologian and author known for his commentaries on scripture, including those on the books of John and Hebrews.
• Golden Chain of Love: In his commentary on John 19, Pink describes the mother of Jesus standing by the cross, saying that she was "bound by the golden chain of love to the dying One". This phrase highlights her steadfast love and presence with Christ in his death, despite the desertion of his disciples and followers.
• Golden Chain of Redemption:Pink also uses this term in a theological context to describe the "golden chain of five links" that represents five interconnected doctrines of salvation:
  1. Foreknowledge
  2. Predestination
  3. Effectual calling
  4. Justification
  5. Glorification
• Even the AI, understands it better than you;
• AI Overview
  
  Most Christians do not reject Calvinism, but there are significant disagreements within Christianity that lead many to oppose its core doctrines, primarily centered on its interpretation of God's sovereignty and human free will. Key points of contention include the doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace, which some find to be inconsistent with biblical accounts of a loving God who desires salvation for all and with the human responsibility to choose to follow Him. Critics also argue that Calvinism can lead to a fatalistic view and that it may portray God as the author of sin.
  

Pink certainly applies the philosophy of legal humanism, and insofar as the atonement he does deny all of those issues.

JohnC you go to this kind of language that I do not use. Legal humanism is not something I hear at the grocery store, or in daily conversation. I find such terms cloud and distract from the issue. have you read any of A.W. Pink? i would Recommend his writing on the Sovereignty of God if you had not had a chance to read it.

I am not saying that Calvinism denies that we will be glorified. I am saying they hold this apart from the "problem" that Christ's suffering and death directly addresses.

i am not sure what you are getting at, so I cannot help you.

BUT this thread is about the philosophies members here hold as presuppositions shaping their understanding of the Atonement (off topic posts will be removed from here forward).

Everything to you is a philosophy, or a theory. It is plain bible to us.

You view divine justice as legal justice (specifically a philosophy of 16th century France).

This is where you go off. No one here is thinking of 16th century France! No one really cares what unsaved people think, we care about what scripture declares. If today, lesbians, trans people, antifa, or anyone else speaks against the bible, no one cares. Scripture, and what scripture means is what matters.

This means God must punish sins because the law requires that sins be punished and God is just.

God who punishes Sins, must punish each and every sin committed, either in the person , or the Divine given Substitute, the Lamb Slain before the foundation of the world. Why do we even know that phrase...The Lamb slain,,,,,what does that even mean, if it did not have in view the whole sacrificial system? Your ideas a re rejected, because you seek to avoid this question as the bible is abundantly clear on it. having read what you offer, I have no choice but to reject those ideas, as departing from the central theme of scripture, and the blood of the cross.

All I am saying is that you need to define, explain, and defend your presuppositions.

All of the cals have done that. You do not accept that, which is your right to reject truth if you want to.

This is theology 101.

that is what is being discussed, or perverted as some listen to the false teaching of leighton Flowers,lol

So why define divine justice as legal justice (as legal humanism)?

I do not, You drift off into these terms and obscure the discussion.

Why place the atonement itself under the category of the law?

Because the bible does!!! Gal4:
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.
Gal.3:
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.


24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.



Rom10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

You have drifted so far, that you are losing sight of the safe Harbor of scripture. Any believer should know this!

Once you explain your presuppositions we can get to where we actually agree and disagree.

I am offering help to you on this, but I am moving forward to other things.Those on this board, who want to oppose truth are free to do so.
I try and help, but after awhile, I shake the duct off my feet, and look for those who welcome truth. I answer sometime to try and help others who might read and learn by seeing the contrast of truth with error. Unless you and others recover yourself from drifting away from these truths, you will only serve to be examples of what to avoid, like Leighton Flowers who attempts to poison the well, and others who follow him and drink his Jim Jones form of kool aid.

 

[JonC]

Pink does not deny those things. Your theology is confused,and upside down, so you do not understand Pink.
Meaning of the phrase

• A.W. Pink: This is a reference to Arthur W. Pink, a prominent Calvinist theologian and author known for his commentaries on scripture, including those on the books of John and Hebrews.
• Golden Chain of Love: In his commentary on John 19, Pink describes the mother of Jesus standing by the cross, saying that she was "bound by the golden chain of love to the dying One". This phrase highlights her steadfast love and presence with Christ in his death, despite the desertion of his disciples and followers.
• Golden Chain of Redemption:Pink also uses this term in a theological context to describe the "golden chain of five links" that represents five interconnected doctrines of salvation:
  1. Foreknowledge
  2. Predestination
  3. Effectual calling
  4. Justification
  5. Glorification
• Even the AI, understands it better than you;
• AI Overview
  
  Most Christians do not reject Calvinism, but there are significant disagreements within Christianity that lead many to oppose its core doctrines, primarily centered on its interpretation of God's sovereignty and human free will. Key points of contention include the doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace, which some find to be inconsistent with biblical accounts of a loving God who desires salvation for all and with the human responsibility to choose to follow Him. Critics also argue that Calvinism can lead to a fatalistic view and that it may portray God as the author of sin.

Pink certainly applies the philosophy of legal humanism, and insofar as the atonement he does deny all of those issues.

I am not saying that Calvinism denies that we will be glorified. I am saying they hold this apart from the "problem" that Christ's suffering and death directly addresses.

BUT this thread is about the philosophies members here hold as presuppositions shaping their understanding of the Atonement (off topic posts will be removed from here forward).

You view divine justice as legal justice (specifically a philosophy of 16th century France). This means God must punish sins because the law requires that sins be punished and God is just.


All I am saying is that you need to define, explain, and defend your presuppositions.

This is theology 101.

So why define divine justice as legal justice (as legal humanism)?

Why place the atonement itself under the category of the law?


Once you explain your presuppositions we can get to where we actually agree and disagree.

 

[JonC]

JohnC you go to this kind of language that I do not use. Legal humanism is not something I hear at the grocery store, or in daily conversation. I find such terms cloud and distract from the issue. have you read any of A.W. Pink?

But "legal humanism" is something you probably heard in high school. At least if you are over 50.

The term is, like any other term, used because it would cloud the conversation even more to write out the philosophy everyone somebody uses it.

But ypu are right that we need to define terms and I will explain.

In 16th century France there was a movement within law students towards bringing Roman law into their contemporary judicial system. This did not work because it was divorced from Roman society. But this was a part of the Renaissance ("humanism" does not mean what it means today). It was that movement (reviving the old things) applied to justice.

Legal humanism is the idea that the law itself has demands or requirements that must be met. The role of justice is to meet the demands of the law. If a person steals a loaf of bread that theft creates a debt owed to justice. The judge has to collect that debt.


John Calvin studied law at the universities of Orléans and Bourges in France. He adopted this philosophy and before he was a Reformer he wrote on justice.

Calvin re-formed the existing theory of the atonement (Satisfactory Substitution) by redefining divine justice as legal humanism which changed satisfactory substitution to penal substitution based on justice (to borrow from Calvin) avenging the law.

What this means is that justice demands every sin be punished. The reason is that every sin creates a debt that must be satisfied for justice to be accomplished.


Yes, I have read Pink. I think most of us who have been Calvinists read Pink and listened to Sproul.

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.
Gal.3:
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.


24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.



Rom10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

On the above, I agree.

But that is my point.

We hold the same passages but understand them differently because we apply a different philosophy.

I have explained why I lean towards the Hebrew philosophy when it comes to divine justice.

You have not explained why you use the philosophy you assume to be divine justice.


So by your understanding I reject those passages and by my understanding you reject those passages.

The difference is philosophy.

Yes, nobody thinks of 16th century France. Most probably do not even know that Calvin was a part of that movement or that his philosophy is the basis for the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Most simply accept the conclusions taught to them. That is what I mean by they hold a borrowed faith. They assume conclusions are true and if they bother to investigate them they work backwards.

Everything to you is a philosophy, or a theory. It is plain bible to us.

No, everything is not philosophy or a theory to me.

You proved that when you rejected my belief for just being the plain words of the Bible that anybody can quote.

By philosophy I mean the presuppositions leading to an understanding. By theory I mean an understanding that is not present in the Word of God (things people think the Bible teaches but are absent from the actual text).

For example:

Your philosophy about justice determines what you believe the atonement accomplished and how it was accomplished because your philosophy of redemption places the atonement as the righteousness of God under the law.

Your understanding of the atonement (the theory you have chosen) is one theory among many because it cannot be objectively proven using God's Word (it is what men, like Pink, claim that the Bible teaches while men like Luther, Lewis, Philips, Mandela, etc. understood the Bible to be teaching something else).

As Christians it is important for us to understand the difference between God's words and our understanding of God's words. If we do not we cannot but lean on our own understanding. And to understand Scripture we have to identify our own presuppositions.

 

[JonC]

Note:

Getting back to the topic.

The topic of this thread is simple. It is about divine justice and justice in general.

The two that is held here do far is the Hebrew understabding (tzedek and mishpat) and legal humanism (Calvin's understanding).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Paul uses "just and the justifier of sinners" NOT to explain the Atonement but to explain why God did not punish the wicked prior to the New Covenant (the sentences surrounding "Just and the justifier of sinners" is important.

Romans 3:23-26. 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.....' So justification by God's grace is through Christ's redemption, which is through His atoning death upon the cross, as we shall see.
'...... Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness.......' Although the word 'propitiation' is found in the KJV, NKJV, ESV and NASB, it appears that some people don't like it, and the NIV has 'atoning sacrifice' instead. I prefer 'propitiation' because it speaks of a satisfaction of God's outraged justice that appeases His righteous anger against His people. But 'atoning sacrifice says much the same thing. But God's aim in the suffering and death of our Lord is to show forth His righteousness.
'......Because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed......' These sins are those committed by the O.T. saints who were looking forward to the coming Messiah. The sacrifices they offered could not take away sins, but God graciously passed over those sins on the basis of Christ's coming atonement.
'......To demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' ALSO, in addition to passing over the sins of the O.T. saints, God set Christ forth to satisfy His justice in respect of His N.T. people - that's us! - who were by nature objects of wrath and dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) so that we 'who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ' (Eph. 2:13). Christ's redemption satisfies the justice of God, so that now He can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in the Lord Jesus, and being united to Him in His death, we are also united to Him in His resurrection to new life (Romans 6:5).

 

[Zaatar71]

But "legal humanism" is something you probably heard in high school. At least if you are over 50.

The term is, like any other term, used because it would cloud the conversation even more to write out the philosophy everyone somebody uses it.

But ypu are right that we need to define terms and I will explain.

In 16th century France there was a movement within law students towards bringing Roman law into their contemporary judicial system. This did not work because it was divorced from Roman society. But this was a part of the Renaissance ("humanism" does not mean what it means today). It was that movement (reviving the old things) applied to justice.

Legal humanism is the idea that the law itself has demands or requirements that must be met. The role of justice is to meet the demands of the law. If a person steals a loaf of bread that theft creates a debt owed to justice. The judge has to collect that debt.


John Calvin studied law at the universities of Orléans and Bourges in France. He adopted this philosophy and before he was a Reformer he wrote on justice.

Calvin re-formed the existing theory of the atonement (Satisfactory Substitution) by redefining divine justice as legal humanism which changed satisfactory substitution to penal substitution based on justice (to borrow from Calvin) avenging the law.

What this means is that justice demands every sin be punished. The reason is that every sin creates a debt that must be satisfied for justice to be accomplished.


Yes, I have read Pink. I think most of us who have been Calvinists read Pink and listened to Sproul.


On the above, I agree.

But that is my point.

We hold the same passages but understand them differently because we apply a different philosophy.

I have explained why I lean towards the Hebrew philosophy when it comes to divine justice.

You have not explained why you use the philosophy you assume to be divine justice.


So by your understanding I reject those passages and by my understanding you reject those passages.

The difference is philosophy.

Yes, nobody thinks of 16th century France. Most probably do not even know that Calvin was a part of that movement or that his philosophy is the basis for the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Most simply accept the conclusions taught to them. That is what I mean by they hold a borrowed faith. They assume conclusions are true and if they bother to investigate them they work backwards.


No, everything is not philosophy or a theory to me.

You proved that when you rejected my belief for just being the plain words of the Bible that anybody can quote.

By philosophy I mean the presuppositions leading to an understanding. By theory I mean an understanding that is not present in the Word of God (things people think the Bible teaches but are absent from the actual text).

For example:

Your philosophy about justice determines what you believe the atonement accomplished and how it was accomplished because your philosophy of redemption places the atonement as the righteousness of God under the law.

Your understanding of the atonement (the theory you have chosen) is one theory among many because it cannot be objectively proven using God's Word (it is what men, like Pink, claim that the Bible teaches while men like Luther, Lewis, Philips, Mandela, etc. understood the Bible to be teaching something else).

As Christians it is important for us to understand the difference between God's words and our understanding of God's words. If we do not we cannot but lean on our own understanding. And to understand Scripture we have to identify our own presuppositions.

Thanks for taking the time to offer a clarification and your ideas on it.