Where's the wrath??

[Rockson]

And I wear my opposition to them as a badge of honor. Some paint it as hate calling this a calvinist hate site.

I actually hate Calvinism the system of belief but I love Calvinists. I believe those from the you know what site know that you or I or others don't actually hate them either....some won't acknowledge that for they always want to throw people into a pit that they're just not a good person seeking to make them defend themselves but I think most of them know in their hearts that's not true.

.

 

[civic]

I actually hate Calvinism the system of belief but I love Calvinists. I believe those from the you know what site know that you or I or others don't actually hate them either....some won't acknowledge that for they always want to throw people into a pit that they're just not a good person seeking to make them defend themselves but I think most of them know in their hearts that's not true.

Several of us came out of Calvinism around the same time on that forum- @Joe, Predestined and myself just to name a few But I know I'm forgetting a couple of people.

 

[Rockson]

The one thing I have an issue with is the God provided a sacrifice for Abraham , a LAMB.

The Lamb that was sacrificed was the type, not Isaac.

True....but we've all heard this before right? People have always asked why did God tell Abraham to do this. Maybe a lesson for future generations to get.....God wanted humanity to know the position that he was in in having to sacrifice Jesus. I'd say maybe that Abraham was a type of the Father God. Was Abraham really mad and furious at Isaac when offering him . No. Wasn't necessary.

 

[Diserner]

It's 100% evil to deny Jesus took the price of sin on our behalf which includes wrath.

But it's not enough to forfeit salvation in the mercy of God.

There will be discipline and it's better to respond now.

 

[atpollard]

Okay, follow along, this is not rocket science.

1. Sin deserves wrath. Even (most) PSA deniers seem to admit this.

2. Jesus is our substitute. Even (most) PSA deniers seem to admit this.

Step 3 is ... ?

Some weird mental block that refuses to conclude what 1 and 2 dictate?

It is not a natural thing we are dealing with here.

Greetings,

Let me speak EXCLUSIVELY for myself as this is an issue that people take seriously and passionately (and I am not a spokesperson for all PSA deniers). If you will permit, I would like to begin with "more alike than different" and focus on what we can probably agree on before splitting hairs in discussions on things we may not see "eye to eye".

At its simplest and surface level, I have no problem with ANY of the words in PSA describing Christ.

• Penal = "punishment": we can both agree that Jesus was punished. If DEATH was all that was needed, there are much easier ways to die than scourging followed by crucifixion. We can discuss WHO punished Christ and WHY later [people have been proposing and debating "Atonement Theories" for most of Christian History ... so we have time and will probably not reach the definitive answer that has eluded smarter men than us].
• Substitution = "substitution": Jesus became sin for us so that we could become His righteousness. That is clearly a substitution that we can both agree on.
• Atonement = well, "atonement" ... the thing that fixes the broken relationship between God and us. We all agree that the relationship was fixed and that Jesus did it, so we are in agreement on the fact of an atonement.

So "WHAT"S THE PROBLEM"? I bet that's what you are thinking.
WRATH is the problem.

• wrath [Merriam-Webster]: strong vengeful anger or indignation (English word).
• ὀργή orgḗ, [Strongs G3709]: properly, desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence); by implication punishment:—anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath. (Greek Word from Romans 9:22)

The Classic problem that men debated over "ATONEMENT" was who owed what to whom? If Jesus paid a "ransom", to whom was it paid?
WRATH of God the Father being poured on God the Son has several problems for me.

Let me state up front, this is not a squeamish response. This is not "I could never love a God that could be so mean" type of feeling (like the arguments for UNIVERSALISM). No, this is a problem born of Scripture and typology and Justice. So let's talk about some of the issues that I see.

THE LAMB OF GOD:
Sacrifices are bloody. Frankly, they are gross and it would take some getting used to not to vomit at the stench of burning hair as animals are consumed by flame or the smell of rotting blood that covers everything and cannot be removed from the stones. So when one looks at Jesus as the "Passover Lamb" as the "lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world" ... his "slaughter" as a "propitiation" [two words affirmed by scripture in relation to Christ] is comprehensible. However, the Priest that slaughtered the offerings in the Temple [a Typology of the Christ offering to come] never poured out his WRATH upon the animal. Even God never poured His WRATH upon the animal., There are no verses about beating the little lamb so that it receives extra suffering because that Priest and God REALLY HATE THAT LAMB AND IT DESERVES TO SUFFER! That image of the Wrath of God being poured on the sacrifice (Christ) runs contrary to the Biblical Typology.

That does not instantly invalidate the concept that the Father poured the WRATH intended for us upon Christ, however it does require that STRONG SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE be presented to override the Typological example given in the OT. I have not seen that strong evidence, therefore, I remain skeptical of the WRATH OF THE FATHER poured on the SON claim.

There are other scriptural problems, for me, but this is already getting too long.

 

[atpollard]

Some paint it as hate calling this a calvinist hate site.

Ooohhh, OOhhhh. I think he's taking about me!

Stand back, jack ... I'm famous.

 

[Diserner]

WRATH is the problem.

Let me state u front, this is not a squeamish response. This is not "I could never love a God that could be so mean" type of feeling

Besides this feeling, there literally is no problem—it's best to ask God to show us our heart, as we don't always realize it.

the Priest that slaughtered the offerings in the Temple [a Typology of the Christ offering to come] never poured out his WRATH upon the animal.

The animals were commanded to burned with fire. That was not just a pointless after decoration, it represents wrath.

Jesus was also not smelly didn't eat grass—we don't draw exact parallels but look at the symbolism.

Burnt offering—fire is always equated with wrath, I'm sure I don't have to proof text you for that.

There are other scriptural problems, for me, but this is already getting too long.

No, there aren't. The law brings wrath because that is the wages of sin, and death means spiritual death which means the second death with means the lake of fire which means the wrath of God.

It's all there clear as day, no reason to reject it.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/gods-attribute-of-justice-demands-psa.681/

 

[civic]

Ooohhh, OOhhhh. I think he's taking about me!

Stand back, jack ... I'm famous.

I think it was carbon not you on a thread in his forum under one of his own soc accounts. I can still lurk

 

[atpollard]

Besides this feeling, there literally is no problem—it's best to ask God to show us our heart, as we don't always realize it.



The animals were commanded to burned with fire. That was not just a pointless after decoration, it represents wrath.

Jesus was also not smelly didn't eat grass—we don't draw exact parallels but look at the symbolism.

Burnt offering—fire is always equated with wrath, I'm sure I don't have to proof text you for that.



No, there aren't. The law brings wrath because that is the wages of sin, and death means spiritual death which means the second death with means the lake of fire which means the wrath of God.

It's all there clear as day, no reason to reject it.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/gods-attribute-of-justice-demands-psa.681/

Well, if you believe that the Priest and God were poring their anger and indignant hatred upon those animals, then we have nothing to discuss but will need to "agree to disagree". [This is VERY strange for a Particular Baptist, we 5-pointers are supposed to be the "violent haters" and here I am forced to argue that "God loves, not hates". ]

 

[atpollard]

I think it was carbon not you on a thread in his forum under one of his own soc accounts. I can still lurk

Awww ... there goes my 15 minutes.

 

[Diserner]

Well, if you believe that the Priest and God were poring their anger and indignant hatred upon those animals, then we have nothing to discuss but will need to "agree to disagree". [This is VERY strange for a Particular Baptist, we 5-pointers are supposed to be the "violent haters" and here I am forced to argue that "God loves, not hates". ]

The priest is NOT God.

Never was.

So it's a pointless objection, and sure, I'll stop.

 

[atpollard]

The priest is NOT God.

Never was.

So it's a pointless objection, and sure, I'll stop.

[OT] Who killed the lamb? [Typology]
[NT] Who killed The Lamb? [Typology]
[That is how typologies work.]

{You don't need to stop, we just have no common ground to start a discussion from.)

 

[Diserner]

[OT] Who killed the lamb? [Typology]
[NT] Who killed The Lamb? [Typology]
[That is how typologies work.]

No, that is NOT how typologies work, it is over-literalism, the priest functions on BEHALF of God.

If you take it to that extreme you will encounter absurdities.

 

[Diserner]

What is happening is whatever supposed "logic" is being used is covering a heart attitude here.

Only Jesus can be the surgeon to get at whatever that root behind the fruit is.

 

[atpollard]

What is happening is whatever supposed "logic" is being used is covering a heart attitude here.

Only Jesus can be the surgeon to get at whatever that root behind the fruit is.

The “heart attitude” is a dislike of eisegesis.

Scripture does not say the Father poured His WRATH on the Son, so some of us are reluctant to accept the leap of opinion that He did.

 

[Studyman]

PSA goes right along with the ULI in tulip- an assault of the nature/character of God and throw double predestination in there along with divine determinism that the WCF and other creeds of calvinism teaches,

And I wear my opposition to them as a badge of honor. Some paint it as hate calling this a calvinist hate site. I call it standing against everything, all strongholds that set themselves up against Christ and tearing them down. Those same sites belittle the non calvinists. I don't belittle anyone just the heretical teachings about the character and nature of our Good and Loving God who desires no one to perish but all to come to repentance. He forces no one to come because that would be unloving like those doctrines teach.

2 Cor 10
For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6 And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.

against the knowledge of God] For this phrase see Proverbs 2:5; Hosea 6:6; 1 Corinthians 15:34; Colossians 1:10, and the kindred phrase in Isaiah 11:9; 2 Peter 2:20. Here it signifies that by which we know God, i.e. the Gospel. See 1 Corinthians 2:10; 1 Corinthians 13:12; Galatians 4:9. cambridge commentary

against the knowledge of God—True knowledge makes men humble. Where there is exaltation of self, there knowledge of God is wanting [Bengel]. Arrange the words following thus: "Bringing every thought (that is, intent of the mind or will) into captivity to the obedience of Christ," that is, to obey Christ. The three steps of the apostle's spiritual warfare are: (1) It demolishes what is opposed to Christ; (2) It leads captive; (3) It brings into obedience to Christ (Ro 1:5; 16:26). The "reasonings" (English Version, "imaginations") are utterly "cast down." The "mental intents" (English Version, "thoughts") are taken willing captives, and tender the voluntary obedience of faith to Christ the Conqueror. JFB commentary

hope this helps !!!

I couldn't agree with you more regarding "many" of this worlds religious philosophers "Who come in Christ's Name". The promotion of Calvinism being one of "many".

But consider what the Wrath of God against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men that was revealed to us from the Gospel of Christ was.

IS. 6: 9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Calvinists look at the religious philosophers you quote and trust with the same disdain as you express towards theirs. The Pharisees looked at the Sadducee's trusted teachers the same way the Sadducees looked toward theirs. And yet we know from Scriptures they both Transgressed God's commandments by their own Traditions, so they were both deceived.

I too, have listened to Calvinists and scratch my head in wonder, how they can "Believe" what they believe given what the Scriptutres actually say. But then I remembered that there was a time when I too, adopted the religious philosophers of my fathers, and believed their religious doctrines and traditions with all my heart. It wasn't until I repented, and turned to God and followed the instruction of the Christ to "Seek Ye First the Kingdom of God and HIS Righteousness" alone, that I began to understand that just like the Calvinists, I too had believed things about God that were not true, which by definition meant that I was also Deceived.

The perspective I share, is one of a nobody that doesn't listen to any of them. There isn't a nickels worth of difference between any of them, in my view. Same Traditions, same business strategy, same manmade shrines of worship, same image of God in the likeness of man. Whether I'm a Calvinist or Arminian, Pharisee or Sadducee, Catholic or Adventist matters not. They are all the same in that they all transgress God's Commandments by their own religious traditions. And they can "SEE" the Oracles of God, but not see them, and they can "Hear" the Oracles of God, and not hear them. Just as I did and can still do if I take His Armor off.

If I don't want to listen to God, (Like Israel did) and desire "another voice" of this world that God placed me in, (like Eve did) to define God for me, He will let me, given all the warning and examples of men who did the very same thing.

For me, this is the Wrath of God.

 

[Diserner]

Scripture does not say the Father poured His WRATH on the Son, so some of us are reluctant to accept the leap of opinion that He did.

No more a leap than Jesus never saying "I am God" and there being no verse that says "God is three persons in one being."

Silly argument.

 

[Diserner]

I have literally seen the wrath of God in a spiritual experience.

Nobody can talk me out of that.

And the Bible talks about it all over the place.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The “heart attitude” is a dislike of eisegesis.

Scripture does not say the Father poured His WRATH on the Son, so some of us are reluctant to accept the leap of opinion that He did.

I'm not on one side or another, but that's arguing from silence, which is a logical fallacy. Scripture does not say that you should have potatoes and carrots with roast beef, either. So I don't.

 

[atpollard]

I'm not on one side or another, but that's arguing from silence, which is a logical fallacy. Scripture does not say that you should have potatoes and carrots with roast beef, either. So I don't.

So the Mormons are correct? We should not reject all of their doctrines just because they are unbiblical just like we should not reject God pouring wrath on himself just because the Bible is silent on that.
Is that REALLY what an “argument from silence” means?

In scripture, every time wrath appears it is either directed towards the wicked, or it is AVOIDED (typically because of repentance that brought forgiveness). Wrath is “stored for the Day of Wrath” … a future punishment on those that reject God. What is an argument from silence is the transfer of wrath from one person to another. What is an argument from silence is the wrath poured on the innocent. What is an argument from silence is God hating Himself.

I would post scriptures, but NONE EXIST … it is an argument from silence (which is my point and the reason for my objection to that specific claim of PSA).

PSA still has the human speculative WHY for the atonement wrong.