The Wrath of God Poured Out

I agree with @Yeshua1 that it is an action. It is the act of God exercising judgment on an evil person or people. I believe it is related to the righteousness of God, which is an expression of God Himself. As such, God’s wrath is related to God’s love and mercy. The difference is not God (Who is immutable) but man upon whom wrath or mercy is shown.

A righteous God punishes the “evil-doer”. A righteous God shows mercy to the repentant. Both are expressions of God’s righteousness.

 

You just had to undo my "I agree with @Yeshua1", didn't you .

 

No. I don't. I agreed with you that "wrath" was an action.

It made me a little nauseous to agree, but I took some dolasetron and am chewing on ginger. And post #4 helped. I'm about over it now.

 

I know this is what you believe. And you know I disagree.

For the record, if you ever want to quote me and post something that contains God having to do something for man you might as well just conclude with "I know you disagree JonC".

 

This is where we differ. I do not believe God had to satisfy divine wrath so that we could get saved. I believe God saved us.

What you are asking is philosophical, not theological.

 

He is the Mercy shown to the repentant. For God loved the world in this way, that He sent His only begotten Son.

I am not saying God "felt sorry" for our sin. I am saying that God is faithful to forgive those who in repentance turn to Him. This is compassion.

Regarding a human judge, it depends. If I demonstrate contempt for a human judge and I strike him then he may righteously find me in contempt and order I be remanded to custody. But if, after striking the judge, I am shown my error and genuinely repent, the human judge is not bound by law to punish me for contempt. In fact, sometimes confinement for contempt is dismissed once the person complies. The judge could simply say "I'm glad, JonC, that you've changed your attitude towards me. You are free to go.". The judge could also have me arrested....it's up to the judge. But given I found the $20 bill he just "dropped", I'm pretty sure he's going to let me go.

Regarding a human person - Suppose you punch me because you think I referred to you as a heretic. Upon being hit I explain that I was speaking in terms of principle rather than making implications about you. You understand and are genuinely sorry you punched me in the nose. Can I justly forgive you without having to punch someone else in the nose first? What does the law demand? An "eye for an eye"?

Ultimately the problem depends on whether one is justified by the act of repentance and belief in Christ or by God pouring His wrath upon Christ. If one is justified in Christ (as I believe) by dying to sin and being reborn (spiritually) then it would be unjust for God to have poured His wrath upon Christ and He would have been unrighteous not to simply forgive based on that repentance. If God has to punish Christ for our sin in order to satisfy the demands of divine justice then the rebirth is not necessary for salvation, but may be a following work as the wrath against us has already been satisfied (perhaps a work of sanctification).

 

Please tell me you didn't tell the "he brews" joke.

 

Good morning, Martin.

I hope you and your family had a wonderful Christmas. Just to show how much we do agree before my comment, I again affirm every passage you have provided. God certainly is both merciful and just.

Before we can move you need to provide a source as on the surface there seems to be a credibility issue to your position regarding opposing views (one which may disqualify you from holding an opinion about views other than your own).

Please point out where I have stated that there is no reason for Christ to have come and presumably we should all be Jews or Moslems. Please show where I provided this as the basis for my answer to you.

I can't help but see the claim above as extremely dishonest by deliberately making false accusations simply because we disagree. This is concerning as there are many Christians who disagree with you theories yet none who make the claim you attach to me.

Regardless, I am trying my best to view your statement as an honest oversight. I prefer to afford you the assumption of integrity indicative of the Christian I believe you to be.

Sometimes in argument, particularly when one's logic has failed, people resort to misrepresentation. Sometimes misstatements are made simple because the other person cannot grasp the opposing view. At times false statements are made from simple oversight or carelessness. Occasionally dishonest statements are merely disagreements poorly worded.

Before we continue I believe it appropriate for you to clarify the claim you have made. Please simply provide a quote where I make the statement there was no reason for Christ to have come.

I believe it important because if you truly cannot grasp opposing views regarding the Cross (if you legitimately believe all other understands hold there is no reason for Christ to have come) then I am not certain you are in a position to engage views other than your own. Such an inability would just breed contention and hostility as you wouldn't be able to fully grasp the implications against your position much less deal with other positions on their grounds.

Thank you,

John