Divine Justice

[DaveXR650]

If punishment itself is a means to achieve justice then PSA is wrong (punishing Christ would not come to that end).

And that is where the whole use of legal framework is in play as a means to explain this - to those who are familiar with the legal framework. No, it's not wrong and it is what happens. This is where I think you and Socinus get into serious heresy.

When Socinus insisted that punishing the Just and clearing the guilty are alike abominations to God he was quoting Scripture. When I say the same I am not quoting Socinus but God.

If the words are the same the words are the same and the connection will be made. Just a heads up. If I say this nation was built on blood and soil people will make a connection I may not mean or like but it's still going to be brought up.

 

[JonC]

You have such an animosity to PSA that no explanation will ever be accepted by you.

Yes, I do. The reason is I held that heresy for a ling time. But I also have an animosity for Jehovah Witnesses doctrine, Mormonism, Islam, any false doctrine. The reason is they carry people away from God.

I believe it is interesting to read how these theories came into being and how they reflect the thought process if the time.

The two most interesting are Substitution Theory and Penal Substitution Theory. Anselm sought to develop a theory that fit within his worldview and would appeal to the laity of his day. The focus on honor is a result of his worldview.

And then we have Calvin, a law student within the humanistic movement. He replaced honor with the ideas of that secular movement. "Every crime must be punished, punishment satisfies the law" became "every sin must be punished, punishment satisfies divine judgment". You can literally see the secular influences in their theology.

But both Medieval Chivalry and Renaissance humanism have passed. While we can understand both Anselm and Calvin reading Scriptute through their philosophies, it is odd that many read their philosophy into the biblical text.


You have shown why this topic is so important today by your inability to address your assumptions.


Biblically punishment is designed to arrive at justice. The criminal is punished in order to change the criminal or remove the criminal - both resulting in a righteous or just world.

At Judgment we see the same. The wicked will not enter the kingdom of God. They are unrighteous and God is righteous. Punishment will occur, resulting in the removal of evil (the wicked being cast out, cast into the outter darkness, cast into the lake of fire).

Biblically punishment is only on the wicked or wickedness as it serves a just purpose leading to righteousness.

Biblically punishment does not satisfy divine justice. It leads to divine justice (it removes the wicked or changes the wicked).


But you are saying that punishment itself serves no purpose at all. It is merely what judtice demands. Therefore anybody can suffer the punishment as long as the punishment is accomplished.

So you need to define divine justice.

 

[JonC]

Did I or did I not answer the same way you did? You ask why people get tired of you asking? It's because you ask the same question over and over, refuse to accept the answer without rebuttal, then come up with the same answer.

You did not answer. That is why I ask over and over.

You assume that sin creates a need in God, that God must express this need. Punishment satisfies God, presumably satisfies God emotionally. You have shown no purpose in punishment itself (you said it is too sacred to explore).

And I agree that for your theory to work punishment cannot hold a purpose or meaning. It has to be something God simply must do. Otherwise God voild not punish the Just to clear the guilty. It has to be a bookkeeping type of exercise.

 

[JonC]

You should know that there are differences of opinion on this. Can anyone or anything really create a "need" in God. I rather prefer to say that we observe that it is within God's revealed nature to in a sense, in our language to say He must meet it. The "must" is only because of either his nature or by his truly free will.

I do not believe anybody can create a need in God.

Instead I think what we deal with is God's revealed nature (He is righteous, Just). God has said that it is wrong to punish the Just, that punishing the Righteous and clearing the guilty are equally abominations to Him. God has also told us the reason for punishment (to "remove evil").

This is why the idea that punishment satisfies justice is wrong. God gave a different view of justice and a definite purpose for punishment.

If God punished the Just to clear the guilty then not only is God evil by His own standard but punishment no longer serves the purpose Scriptute says it serves.

You hold a different view of justice than Scripture offers. You hold a different purpose in punishment than God declared.

For that reason I have to ask -

How do you define divine justice?

What is the goal of punishment?

 

[DaveXR650]

You did not answer. That is why I ask over and over.

Once again. I refer you to post 38 where my answer is put next to yours.

You assume that sin creates a need in God, that God must express this need.

And here again, you are making a real mistake if you try to tie PSA to Calvinism, and at the same time, argue that sin creates a "need" in God. Because they refute that. Classical straw man argument.

I'm not going any further until you explain how my answer in post 38 is not the same as your statement which I included.

 

[DaveXR650]

Basically it appears Calvinists believe that sin creates a need on God that He must meet.

You should know that there are differences of opinion on this. Can anyone or anything really create a "need" in God. I rather prefer to say that we observe that it is within God's revealed nature to in a sense, in our language to say He must meet it. The "must" is only because of either his nature or by his truly free will.

I do not believe anybody can create a need in God.

This is a good example of the jumping around you do. I explained that Calvinists do not believe that sin creates a need in God. You, several posts later feel that you need to claim that you don't believe anybody can create a need in God. Did I say you did? No, you brought it up as an accusation of something that no one was even thinking of except apparently you. So now should we do 40 posts with me repeatedly being charged as think either that I believe sin created a need in God - or is it going to be that you are offended because somehow this works out to me accusing you of saying someone can create a need in God. I just can't really keep up with your train of thought.

 

[DaveXR650]

I do not understand why some find it bizarre to ask that one's assumptions and philosophies be explained when it comes to such an important topic.

If punishment satisfies divine justice rather than being a means to an end (justice) then this has to be explanned.

If punishment itself is a means to achieve justice then PSA is wrong (punishing Christ would not come to that end).


Basically it appears Calvinists believe that sin creates a need on God that He must meet.

This is wrong. Punishment serves a purpose. It is to bring about justice by punishing the wicked or wickedness in a person.

This is post 37 and you need to explain why punishment that was determined to be the proper punishment, when to use your own words, is "brought about", that that would not result in satisfaction of claims against the one guilty. Because this is at the core and that I think is why you are dancing around it.