God's mercy vs God's justice

  • Thread starter Thread starter snarflemike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

snarflemike

Guest
Something I hear fairly often just makes me crazy. It goes like this (with variations):

God’s justice is perfect, so he could not let our sins go unpunished
God’s mercy is also perfect, so he sent his Son to undergo the punishment.

Now as any moral being knows, sending an innocent victim to be punished for the actions of another is NOT just. So why do we keep hearing explanations like this one in Christian apologetics?
 
That seems like a bit of a caricature of penal substitution…

It is true that God is both just (perfectly) and merciful (perfectly), after all, the cross “… was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Thus justice and mercy are achieved by the cross. Did not isaiah say “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5). As such the cross, the suffering of the messiah, was him bearing our chastisement, our punishment, in our place.

This the Son did willingly; “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” (John 10:17-18)

Thus The Son willingly lay down his life, gladly bearing the chastisement for his people, enduring it for the joy that was set before him (Heb 12:2), that God may be just, and justifier. That both mercy and justice may be perfectly demonstrated.

Kind regards

Lincs
 
How is it a caricature?

Is it just to allow an innocent victim to bear the punishment which others have incurred?
 
snarflemike said:
How is it a caricature?

Is it just to allow an innocent victim to bear the punishment which others have incurred?
Click to expand...
Maybe caricature was too strong a word, it was more the omission of the willingness of the Son to come and bear the punishment of his people, which whilst sounding minor, has huge implications for how one views penal substitution. As for your second question, there is an excellent essay by JI Packer on this here: the-highway.com/cross_Packer.html

I may even read it myself again, as it corrects views and opinions so easy to allow to creep into ones thinking. For me, substitutionary atonement is grounded in scripture.

I would add of course that I accept it also as it allows the cross to actually save people, rather than just making salvation possible for people. Substitution necessitates an actual salvation, not simply the possibility of it.

Kind regards

Lincs
 
snarflemike said:
How is it a caricature?

Is it just to allow an innocent victim to bear the punishment which others have incurred?
Click to expand...
I think the essential point in Christian theology is that Jesus as G-d as well as human is a willing “victim” in order to bring salvation to all of humanity. He may be innocent of sin but his self-sacrifice is done out of infinite love and mercy, and is therefore justified.

The problem with this, for Judaism, is twofold. First, sacrificial atonement by death (not merely suffering), while practiced in ancient times in the form of the blood sacrifice of animals, never was the primary means of atonement from sin, while seeking forgiveness from those we have wronged and prayer are. But even more basic to Judaism, the notion of salvation itself begs the question “Salvation from what?” since Judaism does not believe that following the Law is for the purpose of salvation in regard to an afterlife (that decision is in G-d’s hands) but for the purpose of doing good in this world and “repairing” the world by means of our moral behavior. Sorry for the apologetics here: I just couldn’t resist.
 
meltzerboy said:
I think the essential point in Christian theology is that Jesus as G-d as well as human is a willing “victim” in order to bring salvation to all of humanity. He may be innocent of sin but his self-sacrifice is done out of infinite love and mercy, and is therefore justified.

The problem with this, for Judaism, is twofold. First, sacrificial atonement by death (not merely suffering), while practiced in ancient times in the form of the blood sacrifice of animals, never was the primary means of atonement from sin, while seeking forgiveness from those we have wronged and prayer are. But even more basic to Judaism, the notion of salvation itself begs the question “Salvation from what?” since Judaism does not believe that following the Law is for the purpose of salvation in regard to an afterlife (that decision is in G-d’s hands) but for the purpose of doing good in this world and “repairing” the world by means of our moral behavior. Sorry for the apologetics here: I just couldn’t resist.
Click to expand...
Meltzerboy, I would love to hear your thoughts on ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ if you ever would be willing to discuss it. Obviously off topic for this thread… Especially if you’ve read NT Wright’s ‘The New Testament and the People of God’ and are familiar with his study of second temple Judaism.

Kind regards

Lincs.
 
TimothyH said:
Jesus rose from the dead. That changes everything.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Tim, I have never seen anyone make so much meaning out of so few words. You have a real talent for doing this. I notice it through each of your posts and always enjoy them.
 
snarflemike said:
Something I hear fairly often just makes me crazy. It goes like this (with variations):

God’s justice is perfect, so he could not let our sins go unpunished
God’s mercy is also perfect, so he sent his Son to undergo the punishment.

Now as any moral being knows, sending an innocent victim to be punished for the actions of another is NOT just. So why do we keep hearing explanations like this one in Christian apologetics?
Click to expand...
A rather funny analogy, but could drive home the point: suppose you have broken someone else’s window. Out of justice, you must have it repaired. But suppose you are unable to pay for it (you don’t have enough money). Then, a common friend of yours and of the owner of the window comes along and in his own freedom, intercedes for your forgiveness and pays for it instead. Do you think there’s injustice here? We see there is none, because the reparation has been carried out and satisfied by the generosity of your common friend and the offended party who was willing to forgive you.

Mercy does not contradict justice. Justice is doing what you ought to. Mercy is doing MORE than what justice demands. Justice demands that we pay for our offenses against God. Since sin is an offense against God whose dignity is infinite, it follows that the debt incurred is also infinite. But inasmuch as God loves us and is generous and merciful towards us, he himself gives us MORE than what justice demands and pays for the debt we cannot settle.
 
raikou said:
A rather funny analogy, but could drive home the point: suppose you have broken someone else’s window. Out of justice, you must have it repaired. But suppose you are unable to pay for it (you don’t have enough money). Then, a common friend of yours and of the owner of the window comes along and in his own freedom, intercedes for your forgiveness and pays for it instead. Do you think there’s injustice here? We see there is none, because the reparation has been carried out and satisfied by the generosity of your common friend and the offended party who was willing to forgive you.
Click to expand...
That’s probably a good working analogy, but the version I often hear is more along the lines of the owner demanding that justice requires his window be repaired, and thus taking the money from his innocent son’s piggy bank. Even if the son free agrees, how can we call this justice?
 
snarflemike said:
Something I hear fairly often just makes me crazy. It goes like this (with variations):

God’s justice is perfect, so he could not let our sins go unpunished
God’s mercy is also perfect, so he sent his Son to undergo the punishment.

Now as any moral being knows, sending an innocent victim to be punished for the actions of another is NOT just. So why do we keep hearing explanations like this one in Christian apologetics?
Click to expand...
It was out of Jesus love for us. No One took His life He offered it willingly.

John 15:13-15 and it happened John 18:12-14
 
steve_b said:
It was out of Jesus love for us. No One took His life He offered it willingly.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I am in no way denying what Jesus did, or that God is Love, or anything of the sort. I am focusing soley on the explanation that God’s perfect justice required a payment or an atonement, and that God’s perfect justice was satisfied by an innocent victim. I cannot reconcile such an explanation with the concept of justice. The fact that Jesus later rose from the dead is immaterial to that inability.
 
snarflemike said:
Just to be clear, I am in no way denying what Jesus did, or that God is Love, or anything of the sort. I am focusing soley on the explanation that God’s perfect justice required a payment or an atonement, and that God’s perfect justice was satisfied by an innocent victim. I cannot reconcile such an explanation with the concept of justice. The fact that Jesus later rose from the dead is immaterial to that inability.
Click to expand...
Jesus is our savior and redeemer. Savior and redeemer from what? Hell

therefore, Jesus did what He did for us, so that our sins COULD be forgiven and we wouldn’t authomatically go to hell when we die. Jesus offered to pay the price for us and did, because we couldn’t pay the price ourselves. That’s the point. We could not pay the price. God the son, offered to pay the price and did. When we do things His way, our sins are forgiven. When we don’t do it His way, we remain in our sins, nothing is paid for, we just go to hell.

The caveot to this is when for no fault of one’s own ignorance, they don’t know any of this.
 
steve_b said:
Jesus is our savior and redeemer. Savior and redeemer from what? Hell

therefore, Jesus did what He did for us, so that our sins COULD be forgiven and we wouldn’t authomatically go to hell when we die. Jesus offered to pay the price for us and did, because we couldn’t pay the price ourselves. That’s the point. We could not pay the price. God the son, offered to pay the price and did. When we do things His way, our sins are forgiven. When we don’t do it His way, we remain in our sins, nothing is paid for, we just go to hell.
Click to expand...
Why did God demand the price be paid if we could not pay it? You’re just restating my question. Why did God demand a price be paid, even if an innocent victim had to pay it? How is that justice?
 
steve_b said:
It’s not to say no one could pay it. It’s just that we can’t pay it.
Click to expand...
But how is it justice if one who has not incurred a debt pays that debt? It may be mercy, it may be charity, but how is it justice?
 
snarflemike said:
But how is it justice if one who has not incurred a debt pays that debt? It may be mercy, it may be charity, but how is it justice?
Click to expand...
Isn’t it justice that debts must be paid? Yes

Was a debt paid? Yes

Were you able to pay that debt? No

Jesus must really care about you a whole bunch!!! :cool:
 
snarflemike said:
Not by innocent parties.

Anyway, I’ll step back and see what other views appear here.
Click to expand...
The point being made, I think, is that since we humans are not able to pay our enormous debt to G-d, we need someone else to render justice. (Again, Judaism disagrees with this.)
 
Lincoln7 said:
Meltzerboy, I would love to hear your thoughts on ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ if you ever would be willing to discuss it. Obviously off topic for this thread… Especially if you’ve read NT Wright’s ‘The New Testament and the People of God’ and are familiar with his study of second temple Judaism.

Kind regards

Lincs.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not familiar with Wright’s ‘The New Testament and the People of G-d’ but it sounds interesting enough for me to investigate. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top