Is eternal judgment just | Clip from Divine Retribution

John, before we get too far into the discussion, though, about justice and whether or not

God's punishment is consistent with justice or inconsistent with justice, I think we should probably define what justice is and make sure that we're all talking about the same thing.

So how would you describe justice here for this discussion? I think if—we talked about this a little on the side, you know, there is the matter of law.

So if a law is broken and the law prescribes a response of justice, so there's the legal response to breaking or keeping a law, benefits and, you know, negative consequences, that's part of it.

And God's law not only lays out the line, do not cross this line, beyond this line is wickedness, but God's law also explains what the consequence could be.

But with human law, if the human law is unfair, even though when a person breaks that law and someone says, well, but the law requires this response.

If the response is not appropriate to the offense, then we would say, okay, I know that's what your system says, but your system's not just.

So imagine a system that said—we can't imagine this, you know, really, but imagine a system that said, in this country, murder of a child is a small matter, but stealing from a boss is a big matter, you know?

And you would say, wait, wait, wait. So murder of a child gets a $10 fine, and if you steal $100 from the boss, you go to jail forever.

Well, that's what the law said, but your law is unjust, okay? So there is law, but it's more than law.

I think the simplest way to say is that justice is an equitable, an equal, and appropriate response to a crime.

So you have an action and then a reaction, so the action of the crime is on this level, you know, level 5 out of 10, and the response to that is the consequence is matching that, so it's a 5 out of 10.

If you steal an apple, then there is a response of the law, but it's a small, you know, it's a small infraction, and the punishment is small.

If you get drunk and you hit someone on the way home from the bar and you kill them, then the response is much different.

So when we think of justice, we think, does the judge, does the law respond to a crime in a way that is equal to the nature of the crime?

So let's think of, that could be abused in different ways.

You could say, the law is unjust, okay, the judge is unjust if he doesn't give the full response that should be given.

So a man gets drunk, he drives home from the bar, he runs over a child, and the child is killed, the man goes to court, and he's there, and the judge gives him basically a slap on the wrist, $100 fine, and the whole country is up in arms.

How did that happen? Well, then we find out that the judge is actually very close friends with that man and his family.

So we would say, wait, wait, that is not just. He was not given an appropriate response. The penalty did not match the crime.

But you could do the other way, a child steals the apple from the grocery store and runs out the door because the child is starving.

The child is caught and brought before a court of law and put into prison for five years. We would say, wait, wait, wait, that wasn't equal either.

So both of those are unjust. Justice would mean that a fair and equitable and appropriate response from the law is given that matches the crime.

So, when we think of sin and we think of an eternal judgment, that's a little hard for us.

We say, my sin, I just don't see that it matches an eternal judgment, a sin that took a minute to commit, or a sin that hurt a person for a year, or a sin that, you know, whatever, even a sin that was in my mind that nobody but God knew about.

How can that be, how can it be fair for that to have earned an everlasting torment?

And that brings us to the question of what is the nature of the debt of sin and how in the world do you measure that correctly?

And how do we, how can we as Christians say that God is right, that eternal judgment is the right response when sin seems not as big as eternity?

So, what would you say to a person that says, okay, I've sinned, but I don't think my sin has earned that kind of response from God?

Well, you haven't really considered who the lawgiver is and the character of God, that He's infinite. You know, we lack objectivity both, one thing because the sin is ours, you know, so much easier to see sin in someone else and a terrible sin that's deserving something.

But when I do it, it's easy to justify it and think of all the reasons why I don't deserve what the law prescribes.

But the real answer, the thing you're asking about, I suppose, is that we don't really know the lawgiver and we don't consider that sin is really against Him and His honor,

His character, and so we don't see the sin as being a big deal. Like you said, it was, for a moment it was against that person for getting, it may have offended that person, but ultimately it offended

God. Yeah, when we think of the offense of sin, or we could think of the debt of a sin, we have to rise above the human kind of view.

We tend to think that small actions, small infractions on earth, small infractions, well, we deserve small penalties and large infractions, large penalties, and that's right.

But when we think of sin, the primary thing is that we're sinning against a person, not against a law, not against an abstract set of rules.

In this nation, you're not allowed to go 95 mile an hour, so if you go 95 mile an hour, there's a response of the law.

But when we think about spiritual issues, it's the person that's offended that's primary.

It doesn't mean that there aren't smaller or bigger infractions spiritually, but ultimately every sin deserves an infinite response because every sin is against an infinite being.

And Edwards makes this argument, we owe God love. That's the great command, to love

God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength. Now, if we will not give God the love and the honor and the obedience that is due to him, then it's a crime.

We've robbed God what we owe him. Now, if God is an infinite being, then the argument from scripture is that the crime carries an infinite penalty, and that's fair.

The penalty matches the crime. And he goes on to argue and say things like, well, is it against God's just character?

He said, well, this kind of series of if -thens, if sin is wrong, then it is right for a holy, perfectly morally straight being to hate it.

We agree with that. It is not right, even on the earthly level, for a judge that we expect to hold the standard of right and wrong.

It is not right for him to suddenly show up in court and love what's wrong and hate what's right to reward the wicked and to punish the good.

We would be up in arms and say, you have failed. So when we think of the eternal judge,

God, we, I think we can all agree, it is right for God, being a pure being, to hate what is impure, to love what is pure.

So that's our first argument. Second, if sin is an impurity that is against an infinite being, then it is an infinite impurity, in a sense, we could say.

It carries an infinite weight, an infinite shame and guilt. An infinite evil.

Yes, and an infinite evil. And therefore, it is right for a pure and infinite being to hate an infinite evil with infinite hatred.

And it is right for an infinite, pure being who is just to respond to infinite evil with an infinite punishment.

And so while we have always looked at crimes based on the action, rather than based on who we've sinned against, we have to rethink that when it comes to the heavenly.

So, Edward's big argument there is, if you understand the nature of God correctly, and you understand then the nature of sin correctly, it is an infinite evil, then it really is not just okay for an infinitely righteous or infinitely fair God to punish sin with an everlasting punishment.

It is actually right and praiseworthy. And to not do that would be wicked.

If you haven't already, you can subscribe to The Whole Council on your favorite podcast app.

And it does help whenever you're able to leave a comment or a question or write a review.