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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I will explain by a human example. Spare the rod spoil the child.

Your child talks back to you. You punish your child. Did you punish your child to satisfy justice or was that punishment a means to an end (did it have a legitimate purpose)?

Say your child's sibling volunteered to take that punishment instead of the child who talked back. Would you then punish the innocent child in order to satisfy justice? If so, would that punishment have its intended goal?


God gives the reason for His punishment:

1. Instruction and Correction
2. Deterrence
3. Bring about repentance
4. Uphold righteousness and holiness

But each of these depend on not punishing the Just and not clearing the guilty. Punishment is never an end unto itself. It has a purpose. That purpose is to being about justice.

Scripture never describes punishment as satisfaction. That is secular humanistic philosophy (punishment of crimes satisfies the law) "Christianized" (punishment of sins satisfies divine justice). You quote that 16th century philosophy almost verbatim.

 

[DaveXR650]

In Pilgrim's Progress there is a place where Jesus himself makes the guys lie down and he flogs them. And no, I don't think divine justice is the point of that. Same if your child talks back. We know we live in a physical world and we understand that, as sophisticated as we think of ourselves to be, we still live under a system of rewards and punishments, some natural consequences, and some administered by whatever authority we are under.

But am I to understand that you don't agree that a person who offends at one point of the law is a law breaker as in James 2:10 and may have judgement without mercy. Or as in Hebrews 2:2 "every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense and reward". Or, when we are told to withhold righting wrongs done to ourselves and to defer revenge because God claims that for his own and will do so himself?

An example of a child that sasses you is not exactly what I had in mind. Even more to the point would be just to take a quick read of Jude where the judgement of finally impenitent folks is described. In those cases your no. 4 above could be said to apply, to the extent that righteousness and holiness are upheld in the punitive judgement of the wicked. But these passages show God punishing with a final declaration based on sin unforgiven and unrepented of with no goal but that the punishment be done - because it is God's decision that it should be so.

But each of these depend on not punishing the Just and not clearing the guilty. Punishment is never an end unto itself. It has a purpose. That purpose is to being about justice.

And I think where you are mistaken is that there then are areas where punishment functions with no beneficial healing or fixing of anyone and is not like punishment on a sassy child which is more accurately called discipline. In Jude, in Hebrews where they have neglected the final act of God towards us in sending Jesus as a sacrifice, in wrongs to saints that have not been repented of - those would be cases where the punishment functions only to satisfy the justice of God and thus to "make things right". I don't see why this should be difficult to understand.

I'm not saying everyone who claims to be a Christian nowadays believes this. I think there are many who don't believe God will truly punish anyone, I guess because they figure we all had it pretty tough here and let's let bygones be bygones. Wasn't that Rob Bell's philosophy.

 

[JonC]

In Pilgrim's Progress there is a place where Jesus himself makes the guys lie down and he flogs them. And no, I don't think divine justice is the point of that. Same if your child talks back. We know we live in a physical world and we understand that, as sophisticated as we think of ourselves to be, we still live under a system of rewards and punishments, some natural consequences, and some administered by whatever authority we are under.

But am I to understand that you don't agree that a person who offends at one point of the law is a law breaker as in James 2:10 and may have judgement without mercy. Or as in Hebrews 2:2 "every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense and reward". Or, when we are told to withhold righting wrongs done to ourselves and to defer revenge because God claims that for his own and will do so himself?

An example of a child that sasses you is not exactly what I had in mind. Even more to the point would be just to take a quick read of Jude where the judgement of finally impenitent folks is described. In those cases your no. 4 above could be said to apply, to the extent that righteousness and holiness are upheld in the punitive judgement of the wicked. But these passages show God punishing with a final declaration based on sin unforgiven and unrepented of with no goal but that the punishment be done - because it is God's decision that it should be so.

And I think where you are mistaken is that there then are areas where punishment functions with no beneficial healing or fixing of anyone and is not like punishment on a sassy child which is more accurately called discipline. In Jude, in Hebrews where they have neglected the final act of God towards us in sending Jesus as a sacrifice, in wrongs to saints that have not been repented of - those would be cases where the punishment functions only to satisfy the justice of God and thus to "make things right". I don't see why this should be difficult to understand.

I'm not saying everyone who claims to be a Christian nowadays believes this. I think there are many who don't believe God will truly punish anyone, I guess because they figure we all had it pretty tough here and let's let bygones be bygones. Wasn't that Rob Bell's philosophy.

I do not know Rob Bell's philosophy. I also have not read John Bunyan in decades. I merely pointed out what God said about His justice.

Justice is justice. If a child murderer is sentenced to death the punishment has a purpose (to remove that element from society). It is not punishment to satisfy justice, but punishment to bring about justice by removing the unjust.

You are wrong. Punishment is not a means unto itself (not what satisfies justice). There are no passages that describe justice on those grounds.

Had you continued to read Jude you would find that the punishment was to remove the ungodly (they cannot stand in the presence of God's glory).

Had you read the Old Testament you would have known this because God Himself said that this punishment is to "remove evil".


You have a bizarre philosophy for today. You repeat 16th century humanism as if it has not been shown repeatedly to be unjust, ascribing that unjustness to God.

Rather than reaching back three and a half centuries why not just read the Bible and believe God's words?

God told you the purpose of temporal punishment (bring repentance, deterrence, and instruction). God told you the purpose of the final judgment (cast out the wicked, remove evil, no wickedness will exist).

God told you that He is just. God told you it is unjust to punish the Innocent, to punish the Just, and to clear the guilty. God told you His words stand, He is faithful, He does not change.

Yet for some reason you ignore all of that to lean on the secular philosophy you quote almost verbatim.


How do you define justice?

Do you draw on secular humanism (justice is the punishment of crimes to satisfy the law; the role of a judge is to avenge the law by punishing crimes")? Or are you willing to listen to God (punishing the innocent and clearing the guilty are both abominations to God; it is wrong to punish the Just)?


I agree the Law had punishments for offenses. BUT punishment did not satisfy justice (there was an important reason for the punishment, God told you the reason). And the Law, while certainly just, was NOT justice itself (it was one manifestation, and it served to show us we fail to meet God's justice).


What you are rejecting is more than those passages.