How Does UR Reconcile God's Love with God's Wrath?

[dajomaco]

I think when Jesus said that ..my God,my God,why have you forsaken me....He was 'tasting death for every man"

I agree  :iagree:

[sheila]

 on the cross....there is a thief dying beside Jesus..who says.......we have done things worthy of death..but this man has

not...remember me Jesus when you come into your Kingdom.   this,too,is scripture that testifies of Jesus Christ...His death,

His word to the man dying beside Him.

[Seth]

Yes, Jesus died. That's not a question. But I do not believe his quotation of Psalm 22 means that he was forsaken by his Father. There can be many reasons Jesus would quote a verse. God was in Christ reconciling the world, making peace, something David, in Psalm 22, longed for.

[sheila]

Messiah was 'cut off' Seth..Jesus lay down His life 'willingly' no 'man' took it from Him..He lay it down..in death..in order

to take it back up again.   Father promised he would not let his holy one expierence decay..not death/cutting off...Father

give Him authority to take it back up again.

    He spoke of His coming departure as " Returning unto My Father and your Father".

   forsake-renounce..law=give up a right...no man takes it from me.   a will requires the death of the testator

   Hebrews 9;16-27   cut off...to cut a covenant......

   Jesus tasted death for every man   

[Seth]

Shiela, you see that I have agreed with the fact that Jesus died, right?

[sheila]

  yes,Seth.... :girlheart:

[Seth]

 :thumbsup:

[Tom]

Why Christian Universalism is Wrong

By Pastor-Theologian
Posted on January 10, 2012

The Nature of God: Loving and Just

Universalism prefers to emphasize God's love at the expense of God's wrath.  This view does injustice to the wrath of God since God's wrath is seen as part of God's glory.  For example, when God reveals himself to Moses in Exodus 34 he reveals not only his compassion and his covenant faithfulness, but also his judging of the sin of the people.  To minimize God's wrath one must also minimize God's compassion, his covenant faithfulness, and his forgiveness, all of which are also seen in this divine revelation.

To say that God must practice the same forgiveness he enjoins upon us overlooks two key notions: (1) God does forgive those who come to faith in Christ, and (2) it holds God to an impossible standard in that it expects God to sacrifice one aspect of his character at the expense of another.  To say that God's love and grace will supersede his judgment and wrath is to establish priorities in the attributes of God that Scripture does not support.

It is true that 1 John 4:8 and 16 use a predicate nominative subset construction to state that God is love.  Note, however that Hebrews 12:29 uses the same construction, in the context of a discussion of God's judgment against not just humanity but the entire created order (quoting the prophet Haggai) do emphasize that "God is a consuming fire."  This means that if God is "love" as part of his essential nature, then God must also be a God of wrath and judgment, too, as part of his essential nature.

God's moral attributes are tempered by his non-moral attributes.  That is, God's love must be an infinite love.  Likewise, his justice or his wrath, or his truth, must also be infinite.  The Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) expresses this correctly: "Q. 4: What is God? A: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."  Each of these eight attributes is governed by the three states of infinity, eternality, and immutability.  With regard to this issue, both God's holiness and his justice are infinite and eternal, not just his love.  To give one priority over the other is to do injustice to the character of God as he is revealed in Scripture.  To alter these priorities to suit our own fallible notions of morality is to fashion a god simply to suit our own likings.

If one can say that we must subordinate divine justice to divine love why can we not do the opposite and subordinate divine love to divine justice?  While this is what the universalist accuses the traditionalist of doing, their accusation falls short of the mark.  The traditionalist recognizes that both God's love and God's judgments are attributes of God.  Since God is simple (in the philosophical sense) he must possess both of these attributes as part of his essential nature.  To subordinate one to the other in either direction is to throw God's nature out of balance and thus make God less than the God he has revealed himself to be.

The fact is, many of the arguments inherent in universalism revolve around the human notion of fairness which not only compels God to act solely in accordance with human understanding, it also overlooks the all-knowing justice of God by which he can judge each person in absolute righteousness since he knows all things including the human heart (John 2:24-25; Heb. 4:13).  It also ascribes to God an attribute absent in scripture.  While the Scriptures repeatedly describe God as "just," "righteous," and "holy," nowhere do they describe God as "fair," as we understand fairness.  So the EU, since he cannot see divine retribution as anything but unfair, applies human categories of fairness and then accuses God of injustice for his "righteous judgments."

But why is God unloving simply because he does not save all?  As B. B. Warfield has illustrated,[15] we might be rightfully angry with a doctor who could save everyone but didn't, but we would not necessarily be angry with a judge who refused to show mercy.  Indeed, we recognize that no criminal has the right to expect mercy and for us to demand mercy for them is overthrow the very idea of justice.

Though God has presented himself in healing terms (Isa. 53:5; Mal. 4:2), he does not present himself as such when it comes to salvation and condemnation.  Instead, he represents himself as a judge (e.g., Gen. 18:25) and Jesus claims the same authority of judgment for blessing or condemnation for himself under the Father's authority (John 5:26-29).

John 5:26-29: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation."

The implication in this passage is that the judgment is final and there is no change in destiny.

..

https://michaelrjones.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/why-christian-universalism-is-wrong/

:dontknow: Answers, please  :Chinscratch:

"we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers" (1 Timothy 4:10)

"through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens" (Colossians 1:20)

"Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing. For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead. For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified. Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence; thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power. For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy is being abolished: death. For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all." (1 Corinthians 15:20-28)

[joeteekay]

The first post by RaiderGonzo which informed us about an article by pastor-theologian on "Why Crisitian Universalism is Wrong" and which focused a lot on the word WRATH.  God's wrath, man's wrath, etc.

This thread has included many thoughts and opinions and digressions.  that's okay.  But I would like to focus on one aspect, and that has to do with the meaning of the word WRATH as used in scripture.

But first:

Whitewings reply #6,  #30 comments were oh so spot on.  Thanks for that. It reflects my thinking as well. This man does not understand love, he does not understand wrath ( more on that later), does not understand justice, does not understand purpose of fire, does not understand what hell is, etc, etc. He reflects very many stereo-typed orthodox teachings which are incorrect.

From his web site I see this:

He, Michael R. Jones , says: I've been in ministry for fourteen years and I've been a senior/solo pastor for twelve of those years. I love it and I'm thankful everyday that I get to do this. For me it's not a job and it's not a living; it's who I am.
In college and seminary I did well and won some awards (one in Greek and one in systematic theology). I helped teach some classes (in theology) and write some books (a dictionary and a commentary on Chronicles). I was also in the student government (treasurer and president). This year I published several articles for the Lexham Bible Dictionary and the Lexham Theological Wordbook, both published by Logos Bible Software.

My theologian is Athanasius. My philosopher is Kierkegaard

Well hooray. Your so great sir!

I want to focus on the word WRATH (Strong's G3709) and G2372.

Spiros Zodhaites in his Complete Word Studies of the New Testament clearly shows a difference between these two words which are translated most often as wrath or anger.
He says:
ὀργή -  orge, gen. orges fem. noun from orego (3713), covet after, desire. Wrath, anger as a state of mind. Contrast  θυμός  - thumos (2372),, indignation, wrath as the outburst ot a vengeful mind.Aristole says that orge, anger is desire with grief (compare: Mark 3:5, Rom 12:19 and especially

Eph 4:31  Let allG3956 bitterness,G4088 andG2532 wrath,G2372 andG2532 anger,G3709 andG2532 clamour,G2906 andG2532 evil speaking,G988 be put awayG142 fromG575 you,G5216 withG4862 allG3956 malice:G2549

Col 3:8  ButG1161 nowG3570 yeG5210 alsoG2532 put offG659 all these;G3956 anger,G3709 wrath,G2372 malice,G2549 blasphemy,G988 filthy communicationG148 out ofG1537 yourG5216 mouth.G4750

Clearly mans's wrath is vengeful and full of hate. God's wrath is corrective leading to a good end (love).

[Searching_For_The_Truth]

The first post by RaiderGonzo which informed us about an article by pastor-theologian on "Why Crisitian Universalism is Wrong" and which focused a lot on the word WRATH.  God's wrath, man's wrath, etc.

This thread has included many thoughts and opinions and digressions.  that's okay.  But I would like to focus on one aspect, and that has to do with the meaning of the word WRATH as used in scripture.

But first:

Whitewings reply #6,  #30 comments were oh so spot on.  Thanks for that. It reflects my thinking as well. This man does not understand love, he does not understand wrath ( more on that later), does not understand justice, does not understand purpose of fire, does not understand what hell is, etc, etc. He reflects very many stereo-typed orthodox teachings which are incorrect.

From his web site I see this:

He, Michael R. Jones , says: I've been in ministry for fourteen years and I've been a senior/solo pastor for twelve of those years. I love it and I'm thankful everyday that I get to do this. For me it's not a job and it's not a living; it's who I am.
In college and seminary I did well and won some awards (one in Greek and one in systematic theology). I helped teach some classes (in theology) and write some books (a dictionary and a commentary on Chronicles). I was also in the student government (treasurer and president). This year I published several articles for the Lexham Bible Dictionary and the Lexham Theological Wordbook, both published by Logos Bible Software.

My theologian is Athanasius. My philosopher is Kierkegaard

Well hooray. Your so great sir!

I want to focus on the word WRATH (Strong's G3709) and G2372.

Spiros Zodhaites in his Complete Word Studies of the New Testament clearly shows a difference between these two words which are translated most often as wrath or anger.
He says:
ὀργή -  orge, gen. orges fem. noun from orego (3713), covet after, desire. Wrath, anger as a state of mind. Contrast  θυμός  - thumos (2372),, indignation, wrath as the outburst ot a vengeful mind.Aristole says that orge, anger is desire with grief (compare: Mark 3:5, Rom 12:19 and especially

Eph 4:31  Let allG3956 bitterness,G4088 andG2532 wrath,G2372 andG2532 anger,G3709 andG2532 clamour,G2906 andG2532 evil speaking,G988 be put awayG142 fromG575 you,G5216 withG4862 allG3956 malice:G2549

Col 3:8  ButG1161 nowG3570 yeG5210 alsoG2532 put offG659 all these;G3956 anger,G3709 wrath,G2372 malice,G2549 blasphemy,G988 filthy communicationG148 out ofG1537 yourG5216 mouth.G4750

Clearly mans's wrath is vengeful and full of hate. God's wrath is corrective leading to a good end (love).

Amen to that

[sheila]

  when your eyes are good your whole body is also full of light. when your eyes are bad,your body also is full of darkness.

   God had built in covenant curses[wrath] for taking pleasure in what displeases Him.  Choose this day,who you will serve.

   curses or blessing.

   what they seem to forget is the wrath that man has been subjected to since Adam disobeyed in the garden...the sin and death

  that entered into Adam...even corruption and death..sickness,murders greed,covetousness..bearing children doomed to

misfortune, children possessed of evil spirits..and all manner of evil has befallen man as the fruit of his disobedience.

    Take a good look around,I say..and see all the evil fruitage that has befallen Adam for taking pleasure in what

  displeases God.  All our days are concluded in thy wrath.


   God will not give His glory unto another[spirit of rebellion]  and what is God's glory?  eternal life,peace,joy,no sickness,

  tears or mourning..  God in essence turned Adam's flesh over to satan for the destruction of the flesh..in order that Adam's

spirit be saved in the Day of the Lord.  Generations and generations ,all in Adam have bore the corrupt image of the wrath of God

for the disobedience of one man. How then can they say..we ignore the wrath of God,when we speak of God's kindness

and grace offered to save us from this wrath[body undergoing this death]


   God give man dominion of the earth..to rule over it in the image of God/through obiedience to Him....sin is a demon that

  croucheth at the door,he desires to rule over you,but you must rule over him.  Sin and death has ruled over man to his

  ruin and destruction since Adam...and all men have died.


    Praise be to God in heaven for His goodness to man,that even in our wicked[sin/dying]state..He gave us a savior..to

  save us from God's wrath...even sin/disobedience/death........our own iniquity rebuked us..in that we were overcome

  of evil.

    The Cup of the Lord's Wrath   Isaaih 51;17-23

     Awake,Awake! O"Jerusalem,you who have drunk from the hand of the Lord the cup of His wrath,you who have drained to it's

dregs the golblet that makes men stagger[sin and death]  Of all the sons she bore,there were none to guide her..of all

  the sons she reared there were none to take her by the hand.[until the son of God come]

   These double calamities have come upon you-who can comfort you? ruin and destruction,famine and sword-who can console

  you?  Your sons have fainted[all men died] they lie at the head of every street, like antelope caught in a net.

   They are filled with the wrath of our Lord and the rebuke of our God.


    THEREFORE HEAR THIS YOU AFFLICTED ONE,MADE DRUNK,BUT NOT WITH WINE. THIS IS WHAT YOUR SOVEREIGN LORD

   SAYS,YOUR GOD WHO DEFENDS HIS PEOPLE. SEE,I HAVE TAKEN OUT OF YOUR HAND THE CUP THAT MADE YOU

   STAGGER, FROM THAT CUP,THE GOBLET OF MY WRATH YOU WILL NEVER DRINK AGAIN. I WILL PUT IT IN THE HANDS

  OF YOUR TORMENTORS, WHO SAID TO YOU,'FALL PROSTRATE THAT WE MAY WALK OVER YOU[SIN] AND YOU MADE

  YOUR BACK LIKE THE GROUND.


   iSAAIH 40  cOMFORT FOR GOD'S PEOPLE

   Speak tenderly to God's people and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed,that her sin has been

  paid for,that she has received from the Lord's hand double for all her sins.

    the wrath of God[displeasure for Adam choosing that which displeased Him] has been poured out resulting in death coming to

all  in Adam.      DO NOT EAT FROM THE TOKOGAE LEST YE DIE........

   WHO WILL SAVE US FROM OUR SINS?DEATH?WRATH OF GOD?   PRAISE BE TO GOD WHOSE OWN ARM WORKED

  SALVATION....as all men have bore the image of the corrupt one...so,too,shall all bear the image of the incorrupt one.


     God does not give His Glory to another...man in the corrupt image exhibits all the fruitage of the wicked one,strife/death

    sickness/famine/destruction....when God's spirit/glory is in man..you will see the fruit of love,joy,peace,mercy,eternal life.


     The Good man will bring forth Good,of the good that is stored up in his heart.  Goodnews of Great joy unto men.

[dajomaco]

Romans 4
13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

[sheila]

Galations 3  what then was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions,until the seed to whom

  the promise referred had come.

  v 21 is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law could have been given that could impart

  life,then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.. BUT THE SCRIPTURES DECLARE THAT THE WHOLE

  WORLD IS A PRISONER OF SIN,SO THAT WHAT WAS PROMISED,BEING GIVEN THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST

  MIGHT BE GIVEN TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE.

  Before this faith came,we were held prisoners by the law,locked up,until faith should be revealed. So,the law was

put in charge to lead us to Christ,that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come,we are no longer under

supervision of the law.

[Seth]

My opinion:

The wrath of God

Romans 1
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

What the Law has to do with the Wrath of God

Romans 7
10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

The sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law - 1 Corinthians 15:56

[joeteekay]

Yes Seth I agree with what you said. My main point was that the wrath of man is different from the wrath of God.

I repeat:

ὀργή -  Strong's G3709) orge, gen. orges fem. noun from orego (3713), covet after, desire. Wrath, anger as a state of mind. Contrast  θυμός  - thumos (2372),, indignation, wrath as the outburst of a vengeful mind. Aristole says that orge, anger is desire with grief (compare: Mark 3:5, Rom 12:19

And:

Mans" wrath is vengeful and full of hate. God's wrath is corrective leading to a good end (love).

And so I agree with your quoting Romans 1 in this context.

My opinion:

The wrath of God

Romans 1
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

What the Law has to do with the Wrath of God

Romans 7
10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

The sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law - 1 Corinthians 15:56

[Seth]

Yes Seth I agree with what you said. My main point was that the wrath of man is different from the wrath of God.

Yes I agree, if I compare the wrath of God in Romans 1 to the Parable of the Prodigal Son, it seems to me that the son was likewise turned over to his own mind to defile himself, but the emotional disposition of the Father was hopeful, waiting for him to return. I agree it's not like man's wrath. As Apostle James said, "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." It's not that would minimize his wrath. But that it ought not be understood as being the same as man's wrath.

[RaiderGonzo]

seth, dajomaco, jabcat, marie glen, white wings, eaglesway, sheila, joeteekay, very interesting responses  :thumbsup:

wrath = the natural consequence of sin / acknowledgment of sin  :Chinscratch:

goes somewhat with the lines written by Tony Lane

The Wrath of God as an Aspect of the Love of God 

.. because God's love itself implies his wrath. Without his wrath God is simply not loving in the sense that the Bible portrays his love.

There is a third and more subtle way in which the wrath of God is undermined. C. H. Dodd, in a brief but highly influential section of his Moffatt Romans commentary, offers a reinterpretation of the concept. Talk of God's anger is too anthropomorphic. "Paul never uses the verb, 'to be angry,' with God as subject." While the original meaning of "the wrath of God" was the passion of anger, by the time of Paul it had come to refer to an impersonal process of cause and effect, the inevitable result of sin. Thus, "anger as an attitude of God to men disappears, and His love and mercy become all- embracing. This is, as I believe, the purport of the teaching of Jesus, with its emphasis on limitless forgiveness." Essentially Paul agrees, but he retains the concept of the wrath of God, "which does not appear in the teaching of Jesus, unless we press certain features of the parables in an illegitimate manner." In Paul the wrath of God describes not "the attitude of God to man" but "an inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe." "In the long run we cannot think with full consistency of God in terms of the highest human ideals of personality and yet attribute to Him the irrational passion of anger."

Dodd's approach has stimulated considerable debate, and it would be hard to find a recent serious English-language discussion of the wrath of God that does not refer to him. A. T. Hanson, in his substantial monograph on the subject, The Wrath of the Lamb, follows broadly in Dodd's footsteps. Dodd and those who follow him are united in affirming that the wrath of God is to be understood purely as effectus, as the effects or consequences of sin, rather than affectus, as a prior emotion or feeling on God's part. God is not to be thought of as angry and loving, either at the same time or alternately. We should not speak of "God's displeasure," because displeasure suggests a personal feeling in God. "The wrath of God is wholly impersonal and does not describe an attitude of God but a condition of men." But there is some ambiguity in these writers about the extent of God's involvement in this effectus. At times the impression is given, as in Dodd's brief account, that this is purely an inevitable byproduct of sin, not in any way willed by God. R. P. C. Hanson, by contrast, is willing to talk robustly of God punishing, while denying that God's wrath is an affectus.

http://www.theologynetwork.org/christian-beliefs/doctrine-of-god/getting-stuck-in/the-wrath-of-god-as-an-aspect-of-the-love-of-god.htm

agree / disagree, any further thoughts and/or insight in regards to the wrath of God?

[eaglesway]

What Dodd says begins with a misleading premise. If it is true Paul never specifically refers to God as "angry"- Paul does speak of the wrath of God and there are many places in the scripture that refer to God as being angry. This isnt anthropomorphic unless we see it from a man-centered view. God's anger is different than man's.

The anger of man does not accomplish the righteousness of God. God's anger accomplishes His righteousness and passes like the night into the dawn of His mercy. The problem with making broad statements like, "God never really gets angry" in defense of UR is that they are false, and it makes the defense look false.

Anyone who has read the scriptures knows God gets angry at times. This does not mean he is an angry person, as a man or a woman may be. The issue is to define God's anger as opposed to man's.

God does not get bitter.

God is never vindictive.

God does not "let the sun go down on His anger".

God is angry without sin.

God always forgives, and indeed, has forgiven all in Christ.

But God does get angry. I found MANY references in the scripture to the anger of God. I will only quote one, from Hebrews 3;10.

Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,

"Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me,
As in the day of trial in the wilderness,
Where your fathers tried Me by testing Me,
And saw My works for forty years.
"Therefore I was angry with this generation,
And said, 'They always go astray in their heart,
And they did not know My ways';
As I swore in My wrath,
'They shall not enter My rest.'"

12 Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God.

In this quote, wrath and anger are synonymous. I would say they are synonymous throughout the scripture. The problem is, when a point of theology or philosophy transcends the plain language of the scriptures- it is only then accessible to theologians and philosophers. The average man or woman reads what is plainly written and has the integrity to wrestle with how the apparent contradictions are resolved honestly.

Theologians and philosophers create constructs that ignore or dismiss or minimize the direct words, and thereby escape the responsibility of reconciling the plain words with their lofty ideal. Their lofty ideal is actually correct in this case. "God does all from love." But they have taken an unacceptable short cut to get there. This is actually a basic foundation of exegesis, a fancy theological word for saying that the truths we apprehend must connect with the writings---- truths rendered in proper priority and context, explainable through the application of scripture, without denying other scripture.

In my opinion, nothing God does is "effectus."  His name is, "I AM That I AM"

So, the proper response is to contextualize and explain the anger of God from the scriptures, for what it is, not deny it. God's anger is not effectus- it is emotion. God has the complete range of emotion, He created us in His image. But none of His emotions are tainted by, or distorted into, sins.

:Peace2:

[marie glen]

I think you're right! (Eaglesway). When someone asks me about God's anger or has the attitude God is mean, which is an attitude that's around as we know, I like to bring up scenarios where a God worth His salt WOULD ABSOLUTELY be angry.. from the Bible of course, I think it's psalm 16 or 106? (36?) which says the last straw with God in Old Testament days was the placing of live babies in fire as a sacrifice to other 'gods' (Molech in the valley of Hinnom/Armegeddon)..

I can think of other scenarios where God may indeed feel much righteous anger.. the beheading of defenseless prisoners.. and many other horrible things down through history.

And I think you are very right that His pure and holy anger is not in any way tainted with a lower nature, error or wrongdoing :)

[Seth]

I agree. I don't like saying that the wrath of God IS the consequences of man's sin because it looks like it's saying that the wrath is coming from man rather than God. The wrath should be attributed to God, not man. But I do believe that the wrath of God is expressed through a pattern of letting man reap his own rewards of sin. Even when he sent fire onto S and G, I think that's a symbol of the wrath they were already under since Adam brought death into the world. When I compare Romans 1 to the Prodigal Son I see a strong correlation and yet the Father waits at the door for a return he knows will happen.

[eaglesway]

. The wrath should be attributed to God, not man. But I do believe that the wrath of God is expressed through a pattern of letting man reap his own rewards of sin.

Yup.

[Searching_For_The_Truth]

. The wrath should be attributed to God, not man. But I do believe that the wrath of God is expressed through a pattern of letting man reap his own rewards of sin.

That's also how I see it

[dajomaco]

The prodigal son was separated from the Father.
The Father was still interested in what the son was doing but decided not to interfere.

We can separate ourselves from God .
Our sin can separate us .

But God is greater than our sin.

[Seth]

I agree with. But also the Father gave the son all the means he needed to separate himself. Without the Father giving him the means, the son would have most likely stayed. But he still would have had the wrong attitude internally.

[dajomaco]

I agree with. But also the Father gave the son all the means he needed to separate himself. Without the Father giving him the means, the son would have most likely stayed. But he still would have had the wrong attitude internally.

ETers believe God gave the son the means to separate himself for eternity .
As a Father God will interfere and only allow the separation
to demonstrate the True Love God is.