tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279811.post112384242092212897..comments2024-01-23T22:32:07.088+02:00Comments on Initial Explorations: Wrath & AtonementSeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15155789202261126090noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279811.post-1124315249050798842005-08-17T23:47:00.000+02:002005-08-17T23:47:00.000+02:00Amos 4.6-13 offers a different perspective to 2 Es...Amos 4.6-13 offers a different perspective to 2 Esdras 15.23-27. Here YHWH lists many of the things he brought upon Israel (e.g. lack of water, bread, pestilence, crop failure) in the hope to have them turn back to him. This suggests that not everything is a natural consequence.<BR/><BR/>Where God employs various nations to punish Israel, it can indeed the removing of his protection, but can this be said about his punishment of the nations?<BR/><BR/>In Romans 1.18-32 we have another perspective, where God's "wrath" is indeed his "giving them up..." to the consequences of their actions (vv.24,26,28). <BR/><BR/>We need not choose one perspective over the other, both can happily co-exist as God's action in response to different situations.Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00236115781570052603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279811.post-1124208857870393242005-08-16T18:14:00.000+02:002005-08-16T18:14:00.000+02:00Thanks Sean.Yes, unfortunately I don't own Moo's N...Thanks Sean.<BR/><BR/>Yes, unfortunately I don't own Moo's NICNT on Romans either. Thanks for your recommendation and for sharing thoughts from your work with us.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279811.post-1124201954479136982005-08-16T16:19:00.000+02:002005-08-16T16:19:00.000+02:00Thanks Ted. I think your comments are spot on, an...Thanks Ted. <BR/>I think your comments are spot on, and I too would consider wrath to be personal in the sense that God is concerned about the people who are destroying themselves due to rejecting him and his ways. <BR/><BR/>I would concur with almost all of Moo's comments that you quoted above. I just wish I had my NICNT version of his commentary on Romans with so that I could interact more with him. I would also recommend one read Ben Witherington's commentary on Romans which is proving to be very helpful to me in preaching and teaching. <BR/><BR/>I'm glad that you enjoy the blog. It's a work in progress and so hopefully, I progress...Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15155789202261126090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279811.post-1124200254658287182005-08-16T15:50:00.000+02:002005-08-16T15:50:00.000+02:00Sean, I would like to paste my comments from "Jesu...Sean, I would like to paste my comments from "Jesus creed" over here, but can't figure out how to. And I'm short on time this part of the day.<BR/><BR/>The comments certainly are not earth shattering, as you could see for yourself.<BR/><BR/>I do appreciate what you have written along with the sources. Was just trying to think that through scripturally from my limited perspective.<BR/><BR/>But anything you would have to say, especially in the way of critique of anything I said, I would certainly appreciate.<BR/><BR/>I like your blog.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279811.post-1124177414346937642005-08-16T09:30:00.000+02:002005-08-16T09:30:00.000+02:00apologies for at length quoteapologies for at length quoteGarethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923481604102728870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279811.post-1124174937820562892005-08-16T08:48:00.000+02:002005-08-16T08:48:00.000+02:00Ted thanks for the comment. Gareth, besides the f...Ted thanks for the comment. Gareth, besides the fact that you didn't actually interact with the argument, and what it was about, please refrain from quoting scripture at length as it clutters the posts and makes the excessively long. I shall respond to your comments in due course. <BR/><BR/>ciaoSeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15155789202261126090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279811.post-1124169227055779012005-08-16T07:13:00.000+02:002005-08-16T07:13:00.000+02:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Garethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923481604102728870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279811.post-1124091537244730682005-08-15T09:38:00.000+02:002005-08-15T09:38:00.000+02:00First thanks for the work and sharing of it to us....First thanks for the work and sharing of it to us.<BR/><BR/>Douglas Moo in his Romans commentary in the NIV Application Commentary series makes these statements with reference to C.H. Dodd's interpretation of God's "wrath".<BR/><BR/>"But the Bible presents God as a personal being, interested and intervening in the course of human history in all kinds of ways. To be sure, we must allow for the frequent anthropopathic element in the biblical description of God. The biblical writers often use analogies with human emotions to depict God, and we are wrong if we attribute these emotions to God in the same way as they are present in us. But we cannot avoid the distinctly personal language used to describe God relationship to his world. He chastises, tests, repents, rejoices, and, yes, he grows angry.<BR/><BR/>"But God's anger is not like ours, nor is it like the wrath of the Greek gods. His anger is like theirs in that it is motivated by an offense against divine standards revealed in his Word to human beings. In fact, rather than dismissing pagan notions of the wrath of the gods entirely, we should perhaps see in them a pale reflection of the truth about the wrath of the real God. In the pagan impulse to appease an angry deity, in both ancient and modern times, we can detect one way in which God has left in the world he created some evidence of himself.<BR/><BR/>"But if immersion in certain cultures leads people to interpret God's wrath inaccurately, immersion in others can lead us to dismiss the concept altogether. Modern materialism, of course, denies the possibility of God's wrath. But perhaps a greater danger to the church is the present tendency in the midst of the awakened interest in 'spirituality' to view God as a purely benign being. If God exists, so many people seem to reason, that he must be a good God who has our own interests at heart. Surely he could never be angry with us or do anything that might inconvenience us!<BR/><BR/>"...Ultimately a failure to appreciate the reality of God's holiness and its implication, wrath against sin, warps our understanding of the Christian faith generally...Reading and rereading Scripture is the only practicable way to soak up that biblical worldview." (p 65)<BR/><BR/>Moo, I'm sure would use a different approach in answering you, a believing biblical scholar.<BR/><BR/>I would say, why is God having emotion and letting people go to experience the consequences of their chosen paths- mutually exclusive? God in the OT is likened to a bridegroom who is upset with his bride. In letting her go, he is surely not emotionless. He is angered and jealous because his love has been spurned. Yet he would in the end draw her back to himself, because of his love for her.<BR/><BR/>Just some thoughts. Sorry for the length.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.com