How Does UR Reconcile God's Love with God's Wrath?

[marie glen]

I have always thought of the wrath of God as natural consequences and results.. as natural law very much consciously established by God.. much like, the wages of sin (result of imperfection) is the opposite of life/God(perfection).. primary lesson of life/living, to wander from God brings calamity, collapse, into smoke and ashes, which smoke/memory will rise up forever and ever.. calamity/collapse/wrath when it occurs unveils truth..

[Seth]

I have always thought of the wrath of God as natural consequences and results.. as natural law very much consciously established by God.. much like, the wages of sin (result of imperfection) is the opposite of life/God(perfection).. primary lesson of life/living, to wander from God brings calamity, collapse, into smoke and ashes, which smoke/memory will rise up forever and ever.. calamity/collapse/wrath when it occurs unveils truth..

I really like that explanation. In fact I think Romans 1 and 2 read in their entirety, top to bottom, really show the wrath of God as the natural consequences of sin.

[watchman1706]

By a pastor-theologian who won't even sign his own name, how intellectually courageous.

I think Michael R. Jones put his name in the website URL :-)

It amazes me how many people who disagree with UR so vehemently spend sooo much time and effort in writing articles and tomes disagreeing with it. I would never invest my own time and thoughts in something I disagreed with so strongly. I would get on with my own life. I don't really care about what they think. I have already come to my position after much consideration, prayer, study and God's dealings. Why would people imagine I would change my position after reading their opinion. We each must walk our own road. I don't know why people even feel the need to post other peoples anti-UR opinions. They don't mean anything and have no power over the truth we already believe.

I could argue the contrary. It's a duty to spread  the info. Many people in both OT and NT teach about God and often at the same time rebuking false doctrine.

Teaching and rebuking is virtually the same. If Gary defends/teaches UR he attacks everything not UR.

I don't really care about what they think. I have already come to my position after much consideration, prayer, study and God's dealings. Why would people imagine I would change my position after reading their opinion.

Did you really form your own opinion by Bible study only? Until that point you never read a commentary? You never listened to a sermon? You never discussed a verse with someone?

I think it's never good to assume 'you' found the right position. You simply do not have the right position unless you are God Himself. There are always good things that can be perfected, flaws that needs to be cut out and new things to be learned.

So your take on this whitewings was to admonish me.....feel better now?

[eaglesway]

Wrath(death) is real, but it is temporal, it eventually gets swallowed up my mercy until all is life.

[WhiteWings]

By a pastor-theologian who won't even sign his own name, how intellectually courageous.

I think Michael R. Jones put his name in the website URL :-)

It amazes me how many people who disagree with UR so vehemently spend sooo much time and effort in writing articles and tomes disagreeing with it. I would never invest my own time and thoughts in something I disagreed with so strongly. I would get on with my own life. I don't really care about what they think. I have already come to my position after much consideration, prayer, study and God's dealings. Why would people imagine I would change my position after reading their opinion. We each must walk our own road. I don't know why people even feel the need to post other peoples anti-UR opinions. They don't mean anything and have no power over the truth we already believe.

I could argue the contrary. It's a duty to spread  the info. Many people in both OT and NT teach about God and often at the same time rebuking false doctrine.

Teaching and rebuking is virtually the same. If Gary defends/teaches UR he attacks everything not UR.

I don't really care about what they think. I have already come to my position after much consideration, prayer, study and God's dealings. Why would people imagine I would change my position after reading their opinion.

Did you really form your own opinion by Bible study only? Until that point you never read a commentary? You never listened to a sermon? You never discussed a verse with someone?

I think it's never good to assume 'you' found the right position. You simply do not have the right position unless you are God Himself. There are always good things that can be perfected, flaws that needs to be cut out and new things to be learned.

So your take on this whitewings was to admonish me.....feel better now?

Depends. Did you learn from it? :laugh:

[WhiteWings]

Universalism prefers to emphasize God's love at the expense of God's wrath.  This view does injustice to the wrath of God since God's wrath is seen as part of God's glory.

Likewise does wrath do injustice to  God's love because God's love is seen part of God's glory.

For example, when God reveals himself to Moses in Exodus 34 he reveals not only his compassion and his covenant faithfulness, but also his judging of the sin of the people.  To minimize God's wrath one must also minimize God's compassion, his covenant faithfulness, and his forgiveness, all of which are also seen in this divine revelation.

Again an empty argument. Minimizing God's love also minimizes God's compassion and forgiveness. Love is the ultimate compassion.

To say that God must practice the same forgiveness he enjoins upon us overlooks two key notions: (1) God does forgive those who come to faith in Christ, and (2) it holds God to an impossible standard in that it expects God to sacrifice one aspect of his character at the expense of another.  To say that God's love and grace will supersede his judgment and wrath is to establish priorities in the attributes of God that Scripture does not support.

Grace/love is a gift not something that is to be earned. Again the author doesn't look at the other side of the same coin. If showing love is called sacrificing the justice/wrath aspect of His character then wrath/justice is sacrificing the love/justice part of His character.

To say that God's love and grace will supersede his judgment and wrath is to establish priorities in the attributes of God that Scripture does not support.

Does Scripture support that God's wrath supersedes His love?
Scripture does state: 1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

That  is the very essence of God. Yes He also gets angry, takes vengeance, etc. All very Scriptual but still He IS love but nowhere it states He IS hate/anger/wrath etc. That at least edges toward that His loving attributes take priority over His hating attributes.

It is true that 1 John 4:8 and 16 use a predicate nominative subset construction to state that God is love.  Note, however that Hebrews 12:29 uses the same construction, in the context of a discussion of God's judgment against not just humanity but the entire created order (quoting the prophet Haggai) do emphasize that "God is a consuming fire."  This means that if God is "love" as part of his essential nature, then God must also be a God of wrath and judgment, too, as part of his essential nature.

What exactly is fire? It's purpose? It's duration? What does the fire consume?

God's moral attributes are tempered by his non-moral attributes.  That is, God's love must be an infinite love.  Likewise, his justice or his wrath, or his truth, must also be infinite.

Infinite love and infinite wrath can't co-exist. That's just like saying a it's always hot and cold in the same room.
God's love isn't infinite but is ends once in a while when His wrath starts. His wrath isn't infinite because it ends when His love starts again.

That causes a few problems. When God pours out His wrath, "God is love" is not true. And when He loves "He is a consuming fire" is false statement.
The Bible can't/doesn't contradict because that's like a divided kingdom.
I hate this; yesterday I've read the perfect verse in Psalms that will support my view. Obviously I can't find it anymore. It clearly states God truly hates sin and will crush it with all His might. He will not spare the sinner when doing so. But the second part of the Psalm states He does so for the benefit of the sinner who He loves.

And that is the very core of God's doings which are based on the core of His personality. The purpose of His wrath, punishment, etc have one single motive; place the sinner back on the narrow road so He can unleash His love attribute again.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) expresses this correctly: "Q. 4: What is God? A: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."  Each of these eight attributes is governed by the three states of infinity, eternality, and immutability.  With regard to this issue, both God's holiness and his justice are infinite and eternal, not just his love.  To give one priority over the other is to do injustice to the character of God as he is revealed in Scripture.  To alter these priorities to suit our own fallible notions of morality is to fashion a god simply to suit our own likings.

Irrelevant words because everyone agrees with that. It's the very meaning of the words (goodness, justice) that are debated here. I dare to say that's in essence the only difference between ET and UR.

If one can say that we must subordinate divine justice to divine love why can we not do the opposite and subordinate divine love to divine justice

Anyone can say anything. That's the reason of all false doctrines. That's why Scriptural proof instead of doctrinal 'proof' must be used.

While this is what the universalist accuses the traditionalist of doing,

Another false claim. Universalists are the traditionalists. The author's tradition is the repackaged tradition of Pilate.

their accusation falls short of the mark.  The traditionalist recognizes that both God's love and God's judgments are attributes of God.

I can't speak for all but I have yet to find a Universalist that's doesn't believe God can be angry.

Since God is simple (in the philosophical sense) he must possess both of these attributes as part of his essential nature.  To subordinate one to the other in either direction is to throw God's nature out of balance and thus make God less than the God he has revealed himself to be.

Not subordinating means God has a split personality. He's divided and like all divided kingdoms He will fall. That doesn't sound very Scriptural does it?
Again I notice the author uses 'a clever statement' against UR while it absolutely proves nothing because it can be used against his doctrine as well.

The fact is, many of the arguments inherent in universalism revolve around the human notion of fairness which not only compels God to act solely in accordance with human understanding,

It compels to Scriptural understanding. ET is mainly based on pagan/demonic teachings predating Christ by millennia and injected by the first pope (Constantine)

it also overlooks the all-knowing justice of God by which he can judge each person in absolute righteousness since he knows all things including the human heart (John 2:24-25; Heb. 4:13).  It also ascribes to God an attribute absent in scripture.  While the Scriptures repeatedly describe God as "just," "righteous," and "holy," nowhere do they describe God as "fair," as we understand fairness.  So the EU, since he cannot see divine retribution as anything but unfair, applies human categories of fairness and then accuses God of injustice for his "righteous judgments."

Again empty words. Nobody argues God's justice is not fair. The argument is about what God's justice looks like. Its purpose. It's goal. It's outcome.

But why is God unloving simply because he does not save all?  As B. B. Warfield has illustrated,[15] we might be rightfully angry with a doctor who could save everyone but didn't, but we would not necessarily be angry with a judge who refused to show mercy.  Indeed, we recognize that no criminal has the right to expect mercy and for us to demand mercy for them is overthrow the very idea of justice.

I would advise Warfield to read a Bible once in a while. Everybody is  criminal (sinner) that has no right to expect mercy. That's one of the main reasons Jesus was on earth 2000 years ago. Jesus the Healer.

Though God has presented himself in healing terms (Isa. 53:5; Mal. 4:2), he does not present himself as such when it comes to salvation and condemnation.  Instead, he represents himself as a judge (e.g., Gen. 18:25) and Jesus claims the same authority of judgment for blessing or condemnation for himself under the Father's authority (John 5:26-29).

And the only rulings the Supreme judge knows is eternal heaven or eternal hell? Nothing in between. God judged (parts of) Israel quite a few times. But never for eternity.
That's another main flaw of ETs. Judgement is always negative, destructive and eternal hell.
Because the author referenced to "Catechism" my guess is he is  a Catholic. If so he must believe in purgatory. That means his article is to black and white because his church doctrine has a shade of grey

John 5:26-29: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation."

The implication in this passage is that the judgment is final and there is no change in destiny.

The implication/fact is that there is/will be condemnation. And that is all the verses state. Nothing about type or duration.


To summarize: Most of the arguments of the author are correct, but he fails to see most of his arguments can very easily turned against any other doctrine.

[micah7:9]

we both agree that Jesus paid a heavy price to bring salvation to sinners like us, one for which he grieved in the garden of Gethsemene.

For God was in Christ reconciling the world. Christ condemned sin in the flesh. He was not himself condemned by his father, but they both were doing the condemning of sin itself.

yes, amen.

This is one I had in the back of my mind earlier and then kind of got confused about an exact verse of  "pouring out wrath on Jesus"...and just remembered this;     Is. 53:10  The Lord was pleased to bruise him;  He has put him to grief;  when he makes himself an offering for sin

Hard to understand.  But somehow, I believe it satisfied God's justice, or met the requirements to bring a cure?  Although I don't really grasp all the reasons, He chose it, and by doing so, reconciled Himself to us.

I'm sorry but I cannot see "God's wrath" in Isa. 53. God's wrath as I see God's wrath is indignation, fury, anger, heat upon the unbelieving.
I cannot see "God's wrath" on believers, I can see tribulation, persecution, trials, grief, but not God's wrath. Just my opinion. :HeartThrob: :dsunny:

[Seth]

I see Isaiah 53 as God using the wrath of man upon Christ to reveal his love for the world in that while we were sinners Christ died for us, that he gave his only begotten son. I don't believe God gave his son to save us from God, but from sin. I believe God always retained the right and authority to forgive sins at any time, authority he gave to Christ in his ministry. I think he hard coded blood sacrifice into the Law as a way to make it necessary for a blood sacrifice to end the Old Covenant thus revealing the nature of love through the sacrifice of Christ.

[dajomaco]

Jesus went to the cross in obedience to the Father.
I do not believe God had forsaken Jesus .
Jesus had an experience of Victory over death.
Jesus died believing God had forsaken him.
Jesus experienced resurrection from the dead.
God had never forsake ned Jesus .
Jesus is proof that God will not forsaken any one in death.

IMo

[Seth]

I don't think Jesus died thinking a false thing about God. I think he was quoting scripture to reveal that God was answering David's call for deliverance and fulfilling the prophets.

[dajomaco]

About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Elí, Elí, lemá sabachtháni?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

And at three Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lemá sabachtháni?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

[ Psalm 22 ] [ From Suffering to Praise ] [ For the choir director: according to "The Deer of the Dawn." A Davidic psalm. ] My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from my deliverance and from my words of groaning

[Seth]

Yes, it was a quotation of scripture.

[sheila]

Isaaih 57;17   I will not accuse forever,nor will I always be angry. For then the spirit of man would grow faint

before me-the breath[spirit] of man that I have created.. I WAS WROTH BY HIS COVETOUSNESS[do not eat of the tokogae]

    I punished him[Adam] and hid my fACE IN ANGER..YET HE KEPT ON HIS WILLFUL WAYS.

     I HAVE SEEN HIS WAYS..BUT I WILL HEAL HIM.

[dajomaco]

I don't think Jesus died thinking a false thing about God.
Jesus knew that sin separates and is the cause of death.
Mercy triumphs over death.
To triumph over death you must have a death.
Jesus was obedient even unto death.
     I think he was quoting scripture to reveal that God was answering David's call for deliverance and fulfilling the prophets.

[dajomaco]

Wrath(death) is real, but it is temporal, it eventually gets swallowed up my mercy until all is life.

:iagree:

[Seth]

I don't think Jesus died thinking a false thing about God.
Jesus knew that sin separates and is the cause of death.
Mercy triumphs over death.
To triumph over death you must have a death.
Jesus was obedient even unto death.
     I think he was quoting scripture to reveal that God was answering David's call for deliverance and fulfilling the prophets.

Jesus did die, but not believing lies. In Romans 6 we see that of Christ's physical death was a LIKENESS to our death to sin. Jesus died and was resurrected to save US from believing lies, not himself. That's what makes his crucifixion selfless.

Christ was the spotless lamb not a believer of untruths about his father. The two were one on the cross.

[sheila]

 Isaaih 25;7 on this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples,the sheet that covers all nations.

   HE WILL SWALLOW UP DEATH FOREVER. The sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces;

   He will remove the disgrace from his people from all the earth. THE LORD HAS SPOKEN

    Revelation of Christ 21;3  and I heard a loud voice from the throne,saying...'NOW THE DWELLING OF GOD

   IS WITH MEN,AND HE WILL LIVE WITH THEM.They will be His people,and God himself will be with them and be

  their God. He will wipe evry tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain.

   For the old order of things have passed away.

    He who was seated on throne said 'I am making everything new[covenant..incorruptible image ] Then He said

  'write this down,for these words are trustworthy and true".


   John 11;25,26  Jesus said to her,'I am the resurrection and life. He who believes in me will live,even though he dies.

   and whoever lives and believes in me will never die"

   

[dajomaco]

I don't think Jesus died thinking a false thing about God.
Jesus knew that sin separates and is the cause of death.
Mercy triumphs over death.
To triumph over death you must have a death.
Jesus was obedient even unto death.
     I think he was quoting scripture to reveal that God was answering David's call for deliverance and fulfilling the prophets.

Jesus did die, but not believing lies. In Romans 6 we see that of Christ's physical death was a LIKENESS to our death to sin. Jesus died and was resurrected to save US from believing lies, not himself. That's what makes his crucifixion selfless.

Christ was the spotless lamb not a believer of untruths about his father. The two were one on the cross.

I believe Jesus was being truthful when he said "Elí, Elí, lemá sabachtháni?

He was not saying it for effect.
How could Jesus die( Mystery?)one.

[Seth]

He was quoting a scripture that's just a fact. What it means is up to interpretation.

[dajomaco]

Psalm 22
Dogs surround me,
    a pack of villains encircles me;
    they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
    people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
    and cast lots for my garments

I believe David was quoting Jesus.

[sheila]

   I think Jesus was laying claim to the sure mercies of David[a son to sit on the throne forever]  when Jesus bore all our sins...

   because he that loves much is forgiven[mercy] much.   where David made intercession with God..because of his sin's

being visited on the people.. bought a threshing floor and offered up sacrifices..to stop the death plague;Jesus made

intercession for the people's sins [Father,forgive them they know not what they do]being visited on Him....and offered up

sacrifices.   David insisting on paying the cost of the threshing floor sacrifices/Christ paying the cost

[Seth]

Psalm 22
Dogs surround me,
    a pack of villains encircles me;
    they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
    people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
    and cast lots for my garments

I believe David was quoting Jesus.

Since God was in Christ on the cross and because the Truth has no fellowship with lies (Christ not being able to believe falsehoods) I believe it's the reverse. Christ constantly quotes OT scriptures throughout his ministry. "It is written..."

And there are many things David said about his own sin in the Psalms that Christ wouldn't say, being that Christ was without sin.

[sheila]

I think when David spoke in Psalms 22 he was speaking in the spirit..and prophesying of Jesus..[scriptures testify of me]

  the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

   

[sheila]

 I think when Jesus said that ..my God,my God,why have you forsaken me....He was 'tasting death for every man"

 

[Seth]

Psalm 32
I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.