Latest / Reformed Thinking / Why Christ Had to Die: Divine Justice and the Necessity of Satisfaction | John Owen

Transcript

Why Christ Had to Die: Divine Justice and the Necessity of Satisfaction | John Owen · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reformed thinking. You know when you look at an
0:03
X-ray of a broken bone, you expect a certain level of cold,
0:08
hard reality. Right, yeah, there's no hiding
0:11
the damage. Exact.
0:12
Well, precisely. Like a simple hairline fracture
0:14
might just require a splint and some rest.
0:16
But imagine you were looking at an X-ray of a severe conduted
0:20
fracture where the bone is shattered into multiple pieces.
0:24
Yeah, that is a serious catastrophic situation.
0:26
It is. And the doctor does not point at
0:28
that image and say, well, we have a few aesthetic choices
0:31
here. Maybe we just wrap it in a
0:32
bandage and think positive thoughts.
0:34
Absolutely not. The physical reality of the
0:36
damage dictates a very specific, highly invasive mechanical
0:40
intervention. Right, the surgeon has to go in
0:42
with pins and plates because the mechanics of the brake require
0:45
precise mechanical fix. There are no alternate routes
0:48
there. The reality demands a specific
0:51
response. And today we are initiating a
0:53
deep dive into a theological text that approaches the concept
0:56
of human sin and divine forgiveness with that very same
1:00
level of surgical, unyielding precision.
1:02
That analogy is absolutely spot on for what we are looking at
1:06
today because, you know, we are so accustomed to treating
1:09
spiritual matters as ethereal or emotional or just highly
1:13
subjective. Yeah, we want forgiveness to be
1:15
a feeling, like a simple wave of the hand from the heavens.
1:18
Right, a blank check. But the source material we are
1:21
investigating today operates on the premise that the universe
1:24
has an immovable moral architecture.
1:27
We are looking at an excerpt from Chapter 7 of John Owens
1:30
monumental work, a dissertation on divine justice.
1:34
And for those who might not be familiar with the landscape of
1:37
17th century Puritan theology, John Owen is a Titan.
1:41
Oh, absolutely. A massive figure.
1:42
He was writing from the perspective of Protestant
1:45
Christianity, strictly adhering to Reformed theology and the
1:48
framework of the Westminster Confession, and our specific
1:51
mission in this deep dive is to understand Owens argument for
1:55
the absolute categorical necessity of God punishing sin.
1:59
Yeah, we are going to analyze why the death of Jesus Christ on
2:01
the cross was not just a tragic option or a beautiful
2:05
sentimental gesture of solidarity with human suffering.
2:09
Right. It was a strict, undeniable and
2:11
legally binding divine necessity.
2:13
And it is a massive undertaking, really, because Owen is pushing
2:17
against a very natural human assumption.
2:19
He writes with the precise syllogistic logic of a 17th
2:23
century academic. He really builds his arguments
2:25
like a master stone Mason constructing a fortress wall,
2:29
doesn't he? He does stone by stone, premise
2:31
by premise, just making sure no enemy fire can breakthrough.
2:34
He is methodically dismantling the idea that God could forgive
2:39
sin without a substitute taking the penalty.
2:42
Right. And to frame this entire
2:43
conversation, I want you, the listener to put yourself in a
2:46
hypothetical scenario. It is a question you have
2:48
probably heard or maybe even asked yourself at some point.
2:51
It is a very common objection. It is.
2:53
If God is perfectly loving, omniscient, and possesses
2:56
absolute capability over the entire universe, why could he
3:00
not just look down at humanity, see our rebellion, and say I
3:03
forgive you? Just wave it all away.
3:05
Yeah, why not just cancel the debt with a word?
3:07
Why did there have to be blood? Why the horror and the brutality
3:10
of the cross? That question, that tension
3:12
between infinite love and infinite justice, is the central
3:16
nerve we are going to dissect. And that hypothetical scenario
3:20
is perhaps the single most common objection raised against
3:23
the Christian gospel. It sounds so reasonable to the
3:28
modern ear. It does.
3:29
It makes logical sense on the surface.
3:31
Right, because if I could forgive someone who wrongs me
3:34
without requiring them to bleed, why cannot the creator of the
3:37
universe do the same? Surely he is more magnanimous
3:40
than I am. That is the thought process.
3:42
Yeah, but John Owen tackles this objection by looking at the very
3:45
nature of who God is. He argues from the essential
3:48
attributes of the Creator, proving that bypassing justice
3:52
is a logical and moral impossibility.
3:54
So it is not that God lacks the desire to be merciful.
3:57
No, not at all. It is rather that his essential
3:59
nature forbids him from acting unjustly.
4:02
Let's break down the first major argument Owen presents in our
4:05
text. He labels it as argument 3 in
4:07
this specific chapter, and he frames it as a classic syllogism
4:11
concerning the glory of God. And for anyone who might have
4:14
skipped formal logic in college, a syllogism is a structured
4:17
argument containing a major proposition, a minor
4:20
proposition, and a conclusion. And that conclusion unavoidably
4:24
follows if the first two premises are true, right?
4:27
Spot on. Yes.
4:28
So Owens major proposition is this.
4:30
God must preserve his glory entire to all eternity.
4:34
He argues this is a necessity of God's nature because God cannot
4:38
but love himself. He actually cites the book of
4:40
Isaiah chapter 42 verse 8, where God explicitly declares I am the
4:45
Lord. That is my name and my glory.
4:48
Will I not give to another? It is crucial to pause here, I
4:51
think, and define what Owen means by glory, because in our
4:54
modern vocabulary we often equate glory with fame or
4:57
applause or public recognition. Yeah, we think of a glorious
5:01
athlete or a glorious military victory, something very external
5:05
and fleeting. But in Reformed theology, God's
5:07
glory is not some fragile ego project.
5:10
The Hebrew concept of glory implies weight or substance.
5:14
God's glory is the visible manifestation of His infinite
5:18
perfections. Right.
5:19
It is the objective reality of His supreme worth.
5:23
When Owen says God must preserve his glory, he means God must act
5:27
in perfect consistency with his own supreme reality.
5:30
And that leads directly into his minor proposition, which is the
5:33
assumption driving the argument. If sin exists, God cannot
5:37
preserve His glory free from violation without punishing that
5:40
sin. And so the conclusion drops like
5:42
an anvil on the reader. God must punish sin.
5:45
If he does not, his glory is violated.
5:47
He ceases to be perfectly consistent with his own nature.
5:49
It is a brilliant, inescapable structure.
5:52
It really corners the reader because if you accept the
5:54
biblical premise that God is fundamentally committed to His
5:57
own perfect reality, you have to accept the conclusion.
6:00
What is fascinating is how Owen breaks down this concept of
6:03
glory into 3 distinct pillars that are directly assaulted by
6:06
human sin. Yes, those 3 pillars are
6:09
justice, holiness, and dominion. If any one of these three is
6:13
compromised, God's glory is shattered.
6:16
I am really hung up on that first pillar, justice, because
6:20
normally in our human interactions, if someone ROMs me
6:23
and I just let it go without demanding restitution, society
6:26
views me as the bigger person. Yeah, you are seen as gracious,
6:30
magnanimous. But Owen relies on some
6:32
incredibly heavy scriptural backing to say that if God does
6:35
that, it is actually a catastrophic failure.
6:38
He quotes the book of Proverbs, chapter 17, verse 15.
6:41
That is a stark verse. It really is.
6:44
It states he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth
6:47
the just, even they both our abomination to the Lord.
6:51
That verse is a stumbling block for a lot of people who want a
6:54
purely accommodating deity. Owen is taking that proverb to
6:57
his logical zenith. He is saying that for God to
7:00
emit justice, to simply let a guilty, rebellious creature walk
7:03
free without the penalty being paid in pairs, his glory just as
7:07
much as if God were to actively commit a malicious injustice.
7:10
And we naturally understand that condemning an innocent person is
7:13
wicked. We all agree on that, but the
7:16
Bible says justifying the wicked is equally an abomination.
7:19
We also see a reference to Genesis chapter 18 verse 25
7:22
where Abraham asks shall not the judge of all the earth do right?
7:26
Right. Owen is essentially arguing that
7:29
a judge who lets a murderer walk free out of sheer sentimentality
7:33
is not a good judge. He's a corrupt judge.
7:36
Yeah, we require our human judges to uphold the law
7:39
regardless of their personal feelings toward the defendant.
7:42
Imagine if a judge's son is murdered and the murderer stands
7:45
before him. The court, the judge says, well,
7:47
I am a loving person, so I'm just going to let you go.
7:49
The entire courtroom would erupt in outrage.
7:52
The victim's blood cries out for justice.
7:54
Precisely. If God simply waves away sin, he
7:58
ceases to be just. His justice is not a hat he
8:02
wears when he feels like being strict.
8:04
It is His very essence. So if he acts against His
8:07
essence, he ceases to be God. Declaring those who are worthy
8:10
of death to be completely clear of guilt without any penalty
8:13
being paid obliterates the glory of His justice.
8:16
That brings us to the second pillar Owen identifies, which is
8:19
holiness. You brought up the idea of his
8:22
essence, and holiness is absolutely central to that in
8:26
the Westminster framework. Owen quotes the book of Habakkuk
8:29
chapter one verse 13, pointing out that God is of pure eyes
8:33
than to behold evil and cannot look on iniquity.
8:36
He also brings in Joshua chapter 24 verse 19 where Joshua issues
8:40
a terrifying warning to the Israelites.
8:42
Oh, I remember that one. He tells them, ye cannot serve
8:45
the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God.
8:48
He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.
8:51
Which does not mean God lacks the capacity for salvation, but
8:55
it means He will not simply overlook rebellion.
8:58
Holiness is a concept we have severely watered down in modern
9:01
times. We really have.
9:02
We often think of it as just being exceptionally nice or
9:05
morally upright. But biblical holiness is an
9:08
active, burning repulsion of anything contrary to God's
9:11
perfect nature. Think of a sterile operating
9:14
room. OK, an operating room.
9:16
If someone walks in covered in mud and bacteria, the sterility
9:20
of the room is compromised. The mud has to be expelled.
9:23
Sin is not just a minor infraction or a mistake.
9:26
It is a defilement, a corruption.
9:29
Yeah, a spiritual contagion. God's holiness means he cannot
9:33
coexist with this contagion. I am thinking about the imagery
9:36
of the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation chapter 21 verse
9:39
27. It explicitly states that
9:41
nothing defiled or anyone who does what is detestable or false
9:46
will ever enter it. There is this massive
9:48
unbridgeable gap between absolute purity and the
9:52
pollution of sin. And the church has to be washed
9:54
by Christ as Ephesians chapter 5 describes, because well as
9:58
Hebrews Chapter 9 lays down as a bedrock rule, without the
10:01
shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
10:03
The shedding of blood in the biblical context represents life
10:06
poured out in judgment to cleanse that defilement.
10:09
It is a visceral, severe mechanism.
10:11
So without that vicarious punishment, without a substitute
10:14
absorbing the wrath and cleansing the stain, the
10:17
pollution remains. And a holy God must banish it
10:20
from His presence. He cannot invite contamination
10:23
into the throne room of the universe.
10:25
Which brings us to the third pillar of God's glory that Owen
10:29
highlights, and that is Dominion.
10:31
This one feels very political, almost like a discussion of
10:34
medieval kingship. It does.
10:36
Sin is described as a renunciation of God's natural
10:39
dominion over rational creatures.
10:41
It is high treason. It is the creature looking at
10:44
the Creator, the one who sustains their very breath, and
10:47
saying, I will not be ruled by you, I will be my own God.
10:51
And Owen argues that this broken dominion can only be restored
10:54
through vicarious punishment. Treason requires a response or
10:58
else the sovereigns authority is entirely voided.
11:01
If a king ignores an open rebellion in his provinces, he's
11:04
effectively abdicating his throne.
11:06
Exactly. But I understand the logic.
11:08
I do. I want to push back on Omens
11:10
framework here for a moment though.
11:11
Does this necessity make God sound constrained by his own
11:14
rules? How so?
11:15
Think of a human king who constantly demands his own
11:18
glory, who demands people bow to him and refuses to forgive
11:22
anyone who slights his dominion without severe punishment.
11:26
We would call that king vain, petty, insecure and tyrannical.
11:30
We certainly would. So how is God's relentless
11:33
demand for his own glory and his refusal to let slights to his
11:37
dominion go unpunished different from human vanity?
11:40
That is an incredibly perceptive question, and it is a trap many
11:44
philosophers and skeptics fall into when trying to understand
11:47
God's motives. Because it sounds so similar on
11:49
the surface. It does, but we constantly
11:52
project our fallen, fragmented human psychology onto the
11:55
Creator. When a human king demands glory,
11:58
he is demanding something he does not inherently possessed by
12:00
his own nature. Right, he is a creature seeking
12:03
validation from other creatures. Yes, it is vanity because it is
12:07
an illusion of supremacy. He bleeds and dies just like the
12:10
peasants. He's trying to fill a void.
12:12
Absolutely. But God is the objective,
12:15
supreme perfection of all reality.
12:17
His nature is the actual standard of truth, goodness and
12:21
beauty. So it is a completely different
12:22
category. Entirely for God to love His own
12:26
glory is for Him to love what is objectively the highest good in
12:30
existence. If God were to value anything
12:33
above Himself or prioritize the comfort of rebellious creatures
12:36
over His own perfect justice, He would be committing idolatry.
12:40
Oh wow, because he would be valuing A lesser thing over the
12:44
supreme thing. Right.
12:45
Therefore, his dedication to his own glory is not vanity, it is
12:50
the ultimate expression of truth.
12:52
He is not constrained by external rules.
12:55
He is acting in perfect consistency with his own
12:57
infinite perfection. That distinction changes
13:00
everything. It is the difference between an
13:02
insecure actor demanding applause from an audience and
13:05
the sun simply radiating heat and light.
13:07
Because that is the fundamental reality of what a star is.
13:10
That is a great way to put it. The sun does not shine to boost
13:13
its ego, it shines because to do anything else would mean it
13:16
ceases to be a *. But this reality that God's
13:19
justice, holiness and dominion mathematically and legally
13:22
require the punishment of sin creates a massive, seemingly
13:25
insurmountable problem for humanity.
13:27
It really does. It means every single one of us
13:30
is on death row and the judge cannot legally just open the
13:33
cell doors and let us out. Which brings us to the opposing
13:36
views of Owen's day. Because he was not writing this
13:39
dissertation in a vacuum, he was actively battling theological
13:43
movements that wanted to soften this reality.
13:46
Specifically regarding this idea of easy consequence free
13:50
forgiveness. Yes, Owen addresses his
13:52
adversaries head on. He identifies them primarily as
13:56
the Sicinians. For our listeners who might not
13:58
be up on 16th and 17th century theological controversies, who
14:02
were the Sicinians and what were they arguing?
14:04
The Sicilian movement was a highly rationalist theological
14:08
branch named after Fausto Sicini.
14:10
They were precursors to modern Unitarianism.
14:12
OK, so they leaned heavily on human reason.
14:15
Very much so. They denied several orthodox
14:18
Christian doctrines, including the Trinity.
14:20
But highly relevant to our discussion, they vehemently deny
14:23
the necessity of penal substitutionary atonement.
14:27
Their position was essentially what you described in your
14:29
opening hypothetical scenario, right?
14:32
They believed that God, by a simple nod or word, could freely
14:35
pardon sin without any satisfaction made.
14:38
They thought God could just snap his fingers and make the dead
14:41
disappear. They argued that God could do
14:43
this without diminishing his glory simply because He is the
14:46
supreme Ruler and can do whatever he wants with His own
14:48
laws. So they viewed God more as an
14:51
offended, private individual who can choose to drop a lawsuit,
14:55
rather than the moral bedrock of the universe whose nature
14:57
demands justice. Exactly, and Owens response to
15:01
this is dripping with a very specific, biting kind of 17th
15:06
century academic sarcasm. It is quite funny to read,
15:09
actually. He employs this rhetorical
15:10
sarcastic humility. He calls himself dull and claims
15:13
he lacks the quick sighted ingenuity of his intellectual
15:16
opponent. He essentially says I must be
15:18
really slow, my brain must just not work as well as yours
15:20
because I cannot fathom how, if you guys are right, Jesus Christ
15:24
did not just die for absolutely nothing.
15:26
It is a devastating critique cloaked in false modesty.
15:29
It really is. Owen is highlighting a massive,
15:33
gaping logical crater in the Sosinian argument.
15:36
If God could easily forgive sin with a simple word, a mere nod
15:40
from heaven, why would a merciful Father subject his own
15:43
perfectly innocent, holy Son to the cross?
15:46
And remember, as Owen notes in the text, Christ was introduced
15:49
into the world in a preternatural manner.
15:51
Let's. Clarify that term preternatural
15:53
because it sounds like something out of A ghost story to modern
15:56
years. It does.
15:57
What does Owen mean by that in this context?
15:59
In theological terms, preternatural means something
16:02
that exists or occurs outside the normal course of nature.
16:06
Owen is referring to the virgin birth.
16:07
OK, so Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit bypassing the
16:11
the natural generation of human beings.
16:13
Yes. The significance of this in
16:15
Reformed theology is that Christ did not inherit the stain of
16:18
original sin that is passed down from Adam.
16:20
He was entirely pure. He lived a life of absolute
16:23
perfection, actively fulfilling the law and pointing people to
16:27
the way of life. So Owen is asking, why would God
16:30
take this completely flawless being, this pretty naturally
16:34
pure son, and subject him to intense afflictions, unspeakable
16:38
suffering, and finally a cruel, ignominious and a cursive death
16:43
if there was literally any other way to accomplish the goal?
16:46
It makes no sense. The Zecanian view, in an attempt
16:50
to make God seem more merciful and loving by removing the rigid
16:53
requirement of justice, actually turns the crucifixion into a
16:56
display of cosmic horror. Let's ground this in a modern
16:59
legal analogy because I think it highlights just how bizarre and
17:02
disturbing the Sicilian view makes God look.
17:04
Please do Imagine a human judge presiding over a courtroom.
17:08
A convicted criminal is standing before him.
17:11
The judge has the absolute legal authority to issue a full pardon
17:14
it. Requires 0 effort.
17:16
Right, he just needs to sign a piece of paper on his desk and
17:18
the criminal goes free. But instead of just signing the
17:20
paper, the judge sends bailiffs to drag his own innocent, law
17:24
abiding son into the courtroom. Oh, this is dark.
17:27
The judge then brutally executes his own son in front of
17:29
everyone, claims it is to make a point or show how serious the
17:33
law is, and then turns to the criminal and says OK, now you
17:36
are pardoned. If we saw a judge do that, we
17:39
would not call him merciful, we would call him a psychopath.
17:42
It is gratuitous, senseless violence if the pardon could
17:46
have been issued with a pen stroke.
17:48
The death of the sun is an atrocity.
17:51
And that is Owen's point. The Reformed view, which Owen is
17:54
fiercely defending, presents the cross as an absolute legal and
17:58
moral necessity. God did not crush his Son to
18:00
make a theatrical point. He crushed his son because the
18:03
full weight of divine justice had to fall somewhere.
18:06
The Ledger of the universe had to be balanced.
18:09
Sin had to be punished. Owen backs this up by reading
18:12
the scriptural proofs regarding God's hatred of sin.
18:14
He lists verses showing God is a consuming fire, an everlasting
18:18
burning, and that He will by no means clear the guilty.
18:22
The cross is the only place in the cosmos where that consuming
18:25
fire of divine wrath could burn itself out on a worthy
18:28
substitute, thereby allowing true mercy to flow to the guilty
18:31
without violating justice. So if there is no substitute,
18:35
there remains nothing but a fearful looking for of judgment
18:39
that makes the stakes of this theological debate incredibly
18:42
high. We are not just debating how
18:44
many angels can dance on the head of a pen, we are debating
18:47
the very character of God and the entire meaning of the cross.
18:51
Yes, the core of the faith. But as we analyze this, there is
18:55
a seemingly massive biblical contradiction to Owen's view
18:59
that we have to address. It is an objection that comes
19:02
from the very mouth of Jesus himself.
19:05
The Gethsemane objection. In the Garden of Gethsemane,
19:08
sweating drops of blood in sheer agony, Christ prays ABBA.
19:13
Father, all things are possible unto thee.
19:16
Take away this cup from me. He explicitly says all things
19:19
are possible. So if Jesus himself, the Son of
19:21
God, says all things are possible for the Father, does
19:24
that not mean another way of salvation was in fact possible?
19:28
How does Owen reconcile his strict necessity with Christ's
19:31
own prayer? This is one of the most poignant
19:34
and intellectually challenging objections Owen faces, and he
19:37
handles it with tremendous philosophical care.
19:40
He really parses the language. He introduces A crucial
19:43
theological distinction regarding the word impossibility
19:47
and the scope of God's capability.
19:49
We have to understand the difference between what Owen
19:51
calls absolute impossibility and conditional impossibility.
19:55
This distinction is fascinating. Let's really break those down
19:58
for the listeners so we can grasp the mechanics of what was
20:00
happening in the garden. What is absolute impossibility?
20:03
Absolute impossibility respects the absolute capability of God
20:07
antecedent to any free active as well.
20:10
OK, so before he decides to do anything specific.
20:13
Think of it as God's sheer might in a vacuum, before he makes any
20:17
decrees or promises. In this absolute sense, God has
20:21
the capability to do anything that does not contradict his
20:24
essential nature. Wait, he has the absolute
20:26
capability to create a million new galaxies right now?
20:29
Right. And regarding humanity, he had
20:31
the absolute capability to simply leave the entire human
20:34
race to perish in their sins. He was not obligated by anything
20:38
external to save anyone. So in that absolute vacuum
20:41
state, it was not strictly impossible for the cup of
20:45
suffering to pass from Christ, because God could have simply
20:48
chosen to execute pure justice on humanity and let us fall into
20:52
eternal ruin. Spot on.
20:53
So Jesus is acknowledging the sheer unbridled sovereignty of
20:57
the Father. He is saying you are God, you
21:00
have the capability to stop this and just judge the world.
21:03
But that absolute vacuum is not the reality we live in, because
21:06
God did make a decree. And that brings us to
21:09
conditional impossibility. Yes, conditional impossibility
21:12
respects God's capability as directed by a determined order
21:15
of His will. God had already freely willed,
21:18
decreed, and promised from eternity past to pardon sinners
21:22
and bring a people to Himself. He established a covenant.
21:25
Once that decree was established, the condition was
21:27
set in stone. Given the condition that God was
21:29
going to save fallen rebellious humans, it became absolutely
21:33
impossible to do so without laying the punishment on the
21:35
surety Jesus Christ. His unyielding justice and
21:38
perfect holiness demanded it. So when Jesus says all things
21:42
are possible, he is speaking to the absolute capability of God
21:46
in a vacuum. But the Father's silence in
21:49
response to that agonizing prayer speaks to the conditional
21:52
impossibility. The decree of salvation had been
21:55
made. There is no other mechanical way
21:57
to fulfill that decree without God violating His own nature.
22:01
This completely reframes the agony in the garden.
22:04
It takes it from a scene of mere physical dread to a scene of
22:08
staggering cosmic weight. It really does.
22:12
I want to talk about the immense weight of this distinction.
22:14
For believers operating within the Reformed tradition, this
22:18
enhances the gravity of the atonement in a way that is hard
22:21
to articulate. It anchors everything.
22:23
Christ was not asking for an alternate plan that God just
22:26
denied because the cross would make a better story for future
22:28
generations to read about. Christ was facing the immovable
22:32
reality of God's conditional will.
22:33
He was staring down the barrel of infinite divine justice,
22:37
knowing that because God loved his people and had decreed to
22:39
save them, the sun had to be crushed.
22:42
There's no Plan B. The Cup could not pass.
22:44
It proves that God's love is not a cheap sentiment.
22:47
It is not a greeting card. It is a love that willingly
22:50
subjects itself to the inflexible demands of divine
22:53
justice. When you understand that the
22:55
cross was a mathematical and legal necessity for your
22:59
salvation, your gratitude changes.
23:01
You realize the immense, unfathomable cost of the pardon
23:06
you have received. Having secured the necessity of
23:08
the cross against that major biblical objection, Owen shifts
23:11
gears. He moves into a series of rapid
23:13
fire logical proofs to reinforce his stance.
23:16
He appends several shorter arguments to the main text and
23:19
we are going to walk through the 1st 3 right now.
23:20
These appended arguments are fascinating because they show
23:23
how Owen builds his case not just from direct biblical proof
23:27
text, but from the deep philosophical implications of
23:30
who God is. He is using the tools of
23:32
classical philosophy to defend biblical orthodoxy.
23:36
His first argument here deals with the concepts of habit and
23:38
act. Yes, he states that a second act
23:40
presupposes a first, and a constant manner of operating
23:43
proves a habit. If we see God constantly doing
23:47
good to all, we logically conclude He is good.
23:50
If God constantly judges righteously, as the book of
23:53
Psalms chapter 119 verse 137 declares, righteous art thou, O
23:57
Lord, and upright are thy judgments, then punitory justice
24:01
must be essentially inherent in Him.
24:04
It is not an arbitrary reaction, it is a fixed attribute.
24:08
But we really need to unpack what 17th century thinkers meant
24:11
by the word habit, because it means something very different
24:13
to us today. Oh, for sure.
24:15
Today a habit is biting your nails or drinking coffee at 7:00
24:18
in the morning. It is a behavior you picked up.
24:20
But in the Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophical
24:23
tradition that Owen was educated in, a habit or habitus is an
24:27
intrinsic ingrained disposition. It is a fundamental property of
24:31
character that dictates how a being will necessarily act.
24:34
So it is an essential quality, not a learned behavior.
24:38
Yes, the logic here is straightforward.
24:41
You know, a tree by its fruit. A constant, uniform course of
24:46
just operation in punishing sin throughout the biblical
24:49
narrative proves that this justice is not an acquired trait
24:53
or a temporary policy God enacted for a specific era.
24:57
It is woven into the very fabric of the divine nature.
25:00
From His law, which is the visible sign of the Divine will,
25:04
we see the reality of what He is.
25:06
Just as we know God is the living God because he constantly
25:08
gives life, we know He is a fundamentally just judge because
25:12
he constantly punishes sin. That flows naturally into his
25:15
second rapid fire argument, the concept of nature as law.
25:19
Owen addresses an objection someone might raise.
25:21
A skeptic might say, well, a human judge has to punish crime
25:25
because he's bound by the laws of the state.
25:27
He has a rule book he has to follow.
25:28
But God is sovereign. He is not subject to any
25:31
external law. He doesn't have a constitution
25:33
he has to answer to. So why cannot he just forgive?
25:35
And Owen's response to that is philosophically bulletproof.
25:38
He agrees entirely that God is not subject to an external law.
25:41
There is no higher authority telling God what to do.
25:43
But he counters by asserting that God's very nature is a law
25:47
unto itself. Meaning he is the rule book, He
25:50
cannot lie. Not because there is a universal
25:53
rule against lying out there in the ether that God has to obey,
25:56
but because He himself is truth. The law against lying emanates
26:01
directly from his character. Similarly, he cannot let the
26:04
wicked pass unpunished, not because a higher court demands
26:07
it, but because he is inherently a just judge, such as God is by
26:12
nature such as He in the acts of His will.
26:15
His will can never ever contradict his nature.
26:17
It is the ultimate consistency. He cannot act against himself.
26:21
Then we hit the third argument in this rapid fire section, and
26:23
it deals with what Owen calls the immutable difference of
26:26
things. This gets into some really heavy
26:28
philosophical territory. He argues that sin destroys the
26:31
subjection of the creature to the Creator.
26:34
And even God's absolute capability cannot make sin not
26:37
sin, because hating the supreme good implies A logical
26:40
contradiction. To fully grasp this, we have to
26:42
look at the nature of sin itself.
26:44
Sin is not just breaking an arbitrary rule like going 65 in
26:48
a 55 mile per hour zone. It is an assault on reality.
26:52
God is the supreme good. For a creature to hate, ignore,
26:56
or rebel against the supreme good is inherently evil.
26:59
God's omnipotence means he can do all things that are logically
27:03
possible and consistent with his nature.
27:05
It does not mean he can do the absurd.
27:08
He cannot make a square circle, he cannot make a rock so heavy
27:11
he cannot lift it, and he cannot make rebellion against the
27:15
Supreme Good a virtuous or acceptable thing.
27:18
Think of it like mathematics. I love using this analogy.
27:21
Just as God cannot decree that 2 + 2 = 5 because that contradicts
27:25
the fundamental reality of numbers and logic, God cannot
27:28
decree that high treason against his throne is suddenly
27:31
acceptable. He cannot look at humanity's
27:33
active hatred of the supreme good and declare it to be
27:36
mathematically or morally neutral.
27:38
It contradicts the reality of who he is.
27:40
If from the very nature of the thing, sin is sin in relation to
27:43
the supreme perfection of God, then from the nature of the
27:46
thing, it's punishment is also inherently required.
27:48
God ordered children to obey their parents because it is
27:51
inherently right based on the natural order.
27:54
He punishes sin because it is inherently right to do so based
27:58
on the moral order. It is not an arbitrary choice.
28:01
The moral universe has physics, just as the physical universe
28:04
does. These logical proofs are
28:06
airtight, and they expose A glaring hypocrisy in the
28:09
arguments of the adversaries, which leads us naturally into
28:11
looking at arguments 4 and five from Owen's list.
28:14
Here he sets up some brilliant theological traps that corner
28:17
his opponents. Let's examine argument 4, which
28:20
we can call the impenitence paradox, Owen notes, a major
28:23
concession from his adversaries. Even the Sicilians, who want to
28:27
say God can forgive without a substitute, admit that God
28:30
cannot save the obstinately wicked without injury to His
28:33
Holiness. They acknowledge that if someone
28:35
completely refuses to repent and actively curses God until their
28:40
dying breath, God's justice will not suffer them to be saved.
28:43
They agree that the unrepentant must be punished.
28:46
And here is where Owen springs the trap, and it is a thing of
28:49
beauty. He asks what kind of justice is
28:52
it that regards the mode or the circumstance of the sin, in this
28:56
case the obstinate impenitence, but does not regard the sin
28:58
itself if. Justice requires the punishment
29:01
of the unrepentant Sinner. It means justice inherently
29:05
demands the punishment of the sin.
29:06
You cannot say justice demands punishment only if the person
29:10
refuses to apologize. It is a devastating point.
29:13
Think about our human justice system again.
29:15
A bank robber gets caught. If he goes to court, cries and
29:19
says he is truly sorry, the judge might give him a lighter
29:22
sentence. But the judge does not just say,
29:24
oh, you apologized, the crime never happened, go home.
29:27
The crime itself requires satisfaction regardless of the
29:30
criminals later feelings about it.
29:32
It shows the massive inconsistency of trying to
29:34
soften God's justice. If sin in itself does not demand
29:38
punishment, then God could just as easily forgive the
29:40
obstinately wicked as the penitent.
29:42
If he can wave away the debt with a word, he can wave away
29:45
the obstinacy to. The fact that even the
29:48
adversaries agree the obstinate must be punished proves that
29:52
justice is a necessary active force responding to the reality
29:55
of sin. Which brings us to argument 5.
29:58
And this is a massive theological dilemma, perhaps the
30:01
weightiest point in this entire section.
30:03
We can call it the cause of ruin.
30:05
Owen says that God punishes sin either because he simply wills
30:09
it arbitrarily or because it is inherently just that sin should
30:13
be punished. Let's trace the implications of
30:15
that first option, because it is terrifying.
30:18
If God punishes sin simply because he arbitrarily wills it,
30:22
meaning there is nothing in his essential nature that demands
30:25
it, He just decides to punish it out of pure volition, then the
30:28
will of God becomes the singular, isolated cause of a
30:31
sinner's perdition. And that blatantly contradicts
30:33
Scripture. Owen points to the book Book of
30:35
Hosea chapter 13 verse 9 where God says O Israel, thou has
30:39
destroyed thyself, but in me is thine help.
30:41
God places the blame for ruins squarely on the creature's
30:44
rebellion. The creature destroyed itself.
30:47
But if God could have easily forgiven without violating his
30:50
justice, and just chose not to, then God's arbitrary choice is
30:54
the real reason for their destruction.
30:56
If the non punishment of sin is entirely possible and nothing in
31:00
God's nature demands punishment, then a free pardon would seem
31:03
much more agreeable to God's grace, love and compassion.
31:06
If he could just wave it away without violating his justice,
31:10
why would he not do that for every single person?
31:12
If he punishes people when he could have just easily forgiven
31:15
them, it paints A horrifying picture of God.
31:17
It does. It means the only reason hell
31:19
exists is because God simply felt like creating a torture
31:23
chamber, not because moral reality demanded a place of
31:26
separation for those who rebelled against the source of
31:28
life. If God's bare will is the only
31:31
factor, and there is no inherent evil in sin that demands a
31:34
reaction from a holy God, then hell is an act of cosmic
31:37
tyranny. That is a chilling thought.
31:40
If the transgression of the law deserves punishment only because
31:43
God arbitrarily wills the so, and the condition of reality
31:45
requires no such thing, then why should we even hate sin?
31:49
Sin becomes just a technicality. It is like jaywalking.
31:52
But Owen concludes this section with a thunderous defense of
31:55
orthodoxy. If God punishes sin because by
31:59
virtue of his natural justice it is just that it should be
32:03
punished, that it is unjust not to punish it.
32:05
And as Paul asks rhetorically in Romans, is God unjust, God
32:09
forbid? It all circles back to the
32:11
absolute integrity of God's character.
32:14
If it is just to punish sin, omitting that punishment is a
32:17
miscarriage of justice. This is why these philosophical
32:20
debates we are analyzing are not just academic exercises reserved
32:23
for dusty libraries or ivory towers.
32:26
Getting this wrong leads to disastrous consequences for a
32:29
believers faith. If you believe God could have
32:31
forgiven you without the cross, your entire relationship with
32:34
God and your understanding of what He saved you from
32:37
completely changes. And that is precisely where Owen
32:40
directs his fiery conclusion. He addresses the extreme danger
32:43
of believing there were other ways to achieve salvation.
32:46
He expresses intense frustration with theologians who compromise
32:49
on this. And he specifically calls out
32:51
Augustine here, which shows Owen is not afraid to challenge the
32:54
absolute giants of church history.
32:56
That is a big deal for a Puritan to criticize Augustine, since
32:59
the reformers generally loved him.
33:01
It is a huge deal. He is frustrated with divines
33:04
who taught that God could have saved humanity by other means,
33:08
but that the way of the blood of his Son was just more proper and
33:10
becoming. Owen actually states that he is
33:12
ashamed of these theologians. That is incredibly strong
33:15
language. He argues that this idea of God
33:18
possessing an absolute capability to forgive without a
33:20
sacrifice has not a single syllable of support in the
33:24
entirety of the sacred writings. It is a theological invention.
33:28
Why do you think theologians like Augustine even proposed it?
33:31
It was likely designed to protect a certain philosophical
33:34
view of God's total freedom. They wanted to emphasize that
33:37
God is not bound by anything, so they claimed He could have saved
33:41
us another way to prove His sovereignty.
33:43
But as Owen points out, protecting A philosophical
33:46
concept of freedom ends up destroying the very basis of the
33:49
Gospel narrative. I want you, the listener, to
33:51
really consider Owen's warning here, He says a more convenient
33:55
device to weaken our faith, love and gratitude cannot be
33:58
invented. Think about the psychological
34:00
impact of this. If the cross was just a choice
34:03
among many, if God had a menu of options for saving you and he
34:07
just picked the crucifixion because it was the most dramatic
34:10
or fitting for the time period, it sheepens the mystery of God's
34:13
love. It turns the cross into a
34:15
theater production rather than a cosmic rescue mission where the
34:18
rescuer had to die to save the victim.
34:21
It undermines the necessity of the incarnation itself.
34:24
Why would the infinite Word become flesh?
34:26
Why would the Infinite God confine himself to a human
34:29
nature, experience hunger, thirst, betrayal, the lash of
34:33
the whip, and the terrifying wrath of his own Father, if he
34:37
could have accomplished the exact same result with a word
34:39
from heaven? If you teach that the mystery of
34:42
the love of the Father, the blood of the Son, and the grace
34:44
of the Spirit were not strictly, mechanically necessary for
34:47
procuring salvation, you drain the gospel of its vitality.
34:52
Owen brings in his final crushing point points by looking
34:55
at the entire structure of the Old Testament.
34:57
He asks very practical question, Why did God institute so many
35:01
expiatory sacrifices in the nation of Israel?
35:04
And let's define expiatory. It means a sacrifice that takes
35:09
away guilt through the payment of a penalty.
35:11
Why the constant shedding of animal blood?
35:13
Why the massive labor, the incredible cost to the
35:16
Israelites and the severe punishments for performing the
35:19
rituals wrong? If you read the book of
35:21
Leviticus, the sacrificial system was visceral, exhausting,
35:25
and bloody. Hebrews chapter 10 tells us the
35:27
blood of bulls and goats could never actually take away sin.
35:30
They were pointers. They were massive, bloody signs
35:34
screaming that a necessary, perfect sacrifice was coming.
35:37
If God could just forgive with a word, the entire Old Testament
35:41
Tabernacle system was a pointless, gruesome charade.
35:44
Furthermore, Owen points to the prophetic reality of Isaiah
35:47
chapter 53 verse 10. That verse says, Yet it pleased
35:51
the Lord to bruise him. He hath put him to grief, when
35:53
thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.
35:55
Why would Jehovah awaken his sword against his own son?
35:58
Why would he forsake him on the cross, prompting Jesus to cry
36:01
out? My God, my God, why has thou
36:03
forsaken me? If there was no necessary 'cause
36:05
if justice did not absolutely demand it, then God's actions
36:09
and bruising his Son become entirely incomprehensible.
36:12
They become the actions of a capricious, unstable deity, not
36:16
the loving, just God of the Bible.
36:18
It is an incredibly sobering reality to face and it demands a
36:21
response from the believer we are.
36:24
Arriving at the end of our deep dive and we need to synthesize
36:27
what we have uncovered in this massive, dense text.
36:30
The core thesis that John Owen has so meticulously proven is
36:34
this. For God to remain God to
36:36
preserve His glory, and Tyre to maintain His perfect justice,
36:40
His unapproachable holiness and His sovereign dominion over
36:43
creations, and absolutely, unequivocally had to be
36:46
punished. The cross of Jesus Christ was
36:48
not an arbitrary option picked from a hat.
36:50
It was the sole arena in the cosmos where God's infinite,
36:53
unyielding grace could intersect with His immovable, terrifying
36:56
justice. When a believer grasps the
36:59
absolute necessity of the atonement, it fundamentally
37:01
alters their worship. It completely removes the modern
37:04
palatable idea of a casual, sentimental waving away of sin.
37:07
It grounds your salvation in an ironclad legal and moral
37:11
reality. Your debt was not just
37:13
cancelled, it was paid in full with blood.
37:16
When you sing of the cross on a Sunday morning, you are not
37:19
singing about a tragic accident or a mere demonstration of
37:22
empathy. You are singing about the only
37:24
possible mechanism by which a holy God could bring a defiled
37:28
rebel into his presence without destroying them.
37:31
That jagged white line on the X-ray we talked about at the
37:33
beginning? It is there the diagnosis of
37:36
humanity is total depravity and total liability to divine
37:40
justice. But the cure is equally precise,
37:43
equally specific, and entirely sufficient.
37:46
I want to leave you with one final thought to Mull over as
37:49
you go about your day. We have established that the
37:51
punishment of sin is mathematically and logically
37:54
required by the very nature of God.
37:56
Consider what that means for our own concept of mercy.
37:59
Does true mercy require someone to absorb the blow rather than
38:02
just pretending the offense never happened?
38:04
Think about the debts you owe others and the debts owed to
38:07
you. Ask yourself what true
38:09
satisfaction actually requires in those relationships.
38:11
It might just change how you forgive knowing how you were
38:14
forgiven. A weighty question to consider.
38:17
Thank you for joining us for this extensive theological
38:20
examination. Keep analyzing the texts, keep
38:23
seeking the truth, and keep your mind anchored in the realities
38:26
of the faith.