Divine Justice

[JonC]

These are, as you say, your presuppositions. You should look at the texts that I am constantly bringing forward and you will see that you are applying your presuppositions in an unbiblical way.
Another text that you might find

Your presuppositions are your problem. You are constantly saying that you 'just follow the Bible,' which we all knew you didn't, but now you have finally admitted it. You are holding God to your flawed human understanding of righteousness.
You are stuck on Isaiah 53:10 because you cannot accept what it says so clearly. If you will just accept what the text says, you will find that God is perfectly righteous, but in His way, not necessarily yours.
I will advise you to meditate on two texts of Scripture: Isaiah 55:8-9 and Romans 11:33-36. Another text which will help you is Genesis 50:20, which I gave you in an earlier post: "But as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it fot good, in order to save many people alive as it is this day." God actively brought evil into Jospeph's life (Gen. 45:4-5) but for a good purpose, as Joseph came to realise. God is not bound to your fallen definitions of how He should act. You are bound to His righteous demands as to how you should act.

I agree presuppositions are the problem. I had to set aside mine years ago (I also assumed the Penal Substitution Theory correct).

I offered ny definition of divine justice (God's righteousness) in hopes that you would offer yours rather than merely claim my definition is wrong and continue to assert your presuppositions.

I am not the One who said that it is evil to punish the just. I am not the One who said that it is evil to clear the guilty. Your insults ate misplaced as you should have directed them at God for daring to contradict your antiquated humanistic philosophy.

Yes, Joseph's brothers meant their actions against him as evil and God meant it for good. BUT Joseph's brothers did the evil, not God. It was according to God's plan, but God did not sell Joseph. It is the same when Christ suffered the power of Satan. This was God's plan.

In the Bible (that dusty unused book near all of the worn out works by the men you follow) justice includes but is more than a moral law. Dust off your Bible and read it. If you do you will see your mistake rather quickly.

 

[YeshuaistheLord]

I agree presuppositions are the problem. I had to set aside mine years ago (I also assumed the Penal Substitution Theory correct).

I offered ny definition of divine justice (God's righteousness) in hopes that you would offer yours rather than merely claim my definition is wrong and continue to assert your presuppositions.

I am not the One who said that it is evil to punish the just. I am not the One who said that it is evil to clear the guilty. Your insults ate misplaced as you should have directed them at God for daring to contradict your antiquated humanistic philosophy.

Yes, Joseph's brothers meant their actions against him as evil and God meant it for good. BUT Joseph's brothers did the evil, not God. It was according to God's plan, but God did not sell Joseph. It is the same when Christ suffered the power of Satan. This was God's plan.

In the Bible (that dusty unused book near all of the worn out works by the men you follow) justice includes but is more than a moral law. Dust off your Bible and read it. If you do you will see your mistake rather quickly.

God the father placed hos very Son upon that Cross, and the Lord jesus agreed to be the sin bearer for His own elect, to receive what they were all due to receive for being sinners

 

[JonC]

God the father placed hos very Son upon that Cross, and the Lord jesus agreed to be the sin bearer for His own elect, to receive what they were all due to receive for being sinners

It is an error to simply make a statement of your belief and expect it to hold any validity. Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons,... all cults do this. They make statements shocked that others, who do not follow their leaders or teachings, do not accept them as true.

Christians, on the other hand, have God's Word and they lean on God's words rather than their own understanding. Your post is not technically Christian as nothing in your comments remotely resemble God's actual words. For it to be Christion you need to omit your words and lean on God's words.

The reason is the Christian faith depends on "what is written" - the "faoth once delivered" - rather than what sects or cults think is actually taught by the biblical text.


Jesus went to the cross by submission (like a sheep is led to slaughter). This was the Father's will.

But we cannot ignore God's words in order to uphold any tradition.

Isaiah describes the Son being placed upon the cross, His suffering and death, as "oppression". God never oppressed. He is just. Luke quotes Isaiah in calling Christ being placed on the cross as "unjust judgment".

We know unequivocally that God will not punish the innocent or the just, but we also know that He will not clear the guilty. We know that God's punishment is never "oppression" or "unjust judgment" Nothing can change this. This is absolute.

We cannot attribute unrighteousness to the Father regardless of what any theory demands. We have to be faithful to God and His words.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree presuppositions are the problem. I had to set aside mine years ago (I also assumed the Penal Substitution Theory correct).

You keep on about this until we're all sick of it. It is perfectly possible to change one's views for the worse. Clark Pinnock is an obvious, fairly recent example of someone who changed his mind from Biblical inerrancy to Open Theology. Much earlier, A.B. (Alexander) Bruce (1831-1899) was one of the leading lights of the Free Church of Scotland and Professor of Theology, Apologetics and N.T. Exegesis at the Free Church College in Glasgow. His best-known book is 'The Training of the Twelve' which is still in print from Kregel Books. I have read it and it is excellent. Yet he was affected by liberal theology, and at his death, one of his friends (Horatius Bonar, I think) said, "Sandy Bruce died without a single Christian conviction."
The fact is that your theology is full of presuppositions and I am not the only one to have observed them.

I offered ny definition of divine justice (God's righteousness) in hopes that you would offer yours rather than merely claim my definition is wrong and continue to assert your presuppositions.

If you want to present some Scriptures, please feel free to do so and we can discuss them. I am not really interested in your presuppositions. I set out my understanding of God's righteousness in post #94.

I am not the One who said that it is evil to punish the just. I am not the One who said that it is evil to clear the guilty. Your insults ate misplaced as you should have directed them at God for daring to contradict your antiquated humanistic philosophy.

You need to read my post #94 again.

Yes, Joseph's brothers meant their actions against him as evil and God meant it for good. BUT Joseph's brothers did the evil, not God. It was according to God's plan, but God did not sell Joseph. It is the same when Christ suffered the power of Satan. This was God's plan.

Yes, it was God's plan. The death of Uriah the Hittite was David's plan, but he did not personally kill Uriah. Yet God's prophet told David, "You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword (2 Sam. 12:9). You need to explain this discrepancy.

In the Bible (that dusty unused book near all of the worn out works by the men you follow) justice includes but is more than a moral law. Dust off your Bible and read it. If you do you will see your mistake rather quickly.

One of us needs to dust off his Bible, but readers of this thread (if there are any) need only compare my posts with yours to see which of us it is.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We cannot attribute unrighteousness to the Father regardless of what any theory demands.

What we have to do is not to deny what Scripture plainly states, but to explain why those Scriptures do not teach that God is unrighteous.

We have to be faithful to God and His words.

You certainly do.

 

[JonC]

You keep on about this until we're all sick of it. It is perfectly possible to change one's views for the worse. Clark Pinnock is an obvious, fairly recent example of someone who changed his mind from Biblical inerrancy to Open Theology. Much earlier, A.B. (Alexander) Bruce (1831-1899) was one of the leading lights of the Free Church of Scotland and Professor of Theology, Apologetics and N.T. Exegesis at the Free Church College in Glasgow. His best-known book is 'The Training of the Twelve' which is still in print from Kregel Books. I have read it and it is excellent. Yet he was affected by liberal theology, and at his death, one of his friends (Horatius Bonar, I think) said, "Sandy Bruce died without a single Christian conviction."
The fact is that your theology is full of presuppositions and I am not the only one to have observed them.

If you want to present some Scriptures, please feel free to do so and we can discuss them. I am not really interested in your presuppositions. I set out my understanding of God's righteousness in post #94.

You need to read my post #94 again.

Yes, it was God's plan. The death of Uriah the Hittite was David's plan, but he did not personally kill Uriah. Yet God's prophet told David, "You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword (2 Sam. 12:9). You need to explain this discrepancy.

One of us needs to dust off his Bible, but readers of this thread (if there are any) need only compare my posts with yours to see which of us it is.

There is nothing to explain with David killing Uriah. David was the king and he put Uriah at the front of battle to be killed. David did evil.

I do not believe that God did evil (which is how the Bible describes Jesus' death) by it being His predetermined plan. You believe, to the contrary, that God oppressed Jesus.

The issue is presuppositions. We repeat the exact same passages but apply different presuppositions.

I am saying that you need to state your own presuppositions when it comes to defining justice.

I will restate mine.

Divine justice is the rughteousness of God. This includes moral justice but also the correction of injustice we see Israel calling for in the Old Testament and the slain martyrs calling for in Revelation. It includes the justice that Jesus preached about in Matthew.

God has given us boundaries to understand divine justice. Justice is never oppression. Justice never punishes the innocent. Justice never clears the guilty. Justice forgives in a righteous manner. Justice never contradicts itself. Justice is righteousness without any hint of unrighteousness.


You have been simply regurgitate your theory, never explaining how you arrived at your presuppositions. You keep stating a 16th century failed philosophy, just changing "every crime must be punished, punishment satisfies the law" to "every sin must be punished, punishment satisfies divine justice".

 

[JonC]

What we have to do is not to deny what Scripture plainly states, but to explain why those Scriptures do not teach that God is unrighteous.

I agree. Too many have been lead away by false teachings. Christianity let it go as just another harmless theory but in the end the people have been carried away by their philosophy.

When Anselm developed his theory Christians should have rejected it. When Calvin used it to articulate PSA Christians should have rejected it. But the idea of liberty prevailed even with such a foundational issue. And people leaned on that understanding. They were carried away from the "faith once delivered", the words one can highlight in their Bibles, in favor of what men told them was really taught.


Christians do not have to know all of God's words, but when they reject His words in favor of their philosophy then we know they were never numbered among us.

A Christian (a truly saved person) would not reject:

1. It is an abomination to God to punish the Just.

2. It is unjust to punish the Innocent.

3. It is an abomination to God to clear the guilty.

4. God does not oppress the just, not even the wicked.

5. God forgives sins.


Yet, if you pay attention, there have been men professing to be Christian who believe that God oppressed Christ, punished the Just to clear the wicked.

Some have even suggested that God caused evil by an act of evil being according to God's predetermined plan. They make God into Satan.

True Christians need to take a stand against such heresies, guard against this type of false doctrine.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

The obvious issue you have is defending your position. You cannot find any fault in what I believe. You cannot find any passages I do not believe. You complain about me rejecting the ideas you have about what the Bible really teaches. But not about the actual words of God.

Do I believe that it was God's predetermined plan to crush Him? Yes. I also believe it was God's will that Judas betray Him, that Joseph's brothers commit evil against him, that Adam transgress His command, that Israel rebel against Him, that Jews reject Christ...

BUT that does NOT mean that I believe those evils should be attributed to God. I have no problem with that. I get it dies not fit your philosophy.

I get you believe "God oppressed Jesus", that for one time in history God became an unjust power and was guilty of "unjust judgment".

 

[David Lamb]

I do not care who's writings my writings resemble (and I do not know of Chalke or Stump, but if they were also identifying the heresy in calling the Father unjust then they were right. I assume they hold some fringe doctrine, but even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut....they have nothing to do with me).

YOU stated that God oppressed Jesus. You are claiming that God is wicked, unjust.


But nice try in trying to walk it back.

I already said that Isaiah 53:10 is stating that "crushing" Christ was God's will - His predetermined plan. I even offered other oassages stating the same thing (Scripture interprets Scripture).

YOU rejected it just a few posts ago. But I am glad you reversed your course (at least, publically).

Steve Chalke was the person who described the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as "cosmic child abuse." Eleonore Stump has similar views. In her book Atonement, she re-examines Christ’s sacrifice, moving away from harsh retributive models of punishment. Instead, she emphasizes atonement as a solution to human guilt and shame, focusing on relational reconciliation, empathy, and restoring union with God. She view hell as "God's quarantine for the damned."

 

[DaveXR650]

There is nothing to explain with David killing Uriah. David was the king and he put Uriah at the front of battle to be killed. David did evil.

The problem is that in a sense God did put Jesus on the front line, and Jesus moved himself to the exact place where he needed to be for this to happen. Jon, this was planned, and it was God's will. Your line of argument, which for some reason you just keep repeating, is that the crucifixion has to be an accident, something that God did not want, something that just happened because of wicked men. Without God's hand in it you are left with no intentional redeeming action on our part at the hand of God, no direct, intentional handling of our sin, as it could not possibly be so if this was all a big mess, caused by unjust men.

The fact is, that while it was in a way a big mess, with our race (the human race) showing our ultimate defiance and perversity, it was also the defining moment of the planned redemption of all who would be saved. Frankly, you constantly bringing this up as to how God works using human actions, even human evil actions, for his ultimate glory is not only an ineffective and disastrous argument against penal substitution but it goes to show the genius of Calvinistic theology, which is the only system that goes deeply into these things. Yet, you need to keep in mind at the same time that by no means is this the exclusive property of Calvinists. Traditional Baptists, Free Will Baptists, conservative Church of Christ and Methodists, most evangelical non-denominational churches all believe PSA. The Mennonite church, USA, although they have gotten way off track, unfortunately, in many areas, still lists PSA as one of the modes of explaining the atonement on their website.

You have made a big mistake. I hope it was an earnest one and if so you should just rethink this - just like you did to get here. If, all you mean is that there are some who use PSA as a means to excuse continuing a sinful life, like you mentioned, an "easy-believism", then I say you have a point but keep in mind so said the Puritans as well as Wesley, and Baxter and many others. You, however; threw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[JonC]

Steve Chalke was the person who described the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as "cosmic child abuse." Eleonore Stump has similar views. In her book Atonement, she re-examines Christ’s sacrifice, moving away from harsh retributive models of punishment. Instead, she emphasizes atonement as a solution to human guilt and shame, focusing on relational reconciliation, empathy, and restoring union with God. She view hell as "God's quarantine for the damned."

Thank you for the info.

While I do not agree with the PSA I certainly do not believe it is "cosmic child abuse".

My disagreement with the theory is that what makes it unique in comparison to every other view is not in the Bible. I believe Christians would do better to lean on God's words and stick as close as possible to the biblical text.

 

[JonC]

The problem is that in a sense God did put Jesus on the front line, and Jesus moved himself to the exact place where he needed to be for this to happen. Jon, this was planned, and it was God's will. Your line of argument, which for some reason you just keep repeating, is that the crucifixion has to be an accident, something that God did not want, something that just happened because of wicked men. Without God's hand in it you are left with no intentional redeeming action on our part at the hand of God, no direct, intentional handling of our sin, as it could not possibly be so if this was all a big mess, caused by unjust men.

The fact is, that while it was in a way a big mess, with our race (the human race) showing our ultimate defiance and perversity, it was also the defining moment of the planned redemption of all who would be saved. Frankly, you constantly bringing this up as to how God works using human actions, even human evil actions, for his ultimate glory is not only an ineffective and disastrous argument against penal substitution but it goes to show the genius of Calvinistic theology, which is the only system that goes deeply into these things. Yet, you need to keep in mind at the same time that by no means is this the exclusive property of Calvinists. Traditional Baptists, Free Will Baptists, conservative Church of Christ and Methodists, most evangelical non-denominational churches all believe PSA. The Mennonite church, USA, although they have gotten way off track, unfortunately, in many areas, still lists PSA as one of the modes of explaining the atonement on their website.

You have made a big mistake. I hope it was an earnest one and if so you should just rethink this - just like you did to get here. If, all you mean is that there are some who use PSA as a means to excuse continuing a sinful life, like you mentioned, an "easy-believism", then I say you have a point but keep in mind so said the Puritans as well as Wesley, and Baxter and many others. You, however; threw the baby out with the bathwater.

The problem is Scripture never attributes Christ's death to God. With David the issue was David's intent (the evil in David). It was David's will that the man be killed in order to hide sin. But God sent His Son that thise who believe would live. In Isaiah 53 the Servant offers Himself. He gives Himself.

We cannot say that Jesus committed suicide that we might live. We cannot say God killed Jesus that we might live. Why? Because the biblical text does not.

The Father did not put Jesus on the cross. We cannot look at the Cross like Martin suggests with the Father oppressing Jesus.

I understand your reasoning. All things work out for the good (for God's purposes). He is sovereign.

But your philosophy means the Father is the ultimate sinner. He is guilty of oppressing Jesus. It makes the Father guilty of every murder, every evil that has occurred and will occur. God puts governments in place, therefore God rapes, murders, and oppresses. It makes the Father into Satan.

It was God's predetermined plan that Judas betray Jesus. BUT rather than attributing this betrayal to God the Bible attributes it to Satan.

Same with the Cross. We agree that it was God's predetermined plan, God sending His Son. BUT the Bible attributes the death of Christ to "evil", "the Devil", to wicked powers.

We do not have the right to reason out a theory that contradicts what God said.

 

[DaveXR650]

The problem is Scripture never attributes Christ's death to God.

True, in the way we have been discussing it. But the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world" indicates God's providence and plan in this. And the whole theme of Revelation with the references to the Lamb seem to indicate all that is involved with defeating the forces of darkness, finally, but as well references to this being the source of our redemption. I don't see the need to not be able to reconcile these truths. Above, you said this:

The Father did not put Jesus on the cross. We cannot look at the Cross like Martin suggests with the Father oppressing Jesus.

Then, you said this, which I think then cannot reconcile with the above:

It was God's predetermined plan that Judas betray Jesus.

And you followed it with this:

BUT rather than attributing this betrayal to God the Bible attributes it to Satan.

Which is also true but if it was God's predetermined plan then it was God's predetermined plan. Both are true.

This had to happen or we are still in our sins and repentance and pledges to do better won't save us.

 

[DaveXR650]

The Father did not put Jesus on the cross. We cannot look at the Cross like Martin suggests with the Father oppressing Jesus.

By the way, I'm pretty sure Menno Simons said pretty much the same thing as @Martin Marprelate said regarding the Father oppressing Jesus on the cross. I can find the reference if you want. You are walling yourself off from all Christian theology and forcing yourself to sit in the seat of the scornful so to speak, with Socinus and the folks @David Lamb mentioned above. And while you may not be saying specifically "cosmic child abuse" you are practically saying the same thing.