In his Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Wayne Grudem defends imputation and substitutionary atonement. He realizes that their are objections to this position (thought I agree with Grudem that it is the Biblical view). However, in order to defeat the charge that the doctrine is unjust, Grudem resorts to othe following:
Moreover, God himself (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is the ultimate standard of what is just and fair in the universe, and he decreed that the atonement would take place in this way, and that it did in fact satisfy the demands of his own righteousness and justice (p. 574).
If this means God knows better than us what is right, it is a point worth making. But it seems to be saying more than that. If our ultimate defense of substutionary atonement and imputation is that God can do what he wants, then why even require the atonement or the work of Christ for the forgiveness of sins in the first place. Why does not God simply forgive sinners because he is God and the “final standard of what is just and fair in the universe”?
In fact, it is impossible to read Romans this way. Paul’s point is that what God has done in Christ demonstrates that God is righteous–“both just and the justifier.” How can we defend the grand demonstration of God’s righteousness in forgiving sinners by appealing to God’s status as “ultimate standard” who must not be questioned?
I just today saw someone commend the practice of saying that we’d be happy to go to Hell if God decided to do that. I can’t figure out how it glorifies or shows love for God to say He might just as well be untrustworthy and double-dealing as be righteous and who He actually is. I understand the laudable point being made of total self-abnegation for the glory of God, but it undercuts itself woefully.
I’m not sure how to answer your question, but I do sympathize with Grudem here. However one explains it, the substitutionary atonement is *not* strict justice. Strict justice would be everyone gets exactly what they deserve, no more, no less (and so no forgiveness at all). At the same time, in some sense Paul does say, as you point out, that the cross demonstrates God’s righteousness.
Perhaps we need to consider this from a more presuppositional point of view. From within the biblical worldview (cf. Leithart’s blog post on the logic of imputation in Leviticus, etc.) the cross demonstrates God’s righteousness (since, despite the fact that God does not relate with strict justice to everyone, he still requires sacrifice/punishment, as demonstrated in the OT), but not necessarily from an unbelieving viewpoint (cf. Kant’s rejection of the logic of substitution as intrinsically immoral).
Is there a standard of “good” that God is subject to?
This post rings with overtones of the Euthyphro dilemma. Socrates ask’s Euthyphro, “whether the pious is loved by the gods because it is the pious, or whether the pious is the pious because it is loved by the gods?”
Ditto what Jim said.
I’m not sure we can simply apply Euthyphro. If God appeals to events as a demonstration of his righteousness, then we need to endeavor to understand how his righteousness is demonstrated. Saying that any perceived problems are solved by the fact that God is his own standard of good is say that God should never have offered a demonstration in the first place. I don’t doubt that God is the standard of good. But if we want to understand that standard, and understand God thereby, we have to work through the issues without cutting the conversation short in this way.
Again, the entire presentation of the necessity of the atonement has always been to show how God mercy works with his justice. I don’t see how we can start down that path and then deny there is any point in it.
I wasn’t taking issue with anything you wrote. I just took Grudem’s comment as an affirmation of the assertion that God is not subject to a standard outside of Himself.
I didn’t offer a solution to the dilemma (I’m not sure I have a simple one) or the dilemma as a solution. I just noted a parallel – is all.