Where does God's Wrath Go?

[JonC]

"If you believe I am not He, you shall die in your sins."

You see, not the sin but the rejection is the source of God's wrath.

We see this in John 3 as well.

 

[Zaatar71]

I see TULIP as trying to go beyond scripture, which invalidates it. Jesus never said "ALL were lost," particularly in relation to the lineage of Adam in the bible: e.g. Noah, Abraham etc. He never said "MY sheep cannot hear or respond to my voice." He never said "Faith is unconditional" in that he actually said "Faith requires work." And he never suggested that a man being depraved, apart from God, was other than self-evident: the question is therefore: is it necessary for EVERY man to become "apart from God?" The biblical answer is NO. Not every man who ever lived fell into the state of being "apart from God." See especially John the Baptist who had the Holy Spirit from birth. So I find TULIP to be using obscure terminology that doesn't resonate with biblical language (e.g. unconditional election is NOT in the bible).

I also find the exegesis of certain passages in John by adherents of TULIP to be objectively faulty, in that they appear not to grasp that Christ is distinguishing apostates from non-apostates. Not every man falls into the "apostate" category, even if most fall into the "lost" category. "Lost" doesn't mean "apostate". Paul also distinguishes faithlessness from apostasy. The distinction is vital. Apostates, whether from Moses or from Christ, are difficult to reach with the word of God, as they cannot hear it, but as always it's up to God.

Only the perservance of the saints I find to be a plausible thesis as stated, but I don't find it articulated quite as Christ articulated it, for he stressed the providential protection of God keeping his children safe from satan, whereas Calvinism limits the point to those whom God has chosen before the foundation of the world, which is true, in that such are all destined to become God's adopted children, at some point, but which isn't quite to the point of what Christ was talking about, in terms of the dynamic of God's relationship with his adopted children, but which still allows for them (or at least those who pass for God's children) to apostatize in opposition to the will of God (e.g. Israel in the Old Testament). IOW, Christ is stressing that if you are God's child, God will keep you safe, but if in the end God lets you go, you cannot blame it on God, but only on your own decision to apostatize despite God's protection. This ties in with viewing Christians as having very different degrees of spiritual maturity: some are blown about by the wind, some have deep roots etc.

Why should I credit Abraham, Noah, Moses, Elijah etc. as "spiritually dead?" That is for you to prove.

Hello Cj, Do you believe Adam died Spiritually on the day he ate the fruit in the garden ,at the fall? Do you believe in what is known as
Original sin?

 

[cjab]

Hello Cj, Do you believe Adam died Spiritually on the day he ate the fruit in the garden ,at the fall? Do you believe in what is known as
Original sin?

There is nothing to indicate Adam "died spiritually", excepting the Manichaean legacy, which posits all flesh as evil. Didn't Abel offer a pleasing sacrifice to God? Was Abel "spiritually dead?" So, such confounds forfeiture of immortality, part of Adam's punishment from God, with apostasy, which entails spiritual death. It is my belief that much theology in this area is influenced by Manichaean Gnosticism, which I believe John Calvin became embroiled in also.

Original sin means different things to different people. There is the Weslyan doctrine of original sin, which mandates little more than all being sinners, just from being "in Adam", and also from "sin being in the world" (Rom 5:13), but which does not go nearly as far as the Augustinian version of original sin that again has a Gnostic flavor, in maintaining that sin is directly "inherited from Adam." The Augustinian theory has many issues: not the least of them being the inability of Ausgustine and his successors to identify the science of how "original sin" is "inherited" by children from their parents, formal proof of which has become an insurmountable task for philosophers in the Augustinian tradition. Another faux pas comes from the supposed removal or "original sin" by baptism. The question then becomes: why do the children of baptized parents still "inherit" "original sin?"

Other variants suggest that all mankind is somehow imputed by God as guilty of Adam's own sin, such that its consequences are inevitably visited on all men. But again, all such theories are difficult to prove where from Ezekiel onwards, it is clear than a man will only be held responsible for his own sin and not those of his father. Prior to Ezekiel, it is clear that the limited human lifespan and the demotion of mankind from paradise arose from God's public decrees. The snares of Manichaeism are I feel widespread in this area, which one would do well to take cognizance of.

So many problems with your question, which employs non-biblical terminology, fails to define its terms, shows no regard for the historical encroachment of aberrant philosophies such as Manichaeism, and merely assumes "original sin" (in the Augustinian tradition) is a proven fact, whereas to my knowledge, it has yet to be formally proven. You should also be aware that the Eastern church doesn't follow Augustine (guilt can only result from an act which one has committed).

 

[Zaatar71]

True, but beware of extrapolating the universal case from the general case, which isn't permissible. And ψυχικός (which is translated "natural") is not associated directly with babies or infants in the bible, but only with sinners ruled by their flesh. Even in Israel there were "righteous men" whom Christ concedes, he "did not come to call" Luke 5:32.

So, are you saying there are unsaved sinners who are not under the dominion of the flesh?

There is nothing to indicate Adam "died spiritually", excepting the Manichaean legacy, which posits all flesh as evil.

Did God tell Adam in the DAY you eat, dying, thou shalt surely die? let me ask you...what died that day? Did he physically die? or was he spiritually separated from fellowship with God as he sinned? I would further ask you at this time... are sinners born spiritually dead, because of Adam's sin being passed on, to all men. Rom 3:23...all sinned at one point in time in the past. I am saying as scripture does that it was at the fall into sin and death. rom 5:12-21...I do not see scripture directly introducing and Manichaean legacy as you suggest.

Didn't Abel offer a pleasing sacrifice to God? Was Abel "spiritually dead?"

All men are born spiritually dead. Abel was born spiritually dead. Only God can grant Spiritual life to any sinner.

So, such confounds forfeiture of immortality, part of Adam's punishment from God, with apostasy, which entails spiritual death.

We are not born neutral, tabular rosa, but rather we are conceived and born sinners from conception. Can you show from scripture any person who was not conceived as a sinner, other than the Incarnate Son of God?

It is my belief that much theology in this area is influenced by Manichaean Gnosticism, which I believe John Calvin became embroiled in also.

You are free to believe what you want, however, the teaching comes from scripture itself and does not depend on what any man believes. Are you suggesting that any who wrote scripture inspired by God, were first influenced by Manichaean Gnosticism? All of us are aware of such websites of those who cannot refute the biblical teaching, who invent ideas, and ascribe this label to those who understand and believe the doctrines of grace. For example you mention Calvin. Do you have a direct quote from him saying I got my ideas from Manichaean Gnosticism???Or are you and the others ascribing it to him>

Original sin means different things to different people.

No.. it does not. The first sin found among men, was in the garden, and it is scripturally ascribed to Adam.

There is the Weslyan doctrine of original sin, which mandates little more than all being sinners, just from being "in Adam", and also from "sin being in the world" (Rom 5:13), but which does not go nearly as far as the Augustinian version of original sin that again has a Gnostic flavor, in maintaining that sin is directly "inherited from Adam." The Augustinian theory has many issues: not the least of them being the inability of Ausgustine and his successors to identify the science of how "original sin" is "inherited" by children from their parents, formal proof of which has become an insurmountable task for philosophers in the Augustinian tradition. Another faux pas comes from the supposed removal or "original sin" by baptism. The question then becomes: why do the children of baptized parents still "inherit" "original sin?"

Your whole paragraph does not address the scripture, at all.

Other variants suggest that all mankind is somehow imputed by God as guilty of Adam's own sin, such that its consequences are inevitably visited on all men.

Scripture teaches that Rom 3:23 all sinned at one point in time past. Romans 5;12-21 describes the origin of the sin. You explantion seems to want to bypass, or negate the fall.

But again, all such theories are difficult to prove where from Ezekiel onwards, it is clear than a man will only be held responsible for his own sin and not those of his father. Prior to Ezekiel, it is clear that the limited human lifespan and the demotion of mankind from paradise arose from God's public decrees. The snares of Manichaeism are I feel widespread in this area, which one would do well to take cognizance of.

Again, two different things spoken of, and you are relying on your Manichaean Gnosticism excuse to avoid the issue.

So many problems with your question, which employs non-biblical terminology, fails to define its terms, shows no regard for the historical encroachment of aberrant philosophies such as Manichaeism, and merely assumes "original sin" (in the Augustinian tradition) is a proven fact, whereas to my knowledge, it has yet to be formally proven. You should also be aware that the Eastern church doesn't follow Augustine (guilt can only result from an act which one has committed).

Thanks for offering your opinion!

 

[JonC]

TULIP seems to emphasize human wisdom rather than God's wisdom.

TULIP is human wisdom. The philosophy behind the acronym assumes that God is less than sovereign (His sovereignty exists because of divine fiat), that God's will is equal to or on the same level as man's will, that the Father effected our salvation using the Son, etc.).

 

[Zaatar71]

TULIP is human wisdom.

No. it is what the scriptures teach from cover to cover.

The philosophy behind the acronym assumes that God is less than sovereign

not so, it totally understands God is absolutely sovereign over all things.

(His sovereignty exists because of divine fiat), that God's will is equal to or on the same level as man's will,

and yet no Calvinist teaches any such thing.

that the Father effected our salvation using the Son, etc.).

No...

 

[JonC]

No. it is what the scriptures teach from cover to cover.

We're that true you would be able to defend it via Scripture.

As it stands, your defence amounts to God gave us John Murray.

For those who do not know, Murray was most known for his defense of infant baptism. He wrote extensively on the topic.


He concluded that God made a covenant with Abraham and his seed, we are the spiritual descendents of Abraham, therefore infants of believing parents are a part of the Covenant and are regenerated as infants, regeneration being inseoerable from faith these infants are saved.

This is from his book "Christian Baptism" (chapter 4, starts on page 48).

I got the book decades ago for kindle. I think it was about $1. I'm sure it's open domain, so you can probably find it online for free.

 

[JonC]

Do you believe that "all died in Adam"? If not, how did any escape.

?? Are you trying to quote a verse? If so, you have your tense wrong (which drastically changes the meaning).

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to our God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

 

[Brightfame52]

For the past decade or two I have often been asked the question "Where does God's wrath go?"

At first I thought this was a joke, as it is a nonsense question. Wrath is not a material thing. It does not "go" anywhere.

Take an argument where a father who is angry at his son. The two make their peace and forgive each other. Where does their Wrath go? Nowhere.

Recently @JesusFan asked this same question - If God does not visit His wrath upon Jesus, and we escape the wrath to come....where does that wrath go? What becomes of the wrath?

Here we need to turn to Scripture. The wrath of God is consistently directed against the wicked, against those who do not do His will. (Deuteronomy 1:26-46; Joshua 7:1; Psalm 2:1-6; Romans 1:18; John 3:36). At Judgment the wicked will experience God's wrath (Ecclesiastes 3:17; Matthew 13:49-50).

What happened, then, to the wrath that was at one time against us when we were wicked before we were forgiven?

Again, just to emphasize, thos is a nonsense question as wrath, like sins, is not a material thing. God does not literally store wrath in a box in heaven. Romans 2:5 tells us that the wicked are storing wrath against themselves until judgment. They are not receiving in the present the wrath to come but will be judged "on that day".

Likewise, God does not literally pick up our sins and toss them into the ocean. This is a figurative way of saying God forgives us.


I am not sure how or when Christians began thinking of wrath and sins as material things that can be moved about, packed up in a box, etc. I bring thos up because it has been a fairly consistent question on this forum. God's wrath does not "go" anywhere. It is Hos righteous anger against the wicked which will be "poured out" on the wicked "on that day".

I believe Jesus consume the wrath of God on behalf of his elect, so they are never under God's wrath even when they're unbelievers

 

[Zaatar71]

We're that true you would be able to defend it via Scripture.

As it stands, your defence amounts to God gave us John Murray.

For those who do not know, Murray was most known for his defense of infant baptism. He wrote extensively on the topic.


He concluded that God made a covenant with Abraham and his seed, we are the spiritual descendents of Abraham, therefore infants of believing parents are a part of the Covenant and are regenerated as infants, regeneration being inseoerable from faith these infants are saved.

This is from his book "Christian Baptism" (chapter 4, starts on page 48).

I got the book decades ago for kindle. I think it was about $1. I'm sure it's open domain, so you can probably find it online for free.

The thread is not speaking of infant baptism, You cannot handle what was posted here on these two issues. We can see it clearly.

 

[Zaatar71]

?? Are you trying to quote a verse? If so, you have your tense wrong (which drastically changes the meaning).

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to our God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

Those who believe what is written, know that All sinned, and died in Adam on that day. You must have trouble with spiritual death as taught in scripture.

 

[Dave G]

TULIP is human wisdom.

Respectfully Jon, I disagree.
To me, it's understood out of the Scriptures...and quite clearly.

That it is not clear to many, I am already aware of...
Which is why we differ.
But the reason why I understand His word one way, and someone else does another, is for a thread of its own.
For now, I offer this:

Human wisdom, which the Lord calls, "vain philosophy", speaks of things like:

"Where there's a will, there's a way".
"You deserve a break today" - MacDonald's
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" - Aleister Crowley
" Self esteem"
" Only the strong survive" - Just about every one who believes in the "law of the Jungle"
" Everybody deserves a chance" - Man's natural way of thinking.
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing"
"Never give up, even in the face of certain disaster"
"Never let 'em see you sweat"
"Sincere effort demands a sincere reward"
"All men are created equal" - Abraham Lincoln
" It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop." - Confucius
" The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates
" I believe it is impossible to be sure of anything." - Han.
" Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does" - William James

TULIP is all about God and His will, which serves to abase us in our minds and in our hearts as His children...and is precisely why it is so unattractive to the masses.
Fallen sinners are full of themselves and their pride stinks in His sight... and He operates against us and it.

In fact, He is pleased to confound our twisted ideas of "wisdom", by doing things contrary to what we think He "should" do.

 

[Dave G]

The philosophy behind the acronym assumes that God is less than sovereign (His sovereignty exists because of divine fiat), that God's will is equal to or on the same level as man's will, that the Father effected our salvation using the Son, etc.).

I see none of man's vain philosophy or human wisdom behind any part of it.

"Total Depravity" makes the connection to what the Lord has told us about the true extent of man's condition before Him, and our actual attitudes as fallen sinners about sin, death and God's judgement. We as sinners are completely bankrupt...morally and spiritually.

"Unconditional Election" goes totally against the grain of what we as men think God should do...even given the truth of what we've done to Him.
That we "deserve a chance" to be saved is something that every fallen sinner sees as their right.
The Lord says that as criminals, we have no rights... and He will have mercy and compassion on whom He will have mercy and compassion.

"Limited Atonement" ( Particular Redemption ) goes hand-in-hand with "Unconditional Election", because according to human wisdom, God must "give every one of us a chance" to get out of being eternally punished with no say-so. Therefore, it is only natural for human wisdom ( which is inherently selfish ) to say that Christ must have died for everyone to give us the "possibility" of all of us "having a chance"

"Irresistible Grace" is taken right out of the Scriptures, where the Lord declares that "I was found of them who sought me not, I was made manifest to them that did not ask after me". Paul on the road to Damascus is but one example of it... when Paul, totally unaware of his own fallen condition or having any say in his own destiny, was told by the Lord, what that destiny was to be.
God does what He wants, when He wants to...and this includes bestowing His gifts upon people who are completely unaware of His actions beforehand.

"Perseverance of the Saints", is again, taken right out of the Scriptures. It tells God's people that all those who are truly saved have nothing to stand on except His grace and mercy, and that they are kept by His own power through their faith, all the way to the end and will never be lost.
This goes against mankind's natural way of thinking that bases everything on merit and works... which imagines God rewarding those who persevere to the end with good, and penalizing those who do not with utter destruction. Again, the Lord goes against our natural thinking by not letting any of those that His Son bought with His blood, ever be lost.


No, Jon...
Again I disagree.

"TULIP" is exactly 180 degrees out of alignment with human wisdom, as much as it seems that you constantly make this charge against it.
It not only assumes that God is completely and totally sovereign, it declares the Scriptural truths of it.

 

[JonC]

No, it's not.
It's understood out of the Scriptures, Jon.

Human wisdom, which the Lord calls, "vain philosophy", speaks of things like:

"Where there's a will, there's a way".
"You deserve a break today" - MacDonald's
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" - Aleister Crowley
" Self esteem"
" Only the strong survive" - Just about every one who believes in the "law of the Jungle"
" Everybody deserves a chance" - Man's natural way of thinking.
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing"
"Never give up, even in the face of certain disaster"
"Never let 'em see you sweat"
"Sincere effort demands a sincere reward"
"All men are created equal" - Abraham Lincoln
" It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop." - Confucius
" The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates
" I believe it is impossible to be sure of anything." - Han.
" Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does" - William James

TULIP is all about God and His will, which serves to abase us in our minds and in our hearts as His children...and is precisely why it is so unattractive to the masses.
Fallen sinners are full of themselves and their pride stinks in His sight... and He operates against us and it.

In fact, He is pleased to confound our twisted ideas of "wisdom", by doing things contrary to what we think He "should" do.

It depends on how you take the acronym. I take it to mean Calvinism (initially thus acronym stood as a type of summary or reminder of the Doctrines of Grace).

But just taking the titles at face value, I can agree they are biblical (as long as it is defined by my standard rather than the Doctrines of Grace).

In otherwise, stripped of its baggage it is fine, but that woukd be stripping it of its meaning.

For example"

Do I believe that God's election is unconditional? Of course not. It is conditioned on Christ (God's "Elect). It is also conditioned on belief (God meeting the condition for salvation). But it is not conditioned on man.

That said, the "U" represents election under the Doctrines of Grace which is election into a covenant that extends ti the infants of believers (see the Doctrines of Grace, election, point 17).

So you could say the "U" is Bible or unbiblical.

The problem I see with TULIP is it is a product of human wisdom (initially). But divorced from its origins I can see how as simple statements it can be accurate.

Unfortunately, even Calvinists disagree on how to take Calvinism. It has become a very broad range of beluefs under a common basic scheme.

 

[JonC]

There is none of man's vain philosophy behind any part of it.

"Total Depravity" makes the connection to what the Lord has told us about the true extent of man's condition before Him, and our actual attitudes as fallen sinners about sin, death and God's judgement. We as sinners are completely bankrupt...morally and spiritually.

"Unconditional Election" goes totally against the grain of what we as men think God should do...even given the truth of what we've done to Him.
That we "deserve a chance" to be saved is something that every fallen sinner sees as their right.
The Lord says that as criminals, we have no rights... and He will have mercy and compassion on whom He will have mercy and compassion.

"Limited Atonement" ( Particular Redemption ) goes hand-in-hand with "Unconditional Election", because according to human wisdom, God must "give every one of us a chance" to get out of being eternally punished with no say-so. Therefore, it is only natural for human wisdom ( which is inherently selfish ) to say that Christ must have died for everyone to give us the "possibility" of all of us "having a chance"

"Irresistible Grace" is taken right out of the Scriptures, where the Lord declares that "I was found of them who sought me not, I was made manifest to them that did not ask after me". Paul on the road to Damascus is but one example of it... when Paul, totally unaware of his own fallen condition or having any say in his own destiny, was told by the Lord, what that destiny was to be.
God does what He wants, when He wants to...and this includes bestowing His gifts upon people who are completely unaware of His actions beforehand.

"Perseverance of the Saints", is again, taken right out of the Scriptures. It tells God's people that all those who are truly saved have nothing to stand on except His grace and mercy, and that they are kept by His own power through their faith, all the way to the end and will never be lost.
This goes against mankind's natural way of thinking that bases everything on merit and works... which imagines God rewarding those who persevere to the end with good, and penalizing those who do not with utter destruction. Again, the Lord goes against our natural thinking by not letting any of those that His Son bought with His blood, ever be lost.


No, Jon...

"TULIP" is exactly 180 degrees out of alignment with human wisdom, as much as it seems that you constantly make this charge against it.
It not only assumes that God is completely and totally sovereign, it declares the Scriptural truth of it.

I have no problem wirh the titles of TULIP. It is more what those titles represent (the "five heads of doctrine" were summaries for the doctrine).

It is impossible, for example, that a Baptist believe Unconditional Election because this represents one head under the Doctrines of Grace (it represents the 1st head....Election) and under that is 17 (which explains that infants are elect based on their parents faith).

But if you just mean God does not choose men based on attributes of man, I agree.

 

[Piper 2]

God's wrath was absorbed by Jesus Christ on the cross.

 

[Brightfame52]

God's wrath was absorbed by Jesus Christ on the cross.

For some, not all, because some are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction Rom and there is for them a day of wrath Job 21 30

That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath.

 

[JonC]

God's wrath was absorbed by Jesus Christ on the cross.

I get that you guys believe there are two "vessels of wrath" (Jesus and the lost).

What passage are you reading that says Jesus absorbed God's wrath on the cross?

 

[Dave G]

What passage are you reading that says Jesus absorbed God's wrath on the cross?

As near as I can figure it's based on implication, Jon;
Not declaration.

 

[Charlie24]

I get that you guys believe there are two "vessels of wrath" (Jesus and the lost).

What passage are you reading that says Jesus absorbed God's wrath on the cross?

There are an accumulation of verses throughout the Scripture that hint at it.

What confirms for me that Christ took our wrath is that Gal. 3:13 tells us that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us.

Then in Rom. 4:15 Paul tells us the Law works wrath. Christ was made a curse for us according to the Law that condemned us, so the curse brought death because we can't keep the Law. Christ was made that curse that carried the wrath of God.

I know it's confusing, but that is the way I see it.