Should We Speak of An Angry God?

Ro 3:25 - Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Isa 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

 

Why would you be surprised at an SDA having wrong theology?

 

I think we discussed something along these lines when we were discussing Erickson's book.
And talking about God's emotions...

I don't like the word angry, because it makes God seem out of control...
He is a God of wrath, as much as He is a God of love, God of mercy, etc..
But his wrath is calculated... He doesn't get angry and throw lighnting bolts...

His wrath comes out of his Justice...

He cannot stand sin, so what appears as anger to us is actually him passing righteous judgment.

I don't know how deep you want to go with this, but this has the potential of going REAL deep...

Changing emotions seem to indicate changing attitudes...
Nothing surprises Him... He is in control...
He is a God of wrath... but is not an angry God.

 

Deu 4:21 Furthermore, the LORD was angry with me because of you, and he swore that I should not cross the Jordan, and that I should not enter the good land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

 

We should not determine God's attributes based upon what we "like or don't like"

It is very hard to separate wrath and anger.

I have no problem with referring to God as angry. He is God and He can be however He needs to be.

 

9 out of 14 references in the NASB of the phrase "slow to anger" are in reference to characteristics of God.

NASB - slow to anger

 

Of course.

 

"God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day," Psalm 7:11

Either the Word of God is right about God being angry, or Bob Ryan (who, according to the OP, says God isn't angry).

I know which one I believe is right. :thumbs:

 

Leon Morris in his book "The Apostolic Preaching Of The Cross" counted more than 20 different Hebrew words which conveyed the idea of God's anger against sinners in the Old Testament . More than 580 passages deal with this according to him .

But the wrath of God is found in the NT too , in more than 100 verses , many from Jesus Himself .

 

If you feel like this is to off topic I understand. But I believe in speaking of the Wrath and or anger of God the Doctrine of the fear of the Lord should ride beside it.

2Co 5:11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.

There seems, in these days, to be a mind set that says we should not endeavor to win people to Christ based on a fear of God's wrath. Paul saw that differently. He was convinced that it is because we understand the fear of the Lord that we should pursuade others to also flee the wrath of God.

Continuing just a few verse further Paul also expresses God's Love:

2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died;
2Co 5:15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.


To make attempts to pursuade others with only one or the other is to use an incomplete gospel. God's wrath has just as much weight as God's love.

 

To answer the OP, if the Bible speaks of an angry God, so should we.

 

I believe that the fear of the Lord referenced by Paul here is not the motivation for non-believers to believe, but the motivations for believers to persuade others to believe.

I agree that we need to teach about God's wrath and anger. It is incorrect when some sidestep that whole side of God by painting him like a "jolly grandfather".

However, I also believe that it is incorrect when folks preach that you should believe simply to avoid God's wrath and anger. I don't find that anywhere in the New Testament preaching of Jesus and the apostles to non-believers. The motivation for believing the gospel in scripture is new life in Christ.

 

I remember reading a quote somewhere and it has always stuck with me when dealing with questions like this:

"We must let God be God."

 

I disagee and so does Paul. You took half my post and misrepresented it. Nice. Anyway we cannot get to slavation without going through the cross. You cannot get past the cross without addressing God's wrath which is a result of our sin debt. Moving past that we get to the substitution of Christ to take care of our sin debt and suffering God's wrath on our behalf. Anything less is another gospel.

 

I agreed with the second half of your post.

While I agreed with the gist of the first half of your post that we should teach about God's wrath and anger, I disagreed with your interpretation of that particular verse that Paul is saying that preaching the gospel is about using God's wrath and anger as motivation for others to believe.