Latest / Reformed Thinking / Grace Consistent with the Atonement (Ephesians 1:7) | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Grace Consistent with the Atonement (Ephesians 1:7) | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
So I want you to imagine walking out of a massive towering bank
0:04
building and you are just completely and utterly debt
0:07
free. Oh.
0:08
Man, right? Just picture the scenario.
0:11
You had this mortgage that you could never possibly pay off,
0:14
not even in like 3 lifetimes, and the foreclosure notices were
0:19
literally piled up on your kitchen table.
0:21
Just a hopeless situation. And then out of nowhere, this
0:25
billionaire benefactor walks into that bank and he hands over
0:29
a certified side check for the exact well for the precise
0:32
amount you owe, right down to the final penny, and he just
0:35
zeroes out your account. That would be the dream it.
0:37
Really would be you would feel this immense, staggering relief.
0:40
Of course, I mean, you get to keep your house.
0:43
But here's the thing I want you to consider.
0:45
Think about the interaction you have with the bank manager right
0:47
after that check clears, the manager, you know, he slides a
0:51
stamped receipt across the mahogany desk and he hands you
0:54
the deed to your property. Now here's the real question
0:56
that you want today. Did that bank manager just show
1:00
you grace? Like did the bank as an
1:03
institution offer you a warm, generous, forgiving.
1:07
Gift that is a phenomenal question to start with because I
1:10
mean the instinct for most people is to say yes.
1:13
Yeah, of course. Purely based on the emotional
1:15
relief they feel in the moment, you know?
1:17
But when you look at the cold, hard mechanics of the situation,
1:20
the bank manager didn't do anything gracious at all.
1:23
Not a single thing. No, the bank received every
1:26
single cent it was owed. The Ledger is perfectly
1:29
balanced. O handing you that deed isn't
1:32
some gesture of mercy, it is a strict unyielding legal
1:36
requirement. Right.
1:37
If the bank manager KET the deed after the billionaire paid the
1:40
debt, they would be committing fraud.
1:42
I mean they would be stealing. Which brings us right to the
1:44
edge of a massive theological puzzle.
1:47
Welcome to reformed thinking. Today, we are taking a deep dive
1:51
into a very specific, highly debated and honestly incredibly
1:55
fascinating concept. Yeah, really.
1:57
We are going to unpack an essay written by Jonathan Edwards.
2:00
It's titled Grace Consistent with the Atonement, and he bases
2:04
this entire philosophical and theological argument on one
2:07
single verse. Ephesians chapter one, verse 7.
2:10
Yes, that verse talks about having redemption through the
2:14
blood of Christ, the forgiveness of sins according to His grace,
2:18
and it links two things together that, logically speaking, seem
2:21
to violently clash with each other.
2:23
They totally clash. I mean, if you don't have the
2:25
right framework to understand them, they look completely
2:28
contradictory. Edwards identify the tension
2:31
here that theologians, philosophers and, you know, just
2:35
everyday thinkers sitting in church pews have tried to
2:38
resolve for centuries. And they routinely fail.
2:41
They really do. It is the tension between a
2:43
fully paid debt and a totally free gift.
2:46
So let's lay out this grand inconsistency for you, the
2:49
listener, so you can really feel the weight of the puzzle we're
2:51
dealing with. If Jesus completely paid the
2:54
price for our sins, which is you know what we mean when we talk
2:58
about the atonement, then God's justice is fully satisfied,
3:02
right? The requirement of the law has
3:04
been met, the penalty has been absorbed.
3:06
But if the debt is fully paid, how on earth can forgiving the
3:10
Sinner be considered a free act of grace?
3:12
It's the bank mortgage analogy all over again.
3:15
Precisely. If God receives the total payoff
3:17
for your debt, returning the deed to you, or in this case,
3:20
granting you a pardon, it isn't a gracious gift.
3:23
It looks like a strict legal transaction.
3:26
A paid debt leaves zero room for grace from the creditor.
3:29
And this is the core issue we want you to keep front and
3:31
center in your mind today as we go through this.
3:34
How do you actually view forgiveness when God Forgives a
3:36
center? Is it just a cold, calculated
3:39
legal transaction where he, you know, he reviews the Ledger,
3:43
sees the zero balance and slides a receipt across the table,
3:46
right? Or is it a genuine, warm,
3:48
unearned gift? Yeah.
3:50
Edwards saw the people were terribly confused by this.
3:51
They knew the Bible explicitly called it grace.
3:54
Because it's right there in the text.
3:55
Yeah, it's undeniable in the text.
3:57
But their logical brains told them that a fully satisfied
3:59
requirement leaves no margin for mercy.
4:02
And so, in this essay, Edwards walks through several common,
4:05
widespread attempts that people make to solve this puzzle before
4:09
presenting his own incredibly precise, heavily reasoned
4:13
solution. So I want to look at the first
4:15
major attempt that people have historically made to try and
4:18
solve this. Because when you stare at this
4:20
problem long enough, the human mind naturally tries to find a
4:23
loophole. We always look for the.
4:25
Loophole we do. We look at the cross, we look at
4:27
the concept of a paid debt, and we try to locate precisely where
4:31
the grace lives in the timeline of events.
4:34
So the first proposed solution that Edwards addresses is what
4:37
we might call the provision versus pardon argument.
4:41
Right. And the logic of this first
4:43
attempt goes like this. Some thinkers argue that the
4:46
actual moment of pardoning the center contains 0 grace.
4:50
None at all. Wow.
4:52
Yeah, they openly admit that the transaction of forgiveness is
4:55
strict cold justice. In their view, all the grace was
4:59
front loaded. They say the grace existed only
5:01
in the historical moment. God provided the substitute,
5:04
like in giving Jesus to pay the price.
5:06
So they're slicing the timeline in half.
5:08
Exactly. I mean, that is spot on.
5:10
They're dividing it into two completely distinct events, the
5:14
provision of the payment, which they say is the gracious part,
5:18
and the application of a pardon, which they say is just a
5:21
mechanical legal necessity based on that prior payment.
5:25
It's a very tempting argument, isn't it?
5:27
Because on the surface it seems to protect both concepts.
5:31
It gives a nod to Grace at the beginning of the timeline, and
5:34
it gives a nod to strict justice at the end.
5:37
It looks neat and tidy. It does look neat, but Edwards
5:40
refuses to let the stand. He sees massive, catastrophic
5:43
theological problems with separating the timeline like
5:46
this. I want to put a specific analogy
5:49
on the table to help us visualize the massive flaw in
5:51
this argument. Let's hear it.
5:53
Let's step away from the bank for a second.
5:55
Imagine a young man who has racked up an insurmountable
5:58
financial debt due to reckless living.
6:00
He owes this massive sum to a very strict, uncompromising
6:04
creditor in town. OK, a harsh.
6:06
Guy very harsh. This creditor is known for
6:08
demanding his money on time. No excuses, and the young man
6:11
has $0.00 to his name. The situation is hopeless.
6:15
Now imagine the young man's father steps in.
6:18
The father possesses immense wealth and out of sheer love for
6:22
his son, he goes to his own vault, withdraws the full amount
6:25
in cash, puts it in a briefcase and hands it to the son.
6:29
The father says go pay your debt and get your life back.
6:32
So the father's action in that scenario, giving the cash to his
6:36
son, is an act of pure, unadulterated grace, right?
6:41
The son didn't earn that money. He didn't deserve it.
6:44
It was a freely given provision. Precisely.
6:47
But here is the critical pivot in the analogy.
6:50
When that son walks into the creditor's office, places that
6:53
heavy briefcase on the desk, and the creditor opens it and counts
6:56
the cash to the final penny, what happens next?
6:59
The creditor cancels the debt. He writes a receipt, but is that
7:02
cancellation an act of grace on the part of the creditor?
7:05
No, absolutely not. It is a strict legal
7:07
transaction. The creditor is obligated by law
7:09
to cancel the bond because the money is literally sitting right
7:12
there on his desk. If we apply to the first failed
7:16
theological argument, it asks a highly unsettling question.
7:20
Does this mean God, acting as the divine creditor, is just
7:24
executing a cold legal transaction when he pardons us?
7:27
That analogy perfectly captures the flaw in this first attempt,
7:32
and it is the precise reason Edwards rejects it with such
7:35
force. When you break down the
7:37
mechanics of what you just described, the problems become
7:40
glaringly obvious. First, we have to look at the
7:43
scriptural record, the text we are analyzing.
7:45
Ephesians chapter one, verse 7 explicitly states that the
7:48
pardon itself is an act of grace.
7:50
The. Pardon itself.
7:52
Yes, the verse links the forgiveness of sins directly to
7:55
his grace. It doesn't say the provision of
7:57
the payment was grace and the forgiveness is an emotionless
7:59
receipt. It specifically targets the
8:02
forgiveness as the gracious act. That's a huge point.
8:05
Furthermore, the very definition of forgiving a crime implies A
8:07
gracious disposition. If you pardon a crime based
8:11
purely on strict legal justice, you are uttering a contradiction
8:14
in terms. Right, it's an oxymoron.
8:16
Yeah, it ceases to be a pardon and becomes an acquittal based
8:18
on a satisfied statute. So changing the definition of
8:22
the word pardon to mean a legal receipt violates the language of
8:26
the text itself. You are stripping the warmth and
8:29
the relational reality right out of the word.
8:31
Yes, and Edwards takes it a step further into the logical
8:35
mechanics of the situation. He says you cannot say an act is
8:39
gracious simply because it is based on a previous gracious
8:42
act. Oh, that's interesting.
8:44
Break that down. Giving the money and canceling
8:46
the bond are two completely different actions performed by
8:49
different entities or at different times.
8:52
If you claim the cancellation itself isn't gracious, you run
8:55
into a terrifying logical consequence.
8:57
Which is what? Think about the creditor and
8:59
your analogy. If the creditor giving up the
9:02
bond is not an act of grace, but rather an act of strict justice
9:06
based on the cash on the desk, then what if the creditor just
9:10
flat out refused to cancel the debt?
9:12
Wait, elaborate on that? What do you mean refused?
9:14
If the money provided by the Father was the only grace in the
9:17
equation, and the creditor has absolutely no grace to offer,
9:21
then theoretically the creditor could take the money from the
9:23
son, put it in his own safe, and still throw the son in debtors
9:27
prison. Which would be monstrous.
9:29
That would be literal theft and extortion.
9:31
It would be complete horrifying injustice.
9:34
If the payment fully satisfies the creditor, the creditor
9:37
cannot legally or morally punish the debtor.
9:41
But if the creditor releases the debtor solely because the cash
9:44
is in the vault, the creditor has exercise 0 grace.
9:47
Right. He's just following the law at
9:48
that point exactly. I mean that is spot on.
9:51
God is the creditor in this theological scenario.
9:54
If this first argument holds true, God is handing us a legal
9:58
receipt and not a warm pardon, and that subtly robs the actual
10:01
moment of forgiveness of its relational reality.
10:03
It makes it feel so empty. It doesn't just process
10:06
paperwork in Heaven's accounting department.
10:08
The forgiveness itself is an ongoing gift, not a closed
10:11
account Ledger. That makes perfect sense.
10:14
The first attempt fails because it tries to isolate grace to one
10:18
historical moment in the past, and it leaves the actual
10:21
forgiveness feeling like a sterile audit.
10:23
Very sterile. So if splitting the timeline
10:26
doesn't work, what if we look at the identity of the person
10:30
paying? Because this is the second
10:32
proposed solution that Edwards calls out, we can label it the
10:36
Sinner didn't pay argument. OK, yeah, the logic here shifts
10:40
the focus entirely away from the timeline and puts it on to the
10:43
individuals involved. This argument states that the
10:46
pardon is an act of grace to the Sinner simply because the Sinner
10:50
was not the one who physically paid the debt.
10:52
The grace exists because Christ paid it, not the individual
10:56
standing before the judge. Right.
10:57
The proponents of this view argue that it isn't grace toward
11:00
Christ because Christ did the heavy lifting.
11:02
You know he suffered and paid the actual price.
11:05
But they claim it is immense, overwhelming grace toward you,
11:09
the Sinner, because you got off without emptying your own
11:12
pockets or shedding your own blood.
11:14
OK, let's run this through the bank analogy again to see if the
11:16
logic actually holds up under scrutiny.
11:18
Let's do it. Imagine you owe the bank a
11:21
massive sum, say $2,000,000. A lot of money.
11:25
You are defaulting. The foreclosure notices are
11:27
piling up. Your credit is completely
11:30
ruined. Suddenly, a wealthy friend walks
11:33
into the bank, asks the teller for your account number, and
11:37
wires $2,000,000 directly to the bank.
11:41
Place, friend. The best friend.
11:43
Your balance instantly goes to 0.
11:45
The bank manager calls you into the office, hands you the
11:47
release forms and says you are completely clear.
11:51
Now, according to the Sinner didn't pay argument, the bank is
11:54
showing you grace because you didn't pay the $2,000,000
11:57
yourself. And Edwards points out the
11:59
glaring, inescapable flaw in that logic.
12:02
In your scenario, the bank is showing you absolutely no grace.
12:05
0 The bank got its $2,000,000. The bank's requirements were met
12:10
to the exact penny. Handing you the release form is
12:13
an act of strict justice for the bank.
12:14
Because they got paid. Right.
12:16
It doesn't matter to the bank whose account the wire transfer
12:19
came from. The bank doesn't care if the
12:21
money came from you, your wealthy friend, or a random
12:24
lottery winning. The Ledger is balanced.
12:27
So if we say that God's grace exists solely because someone
12:31
else paid the debt, we are still leaving God in the position of
12:35
the cold, calculating bank manager.
12:37
God gets his payment from Christ, so he signs the release
12:40
form for us. That is not grace from the
12:43
creditor. It is still just a receipt.
12:45
I can hear an objection forming here though, from someone trying
12:49
to defend the second argument, because there's a nuance here.
12:52
What about the element of surprise or a lack of
12:54
permission? There is a caveat people bring
12:57
up dealing with delegation. What if you didn't ask your
13:00
wealthy friend to pay the bank? What if you didn't delegate them
13:03
to be your representative and you had no idea they were going
13:05
to do it? Does a surprise anonymous
13:08
payment change the math? If the bank manager hands you
13:11
the release form and you are utterly shocked because you
13:14
didn't know the payment was coming, does that sudden shock
13:17
make the bank manager's action an act of grace?
13:20
It is a really clever caveat. People try to inject some
13:23
emotion into the scenario to save the argument, but Edwards
13:27
shuts it down completely. How so?
13:29
He argues that even if an anonymous stranger pays your
13:33
bill without your knowledge, without your consent and without
13:35
your prior delegation, the creditor is still legally
13:38
obligated to clear your account. Because the money is there.
13:41
Exactly. The lack of your involvement
13:43
doesn't magically create a gracious disposition in the
13:46
creditor. The bank still got its money.
13:48
The bank is still acting out of strict justice.
13:51
Whether you send Christ to the cross as your personally
13:54
delegated representative or whether God appointed Christ
13:57
without your prior knowledge, the mechanics of the payment
13:59
remain identical. If it is a literal debt paid in
14:02
full, the creditor exercises no grace in the release.
14:06
The surprise factor belongs to you, the debtor, but it doesn't
14:09
alter the legal reality of the creditor.
14:11
Man, that is airtight. And this leads us to what I
14:15
think is the most crucial pivot in this entire section of
14:17
Edwards essay. We have been using this
14:20
financial analogy. Debts, creditors, bank vaults,
14:24
briefcases of cash. A lot of financial language.
14:27
And the language of finance is everywhere and how we talk about
14:31
these concepts. But Edwards steps back and
14:34
reveals the massive limitation of this metaphor.
14:37
He points out that the atonement is not a literal financial
14:40
payment. This is a massive paradigm shift
14:43
for how people read theology and it takes some serious mental
14:47
adjustment. It really does.
14:48
We use financial words all the time.
14:50
We sing songs about Jesus paying the debt.
14:53
We read scriptures about being bought with a price or Jesus
14:56
giving himself as a ransom. Yeah, that's standard language.
14:59
Those words naturally bring up images of currency changing
15:02
hands, of accounts being settled.
15:04
But Edwards insists these are metaphorical expressions.
15:08
They're not literal descriptions of what happened at the cross.
15:11
Because if it were literal, we would run into absurdities
15:14
almost immediately. I mean, think about it, we
15:16
didn't rob Heaven's treasury of physical gold, right?
15:19
God wasn't sitting on a smaller pile of literal assets.
15:22
After the fall of humanity. He retained all his property.
15:26
The universe still belonged to Him.
15:28
The stars didn't vanish from his possession.
15:30
No, they didn't. So when Christ made satisfaction
15:33
for sin, He didn't refund stolen physical property.
15:37
He didn't bring bags of gold to replenish Heaven's Vault.
15:40
Precisely. If no physical property was
15:42
stolen, no physical property needed to be refunded.
15:45
The debt we owe is entirely metaphorical.
15:48
OK, So what is it then? It is a moral debt.
15:51
It was a rebellion against divine authority.
15:54
It was a practical despising of God's law, and when a law is
15:58
despised, it requires a manifestation of divine
16:01
displeasure. It requires an upholding of
16:03
authority so the law doesn't become a joke.
16:05
It does not require a refund of coins.
16:08
Christ's sufferings and death were a manifestation of that
16:10
authority, a demonstration that sin will not go without proc
16:14
tokens of displeasure. And if he had literally paid a
16:17
financial debt, all grace would be excluded completely.
16:20
The release would be strict justice.
16:22
Since the scriptures insist the release is grace.
16:25
The atonement cannot be a literal financial transaction,
16:28
which naturally leads people to try 1/3 solution.
16:31
They realize the money metaphor is broken.
16:33
They do, so they try to fix the problem by swapping out the
16:35
vocabulary. If it isn't a financial
16:38
transaction, what is it? And this brings us to the third
16:41
failed attempt, which Edwards addresses head on.
16:44
It is the vindication of the law argument.
16:47
Right. People recognize the danger, the
16:49
financial metaphor, so they pivot.
16:52
They argue that Christ didn't pay money, but rather his act of
16:56
obedience and his submission to death practically declared the
16:59
law to be just. So it's about making a
17:01
statement. Yes, his actions vindicated
17:04
God's character. They show the universe that sin
17:06
is evil and God's law is good. And, the argument goes, because
17:10
it was a vindication of the law and not a literal payment of a
17:13
debt, the resulting pardon can finally be called an act of
17:17
grace. I want to push back on that
17:19
logic though, because it feels like a sleight of hand.
17:21
It does. Does simply changing the word
17:23
from payment to vindication actually change the underlying
17:27
mechanics of the transaction? That's the $1,000,000 question.
17:30
Right. If I walk into the bank and say
17:32
I'm not paying off my mortgage, I am just vindicating the bank's
17:35
lending policies by handing you $1,000,000.
17:38
The bank still gets $1,000,000. Yeah, the wording changed, but
17:42
the math didn't. You are tracking step by step
17:44
with Edward's thought process here.
17:46
He sees right through the vocabulary trick, and he sets up
17:50
an airtight logical trap for this third argument.
17:53
Walk us through the trap. He asks us to imagine a
17:55
hypothetical scenario. Assume for a moment that a
17:59
Sinner endures the full penalty of the law themselves.
18:02
They suffer the full weight of the punishment, whatever that
18:04
happens to be, and by doing so they completely vindicate God's
18:08
law. The law is shown to be just
18:10
because the penalty was executed on the offender.
18:13
Now, if that center is released from punishment after enduring
18:16
the full penalty, is there release an act of grace?
18:19
Absolutely not. I mean, think about a modern
18:21
prison system. OK, if I am sentenced to serve a
18:24
10 year sentence for a crime, I go to prison.
18:26
I sit in that cell for 10 full years.
18:28
The daily routine, the loss of freedom, the time served, all of
18:32
it vindicates the state's law. Right, you did the time.
18:35
The law demanded 10 years, and it got 10 years.
18:39
Now, on the final day of my sentence, the warden walks down
18:42
the hall, unlocks the gate, and tells me I am free to go.
18:46
Is that warden showing me grace? Of course not.
18:48
I served the time. My release is a matter of strict
18:52
justice. I vindicated the law by bearing
18:54
the penalty, and now justice demands my freedom.
18:57
The state has no legal right to hold me for a single extra
19:00
minute. Spot on.
19:02
So Edwards takes that exact logic and applies it to the
19:05
cross. If a Sinner vindicating the law
19:07
requires a just release with 0 grace involved from the warden,
19:11
why does a third party, Christ vindicated the law, suddenly
19:14
change the release into an act of grace?
19:16
It doesn't. Right.
19:17
The mechanism is identical. You have a law that requires
19:19
vindication. The vindication is provided, the
19:21
law is satisfied, The release is mandated.
19:24
The fact that a third party provided the vindication doesn't
19:27
alter the core mechanics of justice any more than it did in
19:30
the financial debt analogy. So whether you call it paying a
19:33
debt or whether you call it vindicating the law, if the
19:36
requirement is fully met by a substitute, the creditor or the
19:40
judge or the warden is legally bound to grant the release.
19:44
And a legally bound release is not a gracious pardon.
19:47
So we are back to square 1. The puzzle remains unsolved.
19:51
We are right back where we started.
19:53
All three of these common attempts fail because they leave
19:56
God acting out of strict necessity, handing out receipts
19:59
instead of grace. They all crash into the exact
20:02
same wall, and Edwards realizes that the reason everyone keeps
20:05
crashing into this wall is because they are using fuzzy
20:09
I'll defined language. They were throwing around
20:11
massive, weighty words like justice and grace without
20:15
pinning down what those words actually mean in different
20:18
contexts. They treat justice as a
20:19
monolith. Right.
20:21
To find the real answer, Edwards insists on highly precise
20:24
definitions. He argues that if you don't
20:26
define your terms, you will never solve the inconsistency.
20:29
And this is where we need to slow down and really unpack the
20:33
concepts. The definitions are the key that
20:36
unlocks the entire puzzle. If you miss the definitions, the
20:39
rest of the logic won't hold together and you'll be stuck at
20:41
the bank teller's window forever.
20:43
Exactly. Edwards breaks down the concept
20:45
of justice into 3 distinct categories.
20:48
Let's walk through them slowly, because this is brilliant.
20:51
The first category is commutative justice.
20:55
Commutative justice deals entirely with property, commerce
20:58
and exchange. It is the justice of the
21:01
marketplace. The marketplace.
21:02
It secures what rightfully belongs to someone.
21:05
Let's say I borrow your lawnmower for the weekend.
21:07
Commutative justice demands I return your lawnmower.
21:11
It doesn't care about your personal moral character.
21:13
You could be a terrible person, a liar, a cheat, but I still owe
21:17
you the lawnmower because it's your property.
21:19
Or think about breaking a window.
21:21
If I throw a baseball through your living room window,
21:24
commutative justice demands I pay for the glass.
21:27
To treat a man justly in this sense is simply to not violate
21:31
his property or his assets. That is very clear.
21:34
It is the justice of transactions, ledgers, and
21:37
property lines. It is blind to who you are as a
21:39
person. It only looks at what is owed.
21:41
Yes, the second category is distributive justice.
21:44
This one is entirely different and we need to spend some time
21:47
here because this is where the breakthrough happens.
21:49
Distributive justice is all about rewarding or punishing
21:53
based on a person's personal moral character and their
21:56
specific historical conduct, right?
21:58
It puts blinders onto everything else and looks solely at the
22:01
individual's record. Let's use a non financial
22:04
analogy to really separate this from commutative justice.
22:08
Think about a courtroom where a criminal case is being tried.
22:12
Let's say a man is on trial for reckless driving.
22:15
The judge sits on the bench and looks at the defendants rap
22:18
sheet. Distributive justice requires
22:21
the judge to look exclusively at the actions of the man standing
22:24
in front of them. OK, the judge has those blinders
22:26
on. Right.
22:28
The judge doesn't look at the defendant's bank account.
22:30
The judge doesn't look at the defendant's wealthy friend
22:33
sitting in the gallery offering to pay a fine.
22:36
The judge looks at the historical fact that this
22:38
specific individual chose to drive recklessly and endanger
22:43
lives. To treat someone justly in this
22:46
distributive sense is to treat them exactly according to their
22:50
own personal conduct. So it's the difference between
22:52
going to jail for a DUI versus paying a friend's speeding
22:55
ticket. Yeah, that's a great way to put
22:57
it. If you get a parking ticket,
22:58
which is a minor commutative issue, a friend can pay it and
23:01
the city doesn't care. But if you commit a felony, a
23:04
friend can't just step in and say I'll serve the sentence for.
23:07
Him. No, they can't.
23:08
Distributive justice demands that the person who committed
23:11
the crime faces the music. The state wants the offender,
23:14
not just a substitute body. The distinction is vital.
23:18
Commutative justice only looks at property.
23:21
Distributive justice only looks at personal conduct and
23:23
character. And that separation is where so
23:26
much theological confusion gets cleared up.
23:30
But we have one more category to define.
23:31
The third category is what Edwards calls general or public
23:35
justice. Public justice.
23:37
Yes, this is a very broad, sweeping category.
23:41
It essentially means doing whatever is right and best for
23:44
the universe as a whole and for God's glory.
23:47
It comprehends all moral goodness and the safety of the
23:51
entire system. Give us a real world equivalent
23:53
of public justice so we can grasp the scale of it.
23:56
Think about a state governor dealing with a massive crisis.
23:59
Let's say there is a riot and the governor has the National
24:01
Guard at his disposal. The governor enacts a policy,
24:04
perhaps a curfew, that protects the citizens, stops the
24:08
violence, and upholds the moral fabric of the state.
24:11
That curfew might inconvenience some innocent people, but it is
24:14
an act of public justice because it secures the greater good.
24:17
That makes sense. Conversely, if a judge starts
24:19
letting violent criminals walk free without any consequences,
24:22
that judge is committing an act of public injustice.
24:25
Why? Because while it might be nice
24:27
for the criminal, it harms the general good of the city.
24:30
It sets a terrible precedent. Right.
24:32
It tells everyone that laws don't matter, which destabilizes
24:35
society. Public justice is concerned with
24:38
the safety, order and moral integrity of the entire
24:41
universe. So we have three lenses of
24:44
justice, the justice of property and commerce, the justice of
24:48
personal moral conduct, and the justice of the universal good.
24:52
Now we need to define grace. Edwards defines grace in
24:56
opposition to these specific concepts of justice.
24:59
He says that whenever justice ends, grace begins.
25:02
First, let's define grace and opposition to commutative
25:06
justice. In the realm of property, grace
25:09
is gratuitously giving up your property.
25:11
It is absorbing a loss. It is forgiving a financial
25:15
debt. If you owe me $5000 and I know
25:17
you can't pay it, and I decide to tear up the contract and
25:20
absorb the loss myself, I have shown you grace in the
25:23
commutative sense. I gave up my right to my
25:25
property. And then we define grace in
25:27
opposition to distributive justice.
25:28
This is the crucial 1. Yes, very crucial.
25:30
In the realm of personal moral conduct, grace is treating a
25:34
person more favorably than their personal character and their
25:37
historical conduct warrant. Think back to our criminal
25:40
courtroom. If a person commits a serious
25:43
crime, their personal record demands punishment.
25:46
That historical fact cannot be erased.
25:49
If that person is treated mildly or let go entirely, they are
25:54
being treated better than their personal character deserves.
25:56
Exactly. That is grace in the
25:58
distributive sense. It is favor shown to the ill
26:01
deserving. So we have our terms locked in,
26:03
we know the difference between the marketplace, the Criminal
26:06
Court and the governor's office, and we know what Grace looks
26:10
like in those different arenas. The groundwork is laid.
26:12
Now comes the really exciting part.
26:14
We are going to apply these very precise definitions to the
26:18
puzzle of the atonement and the pardon of the Sinner.
26:21
We're going to put the puzzle pieces together.
26:23
Let's start with the first lens. Let's evaluate the pardon of the
26:26
Sinner through the lens of commutative justice.
26:29
How does the justice of property and commerce apply to our
26:33
forgiveness? It doesn't.
26:34
It just doesn't. That is the genius of this
26:36
framework. Commutative justice is
26:39
completely unconcerned with the affair of our salvation.
26:43
As we established earlier when we talked about the limits of
26:45
metaphors, we didn't owe literal money to the deity.
26:49
Right, no gold coins. Christ didn't pay literal gold
26:51
coins on our behalf. The universe wasn't short on
26:55
assets. The atonement was not a property
26:57
transaction. OK, if it had been, if Christ
27:00
had literally paid a financial debt, then our pardon would be
27:04
an act of pure commutative justice and 0 grace to demand
27:08
payment from the center after the substitute paid the cash
27:11
would be extortion. But since no property was
27:14
exchanged, since it wasn't a commercial transaction,
27:16
commutative justice drops off the table entirely.
27:19
It isn't a factor. Which clears away so much
27:21
confusion. People get stuck at the bank
27:23
teller's window because they try to force a property justice
27:25
framework onto a heavy moral reality.
27:27
We use the wrong lens. They really do.
27:30
So let's discard the commercial lens entirely.
27:33
We moved to the second lens. We evaluate the pardon of the
27:36
Sinner through the lens of distributive justice.
27:39
And here is the core breakthrough of the entire
27:42
essay. I want to walk through this
27:44
logic out loud, step by step. Let's do it under distributive
27:47
justice. We have to look exclusively at
27:50
the sinner's personal character. We have to look at the
27:52
historical rap sheet. Right.
27:54
Remember the courtroom analogy? The judge has to look at the
27:57
defendant's actual actions. OK, so think about this
28:00
logically. Did Christ's death on the cross
28:03
erase the historical fact of your personal rebellion?
28:07
No. Did it act like a time machine,
28:09
going back in time and changing the fact that you committed the
28:12
acts you committed? Did it rewrite history so that
28:14
you were actually perfectly obedient?
28:16
No, it didn't. The historical events remain
28:19
historical events. Your personal track record of
28:22
conduct remains your personal track record.
28:25
The actions you performed, the rebellions you participated in,
28:28
the lies you told, they are permanently etched into your
28:32
historical character. You can't unring those bells.
28:36
The substitute suffered, but the substitute didn't change your
28:39
past. Spot on.
28:41
My personal record is still guilty.
28:43
I am still the individual who committed the offense.
28:46
Now apply the rule of distributive justice.
28:49
We just define Distributive justice only looks at the
28:52
personal record. It puts the blinders on.
28:54
It does not look at the substitute.
28:55
It does not look at Christ on the cross.
28:57
It looks only at the individual standing before the bench,
29:00
Right. And when distributive justice
29:02
looks at my personal record, my historical actions, what does it
29:04
conclude? It concludes that my personal
29:07
record warrants punishment. My character deserves
29:11
condemnation. And that brings us to the
29:13
inevitable, staggering conclusion.
29:15
Tell me. Because your personal record
29:17
still warrants punishment, because you are still
29:20
historically guilty in your own person, any pardon you received
29:23
from the judge is a treatment infinitely better than your
29:26
personal character deserves. And what did we say was the
29:30
definition of grace? In the distributive sense, it is
29:34
treating a person more favorably than their personal character
29:37
and conduct warrant. Therefore, under the lens of
29:40
distributive justice, the pardon of the Sinner is 100% pure
29:45
grace. Let me state that again, so the
29:47
weight of it really lands for you, the listener.
29:49
I want this to be crystal clear. The atonement by a substitute,
29:53
even a perfect infinite substitute like Christ, does not
29:57
alter the fact that you, the Sinner personally deserve the
30:00
penalty based on your own conduct.
30:02
You didn't suffer the curse of the law yourself.
30:04
You didn't provide the perfect obedience yourself, therefore
30:08
you have absolutely no claim to a discharge based on your own
30:11
historical conduct. You can't point to your own life
30:13
and demand freedom. You'd have no leg to stand on.
30:15
None. When God pardons you, He is
30:18
looking at a person who deserves wrath based on their own record,
30:21
and He is choosing to give them freedom instead.
30:23
That is pure, unadulterated grace.
30:26
Beautifully said. The provision of the substitute
30:28
doesn't diminish the grace of the pardon, it just provides the
30:30
legal safety for the grace to be extended.
30:33
This resolved the tensions so beautifully it explains why a
30:37
judge can accept a substitute in a moral or criminal case which
30:41
represents distributive justice, and still be exercising
30:44
overwhelming grace toward the criminal.
30:46
Because the character remains the same.
30:48
Right, the criminals personal character is unchanged by the
30:51
substitute suffering. They are still guilty in their
30:54
own person, so letting them go is a gracious act toward them.
30:59
This is entirely different from a civil case involving a
31:01
financial debt, where the substitute's payment satisfies
31:05
the property requirement, completely wiping the Ledger
31:07
clean and leaving no room for grace.
31:10
Edwards separates the civil from the criminal, the commutative
31:13
from the distributive, and the paradox vanishes.
31:15
It is a phenomenal piece of logic.
31:17
We've solved the inconsistency, but we still have one more lens
31:20
to apply. We have evaluated commutative
31:23
and distributive justice. What about public justice?
31:26
The third category. Right.
31:28
This was doing what is right and best for the universe and for
31:31
God's glory. How does the pardon of the
31:33
center look through the lens of public justice?
31:36
Under the definition of public justice, the pardon of the
31:38
Sinner is 100% an act of justice.
31:42
OK, that sounds contradictory at first.
31:44
It does sound contradictory until you remember the
31:46
definition. Public justice means seeking the
31:49
highest good for the moral system of the universe.
31:52
It means making sure the moral order doesn't collapse because
31:56
Christ suffered. As a substitute, he demonstrated
32:00
God's hatred of sin and upheld the massive authority of the
32:04
divine law. Because that authority was
32:07
upheld and vindicated, it is now the absolute best thing for the
32:11
universe and most conducive to God's glory that believers are
32:15
pardoned in this specific way. It secures the safety of the
32:18
universe. Yes.
32:19
If God just pardoned people without upholding the law, if he
32:22
just swept the rebellion under the rug, the moral fabric of the
32:25
universe would unravel. It would be chaos.
32:27
Total chaos. People would assume sin has no
32:29
consequence. The universe would become a
32:31
lawless place, but because Christ bore the penalty, the law
32:35
is magnified. God's hatred of sin is displayed
32:39
in terrifying clarity. And now pardoning the Sinner
32:42
brings massive glory to God without destabilizing the moral
32:46
order. It is publicly just to pardon
32:49
them. This makes me think of Romans
32:50
chapter 3, verse 26. Oh, that's the perfect verse for
32:53
this. The Apostle Paul writes that God
32:55
did this so that he might be just and the justifier of him
32:58
which believeth in Jesus. God remains perfectly just to
33:02
himself and to the moral fabric of the universe, while
33:05
simultaneously being the one who justifies the guilty individual.
33:09
That verse is the anchor for this whole concept.
33:12
Righteousness, in the sense of the public good, allows for
33:15
peace with the Sinner. The universe doesn't suffer an
33:18
injury when a believer is forgiven because the atonement
33:21
protected the universe from the catastrophic fallout of ignored
33:24
sin. When you look at your own life
33:26
and the forgiveness you've received, it isn't a cold
33:28
transaction at a bank teller's window.
33:31
It is a staggering, intensely personal gift.
33:34
It is. It is grace because your own
33:36
personal record did not earn it. You are receiving favor you do
33:39
not deserve. But at the exact same time, your
33:42
forgiveness isn't a sweeping of dirt under the rug that
33:44
compromises God's integrity. No, not at all.
33:47
Your forgiveness simultaneously upholds the moral fabric of the
33:50
entire universe. It is perfect justice and
33:53
perfect grace operating on different tracks.
33:56
Meeting at the cross, you get the warmth of an unearned pardon
33:59
and the universe gets the security of an upheld law.
34:03
It elevates the concept of forgiveness from a mirror, from
34:06
a simple accounting trick to a master class and divine wisdom.
34:10
Edward shows us that we don't have to choose between a God of
34:13
strict justice and a God of free grace.
34:15
We get both. He's entirely both, depending on
34:18
which lens of justice you're looking through.
34:20
The contradiction was an illusion caused by bad
34:23
definitions. We have laid out the core
34:24
solution here, but we can't stop there.
34:27
Theological arguments always invite counter arguments and
34:30
hypothetical questions. Always.
34:32
People love to play devil's advocate.
34:33
They really do. When you present a thesis this
34:35
tight, people try to poke holes in it.
34:38
Edwards was brilliant at anticipating what his critics
34:40
would say before they even said it.
34:42
He. Was a master at that.
34:43
So let's address some final objections and a few fascinating
34:46
what if scenarios. The first objection is what we
34:48
can call the greater grace question, and it goes like this.
34:53
OK, maybe there is grace in pardoning someone based on an
34:57
atonement. I concede that point, but
35:00
wouldn't it have been an act of significantly greater grace if
35:04
God had just pardoned everyone absolutely, without requiring
35:07
Christ's atonement at all? Just waving the requirement
35:10
entirely. Right.
35:11
If he just waved his hand from heaven and said everyone is
35:14
forgiven, no cost necessary, wouldn't that be a bigger, more
35:17
impressive display of grace? It is a question that naturally
35:21
arises if you think grace is opposed to any kind of
35:25
requirement whatsoever. It assumes that rules shrink
35:29
grace. Right, that structure somehow
35:31
diminishes the love. Yeah, but Edwards tackles this
35:34
with a brilliant mathematical counter argument.
35:36
He asked us to measure the amount of grace in any given act
35:39
of pardon. How do you measure grace?
35:41
That sounds complicated. How do you?
35:43
You measure it by looking at the distance between the gift that
35:46
is given and the personal demerit of the person receiving
35:49
it. Let's break that calculation
35:51
down so we can visualize it. We have two variables here.
35:54
Variable A is the good of the pardon, the fact that you go
35:57
free, you escape wrath, and you receive eternal life.
36:00
That's the size of the gift. Got it?
36:02
Variable B is the personal demerit of the center, how much
36:05
guilt you carry based on your historical conduct.
36:08
Now let's compare the two hypothetical scenarios side by
36:10
side, pardoning with an atonement versus pardoning
36:14
without an atonement. In both scenarios, variable a is
36:17
identical. The gift is the same.
36:19
Yes, the good of the pardon is exactly the same.
36:23
You are delivered from condemnation and you go free.
36:25
The gift doesn't change size based on the method of delivery.
36:28
Makes sense? Now look at variable B.
36:31
The personal demerit of the Sinner is also identical in both
36:34
scenarios. Your personal track record of
36:37
rebellion is the same whether God requires an atonement or
36:39
not. Your historical guilt doesn't
36:42
shrink or grow based on God's chosen method of forgiveness.
36:45
So if the gift is the same size and your personal guilt is the
36:48
same size, then the distance between the two variables is
36:51
identical in both scenarios. Therefore, an atonement doesn't
36:54
shrink the size of the grace. You are treated just as
36:57
favorably compared to your personal character.
36:59
In both situations. It is mathematically impossible
37:02
for a pardon without an atonement to contain a greater
37:05
quantity of grace toward the individual.
37:07
The math simply doesn't support the objection.
37:10
It is a devastatingly logical response.
37:13
The grace is measured by how little you deserve the pardon,
37:16
since you deserve it equally little.
37:18
In both scenarios, the grace is equally massive.
37:22
But Edwards pushes further into this objection.
37:25
He doesn't just stop at the math.
37:27
He points out the massive necessity of the atonement for
37:30
the universe itself. If God were to forgive without
37:33
an determent, He would violently violate public justice.
37:36
I want unpack the consequences of that violation.
37:39
What actually happens to the universe if God just waves his
37:42
hand and partings without an atonement?
37:43
What is the real world Fallout? If God pardons without an
37:47
atonement, He sends a blaring message to the entire created
37:50
order that His law is not not serious.
37:53
That's dangerous. It's incredibly dangerous.
37:55
He demonstrates that rebellion doesn't actually require a
37:58
manifestation of divine displeasure.
38:01
This would essentially collapse the moral government of God.
38:04
It would encourage further rebellion because there are no
38:06
real consequences, and it would tarnish God's own glory because
38:10
he would be acting as a judge who doesn't care about justice
38:14
or truth. It would severely harm the moral
38:17
system of the universe. It would be chaos.
38:20
So if an objector asks for pardon without an atonement,
38:23
they're actually asking God to do something injurious to the
38:27
universe? Yes, they are.
38:28
They are asking God to harm his creation, destabilize reality,
38:32
and compromise his own character just to prove a philosophical
38:35
point about grace and a perfect good.
38:38
God would never agree to do something harmful to the
38:40
universe. Never.
38:41
He is necessarily disposed to seek the good of the universal
38:44
system. Therefore, pardon without
38:47
atonement isn't just mathematically identical in its
38:49
grace, it is morally impossible for a perfect deity.
38:52
The objector is demanding a scenario that would require God
38:57
to cease being good. It highlights how shallow the
39:00
objection really is when you follow it to his logical
39:03
conclusion. God dispenses pardon from a
39:06
regard to circumstances that make the pardon safe and
39:09
consistent with the general good.
39:11
The death of Christ is that circumstance.
39:14
It makes it safe to forgive. That brings us to another subtle
39:17
critique, which we can call the obligation objection.
39:21
Right, I know this one. The critics say, OK, if God only
39:24
pardons us because the atonement makes it safe for the public
39:27
good, then we shouldn't really feel grateful to God for the
39:30
pardon itself. We should only feel grateful for
39:32
the provision of the atonement in the past.
39:34
The pardon is just God acting in the interest of the universe,
39:37
keeping the system running smoothly, not out of love for me
39:40
personally. Edwards counters this by
39:43
pointing back to the nature of the individual recipient.
39:46
Even if God is acting to protect the public good, the act of
39:49
dispensing the pardon to an I'll deserving individual is still an
39:53
act of pure grace toward that specific individual.
39:56
Give us an example to ground that.
39:58
Let's go back to our governor analogy.
40:00
Imagine a governor who decides to pardon a notorious prisoner.
40:04
Because doing so will heal a massive societal divide.
40:08
It's a public good. OK?
40:10
The prisoner sitting in the cell who deserves to be there based
40:13
on his own historical crimes is still receiving an unearned
40:17
gift. The prisoner isn't going to look
40:19
at the governor and say, well, since you did this for the good
40:22
of the state, I owe you no gratitude that.
40:24
Would be ridiculous. It would be absurd.
40:26
The prisoner owes supreme overwhelming gratitude because
40:30
he was handed a freedom he didn't earn, regardless of the
40:33
governor's overarching motives for the state.
40:35
The motives of God in protecting the universe don't negate the
40:38
reality of the unearned gift landing in your lap.
40:41
The fact that your forgiveness is perfectly balanced with the
40:44
safety of the cosmos should make you more grateful, not less.
40:48
God aligned the moral structure of reality so that He could
40:51
extend grace to you specifically without breaking the world.
40:55
That demands an overwhelming response of gratitude.
40:58
You are the beneficiary of a brilliant cosmic balancing act.
41:01
All of these objections, whether they are based on bad math about
41:04
the size of grace or bad assumptions about God's motives,
41:08
they all melt away when you apply the precise definitions
41:12
Edwards provides. They really do.
41:14
The whole strength of the argument that says complete
41:16
atonement contradicts free grace depends entirely on the false
41:20
assumption that the atonement is a literal payment of a financial
41:24
debt in the commutative sense. Right.
41:26
Once you realize it is a moral reality dealing with personal
41:29
character and public justice, the contradiction vanishes.
41:33
It evaporates completely. We have covered a massive amount
41:37
of conceptual ground today. Let's summarize the core
41:40
takeaways from this deep dive so we can tie it all together.
41:43
Sounds good? We started with a grand
41:45
inconsistency. How can a paid debt result in a
41:48
free pardon? We looked at failed attempts
41:50
that tried to split the timeline or rely on anonymous
41:53
benefactors, and we saw how those left God acting as a cold
41:57
bank manager, handing out legal receipts.
41:59
Yeah, handing out receipts instead of Grace.
42:01
We saw how changing the word payment to vindication didn't
42:04
fix the underlying mechanics of justice.
42:06
And then we found the key in the definitions of justice.
42:10
Yes, the definitions. Commutative justice dealing with
42:12
property and commerce drops out completely.
42:15
Distributive justice, dealing with your personal moral record
42:19
demands your punishment, making any pardon and act of infinite
42:23
unearned grace right. And public justice dealing with
42:27
the moral safety of the universe, requires the atonement
42:30
so that God's law is upheld while you are set free.
42:34
The incredible resolution to the puzzle is this Christ's
42:37
atonement satisfies the public justice of the universe
42:40
perfectly. But because his suffering on the
42:43
cross doesn't change your personal historical guilty
42:46
record, the pardon you receive remains an act of infinite,
42:50
unearned grace. It's amazing.
42:52
You are treated far better than you deserve, while the universe
42:55
remains morally secure. It is a brilliant, beautiful
43:00
synthesis. It really is, and I want to
43:02
leave you the listener with a final thought to Mull over.
43:05
This is something that builds on Edwards logic but pushes it into
43:08
our daily lived experience. What is it?
43:10
We have seen how God's ultimate forgiveness requires this
43:13
meticulous balance, maintaining the moral order of the universe
43:17
while extending totally unearned grace to the individual.
43:21
If that is the divine standard, how should that shape the way we
43:25
forgive the people who wrong us in our daily lives?
43:28
Man, that is a staggering question.
43:31
We are called to forgive as we have been forgiven, but human
43:35
forgiveness is often incredibly sloppy.
43:37
Very sloppy. We either demand strict payback
43:40
and offer no grace turning into that cold creditor, or we offer
43:43
cheap grace that ignores the injury and fails to uphold any
43:47
sense of justice or healthy boundaries.
43:49
Precisely can our human forgiveness uphold justice,
43:52
acknowledging the reality of the wrong, maintaining healthy
43:55
boundaries, and respecting the moral order of our communities,
43:58
while still offering genuine, warm grace to the person who
44:01
hurt us. That's the challenge.
44:03
It is. Can we refuse to demand a
44:05
literal emotional pound of flesh while still treating the offense
44:08
with the seriousness it deserves?
44:10
If God manages to be both just and the justifier, perhaps Our
44:14
Calling is to reflect that same nuanced, heavy, glorious balance
44:17
in our own human relationships. It shifts the entire paradigm of
44:20
how we interact with those who owe us a debt or an apology.
44:23
It brings us right back to that opening image of the bank.
44:26
We often want a clean Ledger, a stamped receipt, a simple
44:29
mathematical conclusion to our conflict.
44:32
But the reality of grace is far more demanding and infinitely
44:35
more beautiful than a simple commercial transaction.
44:38
Thank you for joining today's deep dive on reformed thinking.