sorry wggrace - of course you are -it was just quicker to write than 'co-same sort of very biblically centred theological conviction although with significant differences which in some ways make wgrgace and I more similiar in outlook despite that fact he is conservative and I am liberal-ist'

I would hope that Clare was my co-religionist too, he said plaintively.

To add to David H’s relevant post:

To answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘Is the wrath of God a punitive wrath which is final for the objects of that wrath unless they are delivered from it?’ does not imply a commitment to supralapsarianism.

Supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, hypothetical universalism, evangelical arminianism, orthodox Roman Catholicism and possibly Eastern Orthodoxy should all, when they are true to themselves, answer ‘yes’ to that question.

Phil Almond

Clare

How do you understand

Luke 13:1-5

Luke 19:27

Matthew 13:36-43

Matthew 7:21-23

Matthew 25:40-46

2 Thessalonians 1:6-9

If you believe that God’s wrath is never a punitive wrath which is final with no possibility of it being removed?

‘…but listen to your co-religionists like wggrace and others on this and the cross/resurrection thread.  please.’

But wggrace seems to be agreeing with me that the wrath of God is a punitive wrath which is final for the objects of that wrath unless they are delivered from it.

Phil Almond

Phil, I have answered this before. Of course I do not believe in a final, punative wrath - such a notion is abhorrant.  How could a God of love create creatures knowing they would sin and reject him and ultimately end up being punished forever? apart from being morally objectionable, it is also contradictory - however much you protest it is compatible with God stil being a God of love.  Get literal about 1 cor 13 for a change - that describes what love is - and eternal punative wrath is the antithesis of what it describes.

on the cross/resurrection thread you write

I believe that there is an unbroken, unchanged, unmediated (by humans) chain of meaning and truth from the heart and mind of God and Christ to the words we find printed in our Bibles........this conviction rules out any explanation which breaks that chain of meaning' (my italics).

When my 9 year old son is being particularly charmless, he sticks his fingers in his hears and loudly screams 'la la la la la' - espeically if I am telling him something he does not want to hear.  By your own admission above, your a priori convictions about how God's truth is shared with us mean that you wil not listen to anything that threatens that. This makes meaningful conversation with you very difficult.

which comes first, your conviction or the gospel.  You keep on about the real God and real Jesus but how will you ever let them near you if you keep branishing your conviction like a stick - keeping all at bay who question it?

I am not expecting you to become a liberal Phil, but listen to your co-religionists like wggrace and others on this and the cross/resurrection thread.  please.

Maybe it is Time for a reading of True Wilderness by HA Williams and his Hulsean Sermon in'Povert, Chastity, Obedience: The True Virtues.

Or is the Evangelical constituency just too arrogant these days ?  Cocksure young men insulated at their computers as much as any war-game fantatics, perhaps ?

And Fr Williams just so passe (sorry no acute accent on my pc !). 

Next I'll be wanting to encourage this generation of Evangelicals to read L'abandon ..............(Caussade)-- whtever next ?   ....

Clare

We are back to the same questions. Who is the real Christ and what is the wrath of God?

I repeat:

I understand from Clare’s postings on Fulcrum that one of Clare’s convictions is that God’s wrath is never a punitive wrath which is final with no possibility of it being removed, but is ‘A therapeutic wrath’. No doubt if this understanding is an inexact summary of this conviction she will tell me.

On the assumption that this is a reasonable summary of this conviction, my case is that if certain passages in the New Testament are true, then this conviction of Clare’s is untrue. Some (by no means all) of these passages are:

Luke 13:1-5

Luke 19:27

Matthew 13:36-43

Matthew 7:21-23

Matthew 25:40-46

2 Thessalonians 1:6-9

I need to define what I mean by ‘true’. The gospel passages all attribute statements to Jesus Christ. By ‘true’ I mean that Jesus did make those statements, in whatever language he made them, and that whatever the process of translation, copying, etc. was, the meaning of Jesus’ original words and the meaning of Jesus’ original statements is accurately conveyed in the English we find in our English translations. The Thessalonians passage is from a letter of Paul. By ‘true’ I mean that Paul did write those words and that whatever the process of translation, copying, etc. was, the meaning of Paul’s original words and the meaning Paul’s original statements is accurately conveyed in the English we find in our English translations, and that Jesus and his angels will do the things stated and the things stated will happen to those who know not God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

On the assumption that these passages are true in the sense defined I invite Clare to acknowledge that her conviction, as outlined above in paragraph 2, is untrue. Please note that I am not asking Clare to acknowledge that her conviction is untrue. Only that it is untrue if the passages given are true in the sense defined.

Phil Almond

I remember once saying at a training event that if we valued the gospel more than the people we were sharing it with then we were not being faithful to the gospel. The thought came to me in a flash when I was mid-flow, and rather surprised me, but I believe it's profoundly true. If the gospel is about love for people then it makes no sense to love it more than the people we share it with.

Of course that doesn't mean we should value the gospel any the less as result: surely we should give infinite value both to people and the good news we share with them - because it is good news from God for them. If that makes me an Open Evangelical, then I guess I'm guilty as charged, and happy to be so..

Thanks Tim for your link to Cranmer’s Curate.  How sad all this partisanship is!  Here is one of CC’s statements:

‘Open Evangelicalism treats 'people skills' as more important than doctrinal faithfulness. Handling people wisely and winsomely is important, but not as important as faithfully and lovingly proclaiming God’s Word and indicating a clear practical intention to act on it in the reform of the local church for the sake of the Gospel.’

Why the tendency to polarize in this way, pitting, it seems, wisdom and winsomeness over against the supremacy of ‘doctrinal faithfulness’.  Surely what is needed is faithfulness to God in Christ and through the Spirit.  And surely the gospel is more truly commended as we seek to follow Jesus’ compassionate and searching ways with people.  Here is the one who does not break a bruised reed or quench a smouldering wick, knows his sheep and is known by them, listens carefully, questions wisely and confronts without setting aside his love (as with the woman at the well).

As you say on the blog, Tim, let’s pursue unity without expecting uniformity.  And surely the gospel is best served where Godly wisdom and the ‘winsome’ fruit of the Spirit is portrayed.  To be lovingly winsome might win some….

Thanks Tim for alerting us to the stuff from Cranmer's Curate. Steam exuded from my ears but I resisted the temptation to jump online immediately.

How easy it is (and how very human) to present viewpoints of people we don't agree with as straw, while putting the strongest case for our position?