"Wrath of God" as used in the Scriptures

As the Jews are no longer captive in all nations but are free to return, the times of the Gentiles must be fulfilled. Some may believe that they ended when Allenby led is horse into Jerusalem overthrowing Turkish rule over the city in 1917, 1335 in the Muslim calendar.

 

The end of the time of the gentiles is unfixed as far as exactly the specific day or year.

Some consider the time of the end of the gentiles began in 1948. (This is my own, too)

Some consider after Jerusalem came under the control of Israel in 1967.

It matters little.

All world events aligned with some prophecy should do for the believer is cause them to obey the Lord's statement of encouragement. "Look up, (hold your head up) you redemption draws near." When people get discouraged or old, they tend to look down, but one who is confidently bold looks to the horizon. The elderly have to remind themselves to keep their eyes off their steps, because looking down causes a greater potential to fall.

There is a spiritual lesson in there, somewhere. :)

 

What I said is the opposite of your DoG. You say God selected non-believers, and scripture says God selects believers.

Talk about absurdity. Your actual view is when Christ died, He took away the sin of the previously chosen elect individuals, and did not take away the sin of those not previously chosen. So your statement not only conflicts with truth, it conflicts with your bogus view. The actual biblical view is Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all mankind, but only those God transfers into Christ receive the reconciliation provided by His blood.

Thus the Wrath of God refers to the individual consequences we store up when we sin, unless our sins have been forgiven and set aside through the blood of Christ.

 

I enjoy your stating what I do and don't have as a view. But you are wrong.

First, there tis no reason for God to select believers in regard to them acquiring salvation. The Scriptures contend that all have not met the standard of God. Therefore ONLY those who HE selects are redeemed from their former estate of condemnation. One does not redeem the self, and then God approves of the redemption.

Second, it is obvious that you did not read carefully of posts considering my view by attempting to inappropriately alignment. Perhaps your own statements are conflicted, but that is for others to attend. The apostle John clearly states the blood of Christ was shed for all. It is also the prophecy fulfilled found in Isaiah 53, " the iniquity of us all." No per-qualifier, no if then statement, just a done by Christ and unrestricted.

Well at least you agree that Romans indicates that humankind actually store up the wrath.

 

First, we are saved by grace through faith, therefore our salvation is through our faith.
Next, 2 Thess. 2:13 says we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election.
No scripture anywhere supports your bogus view.

Did anyone suggest we redeem ourselves? Nope. So yet another misrepresentation.

Did anyone say the blood of Christ was not shed for all? Nope. So yet another misrepresentation.

Now we do have an actual difference of view. Your side says Christ died for the elect only, thus His blood was not shed for all mankind. My side says Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all mankind, and therefore He became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all mankind. But only those God selects (through faith in the truth) are transferred into Christ where they receive the reconciliation provided by His blood.

 

The death of Jesus was and is sufficient in its worth to have saved all sinners, as God Himself was hanging there, but the effectual application of it ONLY applies towards the Elect in Christ!

 

Oh, my!

Van, do you not recall that the believer is given that measure of faith from God?

There is no innate "faith" that can warrant God's approval for eternal life.

Rather, John 1 states that it is God that gives the power to become His children.

2 Thess 2:13 does not support your statement.

13But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
​

Perhaps you can point out the exact place this verse states that that it is the believer's faith and not the faith given to the believer by God? Here is a link that you can use to discover the use of "pistis" (faith) in the NT. HERE
Note: "Faith is ALWAYS a gift from God..." (emphasis mine)

Have you not been in discussions with others on this point, and yet you would claim my view bogus?

​

You did in this post by stating, "...our salvation is through our faith." So that is your own view, or you need change the statement, Van.

Either faith is innately human, or granted as a gift from God.

Not at all.

I was responding to your misalignment of my statements with those who would limit the atonement by limiting the blood. Here is your quote from a previous post:

"Your actual view is when Christ died, He took away the sin of the previously chosen elect individuals, and did not take away the sin of those not previously chosen."​

I refuted that statement in the previous post, yet you seem to have missed the opportunity for expressing a bit of agreement.

And you go on to attempt to align me with what I disagree. That is just a lack of comprehension, or it is so opinion biased, that you would lump everyone together that disagrees with you.

Look at what you state:

Please take exactly what I posted above, and show were I state "Christ died for the elect only.."

Unless you can prove it by actually quoting my statement in some post on this thread, then it is you who are misrepresenting what is accurate in differentiating our views.

You should learn to restate a persons view so that they would agree that is their view before trying to refute the view. At least that way one

 

Yes, I used to agree with such thinking, but being driven to verify it through the writings of especially the Apostle John, would not allow me to continue but implored me to modify.

John records that the work of redemption is limited by the Father's sovereign desire. Not that there was a lack of blood application.

John's wording is so very specific, that one must understand that the blood was in fact shed for all, without regard to being redeemed or not. (1 John)

Therefore, the redemption is not conditioned upon blood, but upon belief. (John 3).

Yeshua, it took a number of years to give in on this and submit to the truth of the Scriptures on this one area of the Doctrines of Grace. Yet, I found that a greater number of scholarship is starting to acknowledge John's specific statements as factual.

Basically, as I did, this scholarship is finding John never used hyperbole accept in accurately quoting the hyperbole statements used by the ungodly. Therefore, even in quoting others, John was extremely accurate in each statement of the record. Because the words he used were extremely accurate, and that when he said "all" he actually meant "all" it cannot be taken as some figure of speech.

I trust you will grant me this, but if you disagree and desire to contend, show me by the original language use of John that he was not specific about the blood sacrifice of the Lord being applied equally for everyone.

It doesn't mean everyone is redeemed, that is improper alignment. To often application of blood was paired with redemption, and whoever started such thinking was just wrong. The wrong has been perpetuated, because of reactionary voices, rather than the truth.

Rather, such as I have stated, the blood sacrifice for all then places the redemption squarely upon the fact of belief (John 3).

No one at the GWT judgment will be able to claim that the blood of Christ was not shed for them, that they are condemned out of some lack on the part of Christ's work.

 

So you would hold to Universalism then
For even those that hold to Unlimited Atonement views would agree with us holding to limited atonement that the blood of Jesus ONLY is applied towards the saved!

 

Quit trying to label, and attend to the Scriptures.

Prove by John's statements using the original language.

If you can show by the original language, that the blood was not shed for all, just as the OT blood sprinkled was for all in the land, including strangers, then I may recant.

But having been where you are, and thoroughly working through the topic over and over, I cannot escape the view John held in favor of someone lesser who had some agenda driven desire to withhold the blood for gain. (As was and is done by the papists).

 

Again, ONLY Universalists would see the blood of Jesus applied towards in sinners in a saving sense!
ALL, apart from those who are saved, will still suffer the wrath of God on them, and are still not reconciled back to God, correct?

 

And again, you would rather label than deal with the Scriptures.

See part of the problem is your desire to show salvation and the blood are the same. It is not. John 3 is very clear that salvation is by BELIEF, that God's gift of His Son was accomplished out of love for the creation (Kosmos). Do you have no work to show on the clear statement of John both in the Gospel and the letter to prove your thinking?

The mistake some make (not to be ascribed to you) is to pretend the blood is somehow held back in some manner until one is redeemed, and then applied. Paul refutes that in places such as Colossians 1. Also in the opening verses of Romans 5, Paul states that "While WE were helpless, Christ died for the UNGODLY." Does he mean that not everyone is/was ungodly? Paul is not putting the death of Christ as only pertaining to the select of the ungodly, there is no qualifier in the original language to indicate such would even be in consideration.

The blood is important, the cross important, but the preaching is that both those are already accomplished that God and man may be reconciled. Are all reconciled? Of course not!

How about the statement of Isaiah that "...the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." which is also to be translated everybody, all inclusive, none left out.

All I ask is that you show me proof by Scriptures. I have given you indications of multiple places from both the old and new from temple type to clear statements of what I hold to be truthful.

Do not use some label you assume is fitting, because then the discussion degenerates into a couple little children on the playground with one saying, "Yes, you are" and the other saying, "No, I'm not."

Prove by Scriptures that what I posted is inaccurate. Especially, that of the use by John, for if there is a person who recorded most precisely and accurately, it is that writing of John. He was most methodical, and extremely careful.

 

The scriptures are VERY clear that ONLY those who get saved will benefit from the Cross, as the warth of God still abides on those who reject Jesus, as per John, and that they are still not reconciled and already judged as condemned!

 

Really?

But you can share no Scriptures as proof for your statements? At least I have given you some, but you don't even show if or how what I presented were used inaccurately.

I am not contending with you on why the wrath is upon the unredeemed, any more than I am showing that Hebrews teaches that a believer who has fallen away cannot be renewed. (Heb 6).

What you have failed to prove is that John was and is not to be taken as truthful.

You haven't even shown by Scripture that the blood doesn't benefit the lost, or even the benefit to the redeemed. Yet, I did, by showing how that NOW we are to preach the message of reconciliation as Paul stated. Reconciliation is a benefit to both unredeemed and redeemed. For without that blood, the message would be a lie to the ungodly.

You have merely regurgitated old worn out arguments that are unsupported by John. Prove by posting Scriptures, and how the original language(s) support your contention.

 

The message is now that God is reconciled Himself to those who have received Jesus as their Messiah, and have the Holy Spirit in them. ONLY the saved have the Spirit, and no Spirit, no reconciliation to God!

 

You post what Paul did not. Your claims are constructed from pure opinion.

Do you actually not have Scriptures to offer for support?

If you don't, then I suggest you look to them for your support rather than what you have offered.

 

Folks, the fictiobn just keeps coming. We are not only saved through faith, we were chosen for salvation through faith, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. The false theology once again has it backwards, saved then given faith. But note no scripture says that.
Then we have have John 1:12-13 which says after we have received Christ, then we are given the right to become children of God. Once again, the false theology has it backwards,

Next we get the falsehood, that being chosen and saved through our faith means we redeemed ourselves. But it is God who either credits our faith as righteousness or not. So us professing faith does not redeem us. Only God through the blood of Christ redeems us.

Next we get the absurd claim we being chosen through faith might mean chosen then given faith. All these folks do is a straight up denial of scripture.

Next we get the false and absurd claim that if God does not prevent us from coming to faith (by hardening our hearts) that means God compels us to faith through irresistible grace. Utter nonsense. Their whole theology is ridiculous.

Returning to topic: We store up the wrath of God when we sin, the consequence of missing the mark. Only those God transfers into Christ and undergo the washing of regeneration have their sins forgiven, removing the wrath of God which they had stored up.

 

Can anyone spell, obstinate?

Is this post an example of truth or fiction?

Every paragraph has been discussed and Scriptures given in contention by the BB folks, yet the poster remains entrenched in posting such as is above.


O B S T I N A T E (or) O B E D I EN C E

My friend, Mike Greene and his wife (Ruth), wrote the song, in which the first line is ; "Obedience is the very best way to show that we believe..."

Some may like to hear it from here.

 

Yet another totally off topic attack post claiming my behavior is flawed.
Has any scripture been given which says we are not saved by grace through faith? Thus faith according to scripture comes before salvation. Has any scripture been given that says we were not chosen through faith in the truth? Thus faith according to scripture comes before our individual election for salvation.

The only way to avoid the wrath of God is for God to place us into Christ, as He is the propitiatory shelter from the wrath of God.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

 

Does nature ever have life coming from the dead?

Rather, doesn't nature itself mirror the creator of life, by life giving birth to life, no matter the species?

Yet, your claim that those dead in trespasses, with hearts overflowing with iniquity, can generate some measure of human effort called faith that meets or can get God's attention so that He will validate their effort of human faith as good enough to grant salvation. That is nothing more than a work based salvation.

You actually do post something according to Scripture, but neglect to state that the wrath of God is that which the ungodly have STORED UP for themselves.

So, the wrath of God would not be that of God's being angered and that being stored up, but that delivered by God of human storing.

But your post causes the pause for questions.

In the quote, who does the justification?

Which are you suggesting then initiates the other from your quote?

Are ungodly humans first justified then of their own faith get salvation to believe?

Are they first by their own faith saved, then justified, then believe?

Perhaps the ungodly first believe, then are justified, then of their own faith saved?

Just how do you see the Scripture you quoted working out to your view, considering the wrath humankind stored up by God?

Are you actually attempting to suggest that the Cross was insufficient for all?

Your presentation suggests some inconsistencies.