Should We Speak of An Angry God?

I think he did. Remember these are Jewish people he preached too, so they already understood the wrath of God against sin. (Moreover, what we have in Acts 2 is a summary of his sermon.) When Peter said, " this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men," don't you think they understood that they were in big trouble? They'd murdered the Messiah. Don't you think they were afraid of the justice of God?

Then, when he went on to say, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified,” don't you think this just increased their fear? Peter was telling them that the one they murdered was now ruler of all. Don't you think that made them doubly afraid of justice, because the one they had murdered was now ruling them?

I'd say they understood from Peter's words that they were under the judgment (or wrath) of God. That's why they are "cut to the heart". They're terrified. It's terror of the consequences of their actions that make them ask, "What shall we do?"

You'll notice that in the actual sermon, Peter doesn't hold out hope. He basically says, God sent the Messiah, you murdered him, and now God's raised him up and made him ruler of everything. In other words: You messed up bad and you're in big trouble.

It's only when they realize how big a pickle they're in and ask what they should do about it that Peter holds out the hope of God's kindness and forgiveness.

 

None. But he certainly needed to know it before it was all over. And since Pauls response to that question at the jail was not the end of it but Paul went and talked further with him and his family. The acts passage you cite here does not build your case. In fact it works against it.

Again Christ made it a major part if the gospel he preached. It is safe to believe that the apostles did the same, especially when it is not clear exactly what was said.

Quite frankly I do not see how one can hear of the cross and not receive a picture of God's wrath. They are not seperable. A gospel without the wrath of God is no gospel.

 

I only said it was a summary to say that we can't look at the words recorded and argue that Peter didn't mention God's wrath specifically in his sermon.

My real argument is that Peter didn't have to mention God's wrath specifically for them to understand that because of their sin, they stood under God's wrath. They would have understood that because of their background, culture and religion. When Peter said, "You murdered God's Holy One" they would have understood that they would be judged by God for it.

Isn't God's wrath his judgment for sin? Isn't God's wrath his condemnation of sin? I wouldn't argue that you have to use the words "God's wrath" necessarily, but the idea of God's judgment or condemnation, which I see synonymous ideas, would need to be included.

If the gospel includes, "Christ died for our sins" (as a matter of first importance), then it includes the concept of condemnation (or God's wrath), since Christ dying for our sins means he suffered our condemnation for our sins in our place.

I understand that the Spirit is sovereign in salvation. But the Spirit works in tandem with the preaching of the gospel. And the preaching of the gospel includes the message of condemnation for sin.

 

Yes. Imagine a beautiful beach on a sunny day. The tide is out, and a man is sunbathing. Suddenly, up rushes the lifeguard and says to the man, "Don't worry! I will save you!!!" The man looks around for the cameras, because the only explanation he can think of is that he has been set up as part of "You've Been Framed" or whatever the equivalent is on your country's TV, where ordinary people are shown in ridiculous situations).

Now let's switch the scene to the same beach on a violently stormy day. The tide is almost fully in, and a man has just fallen to the sands from the cliff. He cannot move because he has injured his legs. If he stays where he is, the sea will soon cover him. Suddenly, he hears a lifeguard shout, "Don't worry! I will save you!!!" No need to spend even a moment wondering what is going on - the man knows what the lifeguard is going to save him from.

It is the same (but with eternally-lasting consequences) with the gospel. If we just tell people that Jesus will save them, they will think, "So? What do I need saving from?"

 

Acts 2:23-36
Acts 4:10

However you are asking the book of acts to serve a purpose other than what it was written for. While it covers missionary journies it gives very few details of specific conversation. I would also point back to Russels repsonse.

The remainder of the NT is eat up with God's wrath. And it is a great concern that there are those who would intentionally avoid a needful part of the clear gospel unnecessarily.

 

TC,

Wasn't the jailer already in fear of wrath? Not that it was God's wrath but that of the laws of Rome. If anyone had escaped that jail he was ready to kill himself for he had failed as a jailer. I think that this story relates to everyone that is in the world without Christ. They already experience wrath. The world is full of wrath. The sexually active is riddled with std's. The drunkard/drug addict is homeless and without family. The adulterer is in poverty and separated from their families. The murder is on death row. The thief has lost his job and serving time. What is he going to do after he returns to society? I need not go on do I?

Jesus said this,
John 3:18-21
18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.


Isn't Jesus telling Nicodemus that there is wrath already upon them that do not believe?

Did not the Jews at Pentecost experience all that had happened at the Cross? The earth quake, the darkness, fear was fresh in their minds. No doubt they were in fear for what was about to happen. Fear was in the air, it did not need to be addressed. They needed to hear the message of forgiveness.

Before Jesus gave up the Ghost He said this,
Luke 23:34
34Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

So in conclusion I'll say this, Without Christ we are already under wrath. While Jesus was on the cross He was under God's wrath yet He prayed for forgiveness for those around Him. We must therefore preach forgiveness as the lost soul is already under wrath.

 

Did Jesus preach wrath to the woman at the well? To Saul on the road to Tarsus?

 

I disagree. But I am curious why one would ever skip it?

 

Hmmm...I see you skipped my question. Why?


No it is not. But then I do not define John 1:13 the way you do. You cannot be converted without understanding the wrath of God. We cannot understand our sin debt without it. And to suggest we can be saved by simply determining to follow God is a notion that belittles the cross. You cannot talk about what Christ did on the cross without covering the wrath of God for that is half the reason Christ was there. How in the world can a crossless gospel ever be preached. The cross is God's wrath. Without it there is no gospel.

Now please answer my question.

 

No, I think I am. My point is that the lost are already experiencing wrath/condemnation, especially if they are asking about salvation. That is what Christ is saying in the third chapter of John. So He has come not to condemn that that is condemned already. We should take that to heart when we have the opportunity to witness.

So what was the motivation for you to come to Christ? For me wrath was one of many motivations for coming to faith in Christ.