no, that's not what I mean to say. If you insist on slyly twisting my words in order to entrap me, I'll cease this nonsensical exchange.
I am saying God did not exactly throw a party when Adam and Eve sinned YET He simultaneously promised a Conqueror who would defeat satan.
Having been rescued from sin, God no longer sees us as sinners, so the wrath doesn't apply. See Rom 6:6-11.
Like I said, I don't read Cornelius VanTil (if that who you are referring to) nor am I an apologist of his.
If Adam hadn't sinned, there'd be no reason for Jesus' act of self-sacrifice. That's the most we can know and say.
He demonstrated love in the face of the evil He experienced, so that we would know His heart on the matter, so we would know His forgiveness directly. Forgiveness requires our willing acceptance of it in order for it to effect it's purpose; otherwise God may as well have just placed the elect in heaven to begin with without reference to our response, without reference to our sin. As it is, the cross gives us something to respond to.
God knows the beginning from the end, and continued to love his wayward creation despite their sin. But, yes, He hates evil and will still allow us to choose hell to the extent that we choose sin over Him. He won't endure evil forever.
There's no way to avoid that question, no matter what your theology of the atonement. After all, God could have created Adam and Eve with sufficient moral fiber that they didn't fall. He could equally well have simply removed sin by fiat, returning us to innocence and thus removing any cause for wrath. That seems to be what you've suggested. That's really a question you need to pose to God, not me.
CVT is christus victor theory. So how does it solve the problem of God's wrath on humans.
No, I am not ignorant of that theory. You seem to ignore what I write though, otherwise you would have acknowledged my knowledge of Gustav Aulen and his classic work on Christus Victor.
Like I said I don't pit one against the other but hold them in tandem, both are necessary. End of story.
It's not a bad point, and historically theologians have speculated on this and related questions. And while we cannot-or should not- say that Adam had to sin, as if he lacked anything that might've precluded his disobedience, or that God wanted him to, we can know that God, obviously, deemed it worthwhile to create knowing that sin and evil would result from man's abuse of his free will, and that He could nonetheless bring an even greater good out of it. And one aspect of that greater good might be that man knows good and evil, by directly, viscerally, experiencing both in this brave new world that he was exiled into, where his own will reigns, so that he might gain the wisdom with the help of revelation and grace to choose the Good alone, ultimately acknowledging God's existence, goodness, trustworthiness, and love-rather than doubting all that-so that he might finally love Him in return, a love which produces obedience by its nature, the right way. Man needs to learn to doubt himself in order to learn of his need for God-and so begin to trust Him.
That's how it works, in worldly affairs as well. Talk is cheap. Action makes a lasting impact. God willingly suffered that abuse, for us, for those who sinned, for those who 'hated Him without reason'. The cross is a direct appeal to our sense of justice when we see that light was attempted to be snuffed out by darkness, as it can directly convict us of sin including the primary sin of wanting God dismissed from our lives, Adam's original sin.
It shows that God's love and mercy are greater than His anger-that His forgiveness is inexhaustible whether we accept and benefit by it or not. Again, that was God on the cross. Any appeasement was done for and by Himself-for our sake.
