Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

Romans 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

 

I have, several times. It is one of the older, and very well read, books I own (I liked "Freedom of the Will" better, though).

And you were the one who brought it up, questioning that he may not have understood God's anger. I don't think that he did understand all there is to understand about God's love or His wrath. So not as to argue, I conceded that Edwards may not understand God's anger.

Here are a couple of issues that could be addressed:

1. While Edwards uses the image God holding the sinner as if he were a spider before a flame, Scripture also points to blessings of God (general blessings) that God Himself bestows upon both sinner and saint. The sinner is alive not just because God has not yet determined it is time, but because God gives the sinner life.

2. Edwards addresses, at times, God as if He is emotionally angry and will "laugh and mock" as the wicked are eternally punished in Hell. Yet in another passage we read that God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. I understand Edward's choices here (emotion), but it is not a balanced approach to Scripture itself.

 

You have difficulty recognizing sarcasm? Perhaps we need a special font. [sarcasm][/sarcasm]

Nobody said he, or anyone else, understood/understands "all there is to understand." In order to object you had to change the parameters.

And Edwards is able to see God, as do I, able to do both, perfectly. That is what Omnipotent means.

God is able to laugh and mock while taking no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked or even taking pleasure in His laughter and mockery. God is a BIG God.

 

The situation was the not the object of Bill's propitiation. "The situation" was not offended. Bill's wife was the offended one and the object of the propitiation.

This means Bill appeased an angry wife which, in your illustration, was in the place of God!

Yes, it does.

 

Ahhhhh. Sarcasm. Yes. Hence my reply.

My statement was that when we speak of God being angry the correctness may depend on how one understands that anger. Frankly, I didn't believe it such a controversial statement.

 

Or a hurt wife to remedy the consequences.

But it doesn't matter. I never rejected the idea that Christ's work intended to remedy the hostility between God and humanity. While we were enemies God sent His Son.

 

No, it isn't. Adverting and appeasing is not the same thing.(although I'm fine with appeasing as well).

 

EXACTLY!!! Thanks. Perfect verse to illustrate the point.

We are delivered from the wrath to come. No additional theories needed.

 

No, it doesn't fly in the face of what Wright is saying. Wright has affirmed, elsewhere, that what Jesus did was take the "cup of God's wrath" and suffered this "wrath" for all of humanity. Christ suffering at the hands of men, by the will of the Father, that wrath that all of humanity will suffer and that alienation that all mankind experiences, in order that we may not experience the wrath that is to come is no less a propitiation. Here is the difference - NOT propitiation itself but how that is articulated in the Atonement (Wright speaks of wrath against humanity, Christ experiencing this wrath, not primarily as our substitute but as our representative).

@Revmitchell objected to my definition of propitiation being this act of Christ which delivered us from the wrath to come because it did not include an innocent victim suffering at the hand of an angry God. This is why I am not a Calvinist. But it is not a rejection of the idea of propitiation (I still insist that Christ is a propitiation, that there is a wrath to come that through His work we avoid).

Not that I completely agree with Wright but another interesting thing is that everything Wright affirmed in this article in terms of belief is directly from Scripture. Nothing that he denied is directly from Scripture. Perhaps this is an idea we could also explore.

 

I don't understand the difficulty, but my apology for the lack of clarity.

Simply, no one here has denied propitiation. The article addresses substitution within the context of Calvin's theory that God was wrathful towards Christ and expressed His anger towards Him as our substitute.

Propitiation is a much simpler term. Christ turns aside God's wrath. Luther thought by outweighing the sin and wrath against us by merit. Calvin thought by being punished as the object of God's anger in our stead. But propitiation itself means neither theory.

 

What is the confusing part?

 

Maybe this will help:

Your belief on the atonement was unique to Calvinism and what I know of your view orthodox to Calvinism until the 17th Century. Wright is Anglican. Beliefs that are of non-Calvinist origin do not necessarily reject propitiation (although some do) while rejecting Calvinistic substitution.