Latest / Reformed Thinking / Can God Delay or Transfer the Punishment of Sin? Owen Answers Twisse | John Owen

Transcript

Can God Delay or Transfer the Punishment of Sin? Owen Answers Twisse | John Owen · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Imagine a a really high profile courtroom.
0:03
The defendant is just clearly guilty of embezzling millions,
0:08
ruining countless lives, and, you know, showing absolute
0:12
contempt for the law. Right.
0:13
The worst kind of guy. Yeah, And the judge looks down
0:15
from the bench, pauses and says, you know what?
0:19
I have the authority to do whatever I want here.
0:21
I forgive you. You're free to go.
0:23
Case dismissed. Wow, right.
0:25
I mean, in a movie, if the defendant was some kind of
0:27
lovable rogue, the audience might actually cheer for that.
0:30
Oh for sure, we love that kind of stuff.
0:31
We do. We often view unmerited leniency
0:35
as this great virtue. But when we transition from
0:38
human courtrooms to the actual mechanics of the universe, a
0:41
pretty chilling question comes up.
0:42
Which is. Well, if God is the absolute
0:44
sovereign over all creation, and he possesses infinite authority,
0:48
why must he punish sin at all? Yeah, that's the big one.
0:51
Why cannot the creator of the universe simply, I don't know,
0:54
wave a hand, clear the Ledger, and just suspend punishment for
0:58
everyone? Welcome to reform thinking.
1:00
That scenario really strikes at the core of how we as human
1:04
beings just completely misunderstand the divine nature
1:08
now so well. We constantly project our own
1:11
localized human concepts of executive clemency onto the
1:16
Creator. I mean, a human governor can
1:19
pardon a criminal because the governor is operating within a
1:22
legal framework that exists entirely outside of themselves.
1:25
Right. The law is just a construct we
1:26
made-up. Spot on.
1:28
It's a construct, but when we look at the mechanics of divine
1:31
justice, we are looking at something completely different.
1:33
It's not just a set of rules on a piece of paper.
1:35
No, not at all. The concept of God simply waving
1:39
a hand to dismiss sin. It basically unravels the
1:42
structural integrity of reality itself.
1:44
That's a heavy claim. It is we are dealing with a Theo
1:47
logical landscape that requires absolute precision.
1:49
Here. A single misplaced premise can
1:52
collapse the entire structure of Orthodox Christian belief.
1:55
Well, precision is the mission for this deep dive.
1:57
Today we are analyzing some highly concentrated excerpts
2:01
from a text by John Owen. A dense text I should add.
2:04
Oh, incredibly dense. It's called a dissertation on
2:06
divine justice. And in this, Owen is
2:09
systematically dismantling the arguments of William Twist.
2:13
Who was a very highly respected theologian in his own right.
2:15
Yeah, he was. And Twist positive that God
2:18
could, by his absolute sovereignty, just choose not to
2:21
punish sin. Right.
2:22
Twist argued that God punishing sin is a free act of his will,
2:26
not some absolute necessity of his nature.
2:29
So to grasp the weight of this text, we really need to set the
2:32
historical and theological stage here.
2:33
Yeah, let's do that. So John Owen is writing in the
2:36
middle of the 17th century, and he is widely considered one of
2:39
the sharpest theological minds of his era.
2:42
He writes in this the scholastic method that basically leaves no
2:47
logical stone unturned. You cover every angle.
2:49
Every single one. And the stakes here go way
2:52
beyond just a spirited academic debate over coffee.
2:55
Owen is building a fortress against theological shifts that
2:58
were threatening the Orthodox understanding of the atonement.
3:01
Because if twist is right. Yes, if Twist's premise holds
3:05
that God can choose to dispense with the punishment of sin
3:08
without any payment, then the crucifixion of Jesus Christ
3:12
becomes this totally arbitrary event.
3:15
It makes it seem like God just chose a really violent option
3:18
for no reason. Precisely.
3:20
It renders Christ's satisfaction completely unnecessary.
3:23
OK, let's unpack this. I want to jump straight into the
3:25
first major clash in the source material.
3:28
Let's do it. Twist builds this trap that
3:30
sounds honestly incredibly logical on the surface.
3:34
It really does. He uses an argument from the
3:36
lesser to the greater twist argues that if God can inflict A
3:40
milder punishment than a specific sin deserves, it
3:43
follows logically that he can suspend the punishment
3:46
altogether. It's a classic philosophical
3:48
move. Right.
3:49
Like if you have a dial that controls the severity of a
3:51
penalty, and you can turn that dial down from A10 to a three,
3:55
logic dictates you can turn that dial all the way down to 0.
3:58
It is a masterful use of human logic.
4:01
Twist is leaning on the observable fact that God does
4:04
not always, you know, obliterate sinners instantly.
4:07
Right, there's obviously grace and patience in the world.
4:10
Yeah, there are varying degrees of consequence.
4:13
So Twist assumes that because the execution of justice has
4:16
variability, the necessity of justice itself must be variable.
4:21
But I want to push back on Owen's behalf here because twist
4:24
is logic assumes all systems work like a sliding scale.
4:28
Which they don't. Right.
4:29
Let us think about the laws of physics instead of a human
4:32
courtroom. Oh, I like that.
4:34
Think about aerodynamics and gravity.
4:37
An airplane uses lift to counteract the immediate
4:40
crushing effect of gravity. The pilot can manipulate how
4:43
fast the plane descends, right? Sure, they control the descent.
4:46
So the pilot is essentially lessening the immediate
4:49
punishment of gravity, but does the pilot's ability to
4:52
manipulate the descent mean the pilot has the authority to turn
4:55
gravity off entirely? No, of course not, No.
4:58
Gravity is an intrendic reality of mass.
5:00
You can alter how you interact with it, but you cannot suspend
5:03
the law itself. Does Owen use a similar
5:06
structural argument against Twis?
5:08
That analogy tracks so well with Owen's methodology.
5:11
Owen steps in and just dismantles Twist's logic by
5:14
introducing a massive 2 fold distinction.
5:16
OK, break that down for us. He says we have to look at how
5:19
we view punishment. Owen says you cannot look at
5:22
punishment as a single flat concept.
5:26
You have to categorize it in two distinct ways.
5:28
What's the first way? The first view deals with
5:30
absolute necessity. Owen explains that punishment in
5:34
its primary sense is the mechanism by which God compels A
5:37
disobedient creature back into order.
5:39
OK. Let's talk about the mechanics
5:41
of that order. Why does a creature rebelling
5:44
necessitate punishment rather than just like a stern warning?
5:49
It comes down to ontology, the study of being.
5:52
God is the supreme Creator. He possesses natural dominion
5:56
over everything He creates, so the creature owes its existence
5:59
and its obedience entirely to God.
6:01
Makes sense. We are the clay, He is the
6:03
Potter. Right.
6:04
So when a creature sins, it is casting off its dependence on
6:07
that supreme dominion. The creature is attempting to
6:10
sever itself from the moral order of the universe.
6:13
It's essentially acting as its own God.
6:14
Yes, and because God is intrinsically holy and just, he
6:18
cannot simply ignore this severing you.
6:20
Can't just let it slide. No.
6:22
Punishment is the mechanism that restores that order.
6:25
It ensures that God's will is executed upon a creature that is
6:28
actively unwilling to submit to it.
6:30
So the creature essentially says I will not glorify you by my
6:34
obedience, and God says then you will glorify my justice by your
6:38
punishment. That is a great way to put it.
6:40
The order is maintained either way.
6:42
In this primary respect, Owen argues that punishment does not
6:46
admit to being milder or having degrees.
6:49
It's not a dial. No.
6:50
It is a binary necessity of God's natural justice.
6:53
The vindication of God's holiness must happen.
6:55
It is an on and off switch. The order must be restored.
6:59
Because God's justice is an essential attribute of His
7:01
nature. Right, like his omniscience or
7:03
his omnipresence, he cannot choose to stop being just any
7:07
more than he can choose to stop knowing everything.
7:10
OK, but Twist's observation still remains true.
7:14
We do see different severities of punishment.
7:16
In reality we do so if the necessity is a binary switch.
7:20
How does Owen account for the variability we see in the
7:22
biblical text and in the world around us?
7:24
That leads right into Owen's second category, which deals
7:27
with modes and degrees. OK, so this is where the
7:30
variability comes in. Yes, Owen clarifies that while
7:34
the necessity of punishment is fixed by God's nature, the
7:37
specific administration of that punishment, like the actual
7:40
execution of it, falls under God's wisdom and will.
7:44
I see. So God assigned specific modes,
7:47
degrees, and circumstances to punishment for the greater
7:50
manifestation of His glory. That is where God has liberty,
7:54
He can choose the timing, the specific instrument of judgment,
7:57
and the circumstantial severity. So Twist is confusing the nature
8:01
of the thing with the administration of the thing.
8:03
That is the core error, yeah. Owen is basically telling twist.
8:06
Yes, God exercises liberty over the degrees of punishment, but
8:10
that fact does not mean the fundamental nature of the
8:13
punishment itself could be dispensed with.
8:15
The necessity takes its rise from God's natural justice.
8:19
You can change the mode, but you cannot eliminate the necessity.
8:22
And that is Owens final checkmate on this particular
8:25
argument. Twist looked at God altering the
8:27
circumstances of a penalty and falsely concluded God was
8:31
altering the fundamental rule of the universe.
8:33
But Twist does not concede easily.
8:36
No, he doesn't. The text shows he comes back
8:39
with another angle, another attempt to prove God can let sin
8:43
slide without requiring a substitute.
8:45
He's persistent. He brings up an argument based
8:47
on symmetry. He states God can reward beyond
8:51
merit, therefore he can punish less than what is merited.
8:56
So if God can go above and beyond the baseline in a
8:59
positive direction, giving unearned grace, He should be
9:03
able to go below the baseline in the negative direction, offering
9:06
unearned leniency. What's fascinating here is that
9:09
human logic loves symmetry. It just feels balanced to us.
9:13
Really does. If an equation balances on the
9:15
right, we just assume it must mirror itself on the left.
9:18
Right. But Owen introduces a massive
9:21
theological roadblock to this line of thinking.
9:24
He points out the complete asymmetry between remunerating
9:27
grace, which deals with rewards, and punitory justice, which
9:30
deals with punishments. So why are they asymmetrical?
9:33
Because, I mean, in a human workplace, if a manager can hand
9:36
out a surprise holiday bonus that no one actually earned,
9:38
Yeah, why can't that same manager just ignore it when an
9:41
employee steals from the register?
9:43
Good question. Both acts require the manager to
9:46
ignore the strict baseline of what is earned.
9:49
So why is God different? Well, Owen relies on a
9:52
theological rule of opposites. To explain this, he cites a
9:56
scholastic theologian named Macovius.
9:58
OK, what does Macovius say? The rule states that arguments
10:01
from opposites do not always hold good in theology.
10:04
Just because something operates a certain way in the positive
10:07
does not mean the inverse is true in the negative.
10:10
OK, give me an example of that. Think about the nature of a
10:12
creature before God. No creature can ever put God in
10:15
its dead. Even if a human being lived a
10:18
completely sinless life, that person is only doing what they
10:22
were created to do in the first place.
10:23
Right, they haven't earned extra credit from the creator.
10:26
No, because the creature already owes God everything.
10:28
You cannot earn a bonus by just paying your baseline rent.
10:31
Right. Therefore, any reward God gives
10:34
is an act of pure grace. It depends entirely on God's
10:38
good pleasure, His free will. He can give it to whomever he
10:41
chooses, in whatever amount he chooses.
10:43
So. Grace operates under the domain
10:45
of God's absolute freedom. Yes, but justice operates under
10:50
a completely different relational rule.
10:52
Divine justice necessarily operates toward its object to
10:55
punish the Sinner. Because to do otherwise would be
10:58
a denial of himself. Yes, if God were to ignore sin,
11:03
He would be denying his own holy nature.
11:05
He would be saying that rebellion against His Holiness
11:08
does not matter. Going back to the manager
11:10
analogy, the manager handing out the holiday bonus is acting out
11:14
of generosity with their own excess resources, but the
11:17
manager ignoring the theft is actually violating the legal and
11:20
ethical framework of the company.
11:23
The manager has the freedom to be generous, but the manager is
11:26
bound by fiduciary duty to address the theft.
11:29
The asymmetry is absolute, Owen points out.
11:32
That Twist is trying to bind God's justice to the exact same
11:35
rules as God's grace. Which doesn't work.
11:37
No. Owen reiterates that this entire
11:40
line of reasoning from Twist still only deals with the
11:42
degrees of punishment. Owen never disputed that God has
11:45
liberty and how he administers the circumstances.
11:48
He only disputes that God can ignore the fundamental necessity
11:51
of punishment itself. I want to pause here for a
11:53
second and look at the broader context of this debate, because
11:57
Owen clearly respects Twis. Oh, absolutely.
12:00
The text mentions Owen calling him an illustrious man with many
12:04
and great qualities. So why is Owen dedicating so
12:06
much ink, I mean so much intense intellectual energy, to refuting
12:12
a man he respects over what might seem like a like a
12:15
scholastic technicality? It's a fair question.
12:18
Why does this specific nuance matter to someone listening to
12:22
this deep dive centuries later? Because friendly fire and
12:25
theology can hand the opponent the exact ammunition they need
12:28
to destroy the entire system, Owen introduces this massive
12:32
threat looming in the background, the Sicinians.
12:35
OK, who are they? Specifically, he mentions a
12:37
writer named Johannes Crelias, who authored a book called Of
12:41
the True Religion. The Sicinians were a highly
12:44
rationalistic group, gaining a lot of traction in Europe at the
12:46
time. What do they believe?
12:48
Well, they deny the Trinity, they deny the deity of Christ,
12:50
and they vehemently denied penal substitutionary atonement.
12:54
Oh wow, so they were watching this debate between Orthodox
12:57
theologians and just taking notes.
12:59
Yes, they were hijacking the information.
13:01
Let us trace the logic of the Sicinians.
13:04
They viewed God purely as a benevolent, moral governor.
13:08
They believed God's justice was just an effect of his free will,
13:11
not an essential property of his nature.
13:14
So when they read an orthodox heavyweight like William Twist
13:17
conceding that God can dispense with the punishment of sin by
13:20
his absolute sovereignty. The Sicinians took that
13:23
concession and ran with it. They did.
13:25
They took that first domino and flicked it.
13:27
They argued if Twist is right and God can dispense with
13:30
punishment entirely by just choosing to do so, then God can
13:34
offer a free pardon without demanding any satisfaction for
13:38
the sin. And if we connect this to the
13:40
bigger picture, yeah, if God can offer a free pardon without any
13:43
satisfaction, the final domino falls, which is the cross
13:46
itself. Oh, I see.
13:47
If the Sicinians are right, if God can just freely pardon
13:50
humanity without his justice being satisfied, then the entire
13:53
mechanism of Christ taking on the wrath of God is rendered
13:56
strictly unnecessary. It just becomes arbitrary.
13:58
Yes, Jesus's sacrifice becomes nothing more than a moral
14:03
example, maybe a display of divine solidarity with human
14:07
suffering, but definitely not a legal necessity to secure a
14:11
salvation. That is a staggering
14:13
realization. It really is a seemingly minor
14:15
academic concession about whether God's justice is an act
14:18
of his will or a property of nature can actually be
14:22
weaponized to dismantle the entire framework of orthodox
14:26
Christianity. Because Owen sees the Sicinians
14:28
using Twiss's words to build a system where the cross is
14:31
pointless. If justice can be waived, then
14:35
the Father pouring out his wrath on the Son is.
14:38
It's almost an act of cosmic cruelty rather than a necessary
14:41
act of cosmic justice. That's the exact danger.
14:44
So Owen is writing to preserve the glory of divine justice and
14:47
the strict necessity of Christ's satisfaction.
14:50
You can't let it slide. He cannot let Twis's logical
14:52
leaps go unchallenged because the foundational understanding
14:55
of the gospel is at stake here. He has to seal every crack in
14:59
the theological foundation. But the source text forces us to
15:01
confront a structural problem. OK, what is it?
15:04
Well, anyone meeting the historical accounts in the Old
15:06
Testament might raise a massive objection here.
15:09
Oh, I see where you're going. Right.
15:11
If punishment is absolutely necessary, if it is this rigid
15:15
requirement of God's natural justice, how do we explain the
15:19
biblical record? The leniency we see, yeah.
15:22
We constantly read about God holding back His wrath, delaying
15:26
a sentence, or altering a penalty for the nation of
15:29
Israel. We do see that a lot.
15:31
So if Owen's rule is absolute, how does he account for God
15:34
relenting without contradicting his own premise?
15:37
This is where Owen demonstrates incredible systematic thinking.
15:41
He solves this apparent contradiction by explaining the
15:44
covenantal structure of ancient Israel.
15:46
OK, break that down. He says we must view God in two
15:49
distinct roles or jurisdictions when he acts as an avenger of
15:53
sin in the biblical text 2. Hats essentially, let us examine
15:56
the first jurisdiction. The first role is God acting as
15:59
the legislator of the Jewish Republic.
16:02
Owen actually cites the ancient historian Josephus here, noting
16:05
that the political structure of Israel was a literal theocracy.
16:09
Right. God was their actual political
16:11
king. Yes, God was not just their
16:13
spiritual deity. He was their civil king.
16:16
He issued civil laws, dietary laws, and national penalties.
16:20
OK. And in this specific localized
16:23
role, God dispensed with temporary earthly punishments
16:26
that were denounced in his threatenings.
16:28
He acted like a civil magistrate.
16:30
So he could delay things. Yeah, he altered the place, the
16:33
degree and the time of execution for these temporal penalties
16:37
depending on the national posture of Israel.
16:39
OK, that makes sense. Within the framework of a
16:41
national covenant, yeah, a human king can decide to delay a siege
16:45
or lift an economic based on the behavior of the vassal state.
16:48
Right. But what is the second
16:50
jurisdiction? The second role is God acting as
16:53
the Supreme Lord and just Judge of the universe.
16:56
This is his cosmic jurisdiction over all moral creatures.
16:59
OK, the bigger picture. Yes, in this universal role
17:03
dealing with the violation of His eternal moral law, God does
17:06
not dispense with the eternal punishment of sin.
17:09
That punishment will absolutely be inflicted at the appointed
17:12
time. Either on the Sinner or on a
17:13
substitute. Here's where it gets really
17:15
interesting. This totally dissolves the
17:18
subtleties of Sicilian writers like Crelius.
17:20
It completely takes the wind out of their sails.
17:23
Because you cannot take an example of God acting in his
17:27
first role as a civil leader, delaying an earthly famine or a
17:31
military defeat for Israel, and apply it to his second role.
17:35
Exactly. You can't apply it to God as the
17:37
cosmic judge dealing with eternal justice.
17:40
The categories are completely different the.
17:42
Sicilians were confusing the geopolitical rules of a specific
17:45
epoch with the reversal laws of reality.
17:47
They were mixing up the jurisdictions.
17:49
Let me try an analogy here. Consider a modern judge who is
17:53
also a parent. OK, a parent might tell their
17:55
teenager if you break curfew you are grounded for a month.
17:59
That is a domestic temporary law meant to govern the household,
18:03
right? Let us say the teenager breaks
18:05
curfew but shows genuine contraction and the parent
18:08
decides to waive the grounding. The parent has the authority to
18:12
do that within the jurisdiction of the household.
18:14
Because it's a household rule. Exactly.
18:17
But if that same parent puts on their robe, goes to the federal
18:21
courthouse, and presides over a trial for a capital offense,
18:26
that judge cannot simply waive a life sentence because the
18:29
defendant seems sorry. The universal judicial law
18:33
requires satisfaction. That is a brilliant way to frame
18:36
it. God, as the civil leader of
18:38
Israel could waive a national grounding, but God, as the judge
18:41
of the universe cannot waive the requirements of eternal justice.
18:45
That captures the distinction perfectly, I think.
18:47
It does. Owen shuts down the Sicinian
18:49
argument. By separating the two spheres of
18:51
God's governance, He proves that temporary leniency in a civil
18:55
theocracy does not negate the absolute necessity of eternal
18:59
justice. Amazing.
19:01
OK, we then encounter Twist's fourth argument, and I have to
19:04
say, when I read this section of the source text, I had to reread
19:07
it to make sure I understood what Twist was actually
19:09
positing. It's a bit.
19:10
Shocking. It is, Twist argues God is able
19:12
to inflict any torture, even an infernal one, upon an innocent
19:16
person without considering demerit.
19:18
Let that sink in. And he concludes, therefore he
19:23
can suspend the greatest punishment despite the greatest
19:27
demerit. Yeah, wait, God can inflict
19:30
infernal torture on an innocent person?
19:32
That sounds completely contrary to the nature of a just God.
19:36
How can a respected theologian even suggest that premise?
19:39
It is an alarming premise, and it requires a really careful
19:42
dissection of the scholastic mindset of the time.
19:44
OK, help me understand his thought process.
19:46
Twist is trying to stretch the concept of God's absolute
19:49
sovereignty to its absolute logical limit.
19:52
He is suggesting that God is so transcendent, so unbound by any
19:56
external rules, that he could theoretically inflict maximum
19:59
suffering on an innocent being without doing anything wrong.
20:02
Just because he is the creator and owns the creature.
20:04
Right Twist thinks that if God has the sheer sovereign
20:07
capability to do something that extreme without any prior sin to
20:11
justify it. Then surely he has the sovereign
20:13
capability to withhold punishment when there actually
20:15
is sin. That's his logic, yeah.
20:17
I understand the logical structure he's attempting to
20:19
build. If God can bypass justice in the
20:22
negative direction by afflicting the innocent, he can bypass it
20:26
in the positive direction by clearing the guilty right.
20:29
But Owen does not let that premise stand, obviously.
20:32
How does he attack? It Owen attacks it right at the
20:34
root, he focuses on a severe definitional error in Twist's
20:39
premise. A definitional error.
20:41
Yes, Twist is conflating 2 completely different concepts,
20:46
torture and punishment. Oh, I see.
20:48
Owen points out a rock solid definitional truth.
20:51
Inflicting infernal punishment on an innocent person is
20:54
literally impossible. It is a contradiction in terms
20:58
like drawing a square circle. Because punishment carries a
21:01
specific forensic weight. Spot on.
21:03
Punishment, by its very definition, supposes A
21:06
transgression. You cannot punish someone who
21:08
has not broken a law, right? You might be able to afflict
21:11
them, you might cause them pain, you might subject them to what
21:13
we would call torture. But you cannot punish them.
21:16
Punishment is a specific retributive response to guilt.
21:20
But I mean, human legal systems punish innocent people by
21:23
mistake all the time. They do.
21:24
Sometimes a corrupt system even punishes the innocent
21:28
intentionally just to maintain social control or political
21:31
dominance. Why could a sovereign God not do
21:35
something similar? Well, because human systems are
21:38
flawed, finite reflections of justice.
21:41
When a human court convicts an innocent person, it is a failure
21:45
of the system's knowledge or integrity.
21:48
But God's knowledge is perfect and His integrity is absolute.
21:52
For God to declare an innocent person guilty, he would have to
21:56
lie, which violates his nature. He can't lie.
21:58
Right. Owen is drawing a hard line in
22:01
the philosophy of language and justice here.
22:03
An innocent person can suffer affliction.
22:05
I mean, think of the biblical narrative of Job.
22:07
Yeah, Job suffered immensely. But not as a punishment for a
22:10
specific crime. It was a test job was not being
22:14
punished in the forensic. Sense.
22:15
So the word punishment absolutely requires A preceding
22:18
crime. Yes, and following Owens logic,
22:20
we reach an inevitable conclusion that just destroys
22:23
Twist's argument. Let's hear it.
22:25
If you cannot punish the innocent because punishment
22:27
requires a transgression, then the inverse is also true, which
22:31
is not. Inflicting punishment upon a
22:33
guilty person is also impossible.
22:34
Wow, why? Because transgression inherently
22:38
requires punishment. The two concepts are locked
22:41
together in the moral fabric of the universe.
22:43
Sin demands punishment just as much as innocence rejects it.
22:47
It is a closed logical loop. Completely.
22:49
Closed Twist tries to break the loop by using extreme
22:53
hypothetical scenarios about torturing the innocent, and Owen
22:57
essentially just points to the dictionary definition of divine
23:00
justice. He says you are mixing up your
23:02
terms, William. You cannot use an impossible
23:04
hypothetical punishing the innocent to prove a theological
23:08
point about sparing the guilty. And that brings us to the final
23:11
clause of Twist's argument in this section.
23:13
Twist, perhaps realizing his logical constructs are failing
23:16
him a bit here. Yeah, he's running out of
23:18
options. He appeals to the disposition of
23:20
God. He tries to claim that God is
23:22
more willing to do good than to punish.
23:25
Which again, sounds very appealing to modern years.
23:28
We want a deity whose primary disposition is benevolence,
23:31
right? Someone who prefers doing good
23:34
over enacting strict retribution.
23:36
It sounds super appealing. This raises an important
23:39
question, though, about theological consistency within
23:42
Twist's own writings. Oh.
23:44
Did he contradict himself? Massively, Owen catches twist in
23:48
a glaring contradiction here, Owen expresses genuine
23:51
astonishment in the text. What did Twist say before?
23:55
Well, Owen points out, that Twist in his other major
23:58
theological works had used very rigorous arguments to disallow
24:02
any natural inclination of the deity toward the good of the
24:05
creature. Wait, so Twist had previously
24:08
argued that God is not naturally bent on making creatures happy,
24:12
but when he needs to win this specific argument against Owen
24:15
about dispensing with punishment, he suddenly argues
24:18
that God is more willing to do good than punish.
24:21
Twist flimped his theological posture just to make a specific
24:24
argument work. That's a bad look.
24:26
It is. But Owen does not just point out
24:28
the hypocrisy. He goes further and untaxed the
24:31
severe nuance of God's willingness.
24:33
OK, how does he explain God's will?
24:35
He introduces a classic Reformed distinction regarding the will
24:38
of God. He says we have to differentiate
24:41
between God's perceptive will and his decreative will.
24:45
Let us parse those two categories because those are big
24:47
terms. Sure, the perceptive will, which
24:49
is the will that commands and exhorts, tells us what God
24:52
approves of morally. God commands us to do good.
24:56
He desires obedience. He commands all people
24:59
everywhere to repent. Exact.
25:01
I mean, yes, that's right. In that sense, God approves of
25:04
the good. OK, So what is the decreative
25:06
will? God's decreative will, His
25:08
eternal decrees, and the natural actions of his justice operates
25:11
differently. When a creature violates the
25:14
moral law, God's natural justice mechanically requires a
25:18
response. It's triggered automatically.
25:20
Yes, God is not naturally inclined to bestow benefits like
25:24
a free pardon upon a sinful creature in a way that opposes
25:27
His justice without regard to Christ and His satisfaction.
25:31
So God's command for us to be good does not override his
25:34
decree to punish evil. Correct twist is confusing God's
25:38
general benevolence toward creation with God's specific
25:41
natural requirement to punish transgression.
25:43
God's goodness does not cancel out His justice.
25:46
It can't. So what does this all mean?
25:47
When we pull all these threads together, we see a relentless
25:50
consistency in John Owen's method.
25:52
Relentless is the perfect word. Every single one of Owens
25:56
refutations points in the exact same direction.
25:58
Think about it. Twist tries to find a loophole
26:01
in the absolute necessity of justice by using the variability
26:05
of degrees of punishment. And Owen closes that loophole by
26:09
separating the nature of justice from its administration, right?
26:12
Then Twist tries to use the asymmetry of grace.
26:15
And Owen closes that by showing grace and justice operate on
26:18
entirely different axis. Then Twist tries to use Old
26:22
Testament examples of leniency. Owen closes that by separating
26:26
God's civil theocracy from his cosmic courtroom.
26:29
And finally, Twist tries to use hypotheticals about innocent
26:32
suffering. Which Owen closes by enforcing
26:34
the strict definition of punishment.
26:36
It's amazing. And by closing every single one
26:39
of those logical loopholes, Owen forces the reader to look
26:43
directly at the cross of Jesus Christ.
26:45
That is the whole point of his work.
26:47
If justice cannot be waived, if the penalty cannot just be
26:51
dismissed by a sovereign decree without a payment, then the only
26:54
way a sinful creature can be reconciled to a holy God is if
26:58
that justice is satisfied by a substitute.
27:01
The absolute rigidity of the law highlights the sheer unavoidable
27:05
necessity of the atonement. Christ had to die because God
27:09
could not simply wave a hand. Right.
27:11
Understanding these rigorous distinctions is critical for
27:14
anyone trying to grasp the mechanics of orthodox theology.
27:17
It really is. It guards you against adopting
27:20
ideas that sound generous on the surface, like the Socinian idea
27:24
of a God who just drops all punishments out of sheer love.
27:28
Which again, sounds really nice to us.
27:30
It sounds nice, but this text demonstrates how that line of
27:33
thinking completely undermines the reason for Christ's
27:35
sacrifice. It turns the crucifixion into a
27:38
tragic, meaningless gesture rather than the central cosmic
27:42
necessity of human salvation. It forces us to realize that
27:45
divine justice is not an arbitrary set of rules that God
27:48
invented and can just choose to ignore whenever he feels like
27:51
it. Justice is the very character of
27:53
God in action against rebellion. It makes you view the concept of
27:57
justice in a totally different light, which leaves a final
28:00
thought for you to consider as we wrap this up.
28:02
Let's hear it. If divine justice mechanically
28:05
requires that every transgression receive its due,
28:09
and human legal systems are meant in some limited capacity
28:13
to reflect divine morality, Yeah, how should that shape our
28:16
modern views on criminal justice?
28:18
Yeah. That's a tough one.
28:19
Right. Do modern courtrooms lean too
28:22
far toward the unmerited leniency that Twist argued for
28:26
at the expense of the strict retributive Justice Owen
28:29
defends. It's a debate we're having right
28:31
now in society. If rehabilitation entirely
28:34
replaces retribution in human systems, do we lose the
28:37
reflection of divine justice in society?
28:40
It is a heavy question regarding the intersection of theology and
28:43
civic law. Thank you for joining us for
28:45
this deep dive into the original sources.
28:47
We will catch you next time on Reformed Thinking.