.

Order of Contents

Articles  6+
Historical  1
Latin  2

Vindicatory Justice: Essential to God?
.     No  4
.     Yes  6+
.     Historical  3

.

.

Articles

1500’s

Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘Whether God would Destroy any Man’  in 1. ‘Of the Eternal Predestination of God…’  in The Common Places…  (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 3, pp. 42-44

Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion  (1560)

Justice of God  420.b

That God is just  420.b
What it is to be just  421.a
How manifold the justice of God is  421.b
What difference is between the justice of God and of man  422.b

.

1600’s

Ussher, James – ch. 3, ‘Of God’s Goodness & Justice, & the Persons of the Trinity’  in A Body of Divinity, or the Sum & Substance of the Christian Religion  modified by Hastings Robinson (1645; London, 1841)

Voetius, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1, pt. 1  tr. by AI by Onku  (Utrecht: Johannes a Waesberg, 1648)  Latin

On the Right & Justice of God  309
On the Justice of God  324
.     Appendix, pt. 1  330
.                      pt. 2  342-61

Leigh, Edward – ch. 12. ‘Of God’s Justice, Truth, Faithfulness’  in A System or Body of Divinity…  (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 2, pp. 181-86

Turretin, Francis – 18. ‘Is the will of God the primary rule of justice?  We distinguish.’  in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr.  (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 3^rd Topic, pp. 232-34

.

1700’s

Venema, Herman – pp. 169-79  in Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology  tr. Alexander W. Brown  (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850), ch. 7, God

Venema (1697-1787) was a professor at Franeker.  Venema “maintained the fundamental line of confessional orthodoxy without drawing heavily on any of the newer philosophies…  and maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position.  Venema… evidence[s] the inroads of a rationalistic model…” – Richard Muller

.

.

Historical

On Calvin

Schreiner, Susan – ‘Exegesis & Double Justice in Calvin’s Sermons on Job’  in Church History, 58, no. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 322-38

“Briefly, the concept of double justice posits a higher hidden justice in God which transcends the Law and could condemn even the angels.  This idea appears in Calvin’s works before the sermons on Job but always grows out of his fascination with Job 4:18, namely that even the angels are not clean in God’s sight…  which proved that creaturely justice cannot satisfy the justice of God…  But when he tried to develop double justice as a hermeneutical key to the book of Job as a whole, the text led him in a direction he did not want to go.” – p. 322

.

.

Latin

1500’s

Zanchi, Jerome – Of the Nature of God, or of the Divine Attributes…  (Heidelberg, 1577)

bk. 3, ch. 4, ‘Of the Will of God’, Question XII, ‘Whether God’s will may always be just & the rule of all justice?’, pp. 366-69

Zanchi (1516-1590) was an Italian, protestant Reformation clergyman and educator who influenced the development of Reformed theology during the years following John Calvin’s death.

bk. 4, ch. 5, ‘Of the Righteousness [or Justice] of God’, pp. 482-97

.

1600’s

Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations  (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1648), vol. 1

19. ‘Of the Right & Justice of God’, pp. 339-64
20. ‘Of the Same, Appendices’, pt. 1, pp. 364-79
21. pt. 2, pp. 379-402

.

.

Is Vindicatory Justice Essential to God?

.

See also, ‘On the Necessity of the Atonement’ & ‘Incarnation apart from Redemption?’.

.

No

Order of

Intro
Articles  2
Quotes  5

.

Intro

This position holds that though God be righteous and just by nature, and must be so, yet, due to his aseity and sovereignty, any punishment of the creation’s sin must be by a free and soveriegn egress of his will, which is not necessitated by his nature or necessary.  God could not punish sin.

Yet God has decreed to punish all sin with everlasting punishment, by a free act of his will, and therefore it is still necessary that all sin be punished.

This was arguably the dominant view from the early Church through the reformed till the mid-1600’s, at which time and following the opposite view became dominant amongst the reformed.  This view is related to the view that the atonement of Christ was only hypothetically necessary to save sinners.

This view is recommended; see Rutherford.

.

Articles

1600’s

Rutherford, Samuel – pp. 24-34  of ch. 7, ‘…2. that the debt of Justice cannot tie God.  3. God punishes not sin by necessity of nature.  4. Nor defends He his own declarative glory by that necessity…’  in The Covenant of Life Opened...  (1655)

Rutherford’s view and defense is recommended as right.  It is clear that Rutherford is here responding to and refuting Owen (below) on the subject, who had critiqued him two years previous, though Owen is not named (his language and arguments are apparent).

Gilbert, Thomas – A Defense of the Supreme Dominion of God, or
Certain Theses together with opposing instances of the theses recently presented in Doctor Owen’s Diatribe concerning Vindicative Justice with Respect to Sin, concerning the necessary exercise of it [i.e., vindicative justice]; More fully, a disputational groundwork on that matter…  to which are added several samples of responses to the arguments advanced by the Doctor on this side of the issue;
Along with some new lines of argumentation…  in opposition to the opinion of Owen  tr. by AI by Brandon Corley  (London: Martin, 1655)  11 pp.

.

Quotes

Order of

Arminius
Rutherford
Various
Baxter
Wamphray

.

1600’s

James Arminius

Intro

Arminius was a theological professor at Leiden, and in his Public Disputations, as below, he tended not to go into controversial things.  While Arminius does not explicitly say that vindicatory justice is not essential to God, or that God might not in his absolute power punish a creature’s evil, yet he lays out a paradigm where this is possible, and the contrary is not necessary.

Note below that Arminius speaks of justice as a kind of order and good (LVIII & LXVII), which it certainly is.  It is because “God primarily loves Himself and the good of justice” that He “at the same moment hates iniquity” (LXVII).  Arminius also says that remunerative justice is “according to…  an agreement into which He has entered with” the creature (such as in the Covenant of Works).  This premise is consistent with how Samuel Rutherford speaks of God’s remunerative justice in his Covenant of Life Opened.

Arminius, reflecting the sovereignty of God, lays out a paradigm where God fundamentally need not communicate his goodness outside of Himself at all (LXVIII).  If this be the case, it would seem God need not communicate the good of his righteousness, by way of remunerative justice, outside of Himself.

.

The Works of James Arminius, tr. James Nichols (Auburn: Derby, Miller, Orton, 1853), vol. 1, Public Disputations, Disputation 4, ‘On the Nature of God’, p. 456

“LIII. But though nothing from without be the cause of God’s volition, yet, since He wills that there should be order in things (which order is placed principally in this, that [iliae] some things be the causes of others) just so far as God’s volition is borne towards those objects, it is as if it were the cause of itself as it is borne towards others: (Hos. 2:21-22)  Thus the cause why He wills the condemnation of anyone, is this, because He wills the order of his justice to be observed throughout the universe. (Jn 6:40; Dt. 7:8)…
…

LVI. 1. The Divine Will is borne towards its object, either according to the mode of Nature, or according to the mode of Liberty.  According to the mode of Nature, it tends towards a primary and proper object, one that is suitable and adequate to its nature.  According to the mode of Liberty, it tends towards all other things.  Thus, God by a natural necessity wills Himself; but He wills freely all other things; (2 Tim. 2:13; Rev. 4:11) though the act which is posterior in order may be bound by a free act which is prior in order.  This may be called “hypothetical necessity,” having its origin partly from the free volition and act of God, partly from the immutability of his nature.  “For God is not unrighteous,” says the apostle,” to forget the work and labor of love” of the pious; because He has promised them a remuneration, and the immutability of his nature does not suffer Him to rescind his promises. (Heb. 6:10, 18)
…

LVIII…  when the creature [excedit ordinem] transgresses the order of this revealed Will, the creature by it may be reduced to order, and that the Will of God may be done [de] on those by whom his Will has not been performed. (2 Sam. 17:14; Isa. 5:4-5; Mt. 21:39-41; Acts 5:4; 1 Cor. 7:28)…
…

LXIII. 8. Lastly. God wills some things per se or [per accidens] accidentally.  He wills per se, those things which are simply and relatively good; (2 Pet. 3:9; accidentally, those which are in some respect evil, but which have such good tbings united with them as He wills in preference to be respective good things which are opposed to those evil ones: thus, He wills the evils of punisbnient, because He would rather have the order of justice preserved in punishment, than suffer an offending creature to go unpunished. (Jer. 9:9; Ps. 50:21; Jer. 15:6)
…

LXVII. Love is an affection of union in God, the objects of which are God Himself and the good of justice or righteousness, the creature and its felicity. (Prov. 16:4; Ps. 11:7; Jn. 3:16; Wisdom 11:24-26)  Hatred is an affection of separation in God, the object of which are the unrighteusness and misery of the creature. (Ps. 5:5; Eze. 25:11; Dt. 25:15-16, etc.; Isa. 1:24)  But since God primarily loves Himself and the good of justice, and at the same moment hates iniquity; and since He loves the creature and its happiness only secondarily, and at the same moment [odio habet] dislikes the misery of the creature; (Ps. 11:5; Dt. 28:63) hence it comes to pass, that He hates a creature that pertinaciously perseveres in unrighteousness, and He loves its misery. (Isa. 66:4)

LXVIII. Goodness in God is an affection of communicating his own good. (Rev. 4:11; Gen. 1:31)  Its first object [ad extra] outwards is nothing; and thus necessarily the first, that, [illo sublato] on its removal, there can be no [ad extra] outward communication.  The first [progressus] advance of this goodness is towards the creature as it is a creature; the second is towards the creature as it performs its duty, to communicate good to it beyond the remuneration promised.  Both these procedures of the Divine goodness may appropriately receive the appellation of “Benignity.”  The third advance is towards a creature that has sinned, and that has by such transgression rendered itself liable to misery.  This advance is called Mercy, that is, an affection for affording succor to a person in misery, sin itself presenting no obstacle to its exercise. (Rom. 5:8; Eze. 16:6).
…

LXXV. Righteousness or Justice in God, is an eternal and constant will to render to every one his own: (Ps. 11:7)  To God Himself that which is his, and to the creature what belongs to it.  We consider this righteousness in its Words and in its Acts.  In all its Words are found veracity and constancy; and in its Promises, fidelity. (2 Tim. 2:13; Num. 23:19; Rom. 3:4; 1 Thess. 5:24)  With regard to its Acts, it is twofold, Disposing and Remunerative.  The former is that according to which God disposes all the things in his actions through his own wisdom, according to the rule of equity which has either been prescribed or pointed out by his wisdom.  The latter, [remunerative righteousness] is that by which God renders to his creatures that which belongs to it, according to his work through an agreement into which He has entered with it. (Heb. 6:10, 17-18; Ps. 145:17; 2 Thess. 1:6; Rev. 2:23)”

.

Samuel Rutherford

Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself  (London: Crooke, 1647), pp. 7-8

“…God, if we speak of his absolute power, without respect to his free decree, He 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 punishes sin, nor tenders heaven to men or angels by necessity of nature–as the fire casts out heat, and the sun light—but freely:”

.

Various

Richard Baxter, The Unreasonableness of Infidelity  (London: R.W., 1655), An Advertisement Explicatory, p. xvi

“30. It is said by some very learned and reverend men, that God freely made the world, though He necessarily made it good; He freely made positive laws, though He necessarily made them wisely and just; He freely annexes threatenings to his laws, though necessarily they are just threatenings; He freely sentences or judges, though He necessarily judge justly; He freely executes his sentence by punishing, though He necessarily punish justly.

And the reasons given, are: 1. Because God executes his sentence as Dominus [Lord].  2. Because his threatenings bind Him not to punish, but man to suffer.”

.

Richard Baxter

Aphorisms of Justification…  (Hague, 1655), thesis 5, pp. 12-13

“Whether there were any flat necessity of man’s suffering after the Fall is doubted by many and denied by Socinus.  Whether this necessity arises from God’s natural justice, or his ordinate, viz. his decree, and the verity of the threatening, is also with many of our own divines a great dispute:

Whether God might have pardoned sin if He had not said, ‘The sinner shall die,’ may be doubted of (though I believe the affirmative, yet I judge it a frivolous presumptuous question.  But the word of his threatening being once past, methinks it should be past question that He cannot absolutely pardon without the apparent violation of his truth, or wisdom.  Some think that it proceeds from his wisdom rather than his justice, that man must suffer: see Mr. John Goodwin, Of Justification, pt. 2, p. 34), but why should we separate what God has conjoined?

However, whether wisdom, or justice, or truth (or rather all these) were the ground of it, yet certain it is that a necessity there was that the penalty should be inflicted: or else the Son of God should not have made satisfaction, nor sinners bear so much themselves.”

.

John Brown of Wamphray

Quakerism: the Pathway to Paganism, or a View of the Quakers’ Religion, being an Examination of the Theses & Apology of Robert Barclay, one of their Number...  (Edinburgh: Cairns, 1678), ch. 8, ‘Of Universal Redemption’, p. 163  Brown was a disciple of Rutherford.

“13. Again (2) The Scripture every where points out the end of Christ’s coming and dying to have been to procure and obtain some good to man; it were endless to cite the Scriptures speaking this out plainly: But if it had been only to have procured a possibility, then the proper and immediate end of his dying had been only to have procured something to God, viz. a power to Him, that He might, without hurt to his justice, prescribe a possible way of salvation.

Now, not to discuss that question agitated among orthodox divines, viz. whether it was impossible for God to have pardoned the sins of man without a satisfaction made by his Son, or not; meaning antecedently to a decree, determining this way of manifestation of the justice of God; only I must say that as yet I can see nothing from Scripture determining the egresses of the relative justice of God to be more essential to God, and less subject to the free determinations of his good will and pleasure, than are the egresses of his mercy; nor do I see any necessity for asserting this against the Socinians, seing our ground, walking upon a decree, is proof against all their assaults; far less see I any necessity of founding our whole debate with the Socinians upon that ground; yea I cannot but judge it the result of great imprudence so to do, seeing the Socinians may reply that the sole ground of that opposition to them is not only questioned, but plainly denied by such as we account orthodox and learned; and may hence gather that we have no other solid ground whereupon to debate with them but such as the learned of our own side overthrow.

The depth’s of God’s Counsel are beyond our fathoming and it is hard for us to say hithertil the omnipotent can come, but not one ince further.  I dare not be wise above what is writen and I would gladly see one passage of Scripture declaring this to have been in itself utterly impossible and inconsistent with God.”

.

.

Yes

Order of Contents

Intro
Articles  4
Book  1
Quotes  3

.

Intro

This view holds that that God must punish sinners in some way shape or form due to his righteous nature and lordship.  Proponents often critique the Socinians who held otherwise.

This view became dominant amongst the reformed in the mid-1600’s and following.  It is related to view that, consequent to God decreeing to save some sinners, Christ’s atonement was necessary.

.

Articles

1600’s

Baxter, Richard – “An Advertisement Explicatory, especially about the Necessity of God’s Execution of his Threatenings, or of Christ’s Satisfaction: to Prevent Misunderstanding”  in The Unreasonableness of Infidelity, Manifested in Four Discourses, pp. iix-xviii

Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr.  (1679–1685; P&R, 1992)

vol. 1, 3^rd Topic

19. ‘Is vindictive justice natural to God?  We affirm against the Socinians.’, pp. 234-41

vol. 2, 11th Topic

2. ‘The Nature of the Moral Law:  Are the Precepts of the Decalogue of Natural and Indispensable Right?  We Affirm’, pp. 7-18

.

1700’s

De Moor, Bernard – Continuous Commentary, ch. 4, ‘On God’

45. God’s Essential Righteousness
45. God’s Dominical Righteousness
45. God’s Unfailing Truth & Faithfulness
46. God’s Remunerative Justice
46. Answering Objections to God’s Remunerative Justice
47. God’s Vindictive Righteousness, Natural rather than Volitional
47. God’s Vindictive Righteousness & the Three Forms of Unity
47. Controversy among the Reformed over God’s Vindicatory Righteousness, pt. 1, 2, 3
48. God’s Absolute Right & Authority over All His Creatures

Theological Disputation on Vindicatory Righteousness as Essential to God

Justification for Writing
Universal & Particular Righteousness
Socinian Position
Controversy among the Reformed
Array of Arguments
Argument from Ex. 34:7
Argument from Ps. 5:4-6
Argument from Ps. 9:4; 11:5-7; etc.
Argument from Various Passages
Vindicatory Acts & Essential Righteousness
Vindicatory Acts & Essence, Ps. 50:21
Hab. 1:13
Testimony of Conscience, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4
Satisfaction of Christ, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Summary of Arguments
Additional Arguments
Against the Socinians, pt. 1, 2, 3
Against Twisse
Conclusion

.

1800’s

Dabney, Robert – ‘Vindicatory Justice Essential to God’  1881  17 pp.  from Discussions, vol. 1: Theological & Evangelical, ed. C.R. Vaughan (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1890), pp. 466-481.  Originally published in Southern Pulpit  (April, 1881)

.

Book

1600’s

Owen, John – A Dissertation on Divine Justice…  (1653)  ToC  in Works, vol. 10, pp. 482-624

Owen has a section critiquing Rutherford in this work.  Rutherford responded to Owen (without naming him) two years later in the section by Rutherford linked above.

.

Quotes

Order of

Hoornbeek
Essenius
Riissen

.

1600’s

Johannes Hoornbeek

‘Theological Disputation on the Satisfaction of Christ’  tr. Onku with AI  (Utrecht, 1650)  Latin

“II.  This punishment (this disobedience having been posited) the divine nature first of all requires, for God is a consuming fire who cannot bear sin (Deut 4:24, Hab 1:13). Yet we do not want God to act irrationally (just as elementary fire), but most rationally, concomitantly to his nature but not antecedently, for he is a rational and intelligent fire who, although he can transfer the burning to another combustible thing, yet cannot suspend it totally:

1. Because God hates and abhors sin to the utmost, and hatred (like all affections) belongs to God according to its effects, and signifies in him 1) opposition to the hated thing, 2) rejection and damnation and grave punishment of the one who perpetrates that hated thing, as even Vorstius teaches (Notes on Disp. 10 on God, thesis 20).

2. God as the best being, by necessity of nature is zealous for his own glory, which is the end of all his actions, which does not happen unless by vindicating the contempt of himself which he suffers through sin, which is not expiated except through punishment.

3. The supreme Lord by necessity of nature requires supreme acknowledgment of himself, which is denied to him through sin, which cannot be repaired except through the acknowledgment of the despiser by which he may experience how grave and sad is the contempt of his master. And these things are so true that even in civil affairs, neglect of his majesty cannot consist with the supreme magistrate; nor therefore through this is God rendered impotent, as the Socinian Gitichius deduces from this (Against Lucius, Argument 2). For he cannot deny himself (2 Tim 2:13) nor his glory. Secondly, the truth of the divine threats, by which the highest torments await sinners, demands this punishment (see the previous thesis).

III. Hence if any are vindicated from this servitude (as it is certain that all the elect have been and will be vindicated), it is necessary that this acknowledgment, that is, the restitution of honor, be exhibited to the supreme Lord and Ruler injured and offended by our disobedience, and that his laws and exactions be satisfied. But what can man do for this? His demerit is infinite (by the previous thesis)…

IV…  Hence fall:

1. The mimicry of the Socinians arguing against the satisfaction of Christ from the gratuitous remission made to us, and refuting our arguments for it (see Socinus, De Servatore, part 3, ch. 2, and Praelections ch. 117, §5; Volkelius and Gitichius ibid.).

2. Their argument from Eph 4:32 that we ought to forgive our brothers as God has forgiven us. Right! Gratuitous remission has come about for us, but on account of Christ’s satisfaction “in Christ” (as the Apostle adds there), through whose blood we have remission of sins from the riches of divine grace (Eph 1:7). Indeed, what is clearer for the possibility of composing most strict satisfaction and gratuitous remission than the example of Paul entreating remission for Onesimus and offering his own payment (Philem 10,12,18-19)?

3. Nor is the transfer of our obligation to Christ repugnant to divine justice (as Socinus argues, part 3, ch. 3). It is indeed essential to sin that it be set in order through punishment, but it is not essential that it be vindicated in the very one who sinned. For God is placated provided that esteem is restored to him and his laws satisfied (for in these he was injured, by Thesis 1). But this is done through Jesus Christ; indeed, it can be done through him alone, because he alone has order and proportion with God.

4. Nor does it oppose the truth of [God’s] threats (as Socinus ibid.), since that too is preserved provided that someone sponsors for those who sinned. They indeed have this from transgression, that they are under obligation to punishments, but it is not required that the transgression actually be vindicated in them, as was just said.”

.

Andreas Essenius

‘Theological Disputation on the Image of God in Man’  Download  tr. Jonathan Tomes  (Utrecht: Johannes Waesberg, 1653), Appendix  Latin

“VI. God’s vindicating justice is essential if considered subjectively; indeed, its expression is also necessary if sin is posited.”

.

Leonard Riissen

A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary  trans. J. Wesley White  MTh thesis  (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), ch. 11, ‘Christ’, pp. 84-85, 112-13, 121-22

“Controversy – Is God able not only to deprive an innocent creature of life but also to condemn them to the eternal tortures of hell?  We deny against certain Scholastics.

Arguments

1. All the ways of God should be mercy and truth to those who keep covenant (Ps. 25:10).

2. Anyone approaching God should believe that He will reward their obedience with a reward not condemn them (Heb. 11:6).

3. In an innocent creature there can be no consciousness of guilt or the just judgment of God, which is the meaning of punishment.

4. No glory to God could arise from this but rather the dishonor of a tyrannical lord.

5. The righteousness of God demands that He acquit the holy, but it does not permit him to condemn someone who has not merited it (Ps. 18:26-27, Gen. 18:25, Ps. 7:11).

Objections

1. He can reduce the innocent to nothing.  Reply. Then he only takes away what He gave, but punishment would be to do injury to someone while existing.

2. He acts this way with Christ. Reply. He was our surety, who took our debts on Himself.

3. God can impute to us the sin of Adam. Reply. That is imputed to be ours which is truly ours just as the children of slaves are slaves and the sons of citizens are citizens and are reputed to be such.

4. We are permitted to kill innocent creatures. Reply. 1. Not rational ones. 2. Irrational ones (bruta) for our use (2 Pet. 2:12). 3. It is one thing to kill, another to give to the living the highest punishment according to one’s pleasure.”

.

.

Historical

Whole of Church History

Mosser, Carl – Recovering the Classic Concept of Satisfaction, pt. 1, 2, 3  (2021)  at University of St. Andrews

Mosser is a biblical scholar and theologian living in Southern California.

Much of these articles are helpful, though especially in the third article not everything is recommended (as he departs from reformed orthodoxy on a number of points).  Mosser favors that vindicatory justice is not essential to God.

.

On the Post-Reformation

Articles

Muller, Richard

Dictionary

PRRD

.

On Owen

Truman, Carl – ‘John Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice: An Exercise in Christocentric Scholasticism’  in Calvin Theological Journal 33 (1998), pp. 87-103

Shimko, Timofey – ‘John Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice: Scholasticism in Subservience to Theology’  a seminary paper  (2018)  10 pp.

On pp. 1-3 Shimko surveys scholars on the apparent shift in Owen to more Thomistic metaphysical conceptions of God, which may have led to his change of opinion on whether God must punish sinners, and whether a substitutionary atonement is consequently necessary for the forgiveness of sins.

.

.

.

Related Pages

On the Necessity of the Atonement

Of God, the Knowledge of God & of his Attributes