Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Aspects of Atonement: What Did Jesus' Death on the Tree Accomplish?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
    The whole notion that the Father requires a payment of some sort to quell his wrath strikes me as a rather pagan notion. If we are to maintain a unity within the godhead, there is no possible way the Father could ever be at enmity with the Son. God is not at enmity with God.
    Do you think it's possible for the Son to be a substitute yet while not being at emnity with the Father?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      Do you think it's possible for the Son to be a substitute yet while not being at emnity with the Father?
      Yes. I think we should be careful not to conflate penal substitution with substitution itself. In other words, Jesus may be considered our substitute, yes, but this does not mean his substitutionary work on our behalf was necessarily penal in nature. Substitutionary atonement may be affirmed, but penal substitution need not be.
      For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
        Yes. I think we should be careful not to conflate penal substitution with substitution itself. In other words, Jesus may be considered our substitute, yes, but this does not mean his substitutionary work on our behalf was necessarily penal in nature. Substitutionary atonement may be affirmed, but penal substitution need not be.
        This impression seems difficult to shake, however, seeing as evangelicals typically assume "substitutionary atonement" and penal substitution are synonymous. They are not.
        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
          This impression seems difficult to shake, however, seeing as evangelicals typically assume "substitutionary atonement" and penal substitution are synonymous. They are not.
          Must penal substitution result in wrath directed at the substitute?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            Must penal substitution result in wrath directed at the substitute?
            Must substitution be penal in nature?
            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
              Must substitution be penal in nature?
              No. But I'd like an answer to my question.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                Do you think it's possible for the Son to be a substitute yet while not being at emnity with the Father?
                Yes. In the OT, unrepented sin pollutes the land. I believe we can see this in operation around us. I think Is 53 and the atonement result when someone takes those consequences on himself. When we join him in faith, we accept responsibility for what he did for us, and thus repent. I don't believe Jesus was really at enmity with the Father, but his quotation of Ps 22 from the cross may suggest that part of the consequences he accepted was at least a subjective separation from the Father.

                This is why when I suggested people who ransom might be paid to, one of my possibilities was the Accounting Office. God is certainly angry at sin, and as sinners qua sinners. But his anger isn't the problem. It's the existence of sin that hasn't been dealt with that is the problem. And that's an objective situation that has consequences. Our problem isn't that God demands someone to punish before he will forgive us, but that by failing to repent, we create an imbalance in the Force that he to be dealt with. I think in the OT unhandled sin is actually seen as this kind of objective force.

                Jesus didn't say all of this. What he said was that his blood was the blood of the new covenant. That makes his death a covenant sacrifice. The covenant is normally understood to be a reference to Jer 31:31. So it seems to be reasonable to say that he expected his death to give us new hearts, writing the new Law into our hearts. This seems to be to be in effect repentance. In my opinion, Rom 6 is a reasonable reflection on the significant of jesus' death, as Jesus presumably understood it. When we have faith in Christ, we become responsible creatures before God, being renewed as part of the new covenant.

                Perhaps this is an over interpretation of what Jesus actually said, but I think the signs are there.

                Unlike many Christians, I don't think God needed to sacrifice Christ in order to forgive sins. After all, he forgave people before Christ. But before he can establish the Kingdom, or the new covenant, he needs a way to deal with the consequences more completely. Act 17:30, Rom 3:25-26. (Note that I am not saying that he completely ignored sin, just that he accepted a general repentant attitude that didn't deal with it in the way that the new covenant does.)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Hedric: I find your usage of "Force" and the ransom idea rather curious, but otherwise I agree completely. The new covenant would also be understood to be a fulfillment of the promise in Deut 30, which Paul uses extensively in Romans 10.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                    Where does it explicitly say in Scripture that Jesus was offered as a ransom to the Father?
                    1. Deuteronomy 12:27
                    And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.
                    1. Isaiah 1:11
                    To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
                    Originally posted by Dacristoy
                    The blood sacrifice is offered to God
                    Hebrews11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
                    12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
                    Originally posted by dacristoy
                    the appeasement of the blood of Christ is the substitution for the blood of bulls and goats offered to God in the old covenant.
                    13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
                    14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
                    15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
                    16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
                    17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
                    18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
                    19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
                    20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
                    21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
                    22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
                    23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
                    24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
                    25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
                    26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
                    27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
                    28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
                    Romans 5
                    King James Version (KJV)
                    5 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
                    2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
                    8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
                    9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
                    10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
                    11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
                    18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
                    19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
                    20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
                    21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                      1. Deuteronomy 12:27
                      And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.
                      1. Isaiah 1:11
                      To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

                      Hebrews11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
                      12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

                      13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
                      14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
                      15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
                      16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
                      17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
                      18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
                      19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
                      20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
                      21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
                      22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
                      23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
                      24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
                      25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
                      26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
                      27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
                      28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
                      Romans 5
                      King James Version (KJV)
                      5 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
                      2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
                      8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
                      9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
                      10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
                      11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
                      18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
                      19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
                      20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
                      21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
                      We may say that Jesus was offered as a purification offering for sins, yes, but none of the texts you cited speak of Jesus being offered as a ransom to the Father in order to appease God's wrath.
                      Last edited by The Remonstrant; 03-28-2014, 03:37 PM.
                      For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                        Unlike many Christians, I don't think God needed to sacrifice Christ in order to forgive sins. After all, he forgave people before Christ. But before he can establish the Kingdom, or the new covenant, he needs a way to deal with the consequences more completely. Act 17:30, Rom 3:25-26. (Note that I am not saying that he completely ignored sin, just that he accepted a general repentant attitude that didn't deal with it in the way that the new covenant does.)
                        I'm inclined to agree. The point seems to be that we are to think of Christ's sacrifice as an expiation for sins. Jesus does not die in order to propitiate the wrath of God, but to expiate sins. This seems especially clear throughout First John.
                        Last edited by The Remonstrant; 03-28-2014, 03:44 PM.
                        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          [B]ut if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses [katharizei] us from all sin. . . . If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse [katharisē] us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:7,9 RSV)1

                          . . . he is the expiation [hilasmos] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (2:2)

                          You know that he appeared to take away [arē] sins, and in him there is no sin. (3:5)

                          In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation [hilasmon] for our sins. (4:10)

                          Throughout First John there is a special emphasis on the removal of sins. We are given no indication that the Father is the object of propitiation. Sin needs to be cleansed and taken away because it taints the purity of our relationship with the Creator. God's holiness is not the obstacle, but our impurity. Our sins need to be removed, not God's wrath placated by the death of his Son.


                          Note

                          1 All Scripture quotations are taken from the Revised Standard Version.
                          Last edited by The Remonstrant; 03-28-2014, 05:04 PM.
                          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                            The gospels - our main sources for the crucifixion event - in general do not see the crucifixion as 'atonement', whatever that is supposed to mean, or at least not explicitly. We shouldn't import what Paul or the author of Hebrews says about the cross into the gospel narratives, which will most likely result in us missing out what the narratives intend to convey. Rather, we should read the gospels as story - of course with Jesus' self-understanding of his own death at the center - and let them tell of the event from their own perspectives (keeping in mind that each gospel differs in perspective and emphases).
                            1) The gospels don't "see" the cruxifixion as anything explicitly; they give the historical account with very little editorial elaboration about its significance. However, they do place the event within the Passover context which implicitly draws in the idea of blood shed and spread to protect God's people from God's adverse judgment.

                            2) I appreciate your comment about understanding the gospels on their own terms. It drives me nuts when OT passages especially are immediately used to discuss Jesus without a thought for what they meant in their local context. Conversely, a bare biblical theology which ignores systematic considerations is no proper theology at all. If elsewhere in the Bible, God tells us what various historical accounts mean, then we are bound to incorporate what he tells us into our understand of the historical sections themselves.

                            3) John's gospel, at least, (1:29) is clear that Jesus came as "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." This would have called to mind the Passover lamb of Exodus 12 as I mentioned above (1 Peter 1:12 specifically links Jesus to Exodus 12's "lamb without blemish"), as well as the "lamb led to the slaughter" who bears God's wrath for the sake of the people in Isaiah 53. Acts 8:26-35 specifically calls out this connection between Isaiah 53's "lamb" and Jesus as being obvious to the first Christians, in the full light of Jesus' death and resurrection.

                            4) None of this should be understood as prejudicial to other aspects of Jesus' person and work; propitiation for sin was not his only purpose, as Hedrick rightly notes. But it certainly is one key aspect, and any theory of Jesus which omits it is missing something important.
                            Last edited by RBerman; 03-29-2014, 05:59 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                              1) The gospels don't "see" the cruxifixion as anything explicitly; they give the historical account with very little editorial elaboration about its significance. However, they do place the event within the Passover context which implicitly draws in the idea of blood shed and spread to protect God's people from God's adverse judgment.
                              Actually, I think Luke, at least, is pretty explicit with exodon, as The Remonstrant pointed out above, coupled with Jesus's quotation of Isaiah in Luke 4. That is:

                              [cite]“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
                              because he has anointed me
                              to proclaim good news to the poor.
                              He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
                              and recovering of sight to the blind,
                              to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
                              to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”[/cite]

                              2) I appreciate your comment about understanding the gospels on their own terms. It drives me nuts when OT passages especially are immediately used to discuss Jesus without a thought for what they meant in their local context. Conversely, a bare biblical theology which ignores systematic considerations is no proper theology at all. If elsewhere in the Bible, God tells us what various historical accounts mean, then we are bound to incorporate what he tells us into our understand of the historical sections themselves.
                              Yes, I agree.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                                The whole notion that the Father requires a payment of some sort to quell his wrath strikes me as a rather pagan notion. If we are to maintain a unity within the godhead, there is no possible way the Father could ever be at enmity with the Son. God is not at enmity with God.
                                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                                Yes. I think we should be careful not to conflate penal substitution with substitution itself. In other words, Jesus may be considered our substitute, yes, but this does not mean his substitutionary work on our behalf was necessarily penal in nature. Substitutionary atonement may be affirmed, but penal substitution need not be.
                                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                                This impression seems difficult to shake, however, seeing as evangelicals typically assume "substitutionary atonement" and penal substitution are synonymous. They are not.
                                Why would intra-divine enmity be required in order for Christ to pay a penalty owed by someone else, as in "penal substitution?" One might argue that the whole OT system of animal sacrifices seems like "a rather pagan notion" compared to what we are used to today, but the fact that such practices were common throughout the ancient world could just as easily speak to a shared original understanding, albeit corrupted and variegated over time. Certainly the concept of a burnt offering is one of the oldest in the Bible (Gen 4:3-4), and the idea that offerings are in some sense for sin is almost as ancient (Job 1:5). As to what that sense is, read on:

                                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                                The point seems to be that we are to think of Christ's sacrifice as an expiation for sins. Jesus does not die in order to propitiate the wrath of God, but to expiate sins. This seems especially clear throughout First John.
                                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                                [B]ut if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses [katharizei] us from all sin. . . . If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse [katharisē] us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:7,9 RSV)1

                                . . . he is the expiation [hilasmos] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (2:2)

                                You know that he appeared to take away [arē] sins, and in him there is no sin. (3:5)

                                In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation [hilasmon] for our sins. (4:10)

                                Throughout First John there is a special emphasis on the removal of sins. We are given no indication that the Father is the object of propitiation. Sin needs to be cleansed and taken away because it taints the purity of our relationship with the Creator. God's holiness is not the obstacle, but our impurity. Our sins need to be removed, not God's wrath placated by the death of his Son.
                                Why did you choose to use RSV for this quotation? Your usual preference is ESV, which uses "propitiation" for hilasmon-group words not only in 1 John 2:10 and 4:4, but most tellingly in Hebrews 2:17, which describes the OT sacrificial system as involving "propitiation for the sins of the people." If 1 John were as clear on "expiation, not propitiation" as you suggest, then we wouldn't see so many Bible translations (not only ESV, but also KJV, ASV, NKJV, HCSB, NASB, Young's, Douay-Rheims, etc.) using "propitiation" here, would we? (Interestingly, though the 1599 Geneva Bible uses "redemption" or "reconciliation" in these passages, its footnote for Romans 3 leaves no guess as to the sense meant: "Christ is he, which suffered punishment for our sins, and in whom we have remission of them.") Doesn't it beg the question of whether 1 John teaches propitiation or not, when you choose to quote only the one translation (one considered dubious among evangelicals due to its origins in the liberal mainline) that uses "expiation" rather than the several that use "propitiation," especially when your preferred translation uses "propitiation"? At the very least, transparency demands that you acknowledge the controversy over the translation of hilasmon-group words before citing a translation that leans toward a minority position. The issue will not be decided by the translation of that single word, but by the general question of whether the Bible depicts sin as something that generates wrath in God, thus requiring propitiation in the first place.

                                As I mentioned in the previous post, the idea of sacrifice protecting God's people from God's judgment appears in Exodus 12. The OT is quite clear that the sacrifices are to remove the guilt of sin (e.g. Leviticus 4:13,22; 5:1-6; etc.), and that guilt makes one liable to wrathful punishment by God (Exodus 32:7-10; Lev 10:1-6; 18:25; etc.). This makes it quite difficult to separate expiation from propitiation, practically speaking, although conceptually they can be distinguished.

                                Romans 1-3 commingle the ideas of expiation, forgiveness, and propitiation as well. "The righteousness of God" (1:17) correlates with faith, whereas "the wrath of God" (1:18) is upon those who do not honor God (1:21) and who thus "deserve to die." (1:32) God's "wrath and fury" are upon "those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth." (2:8) We need to obtain "the righteousness of God through faith in Christ Jesus for all who believe" (3:22) so that we can receive justification, the favorable judgment, "in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." If one reduces hilasmos to mere expiation rather than including propitiation, it becomes difficult to see what all the wrath/fury/"deserve to die" fuss was about, or how Jesus addresses it. Contra Hedrick, Romans 4:1-12 does indeed use an accounting metaphor to explain the way that righteousness can be forensically reckoned to the unrighteous, through faith.

                                So while one can readily assent that atonement does have an element of expiation, I do not see on what grounds one can deny an aspect of quelling God's wrath toward people for their sins, i.e. propitiation. God does not treat sin simply as a disease we have haplessly acquired, and from which we must be cured. There is an element of blame and justice as well.

                                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                                We may say that Jesus was offered as a purification offering for sins, yes, but none of the texts you cited speak of Jesus being offered as a ransom to the Father in order to appease God's wrath.
                                I agree with you and Hedrick that the ransom metaphor can be taken too far. The "ransom" texts of the NT (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim 2:6; 1 Peter 1:18; Rev 5:9) do not specify God as the one to whom ransom is being paid. The idea in view there is simply that of rescue by payment: rescue from "the futile ways inherited by your forefathers" (1 Tim 2:6), or from "the power of Sheol" (Hosea 13:14), or from foes and perils (Isaiah 35:10; 43:3; 51:11; Jer 31:11). This doesn't mean that the wrath of God is not a peril for which we need a solution, of course. Those whose sins are not covered are enemies of God (Rom 5:10; 11:28; Phil 3:18). Some try to construe this enmity in only one direction, i.e. solely from man toward God, with God not bearing any wrath toward those who hate him, but that doesn't do justice to the text in my estimation.
                                Last edited by RBerman; 03-29-2014, 10:21 AM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X