Do you believe that "all died in Adam"? If not, how did any escape.
-
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!
Where does God's Wrath Go?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
TULIP seems to emphasize human wisdom rather than God's wisdom.
The statement is causal, and relates to the death of the person, via the death of the body. All sinned, so all die. Just because you sin, and die, doesn't mean you're not credited with righteousness through faith. Abraham sinned and died, but he still went to heaven.
You do not believe men are spiritually dead?
It is scripturally based. Perhaps you can show otherwise?
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I see punishment as something that is a result of God's willingness to show His wrath, and to make His power known to men.
To me, they are not one and the same.
I also see that His wrath is expressed as a result of what offends Him.
Since He is holy and since everything that He does is righteous, then justice must follow out of His desire to make those things known to us.
On that we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'll need to see where, in the Scriptures, that this is independently declared.
For now, I see nothing clearly declaring that the Lord Jesus took upon Himself the punishment of those who would later believe.
Furthermore, I conclude that if He took upon Himself the sins of all men, then that consistency should apply across the entire race.
In other words, if He went to the cross for everyone's sins, then each and every person's sins are atoned for.
No person whose sins were laid upon Him, will ever be judged for them.
No person who will ever experience God's wrath will ever be able to say that their sins were forgiven, when the Lord's willingness to judge them will still take place.
What's more, no person who will ever experience God's wrath will ever be able to say that God loves or has loved them.
God's love is a love in action, and that action resulted in His doing something for those that He loved.
This is why the Lord Jesus Himself will tell those that God the Father did not love, "I never knew you", in the past tense.
They will be told, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"...
Not, "Well done thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord" or " Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: "
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Wrath and peace are outward expressions of internal attitudes;
They are diametrically opposed to each other.
Wrath, which is a result of His anger at something that God finds displeasing and which grieves Him and His holiness, will be expressed to those who have angered Him and refuse to repent and turn from that behavior, in a just and righteous manner.
Peace, which is a result of His understanding and patience towards someone on the behalf of His Son's imputed righteousness towards them, will be expressed to those whose hearts and minds He has changed in a gracious and loving manner.
As I see it, there is no "in-between".
To say that the Lord visited upon His Son His own wrath for their sins, would not be consistent with His love for them, or for His Son.
To put it plainly, I don't see how the Lord can ever be angry with those that He does not ultimately hold responsible for their sins;
Nor do I see Him ever being angry ( and willing to even show the barest hint of His wrath and disfavor ) towards His beloved Son.
When I see God's word plainly declaring that He laid His own wrath itself upon His Son at the cross, or that His Son paid the penalty for mankind's sins ( which is everlasting punishment in the Lake of Fire ), then perhaps we'll be able to get closer to agreement.
They are diametrically opposed to each other.
Wrath, which is a result of His anger at something that God finds displeasing and which grieves Him and His holiness, will be expressed to those who have angered Him and refuse to repent and turn from that behavior, in a just and righteous manner.
Peace, which is a result of His understanding and patience towards someone on the behalf of His Son's imputed righteousness towards them, will be expressed to those whose hearts and minds He has changed in a gracious and loving manner.
As I see it, there is no "in-between".
In order for me to agree with all of this, I'll have to see the Scriptures that outright declare it.
To say that the Lord visited upon His Son His own wrath for their sins, would not be consistent with His love for them, or for His Son.
To put it plainly, I don't see how the Lord can ever be angry with those that He does not ultimately hold responsible for their sins;
Nor do I see Him ever being angry ( and willing to even show the barest hint of His wrath and disfavor ) towards His beloved Son.
When I see God's word plainly declaring that He laid His own wrath itself upon His Son at the cross, or that His Son paid the penalty for mankind's sins ( which is everlasting punishment in the Lake of Fire ), then perhaps we'll be able to get closer to agreement.
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Isaiah 53, for example, doesn't describe an angry Father towards His Son;
To me, it describes a Father who allowed bad things to happen to His Son, so that a greater purpose would be fulfilled.
Contrary to the idea that God's wrath being laid upon His Son was what really happened, I see the Scriptures plainly declaring this:
" Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. " ( John 8:28-29 ). <----This tells me that God the Father was never angry towards His Son, nor did He ever actually leave Him alone and forsaken.
" But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6 and hath raised [us] up together, and made us sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
7 that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. " ( Ephesians 2:4-7 ). <---- This tells me that God the Father was never angry towards His elect.
For those who hold to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory, I need more to go on to convince me of it.
To me, it describes a Father who allowed bad things to happen to His Son, so that a greater purpose would be fulfilled.
Contrary to the idea that God's wrath being laid upon His Son was what really happened, I see the Scriptures plainly declaring this:
" Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. " ( John 8:28-29 ). <----This tells me that God the Father was never angry towards His Son, nor did He ever actually leave Him alone and forsaken.
" But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6 and hath raised [us] up together, and made us sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
7 that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. " ( Ephesians 2:4-7 ). <---- This tells me that God the Father was never angry towards His elect.
For those who hold to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory, I need more to go on to convince me of it.
Last edited: