Latest / Reformed Thinking / Did Christ Need to Satisfy Divine Justice? Answering the Socinian Objections | John Owen

Transcript

Did Christ Need to Satisfy Divine Justice? Answering the Socinian Objections | John Owen · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reformed thinking. You know, usually when we talk
0:03
about a, well, a medical diagnosis, there is this built
0:06
in expectation of precision. It feels very mechanical.
0:10
You break your arm. The X-ray shows that jagged
0:12
white line on the film and the doctor just points to it and
0:14
says there it is. Right.
0:16
Yeah. It operates on a very binary
0:18
level. Broken or not broken, it's
0:20
visible, categorizable. And I mean, that kind of clarity
0:24
offers a lot of comfort to the human mind.
0:26
It's clean, but then you step into the world of theology and
0:29
specifically into the arena of trying to understand if your
0:33
attributes of a divine being, and suddenly that X-ray machine
0:36
is useless. We find ourselves looking at a
0:40
theological landscape that is incredibly murky to our modern
0:43
sensibilities. We want to put things in neat
0:45
little boxes. But the text we are looking at
0:48
today argues that trying to put the attributes of God into
0:51
separate, compartmentalized boxes isn't just bad Theology is
0:54
an act of intellectual theft. Which is a heavy accusation.
0:57
You know, the text we are analyzing makes the case that
1:00
misunderstanding these concepts leads to an actual robbery of
1:03
the divine nature. And that brings us to the core
1:06
of what we are doing today. You are joining us for a deep
1:09
dive into a historical, highly systematic theological text.
1:14
We are looking at John Owens, a dissertation on divine justice.
1:18
Specifically, we're going to focus our attention on Chapter 8
1:20
of this work, where Owen systematically attempts to
1:23
dismantle the objections of his theological adversaries.
1:26
Yeah, and our objective here is to evaluate a massive,
1:29
staggering question posed by Owens text.
1:32
Are the justice and mercy of God essential parts of his very
1:35
nature, or are they just free choices He makes whenever the
1:38
mood strikes him? Right, like does he choose to be
1:41
just in the same way you or I might choose to wear a blue
1:43
shirt instead of a red 1 today. But before we get into the
1:47
weeds, let's lay down some ground rules.
1:49
We are dealing with incredibly weighty concepts today, so we've
1:52
decided we are going to take turns breaking down these ideas.
1:55
We will be intentional about not talking over one another,
1:57
ensuring that you, the listener, get a clear, unbroken train of
2:01
thought. That sounds like a solid plan O.
2:04
To set the table for this, we really need to understand the
2:07
analytical framework Owen is operating within.
2:10
John Owen is writing in the 17th century and he is not dealing in
2:13
light, casual concepts. He is methodical, exhaustive,
2:17
and leaves no philosophical stone unturned.
2:20
Yeah, he is intense. Very.
2:22
We are going to examine the specific theological logic he
2:25
builds to defend what was at the time the Orthodox, a Christian
2:29
doctrine regarding the nature of God.
2:31
We will be mapping out his arguments, looking at the
2:33
counter arguments he was facing, and trying to understand the
2:36
underlying mechanics of his philosophical worldview.
2:40
I think the best place to start is the historical battleground
2:43
itself. If Owen is writing a defense, he
2:45
has to be defending against a specific attack.
2:48
So who is he fighting here? What is the actual threat that
2:50
warranted this level of academic rigor?
2:52
Well, the adversaries Owen is responding directly to are known
2:56
as the Sicinians. To get the full picture, we have
2:59
to look at a document called the Rochovian Catechism.
3:02
This catechism is generally attributed to a man named
3:04
Valentin Schmaltz. He's often referred to as
3:07
Smalcius, who compiled it from the writings and notes left
3:11
behind by Faustus Sesenis after his death.
3:13
OK, so Faustus Sesenis is the primary architect, like the
3:17
namesake of the Sasanian movement.
3:18
Spot on. Yes, the movement originated
3:21
largely in Poland, specifically the city of Rocco, hence the
3:24
name Rochovian Catechism. This document basically became
3:28
the formal, structured teaching tool designed to spread their
3:30
specific doctoras. Right, but the reason this
3:33
becomes an urgent crisis for John Owen over in England isn't
3:36
just because a book existed in Poland.
3:38
The urgency is tied to the timeline and the printing press.
3:42
An English translation of the Rochovian Catechism was
3:44
published by a man named John Biddle in 1652.
3:47
Wait 1652? Let me think if I have my
3:52
English history right. This is right after the English
3:54
Civil War. King Charles the First has been
3:57
executed, Oliver Cromwell is in power, the Church of England is
4:00
in massive upheaval, and the entire country is essentially A
4:03
theological and political powder keg.
4:06
That is the exact environment the nation is desperately trying
4:09
to stabilize itself, and theological stability was viewed
4:12
as a matter of national security and social cohesion.
4:15
That makes sense. So when John Biddle translates
4:18
this catechism into English, it means the Sicinian arguments are
4:22
no longer restricted to Latin debates among university
4:25
scholars on the European continent.
4:27
The arguments are now in the common tongue, circulating in
4:29
the streets of London, being read by laypeople, merchants and
4:33
local clergy. Owen views this as a contagion
4:36
that needs an immediate, airtight response.
4:38
So what makes Sicinianism so contagious?
4:40
Like, what is the actual threat they're posing to the Orthodox
4:43
theology Owen is trying to protect?
4:45
The Sicinians were highly rational.
4:47
They prioritized human reason as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
4:51
When they looked at the Orthodox argument for Christ's atonement,
4:55
the idea that Christ had to die to satisfy the demands of divine
4:58
justice, they thought it was illogical.
5:01
Now they were cunning. And how they argued this in
5:04
their own catechism. They admit that the Orthodox
5:06
argument appears quote plausible at first glance.
5:10
But they follow that up by claiming that adopting the
5:12
Orthodox view results in a dreadful sacrilege against God.
5:15
They argue that saying God had to punish sin robs God of his
5:19
freedom and his essential attributes.
5:21
Oh wow, they are accusing the Orthodox side of the very
5:24
robbery Owen is accusing them of.
5:26
It is a battle over who is actually diminishing the nature
5:28
of God. Right.
5:30
And to avoid what they see as a theological crime, the Sicinians
5:33
draw a hard line. They flatly deny that justice or
5:36
sparing mercy are naturally inherent in God.
5:39
They argue these are not essential to his being.
5:41
OK, I want to make sure I'm visualizing this correctly for
5:44
you, the listener. Let's think about this in terms
5:46
of physical properties. If I look at a glass of water,
5:50
the wetness of that water is an inherent, unchangeable property.
5:55
Water cannot decide to be dry tomorrow and still remain water.
5:59
Wetness is part of its essence. Yes, that tracks.
6:02
Now contrast that with the jacket I am wearing.
6:04
I can put the jacket on. I can take it off.
6:06
My decision to wear the jacket is an effect of my free will.
6:10
If I take it off, my essential nature as a human being hasn't
6:15
changed. Are the Sicilians arguing that
6:17
God's justice and mercy are like the jacket?
6:20
That analogy holds up perfectly with their argument.
6:22
They are asserting that God can simply take off his justice
6:25
whenever he wants. He can take off his mercy.
6:28
These traits are not woven into the fabric of who he is.
6:30
They're just actions he sometimes decides to perform.
6:33
And Owen is not OK with that. Owen sees this as catastrophic.
6:37
If justice is just a jacket God can take off, then the entire
6:41
logical foundation for why Christ had to die on the cross
6:44
collapses. If God could just choose to wave
6:47
away sin without satisfying justice, the crucifixion becomes
6:51
an unnecessary tragedy rather than a theological necessity.
6:54
I see why Owen is treating this like a 5 alarm fire, but before
6:58
we get to Owen's counterattack, I feel like we need to give the
7:01
Sicinian argument a fair hearing.
7:03
We need to understand why this trap was so persuasive to a
7:06
reader in 1652. Honestly, reading through their
7:09
logic, it sounds incredibly persuasive today.
7:11
It really is persuasive mainly because it appeals to a very
7:14
basic human understanding of fairness and non contradiction.
7:18
The Sicinians build their primary argument around what
7:20
they perceive as an irreconcilable contradiction of
7:23
attributes. Well, it's contradiction.
7:25
They state that if mercy were naturally inherent in God, if it
7:28
were part of his very essence, then God would not be able to
7:30
fully punish any sin. Their reasoning is that a being
7:34
cannot act contrary to its own nature.
7:36
If your nature is pure, essential mercy, you can never
7:39
inflict punishment. And they apply the exact same
7:41
logic to justice in reverse, right?
7:43
They do. They maintain the same standard
7:45
for both sides of the coin. They argue that if strict
7:48
punitive justice were naturally inherent in God, then God could
7:52
forgive no sin, because if his essence is justice for giving, a
7:56
sin would mean acting against his own essential being.
7:59
They claim a perfectly simple being can never do anything that
8:03
contradicts what is naturally inherent in him.
8:05
They actually bring in a test case for this, don't they?
8:07
They use a different attribute to prove their rule.
8:09
Yes, they use the attribute of Wisdom as their control group.
8:13
The Sicinians say. Let us look at wisdom.
8:16
We all agree that wisdom is naturally inherent in God.
8:18
And because it is naturally inherent, we observe that God
8:21
never acts contrary to it. Whatever God does, the argument
8:24
goes, he does wisely. You will never find an instance
8:28
of God acting foolishly. Right.
8:30
So the Sicinians apply this standard of consistency to
8:33
justice and mercy. They point out the obvious
8:36
biblical and historical reality. God Forgives sins sometimes, and
8:39
he punishes sins sometimes. Because he alternates between
8:43
these two contrary actions, they conclude that mercy and justice
8:46
cannot be naturally inherent in him the way wisdom is.
8:50
They must be temporary effects of his own free will.
8:52
I have to admit, if I put myself in the shoes of someone reading
8:55
John Biddle's translation in a London coffee house, this makes
8:58
a ton of mathematical sense. If God is essentially merciful,
9:02
throwing someone into judgement feels like a violation of that
9:05
essence. If he is essentially just
9:08
pardoning someone feels like a compromise of his standards, The
9:11
argument is, well, it's clean. So how does Owen or anyone
9:14
operating within the orthodox Reformed framework respond to
9:17
this without just plugging their ears and saying it's a mystery?
9:20
It feels like the Sicilians have them backed into a corner.
9:23
It is a clever trap, no doubt, but Owen approaches it by
9:26
examining the very hinges the trap is built on.
9:30
The Sicinians are relying on an overly simplistic view of how
9:33
divine attributes function. They assume every attribute of
9:36
God must manifest in the exact same manner, under the exact
9:40
same conditions, in every single circumstance.
9:42
OK, Owen is going to dismantle that assumption piece by piece,
9:46
starting with a very close look into the nature of justice and
9:49
mercy themselves. Let's follow Owen's logic then.
9:52
He does not try to find a middle ground here, does he?
9:54
He goes straight on the offensive.
9:55
He really does. He begins by establishing a
9:57
fixed theological principle. He states unequivocally that
10:01
mercy is essential to God, but he pairs that with a statement
10:04
that sounds shocking at first glance.
10:07
He argues that the nature of mercy in God is the identical
10:09
perfection and rectitude as His justice.
10:12
Wait, slow down. He is saying the essence of
10:15
mercy and the essence of justice are the exact same thing in God.
10:18
Yes, this is rooted in the classical theistic doctrine of
10:21
divine simplicity. When theologians of Owens era
10:25
say God's essences quote most simple, they are using
10:28
philosophical terminology. They do not mean God is easy to
10:32
figure out. They mean God is not composite.
10:34
He is not made-up of parts. So no pie charts.
10:36
No pie charts. You cannot slice God into a
10:39
chart where he is 20% mercy, 30% justice, 10% wrath, and 4% love.
10:45
He is entirely and indivisibly Himself.
10:48
His essence is undivided. Therefore, Owen concludes, his
10:52
essence cannot be opposed to itself.
10:54
Justice and mercy cannot be two warring factions inside the mind
10:58
of God. This idea of divine simplicity
11:01
actually brings up a fascinating historical dispute that Owen
11:03
references in the text. He brings up Samuel Rutherford.
11:06
And for those who might not know, Samuel Rutherford was a
11:08
massive figure in Scottish theology.
11:10
He was one of the commissioners at the Westminster Assembly.
11:12
He was practically theological royalty.
11:14
Yet Owen publicly calls him out on this specific point.
11:17
Yeah, Rutherford is highly respected, but Owen is ruthless
11:21
when it comes to logical consistency.
11:24
Rutherford had tried to thread the needle on this issue in his
11:27
own writings. Rutherford asserted that mercy
11:29
is essential to God, but that punitory justice, the justice
11:33
that punishes sin, is a free act of the divine will.
11:36
Why would Rutherford do that? Rutherford was attempting to
11:40
protect the freedom of God. He wanted to maintain that God
11:43
wasn't forced by some outside law to punish sin, so he
11:46
classified justice as a choice. And how does Owen react to
11:49
Rutherford trying to protect God's freedom that way?
11:52
Owen calls the assertion false and foolish.
11:55
Ouch. Yeah, he writes that the thing
11:57
speaks for itself. Omen insists that you cannot
12:00
divide God's attributes like that.
12:02
You cannot say 1 is essential and the other is a choice.
12:05
For Owen, maintaining truth requires understanding how we
12:08
attribute these concepts to God. He argues that justice is
12:11
attributed to God properly by way of habit.
12:14
Mercy, on the other hand, is attributed analogically by way
12:17
of affection. OK.
12:18
We need to translate that by way of habit versus by way of
12:22
affection. That sounds like heavy
12:24
scholastic jargon. What is the practical difference
12:27
he is trying to highlight? To explain this, Owen points to
12:30
the covenantal framework of Scripture.
12:32
He looks at what Reformed theology calls the covenant of
12:34
works, the initial arrangement between God and Adam in the
12:38
Garden of Eden. Owen points out a crucial
12:41
historical reality. Under that first covenant, God
12:44
made no provision, no mechanism for the display of his mercy.
12:47
Really, none at all. None.
12:49
The rule was clear. If Adam sinned, the trajectory
12:52
proceeded straight to the glory of God's justice.
12:55
The promised result was death. Sparing mercy was not put on
12:58
display in that initial arrangement.
13:00
So because mercy wasn't displayed in the garden, is Owen
13:03
saying didn't exist yet? No, that is the key.
13:07
Owen maintains that mercy is no less naturally inherent in God
13:10
than justices. Both are essential to who He is.
13:14
The difference is in the display of those attributes.
13:17
The unfolding of these attributes happens differently
13:19
according to the specific covenants God establishes.
13:22
The internal essence is the same, but the hour to expression
13:26
changes based on the object God is interacting with.
13:29
This is where I think a visual analogy might help clarify what
13:31
Owen is doing with divine simplicity.
13:34
Imagine a pure, intense beam of white light.
13:38
That white light represents God's simple, undivided essence.
13:42
It is whole, it is pure, and it contains no conflicting parts.
13:47
Now imagine that light traveling through space and hitting a
13:49
glass prism. Depending on the angle of the
13:51
prism and the nature of the glass, that pure white light
13:54
refracts into a spectrum of colors.
13:56
On the wall behind it you see a distinct band of red light and a
13:59
distinct band of blue light. That works very well for the
14:02
philosophical point he's making. Right, The red light and the
14:05
blue light look completely different to our eyes if we only
14:08
look at the wall. We might even think they're
14:10
opposites, but they're originating from the exact same
14:13
pure, unified source. The egresses, to use own
14:17
specific terminology for the outward effects of justice and
14:20
mercy look different to us depending on who they are
14:23
hitting. If the light of God's holy
14:25
essence hits an unrepentant rebellious creature, the
14:28
refraction we see is justice. If that exact same light hits a
14:32
repentant believer who is covered by a mediator, the
14:35
refraction we see is mercy. The outward effects are
14:38
contrary, but the essential internal principle generating
14:41
those effects is singular and unbroken.
14:44
That gets to the absolute heart of Owens defense.
14:47
He states explicitly that it is not necessary, that though
14:49
actions be contrary, the essential principles should also
14:53
be contrary. From our human perspective,
14:55
looking at the outward actions, punishing a guilty person for
14:58
whom no satisfaction has been made is an entirely different
15:01
event than pardoning someone who believes.
15:03
But Owen argues that both actions stem from the exact same
15:06
identical perfection of God's nature reacting to different
15:08
conditions. But if I am playing the role of
15:11
the Sicilian, I'm not giving up that easily.
15:14
I would say. Sure the light hits the prism
15:16
differently, but punishing someone still feels like the
15:19
opposite of being merciful to them.
15:22
This brings us to what we can call the cruelty argument and
15:24
Owens explanation of the rules governing divine attributes.
15:28
The Socinians push back with that exact sentiment.
15:31
They insist if it were naturally inherent in God, God would not
15:34
punish any sin. Owen asked them for their
15:37
reasoning. The Socinians reply because God
15:40
cannot do anything contrary to what is naturally inherent in
15:43
him, but it is manifest that God punishes sin.
15:47
They are holding on to the idea that the act of punishing sin is
15:50
inherently contrary to the nature of mercy.
15:53
And Owen counters this by asking a very specific clarifying
15:56
question about the object of the punishment.
15:58
Yes. Whose sins does God punish?
16:00
That question changes the entire framing.
16:02
God does not punish sins arbitrarily or indiscriminately,
16:05
according to the text, He punishes the sins of the
16:07
impenitent, the unbelieving, the rebellious.
16:10
He punishes those for whose offenses his justice has never
16:13
been legally satisfied. And by defining the target of
16:17
the punishment, Owen manages to completely flip the script on
16:20
the Sicinians regarding their vocabulary.
16:23
They claim punishment is the opposite of mercy.
16:25
Owen points out a massive flaw in that linguistic assumption.
16:29
He corrects their definitions. The opposite of mercy is not
16:31
punishment. The actual opposite of mercy is
16:34
cruelty. Owen uses a legal analogy to
16:37
make this undeniable. Think about a human courtroom.
16:40
If we follow the Sicinian logic, every single judge who hands
16:43
down a sentence must be labeled cruel.
16:46
Oh, I see where this is going. Right.
16:47
When a judge sentences a convicted unrepentant criminal
16:50
to prison, is that judge committing an act of cruelty?
16:53
No, no rational society would say that.
16:55
We would say the judge is upholding the law.
16:57
The judge is protecting society. The judge is doing what is right
17:00
and equitable. The opposition, the contrariety,
17:03
is not found in the infliction of a just punishment.
17:06
To claim that punishment is the opposite of mercy assumes that
17:10
carrying out a punishment requires a malicious quality in
17:13
the judge. The only quality that is truly
17:15
opposite to mercy is cruelty. God is completely free from
17:19
every suspicion of cruelty, yet He punishes the sins of the
17:22
impenitent. Therefore, the act of punishing
17:24
sin does not imply a quality in God that is opposite to mercy.
17:28
It simply implies His perfect strict equity.
17:31
That handles the cruelty aspect beautifully, but the Sicilians
17:34
still have that wisdom objection hanging out there.
17:36
I haven't forgotten about the control group.
17:38
They argue that God always acts wisely in every single action.
17:41
So if justice is naturally inherent just like wisdom is,
17:44
shouldn't God always punish in every single action?
17:46
How does Owen dismantle that specific comparison?
17:49
This is perhaps the most philosophically dense part of
17:52
Owen's argument, where he introduces A vital distinction
17:55
between different categories of divine attributes.
17:58
He categorizes them based on how they relate to the objects they
18:01
interact with. He explains that some
18:04
attributes, such as wisdom or divine power, create and
18:07
constitute an object unto themselves.
18:09
I'm going to need you to break that down.
18:11
What does it mean for an attribute to create its object?
18:15
It means God must necessarily exercise those specific
18:18
attributes in all of His works. Whatever action God initiates,
18:22
whether it is creating the universe out of nothing or
18:25
sustaining the orbit of planets, that action must be
18:28
characterized by His wisdom and His power.
18:31
Wisdom is fundamentally involved in the very act of bringing
18:34
something into existence. Because you can't have a
18:36
creation without the wisdom to design it.
18:37
Precisely, the attribute produces the effect.
18:40
But Owen argues other attributes, specifically justice
18:44
and mercy, function differently. They do not create their object.
18:47
They require an object that is already constituted before they
18:50
can be exercised. Let me see if I am tracking with
18:52
this. God does not have to create a
18:55
universe filled with sinners just so so he has someone to
19:00
punish or someone to forgive. His justice and His mercy are
19:04
inactive, so to speak, until there is a moral creature who
19:07
has actually broken a law or requires compassion.
19:11
That is a solid way to frame it. For attributes like justice and
19:14
mercy, Owen says, it is sufficient that no work be done
19:18
that is opposite or derogatory to their honor.
19:20
God does not have to be constantly actively punishing or
19:23
constantly showing sparing mercy at every millisecond of
19:26
existence the way His wisdom must constantly sustain the
19:29
universe. He simply must never do anything
19:32
that violates His justice or His mercy when He is dealing with a
19:35
created moral agent. If we pull back and look at the
19:38
implications of this, it shifts the entire paradigm.
19:40
If God decides in his freedom to create a universe, his nature
19:43
dictates He must do it wisely. However, He was under no
19:46
obligation to create a universe where sin would occur.
19:49
But once sin does occur in the universe He created, his
19:52
inherent justice demands a specific, unyielding response.
19:56
He is bound by his own nature to not do anything derogatory to
19:59
the honor of His justice. This raises a massive practical
20:03
question for the reader. If God must be entirely
20:06
consistent with His inherent justice, does he ever just let a
20:09
sin slide? Can he ever just look at a minor
20:12
infraction and sweep it under the rug for the sake of being
20:14
lenient? The answer Owen provides to that
20:17
question forms the absolute bedrock of his entire
20:21
theological system. It brings us to the concept of
20:24
the recompense of reward and how that relates to the cross.
20:27
The Sicinians built their argument on the assumption that
20:30
God does let sins pass unpunished.
20:32
They look at the concept of forgiveness and say, see if
20:34
justice were naturally inherent, he could never let a sin go, but
20:37
he forgives, so he must be letting sins go.
20:40
And Owen's response to that assumption is fascinating
20:42
because he doesn't deny the premise that God Forgives.
20:45
No, he embraces it, but with a massive caveat.
20:49
Owen readily grants their premise regarding forgiveness,
20:52
but he vehemently denies their definition of it.
20:55
He states that God passes by no sin unpunished, nor can He do it
20:59
given the simplicity of His just essence.
21:02
He forgives our sins, yes, but He does not absolutely let them
21:06
pass unpunished. So every single sin from the
21:09
greatest atrocity to the smallest white lie receives it's
21:12
just recompense of reward. Every single one.
21:16
There are 0 exceptions in Owen's view of the universe.
21:19
This introduces the magnificent distinction of Reformed theology
21:22
regarding the atonement. The punishment for sin must
21:25
fall, the law demands it, but the punishment falls in one of
21:28
two specific places. It falls either on the Sinner
21:31
themselves, or it falls on the surety.
21:33
The word surety is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
21:36
For a modern listener, the easiest way to grasp this is to
21:38
think of a financial cosigner, but with infinitely higher
21:41
stakes. A surety is a legal
21:44
representative who willingly assumes the debt and a legal
21:46
penalty of another person. Let's say you owe a bank $10
21:50
million and you have 0 assets. You are facing ruin.
21:55
If I step in as your legal surety, the bank comes to me for
21:59
the money. If I write the check and drain
22:01
my own accounts, the bank's justice, their legal demand for
22:04
repayment, is completely satisfied.
22:06
The debt is gone. You didn't pay a dime of it, but
22:09
the law was upheld. That legal framework is exactly
22:12
well, it's spot on how Owen understands the mechanics of the
22:15
atonement. Because the surety assumes the
22:18
debt, Owen argues that to pardon sin for which justice hath been
22:21
satisfied is no wise contrary to justice.
22:24
In fact, he would argue it would be unjust to demand payment from
22:27
the Sinner if the surety has already paid the debt in full.
22:30
This dramatically alters how 1 views the narrative of the
22:33
crucifixion. I mean, the cross is not a
22:35
moment where God sets aside his justice to let mercy win.
22:38
It isn't a temporary suspension of his righteous standard.
22:41
According to Owen, the cross is the perfect, terrifying
22:43
execution of God's justice, precisely so that his mercy can
22:46
flow to the penitent without violating his nature.
22:49
It's incredible when you frame it that way.
22:51
Christ, acting as the surety, absorbs the full, unmitigated
22:55
strike of the inherent justice of God.
22:58
The law is honored. The dead is settled, and because
23:01
that legal requirement is satisfied, mercy can now be
23:04
extended to the center without God contradicting His own simple
23:08
essence. It is a stunning theological
23:10
resolution. The harmony of the divine
23:13
attributes, which the Sicilians claimed were in contradiction,
23:16
is displayed nowhere more clearly than at Calvary.
23:19
Justice and mercy are not fighting each other.
23:21
They are operating in perfect tandem through the mechanism of
23:24
the surety. While this is a logically tight
23:26
and beautiful resolution, the Sicilians are not finished.
23:30
If they cannot win the philosophical argument about
23:32
attributes, they try to win a biblical argument about
23:34
vocabulary. They launch a linguistic battle
23:37
concerning how the Bible uses words like anger, fury, and
23:40
judgement. The Sicinians bring up a
23:41
specific counter argument from the text of scripture.
23:44
They argue that justice which the adversaries opposed to mercy
23:47
whereby God punisheth sins. The sacred Scripture is nowhere
23:51
point out by the name of justice, but call it the anger
23:53
and fury of God. Their strategy here is clever.
23:57
They are telling people to just read their Bibles.
23:59
They say you look at the text when God destroys a city or
24:02
strikes down a rebellious king. The Scriptures rarely say God's
24:06
justice burned against them. The text almost always says
24:10
God's wrath was kindled or God's fury was poured out.
24:14
The Sicinians are trying to categorize punishment not as a
24:17
settled legal, judicial attribute, but as an emotional
24:21
outburst. They want to relegate it to a
24:23
mood. Owen's rebuttal to this
24:25
linguistic maneuver is twofold. First, he points out a glaring
24:29
flaw in their starting premise. He writes these catechists have
24:33
need themselves to be catechized.
24:35
He reminds them that Orthodox thinkers do not oppose justice
24:38
to mercy. We just spent a significant
24:40
amount of time establishing that they are the same simple essence
24:43
refracting differently. Right.
24:44
The Sicinians are arguing against a straw man.
24:46
They are attacking a position Owen doesn't even hold.
24:49
But Owen doesn't stop there. Second, and more importantly for
24:52
addressing the biblical text, Owen argues that the terms anger
24:55
and fury are entirely reducible to the concept of justice when
24:59
you look at their actual effects.
25:00
Let's look at the specific biblical evidence Owen provides
25:03
to support this claim. He directs the reader to the
25:06
book of Romans, specifically drawing a comparison between the
25:09
language Paul uses in Romans chapter one, verse 18, and the
25:12
language Paul uses at the end of that same chapter in verse 32.
25:15
It is a brilliant piece of exegesis.
25:18
In Romans 1.18 the apostle Paul writes for the wrath of God is
25:22
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness
25:26
of men. The Greek word there translates
25:28
to wrath or intense anger. OK, setting up the anger aspect.
25:32
Right. Paul then spends the rest of the
25:34
chapter detailing the severe moral decay and sins of
25:37
humanity. When he reaches his conclusion
25:39
in verse 32 summarizing the consequence of these actions, he
25:43
says who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit
25:46
such things are worthy of death. So what Paul introduces as wrath
25:50
in verse 18, he concludes by calling judgement in verse 32.
25:54
Yes, and the specific Greek word used in verse 32 is D chioma.
25:59
This word implies a just sentence, a righteous judgement,
26:02
or an equitable decree. It has the very root of justice
26:06
dike built right into the architecture of the word.
26:09
Owen uses this to prove that the biblical authors use the concept
26:12
of wrath as synonymous with the execution of a just sentence.
26:16
This requires a shift in how a reader interprets narrative
26:18
passages. When we read about God's wrath
26:21
in the Old Testament, when we read the narratives of the
26:23
flood, or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or the
26:25
plagues falling on Egypt, we shouldn't picture an unstable
26:28
deity losing his temper. We shouldn't picture a cosmic
26:31
version of Zeus hurling lightning bolts because humanity
26:34
annoyed him. From Owens's perspective, that
26:36
is a severe misreading of the text.
26:39
Divine wrath and scripture is never a tantrum.
26:41
It is never a loss of control. It is the calculated, perfect
26:44
judicial outworking of His essential justice against cosmic
26:47
treason. When the Bible uses terms like
26:50
anger or fury to describe God, it is employing anthropomorphic
26:53
language. Anthropomorphic meaning
26:55
assigning human traits to a non human entity to help us
26:58
comprehend it. Like when the Bible talks about
27:01
the arm of the Lord or the eyes of the Lord, even though God
27:03
doesn't have a physical body. That's it.
27:05
It is a language accommodating our limited human understanding
27:08
to describe the terrifying reality of his punitive justice
27:12
in action. The effect of his justice
27:14
falling upon sin looks to our human eyes like furious anger.
27:19
It is devastating, but its source is not an emotional flare
27:22
up. Its sources pure, unblemished
27:24
cold equity. The Sicilians try one final
27:27
linguistic maneuver. If they cannot win by pointing
27:30
to passages about God's wrath, they try to win by pointing to
27:33
passages about God's forgiveness.
27:36
This leads us to the final major argument in Owens chapter the
27:38
concept of forgiveness through justice.
27:40
This is the third major argument pulled from the Rokovian
27:43
Catechism. The Sicilians quote 2 very
27:46
famous New Testament passages to make their point.
27:48
The 1st is first John 1.9 which says if we confess our sins, he
27:52
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us
27:56
from all unrighteousness. Very from his verse.
27:59
Very. The second is Romans 3.24
28:02
through 26, which speaks of Christ being set forth as a
28:05
propitiation that he might be just, and the justifier of him
28:09
which believeth in Jesus. The argument they build from
28:12
these verses is incredibly sneaky.
28:14
They say look at the vocabulary. When God Forgives sins, the text
28:18
doesn't just attribute it to His mercy, it attributed to His
28:21
justice. They use this to claim that the
28:23
word justice in these contexts is just a synonym for clemency
28:27
or mercy. They are attempting to blend the
28:29
definitions together so thoroughly that the word justice
28:32
loses its punitive legal meaning entirely.
28:35
It is a deliberate collapsing of definitions.
28:37
They want justice to simply mean a modification of benevolent
28:41
feeling. Because if justice just means a
28:43
general disposition to forgive people, then the entire argument
28:46
for a proper substitutionary atonement vanishes.
28:49
You wouldn't need Christ to suffer a penalty if the word
28:52
justice is just another flavor of leniency.
28:54
But the translator notes provided in the source material
28:57
for Owens text completely shred this Saucinian assumption about
29:00
the Greek vocabulary. Let's look closely at the Greek
29:03
word using these passages for just or righteous.
29:06
The Greek word in question is decayos.
29:08
To understand why the Sicinians are wrong, we need to look at
29:11
both the primary and secondary meanings of this word in
29:14
classical and biblical Greek literature.
29:17
Its primary meaning signifies being observant of rule and
29:20
custom or having a respect to order and decency.
29:23
The source notes give a really vivid example from ancient
29:26
classical literature to illustrate this primary meaning.
29:30
It mentions Chiron, the Centaur from Homer's Iliad.
29:33
In Greek mythology, centaurs were generally depicted as wild,
29:36
violent, chaotic beasts driven by impulse.
29:39
Right. Definitely not orderly.
29:40
But Karen is described using the superlative form of this word,
29:44
de kayotados Kintaran. He's the most observant of rule,
29:47
the most orderly, the most civilized of the centaurs.
29:50
He wasn't lenient, he was principled.
29:52
And we see this primary meaning carry over into the New
29:55
Testament usage as well. Think of the narrative of
29:58
Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew.
30:02
When Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant before they were
30:04
married, the text says he was a just man, a decaios man.
30:08
Because he was a just man who observed the law, he knew he
30:11
could not simply ignore the situation.
30:13
The law had requirements. He had to do something.
30:16
Yes. Yet, seeking to apply that law
30:19
with decency and order, he decided to divorce her quietly
30:22
rather than making her a public spectacle.
30:25
His actions were governed by a strict observance of rule and
30:28
equity, not mere emotional leniency.
30:30
What about the secondary meaning of decaios?
30:32
Does it get any closer to the Sicilian idea of clemency?
30:35
In its secondary meaning, it signifies that which is equal,
30:38
fair, or equitable. Every single shade of meaning
30:41
this word bears in Greek literature comes under the broad
30:44
category of rightness or equity. Here is the critical, undeniable
30:49
point Owens defense relies on. In no instance in the entire
30:53
history of the Greek language can dakayos be translated as
30:55
expressive of clemency or mercy. It never under any circumstance
30:59
means a relaxed leniency. So if Dakayos means strictly
31:03
fair and observant of the rules, how do we read a verse like
31:06
Romans 3.26 that he might be just and the justifier?
31:11
If he is strictly enforcing the rules, how is he justifying the
31:14
person who broke them? Owen points out that the
31:17
Sicinians overlook a tiny but structurally massive grammatical
31:20
feature in that sentence. It's the adversative force of
31:23
the conjunction and which translates from the Greek word
31:26
Kai. In this specific grammatical
31:28
context, it carries an antithetic meaning.
31:31
It should be understood as just, and yet the justifier.
31:34
It highlights attention. He is strictly equitable,
31:36
demanding the full penalty of the law, and yet simultaneously
31:40
he is the one who declares the guilty Sinner righteous.
31:43
This forces the reader to ask how can he be both?
31:45
How can a judge be strictly observant to the rule that
31:48
demands death for a crime and yet legally justify the criminal
31:51
standing in front of him? Owen concludes that the justice
31:54
mentioned in relation to forgiveness in verses like First
31:57
John 1.9 is what he terms the justice of faithfulness.
32:00
This is a brilliant theological synthesis.
32:02
He argues that this justice of faithfulness has the absolute
32:04
foundation of its exercise in his punitory justice.
32:07
I'm going to need you to walk through that sequence step by
32:10
step. How does punitory justice, the
32:13
demand for punishment, become the foundation for the justice
32:16
that brings forgiveness? We can trace Owen's logic in
32:19
four distinct steps. Step one, God's punitory
32:22
justice, His essential nature demand legal satisfaction for
32:26
sin. A penalty must be paid.
32:29
OK, penalty required. Step 2.
32:31
That punitory justice is fully, exhaustively satisfied by
32:34
Christ's blood on the cross. The debt is paid in full.
32:38
The surety has suffered the recompense of reward.
32:40
The debt is cleared. Step 3 Because justice has been
32:43
satisfied, God, who cannot lie and operates with perfect
32:46
integrity, promises the forgiveness of sins through
32:49
Jesus Christ to all who believe in, repent.
32:51
And finally, Step 4, God performs this promise.
32:54
He actually forgives the believer.
32:56
Why? Because he's faithful and just.
32:58
I want to make sure the weight of this lands when first.
33:01
John 1.9 says God is facial and just to forgive us.
33:05
It is not saying God is feeling particularly lenient today.
33:08
It is not saying God looked at your sin and decided it wasn't a
33:11
big deal after all. It is saying that because Christ
33:14
already paid the legal penalty for that specific sin, it would
33:17
actually be a violation of God's justice to demand payment for it
33:21
a second time from you. Our forgiveness is guarantees,
33:24
not by a fluctuating mood of divine clemency, but because God
33:28
is bound by His own perfect, unbreakable justice to honor the
33:32
payment his Son made. That concept forms the absolute
33:35
bedrock of historical Christian assurance.
33:38
It moves forgiveness out of the realm of hoping God is in a good
33:40
mood and places it in the realm of legal certainty.
33:44
His justice, the very attribute that once stood to condem the
33:47
Sinner, is now the exact attribute that guarantees their
33:49
pardon. If God were to deny forgiveness
33:52
to a penitent believer whose debt was paid by Christ, God
33:55
will be denying his own justice. He would be rejecting the
33:57
sufficient payment of the surety, and as Owen has
34:00
exhaustively shown, God cannot act contrary to His essential
34:03
nature. This brings us to the conclusion
34:05
of Owens massive defense in chapter 8.
34:08
By systematically answering the objections of the Rokovian
34:11
Catechism, Owen believes he has protected the character of God
34:15
from being robbed or diminished. He has built a philosophical and
34:19
scriptural case that God's justice and mercy are not
34:22
competing moods fighting for dominance in the divine mind.
34:25
They are the same simple, perfect essence functioning with
34:29
absolute terrifying consistency. And in Owen's framework, we see
34:33
how these attributes are resolved erfectly through the
34:36
mechanism of the cross. The cross becomes the focal
34:39
point where every sin is punished, honoring the inherent
34:41
justice of God, and where every believer is pardoned, displaying
34:44
the inherent mercy of God. The trap set by the Sicinians
34:48
regarding the contradiction of attributes is broken by
34:50
introducing the legal surety. As we wrap up this deep dive, we
34:54
want to leave you with a final thought to Mull over.
34:57
We have spent an hour unpacking incredibly dense cosmic
35:01
concepts, divine simplicity, the covenant of works, scholastic
35:05
definitions of habit and affection.
35:08
But historical theology was never meant to just sit in a
35:10
textbook. It was meant to filter down into
35:13
how a person views their daily reality.
35:16
Which raises an intriguing question for you to consider
35:18
based on Owens conclusions. If God's inherent justice
35:22
requires that every single sin must be punished, that no
35:26
infraction is ever just passed by or ignored, but must be
35:29
legally borne either by the individual or by the surety, how
35:33
does that reality alter the way you view the minor daily
35:36
failures you're experienced? That's a great question.
35:38
Human nature tends to categorize errors, assuming the small ones
35:42
are just swept away by a general wave of divine kindness.
35:45
But if Owen is right, and every small failure, every moment of
35:48
selfishness legally required the severe intervention of a
35:51
mediator to satisfy strict divine justice, does that
35:54
reshape your understanding of the mechanics behind the grace
35:56
you experience every day? That is a weighty concept to
35:59
carry with you. Thank you for joining us today
36:02
on this deep dive. We appreciate your time and your
36:04
willingness to analyze these historical arguments with us.
36:08
Until next time, keep thinking critically and keep looking
36:10
closely at the text. Take care.