Divine Justice

[JonC]

I am relieved to hear that. So when you were saying all those times how objectionable it was to have penal substitution because God does not punish the innocent or acquit the guilty and you were using that argument in a debate about penal substitution which involved an innocent Jesus as the subject of the debate (which we all agree about) well, what were you trying to say if it was not that it was ridiculous that our sins were imputed to another person - namely Jesus?

No, those passages still apply because they define adpects of God's justice. God does not punish the innocent, He does not punish the Just, and He does not clear the guilty.

What I said is that it is not ridiculous to view sin as being imputed to Christ and righteous being imputed to us. He bore our sins and we bear His righteousness.

I was saying that our sin was imputed to Jesus and Jesus righteousness is imputed to us. He bore our sin and we bear His righteousness. He shared our death and we share His Life. He bore our image (the Son of Man; sinful flesh) and we bear His image.

I am not sure that you realize your shift in the conversation. Socinus rejected that our sins were imputed to Christ. This rejects Christ as bearing our sins. I agree Socinus was wrong. But then you went to God punishing the just to clear the guilty. That is equally a heresy.

What needs to be cleared up is your philosophy of justice and punishment. Beating around the bush to try and tie one another to some hetesy does not edify as it never gets to the philosophy behind PSA. I realize nobody (or few) today affirms the philosophy at the foundation of PSA, but adherents still acceot the conclusions. So we need to see if it is simply assumed or how it has been reworked to find out if PSA is valid or if it is just an echo of a failed 16th century philosophy.

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

 

[DaveXR650]

I am not sure that you realize your shift in the conversation. Socinus rejected that our sins were imputed to Christ. This rejects Christ as bearing our sins. I agree Socinus was wrong. But then you went to God punishing the just to clear the guilty. That is equally a heresy.

Christ is bearing our sins - how? We agree that he was not truly guilty. In fact he was innocent and remained innocent. So what bearing our sins means is that he bore the consequences. And by that I don't mean "consequences" as some use it, like Boyd does in the sense of violation of a speed limit can result in an accident, but I include the sentence for sin, the penalty of sin, and the wrath of God which is the result of our sin. While that may be an equal heresy in your mind, the question I ask is, whether that is a reasonable assumption, given what we know about what scripture says about sin, God's wrath, His role as final judge of everything and so on.

Now, you know as well as I do, that while you are under no obligation to see the above in this way, others do. Many others in fact, including the Reformers. This is not new or strange or my private philosophy. You certainly are not required to believe it. And, if we continue discussion, which I hope not, but if we do, we will have to get into the arguments against this - which I guarantee you are going to be identical to those of Socinus.

 

[JonC]

Christ is bearing our sins - how? We agree that he was not truly guilty. In fact he was innocent and remained innocent.

Bearing our sins, period. The Word became flesh, Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, is the Son of Man, shared our infirmity, was made like the brethren, was made sin, became a curse, shared our humanity.

I think we agree on Jesus bearing our sins, that God laid our iniquity on Him. We disagree about this meaning our sins were removed from us to be laid on Him.

I view Christ "bearing" in Him bearing our sins, God laying our iniquity on Him, in the same way we now bear His righteousness, God laying His righteousness on us (the Just for the unjust).

You redefine "bearing" when it comes to Jesus bearing our sins in comparison to us bearing His righteousness or one another's sorrows. This means you have to explain away passages describing God's justice. But if "bearing" has the same meaning (Jesus bears our sins so that we will bear His righteousness) then you could accept those passages as well because there is no contradiction. Jesus' suffering would be a result of our sin, the wages produced by our sin, the power of Satan that held mankind in bondage. But with Christ this would be an unearned wage. It being appointed man once to die and then the judgment Jesus was judged as righteous, became a life giving Spirit, defeated Satan, freed us from bondage. Although we die yet shall we live.

What we need to discuss is the reason we view this differently. It goes back to how we view justice (you seem to view justice as holding God in subjection while I am saying it is God's righteousness).

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

Now, you know as well as I do, that while you are under no obligation to see the above in this way, others do. Many others in fact, including the Reformers. This is not new or strange or my private philosophy. You certainly are not required to believe it. And, if we continue discussion, which I hope not, but if we do, we will have to get into the arguments against this - which I guarantee you are going to be identical to those of Socinus.

I agree that your view is not an individual position or a new view. Neither of ours are. This is an old disagreement. While it is relatively new, it is not new (it is centuries old).

I have already proved my arguments against Penal Substitution Theory are very different from Socinus' arguments. Socinus rejected Trinitarian doctrine and death entering the world through Adam's transgression. This influenced his arguments against the penal substitution theory.

While I believe God imputed our sins on Jesus Socinus rejected this and incorporated it into his argument against the theory. He viewed Jesus as coming into being with His birth, essentually a man choosing not to sin.

What needs to be addressed for an honest discussion is the philosophy at the foundation of your understanding. I do not know your position here because thus far yoy have refused to explain your faith (you assume it to be right and develop your conclusions).

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

We can continue to talk past each other but what Jesus went through in "bearing our sin in his own body" we can read as recorded in scripture. Once again, could a reasonable person look at that and say "That looks like punishment to me". I say yes, and there again, obviously I am not alone in this. If you want to say no, it was "satisfaction", then satisfaction of what. If God's honor was satisfied the result still looks like punishment to me. If it was justice that was satisfied then the case for it being punishment is even stronger. Both or either of those things would fall under the "purpose" of what happened. I call it punishment along with all the groups who believe PSA is a proper description. Others didn't specifically say punishment but left it as "satisfaction", without being more specific. I think Simons was OK with satisfaction and I believe satisfaction of justice. This is my own opinion but those who say it was satisfaction of divine justice but in a general way in that what Christ went through was sufficient to atone for all men's sin, everywhere and through time rather than enduring a specific amount of punishment for each and every sin of each and every elect individual - I have no quarrel with. In that I am in company with the Lutherans, and with Menno Simons and I'm not saying the Calvinists were wrong but since I don't believe the atonement was limited as in the "L" of TULIP, I am not inclined to go as far as them in that area.

As to the purpose, I say that was because God has as part of his revealed nature, a desire for justice, and a responsibility as well as a desire to extract justice from everyone who sins. Forgiveness is not possible in the simple way it is required of us because we have no responsibility as judges and we are told to defer seeking justice whenever possible - because God has promised to do so in his role as judge. Once again, although Socinus objected to this, he failed to think of God as a divine judge. The arguments about whether God does this by His free will or has to do this because he cannot do otherwise without violating His nature are not applicable here. Using another train of thought you could say all judgement is committed to Jesus, and as the sin bearer he has the absolute right to do so since he bore the sin of everyone in his own body. If you connect that thought to judgement then once again you are looking at bearing our sin as bearing our punishment.

I'm not really trying to convince you at this point. But honestly, you have for years followed people around on this forum looking for opportunities to attack penal substitution, which almost all of us on this forum hold dear. Recently you even went on a thread totally unrelated and interjected the subject again. I have said everything I know about the subject. You created this thread starting with a false attack on me by name. The fact that you are still on here as a moderator is a puzzlement to me but ultimately it just reflects on the site itself.

 

[JonC]

We can continue to talk past each other but what Jesus went through in "bearing our sin in his own body" we can read as recorded in scripture. Once again, could a reasonable person look at that and say "That looks like punishment to me". I say yes, and there again, obviously I am not alone in this. If you want to say no, it was "satisfaction", then satisfaction of what. If God's honor was satisfied the result still looks like punishment to me. If it was justice that was satisfied then the case for it being punishment is even stronger. Both or either of those things would fall under the "purpose" of what happened. I call it punishment along with all the groups who believe PSA is a proper description. Others didn't specifically say punishment but left it as "satisfaction", without being more specific. I think Simons was OK with satisfaction and I believe satisfaction of justice. This is my own opinion but those who say it was satisfaction of divine justice but in a general way in that what Christ went through was sufficient to atone for all men's sin, everywhere and through time rather than enduring a specific amount of punishment for each and every sin of each and every elect individual - I have no quarrel with. In that I am in company with the Lutherans, and with Menno Simons and I'm not saying the Calvinists were wrong but since I don't believe the atonement was limited as in the "L" of TULIP, I am not inclined to go as far as them in that area.

As to the purpose, I say that was because God has as part of his revealed nature, a desire for justice, and a responsibility as well as a desire to extract justice from everyone who sins. Forgiveness is not possible in the simple way it is required of us because we have no responsibility as judges and we are told to defer seeking justice whenever possible - because God has promised to do so in his role as judge. Once again, although Socinus objected to this, he failed to think of God as a divine judge. The arguments about whether God does this by His free will or has to do this because he cannot do otherwise without violating His nature are not applicable here. Using another train of thought you could say all judgement is committed to Jesus, and as the sin bearer he has the absolute right to do so since he bore the sin of everyone in his own body. If you connect that thought to judgement then once again you are looking at bearing our sin as bearing our punishment.

I'm not really trying to convince you at this point. But honestly, you have for years followed people around on this forum looking for opportunities to attack penal substitution, which almost all of us on this forum hold dear. Recently you even went on a thread totally unrelated and interjected the subject again. I have said everything I know about the subject. You created this thread starting with a false attack on me by name. The fact that you are still on here as a moderator is a puzzlement to me but ultimately it just reflects on the site itself.

The "any reasonable person" argument is a logical falacy. But I have no problem with the idea that Christ was punished. This is simply a smoke screen. Same with your ad hominem. Just a smoke screen to avoid the obvious. It is merely an illogical and emotional coping mechanism, so I will dismiss it.


You base your theology on the idea that punishment satisfies divine justice.

I admit that IF the judicial philosophy you hold is correct (IF punishment alone satisfies divine justice) THEN the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement has to be correct, over fifteen centuries of Christian doctrine has to be incomplete, and my view is wrong.

BUT IF your judicial philosophy is wrong then PSA is wrong.

You present God as punishing the Just in order to clear the guilty because this satisfies divine justice on our behalf. BUT this far you have been building your faith on an assumption you refuse to address.

So I ask again -

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?


There is no need to go beyond exploring these three questions. If your philosophy correct PSA is correct. If it is wrong then PSA is wrong. No need to go beyond that.

 

[DaveXR650]

The "any reasonable person" argument is a logical falacy. But I have no problem with the idea that Christ was punished. This is simply a smoke screen. Same with your ad hominem. Just a smoke screen to avoid the obvious. It is merely an illogical and emotional coping mechanism, so I will dismiss it.

Come on. This is a discussion forum with most of the discussion centering around how fat a preacher can be. I'm just saying is it or is it not reasonable to look at the actual scripture "he bore our sins in his own body", look again at scripture as to what that entailed, and then figure that he endured punishment due us. I say yes. I couldn't care less whether you dismiss it.

You base your theology on the idea that punishment satisfies divine justice.

I do look at the idea that divine justice is real and must occur. I base it on scripture referenced to God's wrath, justice, judgement and so on. As do others. If you are asking whether a satisfaction of divine justice replaces and nullifies our responsibility towards God in whatever life we have left or whether God loved us and wanted to forgive us all along - those would be further questions.

The reason I add that is this next thing:

I admit that IF the judicial philosophy you hold is correct (IF punishment alone satisfies divine justice) THEN the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement has to be correct, over fifteen centuries of Christian doctrine has to be incomplete, and my view is wrong.

Punishment alone satisfies divine justice as to punishment due us for sin. But remember, along with PSA, goes the imputation of Christ's passive work (in his actual death) and also his active obedience being imputed to us. In addition you have the idea that we are linked to this work by faith alone - but this faith is never alone so that a holy life lived for the Lord is as important for PSA believers as for Anabaptists or Orthodox. And you have to be born again, given a new nature and then actually live like you have a new nature. And yes, any Christian doctrine that does not express penal substitution is incomplete as it is a facet and I believe a core facet.

What makes the other writings incomplete, not that I think they meant anything evil by it (except for Socinus) is that the other motifs lack a sufficient explanation that our sin is a legal and personal affront to a holy God and from the earliest chapters of scripture we see this as a major problem. So, if we were innocent creatures under Satan's rampant power on earth and Christ broke this captivity and defeated Satan then Christus Victor would be sufficient. It's not wrong, but when the question comes up as to why we are under Satan's power on this earth and why hasn't God already simply defeated him - the answer lies in the fact that we are sinners by choice individually, and subject to sin and death as a race, and our first representative chose to listen to Satan instead of God. This must be dealt with and the other atonement theories don't adequately do so. Anselm wasn't satisfied, and neither was Augustine and in fact from some of the early church writings it appears neither were all of them.

So I look at ECF's and Anselm and those guys as being incomplete and I don't see any desire to dismantle the principles of PSA. It is different with Socinus, and later modern critics, and even what you see in modern Baptist and Reformed organizations which are starting to critic it. They are indeed evil and it can be seen even from other positions they take.

 

[JonC]

Come on. This is a discussion forum with most of the discussion centering around how fat a preacher can be.

yep....and a few years ago we did one about cats using toilets... turns out that wasn't the first time it had been discussed.


But this is a more serious topic as it rests at the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Calvin first articulated the Penal Substitution Theory. Some say the aspects existed throughout Christian history and Calvin just put it together as a coherent theory.

I agree that aspects of the theory existed throughout history. I agree all Christians believe that Christ bore our sins bodily, that God laid our iniquity on Him, that it was God's will that Christ suffer and die, that He died for our sins, that it is by His stripes we are healed.

But the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement views those passages within a specific judicial philosophy. Calvin was not educated as a theologian. He was educated in secular judicial philosophy (he was educated in secular law).

This does not mean that your theory is wrong. But it does mean that it falls on PSA theorists to defend the philosophy they use to view Scripture.

If the philosophy is wrong - if punishment itself does not satisfy the justice - then Penal Substitution Theory is wrong.


There is no need to examine disagreements further down the line. If the judicial philosophy upon which PSA stands is wrong then PSA falls apart. We need to start at the theories foundation, not its comclusions based on that philosophy.

That does not mean my position is right (this would need to be examined as well - both could be wrong). But it would make PSA a heresy.

BUT if the judicial philosophy is right - if punishment alone satisfies justice - then PSA has to be correct.

PSA theorists typically avoid addressing such examinations because they often have no idea why they assume punishment satisfies justice. But they understand their faith depends on the assumption being correct.

A few posts back you declared that anybody who questions the idea that punishment satisfies justice is probably not saved. You declared that men like CS Lewis were probably not true Christians (Lewis rejected PSA because of its judicial philosophy).

So I ask again -

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

 

[DaveXR650]

A few posts back you declared that anybody who questions the idea that punishment satisfies justice is probably not saved. You declared that men like CS Lewis were probably not true Christians (Lewis rejected PSA because of its judicial philosophy).

If you want to start a controversy, just mention C.S. Lewis in a favorable light around a fundamental Baptist or Reformed Baptist group. Since I happen to be a big fan of Lewis myself, and go to a church where the pastor is an even bigger fan, I will address this. Lewis was a genius for sure but not really a theologian. Here's his description of PSA:
"God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, so God let us off." Not a very good representation of what PSA is and in fairness to Lewis he followed with "Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to".
Of course he went on to say that understanding something like how the atonement works is analogous to eating. By eating we obtain all the complicated vitamins and nutrients our bodies require - but it is not necessary that we understand the science behind the nutrition. So, no, I don't think C.S. Lewis was unsaved. He did not claim to be an expert on the subject and then go around trying to overthrow PSA.

Lewis also was not a Calvinist and said so. And then he went on to describe how it seemed that in his journey to faith it seemed after all that rather than he pursuing God, it was God pursuing him all the time. That kind of candor is one of the things I like so much about him and I consider his books very valuable and love to see the reasoning behind a smart guy not encumbered by too much loyalty to a school of thought or denomination.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

The punishment that Christ underwent for us did indeed and I think scripture confirms this.

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

I really don't know and don't want to comment on something so sacred except to venture to say that scripture relates this to the fact that what we call "propitiation" was necessary, and that Christ death was that propitiation, so we take it from that stated truth.

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

Again. We need to be careful dissecting God, but I think scripture reveals the truth of it and the necessity of it adequately. If you are interested, one of the best books on the atonement I think is Craig's latest book where he goes into the defense of PSA in greater detail without the presuppositions of Reformed theology (he isn't a Calvinist). One thing he mentions is that he views this not merely as a simple substitution but as Jesus in addition to being a substitute, acted as a "proxy" which adds some of the language of acting on our behalf and representing us to the idea of simple substitution. It's always a danger, and I see it in some of these conversations, to not be precise enough and then you end up with confusion as some groups have done where justification and forgiveness of sins are separated by definition from salvation or repentance. At the same time error can occur if, in an effort to be precise we give the impression for instance that if it is true that Christ died in our stead then it must be false that he died on our behalf.

 

[JonC]

The punishment that Christ underwent for us did indeed and I think scripture confirms this.

I really don't know and don't want to comment on something so sacred except to venture to say that scripture relates this to the fact that what we call "propitiation" was necessary, and that Christ death was that propitiation, so we take it from that stated truth.

Again. We need to be careful dissecting God, but I think scripture reveals the truth of it and the necessity of it adequately. If you are interested, one of the best books on the atonement I think is Craig's latest book where he goes into the defense of PSA in greater detail without the presuppositions of Reformed theology (he isn't a Calvinist). One thing he mentions is that he views this not merely as a simple substitution but as Jesus in addition to being a substitute, acted as a "proxy" which adds some of the language of acting on our behalf and representing us to the idea of simple substitution. It's always a danger, and I see it in some of these conversations, to not be precise enough and then you end up with confusion as some groups have done where justification and forgiveness of sins are separated by definition from salvation or repentance. At the same time error can occur if, in an effort to be precise we give the impression for instance that if it is true that Christ died in our stead then it must be false that he died on our behalf.

You are avoiding the questions by giving non-answers.

1. Scripture does not state that the punishment Jesus experienced satisfied divine judgment. Scripture does not even state that it was God oppressing Jesus.

The reason you say it was is you assume that punishment satisfies judgment.

We all agree that God set forth Christ as a Propitiation to be received by faith. Again you are avoiding the question.

I agree that this is sacred and we must proceed with care. That is why I have asked you to defend and explain the philosophy of justice you are applying to the biblical text.

The bible does not say that punishment satisfies divine judgment. But this is the sand upon which you have built your faith.

If you cannot defend it then you are careless to apply it to God. He is holy and when it comes to the point of decision (choosing which direction to go) this matter of life or death. If one is brought to the point where they must defend their faith and choose between that faith and God, and that person simply closes his eyes to what is before him, then that person has chosen.

One can believe Penal Substitution Theory, Substitution Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Christis Victor, even Recapitulation and Moral Influence Theory and be a Christian.

But when that person comes to the point of examining the philosophy upon which they build their faith and they cannot - yet they still choose that theory (at that point it is theory by definition) they have been carried away from the faith.


You assume that punishment satisfies divine judgment. That, my friend, is sand. Your faith is worthless because it is built upon a secular philosophy you cannot defend.

I regret asking you because it has brought you to the place where you must decide between philosophy and God's Word, and you chose the former.


Until you are able to account for your assumptions I do not think you can say anything meaningful in defense of Penal Substitution Theory. That is not an insult but an encouragement to work out your salvation rather than assume the positions of others.


When you can defend the philosophy that punishment satisfies divine judgment and state how, please PM me and we can discuss it. I would be interested in how you do so.

 

[JonC]

I defined divine justice as the righteousness of God. We learn of this justice throughout Scripture by examining God's own nature.

Punishing the Innocent is wrong (it is unjust). Punishing the Just and clearing the guilty are equally abominations to God. There is no evil in God, no sin. Righteousness bears no evil, no wickedness.


@DaveXR650 and I ventured into this topic because @DaveXR650 indicated that God punished the Jesus (the Just, the Righteous) in order to satisfy divine judgment.

@DaveXR650 is correct that Penal Substitution Theory is dependent on this philosophy being divine justice.

But he has been unable to defend that philosophy (he has just assumed it to be correct). This means, to him, PSA is a theory built on sand.

16th century humanism philosophy viewed justice as punishment with every crime needing to be punished to satisfy justice.

It appears PSA theorists hold this philosophy (every sin must be punished to satisfy divine justice).


But @DaveXR650 could not acvount for his belief. Perhaps others have an answer.


IF punishment does not satisfy judgment THEN Penal Substitution Theory is a heresy. BUT IF punishment satisfies judgment THEN the theory is probably correct.

This is the purpose for this thread (tangents will be removed).

My questions to PSA theorists were:


Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine judgment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

 

[JonC]

Obviously no PSA theorists can answer those questions. The reason is the judicial philosophy lost favor in the 18th century (it exists today in civil contracts and Penal Substitution Theory). It simply fails in terms of justice.

While PSA theorists assume the philosophy is correct because to do otherwise is to reject their theory, they have been unable to reinvent a replacement philosophy that works where Calvin's ultimately failed.

 

[JonC]

So, I am simply going to look at justice from different angles.


We obviously have John Calvin. Calvin was not a theology student but a student of secular law at the Universities of Paris and Bourges. Calvin was a part of the 16th century Renaissance humanism movement in regard to judicial philosophy.

The idea was the absolute governance and adherence to the written law (secularly). Every crime had to be punished in order to satisfy the demands of the law and its was the role of the judge to vindicate the law when violated.

Calvin applied this concept to the atonement. Every sin must be punished to satisfy the demands of divine justice.

We cannot go to deeply into that philosophy because not long after Calvin's death the cracks in the logic became canyons and it was abandoned. The main reason is this type of judicial philosophy ignored the criminal, the victim, and ultimately society.

We can easily look back and wonder how anybody held the philosophy, but we have to remember it was an experimental movement.

Secularly a form of the philosophy - minus the judicial and law aspect - exists today in civil contracts. One must abide by the letter of the agreement or be guilty of violating the contract.

The only place the actual philosophy exists in whole is in Penal Substitution Theory. The reason is the theory took root and became tradition prior to the philosophy being proven unjust.


This is why @DaveXR650 and other PSA theorists cannot answer the questions in the OP.


Their philosophy is the 16th century failed philosophy verbatum. "Every crime must be punished, punishment satisfies the demand of the law" simply became "every sin must be punished, punishment satisfies divine justice".

 

[JonC]

So let's look at another philosophy.

In the Old Testament (Hebrew religion) the purpose of justice is to achieve and maintain שׁלום (shalom). We typically view this as peace, but the concept is more than simple peace (not fighting). It is completeness, wholeness. Justice is a state of righteousness.

In pursuit of shalom there are two distinct judicial concepts - Tzedek and Mishpat (social justice and communal righteousness). Tzedek is the concept of fairness, of social righteousness. Mishpat is the concept of the rule of law.

Both aspects are important in achieving justice. People are to be honest, to treat one another fairly. Laws are to be obeyed, violations punished in order to correct or expel (achieve shalom).

So punishing crimes is important, but punishment itself is not justice. What justice demands is a staye of justness (righteousness). A murderer is executed, not to punish the murderer (although it is punishment) but to remove the unrighteous element. A thief is punished, not for punishments sake but to restore what was stolen and correct the behavior.

In the Hebrew religion punishment never satisfies justice, never satisfies the demands of the law. Why? Because justice is righteousness, and the Standard is God.

 

[DaveXR650]

Until someone gets their meds refilled we I guess are doomed to do this again and again. But I've got the time so let's go.

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

Everyone needs to ask themselves if, due to our common law and culture, as well as from our general understanding of scripture this question: Is the correct view of the moral universe best described by a just God who demands justice, or is your best understanding that this is iffy, random, and the concept of justice unnecessary? If it is random, you are a naturalistic atheist, or you may be a deist who believes that God for whatever reason set things in motion and is now AWOL. Stop here and find something else to do if that is your concept of the universe God, or whoever, if anyone at all, created.

If you do believe that we live in some kind of a moral universe and you are familiar with scripture, you realize that a theme of scripture is that we have responsibilities toward God and we have commandments, warnings, instructions and admonitions from God - along with sanctions. And that the laws of God threaten not just natural consequences but actual punishment, as these sanctions.

Furthermore; many of these laws and commandments not only involve direct responsibilities to God but involve interactions with each other. This is essential to remember because this leads to the next concept - that being that God has a legitimate role as the supreme judge, such that while He, in order to be true to his own nature as well as act honorably toward his creatures - righteous justice is indeed an absolute requirement. We call this punishment.

 

[DaveXR650]

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

I am assuming he means divine justice as the question makes even less sense as written.
Divine justice will be satisfied when the specified punishment demanded by the supreme judge is accomplished. Specifically, God determines suitable punishment for law breakers and when it is meted out justice is satisfied.

 

[DaveXR650]

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

It's rather arrogant for a creature to ask this. We owe total obedience to any laws given to us by God and we owe whatever punishment he deems appropriate should be disobey.

 

[JonC]

Until someone gets their meds refilled we I guess are doomed to do this again and again. But I've got the time so let's go.

Everyone needs to ask themselves if, due to our common law and culture, as well as from our general understanding of scripture this question: Is the correct view of the moral universe best described by a just God who demands justice, or is your best understanding that this is iffy, random, and the concept of justice unnecessary? If it is random, you are a naturalistic atheist, or you may be a deist who believes that God for whatever reason set things in motion and is now AWOL. Stop here and find something else to do if that is your concept of the universe God, or whoever, if anyone at all, created.

If you do believe that we live in some kind of a moral universe and you are familiar with scripture, you realize that a theme of scripture is that we have responsibilities toward God and we have commandments, warnings, instructions and admonitions from God - along with sanctions. And that the laws of God threaten not just natural consequences but actual punishment, as these sanctions.

Furthermore; many of these laws and commandments not only involve direct responsibilities to God but involve interactions with each other. This is essential to remember because this leads to the next concept - that being that God has a legitimate role as the supreme judge, such that while He, in order to be true to his own nature as well as act honorably toward his creatures - righteous justice is indeed an absolute requirement. We call this punishment.

No need to insult.

If you cannot answer for your faith (obviously you cannot) just explore other philosophies of justice.


I lean more towards the Hebrew concept of justice. The penalties for a crime do not satisfy justice but instead are used to bring about justice.


16th century humanism says "every crime must be punished to satisfy the law".

You say "every sin must be punished to satisfy justice".

Are you able to defend your philosophy?

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

 

[JonC]

It's rather arrogant for a creature to ask this. We owe total obedience to any laws given to us by God and we owe whatever punishment he deems appropriate should be disobey.

No, it really is not because God tells us in His Word (it is just not the answer you wanted to hear).

 

[JonC]

I am assuming he means divine justice as the question makes even less sense as written.
Divine justice will be satisfied when the specified punishment demanded by the supreme judge is accomplished. Specifically, God determines suitable punishment for law breakers and when it is meted out justice is satisfied.

Circular argument.

I ask "How does punishment satisfy divine justice?" You say punishment satisfies divine justice because divine justice requires punishment.

You have adopted 16th century secular humanism ("every crime must be punished to satisfy the demands of the law, the judge avenges the law").

But you have not defended it. You assume it is right because Calvin was a part of that movement as a law student and read it into Scripture. But you need to defend it.