Divine Justice

[DaveXR650]

Jesus IS the propitiation. That is what I think you are missing. In Him we escape the wrath to come. "He Himself is the Propitiation". God set Him forth as a Propitiation.

But him being the propitiation is because of his death and shedding of his blood for our sins. That is how he bore our sins in his body. Just his being himself, or being perfectly qualified doesn't work. That's what I was referring to earlier which you then mocked here with this reply:

I am not sure where you read that Jesus' life - the Incarnation without the crucifixion - was sufficient. Is that a form of Moral Influence? I do not hold that theory (Moral Influence or any theory that holds anything but the blood of Christ paid). I almost asked for the theory so I could be aware of it, but changed my mind. I do not want to know.

You will never get it so you can continue with Martin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, God is not unjust. He did not cause Christ's "oppression", He dies not punish the Just, and He does not clear the guilty.

God did cause Christ's oppression as I have shown very clearly. That He did not personally scourge Christ or hammer the nails in does not mean that He was entirely responsible for it.
But you are right that God is not unjust, that He does not punish the just and that He does not clear the guilty.
How that is done remains to be seen on this thread, although it is covered extensively in a variety of books and commentaries, and, of course, the Bible. I will deal with this as soon as I have time.

 

[JonC]

But him being the propitiation is because of his death and shedding of his blood for our sins. That is how he bore our sins in his body. Just his being himself, or being perfectly qualified doesn't work. That's what I was referring to earlier which you then mocked here with this reply:

You will never get it so you can continue with Martin.

I understand what you are saying. You forget that for most pf my life I held PSA as correct. But you are missing my point.

I agree that God setting Him forth as a propitiation is God sending His Son as an offering. I never said that Jesus is the Propitiation because He is righteous.

You are trying to create differences where differences do not exist. That is why I questioned where the idea that we were saved by Jesus being righteous rather than His sacrifice csme from. You introduced that idea into our conversationa few posts ago.

God setting forth Christ as a Propitiation is the crucifixion. It is His blood shed for us. But God setting forth His Son as a Propitiation is not God punishing Jesus.

Jesus bore our sins bodily, shared our humanity, was like one of us. He suffered death because of our sins, the death that sin produces as a wage. All flesh has been sold under sin.

I was not mocking you, BTW. I was curious as to where that theory came from (I was not saying you held that view yourself).

 

[JonC]

God did cause Christ's oppression as I have shown very clearly.

I know you have said that God caused Jesus' oppression. The problem is this by definition makes God unjust.

Oppression is (by definition) an unjust exercise of power. Hitler oppressed Jewish people. Punishing the innocent woukd be oppression (unjust) with the one doing the punishment an oppressor.

You define God as an Oppressor (one who uses power unjustly to crush or subdue).

This is not a character trait of God. So you have to defend exactly what made Him choose unrighteous.

Scripture offers a better explanation. It wss God's predetermined plan, His will, that Christ suffered injustice. But not God's actions (God is righteous and just).

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

Our disagreement is not over whether Christ is righteous. I think we both agree He is. Our disagreement is not over the idea that Christ’s righteousness alone was enough to save (without the Cross) as neither of us believe that. I am trying to keep from going on these tangents and keep focused on the Atonement and the differences between our views.

I believe that God laid our iniquity on Christ, it was His will to “crush” Him, that He bore our sins bodily, that He shared in our humanity, that He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, was made sin for us, shared in our infirmity, was made like us in every way but did not sin.

God set Christ forth as a Propitiation in His blood to be received by faith. His blood cleanses from all unrighteousness. He died under the powers of evil, at the hands of wicked men, by unjust judgment (oppression), dying once for all that He would destroy the power of the one who holds the power of death (that is Satan), God raised Him from the dead, vindicated Him against the unjust punishment of the Cross, raised Him high and lifted up and greatly exalted.

The difference between our positions is not propitiation (we both believe that in Him we escape the wrath to come). The difference is not the necessity of the Cross. We both believe the Cross was necessary for our salvation.

When I say that justice is righteousness and point to Christ’s righteousness, I am not saying that Christ’s righteousness without Him taking on the flesh (the flesh is sold under bondage) and without the Cross saves us. But it does mean that Jesus is righteous. He is just. What we needed was not Jesus to be righteous but that we share in His righteousness. That is what saves us from wrath, for on the day of wrath we will be righteous, we will be conformed to His image, we will have been made new creations, we will be glorified in Him.

We needed a Righteous Savor to share in our human condition (to be made flesh, made sin, for us) so that being vindicated and becoming a life giving spirit we could share in His righteousness. Just as Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh we will be made in His likeness. That is salvation, not punishment satisfying justice.

We cannot approach the Atonement from the standpoint of the Father, viewing our salvation as the Father punishing sins to satisfy His wrath. We have to approach the Atonement from the standpoint of Jesus Christ, viewing our salvation as His work as we die to sin, die to the flesh, die with Christ so that we may be made alive in Him.

 

[JonC]

God did cause Christ's oppression as I have shown very clearly. That He did not personally scourge Christ or hammer the nails in does not mean that He was entirely responsible for it.
But you are right that God is not unjust, that He does not punish the just and that He does not clear the guilty.
How that is done remains to be seen on this thread, although it is covered extensively in a variety of books and commentaries, and, of course, the Bible. I will deal with this as soon as I have time.

What you (and @SovereignGrace abd @David Lamb ) are missing is what the Bible states. I can find any commentary or books to declare just about any idea. We have to allow Scriptire to interpret Scripture.

You say that God oppressed Jesus. Oppression is unjust judgment. The oppressor is unjust by definition.

We do not have to stick to Isaiah 53 to know Christ's death was not satisfying justice but injustice (although Isaiah 53 states this several times). Isaiah 53:8 is quoted in the New Testament which directly interprets "oppression" as unjust judgment.

We have to stick with the Biblical text. God is not unjust. Period.

 

[DaveXR650]

The Bible refers to Christ's death as unjust, as oppression, as a judgment (qualified as erroneous in the verses before), as evil, as occurring by powers of evil, as the power of the devil. But never as just. Never as an act of God.

You say that God oppressed Jesus. Oppression is unjust judgment. The oppressor is unjust by definition.

I think it becomes obvious here that your repeated objections as above make it impossible for any of the clear Biblical writings that involve Jesus bearing our sins or becoming sin for us. No matter how you try to twist that you cannot get away from Jesus, who of course was completely innocent, suffering for us. And, from the standpoint of looking at it directly, it was indeed unjust. Scripture considers it "the just for the unjust" and without that happening you have no possibility of redemption, whether you approve of it or not. You say it is wrong for the just to die for the unjust yet that is what happened.

At the same time, this appears from scripture alone to be planned from before human history began. Your view demands that this be a horrible unjust, illegal thing that happened, an abomination beyond any men collectively have ever done. And you know what? It was. Wait though, if it was planned, and planned by God - the problem you have is that merely to occur, and occur with God's permission, much less his divine plan - demands that God be unjust, according to the way you are defining justice. You keep repeating a principle, that God doesn't punish the innocent for the guilty as your best argument against PSA, when all the while, that is the whole point. And to refuse that is to refuse the redemption offered to you.

 

[JonC]

I think it becomes obvious here that your repeated objections as above make it impossible for any of the clear Biblical writings that involve Jesus bearing our sins or becoming sin for us.

No, this is a false statement. We both have the same biblical text. What I am saying is that I believe God's words are exactly what the biblical text teaches.

My position insists that God's justice as God jas described in Scripture will be accomplished. God will NEVER punish the Innocent. God will NEVER clear the guilty. The wicked WILL be cast into the outter darkness. The innocent alone will live. Period. No exceptions because that is what God said.

I do reject the understanding you say the Bible "clearly" teaches because I see no need to depart from "the faith once delivered" (the biblical text). I do reject your secular philosophy of justice. I believe justice is what God has revealed in Scripture rather than your humanistic philosophy.


Whe the bible states that Jesus bore our sins bodily I believe it means that Jesus bore our sins bodily (in the flesh) on the cross. I do not feel a need to add to the verse theories about what this teaches in regard to the sins of people.

When the Bible states that punishing the just is an abomination to God I believe this means that punishing the just is an abomination to God. I do not need to explain that away to make my theory work.

When the Bible states that clearing the guilty the is an abomination to God I believe this means that clearing the guilty is an abomination to God. I do not need to explain that away to make my understanding work.


When the Bible states that punishing the innocent is unjust I believe this means that punishing the innocent is unjust. I do not need to explain that away to make my position work.

When the Bible states that God will never hide His face from the Righteous I believe this means God will never hide His face from the Righteous. I do not need to make exceptions to support my understanding.

When the Bible foreshadowed Christ's death as being unjust (as oppression) I do not need to change the passages to make them work for me.

When the Bible in Acts quotes Isaiah stating that Jesus' death was unjust judgment I do not attribute this unjust punishment to an act of God.

When the Bible states that it was God's will t0 crush Jesus I do not have to narrow the meaning to mean it was God's will that He crush Him because I do not hold a theory that necessitates such a corruption.



What is telling is ypu cannot provide even one place where I depart from the biblical text itself, yet there are numerous instances where your theory stands against the biblical text (I have mentioned 6 in this post alone).

Rather than trusting in what one sect of men have told you the Bible clearly teaches when properly understood you would do better to simply believe the biblical text as teaching God's words recorded therein.

Our disagreement is not about translation. It is about your insistence that the Bible teaches something contrary to and other than the actual biblical text.


We are under an obligation to believe God's words. We are under no obligation to believe the understanding of a sect that "tickles your ears".


In the end your philosophy has a form of godliness but denies the power of the gospel itself by viewing mere punishment as satisfying divine justice and saving us from the wrath to come. It is a cheap gospel that if held alone will not save a soul. What saves PSA theorists, Catholics, etc is Christ through the true gospel despite their humanistic philosophy.


AND this is easily proven. You canmot provide even one verse stating the unique elements of your theory without having to "explain" what they "really" mean.


Let me ask you - if God's words alone make sence... if "He bore our sins; share our humanity; shared our infirmity" makes since without adding penal substitution to it -EVEN if it would not satisfy a 16th century humanistic movement - why not believe it?

 

[JonC]

God did cause Christ's oppression as I have shown very clearly.

I know that is what you believe - the cause of Christ's "unjust punishment" is God. I have heard this argument before. A child is murdered. God caused it. A little girl is rapped. God caused it. A Christian is persecuted. God caused it. Why? Because He is sovereign, so it must be within His plan, therefore He is the cause of all evil.

Logically I get your reasoning. But biblically it is heresy to say God oppressed Jesus as the Oppressor (the one doing the oppression) is by definition unjust.

God does not commit sin in order that good come from it. But often the sin is a part of God's predetermined plan.

You and @David Lamb are wrong on this. God punishes. God forgives. God does not oppress. Why? Because God is holy, He is righteous, He is just.

You have twisted Scripture which describes Christ dying, experiencing the death sin produces as a wage and a power of Satan by describing God as Satan (unjust, unrighteous, punishing the innocent, clearing the guilty, etc.). I am pretty sure calling God unjust (saying He oppressed the Just) is blasphemy.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What you (and @SovereignGrace abd @David Lamb ) are missing is what the Bible states. I can find any commentary or books to declare just about any idea.

The sad fact is that your posts resemble the writings of people like Steve Chalke and Eleonore Stump. Whether this is because you read and approve their books or because you just naturally agree with them, you know better than I.

We have to allow Scriptire to interpret Scripture.

I think it would be good if you did that.

You say that God oppressed Jesus. Oppression is unjust judgment. The oppressor is unjust by definition.

Yet, as I have posted time and time again, 'The LORD (not Satan, not Pilate, not the chief priests) has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' And as a direct result of our sins being laid on Him, 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body (not just taking them for a walk and then giving them back to us, but) on the tree.' And 'tree' here is not just an alternative word for cross. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.' He bore our curse, the curse of Deut. 21:23 as well as 27:26. What was the result of that? 'He redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.' We shall not suffer that curse because He has borne it for us. Penal Substitution!

We do not have to stick to Isaiah 53 to know Christ's death was not satisfying justice but injustice (although Isaiah 53 states this several times). Isaiah 53:8 is quoted in the New Testament which directly interprets "oppression" as unjust judgment.

We have to stick with the Biblical text. God is not unjust. Period.

You continually throw out 'Biblical text' without ever quoting it. What texts exactly are you thinking of? I'm not ashamed of quoting the word of God; why are you? But whether you like it or not, Isaiah 53:8 is followed by Isaiah 53:10. All that went on was according to the LORD's good pleasure, 'But God meant it for good, to bring it about as it is this day, save save many people alive' (Gen. 50:20).

 

[JonC]

The sad fact is that your posts resemble the writings of people like Steve Chalke and Eleonore Stump. Whether this is because you read and approve their books or because you just naturally agree with them, you know better than I.

I think it would be good if you did that.

Yet, as I have posted time and time again, 'The LORD (not Satan, not Pilate, not the chief priests) has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' And as a direct result of our sins being laid on Him, 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body (not just taking them for a walk and then giving them back to us, but) on the tree.' And 'tree' here is not just an alternative word for cross. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.' He bore our curse, the curse of Deut. 21:23 as well as 27:26. What was the result of that? 'He redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.' We shall not suffer that curse because He has borne it for us. Penal Substitution!

You continually throw out 'Biblical text' without ever quoting it. What texts exactly are you thinking of? I'm not ashamed of quoting the word of God; why are you? But whether you like it or not, Isaiah 53:8 is followed by Isaiah 53:10. All that went on was according to the LORD's good pleasure, 'But God meant it for good, to bring it about as it is this day, save save many people alive' (Gen. 50:20).

I do not care who's writings my writings resemble (and I do not know of Chalke or Stump, but if they were also identifying the heresy in calling the Father unjust then they were right. I assume they hold some fringe doctrine, but even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut....they have nothing to do with me).

YOU stated that God oppressed Jesus. You are claiming that God is wicked, unjust.


But nice try in trying to walk it back.

I already said that Isaiah 53:10 is stating that "crushing" Christ was God's will - His predetermined plan. I even offered other oassages stating the same thing (Scripture interprets Scripture).

YOU rejected it just a few posts ago. But I am glad you reversed your course (at least, publically).

 

[DaveXR650]

Whe the bible states that Jesus bore our sins bodily I believe it means that Jesus bore our sins bodily (in the flesh) on the cross. I do not feel a need to add to the verse theories about what this teaches in regard to the sins of people.

When I see that Jesus bore our sins in his own body on the cross the only assumption I make is that the verse is no joke. It must have been necessary in God's eyes for this to happen for purposes of our redemption. If that is the case then innocent Jesus bearing our sins means something. At the absolute minimum it meant what we see recorded - that Jesus suffered a horrible criminal's death in the act of bearing our sins. That in the public rendering of it everyone knows it was a criminals death we know it was punitive and it was completely unjust and Jesus was actually innocent. We already have established that it must have been necessary that this happen for our redemption. We know what it was that apparently was necessary - that Jesus suffer a horrible criminal's death. Was he personally guilty? No, he even technically won his case. Pilot thought he was not worthy of death. But he took on our guilt. That is what it means that he "bore" our sins. That can be thought of as "punishment" though unjust in the sense of Jesus personally - but also as a satisfaction of justice in that it was exactly what God determined would be sufficient for our redemption.

The only way to get around this is to claim that this shouldn't have happened and thus was not essential that it did happen. There is a sense in which it shouldn't have happened in that Jesus would have had every right to refuse to do this or pull out at any time. He said so. But he didn't because this was not only a man made lynching - God was using this to redeem his people. If the Godhead actually planned this then the words like it appeased God's wrath on sinners, it was a penal, and it was substitution and it provided satisfaction to God's justice and holiness are all perfectly natural and even inevitable conclusions as to fully explaining what happened that day.

 

[JonC]

When I see that Jesus bore our sins in his own body on the cross the only assumption I make is that the verse is no joke. It must have been necessary in God's eyes for this to happen for purposes of our redemption. If that is the case then innocent Jesus bearing our sins means something. At the absolute minimum it meant what we see recorded - that Jesus suffered a horrible criminal's death in the act of bearing our sins. That in the public rendering of it everyone knows it was a criminals death we know it was punitive and it was completely unjust and Jesus was actually innocent. We already have established that it must have been necessary that this happen for our redemption. We know what it was that apparently was necessary - that Jesus suffer a horrible criminal's death. Was he personally guilty? No, he even technically won his case. Pilot thought he was not worthy of death. But he took on our guilt.

I agree with the above.

That is what it means that he "bore" our sins. He took our guilt.

I disagree here. I believe thar Jesus bearing our sins is more than merely being punished by the Roman authorities.

We have too many passages that could be used to offer a definition other than "He took our guilt". In fact, "He took our guilt" is not biblical.

Instead He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

The only way to get around this is to claim that this shouldn't have happened and thus was not essential that it did happen. There is a sense in which it shouldn't have happened in that Jesus would have had every right to refuse to do this or pull out at any time. He said so. But he didn't because this was not only a man made lynching - God was using this to redeem his people. If the Godhead actually planned this then the words like it appeased God's wrath on sinners, it was a penal, and it was substitution and it provided satisfaction to God's justice and holiness are all perfectly natural and even inevitable conclusions as to fully explaining what happened that day.

I do not understand your logic here. By your reasoning Joseph's brothers should have sinned because this was God's predetermined plan. Judas should have betrayed Jesus because this was essential to fulfill prophecy and towards the crucifixion. Adam should have sinned because this was essential in Christ being the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

I do not believe this type of logic is biblical. I kinda get it (some Calvinists have declared that God is the author of evil).


We have to use God as our Standard when it comes to "should".

Unjust punishment should never occur because it is evil (it is unrighteous, against God's nature). But in occurring this may be according to God's predetermined plan. It is still not "of God".

We see God's plan in Judas betraying Christ. But Scripture says it was Satan, not God, who entered Judas. This was in accordance with God's plan, His will. But we cannot deny it was by the influence of Satan because the Bible says it was.

This just shows how almighty God's sovereignty really is, and how far above man's mind.


1. We can agree with Scripture that Christ's death was "oppression" and "unjust judgment" by the powers of evil, by "the devil", by "the wicked".

2. We can agree with Scripture that this was God's predetermined plan to accomplish our redemption

3. We cannot go against Scripture and attribute this "oppression", "unjust punishment", this "evil" as being God's justice. We know God's justice. He called Jesus' death "unjust".


So yea.... the murder of Jesus shouldn't have happened. But it did happen in accordance with God's plan to being about our justice (our righteousness). Punishment never satisfies divine justice. Even just punishment is not what satisfies justice (it brings it about).

So certainly unjust punishment (oppression) can not satisfy divine justice. But divine judgment was exercised (the vindication, Christ given a name above every names, glorified, seated at God's right hand).