Featured Is God Intrinsically Just?

Reynolds · Nov 17, 2023

Martin Marprelate said: ↑

Is God Intrinsically Just?

Psalms 99:4. ‘The King’s strength also loves justice; You have established equity;
You have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob.’

The question is: justice is clearly an attribute of God, but does He have to be just? Is it intrinsic to His nature?

The question weighed on the minds of theologians down the centuries. For many, the issue bore on the freedom of God. Psalms 115:3. ‘But our God is in heaven. He does whatever He pleases.’ Athanasius, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas all took the view that while God is undoubtedly righteous, He is so purely because He chooses to be. Even after the Reformation, Calvin wrote in his commentary on John 15:13, ‘God could have redeemed us with a word or a wish, save that another way seemed best for our sakes: That by not sparing His own and only-begotten Son, He might testify in His person how much He cares for our salvation. And those hearts must be harder than iron or stone which are not softened by the incomparable sweetness of the divine love.’

The Westminster Confession, whilst it does speak of God as being, ‘infinite in being and perfection’ and of His ‘most righteous will’ (WCF 2:1), does not address God’s intrinsic justice. Indeed, some members of the Westminster Assembly, such as Twisse and Rutherford, opposed the idea. The 1689 Confession adds to the WCF that God’s ‘Essence cannot be comprehended by any but Himself.’

In 1647, in his first major work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, John Owen agreed with Calvin, ‘The foundation of this whole assertion seems to me to be false and erroneous, namely, that God could not have mercy on mankind unless satisfaction were made by His Son … to assert positively that absolutely and antecedently to His constitution He could not have done it, is to me an unwritten tradition, the Scripture affirming no such thing, neither can it be gathered from thence by any good consequence.’ He went on to argue that for God, the cross was ‘suitable but unnecessary.’

There seem to be two main reasons that brought the young Owen to this conclusion: firstly, the issue of God’s freedom; a Pelagian view based on Psalms 115:3, quoted above, and secondly, the view that we can know God’s legislative and distributive justice, but not His intrinsic character or ‘existential justice.’

However, it did not take long for Owen to change his mind. In 1652, he wrote his Dissertation on Divine Justice, in which he wrote, ‘The justice of God, absolutely considered, is the universal rectitude and perfection of the divine nature; for such is the divine nature antecedent to all acts of His will and suppositions of objects towards which it might operate.’ He went on to argue that while God has no constraint as God to save anyone, and has freedom in the mode, timing and degree of punishment, without satisfaction He cannot pardon sin consistently with His nature, justice and truth. Hence the cross.

The evidence that Owen gave for his change of mind were fivefold: firstly, God’s ‘great detestation and immortal hatred of sin' – Habakkuk 1:13; Psalms 5:4-5; secondly, that God is portrayed as the righteous Judge – Genesis 18:23-25; Psalms 7:11; Romans 3:5-6; Acts 17:31; thirdly, that God’s punishment of sin flows from His nature – Revelation 6:15-17; fourthly, conscience and providence, as portrayed in Scripture and human experience, and fifthly, and most importantly, the revelation of the cross – ‘There are some attributes of His nature the knowledge of which could not reach the ears of sinners but by Christ; such as His love to His peculiar people, His sparing mercy, His free and saving grace, even the others, which He hath made known to us in some measure by the ways and means above mentioned, we could have no clear or saving knowledge of unless in and through this same Christ’ (c.f. Luke 23:41-44).

The first of these reasons – God’s detestation of Sin - is a theme pursued by other Puritans, notably Ralph Venning in his book, Sin, Plague of Plagues, and by John Bunyan who wrote, ‘Sin is the dare of God’s justice, the rape of His mercy, the jeer of His patience, the slight of His power, the contempt of His love ….. It is the fist that strikes the face of Christ (c.f. Luke 22:63-65).

So why did Owen change his mind? Partly it came from his defense of Penal Substitution against the Socinians who denied it. But also it was his further engagement with Scripture that gave him the confidence that God can be known, a theme which he pursued for the rest of his life. In teaching that God cannot simply forgive sins without a satisfaction, we are not limiting His freedom; we are simply acknowledging His nature. He is the yardstick of justice. All His attributes are essential rather than accidental; that is, His love, His wisdom, His justice, His wrath are all part of His nature. His love is just and wise; His wisdom is just and loving; His wrath is just and wise, and indeed, loving towards His people, so that He is, one the one hand, ‘…… By no means clearing the guilty’ (Exodus 34:7), yet at the same time, He ‘Devises means so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him’ (2 Samuel 14:14). These means are Penal Substitution. “Learn ye, my friends, to look upon God as being as severe in His justice as if He were not loving, and yet as loving as if He were not severe. His love does not diminish His justice nor does His justice, in the least degree, make warfare upon His love. The two are sweetly linked together in the atonement of Christ” (C.H. Spurgeon).

[Based on notes taken at a Seminar at a Christian Leaders' Conference]
Click to expand...

God is just. If He does it, it is just. Pretty simple.

DaveXR650 · Nov 17, 2023

JonC said: ↑

For example, Scripture says that our sins were laid on Christ, that Christ bore our sins bodily. You read that our sins were transferred from us and placed on Christ. BUT that is NOT at all what is actually written in Scripture.
Click to expand...

This IS a good example. I think you are obstinately refusing to accept what those verses plainly say. But we have been over that literally hundreds of times. People can judge for themselves whether our sins being laid on Christ means our sins were transferred from us to Christ. I realize that's your opinion on this but folks will just have to decide for themselves. And you are going to have to accept the fact that a lot of people disagree with your reading of those verses.
So when you come up with something like this:

JonC said: ↑

That's a silly example, but it is exactly what happens here.
Click to expand...

That is not exactly what happens here. Those verses and your silly example are nothing alike. All I ask from you is that you accept the fact that many of us, and many theologians do accept those verses as clearly teaching substitutionary atonement. Not that you have to agree with it. Just that you agree that we believe it. Otherwise we get bogged down and can't discuss anything else because this gets brought up and dominates every thread.

JonC · Nov 17, 2023

DaveXR650 said: ↑

This IS a good example. I think you are obstinately refusing to accept what those verses plainly say. But we have been over that literally hundreds of times. People can judge for themselves whether our sins being laid on Christ means our sins were transferred from us to Christ.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's look at it .

Scripture says that God laid our sins on Christ.

For over the first 14 Centuries Christians understood that to mean that Christ bore our sins, that God laid our sins on Him - that God caused the iniquities of us all to fall on Him, but NOT that those sins were transferred from us (hence all the hoopla about Emmanuel, unity, solidarity...etc. in their writings).

IF that meant God transferred our sins from us AND that meaning was obvious then WHY did it take over a thousand years of Christians reading Scripture to come up with that meaning?

Why didn't God simply say that our sins were transferred to us in the text of Scripture?

God laying our sins on Christ simply does not mean our sins were transferred from us. You are adding to Scripture in that case.

God caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Where does that even suggest our sins were transferred from us? Where does Scripture state that sins can even be transferred to another? It doesn't.

An illustration - you are driving a getaway car, your friend robs a store and kills the clerk. You are charged with murder even though you didn't enter the store. Your friends crime was laid on you even though you didn't commit that crime. This does not mean your friend's crime was transferred from him to you

Likewise, in the OT a sin of the Father could be visited on the son. BUT this isn't a transfer, the father's sin isn't transferred from him. You are reading into Scripture. It is easy to do and something we have all done. But we have to be careful to do our best not to read into a passage.

Martin Marprelate · Nov 17, 2023

Reynolds said: ↑

God is just. If He does it, it is just. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but the question is, is God just because He chooses to be? Could He choose to be unjust if that was how He felt? Or is justice intrinsic to His nature?

DaveXR650 · Nov 17, 2023

JonC said: ↑

Ok, let's look at it .
Click to expand...

No. Let's not because we already have multiple times.

JonC · Nov 17, 2023

DaveXR650 said: ↑

No. Let's not because we already have multiple times.
Click to expand...

I know. I'm always hoping you will answer for your faith when this topic comes up.

The text of the passage does not state (the actual text) what you believe it teaches.

And that is fine. That does not mean you are wrong.

Martin Marprelate · Nov 17, 2023

JonC said: ↑

Those passages mean what they say (the text of Scripture). You keep looking at Scripture as some kinda hidden message to be decoded. It isn't.

And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all'

This verse means that God has laid on Jesus the sins of all of man.
Click to expand...

Wow! That is really impressive! Did you learn that at seminary? I can just imagine all the eager people coming to hear you expound the Bible "Here is the meaning of 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' It means that God has laid on Jesus the sins of all of man." "Golly! How wonderful! I would never have thought of that."
It would be funny, but it was pretty much the same method that Unitarians used in the 18th Century to avoid explaining their views. Just parrot the Scriptures and refuse to say what you think it means.

'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree'

This verse means that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross.
Click to expand...

The same applies, but you do not even want to explain why the Holy Spirit led Peter to use xulon, 'tree,' instead of stauros, 'cross.' Perhaps you don't know?
I pass over the rest of your exegetical masterpiece, and move on to the rest.

You believe that God had to act unjustly to save us, but He didn't.
Click to expand...

Boy! You have some chutzpah! You won't tell me what you think the Bible means, but you will tell me what I think it means. Of course God does not act unjustly. Stop the muck-spreading!

God will not clear the guilty (and the guilty are not cleared).
Click to expand...

Really? I thought that God justified the ungodly (Romans 4:5).

God will not punish the innocent (and the innocent are not punished).
Click to expand...

And who exactly are the innocent in the light of Romans 3:10?

Redemption was not a problem God had to solve.
Click to expand...

Nothing is a problem to God (contra Athanasius). He had solved it in eternity (e.g. Isaiah 42:5-9)

Scripture is not a puzzle.
Click to expand...

It seems that it is to you.

The question "how can God be just and justify sinners" is NOT in the Bible. The Bible tells us that God IS just and justified sinners.
Click to expand...

The Bible tells us what God did in order to be just and to justify sinners. '... Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation ........ to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Romans 3:24-26). Had He not set Christ forth as a propitiation, He would have been unjust if He had justified sinners. If you disagree with this, tell us why the Lord Jesus had to die at all..

Just think about all of the unbiblical things you put into your theory - God punishing our sins on an Innocent,
Click to expand...

'... Whom God set forth as a propitiation' Isn't that in the Bible?

God transferring our sins from us,
Click to expand...

'And the LORD has laid all on Him the iniquity of us all.' Isn't that in the Bible?

God clearing the guilty via the punishment of their actions.
Click to expand...

'He was pierced for our transgression; He was bruised for our iniquities.' Isn't that in the Bible?

, God separating from Jesus
Click to expand...

"My God, My God! Why have You forsaken Me? Isn't that in the Bible?

denying that Jesus suffered under the "synagogue of Satan",
Click to expand...

And where is that in the Bible?

denying those Jews nailed Jesus to a cross by godless men and put Him to death,
Click to expand...

When nave I ever denied that? 'For truly, against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your Hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.' How many times have I quoted that?

..... The list goes on. There is nothing redeemable about your theory, it is simply unbiblical.
Click to expand...

My position is entirely Biblical. Your post is a farrago of terminalogical inexactitudes and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but unfortunately you seem to resemble the people of Jeremiah 6:15 in that you do not know how to blush.[/QUOTE]

JonC · Nov 17, 2023

Martin Marprelate said: ↑

Wow! That is really impressive! Did you learn that at seminary? I can just imagine all the eager people coming to hear you expound the Bible "Here is the meaning of 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' It means that God has laid on Jesus the sins of all of man." "Golly! How wonderful! I would never have thought of that."
It would be funny, but it was pretty much the same method that Unitarians used in the 18th Century to avoid explaining their views. Just parrot the Scriptures and refuse to say what you think it means.

The same applies, but you do not even want to explain why the Holy Spirit led Peter to use xulon, 'tree,' instead of stauros, 'cross.' Perhaps you don't know?
I pass over the rest of your exegetical masterpiece, and move on to the rest.

Boy! You have some chutzpah! You won't tell me what you think the Bible means, but you will tell me what I think it means. Of course God does not act unjustly. Stop the muck-spreading!

Really? I thought that God justified the ungodly (Romans 4:5). And who exactly are the innocent in the light of Romans 3:10?
Nothing is a problem to God (contra Athanasius). He had solved it in eternity (e.g. Isaiah 42:5-9)
It seems that it is to you. The Bible tells us what God did in order to be just and to justify sinners. '... Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation ........ to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Romans 3:24-26). Had He not set Christ forth as a propitiation, He would have been unjust if He had justified sinners. If you disagree with this, tell us why the Lord Jesus had to die at all..
'... Whom God set forth as a propitiation' Isn't that in the Bible?
'And the LORD has laid all on Him the iniquity of us all.' Isn't that in the Bible? 'He was pierced for our transgression; He was bruised for our iniquities.' Isn't that in the Bible? "My God, My God! Why have You forsaken Me? Isn't that in the Bible? And where is that in the Bible? When nave I ever denied that? 'For truly, against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your Hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.' How many times have I quoted that? My position is entirely Biblical. Your post is a farrago of terminalogical inexactitudes and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but unfortunately you seem to resemble the people of Jeremiah 6:15 in that you do not know how to blush.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
Did I learn that God has laid the iniquity of us all in seminary? No. I was raised in church and attended seminary because I already had a strong biblical foundation.

I learned that by reading the Bible. My statement was an actual verse from the Bible. It is a verse from Isaiah (Isaiah 53:6). And no need to become insulting.

God laid on Christ the iniquity of us all.

Let's consider what it means - it means that God laid (put upon) Him (Jesus) the iniquity (sin) of us all (all over of us, mankind).

Which words do you think mean "transferred from'?

That is the point. You are talking about what you believe the Bible teaches while I am talking about the text of the Bible.

The verse itself does not say that God transferred our sins from us. You ADD to Scripture (it is a teaching, not the text).

Does that verse itself teach that God transferred our sin from us?

No. It teaches what it states - God laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all.

That is the difference between you and I. We approach Scripture differently, so we come out with different conclusions.

If somebody comes to me and asks what "God laid on Him the iniquity of us all" means I would tell him that it means God put on Jesus the sin of all man.

It is up to me to explain the meaning of Scripture, but not to add to Scripture itself.

God revealed Himself to us in Scripture. Scripture, regardless of your opinion, really is sufficient. We don't need to, and shouldn't, add to the Bible.

DaveXR650 · Nov 17, 2023

JonC said: ↑

The text of the passage does not state (the actual text) what you believe it teaches.

And that is fine. That does not mean you are wrong.
Click to expand...

It is an admission that there is no point in continuing to repeat the same arguments over and over. It seems to be "growth" if it goes from what you didn't believe to what you now believe, yet if it involves a development that goes from what you now believe to what you don't believe - well, that is an error and we must look back to see what used to be the predominate school of thought.

That is OK. But mere persistence in repeating your argument is of limited value. I do admit I have no new argument or thought to add to my view nor do I claim some private supernatural revelation so I don't see the value in repeating what we have been over.

JonC · Nov 17, 2023

DaveXR650 said: ↑

It is an admission that there is no point in continuing to repeat the same arguments over and over.
Click to expand...

In one way, you are right.

People have mindsets that will never be changed. Try talking to a Mormon about Scripture. Those truly steeped in that tradition will never be moved.

But you are also wrong in a way.

By repeatedly pointing out that the core of your faith is extra-biblical I hope others will reexamine their views and at least consider that what is in the actual text of Scripture is what is being taught.

God says he laid the iniquity of us all on Christ. You say He also transfered our sins from us. If even one person is able to discern where you have added to God's Word it will be worth the discussion.

DaveXR650 · Nov 17, 2023

@JonC. I think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference.

JonC said: ↑

God says he laid the iniquity of us all on Christ. You say He also transfered our sins from us. If even one person is able to discern where you have added to God's Word it will be worth the discussion.
Click to expand...

I am satisfied to leave it at the first sentence in the quote and do when I talk to people but yes, it does indeed mean the latter, that our sins were transferred from us to Christ in the sense that he then bore our sin, as you have agreed with, and thus we won't have to bare them ourselves.

I just don't see the point of wrecking another good thread with this when we have been over this so many times.

JonC said: ↑

An illustration - you are driving a getaway car, your friend robs a store and kills the clerk. You are charged with murder even though you didn't enter the store. Your friends crime was laid on you even though you didn't commit that crime. This does not mean your friend's crime was transferred from him to you
Click to expand...

Once again, you bring in a laughable illustration. In the above case I'm charged with murder because I helped facilitate the crime. You trying to compare that to the Biblical truth of Christ bearing our sin is so silly as to beyond belief. Christ was not only completely innocent, but much scripture is written explaining how Christ is uniquely qualified to bear our sin. No, this cannot be compared to any kind of normal human story, even if you were to come up with a good illustration.

Why don't you start another thread on this and see if this one can still be salvaged. I was interested in learning about this subject.

Martin Marprelate · Nov 18, 2023

JonC said: ↑

God laid on Christ the iniquity of us all.

Let's consider what it means - it means that God laid (put upon) Him (Jesus) the iniquity (sin) of us all (all over of us, mankind).

Which words do you think mean "transferred from'?
Click to expand...

Well, to name but two: John 1:29. "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." 1 John 3:4-5. 'Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.'

Now, please, pay attention. God lays upon Christ, in whom there is no sin, the iniquity of us all. Christ is pierced for our iniquity, and takes it way. If my sin has been laid upon Christ and He has taken it away, having paid the penalty for it, then ipso facto it is no longer on me because it has been transferred to Him and He, like the scapegoat in Leviticus 16, has taken it away By His stripes I am healed. But it's even better than that. I now have the righteousness of Christ imputed to me (2 Corinthians 5:21). How does that take place? Through the believers' union with Christ. God can now be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. All right there in the Bible, but if you really have been to seminary you will know that to find the true meaning of any passage you have to compare Scripture with Scripture, which is all that I have done.

Now the question I asked in the O.P. was, is God intrinsically just? If He is, then He cannot clear the guilty (i.e. anyone and everyone) without receiving a satisfaction to His justice in respect of sin. That is why we are told that 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin' and why 'The blood of Jesus Christ ... cleanses us from all unrighteousness.'

JonC · Nov 18, 2023

Martin Marprelate said: ↑

Well, to name but two: John 1:29. "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." 1 John 3:4-5. 'Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.'

Now, please, pay attention. God lays upon Christ, in whom there is no sin, the iniquity of us all. Christ is pierced for our iniquity, and takes it way. If my sin has been laid upon Christ and He has taken it away, having paid the penalty for it, then ipso facto it is no longer on me because it has been transferred to Him and He, like the scapegoat in Leviticus 16, has taken it away By His stripes I am healed. But it's even better than that. I now have the righteousness of Christ imputed to me (2 Corinthians 5:21). How does that take place? Through the believers' union with Christ. God can now be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. All right there in the Bible, but if you really have been to seminary you will know that to find the true meaning of any passage you have to compare Scripture with Scripture, which is all that I have done.

Now the question I asked in the O.P. was, is God intrinsically just? If He is, then He cannot clear the guilty (i.e. anyone and everyone) without receiving a satisfaction to His justice in respect of sin. That is why we are told that 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin' and why 'The blood of Jesus Christ ... cleanses us from all unrighteousness.'
Click to expand...

Our sins were lain on Christ. And Christ does take away the sins of the world.

But if you read your Bible instead of using it as a reference book then you would find that it is not via a transfer of sin. Sin cannot even be transferred (sins are actions). Guilt cannot even be transferred. You are still adding to Scripture.

It is the blood of Christ that cleanses, the work of Christ that forgiveness is based upon, and it is in Christ that we find forgiveness (in Him there is no condemnation).

Scripture tells us this -

God set forth Christ as a Propitiation
He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world
God lain upon Him the iniquity of us all
He bore our sins bodily on the cross
He was pierced for our transgressions
He was bruised for our iniquities
By His stripes we are healed
He, who knew no sin, was made sin
He became a curse for us

We are justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Why is that not enough for you?

Martin Marprelate · Nov 18, 2023

JonC said: ↑

Why is that not enough for you?
Click to expand...

Because it is not complete. And Without the whole Bible, God is not just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. Do you believe that God i intrinsically just?
Why do you not believe the whole Bible?

atpollard · Nov 18, 2023

kyredneck said: ↑

I think the Calvinists refer to it as UNCONDITIONAL election, 'that the purpose of God might stand'.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I believe that scripture does affirm Unconditional Election [prior to learning the Doctrines of Grace formal doctrines, I would have described that concept as “God chooses to show mercy on whomever God chooses to show mercy for reasons that have nothing to do with me deserving it and closer to ‘just because God wants to’.”]

However, accepting that something is TRUTH (the way things really are) and understanding how “the way things really are” is FAIR are two completely different things. So I acknowledge that God is completely within His rights to do WHATEVER PLEASES HIM - I get no say and have no grounds to complain - but I don’t always comprehend the WHY, so the WHAT can seem ‘an odd choice’ from my point of view.

atpollard · Nov 18, 2023

Reynolds said: ↑

God is just. If He does it, it is just. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

“I would not give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”
~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

JonC · Nov 18, 2023

Martin Marprelate said: ↑

Because it is not complete. And Without the whole Bible, God is not just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. Do you believe that God i intrinsically just?
Why do you not believe the whole Bible?
Click to expand...

I do believe the whole Bible.

I already said that God is just - He will never clear the guilty and will never punish the innocent.

We have gone through about all passages over the past decade, so reply with the ones I don't believe. No need to insult me.

Martin Marprelate · Nov 18, 2023

You have accused me of adding to Scripture. That is a total untruth, but I know it's no use protesting because you are the moderator and are marking your own homework. But if I accuse you of not believing the whole of Scripture, you throw a hissy fit. Your post #72 left out something very important. Have another look and see what it is..

JonC said: ↑

We have gone through about all passages over the past decade, so reply with the ones I don't believe.
Click to expand...

Well, you have ignored my post #72. Have a go at that.

JonC · Nov 18, 2023

Martin Marprelate said: ↑

But if I accuse you of not believing the whole of Scripture, you throw a hissy fit.
Click to expand...

You have accused me of not believing all of Scripture but you are unable to provide any passage that I don't believe.

That is not throwing a hissy fit. That is saying that before you make an accusation you should consider your words.

Let me know what passage or verse I do not believe. SHOW me. That way I can learn and come to believe the passage. It is called edification. Don't just say I don't believe God's Word. Show me where I don't believe His Word.

JonC · Nov 18, 2023

Martin Marprelate said: ↑

Well, to name but two: John 1:29. "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." 1 John 3:4-5. 'Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.'

Now, please, pay attention. God lays upon Christ, in whom there is no sin, the iniquity of us all. Christ is pierced for our iniquity, and takes it way. If my sin has been laid upon Christ and He has taken it away, having paid the penalty for it, then ipso facto it is no longer on me because it has been transferred to Him and He, like the scapegoat in Leviticus 16, has taken it away By His stripes I am healed. But it's even better than that. I now have the righteousness of Christ imputed to me (2 Corinthians 5:21). How does that take place? Through the believers' union with Christ. God can now be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. All right there in the Bible, but if you really have been to seminary you will know that to find the true meaning of any passage you have to compare Scripture with Scripture, which is all that I have done.

Now the question I asked in the O.P. was, is God intrinsically just? If He is, then He cannot clear the guilty (i.e. anyone and everyone) without receiving a satisfaction to His justice in respect of sin. That is why we are told that 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin' and why 'The blood of Jesus Christ ... cleanses us from all unrighteousness.'
Click to expand...

I understand your theory. It is not biblical.

God laid our sins on Christ. Christ was pierced for our sin. You got that part right. But you conclusions are wrong.

Featured Is God Intrinsically Just?

Reynolds Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

JonC Moderator
Moderator

DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

atpollard Well-Known Member

atpollard Well-Known Member

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Useful Searches

Featured Is God Intrinsically Just?

Reynolds Well-Known Member Site Supporter

DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

JonC Moderator Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member Site Supporter

DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

JonC Moderator Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

JonC Moderator Moderator

DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member Site Supporter

atpollard Well-Known Member

atpollard Well-Known Member

JonC Moderator Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

JonC Moderator Moderator

Reynolds Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator