Is God Intrinsically Just?

[Martin Marprelate]

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

This is true. Satan was 'The accuser of our brethren, who accused [note the past tense] them before our God day and night' (Revelation 12:10). How is it that Satan was able to come right into the presence of God to accuse His people of sin? The answer is, because he had truth on his side. 'Joshua was clothed with filthy garments' (Zechariah 3:4). All Joshua's righteousness was like filthy rags. But 'For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil' (1 John 3:8), and this He has done by bearing the sins of God's people and taking them away so that Satan has nothing to accuse them of. And that is why Satan is cast down to earth and his power is limited. He roams about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, but he may not devour us (1 John 5:18) because he cannot accuse us of sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

No indeed. God does not have to clear the guilty because Christ has not only borne our sins, but actually taken them away (John 1:29), and whether you like it or not, God is perfectly just, firstly because, in a very real sense it was God who suffered on the cross (Acts of the Apostles 20:28), and secondly because of the union of Christ with His people, as I pointed out to you before.

You are quoting Scripture as if it proves your point when it actually doesn't.

Actually, it does.

 

[atpollard]

unfortunately everything here comes back to Calvinism and PSA.

Unfortunately, everything everywhere seems to come back to Calvinism vs Free Will or PSA vs Christus Victor. It tends to make for beating a lot of already dead horses.

 

[atpollard]

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).

I agree that it does not negate the argument about “punishing an innocent”.

I disagree that “cosmic child abuse” is the only extent of its relevance. There is a fundamental difference in typology between transferring guilt from one party to another (for example, from the nation to the animal sacrifice or even a human sacrifice as the Aztec practiced) which raises core moral questions about the innate Justice of the action … and choosing to freely offer oneself in place of another (a self-sacrificing act of love). The two actions are of fundamentally different character, motivation and nature.

The larger problem is it is still clearing the guilty.

[Ezekiel 18:20-23 NKJV] 20 "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. 21 "But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 "None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 "Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord GOD, "[and] not that he should turn from his ways and live?

Right after the OFT QUOTED verse about “to each his own sin” [paraphrase], comes an important paragraph about God dealing with sinners and forgiveness. What struck me about that paragraph (and the one that follows it) was the simplicity of God’s equation. Those that turn from sin to God, find forgiveness. No elaborate transfer of guilt. No terrible wrath that must first be appeased. Just a God that is WILLING to forgive all who will draw near and receive. In contrast, there is an equally simple paradigm of God’s enemies will eventually receive God’s wrath.

As I apply that to Christ and the Saints and Justification / Atonement / the Day of Wrath … I see the same God still willing to forgive those that will draw near, and still settled in His resolution that His enemies will feel His wrath eventually. There is no cause for wrath against either Jesus or His Children (OT or NT). That is not the modus operandi of God’s grace as revealed in Ezekiel.

 

[JonC]

No indeed. God does not have to clear the guilty because Christ has not only borne our sins, but actually taken them away (John 1:29), and whether you like it or not, God is perfectly just, firstly because, in a very real sense it was God who suffered on the cross (Acts of the Apostles 20:28), and secondly because of the union of Christ with His people, as I pointed out to you before.

Actually, it does.

Removing sins can be viewed as forgiveness, but not the nullification of guilty. What you are describing IS God clearing the guilty by transferring and punishing sins.

 

[JonC]

I agree that it does not negate the argument about “punishing an innocent”.

I disagree that “cosmic child abuse” is the only extent of its relevance. There is a fundamental difference in typology between transferring guilt from one party to another (for example, from the nation to the animal sacrifice or even a human sacrifice as the Aztec practiced) which raises core moral questions about the innate Justice of the action … and choosing to freely offer oneself in place of another (a self-sacrificing act of love). The two actions are of fundamentally different character, motivation and nature.




[Ezekiel 18:20-23 NKJV] 20 "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. 21 "But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 "None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 "Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord GOD, "[and] not that he should turn from his ways and live?

Right after the OFT QUOTED verse about “to each his own sin” [paraphrase], comes an important paragraph about God dealing with sinners and forgiveness. What struck me about that paragraph (and the one that follows it) was the simplicity of God’s equation. Those that turn from sin to God, find forgiveness. No elaborate transfer of guilt. No terrible wrath that must first be appeased. Just a God that is WILLING to forgive all who will draw near and receive. In contrast, there is an equally simple paradigm of God’s enemies will eventually receive God’s wrath.

As I apply that to Christ and the Saints and Justification / Atonement / the Day of Wrath … I see the same God still willing to forgive those that will draw near, and still settled in His resolution that His enemies will feel His wrath eventually. There is no cause for wrath against either Jesus or His Children (OT or NT). That is not the modus operandi of God’s grace as revealed in Ezekiel.

I agree.

The only thing I would question is the idea that the animal sacrifice in pagan worship or even in OT worship was viewed as a sacrifice in place of the one offering the sacrifice.

This leads me to the idea of an action of choosing to freely offer oneself in place of another (a self-sacrificing act of love) can actually be described as a just action. I would argue it cannot. It is a sacrifice, it could be mercy, and if it is for a greater good it could be expedient. But it is not a just action.

That is one reason I believe we would be better off to term the idea as Christ as dying for us, dying for our sins, rather than dying in our place. Saying "Christ died in our place" could lead to the misunderstanding of "instead of us" rather than representative (a type of "Adam").

 

[atpollard]

But it is not a just action.

I am the last person to figure that one out. I still scratch my head at Jacob and Esau (before they were born) and trying to see the Justice in that. I have to trust in the GOODNESS of God (I sure don’t get his thoughts).

 

[37818]

God is infinitely good.
Whimsical Axioms

 

[JonC]

I am the last person to figure that one out. I still scratch my head at Jacob and Esau (before they were born) and trying to see the Justice in that. I have to trust in the GOODNESS of God (I sure don’t get his thoughts).

I don't believe Jacob and Esau to be an example of justice but if the Potter and the clay. In the passage it is not hate as an emotion but rather an action (like passages of God hating Israel). God chose Jacob to build His nation rather than the elder brother. I believe this has to do with purpose.

 

[kyredneck]

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

I think I said that

 

[JonC]

I think I said that

Great minds think alike

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Removing sins can be viewed as forgiveness, but not the nullification of guilty. What you are describing IS God clearing the guilty by transferring and punishing sins.

Just follow the dots. '..... And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' ......... 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' .......... 'The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land'.......'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin' ......... '...The Church of God which He purchased with His own blood.'
You keep saying that you believe all these texts. Very well then; tell us what you think they mean.

 

[JonC]

Not unbiblical at all. Just follow the dots. '..... And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' ......... 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' .......... 'The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land'.......'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin' ......... '...The Church of God which He purchased with His own blood.'
You keep saying that you believe all these texts. Very well then; tell us what you think they mean.

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.

'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.


'The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land'

This verse is part of a larger passage giving instruction to Israel. The OT sacrifice system foreshadowed the New Covenant where God will take away our sins.

And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin'

This verse points to Jesus, the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. In Him there is no sin.


The Church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Jesus purchased us with His own blood. He was the price of our redemption.

The cross was God reconciling man to Himself.

God will not clear the guilty (and the guilty are not cleared). God will not punish the innocent (and the innocent are not punished).

Redemption was not a problem God had to solve. Scripture is not a puzzle. 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.

 

[DaveXR650]

You believe that God had to act unjustly to save us, but He didn't. God will not clear the guilty (and the guilty are not cleared). God will not punish the innocent (and the innocent are not punished).

Redemption was not a problem God had to solve. Scripture is not a puzzle. 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.

The first part of your post was fine but then you go into this, as you tend to do. It's like a different person comes on and finishes your post. How much do you think people are going to listen to you quote scripture, agree with what it says, and then make this bizarre claim that what we all just read is not in the Bible.

 

[kyredneck]

Unfortunately, everything everywhere seems to come back to Calvinism vs Free Will or PSA vs Christus Victor. It tends to make for beating a lot of already dead horses.

...lol, maybe the BB needs a PSA vs CV forum...

 

[kyredneck]

I still scratch my head at Jacob and Esau (before they were born) and trying to see the Justice in that.

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

 

[JonC]

The first part of your post was fine but then you go into this, as you tend to do. It's like a different person comes on and finishes your post. How much do you think people are going to listen to you quote scripture, agree with what it says, and then make this bizarre claim that what we all just read is not in the Bible.

I do not understand your question.

There is God's Word, which IS Scripture. And then there are various theories about what the Bible teaches, which is not in God's Word (in the text of Scripture).

What is bizarre to me is exactly how some here can read a verse and in reciting that verse in doctrine change the words entirely.

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.

So my question is exactly why do you believe those verses state that God transferred our sins to Jesus?

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

To illustrate what I mean -

For most of Christian history believers did not believe that God punished Jesus or our sins on Jesus. They did not believe our sins were transferred to Jesus.

As an example, consider Augustine. Augustine went to great lengths explaining why God allowed Satan to murder Jesus. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he was not unstudied when it comes to the Bible.

No Christian before the Enlightenment believed that our sins were transferred from us or that God punished Jesus or our sins on Him. They held various beliefs about why God allowed Satan to cause Jesus to suffer and why He allowed Satan to murder Jesus, and how God forgives our sins as individuals. BUT they never read what you say is stated in the Bible even though they read what Scripture states.


So what you read, whether your belief is right or wrong, in the Bible is not what is actually in the text of Scripture.

We have to be able to separate our understanding of Scripture from the text of Scripture itself. Otherwise we risk accidentally adding to Scripture when we teach, preach, debate, etc.


I still recommend grabbing a highlighter.

The Bible says Jesus takes away the sins of the World.
The Bible says Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross.
The Bible says God laid our sins on Him.

Don't tell me what you believe that means to you (for this purpose, I don't care...people have different ideas about what that means to them).

Highlight where Scripture states that our sins were transferred from us. Put that text in bold in your reply.

 

[37818]

For most of Christian history believers did not believe that God punished Jesus or our sins on Jesus. They did not believe our sins were transferred to Jesus.

Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ."
2 Corinthians 5:21, ". . . For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; . . ."

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ."
2 Corinthians 5:21, ". . . For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; . . ."

Yes. That is my point.

Until the Enlightenment Christians did not believe those verses meant that God transferred our sins from us to Jesus.

There were several ideas about why God sent His Son to suffer Satan's wrath and be murdered by Satan. There were several ideas about how our sins are forgiven. BUT what you read as the only meaning of those passages did not exist for most of Church History.

So the question is exactly why you and @DaveXR650 read those passages as actually stating your belief.

For example....If I said that Scripture stated that Jesus wore a top hat and offered "Jesus wept" as proof, you'd find that bizarre. And I'd say "what?....the Bible clearly stated Jesus wept. He wore a top hat". You'd say "that's not what the Bible states", and I'd say "but that is what the verse teaches, just like the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible".

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

Scripture simply does not say that God punished Jesus for our sins, or that our sins were transferred from us to Jesus.