Just Yet Merciful

[Arial]

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ---

Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, ---

Jesus went to the cross, offering himself as a sacrifice and shedding his own blood for the forgiveness of our sins. Wonderful news!

But is that where we stop in our new life in Christ?

No. If we are to grow in our understanding of and therefore love of Christ, giving all glory to him, that is where we begin.

Here is what I propose in regard to that magnificent work of Christ.

It has to do with the simplicity of God. This means that God is not made up of parts.. God is entirely unified, indivisible, and identical with his attributes. He is his attributes. Love for instance. In humans love is something we possess and that means it can fluctuate. Increase, decrease, fail.

God doesn't possess love, he is love. Therefore, it never changes. It is the same with wisdom, goodness, the omni's, justice and all of his attributes. His justice can never decrease in favor of love, nor love to decrease in favor of justice.
Anything composed of parts depends on the existence of other parts and a cause that joins those parts together. God depends on nothing outside himself. He is the self-existent source of all being.

Because God's essence is one and not divided, his love is his power is his wisdom is his justice is his holiness and so on.

Forgiveness of sin requires grace and mercy from God. Because of his simplicity justice requires that the sinner face his wrath. For him to simply say he forgives with no shedding of blood, since the life is in the blood, would be impossible for him because he would have to violate his very essence. Love/mercy would have to sacrifice justice.

So, when Jesus substituted himself on the cross, taking the penal requirement of sin upon himself, he was doing the only thing that could be done to procure redemption and only God himself, God the Son, could do it, and by becoming one of us. He made room for God to forgive, to have saving mercy, on the sinner. It is where and how, justice and mercy kissed.

Thoughts?

 

[Josheb]

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ---

Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, ---

Jesus went to the cross, offering himself as a sacrifice and shedding his own blood for the forgiveness of our sins. Wonderful news!

But is that where we stop in our new life in Christ?

No. If we are to grow in our understanding of and therefore love of Christ, giving all glory to him, that is where we begin.

Here is what I propose in regard to that magnificent work of Christ.

It has to do with the simplicity of God. This means that God is not made up of parts.. God is entirely unified, indivisible, and identical with his attributes. He is his attributes. Love for instance. In humans love is something we possess and that means it can fluctuate. Increase, decrease, fail.

God doesn't possess love, he is love. Therefore, it never changes. It is the same with wisdom, goodness, the omni's, justice and all of his attributes. His justice can never decrease in favor of love, nor love to decrease in favor of justice.
Anything composed of parts depends on the existence of other parts and a cause that joins those parts together. God depends on nothing outside himself. He is the self-existent source of all being.

Because God's essence is one and not divided, his love is his power is his wisdom is his justice is his holiness and so on.

Forgiveness of sin requires grace and mercy from God. Because of his simplicity justice requires that the sinner face his wrath. For him to simply say he forgives with no shedding of blood, since the life is in the blood, would be impossible for him because he would have to violate his very essence. Love/mercy would have to sacrifice justice.

So, when Jesus substituted himself on the cross, taking the penal requirement of sin upon himself, he was doing the only thing that could be done to procure redemption and only God himself, God the Son, could do it, and by becoming one of us. He made room for God to forgive, to have saving mercy, on the sinner. It is where and how, justice and mercy kissed.

Thoughts?

Very well said but I think one particular point is in need of amendment.

......Because of his simplicity justice requires that the sinner face his wrath. For him to simply say he forgives with no shedding of blood, since the life is in the blood, would be impossible for him because he would have to violate his very essence.

That shedding of blood is required is not an attribute of God. It is an attribute of God's law(s), His design of creation. Ot, more accurately, His design of this creation.

God can/could create an infinite number of planets with inhabitants created to know and worship Him. God can make multiple different kinds of creatures, some with two heads or five arms, or eight eyes. He can also make a different set of moral and functional codes for each creation to live by..... each set of commands and laws an extension of His ontology, His simplicity. Therefore, a little caution should be applied to the way this creation exists when defining God.

In smaller detail, we have the Law of Moses as an example. God could have created a different set of dietary, religious, and moral laws for the Shona, or the Inuit. Some of that code probably would have been identical to all other codes but prohibitions and directives in what to eat or not eat, or how to worship or not worship may well have varied. God can make sentient creatures who procreate differently than humans so all the commands governing sexual conduct would be different. All of them would exist as a function of divine simplicity.

Then there is the prophetic nature of our scripture. All the Law/law, psalms, and prophets (as well as the history) testify to and about Jesus. Presumably, all the other codes on all the other planets that apply to all the other creatures would have similar witness. As the late great Larry Norman used to say, "If life exists on other planets, I'm sure Jesus has been there, too." The one common aspect f any such "code" would be the worship of the Creator by the creature. This is why sin, or missing the target, is not defined in our scriptures solely by obedience or compliance to the written code. Faith and righteousness exceeding the code must exist. Perfection must exist.

On top of all of this, God can also make creatures with degrees of volitional agency much different, much greater (or lesser) than that of the angels or the humans on and around this planet. The creative diversity possible creating creatures and what governs them is infinite. The requirements for justice are, therefore, not limited to the particular requirement(s) God dictated to humans (the Hebrews). The requirements for justice are specific to the particular requirement(s) God dictated to humans (the Hebrews). The design of this world is only one way divine simplicity is made known.

Love/mercy would have to sacrifice justice.

Yep. I would go even further to say love requires justice and vice versa. When correctly understood and practiced, the two are never mutually exclusive conditions and, given the possibility divine justice could always be annihilative, that should be self-evident . The only reason any law-breaker exists past his/her moment of law breaking is grace. All of it a manifestation of God's infinite nature and the character inextricably inherent to His nature.

 

[Arial]

That shedding of blood is required is not an attribute of God. It is an attribute of God's law(s), His design of creation. Ot, more accurately, His design of this creation.

In all fairness, I did not present it as an attribute of God. He is the one that says there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. So, his justice requires the shedding of blood for forgiveness.

What he "could have done instead" is always irrelevant when it comes to God.

 

[JesusFan]

In all fairness, I did not present it as an attribute of God. He is the one that says there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. So, his justice requires the shedding of blood for forgiveness.

What he "could have done instead" is always irrelevant when it comes to God.

The Cross of Christ was the ONLY way He could stay Holy God and yet still be able to declare righteous lost sinners who broke over and over again His law

 

[Josheb]

In all fairness, I did not present it as an attribute of God.

Correct.

He is the one that says there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

Yes, but God says that within the context of whole scripture, and He says that in the context of human behavior, and we know that statement does not apply to angels because there is no provisions for their disobedience/salvation. God is the one who says there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but He is also the one who provided the contexts (plural) for that statement.

So, his justice requires the shedding of blood for forgiveness.

On this planet, for humans, in the context of His laws it/they apply to the forgiveness of our sin.

What he "could have done instead" is always irrelevant when it comes to God.

No. It is not. It is always critically important, especially when working from His commands or His laws backwards to His attributes that we understand His commands and laws have context and they do not define Him; He defines them. With a different set of commands and laws mercy would look different. That would not change the inherent relationship between mercy and justice, nor His inherent love/just ontology. God gave us the commands He gave us for reasons; they're not arbitrary (just covering the base, not saying that is what you were saying) and, in the case of this op, they exist to understand a specific, relevant set of divine ontology.

The angels (both unfallen and fallen) understand something entirely different. Their knowledge and witness of God's ontological love/justness is much different.

 

[makesends]

Correct.

Yes, but God says that within the context of whole scripture, and He says that in the context of human behavior, and we know that statement does not apply to angels because there is no provisions for their disobedience/salvation. God is the one who says there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but He is also the one who provided the contexts (plural) for that statement.

On this planet, for humans, in the context of His laws it/they apply to the forgiveness of our sin.

Arial said:
What he "could have done instead" is always irrelevant when it comes to God

No. It is not. It is always critically important, especially when working from His commands or His laws backwards to His attributes that we understand His commands and laws have context and they do not define Him; He defines them. With a different set of commands and laws mercy would look different. That would not change the inherent relationship between mercy and justice, nor His inherent love/just ontology. God gave us the commands He gave us for reasons; they're not arbitrary (just covering the base, not saying that is what you were saying) and, in the case of this op, they exist to understand a specific, relevant set of divine ontology.

The angels (both unfallen and fallen) understand something entirely different. Their knowledge and witness of God's ontological love/justness is much different.

I think what @Arial was getting at is that there IS no possibility of God doing other than he does. "Could have" is in our heads, not his. His is pure intention, completely directed and omnipotent; he has no need for contingencies (to use the word the way you say the WCF does).

If we obey, this happens. If we do not, that happens. Which we do, and what happens as a result, is not in question. Which we do is his decree. HE establishes what we think of as contingencies. He never changes his intentions, his plans, his doings, in reaction to what is not yet known to him.

"The only thing that ever happens is whatever happens. There is no other."

 

[Arial]

Arial said:
What he "could have done instead" is always irrelevant when it comes to God

I think what @Arial was getting at is that there IS no possibility of God doing other than he does. "Could have" is in our heads, not his. His is pure intention, completely directed and omnipotent; he has no need for contingencies (to use the word the way you say the WCF does).

If we obey, this happens. If we do not, that happens. Which we do, and what happens as a result, is not in question. Which we do is his decree. HE establishes what we think of as contingencies. He never changes his intentions, his plans, his doings, in reaction to what is not yet known to him.

"The only thing that ever happens is whatever happens. There is no other."

And I don't know what angels have to do with it either. But I am not putting a dog in that fight.

 

[makesends]

And I don't know what angels have to do with it either. But I am not putting a dog in that fight.

I think @Josheb was trying to demonstrate that our point-of-view is not necessarily reliable concerning the ontology of God.

 

[JesusFan]

Arial said:
What he "could have done instead" is always irrelevant when it comes to God

I think what @Arial was getting at is that there IS no possibility of God doing other than he does. "Could have" is in our heads, not his. His is pure intention, completely directed and omnipotent; he has no need for contingencies (to use the word the way you say the WCF does).

If we obey, this happens. If we do not, that happens. Which we do, and what happens as a result, is not in question. Which we do is his decree. HE establishes what we think of as contingencies. He never changes his intentions, his plans, his doings, in reaction to what is not yet known to him.

"The only thing that ever happens is whatever happens. There is no other."

If you want to claim that God had multiple choices and contingences, that would seem to be opening up so called middle knowledge approach

 

[Arial]

I think @Josheb was trying to demonstrate that our point-of-view is not necessarily reliable concerning the ontology of God.

Maybe so. And I do not disagree with anything @Josheb said. And I felt that anything I did say that hinted at disagreement would start a "fight". Such as, "It should have been understood that I was speaking of the work of Christ and his dying on the cross as per the OP."

However, could be I jumped the gun, and I have no objection to what he said being explored farther. I appreciate the interaction with my thread.

 

[makesends]

If you want to claim that God had multiple choices and contingences, that would seem to be opening up so called middle knowledge approach

I agree. This is one way in which I differ from many Calvinists, and for which I have been called a hyperCalvinist. The question, for example, of "free to choose according to one's inclinations", to me has a sound I cannot intellectually abide. It is true that one 'freely' chooses, but in modern thought the implications are as the Arminians in the Church believe, that there is in some way a purely (though "limited") spontaneity, uncaused by antecedent causes. To my mind, that is logically self-contradictory.

(But I'm not the average Hyper-Calvinist. I believe God made most humans for reprobation from from beginning to end, but not only for condemnation, but for his use of them for many purposes, to include Romans 9's demonstration of his glory and mercy to the objects of his mercy. I also believe our choices are REAL, but real only because they are established by God (WCF 3.1). (Actually, I don't claim to be a Calvinist/ Reformed at all. It's just that they agree with most of what I believe.))

I cannot see how ANYTHING can come to pass accidentally, or without antecedent cause, except God himself being the uncaused causer. How WE see it is irrelevant to the facts.

 

[Josheb]

Arial said:
What he "could have done instead" is always irrelevant when it comes to God

Yep. That is what was posted.

"The only thing that ever happens is whatever happens. There is no other."

Lovely post hoc argument that has little to do with the op's (correct) assertion mercy and justice "kiss" at Calvary.

And I don't know what angels have to do with it either. But I am not putting a dog in that fight.

Euphemistic joke. Instead of the "devil" being in the details.... it's the "angels."

 

[Josheb]

Maybe so. And I do not disagree with anything @Josheb said. And I felt that anything I did say that hinted at disagreement would start a "fight". Such as, "It should have been understood that I was speaking of the work of Christ and his dying on the cross as per the OP."

However, could be I jumped the gun, and I have no objection to what he said being explored farther. I appreciate the interaction with my thread.

It could be there is not disagreement. The effort on my part was simply to illuminate our mutual understanding of the intersection of love/mercy and justice.

As someone who has been incarcerated for more than a day, I will testify to the mercy shown me in my just incarceration, both in the sense that my sentence could have been much worse, the months spent in incarceration graciously sobered my up in multiple ways. Not only did I "dry out," but it's very sobering to wake up to find two guys beating the cr@p ut of each other and think, "I don't belong here," and then almost immediately realizing they don't put innocent people in jail and, if they did, I would not be one of them. I was guilty as sin (pun intended). Very instrumental in my being dragged to Christ a few years later. I couldn't see the grace then, but I see it now.

 

[Josheb]

I think @Josheb was trying to demonstrate that our point-of-view is not necessarily reliable concerning the ontology of God.

Sorta.

First of all, I would discriminate the "our". Because the Spirit of God lives and works within us to have the mind of Christ "we" are different than non-Christians. Or at least that is always our potential. Where the "outsider's" thinking is futile, the heart darkened, and they've been given over to their fleshly lusts, we the regenerate have been liberated from all the many bondages of sin's enslavement. All humans have been made in God's image, but we bear the additional image of God found in Christ. We have been made known and knowable, and He to us (Gal. 4:8-9). To the degree that our knowledge, wisdom, and understanding matures according to the work of God within us to understand His revelation (written, incarnate, rhema, etc.) our point of view, as you put it, increasingly reconciles with God and becomes reliable.

But that's not my main point. My main point is that divine justness is infinite. It's ginormous. It's not limited to what was revealed in the Bible. The Bible does not come close to fully communicating the scope, the content, nor the methods of divine love/justness. If we go by the written commands alone, we're limiting ourselves and, ironically, not being obedient. One of the commands is to reason through the commands. In point of fact, more than one of the commands is to love - love God, love ourselves, and love others. Legalists muck that up quite often. To be just is to be loving. To be loving is to be just. The person experiencing the commensurate consequences of disobedience has pain and no one likes pain, so justice gets marginalized instead of embraced. Love gets approached and mucked up in the opposite direction. Love is so warm and fuzzy, soothing and delightful that the sensations become the pursuit and not the actions that beget those sensations. Love gets marginalized in favor of lust.

Principles are always more informing, useful, and powerful than the letter.

That's one of the reasons why working "backwards" from the command to the nature of God is usually limiting and often inappropriate. The op does a good job of couching the theme in God, and not the commands or temporal events. I was simply noting the metric about forgiveness' dependence of the shedding of blood has context. God is love. Most understand that. God is just. Most understand that. God is forgiveness. Not everyone grasps that in the same way "God is love" is grasped. More fundamentally, God is giving. He's ontologically giving. He is by nature giving. He is NOT simply a really big Guy with lots of power who gives a lot. We might say "God is give."

There is no forgiveness without God being give.

God was giving long before Calvary . The commands (justness, justice) of God exist because of grace, not the other way around.

Miroslav Volf's book, "Free of Charge" does an excellent job of covering the giving and forgiving nature of God. It's a humbling read. What I call "inconvenient." One of those books where I kept stopping to say, "Aw man, why'd he have to say that? Now I've got work to do." That happens a lot when I read my Bible, too . Jesus can be so inconvenient sometimes .

• God is reliable.
• God's revelation is reliable.
• God's work in us is reliable.
• God's gifted knowledge, wisdom, and understanding are reliable.
• What the flesh does with is not be reliable.

So, the problem of reliability is not a function of perception, but a function of fleshly works versus spiritual works (1 Cor. 2:14) and, therefore, of faculty. Which faculties do we use? God gave us the ability to reason through divine justice as it does/can/will exist elsewhere. It is our hope that we will one day be incorruptible and immortal. No more shedding of blood. Would that then make God no longer just? Would a "world" or realm, in which justice is no longer needed or meted out make God no longer just? No, of course not.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree. This is one way in which I differ from many Calvinists, and for which I have been called a hyperCalvinist. The question, for example, of "free to choose according to one's inclinations", to me has a sound I cannot intellectually abide. It is true that one 'freely' chooses, but in modern thought the implications are as the Arminians in the Church believe, that there is in some way a purely (though "limited") spontaneity, uncaused by antecedent causes. To my mind, that is logically self-contradictory.

(But I'm not the average Hyper-Calvinist. I believe God made most humans for reprobation from from beginning to end, but not only for condemnation, but for his use of them for many purposes, to include Romans 9's demonstration of his glory and mercy to the objects of his mercy. I also believe our choices are REAL, but real only because they are established by God (WCF 3.1). (Actually, I don't claim to be a Calvinist/ Reformed at all. It's just that they agree with most of what I believe.))

I cannot see how ANYTHING can come to pass accidentally, or without antecedent cause, except God himself being the uncaused causer. How WE see it is irrelevant to the facts.

We still retain "free will
, but we are limited by our flesh and human natures so that we can only decide to do what we desire and want to do, and many things fallen sinners will not even want to do

 

[Josheb]

We still retain "free will
, but we are limited by our flesh and human natures so that we can only decide to do what we desire and want to do, and many things fallen sinners will not even want to do

If the will is limited, then it is not free.

 

[Arial]

We still retain "free will
, but we are limited by our flesh and human natures so that we can only decide to do what we desire and want to do, and many things fallen sinners will not even want to do

There is no such thing as a will that is free. The very term "will" is antithetical to "free" because our actions (will)are motivated by internal and/or external pressures. Our greatest desire. So, we are free to make choices. God designed us that way for his purpose. But our will is not free. It does not operate apart from our desire.

Given that we became sinners through Adam, all our desires, whether good or bad, are personally motivated. As opposed to what they ought to be as God's image bearers, motivated by obedience to him for his glory. That is why we need the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through faith in his person and work. Only through the work of Christ in his life and in his death as our substitute can God's justice against our sin and mercy towards the sinner become compatible. It is only through Christ's defeat of the power of sin and death on the cross and by his resurrection and ascension, that the prisoner of sin and darkness can be set free.

 

[makesends]

We still retain "free will
, but we are limited by our flesh and human natures so that we can only decide to do what we desire and want to do, and many things fallen sinners will not even want to do

Yes and no. Or, "Yes, except I can't call that 'free', unless 'free will' is only a figure of speech."

 

[JesusFan]

Yes and no. Or, "Yes, except I can't call that 'free', unless 'free will' is only a figure of speech."

free not in an absolute sense, but free with can still make choices and decisions based upon our desires and limitations of having the sin nature

 

[JesusFan]

There is no such thing as a will that is free. The very term "will" is antithetical to "free" because our actions (will)are motivated by internal and/or external pressures. Our greatest desire. So, we are free to make choices. God designed us that way for his purpose. But our will is not free. It does not operate apart from our desire.

Given that we became sinners through Adam, all our desires, whether good or bad, are personally motivated. As opposed to what they ought to be as God's image bearers, motivated by obedience to him for his glory. That is why we need the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through faith in his person and work. Only through the work of Christ in his life and in his death as our substitute can God's justice against our sin and mercy towards the sinner become compatible. It is only through Christ's defeat of the power of sin and death on the cross and by his resurrection and ascension, that the prisoner of sin and darkness can be set free.

I am defining retaining some free will as God still does grant to us means to do as we now desire, to make real choices and decisions, as The Lord is not direct causing all evil choices being made by us today