Latest / Reformed Thinking / Infinite Justice and Infinite Mercy at the Cross | John Owen

Transcript

Infinite Justice and Infinite Mercy at the Cross | John Owen · Reformed Thinking

0:01
When you think about a courtroom, the visual is, you
0:03
know, incredibly rigid. Oh, absolutely.
0:05
You picture the heavy wooden bench, the scales of justice on
0:09
the wall. Right.
0:09
The gavel sitting there though law operates on this very strict
0:13
binary. You break the law, a penalty
0:15
follows. But if you walk across the
0:18
street to a commercial bank and sit down with a loan officer, a
0:22
completely different set of rules applies.
0:24
Yeah, it really does. If the bank executives decide to
0:26
be generous, they can just, you know, write off a massive debt.
0:30
Just a few keystrokes and they clear Ledger.
0:33
You owe nothing. Well, welcome to a deep dive on
0:36
Reformed thinking. Today we are looking at how God
0:39
deals with human sin. Specifically through the lens of
0:42
John Owen's 1653 work A Dissertation on Divine Justice.
0:47
Right, because Owen argues that treating God like that lenient
0:50
banker, it completely destroys the entire framework of the
0:54
Christian gospel. Yeah, we are unpacking Owen's
0:57
systematic reputation of Faustus a sinus.
0:59
We are going straight into the mechanics of divine justice, the
1:02
necessity of the atonement, and, well, whether God can forgive
1:06
sin without a blood payment. So the core question for you
1:09
listening is this. Can God just forgive your sins
1:13
with a wave of His hand, or does His very nature demand justice?
1:17
And, you know, this isn't just some dusty academic debate.
1:21
Owen is responding to a massive theological shift initiated by
1:25
isosinus in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.
1:28
Right, because so Cena's basically built his whole
1:30
theological system on the premise that God is a cosmic
1:33
creditor. Yeah, a creditor who can dismiss
1:35
debts on a whim. The stakes here are
1:37
astronomical. We are looking at a clash of,
1:40
well, basic paradigms regarding who God actually is.
1:43
Right. Can the creator just waive the
1:44
penalty for rebellion? Or does his his ontological
1:49
reality demand that justice be satisfied?
1:51
How you answer that dictates your entire view of the cross,
1:54
the nature of sin, and the mechanics of justification.
1:57
So let's start with Sassini as his first big argument, because
1:59
honestly, he establishes A premise that appeals heavily to
2:02
basic human logic. He really does.
2:04
He asserts that God is essentially A creditor and our
2:07
sins are just debts we have contracted with Him.
2:10
And because God possesses absolute dominion over all
2:13
things, Sassinus argues, he has the right to, you know, yield up
2:17
his right. Right, meaning the Supreme Lord
2:20
of the universe can forgive a debt without receiving any
2:22
tangible satisfaction or payment.
2:25
I mean, I can see the immediate appeal of that argument.
2:27
If a friend borrows $20 from me and then loses his job, I can
2:31
look at him and say don't worry about the money.
2:33
Yeah, you just say we are good. You waive your right to collect.
2:37
Right. And a critic of Owen would look
2:39
at that human interaction and ask, well, why can't the creator
2:42
of the universe exhibit that same grace?
2:45
Why bind God to rules he created?
2:47
Well, so Sinus relies on this old Latin legal concept
2:50
regarding a private individual's right over their own property.
2:53
He frames God as a persona prevata.
2:56
A private person? Yes.
2:57
A. Private person who has been
2:58
personally wronged in civil law. A private individual can choose
3:03
not to prosecute someone who owes them money.
3:05
Because they are the sole owners of the debt, so they can cancel
3:08
it. Exactly.
3:09
Well, spot on. So Sinus maps this civil
3:12
transaction onto God. He concludes that since God is
3:15
praised in Scripture for His goodness and liberality, He is
3:19
perfectly free to pardon sins without demanding any
3:21
satisfaction. So how does Owen handle that?
3:24
Because it sounds so reasonable to our modern ears.
3:27
Owen anticipates that line of human reasoning and attacks the
3:31
structural integrity of the premise itself.
3:34
He identifies this assumption as a false hypothesis.
3:37
So so Sinus takes for granted the very thing he needs to
3:40
prove, yes. Owen points out that God is not
3:43
functioning in the capacity of a private financial creditor
3:46
dealing with a personal slight. God is the Rector University.
3:49
The moral governor and judge of the entire universe, right?
3:52
That distinction changes the whole legal category.
3:55
It reminds me of a king. A sovereign king might act as a
3:58
private landlord for a small plot of land he owns personally.
4:01
Right. And if a tenant cannot pay the
4:03
rent there, the king can forgive that debt as a private citizen.
4:06
Yeah, but when that same king sits on the throne, is the
4:09
supreme magistrate of the realm dealing with a citizen who has
4:12
committed treason, the gagory shifts.
4:14
It absolutely shifts. The king cannot simply forgive
4:18
treason because he feels generous that day.
4:20
Because doing so would subvert the law itself.
4:24
It would plunge the Kingdom into anarchy.
4:26
That analogy captures Owens counter argument perfectly.
4:29
A judge in a courtroom cannot waive a sentence for a violent
4:32
crime just because he happens to be in a good mood.
4:35
If he does, he ceases to be a just judge.
4:38
He becomes corrupt. Right.
4:39
And Owen notes that so Sinus tries desperately to remove this
4:42
concept of God as the moral governor because it threatens
4:45
his whole system. Right, Owen actually writes that
4:48
if this initial supposition falls, this idea of God as a
4:51
mere private creditor, so sinus entire argument will instantly
4:55
collapse. Yeah, Owen labels so Sinus's
4:58
argument a Babylonish tower. Calling it a Babylonish tower is
5:01
such a sharp critique. It suggests a scientist had
5:03
built this huge edifice based entirely on human reasoning in
5:07
civic categories. Reaching for the heavens, but
5:09
completely unstable at the base. So if God's justice isn't a
5:13
simple financial transaction, so Sinus has to redefine what
5:16
justice actually is. He can't just leave a vacuum in
5:19
his theology. Right, so he shifts his attack
5:22
to the very nature of God's internal character.
5:25
So Sinus claims that justice is not inherent in God at all.
5:29
Wait, not inherent. Yeah, so Sinus introduces A
5:32
philosophical snare based on volunteerism.
5:35
He argues that justice is not a permanent, essential attribute
5:39
of God's nature, but rather an effect of his free will.
5:42
Oh wow, so to so Sinus. God acts justly when he chooses
5:46
to, but he is not bound by justice as an unchangeable
5:50
characteristic. Spot on.
5:51
But that introduces a massive metaphysical problem.
5:55
If so, Sinus claims justice is an effect of the will.
5:58
He is basically saying God could choose to be unjust tomorrow and
6:01
it wouldn't violate his nature. Yeah, and so Sinus uses a very
6:04
specific logical syllogism to force this point.
6:07
He argues that if justice were naturally inherent in God, God
6:10
could never pardon even the smallest transgression to
6:13
anyone. OK, let me follow that logic.
6:15
The logic dictates that God never does anything opposite to
6:17
the qualities inherent in Him. Therefore, if strict justice is
6:20
an inherent quality, pardon becomes an absolute
6:23
impossibility. I have to admit, the logic of
6:26
that syllogism tracks perfectly on the surface.
6:29
Let me frame it up. If a substance is inherently
6:32
wet, it cannot choose to be dry, right?
6:35
If a star is inherently luminous, it cannot choose to
6:38
emit darkness. So if God is inherently and
6:41
strictly just, meaning his very nature compels him to punish
6:45
every single infraction of His law, how does any human being
6:49
escape condemnation? That is the big question.
6:51
If God is inherently just, no one gets pardoned.
6:55
It sounds like Sisena's backed owing into a corner.
6:57
He presents this as an inescapable absurdity that
7:00
destroys the concept of inherent divine justice.
7:03
But Owen reads this argument and executes a brilliant
7:06
philosophical counter maneuver. What does he do?
7:08
Owen agrees with the premise. Entire break, really.
7:11
Yes, he embraces the reality that God's inherent justice
7:14
absolutely prohibits him from letting sin slide.
7:17
Owen explicitly writes that God cannot pass the smallest sin
7:20
unpunished because he can do nothing opposite to the
7:23
qualities inherent in him. But hold on.
7:25
If Owen agrees that God cannot pass the smallest sin
7:28
unpunished, he has to have a mechanism to avoid the
7:32
conclusion that all humanity is eternally condemned.
7:35
Right, he has to explain how a strictly just God justifies the
7:40
ungodly. How does he do it?
7:42
Owen relies on the covenantal framework of the surety, OK.
7:45
The surety. Yeah, a surety is a federal head
7:48
who assumes the legal and moral obligations of a specific
7:51
people. Owen explains that God does not
7:53
pardon sin by ignoring it or waving it away like a casual
7:57
creditor. So he pardons believers because
8:00
justice was comprehensively satisfied by the mediator, by
8:04
Christ. Yes, Owen maintains the
8:06
integrity of God's nature. The strict judge doesn't become
8:09
a corrupt rule bending magistrate.
8:11
The penalty is poured out completely.
8:13
God does not bypass his justice. He fully meets it.
8:15
Right. Owen articulates that God
8:17
neither actually pardons any sin without a satisfaction made, nor
8:20
can he pardon it without an infringement of his justice.
8:23
So pardoning the sins of believers on account of the
8:25
satisfaction of Christ doesn't contradict his justice, it
8:29
fulfills it. Absolutely.
8:30
God's inherent nature is perfectly preserved.
8:33
I imagine so. Sinus didn't just accept that.
8:35
No. So Sinus anticipates this
8:37
defense and tries to dismantle the vocabulary itself.
8:41
He makes the rather bold claim that theologians invented the
8:44
idea of inherent justice to give God's arbitrary actions a
8:47
respectable title. He literally thinks we just made
8:50
the word up to make God sound good.
8:52
Yeah, he argues, the term justice is a human invention
8:55
applied retroactively. But Owen points right back to
8:58
the Hebrew text of Scripture. Right words like mishpat and
9:01
siddek. Exactly.
9:02
Well, yes. Owen states that we did not
9:05
invent this category to give God's work a worthy name.
9:08
The judge of all the earth gives this testimony in the sacred
9:11
records in innumerable places. I think Owen quotes Psalm 9
9:14
right. He does.
9:15
He quotes Psalm 9 verse 4 stating God sitteth in the
9:18
throne, judging righteously. Divine justice is divine
9:22
revelation, not a scholastic construct.
9:25
OK, so having failed to redefine God as a private creditor and
9:29
feeling to prove that inherent justice is a fabricated
9:31
category, so sinus pivots again. He is relentless.
9:35
He tries to disentangle God's internal attributes from his
9:38
external actions by attacking the specific vocabulary the
9:42
Bible uses regarding God's anger.
9:44
Right. So Sinus leans into the argument
9:46
from opposites. He notes that Scripture often
9:49
describes the punishment of sin using words like severity and
9:52
vengeance. OK.
9:53
He then argues that severity and vengeance are diametrically
9:56
opposed to mercy. To Sinus, punishing sin and
10:00
pardoning sin cancel each other out.
10:02
Meaning, if God is perfectly merciful, he cannot
10:06
simultaneously be perfectly severe toward the same person.
10:10
Right. I want to push back on Owen's
10:12
behalf here, but let's first validate the tensions the sinus
10:15
points out. Vengeance and mercy do appear as
10:18
opposite trajectories. They do.
10:19
You cannot execute extreme severity and immense mercy
10:22
toward the identical object at the exact same moment.
10:25
It resembles trying to drive a vehicle forward and backward
10:28
simultaneously. That is a great way to put it.
10:30
But Owen resolves this apparent contradiction by introducing the
10:33
scholastic distinction between a habitus and an actus.
10:36
An internal habit and an external effect.
10:39
Yes. So sinus is confounding an
10:42
essential perfection of God with the external execution of that
10:45
perfection in time and space. We need to break down those
10:48
philosophical categories for the listener.
10:50
Yeah. How does Owen differentiate
10:52
between the internal reality of God and what happens in human
10:56
history? So in the framework of classical
10:58
theism and divine simplicity, a habit refers to the internal
11:03
characteristic or the uncompounded essence of God.
11:06
It is who He is eternally. OK.
11:08
And the Actus. An effect or an act is the
11:11
external manifestation of that characteristic terminating on a
11:14
creature. Let me frame that with an
11:16
analogy. Think of the difference between
11:18
potential energy and kinetic energy.
11:20
Oh, I like that. The potential energy is the
11:22
inherent state of the object, while the kinetic energy is the
11:25
external effect we witness when that object interacts with its
11:29
environment. That hits the mark perfectly.
11:31
Owen argues that severity and anger are not the attribute of
11:34
justice itself, they're just the external effects of it.
11:37
So the internal habit, the attribute itself, is justice,
11:40
which Scripture also identifies as absolute purity and holiness.
11:44
That reframes the entire debate. Severity is not a core
11:48
personality trait of God, it is the external reaction of His
11:52
infinite purity when it comes into contact with human
11:55
rebellion. Yes, and because of this precise
11:58
distinction, Owen argues that punishing and pardoning are not
12:01
actually opposed to one another. They don't cancel each other out
12:04
because they operate through the mediator.
12:06
Spot on. So the internal purity of God
12:10
demands the punishment of sin, which manifests as the effect of
12:14
sederity poured out on Christ at Calvary.
12:16
Yes, and because that justice is completely satisfied, that
12:20
identical internal purity now enacts the effect of pardoning
12:24
the believer. It is the same righteous
12:26
principle operating in perfect harmony.
12:28
Owen quotes the Apostle Paul here, calling this the
12:30
foolishness of God, which is wiser than men.
12:33
Furthermore, Owen points out that Sicinus's view leads to a
12:36
catastrophic logical conclusion. No conclusion is that.
12:39
Well, Sicinus claims that if justice dictates God must punish
12:42
sin, then he could not even spare those who repent.
12:44
But Owen counters that all true repentance is founded entirely
12:48
upon the satisfaction and blood of Christ.
12:51
God spares the penitence specifically because
12:53
satisfaction has already been secure.
12:55
That makes total sense. So Societus realizes his
12:59
philosophical categories are being dismantled, and he turns
13:02
to the concept of limits. Yeah, he cites Exodus 34, verse
13:05
6, where God is described as merciful and gracious,
13:08
long-suffering. And he uses this text to claim
13:12
that mercy and justice are unequal, limited effects of
13:15
God's will. Right, so Sinus argues that
13:18
because God is slow to anger but abundant in goodness, it proves
13:21
these are just arbitrary effects and one surpasses the other in
13:23
greatness. So, he claims, you cannot call
13:26
both justice and mercy infinite. Because if you have two infinite
13:30
things that appear as opposites, they cannot coexist.
13:33
It sounds like the classic philosophical puzzle.
13:35
If an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, the system
13:38
breaks. Yeah, so Sinus assumes you
13:40
cannot have infinite punishment and infinite pardon occupying
13:43
the same reality without compromising one or the other.
13:46
So he concludes that calling justice infinite contradicts the
13:49
biblical text stating God is slow to anger.
13:52
Right. Therefore, neither justice nor
13:54
mercy are inherent infinite properties.
13:57
They are temporary, limited actions God chooses to perform.
14:00
Owen has to dismantle this unstoppable force versus
14:04
immovable object dilemma. How does he address the claim
14:07
that God's attributes are limited?
14:09
Well, Owen attacks Sasinus's definition of mercy.
14:12
South Sinus defines mercy as nothing more than the bare
14:15
action of forgiving offenders. And Owen says.
14:18
Owen argues that true Divine Mercy is a supreme perfection of
14:21
the divine nature disposed to assist the miserable.
14:24
Both justice and mercy are infinite internally.
14:27
They are infinite perfections of God's essence.
14:30
OK, but how do they interact without crashing into each
14:33
other? They possess different rules
14:34
governing how they are expressed externally, which Owen refers to
14:37
as their egresses. I see.
14:39
So the internal perfection is infinite, but the external
14:42
egress operates under specific legal and moral parameters, yes.
14:46
Owen introduces a massive theological distinction here,
14:49
the necessity of justice versus the freedom of mercy.
14:53
The necessity of justice, meaning God has to execute it.
14:56
Right. God must exercise justice to
14:59
preserve His natural right and dominion over creation.
15:03
If God allowed rebellion to go unpunished, the moral universe
15:07
would collapse and He would cease to be the supreme
15:10
magistrate. Because an authority that issues
15:12
a law without a penalty is not issuing a law at all.
15:16
They are issuing a suggestion. Spot on.
15:19
The necessity of justice is structural.
15:21
To use an architectural analogy, justice is a load bearing wall
15:25
in the moral universe. You cannot remove it without
15:28
bringing down the entire structure.
15:30
And mercy, on the other hand, operates differently.
15:32
The egress of mercy requires a free act of God's will.
15:35
Meaning God is not bound to exercise mercy toward any
15:39
rebellious creature. Right.
15:40
Mercy, by its very definition, cannot be demanded.
15:43
If mercy could be demanded, it would cease to be mercy.
15:46
It would become an obligation of justice.
15:48
Exactly. I mean, yes, that is the core of
15:50
it. God is obligated by His own holy
15:52
nature to execute justice, whereas He is completely free to
15:55
choose whether or not to execute mercy.
15:57
So Owen states that God is bound to exercise mercy to none, but
16:01
he cannot but exercise his justice towards sinners if he is
16:04
to preserve his natural dominion.
16:06
Right. And regarding Sisenis's point
16:09
about God being slow to anger, Owen differentiates between the
16:13
infinite perfection of justice and the finite execution of
16:16
anger in present history. So the external effects have
16:19
limits assigned to them by the wisdom of God in this timeline.
16:22
Yes, but Owen points out that the duration of the effect of
16:25
justice is infinite, citing Paul's letters concerning
16:29
everlasting destruction. OK, we must shift our focus from
16:33
the theoretical philosophy of attributes to the historical
16:36
execution of all these concepts. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ,
16:39
yes. This is where the debate leaves
16:41
the realm of scholastic logic puzzles and hits the bedrock of
16:45
history. Because so Sinus takes his
16:47
premise to its terrifying logical conclusion, which is
16:51
because he believes God can freely pardon without
16:53
satisfaction, he calls the satisfaction of Christ a human
16:56
fiction. A human fiction.
16:58
Yeah, he writes that if his view of God's casual justice is
17:01
accurate, the human fiction of the atonement would just vanish.
17:04
Think about the massive implications of that statement
17:07
for you listening if God is simply a supreme Lord who can
17:11
waive moral debts with a thought.
17:13
Right, if he can grant forgiveness without any payment
17:16
required. The cross becomes an unnecessary
17:19
tragedy. Why would a good God subject
17:22
Jesus Christ the horrors of crucifixion, the scourging, the
17:25
wrath, and the physical agony, if he could have simply wiped
17:29
the slate clean from the throne room?
17:30
It makes no sense. Owen views this absurdity as the
17:34
ultimate triumph of his own argument.
17:36
The cross is not an accident, and it is certainly not a
17:39
fiction. It stands as the historical,
17:41
irrefutable proof of infinite justice and infinite mercy,
17:44
operating simultaneously and perfectly.
17:47
Owen go straight to the Apostle Paul to prove this.
17:49
Specifically Romans 3, 3, verses 25 and 26.
17:52
Where Paul writes that God set forth Christ as a propitiation
17:56
through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness.
17:58
And the climax of that theological argument is that God
18:01
did this so that he might be just and the justifier of him
18:04
which believeth in Jesus. Just and the justifier, the
18:08
exact 2 concepts so Sinus argued could not exist together.
18:11
Right Owen demonstrates that God exercised absolute severity
18:16
toward the surety. He did not spare Christ.
18:18
That is the infinite egress of justice.
18:21
And at the exact same moment, God exercised supreme grace
18:25
towards sinners who were dead in trespasses.
18:27
That is the infinite egress of mercy.
18:29
Both attributes are fully expressed without contradiction.
18:32
Owen presents a rhetorical question that completely
18:35
shatters the Sicinian worldview. He asks if sinners were
18:39
alienated without strength and did not even request a sacrifice
18:42
to avert God's anger, why would God make Christ to be sin for us
18:47
if it was not strictly required to satisfy divine justice?
18:50
It is a phenomenal point, Owen points out that we did not
18:52
appoint A sacrifice from our own herds to appease God.
18:55
We were enemies of God. So if forgiveness was as simple
18:58
as a cognitive choice by a cosmic creditor, God would have
19:02
pardoned humanity without shedding blood, Yes.
19:05
The undeniable fact that God provided such a severe, costly
19:08
sacrifice proves that a severe, costly satisfaction was an
19:11
absolute necessity. So Owen replaces the false idea
19:14
of So Sinus, this idea of God as a casual creditor with a
19:17
biblical reality of God as an infinitely pure judge.
19:20
And by doing so, he secures the meaning and necessity of the
19:23
cross. He defends the atonement from
19:26
being reduced to a meaningless, tragic display.
19:29
He secures it as the ultimate testimony of Divine Love and the
19:32
sole objective basis for the justification of sinners.
19:35
Yeah. Let us summarize the massive
19:38
paradigm shift we have looked at today.
19:40
We started with the Sicilian view, presenting A palatable,
19:43
easy concept of God. God holds our debts, but because
19:47
he is generous, he waves them. No blood, no satisfaction
19:50
required. Justice is treated as a
19:52
temporary mood God can snap out of.
19:54
But Owen dismantled that framework entirely.
19:57
He demonstrated that God's justice is his inherent nature.
20:00
He cannot pass sin unpunished without violating his own purity
20:04
and destroying his moral. Forgiveness is not a simple
20:07
waving of a debt. It requires an agonizing
20:09
payment. Right.
20:10
The gospel rests on the reality that God provided that payment
20:13
himself through the mediator. Consider how this alters your
20:16
view of grace. If you adopt the Sicilian view,
20:19
grace is incredibly cheap. It costs God nothing to look
20:22
past your rebellion. But following Owen's scriptural
20:25
logic, grace is staggeringly costly.
20:28
Forgiveness is not casual. It required an absolute literal
20:32
satisfaction of an infinite standard of purity.
20:35
It means when you are forgiven, justice has not been ignored, it
20:39
has been exhausted. Your entire posture before God
20:43
changes. You do not stand there assuming
20:46
he let you off the hook with a warning.
20:48
You stand there knowing the full weight of the moral law was met
20:51
and the Ledger was cleared by blood, not by a clerical error
20:54
in heaven. Which brings us to a final
20:56
thought for you to consider. We started this discussion
20:59
contrasting A courtroom and a bank right.
21:02
We have seen that God's forgiveness required a physical,
21:04
exhaustive satisfaction of justice.
21:07
Someone had to absorb the blow. Yeah.
21:09
So if God's forgiveness of you required such a staggering cost
21:12
to satisfy divine justice, how should that alter the way you
21:16
forgive others when they incur A moral debt against you?
21:19
That is a heavy question. Does true forgiveness always
21:22
require someone, perhaps even you, the one doing the forgiving
21:25
too willingly absorb a cost? Well, when someone wrongs us,
21:30
there is a tangible moral deficit to forgive them.
21:33
We cannot pretend the deficit does not exist.
21:36
The debt must be absorbed. The Ledger never balances
21:39
itself. The scales of justice demand
21:41
wait. Thank you for joining us on this
21:43
deep dive into John Owens dissertation on divine justice.
21:46
We will catch you next time.