The Wrath of God: An Attribute of Divine Love?

[The Remonstrant]

The Wrath of God: An Attribute of Divine Love?

There is an interesting -- if not disturbing trend -- in Arminian circles. Okay, maybe it's mostly theological circles... but let's continue. What is that trend? Oop. I guess I sort of let the cat out of the bag with the subject title. Oh, well.

So what is that trend, you ask again? Reducing God's attributes to essentially love only. "God is love" (1 John 4:8, 16). God does get angry. God gets angry at sin, but his anger is more directed at how human beings hurt other human creatures, rather than taken as a personal offense against his holiness and spotless moral character. God's anger arises more as a wounded lover who has been hurt by the unfaithfulness of his partner.

What, then, are we to make out of hell (i.e., final punishment for the lost)? That, too, is to be taken as an expression of God's love. Hell is a place where lost mankind is separated from the good presence of God primarily because God values the dignity of free will so much he allows any and all persons to choose to go there if they don't wish to serve him. God's severity and wrath are never to be taken as strictly retributive, but ultimately redemptive. This obviously opens the gate wide open for universalism (ultimately all people without exception will be saved). Gehenna or the lake of fire serves a purgatorial function for the final eschatological restoration of each and every single lost individual to God, however long that might take (though even then, all might not choose to depart from hell and unite with God).

But isn't there a serious problem with all this? Doesn't the OT and NT present us with enough evidence to vindicate the notion that God has judged nations with retributive justice and that final punishment is indeed ultimate divine retribution? Assuming one has a fairly lofty view of the Scriptures, how on earth could anyone be so blind to the biblical evidence so as to subordinate essentially every attribute of God under the heading of love? There are severe passages in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek NT that ought to cause us to shudder. It is interesting to note the terror even of some of the holiest men of God when they encountered the Lord (Job, Isaiah, Peter and John come to mind). God is love, yes. But what caused these men to fall to their knees and shove their faces to the ground in dread? Was it the love of God? No, I submit to you, it was that they encountered -- rather, were confronted -- with the holiness of God. These men (as are you and I) were stained sinners and for that they were terrified in God's presence, who is without sin. The notion that God's wrath cannot or is not retributive in nature, especially in relation to final punishment, cannot be sustained on biblical grounds, even should the concept seem philosophically or psychologically compelling to our sense of justice, reason or emotional psyche.

[Phat8594]

Personally, I think its a mistake when people try to subordinate any of God's qualities to another. It seems you have hit on one of the more often discussed idea of God's love versus God's justice. The truth, of course, is that the two are not contradictory, but rather are intertwined.

Perhaps the question might be, "Can you have true love without true justice?" or "Can you have you have true justice without true love?".....I'd say that you can't.

[RBerman]

It's not just in Arminian circles, but in liberal circles of all stripes. If you lose sight of what God's holiness is and means, then God's wrath will inevitably be rejected, and then one of the key purposes of Christ's mission (propitiating God's wrath) gets obscured in the process. It certainly shows up in the work of Rob Bell, but even "The Reason for God," an apologetic book for unbelievers by the fairly conservative Presbyterian pastor Tim Keller, tries to follow the C.S. Lewis route of "Hell is just God giving people the separation from him which they want" route, and loses God's holiness and wrath and justice in the process.

[The Remonstrant]

Personally, I think its a mistake when people try to subordinate any of God's qualities to another. It seems you have hit on one of the more often discussed idea of God's love versus God's justice. The truth, of course, is that the two are not contradictory, but rather are intertwined.

I would agree that God's nature is absolutely internally consistent. One could arrive at another gross distortion of the God revealed in Scripture by so emphasizing God's holiness and wrath without seriously grappling also with the biblical truths of divine grace, mercy and love (i.e., a God who forgives sinners). There is something grossly wrong with a teacher/preacher who apparently delights in proclaiming the horrors of hell, week after week, month after month, with little or nothing to say about the rescue message of the kingdom (namely the good news of salvation).

In some sense, then, in attempting to be accurate in our biblical hermeneutics, this task can be likened to a balancing act of sorts. The theological trend today, I perceive, is pointing more in the other direction: overemphasizing -- or rather, wrongly emphasizing -- God's love to the point where all the other divine attributes lose their distinctness and are blurred into one.

[The Remonstrant]

It's not just in Arminian circles, but in liberal circles of all stripes. If you lose sight of what God's holiness is and means, then God's wrath will inevitably be rejected, and then one of the key purposes of Christ's mission (propitiating God's wrath) gets obscured in the process.

Good point.

It certainly shows up in the work of Rob Bell,

I was horrified to see open theist Gregory A. Boyd's endorsement in the back flap of the hardcover of Bell's Love Wins. For all intents and purposes, this is essentially a book promoting a tentative (or hopeful) form of eventual universal salvation. In other words, why should we really be so sure the lost will be irreversibly lost (i.e., no possibility for future salvation)? Of course the possibility might exist, right? Because God's wrath is not really retributive in nature, but rather an expression of his love, yada, yada...

but even "The Reason for God," an apologetic book for unbelievers by the fairly conservative Presbyterian pastor Tim Keller, tries to follow the C.S. Lewis route of "Hell is just God giving people the separation from him which they want" route, and loses God's holiness and wrath and justice in the process.

This actually surprises me a bit. I wouldn't think to see Reformed Calvinists taking that sort of course. But neither can I account for the popularity of Driscoll as a new sort of Reformed hero among the youth. There are far too many sound (or sober) Calvinist teachers of our time for this to make any good sense to me (R.C. Sproul Sr., D.A. Carson and Thomas Schreiner immediately come to mind). But that's a different issue...

C.S. Lewis was a brilliant thinker, but it is simply unwise to uncritically accept whatever he (or any other big name, for that matter) taught or wrote based on that measure alone. A lot of his thoughts and speculations are interesting, but I don't get the sense he ever intended his audience to dogmatize his speculations.

Biblically, final punishment is presented (at the very least) as (1) involuntary (the lost are cast out or banished from God's [good or favorable] presence), (2) dreadful (weeping and gnashing of the teeth, torment, flames, darkness) and (3) final (irreversible or conclusive, with no way out of escape). Honestly, I could wish I had a much better grasp internally to its horrors so as to be able to avoid it at all costs and to urge others also with intense conviction. I believe we all could use a better sense of how terrible eternal punishment actually will be so we are the more diligent to extricate ourselves from the wrath of God, urging and warning everyone to flee from the wrath to come (evangelizing).

[RBerman]

I was horrified to see open theist Gregory A. Boyd's endorsement in the back flap of the hardcover of Bell's Love Wins. For all intents and purposes, this is essentially a book promoting a tentative (or hopeful) form of eventual universal salvation. In other words, why should we really be so sure the lost will be irreversibly lost (i.e., no possibility for future salvation)? Of course the possibility might exist, right? Because God's wrath is not really retributive in nature, but rather an expression of his love, yada, yada...

The three legs of the Socinian heresy were Open Theism, Universalism, and Unitarianism. I suspect that over the next 20 years we'll see the various stripes of neo-Socinianism (Bell's universalism, Boyd's Open Theism, etc.) converge in this manner. Many of the Open Theists have "made it" to inclusivism already, and universalism is the next logical step down that road.

This actually surprises me a bit. I wouldn't think to see Reformed Calvinists taking that sort of course. But neither can I account for the popularity of Driscoll as a new sort of Reformed hero among the youth. There are far too many sound (or sober) Calvinist teachers of our time for this to make any good sense to me (R.C. Sproul Sr., D.A. Carson and Thomas Schreiner immediately come to mind). But that's a different issue.

It both surprises and disappoints me as well. Driscoll is more of a rock star than an exegete (and I think he would even admit so); every generation has some of those. It's not yet clear who the next generation of sober Calvinist teachers will be. But then, ten years ago I was unfamiliar with Don Carson.

C.S. Lewis was a brilliant thinker, but it is simply unwise to uncritically accept whatever he (or any other big name, for that matter) taught or wrote based on that measure alone. A lot of his thoughts and speculations are interesting, but I don't get the sense he ever intended his audience to dogmatize his speculations.

That's the trouble with being an articulate writer: Even your random thoughts tend to sound convincing to those not well-trained in the issue at hand. Bell is a great example of this, not that he's as articulate as Lewis. But I know a lot of people who read "The Shack" or "A Generous Orthodoxy" or "Blue Like Jazz" and come away thinking they've been exposed to some wonderful perspective, rather than a warmed over version of some historic heresy.

Biblically, final punishment is presented (at the very least) as (1) involuntary (the lost are cast out or banished from God's [good or favorable] presence), (2) dreadful (weeping and gnashing of the teeth, torment, flames, darkness) and (3) final (irreversible or conclusive, with no way out of escape). Honestly, I could wish I had a much better grasp internally to its horrors so as to be able to avoid it at all costs and to urge others also with intense conviction. I believe we all could use a better sense of how terrible eternal punishment actually will be so we are the more diligent to extricate ourselves from the wrath of God, urging and warning everyone to flee from the wrath to come (evangelizing).

Yep. My approach is to focus on God's holiness, which provides the context for why his wrath over sin is so dreadful, and why the forgiveness he offers in Christ is so amazing.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

What, then, are we to make out of hell?

Orthodoxy holds that Hell is the presence, not the absence, of God...
The presence of God in an unrepentant soul is unimaginable torment...
The "Lake of Fire" is God...

One must remember that the Love of God is no mere emotional affection on His part,
But is the Divine Energia that created all of creation...

A blessing to those who love God...
A torment for those who hate Him...

But as Christ said: "And I, if I be lifted up, shall draw ALL unto Me..."

But the wrath of God is in fact merely his withdrawal of protective Grace...
Which exposes us to the inflictions of demonic forces...
It is the demons who torment us in this fallen world...
And it is the demons we need to fear...
And not God Who loves us...

Fear of God is but the BEGINNING of Wisdom...

Arsenios

[RBerman]

Orthodoxy holds that Hell is the presence, not the absence, of God.

Hell is the presence of God's holy justice, and the absence of God's mercy.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Hell is the presence of God's holy justice, and the absence of God's mercy.

I think they are one and the same, RB - Simply differently experienced by people whose souls are in opposite conditions...

The final answer to Adam and Eve hiding in shame in the Garden, naked and devoid of the clothing of God's Righteousness, is that there is NO place to hide from God...

Justice and mercy are one and the same in God, but woe to those who in it [Him] hate both...

Heaven is the presence of God for those who love Justice and Mercy...

Hell is the presence of God for those who hate Justice and Mercy...

And there we shall find a gulf between the two...

Repentance then will not be possible...

This now is the time of our repentance...

Turning toward good (God) and away from evil is the one thing we CAN do, each and every mother's son and daughter of us, in this life...

And in doing so, we will find salvation...

But not in the Life of the Age to come...

Justice and mercy are only pitted against each other in this fallen world of both good and evil...

Heaven and hell are when both become one in the Reality of God...

Therein we will find what we cannot now see...

For now, you are kind of right, in that justice is death, and Mercy is Life...

But death in this life is what Christ died to overcome...

And He succeeded...

And we in Him likewise...

Mortifying our fleshy members...

And being Baptized into His Death on the Cross...

Arsenios

[Bill the Cat]

I don't see why Arminianism was brought up at all...

[Rushing Jaws]

IMO, God is Hell & Heaven, for different groups of people. I think Hell & Heaven are identical, but are differently experienced. The difference is in the recipients, not in Him. So for some, Love is experienced as Wrath, because they have made themselves unable to receive Him in any other way.

Something along those lines anyway.