Why God Must Punish Sin and How Christ Satisfies Justice | John Owen

Deep Dive into A Dissertation on Divine Justice by John Owen - Rutherford reviewed — An oversight of that learned man — His opinion of punitory justice — He contends that divine justice exists in God freely — The consideration of that assertion — This learned writer and Twisse disagree — His first argument — Its answer — The appoint- ment of Christ to death twofold — The appointment of Christ to the mediatorial office an act of supreme dominion — The punishment of Christ an act of punitory justice — An argument of that learned man, easy to answer — The examination of the same — The learned writer proves things not denied — Passes over things to be denied — What kind of necessity we ascribe to God in punishing sins — A necessity upon a condition supposed — What the suppositions are upon which that necessity is founded — A difference between those things which are neces- sary by a decree and those which are so from the divine nature — The second argument of that learned man — His obscure manner of writing pointed out — Justice and mercy different in respect of their exercise — What it is to owe the good of punitory justice to the universe — This learned man’s third argument — The answer — Whether God could forbid sin, and not under the penalty of eternal death — Concerning the modification of punishment in human courts from the divine appointment — The manner of it — What this learned author under- stands by the “internal court” of God — This learned author’s fourth argument — All acts of grace have a respect to Christ — His fifth argument — The answer — A dissertation of the various degrees of punishment The provided text details a theological debate in which the author critiques Samuel Rutherford's argument that God exercises punitory justice purely freely rather than from a necessity of his divine nature. Rutherford asserts that if God punished sin out of natural necessity, it would compromise his freedom, pointing to the fact that God freely gave his Son to death out of love. The author notes that Rutherford's arguments are logically inconsistent and risk aligning with Socinian errors, which deny the inherent habit of justice in God.To refute Rutherford's primary example, the author distinguishes between two distinct aspects of Christ's sacrifice. The initial decree to appoint Christ as a mediator was genuinely a free act of supreme dominion and grace. However, once Christ was established as a legal substitute for sinners, the actual infliction of punishment upon him became an absolute requirement of God's punitory justice.The author clarifies that ascribing necessity to God's justice does not mean God is driven by a mindless or purely physical compulsion. Rather, it is a conditional necessity rooted in his immutable character. Once God freely chooses to create rational creatures and permits them to transgress, his inherent holiness strictly demands that the sin be punished to preserve his righteous dominion.Rutherford further suggests that God could simply suspend punishment, comparing divine judgment to human courts that modify penalties. The author counters that human courts adjust punishments for practical societal outcomes, whereas divine justice must necessarily vindicate God's purity. While God retains complete liberty to determine the specific timing, manner, and comparative degrees of punishment, the fundamental requirement to punish sin remains a natural necessity. Because sin offends an infinite Creator, this necessary punishment ultimately requires an eternal duration. In summary, while the specific administration of judgment involves divine free will, punishing sin is inextricably tied to God's essential nature.Reformed Theologian GPT: https://chat.openai.com/g/g-XXwzX1gnv-reformed-theologianYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/@ReformedExplainerSpotify Music: https://open.spotify.com/artist/1t5dz4vEgvHqUknYQfwpRI?si=e-tDRFR2Qf6By1sAcMdkdwhttps://buymeacoffee.com/edi2730