Featured "Wrath of God" as used in the Scriptures

Again, only if one subscribes to the limit of atonement as being a limit of the blood application.

I don't consider the Scriptures (especially that of John's record) place such a limit upon the blood, but that John's clear information is that redemption is limited by the will of the Father.

Therefore, the Roman's passage can be read without bending it to fit a scheme.

 

Why?

If in fact Christ died for the ungodly, then what is God "storing up?" Are not all ungodly? Have not all sinned?

Or , is Christ's blood held in suspension and spread again and again as folks come to belief or repent of their ways?

That doesn't fit Scriptures.

Christ died once, the blood was shed once.

The cross was pictured in the OT once a year sacrifice that took place. The blood was taken back behind the curtain one time, for ALL folks, Israeli including any strangers, and it didn't matter the heart condition of the people, only the one standing before God at the alter needed to have a pure heart.

See, even that OT picture doesn't fit such a scheme as some would portray in their limit of atonement meaning that there is a limit to the blood supply.

 

The question that was raised earlier in the thread was what were the contents of the bowls of the wrath of God.

If one takes the view that the bowls were titled "the wrath of God," then the contents could very well be the collection of all the sorrows believers from the beginning of time endured for the sake of God. That He has selected the time and place to repay the world and ungodly for such sorrows. Unfortunately, the Scriptures do not make it clear, but it matters little because the results are the same.

What is clear is that it is not God who gets the bowls, nor commands them to be gotten, nor pours them out upon the earth.

I point out two or three reasons in previous posts for such a consideration that the bowl contents are the heaps of sorrows endured.

The primary one is the message of reconciliation (as Paul said he preached), and that would mean that God has already been appeased from wrath. However, still He still promised vengeance for wrongs done to His family.


The main compelling reason for the bowl pouring is the preparation for the return of the believers with Christ. The purging of this world by the bowl contents is so devastating that later, in the millennium, groups of folks have to be appointed to go about the whole world putting up flags were the dead are so the groups of grave diggers can come bury them.

 

A bit of a long post, but trust you readers will find it edifying.

Two basic areas or problems have been disclosed in this thread in considering God and "wrath" when expressing it as God becoming angry or furious when individuals or nations sin.

First has already been pointed out. It is the matter of the sin question being resolved at the shed blood of Christ.

Paul states that he preached the message of reconciliation (2Cor.).

It follows that the path of reconciliation was already established and that the wrath concerning sin was resolved.

This in no way gives excuse or a pass for sin. For the worldly the results of sin is death. For the believers the results may certainly also be physical death or at least cleansing when confessed. These are well established principles in the Scripture, and little need arises to discuss this area, except to acknowledge there are certain who would disagree that the blood supplied by Christ was either sufficient or efficient for the whole world.

Second, is that God has total understanding, knows all considerations, and plans made of every detail that was to take place, the attitudes, and the exact people involved. All before the first sentences of Genesis. God already knew all that, in our time line of twenty-four hour news cycles, would ever take place throughout every part of the universe.

The logical question would follow, taken that God already knows the whole matter, for what reason then would He become furious, alarmed, or have cause so as to have wrath as some would characterize?

The answer can only be, He doesn't.

What then is the "wrath" and why is it manifested.

First, as already shared, the basic word(s) have the idea of rising up in opposition and settling with indignation.

Consider, what happens when God withdraws and removes His hand of protection, blessing, sustaining, and so on, from a person or nation? Humankind regard this as the wrath of God, however, God is not fighting against, but allowing sin to bear its fruit. "Whatever a man sows, that he will reap" is not a cute saying of reap what you sow. Any farmer knows that the seed produces far greater than another single seed.

From the human perspective, God is offended, God is angry, God is vengeful, God is paying back what is overdue.

However, what has God already shown in the Scriptures?

First, that there are two places prepared, one for the Godly and one for the ungodly.

Second, that God provided the Lamb and the way of reconciliation.

Third, few are those God chooses for most turn away from the light. Those who choose darkness do so because they hate the light. They purposefully turn away from the light.

Fourth, it is dreadful to find God has risen in opposition and settled in indignation against a man or nation. The outcome is never without great sorrow. As seen by humankind attributes and through fallen fleshly need to appease, because from a child, that is how the parenting example has been expressed, it is viewed as the Wrath of God.

Fifth, that God never moves away from humankind, rather they move away from Him. God doesn't move, humankind does.

This is a very important concept perhaps better understood by a short anecdote.

Back in the day, long before many readers were born, cars had seats. They weren't buckets, but benches. Girl friends or wives (before children) would sit close to the man, snuggled more often under his arm draped across the back of the seat. Affection was a shared experience, that is fondly remembered by some of us now old.

An elderly couple stopped at a light, and the wife sat looking out the widow heaving great sighs. After hearing this a few times, the elderly man looked over and said,"You want to tell me what your sighing about?"

"Oh, I was just thinking, of when when we were young and at a stop sign, you would kiss kiss me on the cheek, and driving down the road you'd have your arm across my shoulders or hold my hand. At a stop light you might even kiss me on the lips. We don't do that anymore, and I was wondering what happened? When did we get so far apart?"

The husband replied as only husbands do, "Woman, I wasn't the one that moved!"

 

Van,
I don't intend to get side tracked in this thread by discussing salvation, other than to state what I have already clearly posted

1) The apostle John is extremely precise in his writings in stating that the BLOOD was shed for all humankind, and that The Father selects those that do not turn from the light and gives that select group the authority (power to become His children. There is n o other reading of the Scriptures that taken in the most literal manner can be in disput.

2) I quoted the Scripture accurately. It is not my responsibility to determine how or what some may read into the passage.

3) Be a bit careful in understanding Paul talks about the furniture behind the curtain and John the actual blood sprinkled when they bring up the subject in their writings. If one doesnt remember, a small problem may occur in the thinking.

4) The consequence of sin for both believer and unbeliever is death, Paul makes that principle clear. John tells about the forgiveness and cleansing aspect.

5) What Paul also does make most certain is the condemnation is removed, that is there is no way for the believer to not get to heaven abd be condemned to the lake of fire.

 

Van! I am not certain I see the disagreement over John 1.

John is constantly showing contrasts in his writing, and one of those is light and darkness.

John 1 shares that the ones that embrace darkness, actively turns from the light. It is a purposeful turning away because they choose darkness rather than light. Only those who do not turn from the light are given the right, authority, power to become the Children of God. They do nothing to achieve the light, move into the light, or acquirer the light. All have the light shined on them, and those that don't turn away are redeemed.

Certainly, He selects who is to be redeemed. Are you embracing the Doctrines of Grace? Your statement could be read as at least partial agreement.

Lastly, either all sin of all the world was removed by the blood, or none was. Both OT picture and NT cross were for all, irregardless of the heart condition. Christ died for all, however it is The Father who according to 2 Cor. 5 does all the work of reconciliation and believers are the message bearers, the ambassadors of the Father.

All believers are brought before the Judgment seat of Christ. There is no wrath for believers, but as you said, the loss of rewards.

Now, a question about your statement about God storing up wrath for sins.

Do you actually have Scriptures to support such a view, for Romans 2 states that humans store up the wrath.

 

Just as you are entrenched in this part of a view of what is unsupportable from the strictest and most literal reading of Scriptures, I am of the opposite view by the strictest and most literal reading of the same Scriptures.

Two proofs from a single author should suffice. One written as a young adult the other written decades later when he was old.

John states both in the gospel that the ONLY disqualification from salvation is not blood insufficient but belief. In his letter to the assembly, he specifically states that the blood was shed for all men, not just the few. 1John 2:2. - all, the whole, entire, complete, the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment. (Taken from Strongs work on the two words (all, world) in 1John 2:2).

Your turn to prove John wrong by proving from the original language "all" does not mean "every single person who ever drew breath," and world does not include "the inhabitants of the world."

Unless you can do do, I will side with that Apostle rather than some contrivance that is of human desire and has no Scripture support.