Latest / Reformed Thinking / Can God Forgive Sin Without Satisfaction? | John Owen

Transcript

Can God Forgive Sin Without Satisfaction? | John Owen · Reformed Thinking

0:00
So, you know, usually when we talk about a courtroom setting,
0:02
there is a very specific expectation of strict unyielding
0:07
law. Right.
0:08
You expect things to be done by the book.
0:10
Yeah, totally. By the book, I want you to
0:12
picture walking into a grand courtroom.
0:15
The air is light, thick with tension.
0:18
Oh, I can picture it. The judge is seated high up at
0:21
the bench, looking down at the proceedings.
0:23
Right. Yes, that is the exact image.
0:25
And the evidence of a horrific, devastating crime has been laid
0:30
out for days. The proof is absolute.
0:32
So there is no shadow of a doubt at all.
0:34
No doubt whatsoever, the jury has delivered a guilty verdict
0:37
and the gallery's just sitting in silence waiting for the final
0:41
sentence to be handed down. They had a heavy moment.
0:44
It is. And then the judge just looks at
0:46
the guilty party size and says, well, you know what?
0:50
I own this courthouse. Wait, what?
0:52
Yeah, the judge says. I hold the title to the land
0:54
that sits on and I am feeling generous today.
0:58
Quite frankly, I just don't feel like dealing with the paperwork.
1:01
Yeah. That is absurd.
1:02
Right, he says. You can go home, all charges
1:05
dropped and you are free to go. Oh wow.
1:08
Yeah, that scenario creates an immediate, visceral sense of
1:12
outrage in anyone listening to it.
1:14
It really does. It just feels so wrong on every
1:16
level. Well, it violates our basic
1:19
innate intuition about justice. We expect the law to be upheld,
1:24
not just discarded based on the whim or the mood of the person
1:27
holding the gavel. Yeah, if a human judge did that,
1:30
I mean, we would demand they'd be removed from the bench
1:32
immediately. We would call for
1:34
investigations. We would say that the judge
1:36
themselves had become corrupt, you know, by letting a guilty
1:39
person walk free without any consequence.
1:41
Because the judge's job is not to exercise personal preference,
1:44
right. Their job is to execute the law
1:47
faithfully. Spot on.
1:48
When they feel to do that, the entire system collapses.
1:51
Society just loses all faith in the institution of justice.
1:54
Well, welcome to Reformed Thinking.
1:56
Today we have a deep dive into an issue that sits at the very
2:00
center of the Christian faith. It really is the core of it all.
2:02
It is we are looking into a specific historical and
2:06
theological debate from the brilliant mind of the 17th
2:08
century Puritan theologian John Owen.
2:11
And we have gathered extensive excerpts from his masterwork, a
2:16
dissertation on divine justice. Right in this text, Owen is
2:20
taking to task a writer named John Crelius.
2:23
Yeah, Crelius was a prominent defender of what is known as the
2:25
Sosinian Heresy. And for those listening, what
2:28
does that mean in this context? What?
2:30
It means, among other things, that he argued God could simply
2:33
wave off sin and choose not to punish it if you wanted to so.
2:38
Kind of like that arbitrary judge in our courtroom example.
2:41
That is precisely it. Krellis believe God's justice
2:44
was optional. You know, something he could use
2:46
or ignore at his own discretion. The reason this theological
2:49
debate matters so much to you today is that how you understand
2:53
God's justice shapes everything. It shapes your entire view of
2:56
the cross for sure. Yeah, and your view of salvation
2:59
and your understanding of the character of God himself.
3:03
Think about the stakes here for a moment.
3:05
If could have just forgiven sin without requiring A sacrifice,
3:08
what happens right if? He had the ability to simply
3:11
dismiss the charges against humanity without any penalty.
3:14
Why did Christ have to die? That is the big question.
3:18
If Krelius is right, the crucifixion becomes an
3:21
unnecessary tragedy rather than a necessary act of redemption.
3:25
Oh wow, that is a heavy thought. If God could have just spoken a
3:29
word of pardon from heaven and brush sin under the rug, then
3:32
the agony of Jesus is just a gross overreaction.
3:35
It really would be. This discussion forces you to
3:38
confront whether God's justice is an optional feature of His
3:41
administration or an essential attribute of His very nature.
3:45
And answering that changes how you view every single page of
3:48
the Bible. It really does.
3:49
So where does Owens start his counter argument?
3:52
Well, let's start by looking at the opening of the source text,
3:54
which outlines Crelius first major assertion.
3:57
Right, this brings us to what we're calling the stumble at the
4:00
threshold. We need to examine the massive
4:02
difference between absolute dominion and justice.
4:06
Krellius claims that God inflicting or not inflicting
4:09
punishment is entirely a matter of his absolute supreme dominion
4:13
over creation. So how do we put that in modern
4:16
terms for the listener? To put it in modern terms,
4:18
Krellius is arguing that God is like ACEO, who owns an entire
4:21
company outright. OK, I track with.
4:23
That right, so ACEO can enforce A strict dress code on Monday,
4:27
demanding everyone wear a suit and tie, but then they can waive
4:32
the dress code entirely on a Friday just because they feel
4:35
like it. Because the CEO owns the
4:37
building, writes the paychecks, and possesses absolute dominion
4:41
over the corporate rules. Yeah, so no one can question
4:44
their right to suspend a rule. And Krelia supplies this logic
4:48
to God and sin, right? He does.
4:50
He argues that because God is the supreme Lord of the
4:53
universe, he can punish sin if he wishes, but it is not
4:57
repugnant to his justice to simply pardon the Sinner.
5:00
Basically saying God has the right to punish but he doesn't
5:03
have to. Right, that CEO analogy captures
5:06
Krellius mindset perfectly. And it's precisely where Owen
5:09
says Krellius stumbles right at the threshold of his argument.
5:12
Oh, I like that phrase. Stumbling at the threshold.
5:14
Yeah, Owen points at a massive theological error in that line
5:17
of reasoning. God does not punish sin, acting
5:20
as an absolute owner, exercising arbitrary dominion.
5:23
He doesn't. No, he punishes sin, acting as a
5:26
righteous ruler and judge. So there is a distinction in the
5:29
roles God is playing. Yes, and the text provides
5:32
specific scriptural evidence that Owen uses to dismantle
5:36
Prelius's claim. What does Owen point to?
5:38
Owen points out that the Scriptures furnish sufficient
5:41
evidence that both the relations of ruler and judge belong to God
5:45
when inflicting punishment. Right, we see that all over the
5:48
text. He quotes James chapter 4 verse
5:50
12. That verse states there is one
5:53
lawgiver who was able to save and to destroy.
5:56
And he brings in Psalms too, right?
5:58
Yeah, he brings in Psalm 9 verse 4 saying God sitteth in his
6:02
throne judging, right? I remember he also references
6:04
Genesis chapter 18 verse 25. Oh, that is a great one.
6:08
That is where Abraham is pleading with God over the fate
6:11
of Sodom and Gomorrah. Right.
6:12
And Abraham appeals to God's nature by asking, You know,
6:16
shall not the judge of all the earth do right?
6:18
Exactly. Well I mean that is spot on.
6:21
The point Owen is making is that when God deals with sin, he is
6:25
sitting on a judges bench. He is not sitting in a corporate
6:28
boardroom exercising arbitrary ownership rights.
6:31
Right. A CEO can change corporate
6:33
policy because those rules are arbitrary constructs.
6:36
They are just made-up by humans. But God's moral law is a
6:40
reflection of his own holy nature, and a judge cannot
6:43
simply waive the law. Reading through Owen's work, I
6:46
noticed something that might trip up a modern reader.
6:49
What is that? I want to pose a clarifying
6:51
question for you. Does Owen deny that God has
6:54
supreme dominion? That is a very fair question to
6:57
ask. Yeah, because if God is not
7:00
acting out of absolute ownership when he punishes sin, does that
7:03
mean God lacks absolute ownership over the universe?
7:07
I can imagine someone hearing this and thinking we are trying
7:09
to put God in a box and strip away his sovereignty.
7:12
Right, which we definitely don't want to do, especially coming
7:14
from a reformed perspective. Not at all, and Owen is very
7:17
careful to clarify this using the text.
7:19
So God does exercise supreme dominion.
7:22
He absolutely exercises supreme dominion in other areas.
7:26
Owen acknowledges that in all the acts of his absolute
7:29
dominion, God is most free. OK, so where do we see that
7:33
freedom? He points to the decrees making
7:35
distinctions among mankind in respect to their final ends,
7:39
referencing Romans Chapter 9. Oh, right, election and
7:42
predestination. Yes, in matters of election and
7:45
predestination, God operates according to his mere good
7:49
pleasure as the supreme Potter over the clay.
7:52
He has mercy on whom he has mercy, and he hardens whom he
7:55
hardens. Furthermore, Owen points to the
7:58
operations of Providence concerning mankind.
8:01
He references the Book of Job, chapters 33 and 34.
8:04
What happens in those chapters? Well, it talks about how when
8:07
God gives or takes away, when he raises up kingdoms or brings
8:11
them down, He gives no account of any of his matters to man.
8:15
So in Providence and predestination, God exercises
8:17
his supreme right as Lord. Right.
8:20
He does not owe us an explanation for why it rains on
8:22
one farmer's field and not another's.
8:24
But, and this is the crucial distinction, that is not the
8:27
capacity in which he punishes transgressions.
8:30
That is it. Punishing omissions and avenging
8:32
transgressions is the role of the ruler of the universe and
8:35
the judge of the world. So you have to categorize God's
8:38
actions correctly. Yes, Providence falls under
8:42
dominion. Punishment falls under justice.
8:45
OK, so if God isn't just an arbitrary CEO enforcing a
8:50
corporate dress code, what actually happens when someone
8:53
breaks his rules? That is the logical next
8:55
question. Right.
8:56
This distinction between ACEO waving a corporate rule and a
9:00
righteous judge upholding the cosmic law leads directly into
9:04
Krellius's next faulty argument. Let's look at what we are
9:08
calling the fallacy of the victimless pardon.
9:11
Krellius argues that if God just decides not to punish a Sinner,
9:15
no one is actually injured. How does he figure do that?
9:17
His logic goes like this. The punishment is owed to God
9:21
because God is the one who was offended by the sin.
9:23
OK, I follow that premise. Therefore, God can just yield
9:26
his right to collect that punishment.
9:27
Think about a normal everyday interaction.
9:29
Give me an example. If I owe you $100 and you decide
9:33
to just forgive the debt and not collect it, you have injured no
9:36
one. Right.
9:37
I've simply chosen not to prosecute my own, right.
9:39
I absorbed the loss voluntarily. Exactly.
9:42
I mean that is spot on. Krelia says that whether God
9:46
punishes or does not punish, he injuries none because God is the
9:50
one who absorbs the offense. You know, that sounds incredibly
9:53
logical on the surface. It really does.
9:56
It appeals to our human sense of interpersonal forgiveness.
9:59
Which is why Owen has to provide such a sharp theological
10:02
correction. What does Owen say about this
10:05
supposed victimless pardon? Owen.
10:07
Exposes the fact that skipping punishment for a guilty party
10:10
actually does cause an injury. Who does it injure?
10:13
It injuries God's own justice. The obligation to inflict
10:17
punishment rests on the justice of God.
10:20
Oh that makes sense. Does he have scripture for that?
10:22
He does. Owen pulls A devastating quote
10:24
from Proverbs chapter 17, verse 15.
10:26
Does that one say? It says he that justified the
10:29
wicked is abomination to the Lord.
10:31
Wow, an abomination that is strong language.
10:35
It is, the text explains, that an earthly judge might sometimes
10:39
spare a guilty person without causing direct physical injury
10:43
to a bystander. Right.
10:44
If a judge let's a thief go, the people in the courtroom aren't
10:47
physically hurt right then and there.
10:48
But that judge commits injustice within himself by doing so.
10:52
Oh. I see it is an abomination
10:54
because it violates the very nature of what a judge is
10:57
supposed to be. Yes, in the same way God cannot
11:01
do violence to his own righteous nature.
11:03
His justice requires the punishment of every sin.
11:06
To call evil good or to let evil go unpunished would mean God is
11:11
denying His own holiness. He would be committing an
11:14
offense against himself. Right.
11:16
God is perfectly just and perfect.
11:18
Justice cannot simply ignore a crime.
11:20
If you are listening to this, you might be scratching your
11:22
head right now. I am sure many listeners are.
11:24
You are likely pushing back thinking wait a minute, if God
11:28
cannot just drop the charges without violating his own
11:31
justice, how on earth does anyone get saved?
11:34
That is the national follow up. Doesn't the entire Christian
11:38
faith revolve around the fact that God Forgives sinners?
11:40
It certainly does. We read in the Psalms that he
11:43
removes our transgressions as far as the east is from the
11:46
West. Yes, we do.
11:47
So how do we reconcile Owen's strict view of justice with the
11:51
biblical promise of forgiveness? That is the pivotal question of
11:55
the entire Christian faith, and it brings us to Owen's brilliant
11:58
distinction regarding the cross and the act of imputation.
12:02
OK, let's breakdown imputation for the listener.
12:05
Imputation is a theological term that means transferring the
12:08
legal standing of one party to another.
12:10
So transferring my guilt to someone else.
12:12
Right. The actual translation of guilt
12:14
from us to Christ, the act of making Christ the surety for our
12:18
thins, is indeed a highly free act of God's supreme authority.
12:23
Meaning God didn't have to do it.
12:25
Exactly. I mean, God was not implicated
12:27
by any external law to provide a substitute for us.
12:30
Choosing to transfer our guilt onto Christ was an act of His
12:33
absolute dominion and sovereign grace.
12:36
He freely chose to save a people for himself.
12:38
But, and this is key, once that guilt is transferred to Christ,
12:41
the infliction of punishment on that sin is an absolute
12:44
necessity of God's role as judge.
12:46
Oh wow, so the father did not drop the charger?
12:48
No, he transferred the charges to a willing substitute, and
12:52
then he executed the full penalty of the law upon that
12:54
substitute. So the forgiveness you receive
12:56
is not God ignoring your sin. Not at all.
12:59
It is God declaring that your sin has been fully punished in
13:02
Christ. God remains just, and he becomes
13:06
the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
13:09
The penalty was paid in full. It wasn't ignored.
13:12
To truly grasp why God cannot just cancel the debt of sin like
13:16
a bank manager cancels a bad loan, we have to look at what
13:20
the debt of sin actually means. We really do, because we hear
13:23
this terminology all the time in modern Christianity.
13:26
We do think about what the old hymn Jesus Paid it all.
13:29
We talk about our sin as a debt we could never repay.
13:32
And Crelia seems to take this idea and run with it, right?
13:35
Yeah, he treats sin as a purely financial debt that can be
13:39
written off if the creditor is feeling generous today.
13:42
Like if God has enough cosmic capital, he can just write off
13:45
our bad spiritual checks. Right.
13:47
So how does Owen respond to that?
13:49
Owen completely dismantles this financial view of sin by
13:52
unpacking the nature of rights. OK, what kind of rights?
13:55
He separates what he calls a right of a debt from a right of
13:58
government. A right of a debt versus a right
14:00
of government. Let's dig into that.
14:02
A pure debt, like a financial loan, is something indifferent.
14:06
Nature and justice do not oblige you to collect a $5 debt from a
14:10
friend. Right.
14:11
If you loan your neighbor a lawnmower and they accidentally
14:14
break it, you are under no moral or cosmic obligation to demand
14:18
they buy you a new one. You can forgive a purely
14:21
financial debt without violating any laws of morality.
14:24
Because it is your property and you can just let it go.
14:29
But sin is not a financial transaction.
14:32
The text provides a massive theological anchor in the
14:35
footnotes referencing the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
14:37
Oh, I love the Catechism. It is a core document of
14:40
Reformed theology. It is, and the Catechism defines
14:43
sin not as a financial deficit, but is any want of conformity
14:47
unto or transgression of the law of God.
14:50
Because sin is a transgression of the moral law of the
14:53
universe, it is only called a debt metaphorically, right?
14:57
We use the word debt to help our human minds grasp the concept of
15:01
owing obedience. But sin is actually cosmic
15:04
treason against the Creator. Yes, I want to read directly
15:08
from the text to highlight the sinner's real status in this
15:11
situation. The text says that punishment is
15:13
not something owing to the Sinner in a way that the Sinner
15:16
can demand. It that makes sense when we talk
15:19
about debt, a debtor owes money to a creditor.
15:22
And the creditor has a right to the money.
15:24
But the text clarifies that the Sinner has merited punishment.
15:28
Right, You don't owe punishment in the same way you owe a
15:30
mortgage payment. Rather, by breaking the law of
15:32
the universe, you have created a situation where it is just and
15:36
right for you to suffer the consequences.
15:38
Your actions have merited a specific legal response from the
15:42
Court of Heaven. And God inflicts those
15:44
consequences not as an injured, vindictive party seeking petty
15:48
payback. That is such a terrible,
15:51
widespread misconception of God's wrath.
15:53
It really is. People often picture God up in
15:56
heaven with a bruised ego, throwing lightning bolts because
15:59
someone didn't listen to him. He doesn't punish out of a sense
16:02
of wounded pride. No, he punishes as the ruler of
16:05
the universe, acting to preserve the good of the whole and to
16:09
maintain the dependence of creation on himself.
16:12
Think about it, if the realer of the universe allowed his laws to
16:15
be broken with impunity, the entire moral order of creation
16:19
would collapse. The punishment of sin is a
16:22
function of divine government maintaining the fabric of
16:25
reality. It proves that actions have
16:27
weight, that morality is real, and that the universe is
16:30
governed by holiness. It is not a frustrated creditor
16:33
trying to balance a Ledger, Not at all.
16:36
So since we have firmly established that sin is an issue
16:38
of cosmic government and law rather than a simple balanced
16:42
Ledger, we have to look at how we understand God's right to
16:45
govern us in the first place. This takes us into a fascinating
16:49
discussion about earthly magistrates and God's natural
16:52
right. Let's start by looking at what
16:54
the text calls the positive right of government.
16:56
Right. This refers to the rights that
16:58
are granted or delegated to human rulers.
17:01
And Owen uses the example of magistrates to make this point
17:03
very clear, doesn't he? He does straits, meaning kings,
17:07
governors or local judges hold this positive right of
17:10
government. The text brings in the Apostle
17:12
Paul's teaching from Romans chapter 13.
17:15
Yes, which says that rulers don't bear the sword in vain.
17:18
They are ministers of God to execute wrath on him that does
17:22
evil. This right to govern and to
17:25
punish is delegated to them by God for the good of society.
17:29
But what happens if a magistrate decides to renounce that right?
17:32
Right. What if a judge decides that he
17:34
will no longer punish murderers or thieves, claiming he just
17:37
wants to be merciful to everyone?
17:39
He isn't exercising mercy, he is actively destroying the public
17:43
good. The supreme law for an earthly
17:46
ruler should be the safety and good of the whole Republic.
17:49
Renouncing the right to punish crime in ordinary cases turns
17:53
out to the hurt of the public good.
17:55
Because it encourages lawlessness and leaves the
17:58
innocent completely unprotected. Owen provides an even more
18:01
relatable announcement with the concept of a parent.
18:04
Oh, the parent analogy is so helpful.
18:06
Here, a parent has a natural positive right over their
18:09
children. They have the authority to set
18:10
rules in their house. But a parent can't lawfully just
18:13
renounce their right over their children and stop caring for
18:16
them entirely. Right.
18:17
If a parent says I am renouncing my right to govern my child, I
18:21
will no longer feed them, discipline them, or protect
18:24
them. We wouldn't call that a generous
18:27
yielding of rights. We would call that child
18:29
abandonment. You would call Child Protective
18:31
Services. As the text states, this is not
18:34
a cessation from the prosecution of a right, but a cessation from
18:37
the performance of a duty. The right of government
18:40
inherently supposes a duty to govern well.
18:44
That earthly example sets up the massive contrast with God's
18:48
right to govern. How so?
18:49
Well, while the magistrate has a positive granted right, God has
18:54
a natural right of government. So his right isn't given to him
18:57
by anyone else, right? God has dominion over rational
19:00
creatures simply by nature of being God.
19:03
He didn't run for office. He wasn't appointed by a higher
19:06
authority. He wasn't voted into his
19:07
position by a cosmic counsel. His right is immutable and
19:11
indispensable. It is woven into the very fabric
19:13
of existence. It is based on the undeniable
19:15
fact that He is the Creator and we are the created.
19:17
We owe him obedience simply because He made us and sustains
19:21
us. And Owen draws A strictly
19:23
logical conclusion from this truth.
19:25
What conclusion is that? Because God's right to govern us
19:28
is natural and immutable, our subjection to God requires
19:32
either our perfect obedience or a vicarious punishment if we
19:35
transgress. We can't simply opt out of his
19:38
government. We can't declare independence
19:40
from reality. The text makes a stunning point
19:43
here. If it were free for God to use
19:46
this right or not use it as He pleased, it would be free for
19:49
God to choose to be our Lord or not be our Lord.
19:52
He could just decide to stop being God in relation to us.
19:55
But since he cannot stop being God because his nature is
19:58
eternal and unchangeable, he cannot stop preserving his
20:01
perpetual right to rule. The judge of the universe must
20:04
exercise his right. He cannot leave it unimpaired or
20:08
ignored. That brings us to one of the
20:09
most masterful sections of Owens argument.
20:12
This card is brilliant. This is where he takes Crelius's
20:15
own words and uses them against him.
20:17
This leads to the reformed synthesis of the entire debate.
20:20
Owen makes a brilliant rhetorical move at the end of
20:22
the text, collecting the concessions that his opponent
20:25
has already made in his own published writings.
20:28
It is like a classic theological checkmate.
20:30
He doesn't even need to bring in new arguments, he just shows how
20:33
Krellius his own logic defeats itself.
20:36
Reading through Krellius his work I noticed he actually
20:38
paints himself into a. Corner Let's outline the
20:41
specific concessions he makes so you can see the trap Owen sets.
20:44
OK, first, Krellius admits that God has a certain regard for his
20:48
honor with which he cannot dispense.
20:51
Right, He admits God cares about his honor. 2nd Krelius admits
20:54
that God's holiness doesn't permit his commands to be
20:57
violated with impunity. So he admits God's holiness
21:00
requires some level of justice. 3rd Krelius states plainly that
21:04
God hates and abhors all sin. He can't deny that it is all
21:08
over Scripture. And 4th Krelius grants that the
21:12
mode or the specific manner of conducting the punishment of sin
21:15
is derived from divine justice. And that fourth concession is
21:19
where Owen closes the logical trap.
21:21
How does Owen use that fourth point well?
21:24
Krellius tries to argue that the specific way punishment happens,
21:28
you know the severity, the timing comes from God's justice.
21:31
But the initial decision to punish it all is just a matter
21:34
of God's free, arbitrary choice. Right, that is what Krellius
21:38
claims, but Owen breaks down this logical fallacy completely.
21:42
What is his counter? He argues that if the mode or
21:45
manner of punishment comes from divine justice, then the
21:48
punishment itself must flow from that exact same source.
21:52
So that makes sense. You can't separate the execution
21:55
of a thing from the nature of the thing itself.
21:58
If justice dictates how the punishment is administered, it
22:01
is because justice demands that the punishment must exist in the
22:05
first place. You wouldn't say the specific
22:07
design of a prison cell is dictated by justice, but the
22:10
existence of the prison system itself is just a random,
22:13
arbitrary choice. That is right.
22:15
The whole system flows from the demand for justice.
22:18
There is one final devastating point that Owen highlights from
22:21
Crelius's own writings. Yes, this is the nail in the
22:24
coffin for Crelius's argument. Crelius admits that it is
22:27
unworthy of God to let the wickedness of obstinate sinners
22:31
pass unpunished. Even Crelius the Sicinian, who
22:34
desperately wants to say God can forgive without a blood penalty,
22:38
has to draw a line somewhere. And he draws the line at
22:41
stubborn, unrepentant sinners. He says it is the 1st and
22:44
perpetual effect of divine severity not to pardon those who
22:48
do not repent. So he agrees that God can't just
22:52
forgive someone who is actively shaking their fist in his face.
22:55
This is where the reformed theology angle comes in to
22:58
finish the argument. Specifically looking at the
23:00
doctrine of total depravity, right?
23:02
Yes, which is outlined so clearly in the Westminster
23:05
Confession. According to sound biblical
23:06
doctrine, all sinners would remain obstinate for eternity
23:10
without God's renewing grace. Left to our own devices, our
23:13
wills are bound by sin. None of us naturally seek after
23:17
God. None of us.
23:17
Naturally, we repent. We are all stubborn.
23:20
We are all obstinate sinners who hate God's law by nature.
23:23
Therefore, taking Crelia's own admission that God cannot let
23:27
obstinate sinners go unpunished, we arrive at a staggering
23:30
conclusion. What is that conclusion?
23:33
God could pardon absolutely no one without Christ.
23:36
Because everyone would be obstinate without the
23:38
intervention of Christ's grace changing our hearts.
23:41
God's justice would require the punishment of every single human
23:45
being. There would be no one left to
23:47
receive this hypothetical penalty free pardon that Crelius
23:51
imagines. The satisfaction of Christ is
23:53
totally necessary. It isn't an alternative pathway
23:56
to forgiveness, it is the only pathway.
23:58
The cross isn't a display of God waving his hand and deciding to
24:03
be nice today. The cross is the absolute
24:05
necessity of God's justice being poured out so that His mercy can
24:09
flow to people who would otherwise remain obstinate
24:12
forever. Christ had to endure the wrath
24:14
of God so that the justice of God would be satisfied, clearing
24:18
the way for the Spirit to regenerate our stubborn hearts.
24:21
We have covered vast theological territory for you today.
24:24
We really have covered a lot of ground.
24:25
We started by challenging the cultural view of God as an
24:28
arbitrary owner who can just overlook offense, like a CEO
24:32
waving a dress code. We moved to seeing him as the
24:35
righteous judge of all the earth, a judge who cannot deny
24:38
his own holy nature. We learned that sin is an
24:41
offense against cosmic government, a literal act of
24:45
treason, not a simple financial Ledger that can be casually
24:48
zeroed out. The natural right of God over
24:50
His creation demands that His justice be satisfied.
24:55
Either through our perfect obedience, which we consistently
24:57
fail to give, or through a vicarious punishment, which
25:01
Jesus Christ provides. I want to offer you a final
25:04
thought to consider long after the audio stops today.
25:08
What should the listener be thinking about?
25:10
Think about how this high, rigorous view of God's justice
25:14
actually amplifies the beauty of the gospel.
25:16
How does it amplify? It if God could have simply
25:18
spoken a word and wiped away sin without any consequence, the
25:22
crucifixion would be an unnecessary tragedy.
25:24
It would just be gratuitous violence.
25:26
It would mean the father put the son through the horrors of
25:28
Calvary when he had other, easier options available.
25:32
But because God's justice is immutable, because he cannot
25:35
deny himself or ignore his own law, the fact that he chose to
25:38
transfer that guilt to Christ shows a level of love that goes
25:41
far beyond a casual pardon. A casual pardon cost the
25:45
forgiver nothing. It is cheap.
25:47
The cross cost God everything. Ask yourself this how does
25:51
knowing that God's justice was fully, completely satisfied,
25:55
rather than casually dismissed, change the way you approach Him
25:58
today? Does it give you a greater
25:59
assurance that your sins are truly dealt with?
26:02
That is something to really meditate on.
26:04
Thank you for joining us on this deep dive on reformed thinking.