Does the Christian God experience any other emotion than the love of his creation and its creatures? If God experienced anger, for example, would that be a character flaw?

I have found it difficult to understand precisely what Reformed circles mean in the "doctrine of Limited/Definite Atonement / Particular Redemption". Descriptions or statements of the doctrine are often a bit vague, and can vary to some extent among those who identify as proponents of the doctrine; and I think the lack of clarity is not helped when theologians seemingly employ the Fallacy of Equivocation when attempting to logically justify their positions. The "doctrine of Limited Atonement" is typically expressed/summarised something like as follows: "Christ **did not die for everyone**, but only for the elect; and this death for His elect purchased for them actual redemption as opposed to the mere potential for redemption." My main question is how this vague preposition "*for*" is meant to be interpreted in the sentence "Christ did not die **for** everyone". I can think of several senses in which this could reasonably be intended, and I am wondering if it is intended to be interpreted in all of these senses. If not, then surely those who use this phrasing need to add caveats that preclude reasonable but unintended interpretations. In other words, they surely have to be willing to say that, *in some senses*, Christ *did* die for everyone. **Question:** Is the statement that "Christ did not die *for* everyone" in the typical Reformed doctrine of Particular Redemption intended to include all of the following aspects of how His death could be regarded as not being "dying *for* everyone"? In other words: How many of the following five statements would a typical self-identifying adherent of Particular Redemption be willing to affirm? **Regarding the pre-eternal plan of atonement:** 1. [Particularity in underlying motivation] The motivation behind God giving Christ as an atonement for sin (as in, e.g., John 3:16) did not include: (a) salvation-desiring love *directed to humanity as a whole*, i.e. a corporate love upon the race of descendants of Adam leading to a general desire for salvation of its members; nor (b) salvation-desiring love *directed personally to each and every sinner* that would ever live. Rather, the salvation-desiring love that motivated God's plan of atonement was exclusively in connection with His elect people throughout the world (both corporately and individually). 2. [Particularity in intended purpose] The aims that were in view in the plan of atonement did not include opening any kind of *potential* to every person to have their sins propitiated in the atonement. The aim did, however, include ensuring that all the elect would have their sins propitiated in the atonement. **Regarding the substance of the atonement:** 3. [Particularity in the actual exchange] Christ's sacrifice was of infinite value, sufficiently great to be able to pay for all the sins ever committed. Nonetheless, the wrath under which Christ suffered was not wrath against the collective sin of the human race, nor did it include God's wrath against all sin ever committed by humans. It consisted exclusively of God's wrath against all sin that was against the account of elect people. 4. [Particularity in those to whom a channel of redemption was opened] Just as Christ's atoning sacrifice did not create any means of redemption open to angels that have sinned, so likewise Christ's atoning sacrifice did not create any means of redemption open to unelected people. The only *legal possibility of justification* that was created by the atoning work is that which was also *guaranteed* by the atoning work to be realised. **Regarding the command to trust Christ for salvation:** 5. God has placed a moral obligation on all people, elect and unelect alike, to trust in Christ for forgiveness and redemption from their sins through His death. This moral obligation does not contradict the unavailability in actual substance of a channel of redemption to unelect people, since in God's design only elect people will be brought to obedience to this moral obligation. Of course, I recognise that the answer to my question will not necessarily be uniform among all those who profess to hold to Particular Redemption, or even among all those who are willing to use the phrasing "Christ did not die for everyone but only for the elect". But perhaps there is a general trend/most common position among self-identifying adherents of the doctrine? Or not? **Some additional context:** Another possible view, which I suspect that some self-identifying "five-point Calvinists" hold to, would be something like as follows. - *One major and central facet* of the atonement is that, by God's design arising from His love for the race of descendants of Adam, **Christ, in His death as a Man, died sacrificially as a Representative of mankind before God, thereby legally purchasing the availability to all men and women of having their sins exchanged for Christ's righteousness**, if they will only repent and trust in Christ. - *Another important facet* of the atonement is that **when God in eternity past set affection on all those whom He would in due course call to Himself, He designed that Christ would die as a propitiation to "buy their forgiveness" in the sense of buying for them the actuality that their sins are no longer held against them**—this forgiveness coming into effect through the repentance and faith in Christ that God in due course grants them. I suspect (but am not sure) that John Piper holds to a view approximating the above pair of points, and that he regards the earliest 'Calvinists' of the Reformation as also having held to something approximating the above pair of points. But in opposition to this, it seems that many Reformed theologians find objectional *any* concept of "payment for sin" whereby the availability of forgiveness can be purchased for people who will not ultimately be forgiven.

This question is mainly to the evangelical Christians and Bible believing Christians, who believe that God doesn't change and His nature is Love. The Old Testament is filled with accounts that describe how God poured out His wrath on people, including His chosen people, the Israelites. However, when we read the New Testament particularly the life, teachings and message of the Lord Jesus Christ we don't see the outpouring of God's wrath on people. Instead, we read about God's grace, mercy, and love. How do we square these two seemingly opposite manifestations of God's nature?

From the *gospel translations* Wiki page on God's Love and God's Wrath written originally for the journal [*Bibliotheca Sacra*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_Sacra) by D.A. Carson: >The reality is that the Old Testament displays the grace and love of God **in experience and types**, and these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament . Similarly, the Old Testament displays the righteous wrath of God **in experience and types**, and these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament. ... (emphasis mine)

It is widely accepted that the Bible contains many [*accommodated*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation_(religion)) descriptions of God; the finite human mind cannot comprehend the infinite God, so he has revealed himself to us in ways which we can understand, even though the true reality of God transcends what the scriptures say. For example, most Christians believe that the scriptures teach [the immutability of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity#Immutability) , so the times when the scriptures say God changed his mind (such as Exodus 32:14) are understood to be accommodations. The wrath of God is believed by many Protestants to be a real attribute of God, but an accommodation by many other Christians. The wrath of God is important because it forms part of the foundation of [penal substitutionary atonement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution) . What is the basis for believing that God's wrath is not an accommodation? Good answers will give exegetical and logical arguments why certain verses should not be interpreted as conveying only accommodated depictions of God's wrath.

Many Christians believe that Jesus died to appease the anger of God. One reason for this is 1 John 2:2, which says: >And he is the **propitiation** for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. > >καὶ αὐτὸς **ἱλασμός** ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. Propitiation basically means to appease the wrath of a god through an offering. How did Swedenborg translate ἱλασμός and interpret 1 John 2:2?

I have a Calvinist friend who told me that before the creation, God already knows the objects of His wrath. (I'm not a Christian). I question him 1. "the objects of His wrath" is in a point of view in the beginning or in the end. 2. whether God wants His objects of wrath to repent or not He gave me Romans 9:20-21 and told me the verse is telling that *"in the beginning God has decided to make some are the objects of His wrath and some are the objects if His mercy"*. But when I read the verses, I found in verse 22 is telling > **What if God**, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power > known, **bore with great patience the objects of his wrath**--prepared for > destruction? So I said to my friend that even the writer of Romans still not sure about what he said in verse 20 and 21. This can be concluded when he say "What IF" in the verse 22. Thanks for his pointing me out Romans 9:20-21 which made me also read the verse 22, it seems to me the answer of my question #2 is more likely (still not sure though) that *God wants the objects of His wrath to repent*, as the writer of Romans himself put a question on this case in his verse 22. But then he starts to speak "bla-bla-bla" which to me is vague and not clear. He told me something like this : *"Before the creation God knows that ALL (every) man is the objects of His wrath. Still in before the creation, THEN He choose some of them to repent ... so, after the creation He made His chosen one to repent."* To me, his explanation is more chronological in nature. Which raises the question: *"Before the creation, before He knows that all man is the objects of His wrath, before He choose some of them to repent, didn't God know who are the one in Heaven and Hell at the end of the world already ?"* From this question, it maybe can answer my question #1 : *"the objects of His wrath is in the point of view in the end (judgement day)"*. (still not sure though if this is what Calvinist think or not). I'm asking here hoping to get a clear answer from an English speaking Calvinist.

I heard on the first episode of Cosmos that astronomer [Giordano Bruno](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno) was punished because he believed there are other planets with life on them. The Roman inquisition sentenced him to execution because they thought this belief violated the fact that 'God's wrath is not eternal'. I would be appreciate it if you provide me a resource to read about it, or give me an explanation. I am not Christian and this idea is so new to me.

I recently re-read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and I was struck by the pleasure Jonathan Edwards seemed to have taken in describing the imminent destruction of sinners: > The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell. One can almost see Edwards "rubbing his hands together gleefully and cackling a little" over the plight of unbelievers. Is this attitude toward the damned common among Calvinists? Is it a necessary conclusion from their particular set of assumptions?

If you read any of the ancient near east (ANE) codes such as Hammurabi's Code of Laws there is a strikingly similiar severity in the widespread use of capital punishment. This gives a similiar feel to reading the Mosaic laws. Although the Mosaic laws differ substantially in their higher status and justice, for example rights given to slaves, the Mosaic laws still use capital punishment equally, if not more severely, than the ANE laws. For example, what would seem as a small religious infraction in a post-New Testament influenced culture, such as 'gathering sticks on the Sabbath', the Old Testament strictly mandated group stoning of the criminal (Numbers 15:32)! This might even seem 'severe' and even raise an eyebrow from Hammurabi's people. The question I ask then is: '**Under an infallabillity of scripture belief**, does this widespread and frequent use of capital punishment in ANE & Mosaic laws attest to an innate recognition of God's wrath under the Old Testament economy, or God's tolerance of cruel societies that coincidentally happened to steer towards a more merciful paradigm after the New Covenant? Or something else?' ---------- Related more general question: Mosaic Laws derived/related to ANE laws?

More or less I am asking for a defense of the propitiatory view of atonement in which God changes from being angry to being happy with us rather than sinners being the ones who need to change. Perhaps I misunderstand this model.

In Eastern theology, the idea of a dispassionate God is common. It is often said that wrath is an energy of God but is not part of his essence. I have even heard Western theologians say that wrath is not an eternal attribute of God (it did not exist in the absence of sin, it only exists in response to unholiness). Does he really get mad or is this just for our benefit, since "God is love?" Or is this an influx from Plato into Christian thought? I am interested in a Western explanation (which often speaks of eternal vs. temporal "attributes" of God rather than the Eastern model of essence vs. energies).