Checking for sound theology

[_Jordan_]

Since you are (rightfully) afraid to make mistakes in what you are doing, may I ask why you are doing it in the first place? Why not leave teaching to those called to teach?

Yes, I agree that only few are called to teach, but does that mean that only those men can speak about God? Is it only preachers who can speak about Jesus? I want to do this as God has saved me. This reality really grasps you and how can you not want to help others by it. I am fairly technical minded and always like to think things through and what I see in romans23-25 is packed with a dense technical reasoning of why Jesus Christ died. What reason is there to not use the things god has gave me to proclaim his message (by this, I'm planing on stating Rm23-25) in as creative way I can (not that this is required).

With all due respect, this is something I just want to do, and I think all of us should do, in whatever form it be as long as it's faithful to Gods word. As I said in another comment, explaining the a verse, the definitions in said verse, you literally can't go wrong. Paul is explicitly clear in what he is saying. I am confident of the truth to be said in this verse, and after reading and studing the bible more on the topic, I am only more certain. 1Corinthians 10:3

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, I agree that only few are called to teach, but does that mean that only those men can speak about God? Is it only preachers who can speak about Jesus? I want to do this as God has saved me. This reality really grasps you and how can you not want to help others by it. I am fairly technical minded and always like to think things through and what I see in romans23-25 is packed with a dense technical reasoning of why Jesus Christ died. What reason is there to not use the things god has gave me to proclaim his message (by this, I'm planing on stating Rm23-25) in as creative way I can (not that this is required).

With all due respect, this is something I just want to do, and I think all of us should do, in whatever form it be as long as it's faithful to Gods word. As I said in another comment, explaining the a verse, the definitions in said verse, you literally can't go wrong. Paul is explicitly clear in what he is saying. I am confident of the truth to be said in this verse, and after reading and studing the bible more on the topic, I am only more certain. 1Corinthians 10:3

Given what Thatbrian just said, here's a thought that came to me. I don't mean this as any kind of correction for you.

But I hear your heart in speaking about the reality of God IN YOUR LIFE. And some hesitancy in laying out theology.

If you want to make a video, why not focus on where your heart is? Talk about how God became real to you and what He has done in your life? There are a million places online that offer "steps" to "become saved". But what YOU have uniquely to offer is your own story to share. I think that is much more likely to catch someone's attention. If it were me, I would tune out yet another "heard it before" but I still listen to people's own stories and find them encouraging and inspiring, and I find that God also condescends to us, working in the lives of those who seek Him, even as their theology undergoes development. Then you also needn't worry about opening yourself up to the greater responsibility undertaken by those who teach. And I think you'd be much more likely to grab someone's attention.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Jordon, I agree with ThatBrian and Anastasia, until the time the Lord leads you into a "teaching" ministry, you should simply do what we are ALL called to do as Christians, "witness". Tell people why you became a Christian and how it came to be. And make it very personal (as was just mentioned ) IOW, make a tape of your "Testimony" so others can find Christ too. That was your main goal anyway, wasn't it?

Add in a couple of appropriate Scripture verses to support what you are saying and to show that it's Biblical, and put it out there And if you are unsure about anything, run it by us here and, especially, by your pastor/priest to see what he thinks (see Proverbs 15:22).

If it's just your testimony about how you became a Christian however, you'll probably be fine just putting it out there.

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - when you post it, please let us know where we can view it

 

[St_Worm2]

Yes, I agree that only few are called to teach, but does that mean that only those men can speak about God? Is it only preachers who can speak about Jesus? I want to do this as God has saved me. This reality really grasps you and how can you not want to help others by it. I am fairly technical minded and always like to think things through and what I see in romans23-25 is packed with a dense technical reasoning of why Jesus Christ died. What reason is there to not use the things god has gave me to proclaim his message (by this, I'm planing on stating Rm23-25) in as creative way I can (not that this is required).

With all due respect, this is something I just want to do, and I think all of us should do, in whatever form it be as long as it's faithful to Gods word. As I said in another comment, explaining the a verse, the definitions in said verse, you literally can't go wrong. Paul is explicitly clear in what he is saying. I am confident of the truth to be said in this verse, and after reading and studing the bible more on the topic, I am only more certain. 1Corinthians 10:3

You need to do as the Lord leads you Jordon Considering the Biblical warning about "teaching" however, you should definitely run your final draft(s) past your pastor/priest.

You can and should talk about God as often as He gives you the opportunity, but you can present the truth by simply pointing out a Scripture verse or passage and then tell everyone what it means to you and why. You could also quote a teacher/theologian on the passage as further evidence of why you believe that it means what you say it does

This might be pushing the envelope a bit, but encouraging others to consider your point of view/your understanding of a passage (especially if you preface it with something like, "I believe this is true because...", or "it seems to me that ...", would not be the same as teaching it authoritatively (as least, I don't think it would be .. Brothers/Sisters .. thoughts )

But by all means, talk about the Lord and His salvation, ALWAYS because the words you speak may be the only Biblical truth many people have ever heard

Yours and His,
David

 

[Geralt]

- reads like a gospel of works and reward.
- missing the words 'heaven', 'hell', 'eternal life'
- would pass for an ecumenical audience

 

[Heber Book List]

My view, as an Applied Theologian, Jordan, is that the key to it all revolves around the question that you must ask of yourself: If someone comes back to me, and asks me to explain xyz from what I have written, could I convincingly answer their question(s) from my own knowledge, based on my understanding of Scripture (from whichever perspective you read it)?

If you are very honest with yourself the answer should guide you very clearly. If you consider that you could not answer as above, or you are not certain, then maybe the suggestion that has already been made, that you write as a testimony, would be the better way forward.

Have you thought of it this way?

 

[Butch5]

I am wanting to make a short video (~1-2 minute) with a concise, dense, accurate message of the gospel.I am aware it's possible to mistakenly write things which aren't true, which is why I'm asking this. My memory of specific verses isn't very good so making sure/biblically proving, all of which I am wanting to write is true is somewhat hard. Mishandling Gods word greatly worries me and I don't want to mistakenly eisegesis verses when I come to research/quote verses to back up this. The following script is what I've wrote so far and is the essence of the gospel how I've understood it from reading the bible and listening to sermons over the years. I would like as much people, preferably reformed/orthodox, to look at what I've wrote, tell me if I need correction, or need to add anything in? I want it to flow as logically and biblically as possible in a concise short fashion.



Man sinned against God

The nature of sin is infinitely evil, evidenced by the majesty of whom it’s against.

God is morally perfect in justice; the judgement of sin can’t be eternally postponed, which would be to disregard sin hence invalidate Gods justice.

The result of God’s justice and man’s sin is divine wrath.

Divine Wrath is the application of justice through retribution according to each’s deeds

Only God’s infinite worthiness could account for the atonement of the infinite weight our of sin.

God clothed himself in flesh so that he could physically bear Gods wrath

Therefore, Jesus’ death appeased the wrath of god for those who by faith repent and trust the propitiation provided by Jesus.

This was a free act of Grace, not deserved nor achievable, but brought about by Gods unfathomable love.

Through this, reconciliation to God is achieved and true enjoyment of God can be experienced

Where is in Scripture do you find the teaching that Christ's death appeased the wrath of God?

 

[jerry kelso]

I am wanting to make a short video (~1-2 minute) with a concise, dense, accurate message of the gospel.I am aware it's possible to mistakenly write things which aren't true, which is why I'm asking this. My memory of specific verses isn't very good so making sure/biblically proving, all of which I am wanting to write is true is somewhat hard. Mishandling Gods word greatly worries me and I don't want to mistakenly eisegesis verses when I come to research/quote verses to back up this. The following script is what I've wrote so far and is the essence of the gospel how I've understood it from reading the bible and listening to sermons over the years. I would like as much people, preferably reformed/orthodox, to look at what I've wrote, tell me if I need correction, or need to add anything in? I want it to flow as logically and biblically as possible in a concise short fashion.



Man sinned against God

The nature of sin is infinitely evil, evidenced by the majesty of whom it’s against.

God is morally perfect in justice; the judgement of sin can’t be eternally postponed, which would be to disregard sin hence invalidate Gods justice.

The result of God’s justice and man’s sin is divine wrath.

Divine Wrath is the application of justice through retribution according to each’s deeds

Only God’s infinite worthiness could account for the atonement of the infinite weight our of sin.

God clothed himself in flesh so that he could physically bear Gods wrath

Therefore, Jesus’ death appeased the wrath of god for those who by faith repent and trust the propitiation provided by Jesus.

This was a free act of Grace, not deserved nor achievable, but brought about by Gods unfathomable love.

Through this, reconciliation to God is achieved and true enjoyment of God can be experienced

jordan,

1. I understand your concern about exegesis and this is of utmost importance in rightly dividing the word.

2. We are not perfect in our knowledge but we must do the best that we can to be led of the Spirit and study to the best of our ability.

3. Hermeneutics is the art of interpretation is why we believe the way that we do whether or not we understand we have any hermeneutics of any kind. Everyone has a point of reference and there are many different types of contexts whether covenant theology or dispensational thought etc.

4. I believe we have to be careful of following a set context of theology because all may not be right in every jot and detail that may be important. Either way one will not be able to satisfy everyone and there are great christian theologians etc. with different types of theology and thought processes.

5. The message of the gospel is simple according to believe in redemption of Christ to be saved which is the death, burial, and resurrection which Paul said was the gospel and of which he put his life on the line for the cause of Christ each day.

6. The things you have mentioned can get very detailed and debatable of absolutes when making a plain statement of scripture. Everything for the most part has a context whether a plain statement or not unless it is something that has a general context that can have more than one though and not be absolute in the purest sense because of lack of information in the context or because of experience such as in spiritual matters of what God means to one.

7. You have mentioned about sin, the nature of sin, justice of sin, the result of sin and application of the judgement of sin.

8. You have mentioned Christ being the infinite atonement which has the infinite worthiness of atoning for the infinite weight of sin and how and why he could bear the infinite weight of sin.

9. You have mentioned that free grace, undeserved and unachievable by man but brought to fruition by the unfathomable love of God to save man which results in reconciliation to God so man can achieve and enjoy and experience a perfect love relationship.
This is what your overall concept is about the gospel.

10. You have an overall view that has to have scripture to back it up but this alone is just a statement of factual information. With this in mind, it will be more effective when you give the overall subject of the gospel a more detailed and specific context of what point you want to make.

11. Another words where do you want your overall emphasis to be on. Do you want the focus more on the infinite love of God or our purpose and destiny in life etc.

12. I am a songwriter and we are taught that we can make a lot of different things in the song but have one overall point that those things have to point to in that specific context so people can follow your train of thought. The title of the song usually shows the overall subject as a general rule.

13. Hook and themes and quotes that use strong words can be effective in getting people's attention and draw them in to what you have to say. It can also cover much ground in a small amount of words.
Most tracts are about the love and grace of God or something simple for people to come to Christ and have a relationship with Christ everyday and a touch of the eternal picture but not in great detail but how it impacts a life concerning their past, present and future.

14. I would be interested in conversing more about what your motive and thought of what you really want to show. Is it a teaching context or is a witnessing tool which can and should be both in the teaching department? Either way most want to spread the word of testimony in some way and you have said that so let me know, I am curious. Jerry Kelso

 

[St_Worm2]

Where is in Scripture do you find the teaching that Christ's death appeased the wrath of God?

Hi Butch/Jordan, I hope your guys don't mind me jumping in here, but Romans 5 comes to mind.

Having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Romans 5:9-10

There is this as well:

Jesus .. rescues us from the wrath to come. 1 Thessalonians 1:10b

And this:

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Hebrews 9:22b

Yours and His,
David

"In this is love, not that we loved God, but that
He loved us and sent His Son to be the
propitiation for our sins"
1 John 4:10​

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch/Jordan, I hope your guys don't mind me jumping in here, but Romans 5 comes to mind.

​

There is this as well:

​

Yours and His,
David

"In this is love, not that we loved God, but that
He loved us and sent His Son to be the
propitiation for our sins"
1 John 4:10​

Hi St Worm2,

That talks of being saved from wrath not appeasing it. In the passage in Romans 5 Paul is addressing the Jewish believers in the church at Rome. In chapter one he explained about the wrath of God.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Rom. 1:18-21 KJV)

Paul said that the wrath of God was reveal against those who hold the truth in unrighteousness. So, these were people who knew God, knew of His righteousness and held it in unrighteousness. Paul goes on to say that God gave them over to a reprobate mind. I don't think there is any appeasing here.

Jesus saving us from the wrath to come doesn't seem to me to be an appeasement as the wrath still comes. Jesus shows us how to get out of the way when it does.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Butch, the verses I posited above tell me that Christ's death/His shed blood is the, propitiation/appeasement/satisfaction, for the holy, righteous demands of God against our sins.

Yours and His,
David

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch, the verses I posited above tell me that Christ's death/His shed blood is the, propitiation/appeasement/satisfaction, for the holy, righteous demands of God against our sins.

Yours and His,
David

I understand. I just don't buy that there was a payment to God. I think that impugns His character. I also doesn't follow logically as the Scriptures are replete with statements that speak of forgiveness of sins. There is no mention of a payment for sins. I think that whole idea comes out of the Reformation not the Bible.

 

[hedrick]

Hi Butch/Jordan, I hope your guys don't mind me jumping in here, but Romans 5 comes to mind.

several other passages are then listed.

The passage you quote say nothing about appeasing God’s wrath. They say that we are saved from wrath. Salvation is a general term, covering any way in which we don’t suffer wrath. Appease / propitiate suggests something more specific: that God requires punishment.

In fact both the OT and Jesus teach that we way we are saved from the wrath of God is by repentance. Christ’s role in this is the establishment of the new covenant, which writes God’s law in our hearts, thus enabling us to repent. In both the words of Institution and Heb 9, Jesus’ death is understood as a covenant sacrifice, associated with establishing this new covenant. (Heb 9:1 - 10:18 talks about the necessity of sacrifice. But it’s talking about a covenant sacrifice. Note that it contrasts the old covenant with the new, talks about the sacrifices associated with establishing both covenants.)

The only way to understand Jesus’ death as propitiation is to read this concept into passages that don’t say it. Thus any passage saying that Christ saves us from judgement is understood as saying that it appeases God’s wrath, even though the passage doesn’t actually say that. And any reference to sacrifice is understood as appeasement of God for sin, even when the sacrifice is explicitly described as a covenant sacrifice. It doesn’t help when a term that covers atonement in general is translated “propitiation.”

 

[jerry kelso]

I understand. I just don't buy that there was a payment to God. I think that impugns His character. I also doesn't follow logically as the Scriptures are replete with statements that speak of forgiveness of sins. There is no mention of a payment for sins. I think that whole idea comes out of the Reformation not the Bible.

butch5,

1. Payment for sins comes from one basic scripture, which is, we were bought with a price.

2. The biggest context would be the substitutionary penal system which promotes Christ as our substitute and cast a perception of a cash payment and promotes things like UES.

3. It is true that God required a blood sacrifice for sins which started at least with Cain and Abel with the proper sacrifice of a lamb which we have to assume had to do with blood even though it doesn't literally say that because the blood is what saves. Now that was a type back then and Abraham ready to sacrifice Isaac was a type of Christ being slain as God's son Genesis 22:1-13; Moses and the passover over the door post in Egypt Exodus 12:21-27 and on and on until Christ came and said the new testament was his blood which is his death on the cross.

4. It is true man could not be the substitute for man being sinful from birth as in Adam death passed upon all men and death be sin Romans 5:12 because sin is why we die physically and spiritually to begin with as in the garden of Eden. Genesis 3:19-24. This leaves either the Christadelphian doctrine of Christ being just a sinless man and not the divine Son of God or the God-man or Christ being the divine sacrifice which involves the God-man and the kenosis of Christ.

5. There was no man that could fill the shoes of redemption and adequately fill the position completely of being the mediator between God and man unless he was divine and man. This is why the kenosis of Christ and the nature of Christ being God and man have to be understood in the proper perspective.
There was no man that could satisfy the penalty of sin and Christ gave himself freely not as a slave to sin and in this respect he was no substitute.

6. The payment for sin was not like a transaction of money because then he would have been indebted in the first place to sin.

7. God paying sins past, present, and future is not true in the light of every person if you took it at face value. If this were true then there would be no need for grace and mercy and forgiveness of sins because the debt would have been paid and satisfied once and for all. This shoots down the Penal Substitutionary Payment Theory.

8. UES that believe in the Penal Substitutionary Payment Theory believe that Christ died for the sins of the world but because we have to ask for forgiveness and believe in Christ etc. the past, present, and future sins of a believer are paid for and thus they can have eternal security and never lose their salvation and many other extremes of that doctrine.
If one pays the debt for a car there is nothing else that has to be done to have basic complete ownership of the car, etc.
Christ death on the cross according to Hebrews 9:15 was why he became the mediator of the new covenant for the redemption of the sins that were under the first testament so they could receive eternal inheritance. This is what Hebrews 11:40 is saying in essence of believers in the old testament having to be perfected in salvation with us new covenant believers when Christ died.

9. Bought with a price 1 Corinthians 6:20. This would be suffering on the cross. for it is suffering on the cross that satisfied the penalty for sin and why we should glorify God as believers for our bodies and souls and in our spirit. 1 Peter 1:18-19 we were redeemed not by corruptible things such as silver and gold but by the precious blood of the spotless lamb. This was suffering on the cross and the price for the penalty of sin.
So past, present, and future sins were not paid as in a cash payment but settled as the ransom of satisfaction for the penalty which was by the blood of the Savior. The blood is the lifeline of all human life physically and the physical and spiritual life of a believer because the cross guaranteed spiritual victory because when he said it was finished on the cross the work of redemption was through and guaranteed the resurrection which will give us eternal life physically forever in righteousness with Christ etc.

10. Reformed theology do purport this idea of payment for sins which involve the doctrine of reformed theology as a whole of predestination of Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints known as the T-U-L-I-P. Jerry Kelso

 

[BABerean2]

If you want to find out if a doctrine is sound, check to see if it produces any conflicts in the text.

Next find out who first came up with the doctrine and when they came up with it.

The Old Covenant/ New Covenant and the Sabbath

(Every Christian needs to see this message.)


What is New Covenant Theology?
Pastor Douglas Goodin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHR99-rnqt8

.

 

[Butch5]

butch5,

1. Payment for sins comes from one basic scripture, which is, we were bought with a price.

2. The biggest context would be the substitutionary penal system which promotes Christ as our substitute and cast a perception of a cash payment and promotes things like UES.

3. It is true that God required a blood sacrifice for sins which started at least with Cain and Abel with the proper sacrifice of a lamb which we have to assume had to do with blood even though it doesn't literally say that because the blood is what saves. Now that was a type back then and Abraham ready to sacrifice Isaac was a type of Christ being slain as God's son Genesis 22:1-13; Moses and the passover over the door post in Egypt Exodus 12:21-27 and on and on until Christ came and said the new testament was his blood which is his death on the cross.

4. It is true man could not be the substitute for man being sinful from birth as in Adam death passed upon all men and death be sin Romans 5:12 because sin is why we die physically and spiritually to begin with as in the garden of Eden. Genesis 3:19-24. This leaves either the Christadelphian doctrine of Christ being just a sinless man and not the divine Son of God or the God-man or Christ being the divine sacrifice which involves the God-man and the kenosis of Christ.

5. There was no man that could fill the shoes of redemption and adequately fill the position completely of being the mediator between God and man unless he was divine and man. This is why the kenosis of Christ and the nature of Christ being God and man have to be understood in the proper perspective.
There was no man that could satisfy the penalty of sin and Christ gave himself freely not as a slave to sin and in this respect he was no substitute.

6. The payment for sin was not like a transaction of money because then he would have been indebted in the first place to sin.

7. God paying sins past, present, and future is not true in the light of every person if you took it at face value. If this were true then there would be no need for grace and mercy and forgiveness of sins because the debt would have been paid and satisfied once and for all. This shoots down the Penal Substitutionary Payment Theory.

8. UES that believe in the Penal Substitutionary Payment Theory believe that Christ died for the sins of the world but because we have to ask for forgiveness and believe in Christ etc. the past, present, and future sins of a believer are paid for and thus they can have eternal security and never lose their salvation and many other extremes of that doctrine.
If one pays the debt for a car there is nothing else that has to be done to have basic complete ownership of the car, etc.
Christ death on the cross according to Hebrews 9:15 was why he became the mediator of the new covenant for the redemption of the sins that were under the first testament so they could receive eternal inheritance. This is what Hebrews 11:40 is saying in essence of believers in the old testament having to be perfected in salvation with us new covenant believers when Christ died.

9. Bought with a price 1 Corinthians 6:20. This would be suffering on the cross. for it is suffering on the cross that satisfied the penalty for sin and why we should glorify God as believers for our bodies and souls and in our spirit. 1 Peter 1:18-19 we were redeemed not by corruptible things such as silver and gold but by the precious blood of the spotless lamb. This was suffering on the cross and the price for the penalty of sin.
So past, present, and future sins were not paid as in a cash payment but settled as the ransom of satisfaction for the penalty which was by the blood of the Savior. The blood is the lifeline of all human life physically and the physical and spiritual life of a believer because the cross guaranteed spiritual victory because when he said it was finished on the cross the work of redemption was through and guaranteed the resurrection which will give us eternal life physically forever in righteousness with Christ etc.

10. Reformed theology do purport this idea of payment for sins which involve the doctrine of reformed theology as a whole of predestination of Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints known as the T-U-L-I-P. Jerry Kelso

I know what the doctrine of Penal atonement is. I just submit that it is not Biblical.

 

[mark46]

I understand. I just don't buy that there was a payment to God. I think that impugns His character. I also doesn't follow logically as the Scriptures are replete with statements that speak of forgiveness of sins. There is no mention of a payment for sins. I think that whole idea comes out of the Reformation not the Bible.

I don't think that the doctrine as understood by much of the West comes from the Reformation. I think that Anselm bears some responsibility.

With regard to it clearly being non-scriptural, I think that you might be a bit more respectful of the leaders of the many Western churches, and their followers through the centuries. There is a very serious difference of opinion with regard to the teaching of Scripture on this matter.

If we are to reject penal substitution for ransom, then we might examine some of our other Western views on related subjects. For example, do you accept the commonly held Protestant view that we bear Adam's sin?

 

[Butch5]

I don't think that the doctrine as understood by much of the West comes from the Reformation. I think that Anselm bears some responsibility.

With regard to it clearly being non-scriptural, I think that you might be a bit more respectful of the leaders of the many Western churches, and their followers through the centuries. There is a very serious difference of opinion with regard to the teaching of Scripture on this matter.

If we are to reject penal substitution for ransom, then we might examine some of our other Western views on related subjects. For example, do you accept the commonly held Protestant view that we bear Adam's sin?

I agree that the idea started with Anselm. However, his doctrine leaned more towards satisfaction than Penal. That's why I say it's a Reformation doctrine. I'm not sure how you think I'm being disrespectful. There is nothing in the Scriptures that suggests that one can give a payment to God for the remission of sins. Penal atonement is in contradiction with the Scriptures on multiple points. I agree there is a vast difference of opinion on the subject, however, I'm not so sure it's unintentional. I see Christians, leaders included, who simply ignore evidence that shows this doctrine is wrong.

No, I don't hold the Protestant view that we bear Adam's sin. Actually, I don't have much in common with modern Christianity at all, let alone Protestantism. The amount of erroneous teaching in the churches today is unbelievable. That's why I've rejected it. I could list a bunch of modern doctrines that are not Biblical, yet are taught routinely in Churches all over America.

 

[_Jordan_]

I understand. I just don't buy that there was a payment to God. I think that impugns His character. I also doesn't follow logically as the Scriptures are replete with statements that speak of forgiveness of sins. There is no mention of a payment for sins. I think that whole idea comes out of the Reformation not the Bible.

I would affirm what st_worm2 is saying. When speaking of Gods wrath we need be very careful as it shouldn't be understood the way we may experience and see "wrath" from fellow humans. To understand divine wrath as how a fallen human, king, or tyrant shows wrath is just not accurate. The same way it would be wrong for us to understand Gods love in the same terms of our own experience of love, which is fallen at times; corrupt, conditional, bias etc. The truth is Gods ways are infinitely more pure and wise than ours (Isaiah 55:9)

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts"

So when speaking of Gods wrath, it's not some unfair, uncontrolled, ravenous action we unfortunately know too well. Rather it's a just response to sin, as you've shown in Romans. 1:18. Those also who suffer Gods wrath in hell will do so justly. I.e exactly what they deserve of it (luke 12,47-48).

So the question that is asked here is, does God punish all sin?(this is essentially what is being argued here when you boil it down). And from the bible the answer seen is yes.(Galatians6:7)(proverbs7,15)(2corinthians5:10)He is extremely patient with people though, wishing that all would repent (2 peter3:9) but this doesn't mean he turns his eye away from injustice. Eventually he does repay all what they've done. What I argue is that all sins are paid for, either by that person, or in the cross of Christ.

As proverbs7,15 states:
"He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous are alike an abomination to the LORD"

If god justifies wicked people without doing anything concerning that persons wickedness, how is he just, by his own standards in prov7,15. The propitiatory death of Christ as clearly stated in romans3,23-26 is the answer to this "dilemma", the sacrificial system in the OT bears witness to this also; Gods holiness and justice. God is just is all his ways. And this is What makes the love of GOD so special! That he was willing to atone and literally bear our sins...Isaiah 53:5:

"But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed"

... so that we could enjoy and glorify him, although we don't deserve it. And he does this in such a way that his justice isn't broken (despite proverbs7,15). Substitutionary Atonement is the only way God could remain just, "and the justifer" romans3,26.

I think this video is very sound on the topic.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would affirm what st_worm2 is saying. When speaking of Gods wrath we need be very careful as it shouldn't be understood the way we may experience and see "wrath" from fellow humans. To understand divine wrath as how a fallen human, king, or tyrant shows wrath is just not accurate. The same way it would be wrong for us to understand Gods love in the same terms of our own experience of love, which is fallen at times; corrupt, conditional, bias etc. The truth is Gods ways are infinitely more pure and wise than ours (Isaiah 55:9)

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts"

So when speaking of Gods wrath, it's not some unfair, uncontrolled, ravenous action we unfortunately know too well. Rather it's a just response to sin, as you've shown in Romans. 1:18. Those also who suffer Gods wrath in hell will do so justly. I.e exactly what they deserve of it (luke 12,47-48).

So the question that is asked here is, does God punish all sin?(this is essentially what is being argued here when you boil it down). And from the bible the answer seen is yes.(Galatians6:7)(proverbs7,15)(2corinthians5:10)He is extremely patient with people though, wishing that all would repent (2 peter3:9) but this doesn't mean he turns his eye away from injustice. Eventually he does repay all what they've done. What I argue is that all sins are paid for, either by that person, or in the cross of Christ.

As proverbs7,15 states:
"He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous are alike an abomination to the LORD"

If god justifies wicked people without doing anything concerning that persons wickedness, how is he just, by his own standards in prov7,15. The propitiatory death of Christ as clearly stated in romans3,23-26 is the answer to this "dilemma", the sacrificial system in the OT bears witness to this also; Gods holiness and justice. God is just is all his ways. And this is What makes the love of GOD so special! That he was willing to atone and literally bear our sins...Isaiah 53:5:

"But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed"

... so that we could enjoy and glorify him, although we don't deserve it. And he does this in such a way that his justice isn't broken (despite proverbs7,15). Substitutionary Atonement is the only way God could remain just, "and the justifer" romans3,26.

I think this video is very sound on the topic.

An irony that occurred to me as I read your post is that, in some sense, I might use the very same argument AGAINST the idea of penal substitution.

Indeed, in a sense you are arguing that God simply justifies the wicked, without actually doing anything about it, other than punishing someone who didn't deserve punishment.

Within our theology, it isn't just some "payment" that God applies to one's ledger account. God actually does justify, and if we cooperate in the process, we are actually made more like Christ.

Of course, we do not earn salvation. I'm NOT saying that. And sometimes, such as the thief on the cross next to Christ, the person dies without time to be changed much (presumably). This is a very small part of the reason that we don't judge the eternal salvation of anyone.

There is a difference between substitutionary atonement and penal substitution. We may speak of substitution being one aspect of atonement without requiring a vengeful God only appeased by suffering and requiring pain as "payment" though.

I did very much appreciate your drawing a connection between not thinking of God's love in the same terms as human love as an example of not thinking of God's wrath in terms of human wrath.

But we are not told directly in Scripture that "God is wrath" while we ARE told that God IS love.