Should We Speak of An Angry God?

[TCGreek]

Act 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.


While Paul gave him a quick answer it was certainly not all Paul had to say on the matter. Paul did not just say v.31 and that was the end of it. It is certainly recorded that Jesus preached the wrath of God:

Luk 21:23 Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people.

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Mat 8:12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth


I could go on. Which did Christ preach on more heaven or hell?

Good Revmitchell, don't get me wrong. I believe there's a place for the preaching of the wrath of God.

But all I'm saying is that in the Gospel presentation it is not absolutely necessary to bring conviction to the sinner.

In fact, the Holy Spirit can open a person's heart to come to Christ without ever hearing of the wrath of God.

Are all those who have been saved told about the wrath of God before they were saved? Of course, not!

In fact, a lengthy message Paul mentions nothing about the wrath of God (Act 13:13-41).

 

[russell55]

But can you show me from Acts 2 where Peter preached the wrath of God to have a "balanced" message?

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.

 

[TCGreek]

In answer to your question about what subject Jesus preached the most on, heaven or hell, hell it is.

 

[TCGreek]

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.

My friend, I'm only going with what is in the text.

To appeal to a summary argument, is begging the question.

If you can demonstrate to me that whenever the gospel is preached, the wrath of God must be announced, then I'll gladly change my view.

I believe I can preach about the wrath of God and a soul gets saved as a result.

And then I can preach without mentioning the wrath of God and a soul still gets saved.

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3:8).

 

[TCGreek]

Don't you need to know the bad news before you can appreciate the good news?

Good question, Amy, but what bad news did the jailer hear before he asked, "What must I do to be saved?"

 

[Revmitchell]

Good question, Amy, but what bad news did the jailer hear before he asked, "What must I do to be saved?"

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.

 

[TCGreek]

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.

Can you show me from Acts where any sharing the gospel announced the wrath of God outright?

 

[russell55]

My friend, I'm only going with what is in the text.

To appeal to a summary argument, is begging the question.

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.

If you can demonstrate to me that whenever the gospel is preached, the wrath of God must be announced, then I'll gladly change my view.

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.

And then I can preach without mentioning the wrath of God and a soul still gets saved.

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3:8).

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.

 

[David Lamb]

Don't you need to know the bad news before you can appreciate the good news?

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?"

 

[Revmitchell]

Can you show me from Acts where any sharing the gospel announced the wrath of God outright?

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.

 

[Palatka51]

Good question, Amy, but what bad news did the jailer hear before he asked, "What must I do to be saved?"

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.

 

[webdog]

Here is a question I have: Are we required to preach about the wrath of God to get sinners to repent and put faith in Jesus for salvation?

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

 

[TCGreek]

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.

I don't think you're getting my point.

 

[TCGreek]

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

Exactly my point!

 

[TCGreek]

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.

I may be at a church service and hear a gospel invitation without ever hearing about the wrath of God when the Spirit brings conviction.

Of course I need to know that I need a Savior and that I cannot save myself!

When I became a child of God, it wasn't a sermon on the wrath of God that brought conviction.

 

[TCGreek]

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.

Every presentation of the gospel does not require the announcing of the wrath of God for the Spirit to bring about conviction.

But you may speak of the wrath of God.

 

[Revmitchell]

Every presentation of the gospel does not require the announcing of the wrath of God for the Spirit to bring about conviction.

But you may speak of the wrath of God.

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

 

[TCGreek]

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

A person who has come to faith in Christ without ever hearing of the wrath of God, What would you say of their conversion experience? Was it genuine or not?

 

[Revmitchell]

A person who has come to faith in Christ without ever hearing of the wrath of God, What would you say of their conversion experience? Was it genuine or not?

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.

 

[Palatka51]

I don't think you're getting my point.

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.

A person who has come to faith in Christ without ever hearing of the wrath of God, What would you say of their conversion experience? Was it genuine or not?

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.