Featured Eastern Orthodoxy and the wrath of God

IDK ... might share with the EO guy John 3:36, Romans 2:5-6, Romans 5:6-11, Romans 8:5-8, Romans 12:19, Ephesians 4:26, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Philippians 4:4-7.

 

Wow. Double-wow. Thanks VM for your response.

 

I am Baptist, and I agree with the EO position.

 

Someone who does not believe in the wrath of God will have great difficulty in a Baptist church. A church that does not preach and hold to the wrath of God is not Baptist.

The EO begins with the false premise that wrath is strictly a human sin. Any conversation would need to start with dealing with that first. Otherwise there is no common ground to move forward.

You cannot read the whole of scripture and believe such a thing.

 

Then this person was either just repeating what they have been taught with no understanding as to why or they just plain do not like the idea of a wrathful God. There will be many who stand before God at the judgment with such beliefs. They will discover otherwise.

We cannot look at the cross of Christ and not see the wrath of God. So in order to defend that heresy the cross will have to be explained away.

 

Unlike some who claim to follow Christ's teachings and example, I actually believe and try to practice what He taught in the Sermon on the Mount. Do you? I'm not intending to be antagonistic, but I am partially answering your question with a question to you.

If Christians actually believe that Jesus is Who God is, I wonder why many do not seem to follow His example.

 

I would say that a church that does not believe in the wrath of God is not Biblical, not a Church.

 

Then you need to examine yourself for Scripture is very clear about the Wrath of God.

John 3:36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Romans 1:18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Ephesians 5:6. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Colossians 3:6. For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
Revelation 14:10. The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Revelation 14:19. And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
Revelation 15:1. And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
Revelation 15:7. And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.
Revelation 16:1. And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

 

Greek Orthodox church on wrath of God

Just doing some quick scans it does appear 'the wrath of God' is indeed an issue with them.

 

And you need to reread the Sermon on the Mount. Do you believe what Jesus taught there or not?

 

I find the orthodox position to be clear, refreshing, Biblical, and untainted by Roman Catholic and Protestant corruptions and errors.

 

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
27 neither give place to the devil. Eph 4

I'm curious how you harmonize the SOM with this. There IS such a thing as 'righteous anger' for His people.

Also, do you have comment concerning OR's fine application of scripture concerning the 'wrath of God'. There IS from the scripture, beyond any doubt, 'the wrath of God'. In fact, scripture is virtually inundated with the wrath of God.

 

Tell me more. Why is the orthodox position clear, refreshing, Biblical, and untainted to you? Do you actually understand the position they're taking from their view of the atonement?

Convince me they're right, don't just tell me they've got it correct.

 

Yes, I definitely understand the position they're taking, and I agree with their view of the atonement, also, which was the earliest view.

Research when each atonement view articulated in the west came into being, which was after the first millenium, and ask yourself why that was the case. Why didn't the early Christians see these atonement views in the scriptures? Why did the early Christians not teach them? You'll also come to see that there's not a dime's worth of difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and even Baptists on this. The only denominations or church bodies to hold the early view were/are the Orthodox and the early Anabaptists, although a few of the latter did not wholly escape Romanism or Protestantism in that regard. Westerners are held captive to these later theories and are largely ignorant of the beliefs of the earliest churches.

In doing a search on this forum, I see that there have been a few members here who have tried to point this out. I see also some of them have been banned. I'm curious as to what constitutes a reason for banning somebody from here.

 

When he answers my question about the Sermon on the Mount, maybe I'll respond further to his post. I do notice that his quotes come almost all from the Book of Revelation. Do we want to base our entire theology on an apocalyptic book?

BTW, and your quote is talking about human wrath, not God's wrath.

 

Me thinks someone has returned in a new name who has been here before. I am quite familiar with their argument. I shall watch with great interest.

 

Please do so.

Are you saying that only one Christian in the entirety of Christianity believes as I have written? I have read much here since joining and see several who write similarly to you. Are all of you the same person?

Still, as I read more, if I find that others have brought forth the same points, I'll probably see no need to continue or even to post. If the board cannot tolerate diversity, I would not wish to be here. In other words, if the board betrays a basic Baptist principle, why would anyone who holds to those wish to stay here? I'm still curious as to why some apparently longstanding members were banned. A member by the name of Saturneptune is one I noticed.