God's Wrathful Presence And the Non-Elect
By John C. Orlando, Jr.
In one sermon I preached "A Call To The Unsaved Believer," I mentioned the terrible prospect of Hell, and how unbelievers, far from escaping the presence of God, will in fact have to deal with God in the fullness of His wrath. A dear Christian man, who read the outline of sermon, found some of the things contained in the sermon to be a bit troubling. I have provided his comments, and then my response will follow.
Dear John,
There was one statement in your sermon that concerned me. It was a quote you cited from R.C. Sproul:
“The problem for
those in hell will not be separation from God, it will be the presence of God
that will torment them. In hell,
God will be present in the fullness of His Divine wrath.
He will be there to exercise His just punishment of the damned.
They will know Him as an all-consuming fire."
I did not know that God had a wrathful presence, and will be present in the lake of fire as well, tormenting those he did not choose to receive salvation. The presence of God tormenting really does paint a very sadistic picture of the character of our loving God. That does not sound like the character of God that I know.
Thank you dear sir for your very thoughtful reply. Let me see if I can offer some insight that might help you understand this issue. I hope you don't mind, but I will respond to various sections of your comments piece meal. Here it goes:
There was one statement in your sermon that concerned me. It was a quote you cited from R.C. Sproul:
-- Before I address the statement, I have to say that I’m surprised that you find something wrong with that statement, especially in light of the approval I’ve seen you give to many “fire and brimstone” comments made by various preachers whom you have a very high regard. I know you dislike Dr. Sproul, but don’t let that create a bias against everything he says. And, let me ask you this question: in all honesty, do you think you would not have raised the objection if the quote had come from someone you hold in high esteem? Obviously, I could be very wrong, but it just seems that your response would have been decidedly different had that in fact been the case. I say all of that just to say that I think what is really at the foundation of your concerns is that the quote came from Dr. Sproul. I will try to demonstrate this further in my next comments:
I
did not know that God had a wrathful presence,
-- Now, this is why I stated what I did above. You see, I know what a devoted Christian you are, and am well aware of how much you read and study your Bible. As knowledgeable as you are, I don’t think I’ve ever been more surprised by a statement that you’ve made than this one, and I think the primary reason you’ve made the statement is because of your dislike for Dr. Sproul. I mean, you know very well that the Bible contains numerous allusions to God’s wrath, anger, and fury. If I were to quote every verse and every occasion where God’s wrath and anger were spoken of, and manifested, this would be a very long e-mail. Just pick up your Strong’s Concordance, and you will see what I’m saying, or go to any systematic theology for a discussion on the doctrine of hell and God’s wrath. You might also just take a look at Nave’s Topical Bible under Anger of God, Divine Punishment, etc.
And will be present in the lake of fire as well,
-- The doctrine of God’s omnipresence is well established, and there is no place where God’s presence will not be known in one degree or another. David alludes to this in Psalm 139. Verses 7 and read:
"7 Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? 8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there." (NKJV)
One of the primary references though with regard to God administering His justice in hell is found in Rev 14:9-11:
"9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice,"If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (NKJV)
Now compare R.C. Sproul's exact words with what is written above:
“The
problem for those in hell will not be separation from God, it will be the
presence of God that will torment them. In
hell, God will be present in the fullness of His Divine wrath. He will be there to exercise His just punishment of the
damned. They will know Him as an
all-consuming fire."
I don’t know if R.C.'s quote was from a comment he made on that passage, however, it really does serve as an apt exposition of those verses. By the way, I found the quote in a book written by Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute entitled "Resurrection." He was discussing the resurrection of the lost, and provided that quote from Sproul.
So, is
Dr. Sproul's comments something novel in the history of Christian thought?
Absolutely not. Here are comments from other highly respected Bible
Commentators:
1.
Matthew Henry states in regard to verse 10 in the KJV: "...to
drink deep of the wind of the wrath of God..."
"they shall be for ever miserable in soul and body; Jesus Christ
will inflict this punishment upon them, and the holy angels will
behold it and approve of it."
2.
The Arminian John Wesley writes, “In all the scripture there is not
another so terrible threatening as this... The wrath of God, which is
poured unmixed - Without any mixture of mercy; without hope. Into
the cup of his indignation - And is no real anger implied in all this? O what
will not even wise men assert, to serve an hypothesis!”
3.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown's commentary, published in
1871.: "wine of . . .
wrath of God--(Psalms
75:8). without mixture--"whereas wine was so commonly mixed
with water that to mix wine is used in Greek for to pour out
wine; this wine of God's wrath is undiluted; there is no drop of
water to cool its heat. Naught of grace or hope is blended with it. This
terrible threat may well raise us above the fear of man's threats. This unmixed
cup is already mingled and prepared for Satan and the beast's followers. indignation--Greek,
"orges," "abiding wrath," But the Greek for
"wrath" above (Greek, "thumou") is boiling
indignation, from (Greek, "thuo") a root meaning
"to boil"; this is temporary ebullition of anger; that is lasting [AMMONIUS],
and accompanied with a purpose of vengeance [ORIGEN on Psalm 2:5]. tormented
. . . in the presence of . . . angels--(Psalms
49:14, 58:10,
139:21,
Isaiah
66:24). God's enemies are regarded by the saints as their enemies, and when
the day of probation is past, their mind shall be so entirely one with God's,
that they shall rejoice in witnessing visibly the judicial vindication of God's
righteousness in sinners' punishment.
4.
The great Baptist preacher John Gill stated: The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God…
"Which is a just punishment for their sin; that as such have drank of the
wine of the wrath of Rome's fornication, (Revelation
14:8) so they shall now drink of the wine of God's wrath; it is usual in
Scripture to express the punishment God inflicts upon wicked men by his wrath,
and by the wine cup of his fury; and their suffering such punishment, by their
drinking of it; see (Jeremiah
25:15) (Job
21:20) so (azgwrd Nyy) , "the wine of
wrath", is a phrase used by the Jews: which is poured out without
mixture, into the cup of his indignation; sometimes called
a cup of fury and of trembling, (Isaiah
51:17,22) and is sometimes said to be full of mixture, (Psalms
75:8) of various ingredients of wrath and fury; and the words may be
rendered here, "which is mixed without mixture": and though it seems
to carry in it a contradiction, yet is true in different senses; it may be said
to be mixed as wine with various sorts, which is the stronger, and sooner
inebriates and intoxicates; or in allusion to the cup the Jews gave to
malefactors, to stupefy them, when going to execution, which had various things
put in it for that purpose; (See Gill on Mark
15:23) and so designs the several ingredients in the cup of divine
indignation, or the several ways in which God expresses his wrath; and yet it is
without mixture; it is judgment without mercy, pure wrath, without the least
allay; not so much as a drop of cold water granted, or the least your shown, or
any mitigation of fury for a moment: and he shall be tormented with fire
and brimstone: in allusion to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,
which are now a burning and a sulphurous lake, called Asphaltites, and is an
example, pattern, and similitude of the vengeance of eternal
fire,
(Jude
7) and hence the beast and false prophet are said to be cast into such a
lake, (Revelation
19:20) and here their followers will be punished; which is expressive of the
horrible torments of hell, and the dreadful punishment of the antichristian
party there; see (Psalms
11:6) and what will aggravate their misery is, that it will be in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; the latter
will be their Judge, and will condemn them to everlasting burnings, and
pronounce the sentence on them; and the former will be the executioners of it;
they will gather them out, and sever them from the righteous, and cast them into
the furnace of fire, and will be spectators of their punishment, and rejoice at
it; and the sight of their power and glory will increase the torment of the
sufferers."
The point of hell is that it is the place where God administers His just judgment against sin. And since there are degrees of punishment, God must be present in order to ensure that the right amount of punishment is meted out.
...tormenting those he did not choose to receive salvation.
-- As far as tormenting those He did not choose to receive salvation, your misunderstanding of the doctrine of election is most evident here. A person is sent to hell because of their sin, not because God did not choose them. People are saved on the basis of God’s election of them, and they are damned on the basis of their own rejection of God. No human being deserves Heaven. We all deserve Hell. What God did was ensure that an innumerable amount of people from every nation, tribe, and tongue would not have to endure Hell. He saved them from their sins. He saves whoever He wishes to save.
Now, this may surprise, but everything I’ve said to this point is agreeable both to the Calvinist and the Arminian. What many people repeatedly fail to realize is that the doctrine of election is Biblical, and every Christian must have one. We all agree that God has made His choice to save some sinners and not others. We all agree that the choice was made before time began. We all agree that God infallibly knows who will and who will not be saved, and that the eternal destiny of those whom God has chosen and not chosen is set. To deny any of those things is first of all to deny that clear teaching of Scripture, and secondly to deny that God is all-knowing, because if you really believe that God is all-knowing, then that means God already knows who will and who will not be saved. Just project your thoughts to the end times. Does God know who will and won’t be saved? If He knows that information, then that means that the information is set and will come to pass. So, all are agreed that there are a class of people known as the elect, who were chosen by God from all eternity for salvation, and God knows precisely who will and who will not be saved.
The main point of difference between the Reformed and non-Reformed is on what basis God makes His choice. The Reformed point to something good in God, the non-Reformed point to something good in man. The Reformed understanding exalts God and His glory, the non-Reformed understanding exalts man and his glory (if it can even be called that). I say that there was absolutely nothing good in me that would incline God to choose me, and that the only reason I chose Him is because He first chose me, and then He gave me the ability to choose Him. The non-Reformed person says, in essence, that there was something good in him that inclined God to choose him, namely, God saw that he would first choose God. If a person wants to exalt something good in man as the basis for why God chose him, that’s on them. I’m sticking with the grace of God.
But now, let’s turn the question around. Since the non-Reformed person believes that God does choose some and not others, that means that God does at least make a choice, and that choice ultimately manifests itself in the salvation of the person whom He has chosen. Now you object that God is tormenting those whom He didn’t choose. Well, how do you answer your own objection? You might say, “well, because they didn’t choose God, and that’s why God didn’t choose them, and that’s why they are in hell.” But, you still have to maintain that God made a choice to save one person, and not another, and that ultimately, because of that choice, a person is saved. The only answer you can provide is the same one I provide: no one deserves Heaven, and God punishes those in hell not because He didn’t choose them, but because of their sin. I will sum this all up by saying that election is not the cause of damnation, sin is. Election is only the cause of salvation.
-- Unfortunately, your comment really echoes what every skeptic says about Christianity. If God were merely loving, I can’t think of anyone ever having a problem with the God of the Bible, can you? What disturbs the skeptic is the picture of God pouring out His wrath on sinners. Here is a sampling of the things that those who hate the God of the Bible cry out in protest:
1. How could God be so sadistic as to not only impose the death penalty on Adam and Eve for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but then charge all of their descendants with the guilt of that sin?
2. How could God be so sadistic as to allow all of the evil in the world, knowing full well all of the pain and agony that would ensue?
3. How could God be so sadistic as to confuse peoples languages and spread them all over the planet merely for building a tower?
5. How could God be sadistic as to drown every living creature on earth except the 8 people He had chosen?
6. How could God be so sadistic as to choose to give mercy to one person, and not give mercy to another? If He were truly loving, why doesn't He just save everyone?
7. How could God be so sadistic as to shower down burning sulfur on innocent babies and children in Sodom and Gamorah?
8. How could God be so sadistic as to send all those plagues in Egypt, kill all of their firstborn innocent babies, and then lure their army into a death trap and drown them in the Red Sea?
9. How could God be so sadistic as to open up the earth beneath three men who rebelled against Moses and bury them and their wives and children alive.
10. How could God be so sadistic as to allow untold numbers of innocent women and children and animals to be slaughtered when the Israelites conquered the promised land?
11. How could God be so sadistic as to strike a person dead merely for touching the ark of the covenant when it was beginning to fall to the ground?
12. How could God be so sadistic as to burn Achan and his family alive just for keeping some plunder for themselves?
13. How could God be so sadistic as to send
fire from heaven and consume 250 more men who usurped the office of priest.
14.
How could God be so sadistic as to not only allow His One and only
Son to be tortured on a cross, but to also make Him pay for the crimes of
others, and then pour out His wrath and anger for sin on Him?
15.
How could God be so sadistic as to strike
a man and his wife dead in the middle of a church meeting just for lying about
how much money they had given?
16. How could God be so sadistic as to pour out His wrath upon the earth in the last days, where He will cause people to suffer so much that they will wish they were dead?
17. How could God be so sadistic as to create a place like Hell in the first place, and then be so sadistic as to place persons there not just for a short time, but for eternity?!
The two things that the unbeliever hates and rails against the most are the concept of Holy God who expresses contempt for sinners and His wrath against sin, and the concept of an absolutely sovereign God, who does with His creation as He sees fit. They despise the concept of The Divine Potter, and that we are merely the clay, and He does with the clay as likes, and the clay cannot turn back to the Potter and say, “why have you made me like this?!” This is the God that the natural man hates. This is the God that the unbeliever refers to as being "sadistic." Any Christian that follows in harmony with what unbelievers say about God should really take heed, and think about matters a little more carefully.
That does not sound like the character of God that I know.
-- If the God we claim to know is not the God that is revealed in the pages of Scripture, then what do we have? We have to put to death all of our preconceptions about God, and simply accept what the Bible tells us about the God who is really there, and is not silent.