Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Justice of God: Vindication, Government, and Judgment | John Owen

Transcript

The Justice of God: Vindication, Government, and Judgment | John Owen · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reform thinking. We are, we are genuinely
0:02
thrilled to have you sitting down with us for this deep dive
0:06
today. Today we are taking a really
0:08
close, meticulous look at a classic piece of theological
0:11
writing. We're going to take our time on
0:13
tacking it because it requires that kind of attention.
0:15
The mission for our conversation today is to examine John Owen's
0:18
theological masterwork, a Dissertation on Divine Justice,
0:23
and we are specifically locking our focus on to Chapter 2.
0:26
This is a text that, well, it demands your full attention.
0:30
It tackles a core question regarding the very nature of God
0:33
and the actual mechanics of salvation.
0:35
So here is the central theological puzzle we are
0:38
putting on the table for you today.
0:40
If God decides to forgive a Sinner, could he just let the
0:42
sin slide without inflicting a penalty?
0:44
That is the big question, yes. Right.
0:46
Could the Almighty simply declare a person forgiven by a
0:48
sheer act of his will, by passing any need for punishment
0:52
whatsoever? Or does His very nature, His
0:55
intrinsic holiness, demand that sin must be punished?
0:58
We are asking whether punishing sin is a free choice God makes
1:01
or an absolute necessity of who He is.
1:03
That is the precise question John Owen is attempting to
1:06
answer in this text, and it is not just some dry academic
1:10
exercise for theologians in an ivory tower.
1:13
Not at all. And the reason this theological
1:15
distinction matters to your faith is staggering.
1:18
We are framing this entire discussion around the cross of
1:21
Jesus Christ. If you think about it this way,
1:24
if punishing sin is just a free choice God makes rather than an
1:28
absolute necessity of his holy nature, the entire reason for
1:32
Christ's sacrifice shifts dramatically.
1:34
It shifts in a way that is actually quite dangerous to the
1:37
Christian faith. Yes, because if God could have
1:39
just waved away our guilt without a penalty, then the
1:41
agonizing death of the Son of God was not strictly required.
1:44
It becomes an option rather than the singular necessary mechanism
1:48
for your salvation. We want to bring you into the
1:51
theological trenches with John Owen today to see why getting
1:54
this right anchors your entire understanding of the Gospel.
1:57
When you read John Owen, you're dealing with the mind that he
2:01
just refuses to let logical inconsistencies stand,
2:05
especially when those inconsistencies threaten the
2:07
glory of Christ's atonement. Owen starts this chapter by
2:11
clearing the brush, so to speak. He initiates a severe critique
2:14
of the schoolman. To give you some historical
2:17
context here, the school men were the scholastic theologians
2:20
of the medieval period. We were talking about prominent
2:22
figures like Duns SCOTUS, Durandis, Thomas Aquinas, and
2:25
Cagitan. These men spend an immense
2:28
amount of time engaging in philosophical debates about what
2:31
they called commutative justice. Let's pause right there for a
2:34
second. Commutative justice is not a
2:36
phrase most of us toss around in our daily lives.
2:38
Can you break down what that actually means in plain English
2:41
for everyone listening? I can certainly do that.
2:44
Commutative justice is basically the justice of equal exchange.
2:48
It is the principle that governs our business transactions and
2:51
our contracts. You give me something of value,
2:54
and I give you something of equal value in return.
2:57
If you go to the store and buy a loaf of bread, you hand the
2:59
cashier $3 and they hand you the bread.
3:02
The exchange is equal. The school men were debating
3:05
whether this kind of justice exists in God.
3:08
Owen points out that they are strangely divided on this issue,
3:11
but he focuses his attention on the arguments of Durandis.
3:15
Now Durandis actually got this part right.
3:16
He contended that commutative justice cannot be assigned to
3:19
God. He argued this because
3:21
commutative justice requires strict equality between what is
3:24
given and what is received. Between finite humans and an
3:28
infinite God, such equality is literally impossible.
3:31
That makes intuitive sense to anyone who thinks about it for a
3:34
minute. We are finite creatures.
3:36
But Owen does not just rely on human logic here, does he?
3:38
He brings in the scriptures to seal this point.
3:40
He absolutely does. Owen leans on three specific
3:43
scriptures to dismantle the idea of an equal exchange with God.
3:47
First, he cites Romans Chapter 11, verse 35.
3:50
The apostle Paul asks Who has first given to him, and it shall
3:54
be recompensed unto him again. And the context of Romans 11 is
3:57
massive. Paul is wrapping up this
4:00
sweeping argument about God's sovereign election and mercy.
4:03
He is looking at the sheer magnitude of God's wisdom and
4:07
essentially asking the reader who could possibly put God in
4:10
their debt? The rhetorical answer is
4:13
obviously no one. No one gives to God.
4:15
First God is the initiator of all things.
4:17
Then Owen points to Job chapter 22 verse 3.
4:20
The question asked there by Eliphaz is whether it is any
4:22
gain to God that you make your ways perfect.
4:24
That is such a fascinating verse.
4:26
Even if we could somehow live a perfectly blameless life, which
4:29
we know we cannot, it still would not add anything to God.
4:32
It would not increase His value or His happiness one bit.
4:35
Right, because God is perfectly complete in Himself.
4:38
Finally, Owen references Luke chapter 17 verse 10.
4:42
In this passage, Jesus declares that even when we have done all
4:45
that is commanded, we are to say we are unprofitable servants.
4:49
We have done that which was our duty to do.
4:51
That verse just crushes human pride.
4:53
Even our absolute best obedience is just doing what we were
4:56
already obligated to do. We are not doing God a favor by
4:59
obeying Him. The logic Owen builds from these
5:00
scriptures is airtight. You and I cannot be of any
5:04
service to God that creates a debt on His end.
5:07
This brings up a vital theological term we need to
5:09
define for this conversation, which is a seity.
5:12
God possesses perfect acidity. Let's use the explain it like I
5:16
am 5 approach for that word. What does ACD actually mean for
5:19
the listener who has not been to seminary?
5:21
Acidity means that God is entirely self-sufficient.
5:24
He is self existent. He does not need anything
5:27
outside of himself to exist, to be happy, or to be complete.
5:30
He's a closed loop of perfection.
5:32
Therefore, the idea that we could offer him something of
5:34
value that obligates him to repay us with salvation or grace
5:38
is a philosophical absurdity. He already owns everything.
5:41
That concept of a sayity is so clarifying, it really exposes
5:45
the arrogance of thinking we can barter with the Creator.
5:49
To help visualize the absurdity of commutative justice between
5:52
man and God, think of an analogy involving a toddler and a
5:56
parent. Imagine a toddler walking up to
5:58
their mother or father, holding a handful of brightly colored
6:01
Monopoly money and earnestly trying to pay the monthly
6:04
mortgage. The parent provides the house,
6:06
the warmth, the food, and the safety.
6:09
The toddler, wanting to make an equal exchange, offers pieces of
6:12
paper from a board game. It is a sweet gesture from a
6:16
child, but it has zero actual economic value in the real
6:19
world. In fact, the parent bought the
6:21
board game for the child in the 1st place.
6:23
The child is offering back a worthless fraction of what was
6:25
already freely given to them. This highlights how ridiculous
6:28
it is for human beings to think they can make an equal return to
6:30
God for the benefits they have received.
6:32
All that we have, including our very breath and any capacity to
6:35
do good, comes from Him. That is a fantastic analogy.
6:39
It perfectly illustrates the unbridgeable gap between US and
6:42
God. Yet, as Owen notes in the text,
6:45
another scholastic theologian named Gabriel tried to argue
6:48
against this. Gabriel proposed that God does
6:51
possess commutative justice by deciding to accept human actions
6:54
as equal even though they're clearly not.
6:57
Wait, let me make sure I'm following Gabriel's logic here.
6:59
Is he saying that God basically agrees to treat our monopoly
7:02
money as if it were real currency, and by doing so God
7:06
creates a system of commutative justice?
7:08
That is precisely his argument. Gabriel suggests that God
7:12
voluntarily lowers his standard to accept our flawed finite
7:15
works as an equal exchange for His infinite grace.
7:18
I love John Owen's reaction to this.
7:20
In the text, Owen sarcastically replies to Gabriel's theory with
7:23
the phrase proudly. Enough said, indeed.
7:25
You can almost hear Owen rolling his eyes right through the text.
7:28
You really can. Owen sees right through it.
7:30
This hits right at the heart of our Reformed theology.
7:34
We completely reject any system of works righteousness.
7:38
The idea that God lowers His standard of justice to accept
7:41
our flawed, finite works as an equal exchange for grace is a
7:45
direct insult to His Holiness. It is a man made attempt to put
7:50
God in our debt, framing salvation as a wage earned
7:53
rather than a gift freely given. And if you think Gabriel's
7:56
attempt to sneak works righteousness through the back
7:59
door is bad, it actually gets worse.
8:01
Owen moves on to address another thinker who practically tears
8:04
the front door off its hinges. Yes, Owen has very little
8:07
patience for what he calls these triflers, and he quickly moves
8:10
away from them to address a much more serious threat.
8:12
This brings us to Francis Suarez.
8:14
Suarez is an interesting historical figure because he
8:17
actually did what reformed thinkers might initially
8:19
applaud. He rejected the confusing,
8:21
convoluted philosophical arguments of the school man.
8:25
He declared that the plain expressions of Scripture carried
8:27
far more weight with them than scholastic philosophy.
8:29
Which sounds great at first. We always want to prioritize
8:32
scripture. But where does Suarez go off the
8:34
rails? He goes completely off the rails
8:36
by introducing a massive theological error of his own
8:39
making. While claiming to rely on
8:42
Scripture, Suarez twisted the concepts of distributive and
8:45
commutative justice to pave the way for the Roman Catholic
8:48
doctrines of human merit and super irrigation.
8:52
Let's define that term supererogation for you listening
8:55
at home, because it is a very specific Catholic doctrine.
8:58
Superegation is the idea that the Saints can perform actions
9:01
that go above and beyond the Call of Duty.
9:04
By doing these extra good works, they store up a surplus of extra
9:07
merit. The surplus merit is then
9:09
supposedly kept in a spiritual treasury and can be distributed
9:12
to others who are lacking. Right and Suarez argued that an
9:15
affection of punishing is inherent in God, but he
9:18
manipulated the doctrine of justice to suggest that humans
9:21
can actually satisfy God's punitive justice through their
9:24
own actions. He proposed that through
9:27
spontaneous submission to punishment or unprescribed
9:30
penance, basically making yourself suffer in religious
9:33
ways that God never commanded, you can pay off your own
9:36
spiritual debt. Owen calls this a sacrilegious
9:38
and proud error, doesn't he? He does call it that, and from a
9:42
strictly Reformed perspective, it is easy to see why he uses
9:45
such strong language. Flores is trying to combine
9:48
God's vindicatory justice with a absolute fiction about human
9:53
beings performing penal satisfaction.
9:55
He is claiming that your own self-imposed religious duties,
9:58
your own physical suffering, or the surplus good works of
10:01
departed Saints can actually satisfy the divine justice
10:04
required for your sins. That is a staggering
10:07
implication. If we accept Suarez's premise,
10:09
we are basically saying Jesus did most of the heavy lifting on
10:12
the cross, but he left the rest of the tab for us to pay off
10:16
through our own religious suffering or good deeds.
10:19
That completely guts the assurance of the believer.
10:22
How could you ever know if you have performed enough penance?
10:24
How could you ever know if if your account is fully settled,
10:27
you'd be left in constant terror wondering if you did enough to
10:30
appease God? And that terror is the
10:32
inevitable result of abandoning the sufficiency of Christ.
10:36
This is a direct affront to the finished work of Jesus Christ.
10:39
If human penance can satisfy divine justice, then Christ's
10:43
atonement is no longer the sole sufficient mechanism for
10:46
salvation. The blood of Christ, which the
10:48
apostle John says cleanses us from all sin, is suddenly
10:51
treated as inadequate. It requires the supplement of
10:54
human effort. John Owen recognized the severe
10:57
danger here, which is why he dismisses these thinkers as
11:00
bunglers who know not the righteousness of God.
11:03
He pivots away from their philosophical theories and turns
11:06
his attention back to the sure word of prophecy, the
11:08
Scriptures. Here Owen provides A biblical
11:11
definition of universal justice. And this is where our
11:13
conversation shifts from dismantling bad arguments to
11:17
building up a true biblical framework that is right.
11:20
According to Owen, universal justice is not some abstract
11:23
rule book that God has to consult before he acts.
11:26
It is the absolute intrinsic rectitude, imperfection of the
11:29
divine nature. God's essence is most wise, most
11:32
perfect, most excellent, and most merciful.
11:34
That absolute perfection, considered in itself, is the
11:37
justice of God. How does that contrast with how
11:40
the philosophers of Owen's day, or even the ancient
11:42
philosophers, viewed justice? It is a massive contrast.
11:46
Owen draws a hard line between biblical justice and the
11:49
definitions provided by men like Aristotle, Cicero, and the
11:52
civilian lawyers. Aristotle and Cicero define
11:55
justice in strictly human terms. They call justice a habit by
11:59
which men are capable of doing just things, or an affection of
12:03
the mind, giving to everyone his due.
12:05
The civilians defined it as a constant and perpetual will to
12:09
assign what is due. OK, I track with you on how
12:11
humans view justice, but why does Owen argue that applying
12:15
the definitions of Aristotle or Cicero to God is theological
12:18
malpractice? What is the actual danger in
12:21
saying God has a habit of justice?
12:23
I will gladly breakdown why assigning a habit or a material
12:26
mode of operation to God is so problematic.
12:29
In our adherence to the Westminster Confession, we
12:30
understand the doctrine of divine simplicity.
12:33
This means God is not made-up of parts.
12:35
He does not possess attributes the way a person possesses a
12:37
code or a skill set. Could you give an example of how
12:40
humans acquire habits just to highlight the difference between
12:42
US and God here? Sure.
12:44
You and I can acquire a habit. A person might not be naturally
12:47
patient, but through discipline, practice, and enduring
12:50
frustrating situations, they develop the habit of patience.
12:54
Their patience is a quality added to their nature.
12:57
Over time, someone might learn to play the piano and the
13:00
ability to play is a habit added to them.
13:03
God, however, is entirely self existent and immutable.
13:07
He does not acquire habits. He does not learn.
13:09
He does not develop an affection of the mind that he did not
13:12
previously possess. So to say God has a habit of
13:15
justice implies that he had to practice being just.
13:18
Spot on. Or worse, it implies that there
13:21
is a standard of justice existing outside of God, and God
13:24
simply conforms to that external standard.
13:26
Very well, that would mean the standard of justice is higher
13:29
than God himself. Owen fiercely rejects this idea.
13:32
He argues that God is a law unto himself.
13:34
His very nature is a standard of all rectitude.
13:36
He does not conform to justice. Justice is simply whatever
13:39
aligns with his perfect nature. That distinction is crucial for
13:42
you to grasp. It means God is never looking up
13:45
to a higher moral code. He is the moral code.
13:47
Because of this, God's universal justice directs all his
13:50
operations. Whatever He decrees, whatever He
13:52
does in Providence, it is all an expression of His perfect
13:56
rectitude. We see the scriptural grounding
13:59
clearly. Owen points to Isaiah chapter 51
14:01
verse 6 where God is described as just in bringing salvation.
14:04
Then in Romans chapter 3 verses 25 and 26, the apostle Paul says
14:08
God is just in pardoning sin. And in Revelation chapter 16
14:13
verses 5 and 6, the angels declare that God is just in
14:16
avenging and punishing sin. So in every single action,
14:20
whether he is saving, pardoning, or avenging, he is acting out of
14:24
the absolute perfection of his own nature that sets up a
14:28
beautiful, cohesive reality. Every action God takes is a
14:32
perfect expression of who he is. But this brings us to the main
14:35
event of Owen's dissertation, the core controversy regarding
14:38
what is called vindicatory or punitive justice.
14:41
This is the specific justice by which God punishes the crimes of
14:44
rational beings who have broken His law.
14:46
This is the battlefield Owen has been marching toward this entire
14:49
time. The monumental question is this.
14:52
Is this punitive justice an essential attribute of God's
14:55
nature, meaning he absolutely must exercise it if sin exists?
14:59
Or is it simply a free act of his will, meaning he can choose
15:03
to punish sin, or he can choose to just forgive it at his own
15:06
pleasure? Let's look at the adversaries
15:08
Owen was facing on this specific issue.
15:11
First, there were the Sicinians. Who were they and what were they
15:14
arguing? The Sicilians were part of a
15:15
highly influential heretical movement led by men like
15:18
Faustusosinus, Krellius and Australius.
15:21
The Sicinians flatly denied that God has any attribute requiring
15:25
satisfaction for sins. They claimed that God can simply
15:27
yield up his claim of right. What does that mean to yield up
15:30
his claim of right? They viewed God like a human
15:33
creditor. Think of a financial debt.
15:36
If you owe me $100, I have the legal right to demand payment,
15:39
but if I am feeling generous, I could just tear up.
15:41
The IOUI can forgive the debt without anyone having to pay the
15:45
$100. The Sicilians applied this human
15:48
financial concept to God and human sin.
15:51
They said God is entirely free to just yield His right and
15:54
forgive without demanding satisfaction.
15:56
To them, divine justice was not an absolute necessity.
16:00
They reduced it to mere anger or fury, which are emotions that
16:03
God could freely choose to switch off.
16:05
It makes God sound like a landlord who just decides not to
16:07
collect rent this month. But what makes this historical
16:10
situation so tragic is that Owen was not just fighting the
16:13
Sicilian heretics on this front. He was also dealing with
16:15
friendly fire from within his own theological camp.
16:18
Right. Yes, the friendly fire aspect is
16:20
one of the most fascinating elements of this theological
16:22
dispute. Owen specifically points out
16:26
Samuel Rutherford. Rutherford was a Scottish divine
16:29
whom Owen held in very high regard.
16:31
Rutherford was thoroughly orthodox in his belief that
16:34
Christ actually did provide satisfaction for sins.
16:38
He believed in the Cross. However, Rutherford agreed with
16:41
the Sicilians on the underlying mechanism.
16:43
How so? Where did Rutherford agree with
16:46
them? Rutherford argued that punitive
16:47
justice is a free act of the divine will.
16:50
He believed God decreed to punish sin, and because he
16:53
decreed it, it happened. But Rutherford denied that God's
16:56
nature necessarily demanded it. He thought God could have chosen
16:59
another way, but simply opted for the cross.
17:02
Owen looks at this and realizes that by conceding this
17:05
philosophical point to the Sicilians, Orthodox theologians
17:08
like Rutherford were handing over their strongest defense for
17:10
the necessity of the cross. Precisely.
17:13
Let us systematically dismantle the idea that God could pardon
17:17
sin by a mere nod or breath without Christ satisfaction.
17:21
If you argue that God's justice does not necessarily require the
17:24
punishment of sin, you were essentially saying that sin and
17:27
no sin are the exact same to God apart from his free choice to
17:30
care about it. That is a terrifying thought.
17:33
If God could have just spoken a word of forgiveness, if he could
17:36
have just pardoned humanity with a simple nod of his head, then
17:40
we must look at the Garden of Gethsemane in a completely
17:42
different light. Think about Jesus sweating drops
17:45
of blood, begging the Father, saying if it is possible, let
17:48
this cup pass from me. The Father said no, but if the
17:51
Sicinians or even Rutherford are right, the Father could have
17:54
said, you know what, never mind, I will just yield my right to
17:56
punish. You do not have to go to the
17:57
cross. That is the exact logical
18:00
conclusion. If God could have forgiven us
18:02
without a penalty, then the crucifixion was not a divine
18:05
requirement for salvation. It was an unnecessary tragedy.
18:08
It turns the brutal, bloody sacrifice of the Son of God into
18:11
an arbitrary display rather than the indispensable, necessary act
18:15
that secured our redemption. I want you listening to sit with
18:18
that thought for a moment. It completely changes how you
18:21
read the gospels. If the cross was optional.
18:24
If God had other ways to forgive, but chose the most
18:26
agonizing death for his Son anyway, it paints A horrifying
18:30
picture of the Father. It makes him look cool.
18:32
John Owen saw this clearly. He realized that if you lose the
18:35
absolute necessity of punitive justice, the entire Christian
18:39
faith is left defenseless against critics.
18:41
To solve this problem and defend the cross, Owen introduces some
18:45
masterful theological distinctions.
18:47
He breaks down the mechanics of God's attributes, specifically
18:50
drawing a line between attributes that require an
18:52
object to exist beforehand and attributes that do not.
18:56
OK, let's walk through that slowly.
18:57
What is the difference between a free attribute and a necessary
19:00
attribute in God? Owen uses wisdom and omnipotence
19:04
as examples of attributes that are completely free in their
19:07
first exercise. Think about the creation of the
19:10
world. God was not forced by his nature
19:12
to create the universe. He existed in perfect, eternal
19:16
fellowship within the Trinity. He was totally free to create a
19:20
world or not create a world. His wisdom and power did not
19:23
require an external object to exist in order for God to be
19:26
God. So he is freely exercising his
19:29
power to create. He did not have to.
19:31
Right. However, punitive justice is
19:33
entirely different. Punitive justice requires the
19:35
existence of a rational sinning creature.
19:38
You cannot punish a rock, and you cannot punish an innocent
19:40
being. The object which is a Sinner
19:43
must exist first. Owen makes the brilliant
19:46
argument that while God was free to create or not create, once he
19:49
freely chose to create a rational creature, and once that
19:51
creature chose to sin, God's nature necessitates a response.
19:56
To clarify this distinction, Owen uses an incredible analogy
19:59
regarding the truthfulness of God.
20:00
Does he not? He calls it the speaking truth
20:02
analogy. Can you unpack that for us?
20:05
It is one of his best illustrations.
20:07
Consider God's ability to communicate.
20:09
God is completely free to choose whether or not He speaks to
20:12
human beings. There is no law in the universe
20:14
that forces the Almighty to utter a single word to us.
20:17
He could have remained silent forever.
20:19
However, if God freely chooses to speak, He must speak the
20:23
truth. He cannot lie because lying
20:26
violates His intrinsic nature. So he acts freely in choosing to
20:29
speak, but he acts necessarily in speaking truthfully.
20:32
Precisely. Owen applies this exact same
20:34
logic to punitive justice. God was entirely free to create
20:38
humanity. He was free to establish a moral
20:40
law, but having freely created them, and having established
20:44
their moral dependence on Him, if those creatures sin, God must
20:47
punish that sin. He cannot simply ignore it, just
20:50
as you cannot speak a lie. Overlooking sin would violate
20:53
His intrinsic holiness in His supreme right as the Ruler of
20:55
the universe. He acts freely in creation, but
20:58
He acts necessarily in His justice for rebellion.
21:01
That makes so much sense. It perfectly balances God's
21:04
sovereignty with His holy nature.
21:07
But this brings up a question about mercy.
21:09
If God has to exercise justice when a creature sins, why does
21:13
he not have to exercise mercy? What is the critical difference
21:16
between how God exercises justice versus how He exercises
21:19
mercy? Owen points out that between an
21:22
act of mercy and its object, there is no natural obligation.
21:26
God is not bound to show mercy to anyone.
21:28
Think about fallen angels. God did not provide a savior for
21:31
demons. He showed them no mercy, and He
21:34
remains perfectly just. If you were bound to show mercy,
21:37
it would not be mercy anymore. You would be a debt.
21:39
That is a massive point. Mercy, by definition, has to be
21:42
unmerited. Correct.
21:44
But between an act of justice and its object, a natural
21:47
obligation intervenes because the creature is entirely
21:50
sporting it. To God.
21:50
A failure and obedience demands a consequence.
21:52
To preserve God's dominion, mercy is entirely free.
21:56
Justice is a necessary consequence of His Holiness
21:58
encountering human rebellion. That distinction between mercy
22:01
and justice is the bedrock of Reformed theology.
22:04
It destroys the argument that God is somehow unfair if he does
22:08
not save everyone. He owes us nothing but justice.
22:11
Any mercy he gives is an entirely free, unmerited gift.
22:15
But this leads us to ask about the mechanics.
22:17
How is this necessary justice actually applied?
22:21
If God must punish sin, does he do it in a blind rage?
22:24
Does he punish to the utmost extent of his absolute
22:27
capability? John Owen argues no, he
22:30
clarifies, the God does not punish to the maximum of his
22:33
absolute capability, but rather he punishes according to the
22:36
standard of his right and his infinite wisdom.
22:39
Owen details the mechanics of divine punishment by looking at
22:42
what he calls the First Egress of Justice.
22:44
The first egress. What does that look like
22:46
practically? The first step, the first
22:47
outward expression of this justice was the creation of a
22:49
penal law, a law that says if you do this, you will die.
22:52
Why was a penal law necessary in the 1st place?
22:54
Could God not just rule without one?
22:56
Owen argues that without a law attaching a penalty to
22:59
disobedience, God would lose his natural dominion over his
23:02
creatures. If a creature can rebel against
23:05
the Creator without any consequence, the Creator is no
23:08
longer in charge. The moral universe would
23:10
collapse into total anarchy. By establishing a law with a
23:14
penalty, God preserves his right as the supreme governor.
23:17
OK, I follow that the law establishes God's rule.
23:20
But if the law demands punishment and I broke the law,
23:23
am I not doomed? Where is the good news in this
23:26
framework? This is where Owen introduces
23:28
what we might call the loophole of grace.
23:30
Is it not? It is the most beautiful,
23:31
breathtaking part of Owens entire argument.
23:34
Owen states that God's justice necessarily respects punishment
23:38
in general. Let me explain what that means.
23:40
Justice requires the vindication of God's glory and the
23:43
preservation of his right. The penalty of the law must be
23:45
executed. The law says the soul who sins
23:48
shall die. Justice requires a death.
23:51
Right, blood must be shed. But, and this is the crucial
23:54
point, this necessary justice does not mandate the specific
23:58
time of the punishment, the specific degree of the
24:01
punishment, or even the specific species of punishment for the
24:04
individual center. Wait, run that by me one more
24:06
time. Justice demands punishment, but
24:09
it does not demand that the specific center has to be the
24:12
one to bear it. That specific formulation is the
24:15
absolute genius of John Owen, and it is the hinge upon which
24:19
our salvation swings. Listen closely to what Owen is
24:22
doing here. The Sicilians argued that if
24:25
justice is strictly necessary, then every individual Sinner
24:28
must be eternally punished, leaving no room for grace at
24:31
all. They said if God has to punish
24:34
then everyone goes to hell. Which is a terrifying, though
24:37
logically consistent argument if you do not have Owen's
24:40
distinction. Exactly.
24:41
Owen counters this by defining accurately what justice
24:44
requires. Because the requirement is for
24:46
punishment in general to uphold the moral order of the universe
24:50
and vindicate God's majesty. It leaves the door wide open for
24:52
a substitute. It leaves the door open for
24:54
vicarious punishment. Vicarious punishment meaning
24:57
someone else taking the hit. Yes, God's nature demands that
25:01
the blow must fall, but His infinite wisdom provides a way
25:05
for the blow to fall on someone else.
25:07
This is where the theology of the cross is fully secured.
25:11
If justice demanded that the specific individual who
25:13
committed a crime must be the one to suffer, we would all be
25:16
lost. But because justice demands the
25:18
vindication of God's honor, through a sufficient penalty,
25:21
Christ can step into our place. That is just incredible.
25:25
Jesus Christ being infinite in value, takes the blow on our
25:28
behalf. He bears the wrath that was
25:30
entirely necessary. God does not sweep the sin under
25:33
the rug. He did not yield his claim of
25:35
right with a simple nod like the Sicilians claimed.
25:38
He executes His necessary justice fully, violently and
25:41
completely upon his own Son. Therefore, at the cross, God is
25:44
both perfectly just because every single sin was punished,
25:47
and the perfect justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus,
25:50
because the Sinner is set free. That is the gospel in its
25:52
purest, most robust form. When you grasp what John Owen is
25:56
teaching here, your entire perspective on the Christian
25:59
faith becomes anchored in concrete reality.
26:02
We have covered an immense amount of theological ground
26:04
today, tracing the arguments from the scholastic errors of
26:08
the schoolmen looking at Durandis and Gabriel.
26:10
We walked through the dangerous compromises of Suarez and his
26:13
Catholic doctrines of super irrigation, and we even looked
26:16
at the friendly fire from Rutherford.
26:18
We have taken all of that and seen how Owen builds an airtight
26:21
defense of God's vindicatory justice.
26:24
And we have seen how understanding this justice is an
26:27
absolute necessity of God's nature is the only way to secure
26:31
the Reformed view of the atonement.
26:34
It secures your assurance as a believer.
26:36
You do not have to wonder if you have done enough penance like
26:39
Suarez suggested. You do not have to worry if
26:41
God's forgiveness is just an arbitrary mood swing that he
26:43
might reverse tomorrow. The necessary justice of God was
26:47
fully satisfied by the vicarious punishment of Jesus Christ.
26:50
The debt is paid in full, not with Monopoly money, but with
26:54
the precious blood of the Son of God.
26:57
As we wrap up this deep dive, I want to leave you listening with
27:00
a final concept to ponder, something that builds on this
27:03
text that stretches your thoughts even further for the
27:05
rest of your week. If God's punitive justice is as
27:09
essential and unchangeable as His absolute truthfulness,
27:12
meaning He literally could not just sweep your sin under the
27:15
rug to save you, how does that shift the way you perceive the
27:19
sheer magnitude of His love? Knowing that He could not ignore
27:22
the law, but rather chose to absorb the catastrophic blow of
27:25
His own necessary justice within himself, how does that alter
27:28
your daily gratitude? He did not spare himself to
27:31
spare you. Keep pressing into these hard
27:33
theological truths. They are the bedrock of a robust
27:35
faith. Thank you for joining us on
27:37
Reformed Thinking. We will see you next time.
27:39
Farewell and keep studying the word.