[Graybeard58]

Ping.

[fwdude]

I wonder if this revisionist pagan (yes, that is really what he is) also wants to excise every “objectionable” portion concerning God’s wrath out of his Word as well.

[SoFloFreeper]

If there was no wrath of God, there would be no need for a Saviour. Man, do people ever read the Scripture anymore?

That lyric is biblical.

[fishtank]

Isaiah 53:10

[fishtank]

True Christianity preaches the cross of Christ.

[Fiji Hill]

I do not sing the phrase "the wrath of God is satisfied."

It's a safe bet that he's not a fan of the gospel song "Minuit, Chrétiens" (Christians, it's midnight), better known in the English-speaking world as "O Holy Night." The original version states that God came to Earth in the form of a man "to erase original sin and to stop the wrath of his father," a concept absent from the English version.

[Iscool]

"Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisfied."

While the lyrics make for a good song, they are not doctrinally correct...God's wrath is visible all thruout the Old Testament...And it did not end with the Crucifixion of Jesus...There's still more wrath to come...

But those who know that should have no problem singing such a beautiful, albeit slightly inaccurate song...

[avenir]

Dear Bob,

Consider, therefore, the kindness and the sternness of God.

sincerely,
Paul, an apostle

[tbpiper]

That is not how I understand the Bible...

That's because he doesn't understand the bible. I wonder if he's Rob Bell fan.

[tbpiper]

the controversy could relate to "different meanings of the word 'wrath.'"

I wonder if he also has that Clintonian confusion on the meaning of the word "is".

[WKB]

ping

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

The Bible would be a very short book if you exclude all of the passages that speak to God’s wrath against sinners. What would be left - Song of Solomon?

[Stingray]

Without wrath, there is no salvation. What’s the point of being saved if there was never any jeopardy for sin to begin with???

God’s love stands in stark contrast to His wrath, yet He would not be God without both. To deny His wrath is to deny His righteousness (for it’s in perfect righteousness that His wrath is justified). To deny His righteousness is to deny Him.

The “feel-gooders” want God the grandfather, not God the Father. Fortunately, He is beyond the reach of their feeble and foolish attempts to redefine Him.

[kaehurowing]

“Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” Romans 5:9

[wmfights]

"If the meaning of 'wrath' is that God is vindictive and took joy in punishing His Son then that is not how I find God described in the Bible," Terry wrote.

I don't either.

Who is arguing that God enjoys inflicting pain and suffering?

The cross is an example of how much God loves us and wants us to return to Him as we were in the garden.

[MrB]

"Yet there remains a question about whether God was an angry God at Golgotha whose wrath had to be appeased by the suffering of the innocent Jesus," Terry wrote. "Sometimes Christians carelessly make God out to be some kind of ogre whose angry wrath overflowed until the innocent Jesus suffered enough to calm Him down."

There are several things here that have biblically incorrect foundation. To make such a statement, one would have to deny the divinity of Jesus, as well as the Trinity. He's making a statement with the assumption that Jesus and God are wholly separate entities, with one imposing punishment on the other.

[MEGoody]

Looking at the world around me, and yes, even myself, I can see why God who is holy, good and righteous, would be full of wrath.

At the same time, I am so thankful that He loved us enough to give His only Son, so that by faith in Him, we could have everlasting life.