Man's overlooking of sin versus God's (Romans 3)

[Pergamum]

How would you explain that God cannot justly overlook sin? Consider this hypothetical conversation:

Q: Why can't God just forgive without a need for a blood sacrifice?

A: He is infinitely holy and just, and his justice must be satisfied before he can justly forgive

Q: But we forgive people all the time for sins committed against us without demanding retribution. In fact it's considered virtuous to do so.

A: We are sinful creatures undeserving of any good thing. But God is holy and sinless, and sins against him are of infinite offense. A good judge will not let prisoners go free without justice first being served.

Q: Yes, but a human judge must uphold justice because he acts on behalf of the one offended. It would indeed be unjust for him to let the criminal go free with no justice for the offended party. But God himself IS the offended party. When I am offended, even as a sinful creature, I can choose to seek justice against the offender, or I can unilaterally choose to overlook it, forgive the offender, and forego seeking his punishment. Why can't God do what I can do?

A: Because God's justice is perfect, and ours is not. Therefore he cannot forgive without his justice being satisfied.

Q: So, does that mean our forgiveness of others without requiring retribution is actually a FLAW in our character? A sign that we are less just than we ought to be? Because if we were more just, we would require a penalty to be paid?

How would you answer this exchange? We assert that God MUST punish sin, but that for man it is considered kind to overlook sin even without retribution and not always demand justice.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

God must punish sin, because he has willed to fully demonstrate his character in this way--which includes his perfect justice.

He has found a way that will maximize the demonstration of his Justice, while at the same time he is able to maximize his demonstration of Mercy.

When we show mercy, justice suffers. And when we show justice, mercy suffers. We cannot maximize our demonstration of either, without dispensing with its counterpart. This is a characteristic of finitude.

When we forgive, we take into ourselves--we absorb--the abuse that was visited. Someone does pay a price for the sin of the other, namely we do voluntarily.

We may say to ourselves, "You know, I've done enough wrong that this pain visited upon me doesn't really make a dent in my debt." Plus, it is evidence of greatness, mixed with humility, that permits the overlooking of minor slights. God is not necessarily humble. The smallest rebellion against his august majesty is worthy of maximum retaliation, because it accosts the perfections of pure holiness. (When men take a similar attitude, they are blaspheming).

When an earthly judge weighs his duty to righteousness (he is a minister of the law, not of grace), he ought to be less-inclined to simply wipe away a criminal's penalty, and force that penalty to be borne by the victim and the innocent society at large. It doesn't mean he cannot find ways to relieve the awful burden on the guilty, but his bent is toward justice.

The balance to the minister of law is the minister of the gospel. I also preach the law, but my bent is toward grace. And the reason I can be such a minister is because I can proclaim the law satisfied for those who hope in God's mercy.

If God only took our rebellion and absorbed it (which he did in his Son), and if he willed that Justice should never be visited to some deserving parties, we should accept that as his determination. But perhaps our understanding of the whole matter would be diminished. We might not have as clear an understanding of the evil of sin. The way he has chosen is a good way, probably the best way for creatures such as we are.

 

[Pergamum]

Thank you so much! Great!

 

[Pergamum]

God must punish sin, because he has willed to fully demonstrate his character in this way--which includes his perfect justice.

He has found a way that will maximize the demonstration of his Justice, while at the same time he is able to maximize his demonstration of Mercy.

When we show mercy, justice suffers. And when we show justice, mercy suffers. We cannot maximize our demonstration of either, without dispensing with its counterpart. This is a characteristic of finitude.

When we forgive, we take into ourselves--we absorb--the abuse that was visited. Someone does pay a price for the sin of the other, namely we do voluntarily.

We may say to ourselves, "You know, I've done enough wrong that this pain visited upon me doesn't really make a dent in my debt." Plus, it is evidence of greatness, mixed with humility, that permits the overlooking of minor slights. God is not necessarily humble. The smallest rebellion against his august majesty is worthy of maximum retaliation, because it accosts the perfections of pure holiness. (When men take a similar attitude, they are blaspheming).

When an earthly judge weighs his duty to righteousness (he is a minister of the law, not of grace), he ought to be less-inclined to simply wipe away a criminal's penalty, and force that penalty to be borne by the victim and the innocent society at large. It doesn't mean he cannot find ways to relieve the awful burden on the guilty, but his bent is toward justice.

The balance to the minister of law is the minister of the gospel. I also preach the law, but my bent is toward grace. And the reason I can be such a minister is because I can proclaim the law satisfied for those who hope in God's mercy.

If God only took our rebellion and absorbed it (which he did in his Son), and if he willed that Justice should never be visited to some deserving parties, we should accept that as his determination. But perhaps our understanding of the whole matter would be diminished. We might not have as clear an understanding of the evil of sin. The way he has chosen is a good way, probably the best way for creatures such as we are.

Rev. Bruce;

If God only took our rebellion and absorbed it (which he did in his Son), and if he willed that Justice should never be visited to some deserving parties, we should accept that as his determination. But perhaps our understanding of the whole matter would be diminished. We might not have as clear an understanding of the evil of sin. The way he has chosen is a good way, probably the best way for creatures such as we are.

You are not saying that there was another way to atone for sin, are you? I've always believed that Jesus HAD (MUST) die to save sinful man. However, some medieval theologians seemed to have said that God could have just said, "not guilty" without any sufferings for Christ.

You wrote:

God must punish sin, because he has willed to fully demonstrate his character in this way--which includes his perfect justice.

But He couldn't have willed otherwise, could He?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rev. Pergy,
The way God chose to actually atone for sin is the only way I know of.

What God wills to do makes the thing done necessary in one special sense.

If I could think of some "other way," I'm quite certain that it would be flawed, compared to what has been decreed.

So, for all practical purposes there was no other way for sin to be taken out of the way, and the elect saved.

But, since I'm not God, I'm only relying on the revealed things. Maybe there was a "secret thing...?" That's speculative philosophy, and I have no desire to go there.

We speak of God being absolutely free to will what he wills. We can also expect that his overall choice for the unimaginably complex space-time reality was an optimal selection, according to how we ought to admire it--we could never conceive of anything better.

But we must still say that God was not "bound" to decree in the way he did by some power or ordinance or supra-reality to which his will conforms.

All my comments are meant to convey is the necessity of men to bow before the will and wisdom of God, whatever that is he makes known to us.

 

[Pergamum]

Thanks so much. Thanks for the clarification, too!