Is God Intrinsically Just?

[Van]

Writing in big letters is often a mark of childishness. It certainly does not make the argument any stronger.
But you are correct on one thing: plenty of professing Christians hold some mistaken views.

Note this poster is addressing me and not the topic PSA is a fiction.

Transatlantic Methodists were also united in their endorsement of a universal atonement and free will. That Christ died for all rather than an elect few, and that humans had a choice in the salvation process, were fundamental beliefs connecting Methodists in England and America. These core beliefs helped distinguish Methodists from most other varieties of evangelicalism in the eighteenth century, specifically those theological traditions which drew heavily on Calvin’s interpretation of the atonement. The universal atonement remained an integral part of Methodists’ theology of redemption during the entire period under review. ​

 

[Martin Marprelate]

From an internet article

Absolutely. But they also believed in Penal Substitution. The one does not deny the other.

’Tis finished! The Messiah dies,
Cut off for sins, but not His own:
Accomplished is the sacrifice,
The great redeeming work is done.
’Tis finished! all the debt is paid;
Justice divine is satisfied;
The grand and full atonement made;
God for a guilty world hath died.

The veil is rent in Christ alone;
The living way to Heaven is seen;
The middle wall is broken down,
And all mankind may enter in.
The types and figures are fulfilled;
Exacted is the legal pain;
The precious promises are sealed;
The spotless Lamb of God is slain.

The reign of sin and death is o’er,
And all may live from sin set free;
Satan hath lost his mortal power;
’Tis swallowed up in victory.
Saved from the legal curse I am,
My Savior hangs on yonder tree:
See there the meek, expiring Lamb!
’Tis finished! He expires for me.

Accepted in the Well-beloved,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
I see the bar to heaven removed;
And all Thy merits, Lord, are mine.
Death, hell, and sin are now subdued;
All grace is now to sinners given;
And lo, I plead the atoning blood,
And in Thy right I claim Thy Heaven! [Charles Wesley]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Note this poster is addressing me and not the topic PSA is a fiction.

The thread topic is 'Is God intrinsically Just' not 'PSA is a Fiction.'
If you want to start your own thread on that latter subject, please feel free to do so.

 

[Van]

Absolutely. But they also believed in Penal Substitution. The one does not deny the other.

’Tis finished! The Messiah dies,
Cut off for sins, but not His own:
Accomplished is the sacrifice,
The great redeeming work is done.
’Tis finished! all the debt is paid;
Justice divine is satisfied;
The grand and full atonement made;
God for a guilty world hath died.

The veil is rent in Christ alone;
The living way to Heaven is seen;
The middle wall is broken down,
And all mankind may enter in.
The types and figures are fulfilled;
Exacted is the legal pain;
The precious promises are sealed;
The spotless Lamb of God is slain.

The reign of sin and death is o’er,
And all may live from sin set free;
Satan hath lost his mortal power;
’Tis swallowed up in victory.
Saved from the legal curse I am,
My Savior hangs on yonder tree:
See there the meek, expiring Lamb!
’Tis finished! He expires for me.

Accepted in the Well-beloved,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
I see the bar to heaven removed;
And all Thy merits, Lord, are mine.
Death, hell, and sin are now subdued;
All grace is now to sinners given;
And lo, I plead the atoning blood,
And in Thy right I claim Thy Heaven! [Charles Wesley]

LOL, universal atonement is not PSA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Van]

The thread topic is 'Is God intrinsically Just' not 'PSA is a Fiction.'
If you want to start your own thread on that latter subject, please feel free to do so.

LOL, here is the quote from the OP Martin posted:

So why did Owen change his mind? Partly it came from his defense of Penal Substitution against the Socinians who denied it.​

 

[Martin Marprelate]

LOL, here is the quote from the OP Martin posted:

So why did Owen change his mind? Partly it came from his defense of Penal Substitution against the Socinians who denied it.​

LOL to you too!
Owen was a Calvinist before and after he changed his mind.
And LOL I did not say that Universal Atonement is PSA; I said that the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[kyredneck]

The thread topic is 'Is God intrinsically Just' not 'PSA is a Fiction.'

...but it is ultimately PSA vs CV, right? As shown in the OP:

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).

 

[Van]

LOL to you too!
Owen was a Calvinist before and after he changed his mind.
And LOL I did not say that Universal Atonement is PSA; I said that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Always interesting to learn the Methodists believe in mutually exclusive Limited Atonement and Universal Atonement. What is next?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

...but it is ultimately PSA vs CV, right? As shown in the OP:

No. Owen was a Calvinist and believed in PSA when he wrote Death of Death. However that book was written against the Arminians (who also believed in PSA). At that time, as the OP relates, Owen did not believe that God's justice was intrinsic to him. When he came in to contact with the followers of Laelius and Faustus Socinius, who did deny PSA, he appears to have looked more deeply at the justice of God and decided that it was indeed intrinsic to His nature.

The thread was started simply because I was interested to know what people felt about the nature of God.

I hope that helps.

 

[JonC]

First of all, it seems clear that God does not share your concerns. In 1 Peter 2:23-24, Peter declares first, that God 'judges justly' and then goes on to declare that Christ bore our sins and the curse attached to them, and in Romans 3:25-26, Paul asserts that the setting forth of Christ as a propitiation for our sins, far from being a denial of His justice, was in fact a declaration of it.
Secondly, Christ is not an unrelated third party to His people. He is united to us (e.g. Hebrews 2:11); He in us and we in Him (John 17:21-23). That is how our sins are imputed to Him and His perfect righteousness imputed to us.

This, of course, begs the question of why the Lord Jesus had to die at all. Moreover, it is somewhat like a murderer being sentenced to go on an anger management course. Even if it works, where is the justice?

It appears you may not understand outside of your theory (which is often the case and, apart from diligent stude, quite normal).

This is 1Peter 2:21-25

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

I agree that God justly judges. He certainly does not punish the innocent, not does He clear the guilty.

BUT you started mid passage, which affects your understanding.

Peter starts off letting us know that while being reviled Jesus did not revile in return but trusted God who judges righteously (see Psalm 22 as well). And He certainly bore our sins and suffered the wages of sin.


Let's look at Romans 3:21-26

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being 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.



There is nothing in either passage that I reject or even question.


I believe God simply will not clear the guilty or punish the just. It will not happen. Period.

 

[Alan Gross]

. In teaching that God cannot simply forgive sins without a satisfaction, we are not limiting His freedom; we are simply acknowledging His nature

A sacrificial payment of Infinite Value had to substituted to atone the Infinite Offence of the sins of God's Elect, that were committed against a Just and Holy Eternal God.

That is what Christianity is all about.

That why God's Eternal Plan of Salvation, to Provide a Lamb, Originated in Eternity Past, a long with God's choice of the Elect.

God did this to have companions in communion with Him throughout all Eternity and why Adam wasn't created a robot, or Angel, or confirmed in innocence.

"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world" John 17:24.

That they may "be with me where I am."

Adam had to be created mutable and with the eventuality of him changing and sinning, and God had the Plan of Redemption in place, that was in keeping with His Nature of being Just.

From the Nature and Attributes of God, by T.P. Simmons.

Justice.

The justice of God is taught in

Gen. 18:25; That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Deut. 32:4; He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Psa. 7:9-12; 18:24;
7:9Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.

10My defence is of God, which saveth the upright in heart.

11God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

12If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready.

18: 24Therefore hath the LORD recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight.

Rom. 2:5-8; 5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath

"It was the justice of God that made it necessary for Christ to die in order that men might be saved. The justice of God makes it impossible for God to let sin go unpunished. The death of Christ made it possible for Him to be just and yet the justifier of believing sinners. (Rom. 3:26).

"In the sacrifice of Jesus the Scripture was fulfilled which says: "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other (Psa. 85:10).

"The salvation of believers is an act of grace toward them; yet it is an act of justice to Jesus Christ who died in the stead of all who will ever believe."

JUST

God is Just, but no we don't want His Justice apart from His Mercy, in Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

The thread was started simply because I was interested to know what people felt about the nature of God.

I always thought that somehow it was the idea of God being just and always doing what is right that allowed Satan in some sense to have something on God himself. When Adam and Eve rebelled it seems that God could have simply done what he willed to Satan and told Adam and Eve to knock it off and keep them in the garden but that simply wouldn't have been right. Well, "wouldn't have been right to who"? It has to be God's intrinsic nature because no one could tell God what to do. But Satan could appeal to God's nature and because of Adam's sin put God as it were in a position where if God justly destroyed Satan at that moment he would have also had to destroy man, if he were truly just.

That's why when I see some early church father say there was a ransom paid to Satan, although I don't agree I also don't ridicule them completely because we know scripture says a ransom was paid but to who? I would say it was to God in the sense that it was what seemed right in His eyes to satisfy His sense of justice so that he could rightly forgive as he desired yet be true to His just nature. When you put all the verses together it is clear to me at least that it is done by an atonement that is vicarious and substitutionary and penal in nature. But what is driving this is God's just nature and his love. Of course, we would never presume upon any of this except for the fact that God has himself chosen to reveal this to us about himself in scripture.

 

[atpollard]

The thread was started simply because I was interested to know what people felt about the nature of God.

I hope that helps.

Nothing OF GOD is external TO GOD. God does as He pleases ("works all things after the council of His will"), thus no decision is the result of any external influence on God ... including a "sense" that God OUGHT TO do something. Therefore JUSTICE (as it relates to flowing FROM God) is innate to who God is. If Scripture is the "norma normans non normata" ... then how much more is GOD the "rule that has no higher rule and against which all other rules must be measured!"

That's my opinion on "the nature of God".

I hope that helps.

 

[JonC]

I always thought that somehow it was the idea of God being just and always doing what is right that allowed Satan in some sense to have something on God himself. When Adam and Eve rebelled it seems that God could have simply done what he willed to Satan and told Adam and Eve to knock it off and keep them in the garden but that simply wouldn't have been right. Well, "wouldn't have been right to who"? It has to be God's intrinsic nature because no one could tell God what to do. But Satan could appeal to God's nature and because of Adam's sin put God as it were in a position where if God justly destroyed Satan at that moment he would have also had to destroy man, if he were truly just.

That's why when I see some early church father say there was a ransom paid to Satan, although I don't agree I also don't ridicule them completely because we know scripture says a ransom was paid but to who? I would say it was to God in the sense that it was what seemed right in His eyes to satisfy His sense of justice so that he could rightly forgive as he desired yet be true to His just nature. When you put all the verses together it is clear to me at least that it is done by an atonement that is vicarious and substitutionary and penal in nature. But what is driving this is God's just nature and his love. Of course, we would never presume upon any of this except for the fact that God has himself chosen to reveal this to us about himself in scripture.

An interesting subject is to study Random Theory and see how that question (to who?) was answered.

Today most scholars do not believe that Origen, for example, meant that God paid a ransom to the Devil but instead that the theologian was using "Satan" to represent powers of this age or death and this in a pastoral illustration. But it came to represent God paying Satan.

Other ECF's held that Christ paid a ransom to death as a power (I am not exactly sure how they would flesh that out, and they are not here to ask).

Another ECF view was that Christ died as a ransom for us, but not paying a ransom to anybody or any power (think - Christ paid for us with His death as opposed to Christ bought us from somebody). A ransom in this context (ransomed from sin and death) does not mean there was somebody to receive a payment. It points to the cost of our redemption.

Those are the three main ways Ransomed Theory was used early on. But by the 10th Century the common understanding among lay members was that God paid Satan.

 

[JonC]

The problem with the OP is that it holds God cleared the guilty by punishing the innocent.

 

[atpollard]

The problem with the OP is that it holds God cleared the guilty by punishing the innocent.

I agree, but to be fair ... God punished Himself. A distinction with a difference (unlike all those cute little baby lambs).

 

[JonC]

I agree, but to be fair ... God punished Himself. A distinction with a difference (unlike all those cute little baby lambs).

That is important, however only to the extent claims of "cosmic child abuse" fall short of accurate.

Even if God punished Himself, the OP is still punishing the innocent (God is righteous, and self punishment would be unjust punishment).

The larger problem is it is still clearing the guilty.

The OP fails because it applies punishments on sins. People are not guilty because sins exist. People are guilty because they have committed sin. Punishing the sin does not negate the guilt. So the real discussion from the OP is God punishing sins so that He can clear the guilty. That does not work, biblically.

Sins are manifestations of ones sinfulness. When we sin we are guilty of sin, even if that sin has been punished.

What the guilty need is not somebody to take their punishment but a way to be made new, or recreated, to become not guilty. The guilty part of that person (that old man) has to die, but the righteous part (that new man) will live.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Nothing OF GOD is external TO GOD. God does as He pleases ("works all things after the council of His will"), thus no decision is the result of any external influence on God ... including a "sense" that God OUGHT TO do something. Therefore JUSTICE (as it relates to flowing FROM God) is innate to who God is. If Scripture is the "norma normans non normata" ... then how much more is GOD the "rule that has no higher rule and against which all other rules must be measured!"

That's my opinion on "the nature of God".

I hope that helps.

Thank you so much! At least one person has answered in the spirit of the OP. I agree with you.
This board does not discuss very much the nature of God. His 'simplicity' is a very important part of His nature, but unfortunately everything here comes back to Calvinism and PSA.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It appears you may not understand outside of your theory (which is often the case and, apart from diligent stude, quite normal).

This is 1Peter 2:21-25

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

I agree that God justly judges. He certainly does not punish the innocent, not does He clear the guilty.

BUT you started mid passage, which affects your understanding.

Peter starts off letting us know that while being reviled Jesus did not revile in return but trusted God who judges righteously (see Psalm 22 as well). And He certainly bore our sins and suffered the wages of sin.

What is your point in quoting the earlier verses? You do not say. You can go back to 1:1, but you still will not avoid the fact that Peter tells us that God judges righteously, and that Christ bore our sins and the curse attached to them on the cross. Therefore it must be just and righteous that Christ suffered in that way. The fact that you don't like it is neither here nor there. I actually explained why it is just and righteous, but you quietly ignored that part of my post.

Let's look at Romans 3:21-26

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being 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.



There is nothing in either passage that I reject or even question.

You have a habit of posting passages we all agree on and then making tangent claims.

That is super! We're agreed. God set Christ forth as a propitiation - a sacrifice that turns away anger or 'atoning sacrifice' (NIV) or 'wrath-removing sacrifice' (William Hendriksen) because His intrinsic justice prevents Him from forgiving sin without a satisfaction to that justice.
I'm glad we've sorted that out.

God simply will not clear the guilty or punish the just. It will not happen. Period.

You have a habit of posting things we all agree on and then making tangent claims.

 

[JonC]

What is your point in quoting the earlier verses? You do not say.

My point is that Peter tells us several things in that passage:

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.


1. Christ suffered for us.

2. While Christ was being abused He did not respond with abuse.

3. While suffering Christ did not offer threats.

4. Instead of responding with hostility Jesus trusted God, who judges righteously.

5. He bore our sins bodily on the cross.

6. He did this so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by His wounds we are healed.


That was my point. God did not have to clear the guilty or punish the innocent (God is just) for those things to take place. You are quoting Scripture as if it proves your point when it actually doesn't.