Featured "Wrath of God" as used in the Scriptures

Only because your insistence on the perception of buckets.

 

Here you bring up a very important matter.

For what is the Cross's role in relation to the wrath of God?

Because I take John as literally stating that the Blood was shed for the whole creation, then it follows that judgment is not based upon sin for most certainly "all have sinned." Rather, upon justice that has two demands.

The first is the retribution of wrong done to believers. God promised such would be His to bring the accounting. Coupled with this, that injustice was also done to His one and only natural born, too,

Second is the consideration of the eternal residence for the ungodly. Justice obliges the lake of fire based upon the book of life, and not the encyclopedias filled with the substances of the life lived.

Where is God's rage displayed when the individual has their life completely open before all of heaven? It isn't like God is surprised by the contents, for he already new them before creation.

God doesn't suddenly get angry for His knowledge is unlimited.

Throughout Scriptures, when God responds to evil, be it by plague of snakes, or falling fire, it is a display of His holiness in ways that humankind understand. It comes across as wrath from our perspective, but the character and personality of God revealed in Scriptures obliges a different conclusion as to the purpose of such happenings.

So, the bowls are (imo) God delivering on his promise of retribution for conduct against His own, which prepares the creation for His own returning in victory and final authority following the marriage.

The believers have moved from under the altar waiting for God to take action, to the marriage. Between, God has clothed the bride and taken vengeance for the treatment done to the bride by those not invited to the wedding.

 

Isn't that what I said when you considered that my posts were diminishing the impact?

You insisted the bowls were buckets, I merely redirected you to what was used in the temple and to the original language resources at your disposal.

So really, the only issue is the contents of the bowls.

It would seem that there are those who insist that the contents are God's reaction to personal affronts made toward Him.

That thinking (imo) is flawed as I have noted on numerous posts.

That thinking just doesn't fit consistently with the revealed character and personality of God in the Scriptures.

Besides, why would God take personal indignation about what through the cross has already been resolved?

What was not resolved on the cross was the promise of repayment for wrongs done to His children, and especially His one and only natural born.

 

Actually, you sort of caught me off guard for a moment and had to go back and look. I was correct. You said:

​

I didn't find a place were I posted bowls were buckets until after this assertion by this post.

I put in bold the first mention of buckets in the thread.

It wasn't mine.

 

If I recall correctly, you embrace the limit of atonement to include that the blood was not applicable and applied to all.

Embracing the still popular view of a limit to the blood, when discussing limited atonement, does oblige having God call for retribution for personal affronts. However, that isn't as consistent with Scriptures expressed by the Apostle John

Though I embrace the Doctrines of Grace, I find the limit not of the sufficient supply of blood, for John certainly makes that clear, but the appointment of God of just who are redeemed.

But this isn't the thread to argue that point. Merely pointing out to the readers why one can find a cause behind the post by Yeshua1.

Taking my view of limited atonement not being of blood, but of God's purpose, one needs to come to terms with the bowls of wrath of God is the designation of the vessels that carry the retribution for the stored up sorrows of His family. For God, the lake of fire is the designated retribution for those who reject He who loved them and gave His life for them.

My statement causes no difference in the intensity or outcome when the vessels are poured out, but does make a difference by holding closer to the consistency of God's revealed character and personality, and in His promise keeping to His family.

As for the last statement of your post, the creation is condemned, already. There is no need for God to take retribution for the corruption, it is all destroyed before the final judgment. Those at the final judgment are also condemned already. There is that place provided for them.

There is no need for God to store up His wrath, nor a cause for such a storing to take place.

Doesn't mean that there is some diminished justice, or judgement has been perverted, or retribution for wrongs suffered by His family is lacking.

 

Ah, my apologies!

It took me multiple readings of the post to find it tucked into the the very top.

I was looking, just overlooking.

However, was it not your response to size in an attempt to show that I was diminishing the effect of the pouring?

I'm not trying to justify, but to recall.

I need to finish packing for a journey, and will check back later.

I so do enjoy our sharing and sharpening!

 

Van,

Are you placing future "wrath" as the result of sin?

Did not the cross deal with the sin problem for all men?

For in that same chapter of Romans 5 it states: 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

 

David this post is slightly off topic concerning the use of the word "wrath," but because it does bring up the issue of time line, I will respond. You said,

Because you are quoting Scriptures, there is no problem at this point. For certainly, at the point The Lord stopped reading, the prophecy was fulfilled.

HOWEVER, you then skip chapter after chapter of Luke to combine the above with this from Luke 21. Christ is in this passage addressing things to come.

Certainly, the destruction of the city of Jerusalem was prophesied, not only by Christ but Daniel, too.

The "vengeance" is not just to be taken as solely for the Jews, for the Romans are the ones who crucify, the Jews preferred stoning.

The vengeance had more reasons than mere punishment. For that would not ultimately serve God. Certainly punishment is primary, however, there was also the aspect of complete destruction of the old temple worship (not one stone upon another). That is the traditions the Jews long clung and perverted focused around the temple was to be destroyed.

Another is the disbursement of not only the Jews, but all the people into the world. For the unbelieving Jews, the disbursement was just the beginning of millennia of sorrows they have endured. For the believers, it was to decentralize the church so that assemblies would look to God alone for their authority.

Another was to set the stage for further prophecy fulfillment that is yet to be or is currently happening.

Another is to recognize the event(s) as warnings of the judgement of God for those who would disregard Him. In reality, the Romans did nothing surprising, nothing they hadn't done elsewhere, and from their viewpoint, warranted. The same with all the times in the OT such tragedy fell upon those in the land God gave.

So, far as this event found in Luke 21, it is the validation of God's character, that if one departs from God, there will certainly be rebuked and perhaps taken far away. This happened throughout the OT, and is characteristic of the way God dealt with those who were supposedly called by His name.

Readers, be very careful not to take the statement, "...that all things which are written may be fulfilled," as some would that there is no more prophecy yet to be fulfilled. Such thinking is not warranted by this or any other passage in the Scriptures.

The statement should indicate that the promises of God will take place, and that not a single one will fail to take place. For to continue with these same verses from where the quote ends, the Lord says,

23“Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
​

So, it is important NOT to lump all prophecy is complete in 70AD. The times of the Gentiles is still ongoing.