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.”
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
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.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.
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.
Which us the same thing as appeasement
No, it isn't. Adverting and appeasing is not the same thing.(although I'm fine with appeasing as well).
1Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
Sounds unpleasant.
EXACTLY!!! Thanks. Perfect verse to illustrate the point.
We are delivered from the wrath to come. No additional theories needed.
You realize this pretty much flies in the face of what Wright was saying?
Wrath is coming. Wrath. Anger. The fiery indignation of God. It will be poured out on this creation.
It will not be averted or abated.
Christ is a way of escape.
WE are delivered from the wrath to come. Not the creation.
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.
You seem to be majoring on such minutia that I am having trouble understanding your position.
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.
Once again, we have a thread on "atonement" without defining the term. Does it refer to what was accomplished by Christ's death, or does it refer to what is accomplished when sinners are saved by grace through faith?
Only those saved are "made alive" breaking the power of sin which is death.
Only those saved become "overcomers" defeating the powers of darkness.
Only those saved are reconciled to God.
Here is one "definition" of atonement found on the internet:
So if the atonement, refers to what was accomplished by Christ's death, then this definition indicates it provided a way or means of reconciliation.
However, a second definition is also found on the internet, the "atonement" means "at one ment" or reconciliation, as per Romans 5:11, thus atonement refers to what was accomplished by our salvation.
Unless the term is preciously defined, discussion is futile.
This is where my confusion on your position comes in. What you said here is exactly what you said you believed elsewhere. I see no difference.
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.
Question upon the "wrath of God" as expressed upon Christ by some.
It is better with an illustration.
As a parent:
I have one son in whom I delight.
Because of who I am and what I stand for, my son knows that he must die at the age of 30 and the purpose of that death.
I instruct others about the matter, even creating pictures that folks might understand.
I give printed declarations and instructions with everyone in the community of just exactly when and how the death is to occur.
I give both my son and all others the reasons for, the purpose of the death.
I spend whatever resources are necessary and at the appointed time the action unfolds.
Yet, when the time comes, rather then being proud and understanding, I am incensed at the Son.
I can't stand Him.
He is such a disappointment I cannot even look upon Him and turn my back on Him.
I rage at Him and pour out the utmost of my anger upon Him.
How dare He! He is doing EXACTLY what we agreed needed to be done!!!!!
Really!
This is actually what the Scriptures teach?????
That is the presentation some would value????
Not!
It is better with an illustration.
As a parent:
I have one son in whom I delight.
Because of who I am and what I stand for, my son knows that he must die at the age of 30 and the purpose of that death.
I instruct others about the matter, even creating pictures that folks might understand.
I give printed declarations and instructions with everyone in the community of just exactly when and how the death is to occur.
I give both my son and all others the reasons for, the purpose of the death.
I spend whatever resources are necessary and at the appointed time the action unfolds.
Yet, when the time comes, rather then being proud and understanding, I am incensed at the Son.
I can't stand Him.
He is such a disappointment I cannot even look upon Him and turn my back on Him.
I rage at Him and pour out the utmost of my anger upon Him.
How dare He! He is doing EXACTLY what we agreed needed to be done!!!!!
Really!
This is actually what the Scriptures teach?????
That is the presentation some would value????
Not!
I too have been confused at some of the responses as well as the responses to the posts of the "retributive" series.
The following "wrath" and "punishment" is part of that which Jesus Christ took upon Himself which He did not deserve but which we (all humanity) richly deserve.
Isaiah 13
9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
I believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ receiving the wrath of God as our substitute shows us the horror of sin against God yet also reflects His great love for us in that He offered His Son to receive that wrath.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Isaiah 53
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
HankD
- Status