The Wrath of God Poured Out

[Martin Marprelate]

If I were going to choose who to believe I would probably lean towards the TGC guys (I have enjoyed D.A. Carson and Tim Keller's words for some time now, and John Piper is one of my favorites...so please don't take offence).

John Piper is especially worth believing on the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. He wrote the Foreword to Pierced for our Transgressions. He ends:

".........Every section of this book yields another reason to thank God for the labours of the authors and for IVP in Britain. I pray that the Lord will give the book success in the defense and honour of God, and that Jesus Christ will be treasured all the more fully when He is seen more fully to be Pierced for our Transgressions."

Don Carson has also written a commendation for the book (as has Mark Dever).. Carson seemed very strong on P.S. when I heard him speak in Britain in November.

 

[JonC]

John Piper is especially worth believing on the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. He wrote the Foreword to Pierced for our Transgressions. He ends:

".........Every section of this book yields another reason to thank God for the labours of the authors and for IVP in Britain. I pray that the Lord will give the book success in the defense and honour of God, and that Jesus Christ will be treasured all the more fully when He is seen more fully to be Pierced for our Transgressions."

Don Carson has also written a commendation for the book (as has Mark Dever).. Carson seemed very strong on P.S. when I heard him speak in Britain in November.

I don't think anyone is "especially worth believing" when it comes to doctrine. In fact, I believe this is a problem contributing to biblical illiteracy today. Sometimes people take the short cut of believing people they like, admire, or agree with on other issues.

Piper did write a fairly good critique of Wright's NPP, though. It has it's flaws (like questioning whether the conclusions of the Reformers should be questioned), but overall I think Piper makes good points.

D.A. Carson is strong on Penal Substitution Theory. I like that he acknowledges it as one theory among others. I envy you for the opportunity to hear him speek.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know (or really care). I know he says he holds both a "Christus Victor motif" and Penal Substitution Theory and on the The Gospel Coalition site they clain he holds to Penal Substitution Theory (with non-standard views).

If I were going to choose who to believe I would probably lean towards the TGC guys (I have enjoyed D.A. Carson and Tim Keller's words for some time now, and John Piper is one of my favorites...so please don't take offence).

That said...what does it matter if Wright leans towards the "classic" view? So what? You claimed my view was like the NPP - not Christus Victor or even a ransom theory. The NPP is not an Atonement theory.

Your viewpoint on the atonement does seem to be pretty close to what I understand Wright does hold with, as he denies that Jesus suffered the wrath of God, as that would not be fair nor right in his view!

 

[Yeshua1]

John Piper is especially worth believing on the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. He wrote the Foreword to Pierced for our Transgressions. He ends:

".........Every section of this book yields another reason to thank God for the labours of the authors and for IVP in Britain. I pray that the Lord will give the book success in the defense and honour of God, and that Jesus Christ will be treasured all the more fully when He is seen more fully to be Pierced for our Transgressions."

Don Carson has also written a commendation for the book (as has Mark Dever).. Carson seemed very strong on P.S. when I heard him speak in Britain in November.

Wright might claim to hold to some form of the Pst, but really does not!

 

[JonC]

Your viewpoint on the atonement does seem to be pretty close to what I understand Wright does hold with, as he denies that Jesus suffered the wrath of God, as that would not be fair nor right in his view!

I’m not sure what to make of your constant reference to N.T. Wright. He is a brilliant scholar, and while I disagree with much of his theology I don’t mind the comparison so much (even if it is misplaced).

That said, I also find your comparison sad. It implies that you are ignorant, at least in part, to a few simple facts:

1. The NPP is not a theory of Atonement.
2. The NPP did not originate with Wright.
3. Wright’s NPP is, by his own admission, incomplete (an “open” theory).
4. I do not affirm the NPP.

It also implies that you are ignorant to several facts of Christus Victor:

1. Christus Victor did not originate with N.T. Wright.
2. Many (people and theories) reject God being wrathful towards Christ
3. Wright holds ideas other than Christus Victor in his theory of Atonement
4. Ransom/Christus Victor is the “classic view”, Christus Victor is the majority view within Christianity.
5. N.T. Wright does not represent the beliefs of the majority of those who reject PST.
6. It appears you have a “man crush” on N.T. Wright.
7. I do not affirm Wright’s view of the Atonement (I believe he focuses too much on the social and historical aspects of first century Judaism.
8. There are many theories under the "Christus Victor" theme.


Joyce Meyer believes that the Cross was God punishing Jesus with the punishment we would have received at Judgment. Is it fair to say that you affirm Joyce Meyer's theology of the Cross?

 

[Yeshua1]

I’m not sure what to make of your constant reference to N.T. Wright. He is a brilliant scholar, and while I disagree with much of his theology I don’t mind the comparison so much (even if it is misplaced).

That said, I also find your comparison sad. It implies that you are ignorant, at least in part, to a few simple facts:

1. The NPP is not a theory of Atonement.
2. The NPP did not originate with Wright.
3. Wright’s NPP is, by his own admission, incomplete (an “open” theory).
4. I do not affirm the NPP.

It also implies that you are ignorant to several facts of Christus Victor:

1. Christus Victor did not originate with N.T. Wright.
2. Many (people and theories) reject God being wrathful towards Christ
3. Wright holds ideas other than Christus Victor in his theory of Atonement
4. Ransom/Christus Victor is the “classic view”, Christus Victor is the majority view within Christianity.
5. N.T. Wright does not represent the beliefs of the majority of those who reject PST.
6. It appears you have a “man crush” on N.T. Wright.
7. I do not affirm Wright’s view of the Atonement (I believe he focuses too much on the social and historical aspects of first century Judaism.
8. There are many theories under the "Christus Victor" theme.


Joyce Meyer believes that the Cross was God punishing Jesus with the punishment we would have received at Judgment. Is it fair to say that you affirm Joyce Meyer's theology of the Cross?

I did by mistake lump you into Npp, and I know that you do not hold to that view of Pauline Theology, but you do hold to things in common with the views of NT Wright on the atonement of Christ, specifically, that God would not be fair to pour out divine wrath upon Jesus to pay for our sins...

 

[JonC]

I did by mistake lump you into Npp, and I know that you do not hold to that view of Pauline Theology, but you do hold to things in common with the views of NT Wright on the atonement of Christ, specifically, that God would not be fair to pour out divine wrath upon Jesus to pay for our sins...

You are wrong. I do not believe "fairness" even comes into play. Also, as demonstrated on the TGC website, Wright's theory falls within PST. I believe PST wrong.

To help me understand your view.....you do hold Joyce Meyer's theology of the cross....correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

You are wrong. I do not believe "fairness" even comes into play. Also, as demonstrated on the TGC website, Wright's theory falls within PST. I believe PST wrong.

To help me understand your view.....you do hold Joyce Meyer's theology of the cross....correct?

Wright denies Jesus suffered the wrath of God, for the sake of Israel he took the wrath of Rome!
he denies the PST at its fundamental level...
And JM holds that Jesus died as a sinner and had to get born again in hell, so no, do not hold to that!

 

[JonC]

Wright denies Jesus suffered the wrath of God, for the sake of Israel he took the wrath of Rome!
he denies the PST at its fundamental level...
And JM holds that Jesus died as a sinner and had to get born again in hell, so no, do not hold to that!

But your view is very close to Joyce Meyers in that you both believe Christ experienced what the lost will at Judgment....correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

But your view is very close to Joyce Meyers in that you both believe Christ experienced what the lost will at Judgment....correct?

No, as she holds that Jesus literally became sin and ceased being God and became a lost sinner on that Cross!

 

[JonC]

No, as she holds that Jesus literally became sin and ceased being God and became a lost sinner on that Cross!

But your view that God punished Jesus with what the lost will experience at Judgment is Meyer's theology, and your view is very similar to hers (you think God considered Jesus a sinner).....correct?

 

[JonC]

@Yeshua1 , I just looked it up. JM does not believe Jesus sinned but that He became sin. So is it fair to say in this context that you adhere to Joyce Meyer's theology of the cross?

I mean, your view is at least very close to her's....correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

But your view that God punished Jesus with what the lost will experience at Judgment is Meyer's theology, and your view is very similar to hers (you think God considered Jesus a sinner).....correct?

No, God saw Jesus as still being the Holy and blameless Son of God, but as the sin bearer, God treated Him as he was at that time a sinner!

 

[Yeshua1]

@Yeshua1 , I just looked it up. JM does not believe Jesus sinned but that He became sin. So is it fair to say in this context that you adhere to Joyce Meyer's theology of the cross?

I mean, your view is at least very close to her's....correct?

Nope, as she sees Him as become a literally sinner, who needed to get born again!

 

[JonC]

No, God saw Jesus as still being the Holy and blameless Son of God, but as the sin bearer, God treated Him as he was at that time a sinner!

Are you saying, then, that God saw Jesus as the Holy and blameless Son of God but still treated Him as if He was a sinner? How does this line up with the character of God, that it is an abomination to treat the righteous as if they were guilty?

 

[JonC]

Wright denies Jesus suffered the wrath of God, for the sake of Israel he took the wrath of Rome!
he denies the PST at its fundamental level...
And JM holds that Jesus died as a sinner and had to get born again in hell, so no, do not hold to that!

This is what N.T. Wright wrote and why some people believe that he holds to Penal Substitution Theory (as he claims) while also holding other ideas of the Atonement:

“On the cross Jesus took on himself that separation from God which all other men know. He did not deserve it; he had done nothing to warrant being cut off from God; but as he identified himself totally with sinful humanity, the punishment which that sinful humanity deserved was laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders… That is why he shrank, in Gethsemane, from drinking the ‘cup’ offered to him. He knew it to be the cup of God’s wrath. On the cross, Jesus drank that cup to the dregs, so that his sinful people might not drink it. He drank it to the dregs. He finished it, finished the bitter cup both physically and spiritually… Here is the bill, and on it the word ‘finished’ – ‘paid in full.’ The debt is paid. The punishment has been taken. Salvation is accomplished.”

 

[HankD]

In the light of various discussions about the wrath of God, I wondered how often it is described as being 'poured out.' So I counted them.

The Hebrew word chemah is variously translated in the KJV as 'wrath' or 'fury.' It is described as being 'poured out' in 2 Chronicles 34:25; Psalms 79:6; Isaiah 42:25; Jeremiah 7:20; 42:18; 44:6; Ezekiel 7:8; 9:8; 14:10; 20:8, 13, 21, 33, 34; 22:22; 30:15; [Amos 5:9]; Micah 5:15; Nahum 1:6. See also Isaiah 51:17-22.
The Hebrew word ebrah, also translated 'wrath' is found 'poured out' at Psalm 78:49; Hosea 5:10.
The Hebrew word aph, translated 'anger' is found 'poured out' at Isaiah 41:25; Lamentations 4:11; Zephaniah 3:8.
One might also consider the word charon in Job 20:23, where it is 'cast upon' rather than 'poured out.'

In the N.T. the Greek word orge is found in Revelation 14:10 and 8 times in Revelation 16.

1158 Views!!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is what N.T. Wright wrote and why some people believe that he holds to Penal Substitution Theory (as he claims) while also holding other ideas of the Atonement:

“On the cross Jesus took on himself that separation from God which all other men know. He did not deserve it; he had done nothing to warrant being cut off from God; but as he identified himself totally with sinful humanity, the punishment which that sinful humanity deserved was laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders… That is why he shrank, in Gethsemane, from drinking the ‘cup’ offered to him. He knew it to be the cup of God’s wrath. On the cross, Jesus drank that cup to the dregs, so that his sinful people might not drink it. He drank it to the dregs. He finished it, finished the bitter cup both physically and spiritually… Here is the bill, and on it the word ‘finished’ – ‘paid in full.’ The debt is paid. The punishment has been taken. Salvation is accomplished.”

And yet this same N.T. Wright wrote a positive foreword to Steve Chalke and Alan Mann's book, The Lost Message of Jesus, in which they described any form of Penal Substitution as 'cosmic child abuse.' Go figure!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you saying, then, that God saw Jesus as the Holy and blameless Son of God but still treated Him as if He was a sinner? How does this line up with the character of God, that it is an abomination to treat the righteous as if they were guilty?

I think you answer your own question pretty well in post #50. Or if you don't, you leave yourself open to your own objection.

 

[JonC]

And yet this same N.T. Wright wrote a positive foreword to Steve Chalke and Alan Mann's book, The Lost Message of Jesus, in which they described any form of Penal Substitution as 'cosmic child abuse.' Go figure!

Yep. Just to show you can't judge a persons theology based on the forwards they wright.

Too many people look for traditions and groups to follow. They can't grasp how someone like John MacArthur could possibly write the forward for a book by John Piper because of their theological differences. Or how a Baptist could support a work from Gordon Fee. Or even how Piper could praise Wright's scholarship and work on Paul while rejecting his NPP.

I think this is just evidence that people want someone to follow. Men simply like tradition and having a "tribe-like" mentality. When someone "steps out of line" it creates issues.

In life, however, these traditions don't always hold. Scholarship sometimes appreciates scholarship even when disagreement exists.