Where did the Wrath of God go? Part 2

[Martin Marprelate]

2. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them."

Psalm 7:9–16. O let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous; For the righteous God tries the hearts and minds. My shield is with God, Who saves the upright in heart. God is a righteous judge, And a God who has indignation every day. If a man does not repent, He will sharpen His sword;
He has bent His bow and made it ready.
He has also prepared for Himself deadly weapons; He makes His arrows fiery shafts. Behold, he travails with wickedness,
And he conceives mischief and brings forth falsehood. He has dug a pit and hollowed it out,
And has fallen into the hole which he made. His mischief will return upon his own head, and his violence will descend upon his own pate

Where is it in those two passages that Christ bears the wrath entailed with them, otherwise God is still angry with us?

Again.....here's a hint (looks like you need it)...it isn't. You ADD it to Scripture.


Rather than arguing for what you believe, you and @Martin Marprelate simply say it is in Scripture. But the fact is....it is not.

I rather think you will find that those verses are in Scripture
Now @Revmitchell will answer for himself, but I have used those verses to show that there is such a thing as the wrath of God and that it is upon all people outside of Christ. Now if you disagree with that and suppose that there are some folk so 'upright in heart' that they don't need Christ to save them then we need to discuss that before moving on to anything else.
So you 'gird yourself like a man' and tell us what you think the wrath of God means and on whom it is.

 

[JonC]

JonC,


Many unsaved people read scripture and cannot figure out what it teaches when properly understood.
Both of us believe what is written, and understand what it teaches at the same time.
Sorry you do not share what most believers share in common

You are partly correct. We do both believe Scrioture is God's Word. But we depart in what we believe God's Word to be. Where I believe doctrine (true doctrine) is found in "what is written" - the task being to first accept the text as true and then understand the actual text - you believe God's Word is not Scripture but what Scripture "teaches".

I view your method as liberalism, and dangerous to the Church. You believe I ignore what is "taught".

The issue becomes how we test doctrine. While I may disagree with some interpretations the actual test (for me) is the text of Scripture. Your test is comparing what you believe to what you believe Scripture teaches (a test that any doctrine can "pass".

You are also wrong in believing you hold a majority view and me a belief few Christians accept.

My view is the most common among Christians world wide. It is the most common view within Christianity, excluding RCC theology (which we both believe false).

You hold a minority (granted, a large minority) view regarding Penal Substitution Theory. But within that Theory you hold an even small minority view as a Calvinist

This does not, in itself, mean your view is incorrect. Truth is not judged based on the number of people who believe it.

But it does raise questions regarding your understanding of the position I affirm.

 

[JonC]

I am very happy to accept your challenge. ! Peter 2:21-25 is one of the many very clear passages which prove the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. I will open a new thread, hopefully this evening (UK time).

Let's look at the passage together:

1 Peter 2:21–25 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.


I believe the passage teaches that we have been called to do what is right and suffer for what is right, to patiently endure it, and that this finds favor with God. Christ set the example for us to follow. Jesus was sinless, yet He was abused for doing God's will but He did not abuse in return. Instead He trusted God, who righteously judges and bore our sins in His body on the cross. The reasin was so that we woukd die to sin and live to righteousnes. By His suffering we are heald. We were continually straying from God, from doing right. But now, through Christ as our Shepherd, we have returned.

Where do you find God pouring His wrath on Jesus in that passage? Where does the text say He died instead of us?

It does not. In fact, if anything, the passage proves Penal Substitution Theory to be a false doctrine (rather than Christ experiencing God's wrath on the cross instead of us, Christ was bearing our sins and our abuse for His obedience to God, trusting in God's righteousness to judge).

 

[JonC]

I rather think you will find that those verses are in Scripture
Now @Revmitchell will answer for himself, but I have used those verses to show that there is such a thing as the wrath of God and that it is upon all people outside of Christ. Now if you disagree with that and suppose that there are some folk so 'upright in heart' that they don't need Christ to save them then we need to discuss that before moving on to anything else.
So you 'gird yourself like a man' and tell us what you think the wrath of God means and on whom it is.

The wrath of God is against unrighteous. This does not change. If you remain unrighteous then you will face the wrath to come. But if you are righteous in Christ then you will escape the wrath to come. Read 1 Peter 2.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But if you are righteous in Christ then you will escape the wrath to come.

What do you think 'righteous in Christ' means.

 

[Iconoclast]

No JonC
I do believe scripture is the word of God written.I have never said otherwise and never will.
That you try and suggest this is a falsehood.
Without the Spirit of God a person will look at scripture and never understand it correctly.
1cor.2:14.
Your false statements about your supposed "test" of Scripture has been debunked by Rm, and mm.
Your subjective opinion about majority of those who holds which view is meaningless.
Your failing to grasp the doctrines of grace, or PSA, shows an obvious theological defect, but you are welcome to it.
No...I have viewed these views held by others years ago.They highlight one or two aspects of what Jesus did, but exclude others in a way that makes them defective, so I reject them.PSA....encompasses all of the biblical elements.
You never understood either doctrine correctly or you still would.

 

[JonC]

What do you think 'righteous in Christ' means.

It means being made "right" or "just" in reference to God's standard. It does not mean "substituted for".

 

[JonC]

No JonC
I do believe scripture is the word of God written.I have never said otherwise and never will.
That you try and suggest this is a falsehood.
Without the Spirit of God a person will look at scripture and never understand it correctly.
1cor.2:14.
Your false statements about your supposed "test" of Scripture has been debunked by Rm, and mm.
Your subjective opinion about majority of those who holds which view is meaningless.
Your failing to grasp the doctrines of grace, or PSA, shows an obvious theological defect, but you are welcome to it.
No...I have viewed these views held by others years ago.They highlight one or two aspects of what Jesus did, but exclude others in a way that makes them defective, so I reject them.PSA....encompasses all of the biblical elements.
You never understood either doctrine correctly or you still would.

Ypu may think God's Word is correct as written, but it is clear to any reader that you do not believe the text of God's Word itself is what God wanted to convey. Otherwise you would have accepted Scripture as written rather than adding to it.

Interpreting passages differently is fine - we are human. But you are not interpreting Scripture. You are adding to Scripture what you believe it teaches.

Loom at @Martin Marprelate 's post. He provided a verse that did not in any way present Christ as our substitute as evidence He is our substitute. Then to defend the mistake questions the meaning of "righteousness" (which does mot mean "substituted for").

What you do is offer Scripture after Scripture without regard to the passages you quote. You just tell is we should believe what you think Scripture teaches because a a minority group of Christians that you like believes it.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC

Ypu may think God's Word is correct as written, but it is clear to any reader that you do not believe the text of God's Word itself is what God wanted to convey. Otherwise you would have accepted Scripture as written rather than adding to it.

Interpreting passages differently is fine - we are human. But you are not interpreting Scripture. You are adding to Scripture what you believe it teaches.

Loom at @Martin Marprelate 's post. He provided a verse that did not in any way present Christ as our substitute as evidence He is our substitute. Then to defend the mistake questions the meaning of "righteousness" (which does mot mean "substituted for").

What you do is offer Scripture after Scripture without regard to the passages you quote. You just tell is we should believe what you think Scripture teaches because a a minority group of Christians that you like believes it.

,
You insist on attacking and trying to libel what I and other posters believe.
I will just continue to point out your perverse obsession with doing this, and hopefully break you out of your ascended master complex.
The false charge that I and The others on here post scripture with no regard to the scripture itself is another falsehood, sounding more like the voice of Satan than of a professed believer.
I am fine dwelling In Christ,comfortable in feeding on scripture.
I will never follow your ascended master carnal ideas, but will try and help by pointing out when you drift as you think sbout Taoism yin and yang and other new age thought.

 

[AustinC]

It means being made "right" or "just" in reference to God's standard. It does not mean "substituted for".

The 20th century New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd, for instance, famously objected to both these ideas, claiming that the idea of God’s wrath in the Bible is an impersonal process of cause and effect. We sin and there are consequences, and God simply leaves us to “stew in our own juices.” He also argued that in the Bible the word-group hilasterion/hilasmos does not mean “propitiation” (to appease God’s wrath) but rather “expiation” (to cover our sin). But the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church admits: “The general meaning of the word is the appeasing of the wrath of the Deity by prayer or sacrifice when a sin or offence has been committed against Him. The word occurs three times in the AV, in connection with the death of Christ (Rom 3:25; 1Jn 2:2; 4:10; to which RV adds Heb 2:17). Such a translation accurately represents the meaning in classical Greek of the words used (hilasterion, hilasmos).”1

Propitiation - The Gospel Coalition

 

[JesusFan]

Let's look at the passage together:

1 Peter 2:21–25 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.


I believe the passage teaches that we have been called to do what is right and suffer for what is right, to patiently endure it, and that this finds favor with God. Christ set the example for us to follow. Jesus was sinless, yet He was abused for doing God's will but He did not abuse in return. Instead He trusted God, who righteously judges and bore our sins in His body on the cross. The reasin was so that we woukd die to sin and live to righteousnes. By His suffering we are heald. We were continually straying from God, from doing right. But now, through Christ as our Shepherd, we have returned.

Where do you find God pouring His wrath on Jesus in that passage? Where does the text say He died instead of us?

It does not. In fact, if anything, the passage proves Penal Substitution Theory to be a false doctrine (rather than Christ experiencing God's wrath on the cross instead of us, Christ was bearing our sins and our abuse for His obedience to God, trusting in God's righteousness to judge).

Once again, where and how did that due wrath and judgement of God the father towards us as sinners get propitiated by he Cross?

 

[JesusFan]

The 20th century New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd, for instance, famously objected to both these ideas, claiming that the idea of God’s wrath in the Bible is an impersonal process of cause and effect. We sin and there are consequences, and God simply leaves us to “stew in our own juices.” He also argued that in the Bible the word-group hilasterion/hilasmos does not mean “propitiation” (to appease God’s wrath) but rather “expiation” (to cover our sin). But the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church admits: “The general meaning of the word is the appeasing of the wrath of the Deity by prayer or sacrifice when a sin or offence has been committed against Him. The word occurs three times in the AV, in connection with the death of Christ (Rom 3:25; 1Jn 2:2; 4:10; to which RV adds Heb 2:17). Such a translation accurately represents the meaning in classical Greek of the words used (hilasterion, hilasmos).”1

Propitiation - The Gospel Coalition

Dodd was seeking to avoid God wrath, and those such as NT Wright and NPP have gone full bore to have it eliminated!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It means being made "right" or "just" in reference to God's standard. It does not mean "substituted for".

I see. You don't think it might have anything to do with the Lord Jesus Christ or the cross, do you?

 

[JonC]

JonC

,
You insist on attacking and trying to libel what I and other posters believe.
I will just continue to point out your perverse obsession with doing this, and hopefully break you out of your ascended master complex.
The false charge that I and The others on here post scripture with no regard to the scripture itself is another falsehood, sounding more like the voice of Satan than of a professed believer.
I am fine dwelling In Christ,comfortable in feeding on scripture.
I will never follow your ascended master carnal ideas, but will try and help by pointing out when you drift as you think sbout Taoism yin and yang and other new age thought.

This is a strange post. I have made an observation and I think most will agree.

You speak of what Scrioture "teaches" when "properly understood". Have you ever stopped to consider that Scripture teaches what is written in the text of Scripture rather than the understanding you reason out from it?

What is worse is you insult and condemn those who do take a more literal view of Scripture than you will allow for daring not to accept what you believe the Bible "teaches".

 

[JonC]

I see. You don't think it might have anything to do with the Lord Jesus Christ or the cross, do you?

It does. Read 1 Peter. Christ suffered, doing what is right, in perfect obedience to God. He died at the hands of the wicked, which was the will of God. The wicked esteemed Him stricken and afflicted by God, but God judged otherwise because God is righteous.

What you believe is foreign to God's Word. It was foreign to our faith for hundreds of years. You hold a relatively new faith (a theory) that is in no way based on Scripture but rather on what those who "tickle your ears" have told you Scripture teaches. Until Aquinas it would have been unheard of to hear a Christian proclaiming God punished Jesus, and even he clarified it was for man and never for the sins men committed. You hold a Reformed RCC faith. That is OK. Even some RCC members are saved....just despite their doctrine.

 

[AustinC]

It does. Read 1 Peter. Christ suffered, doing what is right, in perfect obedience to God. He died at the hands of the wicked, which was the will of God. The wicked esteemed Him stricken and afflicted by God, but God judged otherwise because God is righteous.

What you believe is foreign to God's Word. It was foreign to our faith for hundreds of years. You hold a relatively new faith (a theory) that is in no way based on Scripture but rather on what those who "tickle your ears" have told you Scripture teaches. Until Aquinas it would have been unheard of to hear a Christian proclaiming God punished Jesus, and even he clarified it was for man and never for the sins men committed. You hold a Reformed RCC faith. That is OK. Even some RCC members are saved....just despite their doctrine.

Understand that your assertion, here, is held only by you. Moreso, it has been shown that the early church and early church fathers held what the majority here at the BB hold. Therefore, your assertion is false and you cannot conceive of the notion that you are wrong.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

This is a strange post.
I have made an observation and I think most will agree.[/QUOTE]


I think most would agree with me.

You speak of what Scrioture "teaches" when "properly understood".

Yes I do because scripture is to read and properly understood.
Do you think scripture should be read and not understood, or only you as ascended master can dictate what it means, and how totest the conclusion?

Have you ever stopped to consider that Scripture teaches what is written in the text of Scripture rather than the understanding you reason out from it?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]What is worse is you insult and condemn those who do take a more literal view of Scripture than you

The insults are coming steadily from your keyboard. You are telling pastors they do not understand scripture, like having their ears tickled and other such nonsense. I have told you that you can believe what you want.
When you create scenerios that are false , we will expose them.

will allow for daring not to accept what you believe the Bible "teaches".

I can post what I want. If someone wants help I try to do that. If they attack, I will respond. If personal attacks come we will expose that.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC,

[QUOTE]What you believe is foreign to God's Word. It was foreign to our faith for hundreds of years. You hold a relatively new faith (a theory) that is in no way based on Scripture but rather on what those who "tickle your ears" have told you Scripture teaches[/QUOTE].

What MM believes is the true teaching of scripture.
You insult him as if he does not know or understand scripture, which he does.

Until Aquinas it would have been unheard of to hear a Christian proclaiming God punished Jesus, and even he clarified it was for man and never for the sins men committed. You hold a Reformed RCC faith. That is OK. Even some RCC members are saved....just despite their doctrine.

Now you back to this nonsense which has been refuted.

 

[JonC]

"JonC,

What you believe is foreign to God's Word. It was foreign to our faith for hundreds of years. You hold a relatively new faith (a theory) that is in no way based on Scripture but rather on what those who "tickle your ears" have told you Scripture teaches

What MM believes is the true teaching of scripture.
You insult him as if he does not know or understand scripture, which he does.



Now you back to this nonsense which has been refuted.

I am not insulting him. I used to believe as the two of you.

I am simply saying that both of you lean on your own understanding rather than on the Word of God.

Look at the passages that have been discussed. None of them actually say what you claim they "teach".

So how do you test your faith against Scripture? You don't. You test what you believe Scripture teaches against what you believe Scripture teaches.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,
[QUOTE]I am not insulting him.[/QUOTE]
yes you do in every post.

I used to believe as the two of you.

You make that claim but no one believes you.

I am simply saying that both of you lean on your own understanding rather than on the Word of God.

We believe and understand scripture. You have no basis to suggest we are not trusting the Lord...

Look at the passages that have been discussed. None of them actually say what you claim they do]

We have shown that they do..you do not agree.

So how do you test your faith against Scripture? You don't. You test what you believe Scripture teaches against what you believe Scripture teaches.[

YOU KEEP REPEATING YOUR ACCUSATION, No one thinks this is even rational.