Riane
Member
Thanks IacobPersul. It's always good to find people one can agree to disagree with so pleasantly.
I agree with you to a certain extent about the first analogy and the juridicial model - what I was trying to illustrate more in that case was that being sorry for something doesn't take away the fact that damage needs to be repaired. I think perhaps it falls into both the model you hold to and the juridical model, but in differing ways. (Perhaps the 'punishment' in that case would be the fact that if the person who ruined the car had no way to pay for it, then they would have to find some way to give recompense to have the car fixed - by having some of their property reposessed, or in the case where they own nothing of value, they would be put in prison. I realise that is extreme for ruining a car, but we need to remember that we're talking about humanity's eternal destiny here, and death is the pentalty for sin (as the Romans verse mentions).)
(I did a Bible college subject some time ago on the Person and Work of Christ, and one of the things we studied was propitiation, which in general terms is the idea of conciliation or appeasement through sacrifice [in this case the sacrifice is Jesus]; this is a rather important part of the juridicial model, if I understand it correctly. Unfortunately I would have to dig for my notes, so that will have to wait for another day - but I'll take a look at it again to see what scriptures are seen to be in support of the idea. Not that I'm trying to be contrary on purpose - simply to give the reason why I believe this model.)
I agree with you to a certain extent about the first analogy and the juridicial model - what I was trying to illustrate more in that case was that being sorry for something doesn't take away the fact that damage needs to be repaired. I think perhaps it falls into both the model you hold to and the juridical model, but in differing ways. (Perhaps the 'punishment' in that case would be the fact that if the person who ruined the car had no way to pay for it, then they would have to find some way to give recompense to have the car fixed - by having some of their property reposessed, or in the case where they own nothing of value, they would be put in prison. I realise that is extreme for ruining a car, but we need to remember that we're talking about humanity's eternal destiny here, and death is the pentalty for sin (as the Romans verse mentions).)
But of course, in God's case he DID make the laws. I agree that the analogy isn't perfect - but then what analogy ever is?Your judge has to punish the criminal because he is bound to follow laws which he did not make.
Agreed, the absolute monarch could unmake the law - but if he is a good monarch, a perfect monarch even, would not unmaking the law just so someone who had broken it go free be a violation of his good character? Just as a judge who did not hand down a sentence on a guilty criminal would be violating the law he had used to pronounce the person guilty. I would see unmaking the law as something worse than condemning the person who broke it, because then what stock would we hold in the law at all?Were he an absolute monarch rather than a judge this would not be the case as any law he had made he could just as easily unmake - he wouldn't have to do anything.
I disagree that the 'law of necessity' as you phrase it would mean God is not sovereign. Saying that God cannot sin, and cannot act in violation to his good character does not in my eyes make him less powerful. Someone who never went against their character and nature would be someone I would consider worth respecting and revering - even worhsipping (which of course I do). They would be someone I would gladly trust with my life, and whose gift of paying the pentalty for my sin I would cherish (not that I would suggest you don't cherish what Jesus did - it seems we simply understand it in different ways).If God has to do something, if He is subject to some law of necessity then He is not sovereign, necessity is (i.e. it makes no sense to say that God is both omnipotent and had to do this or couldn't do that).
(I did a Bible college subject some time ago on the Person and Work of Christ, and one of the things we studied was propitiation, which in general terms is the idea of conciliation or appeasement through sacrifice [in this case the sacrifice is Jesus]; this is a rather important part of the juridicial model, if I understand it correctly. Unfortunately I would have to dig for my notes, so that will have to wait for another day - but I'll take a look at it again to see what scriptures are seen to be in support of the idea. Not that I'm trying to be contrary on purpose - simply to give the reason why I believe this model.)