Must God Punish sin?
I have just read a little book by Ben Cooper of St Helen's, Bishopsgate, Must God Punish Sin?
The question is: could God have forgiven us by a mere word without any need to punish Jesus in our place? Or, if not, why did God have to punish sin? Just because he decided to set up the moral system that way ('consequent hypothetical necessity')? Or is the need to punish sin part of God's nature, about which even he cannot do anything ('absolute necessity')?
Socinus takes the first line:
The second line is taken by many of the orthodox, e. g. William Twisse:
'That God, by his absolute power, setting aside his decree or free constitution, can forgive sin without any satisfaction'.
And Norton, in his Orthodox Evangelist, chap. iii says,
'God, by his absolute power, could have saved man without a Mediator: he is omnipotent, and could have done what he pleased.'
Rutherford says:
`Fifthly, I love not to dispute here, but God, if we speak of his absolute power, without respect to his free decree, could have pardoned sin without a ransom, and gifted all mankind and fallen angels with heaven, without any satisfaction of either the sinner, or his surety; for he neither punisheth sin, nor tenders heaven to men or angels by necessity of nature, as the fire casteth out heat, and the sun light; but freely: only, supposing that frame of providence, and decrees of punishing, and redeeming sinners, that now is, the Lord could not but be steady in his decrees; yet this is but necessity conditional, and at the second hand. But here was the business, God, in the depth of his eternal wisdom, did so frame and draw the design and plot of saving lost man, as salvation was to run in no other channel, but such an one, the bank whereof was the freest grace and tenderest love that can enter into the heart of men or angels; for he drew the lines of our heaven through grace, all the way.'
Calvin seems to be of this camp too. He says in Institutes II.12.1:
'IT deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended.'
He also says in his commentary on John xv.13:
'God might, by a word only, or by his command, have redeemed us; but he took this way through his Son, that his love might be made more manifest.'
Cooper takes the third line, along with John Owen, A Dissertation on Divine Justice.
Does anybody out there have any view on this question?
The question is: could God have forgiven us by a mere word without any need to punish Jesus in our place? Or, if not, why did God have to punish sin? Just because he decided to set up the moral system that way ('consequent hypothetical necessity')? Or is the need to punish sin part of God's nature, about which even he cannot do anything ('absolute necessity')?
Socinus takes the first line:
The second line is taken by many of the orthodox, e. g. William Twisse:
'That God, by his absolute power, setting aside his decree or free constitution, can forgive sin without any satisfaction'.
And Norton, in his Orthodox Evangelist, chap. iii says,
'God, by his absolute power, could have saved man without a Mediator: he is omnipotent, and could have done what he pleased.'
Rutherford says:
`Fifthly, I love not to dispute here, but God, if we speak of his absolute power, without respect to his free decree, could have pardoned sin without a ransom, and gifted all mankind and fallen angels with heaven, without any satisfaction of either the sinner, or his surety; for he neither punisheth sin, nor tenders heaven to men or angels by necessity of nature, as the fire casteth out heat, and the sun light; but freely: only, supposing that frame of providence, and decrees of punishing, and redeeming sinners, that now is, the Lord could not but be steady in his decrees; yet this is but necessity conditional, and at the second hand. But here was the business, God, in the depth of his eternal wisdom, did so frame and draw the design and plot of saving lost man, as salvation was to run in no other channel, but such an one, the bank whereof was the freest grace and tenderest love that can enter into the heart of men or angels; for he drew the lines of our heaven through grace, all the way.'
Calvin seems to be of this camp too. He says in Institutes II.12.1:
'IT deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended.'
He also says in his commentary on John xv.13:
'God might, by a word only, or by his command, have redeemed us; but he took this way through his Son, that his love might be made more manifest.'
Cooper takes the third line, along with John Owen, A Dissertation on Divine Justice.
Does anybody out there have any view on this question?
posted by Daniel Hill | 6/11/2006 08:36:00 pm
7 Comments:
Is this nominalism?
That is to say must we conceive God's freedom in terms of his absolute freedom of will, such that even his own nature is understood to restrict God's freedom if he is obliged to act in accordance with it? Is God free to do absolutely whatever he wishes in the face of sin (or whatever) or is he free to be himself?
Also, there is a chunk in the Summa contra Gentiles where Thomas describes how the various things God does in relation to fallen haumanity are all expressions of his love in the face of love's opposite. This is supposed to preserve the divine simplicity. How does the Reformed Tradition hang on to an understanding of God's simplicity?
Sorry, Tom - I don't understand nominalism or simplicity to pass comment on your post.
I think I remember John Murray, in Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, using the phrase 'consequent absolute necessity' - probably just the same idea as the second description - but God's freedom is his choice to redeem in love those who need redeemed - there was no compulsion on God to save the world, but he had to save it in a particular way, given his character - I think that is reasonable enough.
I can't comment on the philosophical terms mentioned in this post, but the passage in Exodus 34:1-7 strongly expresses that 'the name of the LORD' is intimately linked to his mercy in forgiving iniquity & transgression & sin, and to his justice in visiting the guilty with punishment.
As the name of God in scripture is often used to denote his nature, this may be why Calvin and others taught the second view you listed.
Thanks for your post, Tom. I didn't phrase the question very well: it is less about God's nature and more about justice. All agree that God cannot be unjust. The question is: would it have been unjust for God not to have punished sin? Socinus says `No; God can leave sin unpunished right now if he wants'. The hypothetical-necessity people say `No; God could have decreed that sin could have been forgiven by a mere word, but in fact he has decreed that sin must be punished, so he cannot leave sin unpunished now that he has given the decree'. The absolute-necessity people say `Yes; it would have been unjust for God to have left sin unpunished, and he had to decree to punish sin'.
Hope that clarifies matters a bit . . . .
David, Thanks for your post. Yes, you're right about Murray's use of the term `consequent absolute necessity' in his book. But he holds the third view, Owen's, not the second, Rutherford's. I'm sorry; it was very misleading of me to use the word 'consequent' in connection with the second view.
dfh, thanks for your post. Yes, I agree that Exodus 34:1-7 is very relevant to this debate. I think, however, that it supports the third 'absolute-necessity' view of Owen, Murray, and Cooper. Indeed, Cooper quotes the passage (though I think he could do more with it) in the booklet that I mention. I think it tells against Calvin and the second 'hypothetical-necessity' view.
Its a very helpful info for us to realize what our purpose on this world. We should help each other, come and visit us. click here the family international
Post a Comment
<< Home