If Jesus was merely a man, then God would seem unjust for punishing the innocent Jesus in place of the guilty due to violating the following: 1. Man is to be put to death for his own sin and not for the sin of another (Ez 18:20; Dt 24:16) 2. No man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life (Ps 49:7-9) Moreover, God seems unjust for WANTING to crush the innocent man that is Jesus (Is 53:10; Lk 22:42), regardless of Jesus' willingness to follow the Father's will and lay His life down as a sacrifice. That God could desire and plan to punish/sacrifice an innocent man, His Son no less, for the sins of others would go against His character. The only way I see God being just would be that Jesus is God. Thus, God's plan would not be the unjust sacrifice of an innocent third party but rather the just, noble sacrifice of the self. But if you can show that God is just in sacrificing Jesus even if Jesus isn't God, then please leave an answer down below.

If you suddenly suffer from a serious illness, become disabled, or experience a drastic decline in your quality of life, or if someone close to you is killed, murdered, or tortured, should you blame God for it? Certainly, the answer cannot be that it is God's will. Nobody should have to endure suffering like that. How can we still believe in God who allows this to go on in our lives? How does "the entire book of Job" and every other Psalm of David contribute to the answering of this dilemma about the doctrinal topics of Providence and the Attributes of God?

God is known as very just and he likes to have mercy on people. God doesn't want people to inherit sins of their parents. So why did we inherit this very sin? What is so special about the sin of Adam and Eve? I feel like that it's against justice because we didn't make it. It's also against having mercy because we inherited a sin which leads to death.

Let's say that a Christian serial killer has murdered many people who happened to not be Christians. Would God be just by sending the Christian serial killer to Heaven, while sending his victims to Hell? I am looking for answers from the perspective of Christians who believe that Hell exists (non-universalists).

In Romans 13:3, the scriptures state that the authorities hold no terror for those who do right. Considering all the martyrs who have been persecuted for doing right, then how can this scripture be true in every situation?

As a result of the crucifixion of Jesus, all who truly accept Christ will receive salvation and have their sins washed away. But how is it just that the guilty person not be held accountable for the sin they committed?

I'm sorry if this is not an appropriate question for this site, and i apologise for the lack of depth to my belief in a God. I know nothing of the bible but i have faith there is a god. I have stated the above as the basis of my belief in God on other websites and have been told by atheists that such a belief is wishful thinking. I have responded to their comments as to why an atheist would wish for oblivion in death?. Is this a good rebuttle of their statement that I am wishful thinker?

Forensic justification is defined as strictly legal declaration as justified, rather than reckoning or acknowledging someone as righteous to justify him. In other words, a person is declared righteous despite being a sinner, and remain an ungodly sinner, but God overlooks justice for him and let him go. Is it acceptable if we characterize this as a false justification or forged justification - contrary to fact? As if a forged document of righteousness is given by God? And what is the origin of this theological jargon called *forensic justification*, who came up with it? The false justification characterization fits well with Luther's own description. Luther’s “Sermon on Our Blessed Hope ”: >We see grain sowed in the ground. Reason now asks: What happens to the grain in winter that has been sowed in the ground? Is it not a **dead, moldy, decayed thing, covered with frost and snow**? But in its own time it grows from that dead, moldy, decayed grain into a beautiful green stalk, which flourishes like a forest and produces a full, fat ear on which there are 20, 30, 40 kernels, and thereby finds life where only death existed earlier. Thus God has done with heaven, earth, sun and moon, and does every year with the grain in the field. He calls to that which is nothing that it should become something and does this **contrary to all reason**. Can He not also do something which serves to glorify the children of God, even though it is **contrary to all reason?** In another quote: >Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins in his mother’s womb. As he grows older, the innate element of corruption develops. Man has said to sin: ‘Thou art my father’—and every act he performs is an offense against God; and to the worms: ‘You are my brothers’—and he crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and cannot produce good fruit; a **dunghill**, and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it. Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath. (Werke, (Wittenberg Edition), Vol. III, p. 518.) It is surprising that such a traditional fundamental Lutheran theology is not known by most common reformed believers, including Evangelicals; so I'd encourage the Lutherans not to rush in closing the question, but allow everyone to learn despite the disagreements. Neither Luther nor his followers are embarrassed in admitting their theology, and if one rejects them, they should be honestly realize that they reject the traditional reformed theology, rather than being defensive and attempting to censor the studies and debates on these topics. Had it been for N. T. Wright, we wouldn't have known about this, because the Lutheran scholars have responded to Wright's NPP interpretations of Rom 4:5, by defending the traditional view, and only then the laymen like us discovered these beliefs through them. >First, as **many commentators note**, God is here said to do what he forbids judges to do. In a striking parallel to Rom 4:5 the Greek text of Isa 5:23 pronounces a woe on οἱ δικαιοῦντες τὸν ἀσεβῆ (“those who justify the ungodly). In Prov 17:15 “he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” In Exod 23:7 the Lord himself swears that he will not justify the ungodly. Daniel Wallace writes addressing to Wright's controversy. >Among his many points, Sprinkle notes that in the OT God did not justify wicked people, citing, inter alia, Exod 23.7 and Isa 5.23. In my class on the exegesis of Romans, which I have taught at Dallas Seminary for the past seven years, I have argued that these two texts are key to Paul’s thinking and that the Jews of his day would have realized this. Exodus 23.7 clearly involves legal language. It is this language which lies behind Paul’s points in Rom 3.23–24 and 4.4–5. In v. 7 we see δικαιόω used with ἀσεβής: ‘you shall not justify the ungodly for a bribe’ (οὐ δικαιώσεις τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἕνεκεν δώρων). This can only mean ‘you shall not declare innocent the ungodly for a bribe.’ Three things are significant here: (1) δικαιόω means, in this legal context, ‘declare righteous/innocent’; it does not mean ‘make righteous.’ (2) **The person who might be declared innocent is in fact guilty** (ἀσεβῆ), **precisely the situation we have in Rom 3:23–24.** (3) The word for bribe is δῶρον, a cognate of δωρεάν found in Rom 3:24. It would of course not do for Paul to say that God declares sinners righteous ‘for a bribe,’ so an appropriate substitute is needed—one that is a cognate of δῶρον, but does not use ἕνεκεν or imply anything except that God acts freely when he justifies sinners. δωρεάν is the accusative singular of δωρεά; as such, it is adverbial (always so in the NT) and means ‘freely.’ It is not insignificant that we again see in the LXX of Isa 5.23 the collocation of δικαιόω with ἀσεβής and δῶρον. And again, we see that δικαιόω must almost surely mean ‘declare innocent’ since the pronouncement is made on the ungodly who do not deserve it. Dr. Craig quotes Henri Blocher and D. G. Dunn, >“That God’s righteousness towards the peoples he has created includes wrath and judgment as well as faithfulness and salvation is clearly implicit in the sequences Romans 1:16-18 and 3:3-6.” Those who deny that dikaiōsynē is a forensic term, Dunn says, pay insufficient attention to Romans 4:4-5, “where the forensic background is clear in the allusion to the legal **impropriety** of a judge ‘justifying the ungodly’. . . , and where again the thought is entirely of attributing a righteous status to one who is unrighteous.” Dunn’s point is that Paul’s referring to God as “him who justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5) recalls the Old Testament description of the unjust judge who justifies the wicked (Proverbs 17:15), which is an abomination in the Lord’s sight. French theologian Henri Blocher remarks on “the staggering audacity of Paul’s combination of words: God who justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5) The Cambridge Dictionary defines "impropriety " as: behavior that is dishonest, socially unacceptable, or unsuitable for a particular situation: *financial/legal impropriety allegations of sexual impropriety*.

On the topic of unborn/infants dying without being baptized, could one argue that, as those babies would not go to hell but instead to heaven, it is an act of mercy or justice to abort babies to "guarantee" a spot in heaven?

In America, our judicial system is built on the idea that a man is assumed innocent, and then proven guilty with evidence. In contrast, Paul wrote: > Romans 9 10-18: ...there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” > > 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. One way to defend the Christian God here is to say Paul is just speaking of Jacob and Esau's relative stations in earthly life, and that only that aspect of their lives was predetermined. But that idea is invalid with regard to verses 14-18 which connect Jacob and Esau's example to Pharaohs, in which Pharaoh's damnation was predetermined. Also, the declaration "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" contradicts that idea. It is clear then, from these verses, that Paul is boasting that God judges people based on his whim, not a trial. Another way to defend the Christian God, which I've heard, is "God doesn't have to sound fair by human reasoning." But human reasoning is all we have, to use to make decisions about what we believe. Also what's fair or not is known by everyone by instinct. We all know judgement cannot happen without considering some action which is being judged. Not requiring God's judgement to be just according to us is forgoing any understanding of God.

> Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. **Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”** So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses. **- Numbers 15: 32-36 (NASB)** Why did God order the execution (and a brutal execution, at that) of a person for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Surely what this man did was nothing worse than what Jesus' disciples did when they picked heads of grain on the Sabbath: > And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” > > ... > > Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. **- Mark 2:23-27** Such a harsh punishment doesn't seem necessary if the Sabbath truly was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Also, how does this align with the justice of God? God forbids the punishment of those who beat their slaves: > If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. **- Exodus 21:20-21** ... yet He requires those who pick up sticks on a certain day of the week to be executed in the most unimaginably painful and cruel way. In our 21st century minds, it seems that justice would demand that the punishments for these two crimes be switched. What was God's reason for having such an inverted justice system?

We read in Ex 21: 12-14 (NRSVCE): > Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. Now, 2 Samuel 11 narrates how King David got Uriah the Hittite killed in war in a deceitful manner so as to marry his would-be-widow Bathsheba. Of course, David repents at the intervention of prophet Nathan , and is punished by God with the death of his fist child born of Bathsheba ( 2 Sam 12). But the rule of death-for-death in Ex 21, which spared not even the priests, does not appear to have been implemented in the case of David. My question therefore is: **Why was King David spared of the death-for-death rule of Exodus 21?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

How does Jesus's view of pacifism ("do not resist an evil person", "turn the other cheek", "I want mercy, not sacrifices", and "do not repay evil with evil") line up with the country's court systems and justice in general? 1. Why if someone kills my child and then I kill him, it is a sinful "revenge", but if brought to court and imprisoned it is not a sin? Isn't sentencing someone to lifetime prison for example "repaying with evil", too? What if the prisoner really repents and changes his life, but they never let him out and let him die there? 2. Why if I kill someone evil to stop him because he is a serial killer? Am I sinning because I am "resisting"? 3. What should I do if someone attacks me or my family and threatens their lives? Should I turn the other cheek? 4. Why is it a sin to stop (kill) someone who is well known evil person (e.g. drug dealer, killer, or rapist), but he is paying the court system and he never gets caught and sentenced? Why are we supposed to tolerate that? Because "it is not our job"? Did God appoint "jobs" only to certain people to seek justice and protect their neighbors? We are the image of God, we are supposed to dominate the planet and keep everything in place. In many occasions, evil can be stopped only with the death of the evil persons doing it. How is that supposed to work if we are also supposed to be like "sheep sent amongst wolves"?

I just recently left a church that I attended for nearly a decade that is rooted in Calvinist beliefs. I am really struggling with their conception of the Lord and their understanding of the scripture. I have had many belabored discussions with friends that remain in the congregation and despite their zeal I am unconvinced. **Please help me understand how God can be characterized as merciful, just, and righteous within the Calvinist framework.** The argument that we all deserve God's wrath will not suffice because — while I certainly agree that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that the wages of sin is death — if predestination is true and we don't all have the opportunity to choose Jesus, then God cannot be just. We were born into a sin nature. We cannot choose to not be born and we cannot choose to not sin. We are incapable of being sinless. That being the case, if we are born into sin AND we also do not have choice in whether to repent and accept salvation through Jesus, then we must admit that God himself is really sending some people to hell. Such people cannot be said to be guilty. And God cannot be said to be just. If sin warrants death, and one cannot choose to reject one's sinful nature, and one also cannot choose the covering of that sin (Jesus), how can one justly be damned to hell? ---- I know this is a simplistic and silly framework but humor me: if I were to adopt a puppy, refuse to take him out, and then beat him for messing in the house, how would that be just? A puppy has no choice but to relieve himself. He was created with a bladder without consent (sin nature). Now if he is allowed to go outside to relieve himself, but chooses not to take advantage of that opportunity and then pees in the house, though he had another choice (free will for lack of a better term), then there is certainly some culpability (damnation). And before you respond with: we have no right to question God. He is the potter; we are the clay. Fine. He certainly does have such authority but that doesn't make it just. And it certainly doesn't make it loving. This proves axiomatic even to our fallen hearts and minds. We, being evil as we are, recoil at such cruelty. We do not condone parents abusing their children. Quote all the scripture you want. Throw out Romans 9. I am not here to debate scripture. Assume your understanding of scripture is accurate. Just convince me that it is just. And no, this is not a rant, this is a sincere question that countless hours of discussion have not satisfied. I have been reading ferociously for weeks trying to reconcile this in my heart and mind. I found myself going back and forth because there are compelling arguments for both. I wept for nearly 24 hours over this because I have never in my walk felt so confused. I have reached out to my pastor about this matter but he has been too busy to sit down with me yet and in the meantime I am distraught. A wonderful friend of mine from our local seminary spent five hours with me two weeks ago trying to answer all my questions, but he could not sufficiently address the justice part. The implications of Calvinism are difficult to accept and I want to arrive at truth. I am a devout follower and I am seeking understanding.

In my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89756/50422 , I laid out two conditions for scoping purposes: > This question is scoped to Christians who believe that: > - *humans have [libertarian free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics))* (or > at least are given temporarily some form of genuine freedom of the > will through divine grace in specific circumstances) > - *everyone has a fair chance to be saved at least once in their life* (i.e. no one is born in conditions where salvation is theoretically > impossible, or, alternatively, everyone is given enough grace to have > the opportunity to freely choose salvation at least once before > judgement) Interestingly, a user posted the following dissident comment in the comment section (emphasis mine): > **There is no element of chance attached to God's salvation**. It's not a case of, God has taken nine steps to enable it, but the human must choose to take the final, tenth step. Yet that's what most people effectively think, and that's how they act. God will ensure all who are to be saved will hear the gospel and understand it. **You can't get fairer that that, when nothing has been left to chance!** Therefore, I'm not answering because not only am I not scoped, **the question is fundamentally flawed**. Assuming that the thoughts shared by this user represent to different extents the soteriological position of many Christians, I ask: What is the biblical basis for **NOT** believing that everyone has a fair chance to be saved?

This is somewhat similar to this question, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/82971/are-there-christian-denominations-or-movements-who-believe-that-jesus-didnt-act but **I wish to pursue the matter of God being the Righteous Judge of all the Earth** (Genesis 18:25). People are forever saying we have ***"a debt of sin" that Jesus "paid for", but I wonder if such language is clouding the issues here?*** Would it be right for any Judge to wave a hand and say, "Yes you are guilty of all those crimes but I'm just going to provide you with a free pardon. I expect you to be so grateful, you will then be a reformed character who will start to do good instead of doing evil" ? However, if the one sinned against arranged with his guiltless Son to bear all the punishment for your crimes against God, so that justice would be served that way, then would not mercy and justice have kissed at the cross? Does this not make sense of Romans 6:23, that we receive our well-earned wages for our sin - death - and after death comes divine judgment (Hebrews 9:26-27 & Revelation 20:11-15) which determines our eternal state? Then those for whom Christ bore the punishment for their sins are freely pardoned while it still remains to be endured by those who had no faith in that provision, effectively rejecting it? ***I would appreciate answers from those who claim there's no debt; God has but to freely pardon believing sinners.*** How can that square with perfect justice ordained by the Holy and Righteous God? Can we really expect no punishment in any form for crimes against God? Given that nobody from the group I addressed the Q to has answered, and 12 days have passed with nothing happening, I will now open the Q to those who believe in the grace of God to undeserving sinners, but to seek their ***views on how God's mercy does not over-rule or undermine his perfect justice. It's not the grace and mercy of God that is the question, but how that 'fits in' perfectly with God being the Righteous Judge of all the earth, as per Genesis 18:25.***

Recently during a discussion I got smacked with the "Cosmic Child Abuse" argument. I had heard of it before, but never really had to wrestle with it in real life. I discovered that I don't actually have a satisfactory answer. The situation: Assume Universal salvation for the sake of argument. So God loves everyone, is able to save everyone, is willing to save everyone, and **will** in actual fact save everyone. That's all well and good, but in order to save everyone, the father sent his son to be tortured on a cross and also (for the sake of argument) descend into the deepest depths of Hell and endure further ineffable tortures there too. The problem: Doesn't this compromise both God's love and his justice? How was it loving for God to torture his own son? How was it just/fair for Jesus to take the punishment that we deserve? Scope: I would be happy to hear apologetics from any tradition, seeing as this is a problem which plagues almost all if not all Christian traditions.

It is a fact of history that many unfortunate people have been born in conditions where it has been pretty much impossible for them to even dream of having a chance to hear the message of salvation -- the gospel of Christ -- preached to them. Thus, when death suddenly comes, they have no other option than to die in their sins and in their unreached state. And regarding the fate of the unreached, there are Christians who believe that no other outcome can be expected than irrevocable condemnation, eternal damnation, no hope of salvation whatsoever for the unreached (see e.g. [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/86219/50422) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/79266/50422)) . **Question**: According to believers in the inexorable damnation of the unreached, isn't it unfair of God to arbitrarily have someone be born in unreachable conditions, where no matter what they do they will never be morally perfect and won't ever have a chance to hear the gospel either? How is it fair for those unlucky individuals to be eternally punished when they didn't even have a chance to repent and receive forgiveness of sins in Christ, as nobody came to preach the gospel to them? **Note**: by unreached I mean "unreached with the gospel", "unevangelized", "unlearned" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned) .

Inspired by a thought-provoking comment section discussion about an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/86261/50422) to my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86233/50422 , I would like to ask a follow-up question: According to those who believe in the inexorable damnation of the unreached, why is punishing the unreached in Hell (possibly for all eternity) a better deal than other more merciful and compassionate alternatives, such as having the unreached go through an afterlife rehabilitation program, preaching the gospel to the unreached in the afterlife so that they may at least have a genuine chance to decide if they want to get saved or not, etc. I mean, any alternative other than being born in the wrong time and place, only to be surprised at the time of death with a boarding pass to eternal damnation, without any chance to revoke it whatsoever.

The doctrine of unlimited atonement teaches that Christ died for all mankind, but only paid for the sins of those who believe in Him. If this is the case then either Jesus already knew who would believe and paid only for their sins (which sounds like limited atonement), or he paid for everyone's sins, but those people who do not believe are still viewed as guilty before God and are still punished. Hence, their sin receives a double payment. This though would seem to make God unjust (which I know He's not.) Let me give an example why I say this. Let's say there was a man who got a speeding ticket and stood before the judge. The judge tells the man that the fine is $200.00 or one week in jail. The man says he doesn't have the money, but before the man is escorted to his cell, another man comes forward and pays the $200 instead. The fine is paid. Now what if the judge, having accepted the $200, still sent the man to jail. Wouldn't that make the judge unjust and wouldn't it make the person who paid the $200 feel used? In short it would mean the judge was demanding double payment for the penalty. Because unlimited atonement is an Arminian teaching, I would like answers from Arminians.