There are at least two viable reasons why I believe that wrath cannot be considered an attribute of God. First and foremost, Scripture nowhere states that wrath is an attribute which makes up the nature, essence, or character of God. More than merely an argument from silence, this assertion rests on Scripture, which does indicate what characteristics comprise God’s nature (i.e., love, holiness, justice, omniscience, etc.). Second, wrath as an attribute cannot be expressed intrapersonally among the members of the Godhead (Trinity).
That Scripture indicates God expresses or demonstrates wrath is undeniable (cf. Matt. 3:7; John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 2:5, 8; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; Heb. 3:11; 4:3; Rev. 6:16, 17; 14:10, 19; 15:1, 7; 16:1, 19; 19:15 et al.). The prophet Nahum writes, "A jealous and avenging God is the LORD; the LORD is avenging and wrathful. The LORD takes vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserves wrath for His enemies. The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, and the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished" (Nahum 1:2-3 NASB).
This and other like verses (cf. Deut. 9:7; 2 Kings 22:13; Ezra 5:12; Ps. 5:5; 7:11; 11:5-6; Isa. 59:18; Rev. 14:10, 19; 15:7; 19:15) have left some with the impression that wrath is part of God’s nature -- part of the very essence which makes God, God. Calvinist Wayne Grudem, for example, writes:
It may surprise us to find how frequently the Bible talks about the wrath of God. Yet if God loves all that is right and good and all that conforms to his moral character, it should not be surprising that he would hate everything that is opposed to his moral character. God’s wrath directed against sin is therefore closely related to God’s holiness and justice. God’s wrath may be defined as follows: God’s wrath means that he intensely hates all sin.1
Dr. Grudem is right, I think, in stating that God’s moral character hates that to which it is opposed. But instead of suggesting that God’s wrath is "related to" His holiness and justice -- as though it is merely the negative component of the two attributes -- would it not be more proper to insist that God’s wrath is the result of His holiness and justice being offended? I think so.
For example, when the Bible reveals certain attributes of God, each are stated in such a way that relates to who God is -- His character. Take the attribute of love for example. The apostle John writes that God is love (1 John 4:8). This speaks of God’s character and nature. God does not merely possess love. He does not merely express love. Love is part of His character or essence.
Wrath, however, is not mentioned as part of God’s essence, nature, or character in Scripture. If God had never created anything or anyone, He would still be love, because that is who He is; and love could be, can be, and is expressed within the three Persons of the Trinity. Wrath, on the contrary, cannot be expressed within the Trinity. If wrath is one of the many components which make God, God, then how can wrath be demonstrated within the three persons of the Godhead from all eternity past? It could not, and therefore cannot, be an attribute of God.
God indeed expresses, and is willing to demonstrate, wrath. His "loving" attribute does not prevent Him from expressing anger or punishing sin. But Scripture does not teach that wrath is a component which makes up the nature and essence of God. Again, Grudem writes:
This also is an attribute for which we should thank and praise God. It may not immediately appear to us how this can be done, since wrath seems to be such a negative concept. Yet it is helpful for us to ask what God would be like if he were a God who did not hate sin. . . . God’s wrath should motivate us to evangelism and should also cause us to be thankful that God finally will punish all wrongdoing and will reign over a new heavens and a new earth in which there will be no unrighteousness.2
The problem Grudem and other Calvinists present, in my opinion, is twofold: 1) the fact that God hates and will punish sin does not necessitate wrath as being an attribute of God. He could react in wrath and anger at sin without it being an attribute; and 2) the mere fact that God, in Calvinism, has meticulously foreordained everything which happens among His creatures merely by decree, and also will "punish all wrongdoing" -- wrongdoing which He meticulously foreordained by decree -- is quite troubling. That’s like constructing a compass and then blaming it when it points north -- the very action for which you constructed the compass! Is this the holy and just nature or character of God that we see demonstrated in Scripture -- that we see demonstrated in Jesus Christ, "the exact representation of His nature" (Heb. 1:3 NASB)? I do not think so.
However, what behooves us all to remember is that, though God is willing to demonstrate wrath (Rom. 9:22), it is not necessarily His delight to do so. God "takes no pleasure" in the destruction of human beings (Ezek. 18:32; 33:11). What pleases God is redemption (1 Tim. 2:3-4), not condemnation: He sent His Son into the world to save human beings (John 3:16), not to condemn them (John 3:17).
John Piper is not convinced by this argument. He writes: "This verse [Psalm 115:3; cf. 135:6] teaches that whenever God acts, he acts in a way that pleases him. God is never constrained to do a thing that he despises. He is never backed into a corner where his only recourse is to do something he hates to do. He does whatever he pleases. And therefore, in some sense, he has pleasure in all that he does" (link).
For Piper, everything God does or enacts brings Him pleasure. Therefore, having unconditionally predetermined to consign untold billions to an eternal torment in hell actually brought (and will bring) God pleasure, contrary to Scripture (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11). Dr. Thomas Oden, on the other hand, has implicated the happiness (blessedness) of God correctly when he writes:
To say that God is eternally blessed means that God rejoices eternally in the outpouring of goodness, mercy, and love upon creatures, each in accordance with their ability to participate in God’s being. The blessedness of God, or divine beatitude, means that God’s life is full of joy, both within the Godhead and in relation to creatures. God’s enjoyment of redeemed creation is compared to the joy of a bridegroom who rejoices over the bride (Isa. 62:5). . . .
One is blessed who "has whatever he wills and who wills nothing evil" (Tho. Aq., SCG I.100, p. 300, referring to Augustine, Trin. XIII. 5, NPNF 1 III, p. 171). God has what he wills and wills nothing evil, and is therefore incomparably blessed. . . . It is also said that God is angry and grieved over idolatry and sin. . . . Terms such as "God’s anger" are based on analogies that point to God’s rejection of sin. These analogies are best used with constraint. Since the foreknowledge of God always already envisions the triumph of grace over sin . . . God rejoices also at the overcoming of sin, even while sin is amid history gradually being judged and overruled. . . .3
Jesus said, "I tell you that . . . there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent" (Luke 15:7). Jesus was reacting to the attitude of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, who said of Jesus, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them" (Luke 15:2). The Pharisees and teachers of the Law thought that they were righteous. They were the "righteous persons who do not need to repent," meaning that they did not think they needed to repent due to their righteous works of the Law.
Nevertheless, what we find at Luke 15 is that what makes God rejoice; i.e., what brings Him pleasure is the repentance, not the reprobation, of a sinner. If wrath were an attribute of God, a component of His nature, then even reprobation would bring Him direct pleasure. But Scripture teaches that the death of the wicked does not bring Him pleasure. For some theologians to insist that the death of the wicked actually does bring God pleasure speaks volumes about their own view of the Triune God.
__________
1 Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 94.
2 Ibid., 95.
3 Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, Systematic Theology, Volume One (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1987), 128-9.
We have no idea. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for intercepting that which I deserved. I am so unworthy yet so, so grateful. I will never fully grasp the sufferings You absorbed on that cruel cross.
ReplyDeletePlease use my earthly life to shine on You alone.
Amen.
DeleteRick - I pray that we all learn such an attitude
DeleteWWB,
ReplyDeleteA very interesting article. I'm working on one myself in a similar vein dealing with justice and retribution, hopefully I'll have it up in the next couple of days.
Romans 13:4 at least implies that wrath is a response or reaction to evil, and wrath is often described in very finite terms throughout, in particular, the NT. I do not believe evil (or opposition to God) is an eternal verity, and that the Lake of Fire will entirely squelch all such opposition (not reactively but proactively). It makes sense to me therefore that wrath is not an attribute of God's nature, but a "momentary" reaction to a possibility that won't be possible in the ages to come. A wrathful God in the new heavens and earth doesn't really seem to fit.
Here is our glory and joy: God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ
SLW,
DeleteI agree with your response, and I very much look forward to reading your thoughts from your own postings.
WWB - Thanks for writing this. I think you helped to show that Arminians do have a plenary understanding of God. Calvinists often accuse Arminians of just looking at God's love, that we don't understand about God's justice and wrath.
ReplyDeleteI really like this statement, "wrath as an attribute cannot be expressed intrapersonally among the members of the Godhead (Trinity)." That seems to be a good way of understanding God's attributes. Since we know the doctrine of aseity to be true, then an attribute has to be expressed within Himself to be properly understood.
An attribute cannot be dependent upon anything outside of the Triune God.
I have a question, though:
You wrote, "He could react in wrath and anger at sin..." Since the doctrine of aseity is true, then God never reacts, true? Reacting, to me, seems like God learns something. Since He is omniscient, how could He react? Did you mean something else there beside react? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
William will respond I'm sure, so forgive me for butting in, but one must be cautious when applying the concept of aseity, and derivatively simplicity, to God. When God tells us things about himself such as "whatever you ask in my name, that will I do" (John 14:13), or "now I know" (Genesis 22:12), they fly flat in the face of some conceptions of what God "must" be in view of his omniscience. Throughout the scripture God shows the flexibility of response, reaction, and discovery. Our view of his omniscience must be able to embrace this self-revelation without doing violence to it.
DeleteSLW - You are always welcome to "butt in." I've come to admire and respect your input on this blog. (I've even taken the time to read your blog on occasion.)
DeleteWhat you say is undoubtedly true. I don't want to oversimplify a multifaceted God. There are plenty of "if...then" clauses in the Bible where God does seem to be responding. The reacting and discovering language is where I have a problem understanding how a timeless, omniscient God could react or discover.
I see, in my own life, that which appears to be God responding to my prayers. For a shameless plug, see my blog entry on this: http://www.ironstrikes.com/2/post/2012/01/prayer-and-komboli.html
Now, a Calvinist could say, "it just seems like God is responding. He determined the situation where you would ask God for help and then had already determined the outcome since eternity past."
I believe more than that. I see the Bible replete with examples of "if..then" statements which shows a God responding to the prayers of His people. God desires an intimate relationship with us, not a faux relationship like we see in Calvinism.
Where I have trouble (and Calvinists explain this away as anthropomorphism) in my understanding are those occasions in the Bible where God does seem to react and discover.
For example, God becomes very angry with the Israelites when they worship the golden calf and Moses intercedes asking God to not be angry.
Another example is when God says, "I've come down to find out for myself..." in Genesis 18:20 & 21. That sounds like God is discovering to me.
So, SLW, please feel free to expound. Obviously, I don't have everything figured out :-)
Dr. W.,
DeleteNo, I meant react, hahaha. I'm kinda being cute (well, at least to me I am). I do mean react, but not in any sense that God learned something and then reacted to it. Rather, I mean that when so and so did such and such, then God reacted to it -- having always foreknown it, of course. I suppose I could just as well say that God acted when so and so did such and such, but I used the word react because that's our normal usage. I have no doubt we're saying the same thing.
Hello Dale, part 1
Delete“I have a question, though:
You wrote, "He could react in wrath and anger at sin..." Since the doctrine of aseity is true, then God never reacts, true? Reacting, to me, seems like God learns something. Since He is omniscient, how could He react? Did you mean something else there beside react? Or am I misunderstanding your point?”
First, aseity refers to the fact of God’s self-existence and his unchanging nature. However this is not the same as God responding or not responding to things happening in the world. It is Greek philosophy not scripture that paints a picture of an unchanging deity who experiences no emotions whatsoever and neither reacts nor responds to things. The bible does not present this picture at all.
Instead, the bible presents God as personal, as experiencing emotion (though he does not experience emotions in exactly the same way that we do) and as personally involving himself with his creatures (i.e. intervening, responding and reacting to what occurs in the world).
Second, you bring up omniscience as a possible problem for the idea that God genuinely responds to things in the world. Omniscience simply means that God knows what all future outcomes will be. So he knows what choice you will have in the future as well as what choice you will end up making with the choice that you will have. There is no incompatibility between free will and omniscience (despite the protestations and attempted arguments of calvinists and open theists). So let’s put that one aside for now. So where might the incompatibility be then? You bring up omniscience so let’s look at the compatibility between God genuinely responding and omniscience. Omniscience means God knows all future outcomes but again how does that conflict with God genuinely responding?
Robert
Hello Dale, part 2
DeleteThird, let’s use a few examples to show how this might work, how omniscience and genuinely responding might be compatible with one another.
First example, salvation. God promises that those who trust him alone for salvation will be saved. The promise is conditioned upon a faith response from us. If we choose to respond with faith to God’s promise, then does God respond to our faith? Yes, the bible tells us that His response includes forgiving our sins, giving us the Holy Spirit, adopting us into the family of God, etc. What if we choose not to trust God for salvation? Is God’s response the same? No. Now does God foreknow whether or not a particular individual will respond in faith? Yes as he foreknows everything.
Arminius himself made a distinction between the antecedent will of God and the consequent will of God. By this he meant that God comes up with a plan of salvation (that is done antecedently, as the bible describes it “from the foundation of the world”). This plan of salvation also includes the fact that faith is a condition of salvation (that those who trust the Lord will be justified). So God comes up with the plan first, he then responds accordingly (the consequent will of God) depending upon how people respond to his plan of salvation. He came up with the plan; he operates according to his own plan, but our response is involved in that plan. And depending upon how we respond to his plan he responds to us. [and note this does not make God dependent upon man as He himself set up the plan and sovereignly decided that this is how the plan of salvation would operate]
Example two, biblical covenants. Throughout the bible God sets up covenants and then his response to people depends upon their actions in relation to these covenants. Israel is an especially good example of this as God tells them (in the blessings and cursings section) that if they obey Him they will be blessed and if they disobey they will be cursed. One can then see his various responses to Israel throughout the OT depending upon their obedience or disobedience. In all of these situations God both foreknew how they would actually respond and yet they were acting freely in each instance when they did what they did.
Example three, prayer. God makes some absolutely incredible promises about prayer in scripture. Some are conditioned upon faith others are even conditioned upon a person’s moral character (the prayer of the righteous man availeth much . . .). We are also told in scripture that sin has a part in our prayers not being answered. Seems to me that this area displays the fact that God responds to what we do in a very personal and genuine way. Does God foreknow whether or not we will pray, how we will pray and also if he will answer or how he will answer? I would say definitely.
I would conclude then that there is no incompatibility between God foreknowing all future events and God simultaneously genuinely responding to people and what they do.
Robert
Dr W & WWB,
DeleteI think it is impossible to truly understand God's timeless omniscience. We just do not have the experiential context in which to do so. Suffice it to say, that when God outside of time sees us doing a thing it is because he sees us doing it, even if we haven't done it yet in time. So can God react to us? Yes, because he is reacting to what he sees, even though, because he sees all time at once, he doesn't have to "wait" in order to do so. I think a good way to test this is to imagine eternity--will God interact (which entails reaction) with us there? For me it is hard to envision an eternity where he would not. If there, then everywhere.
Thanks WWB, Bob & SLW - I truly believe that God, who is timeless and omniscient, desires to have an intimate relationship with us. A two-way relationship where I express my love and dependence on Him and He expresses his love and care for me.
DeleteI think of it this way and I would appreciate feedback. I see God painting the picture of creation or writing the novel of the world and He doesn't just script the characters like Calvinism teaches. To me, it seems more like God puts me in the painting and then I can talk to Him about where He put me, telling Him my struggles and successes for where He put me. I then petition Him to place me somewhere else or give me another script, and He listens. Sometimes, He agrees with me and does what I ask, other times, He denies my petitions, all at the same time being omniscient, knowing what I will do and say.
I also know, at times, God says, "have you thought about this?" And He comes up with something much greater than I could ever hope or imagine. Then I can choose to reject His plan and come up with own. Sometimes my plans are OK, sometimes they cause me to embarrass myself. Sometimes, God works it out so that my plan is successful.
But I have three problems with my thoughts here: 1) It appears like open theism, which I reject, and 2) it appears like God is just someone who is there to grant/deny requests, in other words, I become God by telling Him what to do, and 3) It appears that my theology is all about me but it is not. I know that God interacts with His entire creation not just me. I'm just speaking from my perspective because that is the one I know the best.
DrW,
DeleteOne doesn't have to embrace Open Theism to reject Greek philosophical notions about the attributes of God. We have to separate what God says of himself (the Bible) from what intellectuals have posited about God.
Excellent post.
ReplyDeleteSteve
Steve,
DeleteThank you!
A good book I've read on the subject of God's attributes, particularly related to questions raised by His aseity, simplicity, and immutability is THE UNTAMED GOD by Jay Wesley Richards. He argues that God has both neccessary attributes, which are essential to who He is, and contingent attributes, which would vary according to 'possible worlds' and are based on the fact that God is free to choose different courses of action--including creating worlds. It would seem in this framework that God's wrath is a contingent expression of His holiness, with the latter always true about God, but the former being true in only when there is actual sin. In other words, Holiness is essential to who God is, and would be true of God whether He chose to create or not, but His wrath is how God's holiness and justice are experienced by sinful creatures who exist contingently. So contrary to popular opinion, God doesn't NEED to reprobate people so that His wrath may be expressed, since wrath is not essential to who He is as God. ;-)
ReplyDeleteDoubting Thomas
DT,
DeleteAgreed! And thank you for the recommendation. I'll have to check out Richards.
Hello Doubting Thomas,
Delete“A good book I've read on the subject of God's attributes, particularly related to questions raised by His aseity, simplicity, and immutability is THE UNTAMED GOD by Jay Wesley Richards.”
Agreed it is a very good book.
“He argues that God has both neccessary attributes, which are essential to who He is, and contingent attributes, which would vary according to 'possible worlds' and are based on the fact that God is free to choose different courses of action--including creating worlds.”
This is a useful distinction.
“It would seem in this framework that God's wrath is a contingent expression of His holiness, with the latter always true about God, but the former being true in only when there is actual sin. In other words, Holiness is essential to who God is, and would be true of God whether He chose to create or not, but His wrath is how God's holiness and justice are experienced by sinful creatures who exist contingently.”
That is a good point. Consider if God has created a world of merely physical beings, a world where there were no sentient beings and no sentient beings would ever be present there. In such a world upon whom will he have wrath? The answer is that he would not have wrath in such a world.
On the other hand, because he is holy and if he creates a world where there are mindful beings that sin, then in that world he would have wrath towards sin.
It would seem then that wrath would be contingent upon there being existing beings that sin. Since such beings would not be a part of every creatable world, neither would God’s wrath be a part of every creatable world.
“So contrary to popular opinion, God doesn’t NEED to reprobate people so that His wrath may be exercised, since wrath is not essential to who He is as God. ;-)”
Slight error on the play! :-) According to the calvinist it is not the case that God **needs** to reprobate people so that His wrath is manifested. No, He WANTS to reprobate people to demonstrate his wrath. In calvinism God takes pleasure in reprobating people for his own glory (i.e. in order to manifest his wrath upon them). Now my real problem is not with the idea that God wants to demonstrate his wrath towards sin (that is a biblical concept). NO, my problem is the claim that he does so by reprobating most of the human race. Seems to me that God displays his wrath against sin quite sufficiently on the cross when Jesus is crucified. That simultaneously demonstrates both God’s love for sinners and hatred of sin.
Robert
"Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people."
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am an open theist? But in reality, all of it trashes the mystery of the God head.