Is God Unjust in human terms?
If in human terms it is unjust to reckon guilty those innocent of the crime or crimes of which they are accused, does Calvinism portray God as unjust?
For example Christ was innocent of committing sin and yet Calvinists interpret the Bible to say that he was subject to God's wrath, God being portrayed as deceiving Himself into believing Jesus was actually guilty of the sins of the world, and thus victimized the innocent.
Likewise regarding their view of the imputation of Adam's guilt. While people should be held accountable for their own sins, as indicated in De 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin", it seems Calvinism portrays God as committing an act of injustice (in human terms) by imputing the guilt of Adam's sin to his descendants. (Shouldn't the Bible rather be interpreted in light of God's character rather then being interpreted in light of the tenets of Calvinism?)
What is the Calvinist answer to whether God is unjust in humans terms?
Jesus willingly substituted himself in the place of sinners. Jesus, being God himself (2nd member of the Trinity) was part of the "Design process" as it were for salvation. Nobody "Tricked" anybody.
If you reject the idea that Jesus was punished in someone else's place, then you aren't' rejecting Calvinism, you are rejecting the Bible:
Some portions of Isaiah 53:
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors
John 11:51-52:
51Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
Further, your rejection of the substitution ignores one of the major themes of the Old Testament, something God himself designed and implemented: the sacrificial lamb. The Israelites would place their hands on a lamb (symbolizing their sins being transferred to it) and they would sacrifice the lamb. The innocent dying for the guilty. The sins being transferred.
The innocent dying for the guilty is the most important theme in the entire Bible. Our entire salvation is based on that ideology.
The New Testament authors even recognized this as you can see in 1 Peter 1:19 Peter calls Christ "the spotless lamb of God". And John in John 1:29 calls Jesus the "Lamb of God". They are making reference to God's own design of the sacrificial lamb where the Israelites were to find a lamb without any spot or blemish to use for the ritual. You can read about this is Leviticus chapter 1 and also chapter 22. Also, Exodus 29 I believe.
In the New Testament we see in Hebrews that this same theme is emphasized:
The writer of Hebrews says, "
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant"
As you can see, yet again Jesus acting as his role of our Priest is likened to the same Old Testament system where something innocent (an animal) would die on behalf of the guilty for the purpose of
ATONEMENT.
As for your understanding of original sin, please note that this doctrine is not unique to Calvinism, but is orthodox. Even (some?) Arminians believe in Original Sin. (that we are guilty for Adam's actions)
If you reject Original Sin, then you have a big problem on your hands because the Apostle Paul tells us that Jesus is "Adam #2". He teaches that just as we are guilty for Adam #1's actions, (our condemnation), we are also saved by Adam #2's actions. (our salvation in Jesus)
If you reject that Adam's actions affected you, then you must also reject that Christ's actions affected you too.
In other words, if you reject Original Sin, you also reject salvation itself.
It is inconsistent to be angry that God finds you guilty for Adam's actions, but to be OK with God finding you innocent because of Christ's actions (Christ lived a sinless life on your behalf)
