The Wrath of God

[agedman]

I find absolutely NO Scripture that EVER presents that the wrath of God falls upon those who are innocent.

Now, do not confuse the bondage of Israel into the far countries as contrary to this principle. This thread is upon an INDIVIDUAL not some group in which there may be a few innocent.

In ever verse concerning use of the word "wrath" it is ALWAYS directed toward those rebellious who flaunt their sinfulness as righteous. They which lay about conjuring what evil they may perpetrate upon the Godly and innocent.

At NO time was our Savior less than innocent, less than sinless, and less than totally pure.

He took upon himself the evil of all, but remained without sin. THAT is Scripture. If at any time He actually sinned, He then cannot remain the redeemer, the JUST and the justifier.

As such, the wrath of God cannot have fallen upon the Lord Jesus Christ. It is theologically impossible, and those who hold such thinking should reconsider the lack of Scripture support.

One more part of this rant. :_

Paul summed up his own presentation of atonement in one verse. "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3)

Paul considered the doctrine of atonement essential. Throughout his teaching at not one place does he express that the wrath of God was placed by God upon the Son. I have found absolutely NONE!

 

[atpollard]

OK since you engaged me I will respond so long as you can behave yourself.

You are downplaying what is happening in those verses. It is the equivalent to timeout in the corner, "punishment" and pierced, crushed, chastisement Those are not simply as punishment.

I question the GOAL (God to God) of the punishment. God did not pour out His WRATH on the ark ... God did not hold "strong vengeful anger" against a wooden boat or seek "retributory punishment for an offense" against a boat. The WRATH of GOD was directed against the sinful world that God was destroying in the Flood. The wooden boat suffered the punishment from God because that was the only way to bring those 8 souls (and animals) THROUGH the judgement.

If Christ is our ark, and God did not hate the wooden Ark, then why is it necessarily (without an explicit scripture) that God hated Christ on the cross? It only seems "necessarily" that God punish Christ (as the Ark bore the punishment of the Flood).

 

[Revmitchell]

I question the GOAL (God to God) of the punishment. God did not pour out His WRATH on the ark ... God did not hold "strong vengeful anger" against a wooden boat or seek "retributory punishment for an offense" against a boat. The WRATH of GOD was directed against the sinful world that God was destroying in the Flood. The wooden boat suffered the punishment from God because that was the only way to bring those 8 souls (and animals) THROUGH the judgement.

If Christ is our ark, and God did not hate the wooden Ark, then why is it necessarily (without an explicit scripture) that God hated Christ on the cross? It only seems "necessarily" that God punish Christ (as the Ark bore the punishment of the Flood).

The whole world died by drowning in a worldwide flood. Your use of punishment seems to be an attempt to downplay God's wrath. I find it weak at best.

 

[agedman]

The whole world died by drowning in a worldwide flood. Your use of punishment seems to be an attempt to downplay God's wrath. I find it weak at best.

Actually not.

The presentation of Scriptures is that God redeems and providentially guides those that Love Him.

The basic question you must concern yourself with is not whether God would punish the wicked, but would God bring wrath upon the righteous?

As such, if the answer is yes, then you must demonstrate such wrath is displayed by God concerning the atonement while the animals lived in the OT.

 

[agedman]

Lest this has not been presented, there is only ONE verse in which the word "atonement" is used in the NT. It is in Romans 5:11, "Our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

The literal meaning of atonement as used here is "reconciliation."
WE were estranged from our God, and now are reconciled. NOT because God poured out His wrath upon the Son, but that the Son brought reconciliation between God and the believer, and divine justice satisfied by the sacrifice made.

God's wrath still remains.

It will be visited upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness, but not upon the redeemer and redeemed. Paul is consistent in that presentation.

 

[Revmitchell]

Actually not.

The presentation of Scriptures is that God redeems and providentially guides those that Love Him.

The basic question you must concern yourself with is not whether God would punish the wicked, but would God bring wrath upon the righteous?

As such, if the answer is yes, then you must demonstrate such wrath is displayed by God concerning the atonement while the animals lived in the OT.

Well you set that premise up not me nor God. If you want to deal with your own false premise, you go ahead.

 

[agedman]

Well you set that premise up not me nor God. If you want to deal with your own false premise, you go ahead.

It you that hold the false premise. I just present that while the animals lived they remained as "unspotted" and therefor were worthy of sacrifice. The same applies to the Lord Jesus Christ. While He yet lived, He remained unspotted and worthy. As shown in the Revelation, when He took from the hand of God the scroll, all bowed and praised Him as worthy. So, even in the death, He remained worthy.

Can you find any Scriptures to present the above statement inaccurate, that in some manner Christ became defiled and unworthy prior to his death, and therefore John rightfully cried in discouragement and disillusionment when none in heaven or earth was found worthy to take from the hand of God the Scroll?

I am assuming that you do know that the Scroll was a seven sealed document of covenant in which the person must die before it can be read. We call it the last will and testament. In the middle east, this document can be found among all others because of the number of seals. Each seal would be broken before the document could be unrolled.

 

[Revmitchell]

It you that hold the false premise. I just present that while the animals lived they remained as "unspotted" and therefor were worthy of sacrifice. The same applies to the Lord Jesus Christ. While He yet lived, He remained unspotted and worthy. As shown in the Revelation, when He took from the hand of God the scroll, all bowed and praised Him as worthy. So, even in the death, He remained worthy.

Can you find any Scriptures to present the above statement inaccurate, that in some manner Christ became defiled and unworthy prior to his death, and therefore John rightfully cried in discouragement and disillusionment when none in heaven or earth was found worthy to take from the hand of God the Scroll?

I am assuming that you do know that the Scroll was a seven sealed document of covenant in which the person must die before it can be read. We call it the last will and testament. In the middle east, this document can be found among all others because of the number of seals. Each seal would be broken before the document could be unrolled.

You keep asking questions based on false premises and expecting I will deal with them based on your bad premise.

I will answer one last time with this and then I am done.

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

[agedman]

It is important that the focus of the removal of sin was not found in the extinguish of God's wrath!

Such thinking is foreign to the foundation of Scriptures.

Rather, "Christ is our Passover sacrificed for us..." (1Cor. 5:7)
Rather, "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Heb. 9:22)
Rather, "He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." (Heb. 8:6)

 

[agedman]

You keep asking questions based on false premises and expecting I will deal with them based on your bad premise.

I will answer one last time with this and then I am done.

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

You make mockery of your own verse!

"God made Him who knew no sin to be sin (a sin offering) on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."

That you rest upon a faulty rendering of a verse, you present a false premise of God's wrath.

It is a dangerous business to base one's thinking upon a single verse, is it not?

 

[atpollard]

The whole world died by drowning in a worldwide flood. Your use of punishment seems to be an attempt to downplay God's wrath. I find it weak at best.

I am sorry you feel that way. It came from the DEFINITION of WRATH:


Wrath (from Merriam-Webster):
1 : strong vengeful anger or indignation
2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement

ANGER is an emotion, so the boat did not suffer an emotional attack.

PUNISHMENT is an action, and the boat did suffer God’s actions.

So I chose “punishment” over “anger” … those are the two definitions of WRATH.

You are claiming Jesus suffered God’s “strong vengeful anger” when the words in Isaiah 53 only prove “punishment” (with ‘retribution’ yet to be proven from scripture). I am not questioning that the punishment was SEVERE, but I am questioning God’s motive (vengeful anger or retribution … or something else). ‘Something else’ makes it NOT WRATH.

Objecting to my using ‘punishment’ doesn’t close the gap between claimed theology and scripture verses. I am looking to close that gap if (verse by verse and precept by precept) it can be closed. So far, the rhetoric by most suggests that it cannot. It is an a priori ‘article of faith’ … people already see it or they don’t.

 

[agedman]

I am sorry you feel that way. It came from the DEFINITION of WRATH:


Wrath (from Merriam-Webster):
1 : strong vengeful anger or indignation
2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement

ANGER is an emotion, so the boat did not suffer an emotional attack.

PUNISHMENT is an action, and the boat did suffer God’s actions.

So I chose “punishment” over “anger” … those are the two definitions of WRATH.

You are claiming Jesus suffered God’s “strong vengeful anger” when the words in Isaiah 53 only prove “punishment” (with ‘retribution’ yet to be proven from scripture). I am not questioning that the punishment was SEVERE, but I am questioning God’s motive (vengeful anger or retribution … or something else). ‘Something else’ makes it NOT WRATH.

Objecting to my using ‘punishment’ doesn’t close the gap between claimed theology and scripture verses. I am looking to close that gap if (verse by verse and precept by precept) it can be closed. So far, the rhetoric by most suggests that it cannot. It is an a priori ‘article of faith’ … people already see it or they don’t.

The difficulty in attempting to "close the gap" with the theory that some espouse in which the very Son of man was brutalized by the Father is just not supported in Scripture and therefore that gap will never be closed.

What needs to happen is what all agree upon these seven items:

1) That God (the unity of the trinity) showed evidence concerning the Christ from the beginning, for the heavenly stars do tell of the plan of redemption.
2) That the trinity in total concert did present by picture of proper worship and statement of the prophets concerning the lasting atonement. That such presents both a suffering messiah and King of kings in which kingdom would never end.
3) That such an atonement would bring reconciliation between God (trinity) and the creation for all that believe. For all that believe are redeemed and all that do not believe are as "walking dead" for the unbeliever is already condemned.
4) That the wrath of God (trinity) remains upon all that do not believe and will be poured out as the last judgement upon the whole creation prior to the return of Christ establishing the millennial kingdom.
5) That the present heavens and earth shall pass away in a fiery heat and a final judgement is held, were unbelievers, already condemned, are cast into an eternal torment depending upon the deeds of the flesh. For by deeds of the flesh is no person justified and much less redeemed.
6) That the final estate of the believer is found in the new heaven and new earth in which there is no temple and no sun or moon, for the brightness of Father and Son illuminates all.
7) That all believers are to share the redemption that is found in the Lord Jesus Christ, some planting and some watering, believing that the Lord of the harvest will not allow His word to return void.
​

I am certain that there will be those who demand repentance be added, or the presentation of some myth concerning the wrath of the Father upon the Son, but those are secondary at best, for the scriptures state that great passage of Romans 5:

1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

3Not only that, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out His love into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us.

6For at just the right time, while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.

8But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him! 10For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life! 11Not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. ​

Is there any passage that presents a more clear pronouncement of salvation?

 

[37818]

Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ." is a penal substitution atonement. 1 Corinthians 15:3, ". . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; . . ."

 

[agedman]

Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ." is a penal substitution atonement. 1 Corinthians 15:3, ". . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; . . ."

Satisfaction of righteousness for our sinfulness, but there is no teaching in Scriptures that God brutalized His Son.

Who cause the suffering of the Savior?
Humans

Why?
Because the worst we could do was deprive Him of human strength, but not His divine attributes.

To what end?
That He is both the just and the justifier, that He has all authority and glory, and that His Father is well pleased.

 

[agedman]

I have a personal problem with the substitution thinking presented by the modern day folks. It implies that in some manner the Christ took upon himself that which was owed to humankind.

Rather, I like to refer to Satisfaction rather then Substitution.

Throughout the Scriptures the single remarkable thread is the story of redemption. In that story, it is not a matter of substitution but satisfaction that is the most important aspect.

For example, when the yearly atonement was brought to Holy of Holies, if God looked upon the High Priest and was dissatisfied, the man died. It didn't matter if he sprinkled blood or not, the substitution was worthless without first having the satisfaction.

When it came to the great High Priest offering Himself on the Cross, that is also a rigorous examination. Not only was the animal needing to be pure (without blemish) but the High Priest, also.

God had to be PLEASED (see Isaiah) not only with the sacrifice but the one offering the sacrifice.

So, I find substitution thinking often overshadowing the presentation of Scriptures - God was please, because He was satisfied the one making the offer and the offer were worthy.

 

[JonC]

What is absent and unBiblical? Terminology?

By absent Scripture and I mean the Word of God itself does not say Christ experienced God's wrath, that Christ suffered instead of us suffering, and even that Christ's death appeased God.

By unbiblical I mean the idea that God substituted Christ for us in terms of judgment and punishment is not only absent Scripture but is also opposed to what is written in Scripture.

 

[atpollard]

The difficulty in attempting to "close the gap" with the theory that some espouse in which the very Son of man was brutalized by the Father is just not supported in Scripture and therefore that gap will never be closed.

No, I think that the case CAN be made from scripture that the Son was brutalized … and that the Father was not a “helpless bystander” in the process.

• [John 19:11 ESV] 11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."

• [John 10:17-18 ESV] 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

What has yet to be shown is the WRATH (strong vengeful anger or retributory punishment) of the Father poured onto the Son … EVER!

 

[JonC]

So in Isaiah 53:6 had God committed an abomination? The one who bore our sins was innocent was He not?

No, God did not because God did not condemn Christ. Christ bore our sins....another way Scripture puts this is He shared in our infirmaty (our "sickness").

Isaiah 53:6 says the Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. It does not say that Hod condemned Him (it says the opposite - God vindicated Him).

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53:6 is a penal substution, what is Biblical which includes Isaiah 53:10 and Isaiah 53:12 and contexts in our chapter of Isaiah.

No it isn't. Penal Substitution Theory uses those verses, but adds to it. Most false doctrine is like Penal Substitution Theory - it is mostly true, but what is false makes it a serious error.

 

[kyredneck]

No, I think that the case CAN be made from scripture that the Son was brutalized … and that the Father was not a “helpless bystander” in the process.

26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, And the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord, and against his Anointed:
27 for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together,
28 to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council foreordained to come to pass Acts 4.