Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God

  • Thread starter Thread starter EphelDuath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EphelDuath

Guest
Jonathan Edwards was a Protestant, but the substance of this sermon is more about the context human beings live in, rather than a theological diatribe. So I’m curious what Catholics should think of it; it’s a famous work, so I’m sure Catholic theologians have commented on it frequently.
 
The title is “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards.

It was preached in the 1720s in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and has since become a well-known piece of Americana from the Puritan period.

As it would be long out of copyright and has appeared in anthologies, you could likely find it on Project Gutenberg.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA
 
I read the thing years ago, for high school.

I am not a theologian nor priest, just a sinner, but it seems to me, that Edwards’ characterization of God as just waiting to drop human beings into Hell runs counter to Catholic teaching. But that would be modern Catholic teaching; I don’t know how it would have jibed with Catholic teaching in the 1720s!

ICXC NIKA
 
Jonathan Edwards was a Protestant, but the substance of this sermon is more about the context human beings live in, rather than a theological diatribe. So I’m curious what Catholics should think of it; it’s a famous work, so I’m sure Catholic theologians have commented on it frequently.
Well I don’t know that Catholics “should” think of it at all.

I know that personally I don’t think of God in terms of “angry”. To me this runs contrary to Love which, since John tells us that “God is Love” (1 John 4:8), must run contrary to God.

Rather, I view it as Sinners at the Hands of an disappointed God. A Saddened God. Yet none the less a Just God.

Peace
James
 
Jonathan Edwards was a Protestant, but the substance of this sermon is more about the context human beings live in, rather than a theological diatribe. So I’m curious what Catholics should think of it; it’s a famous work, so I’m sure Catholic theologians have commented on it frequently.
Hi EphelDuath,
I would be interested in reading the sermon again. I remember it was a good sermon to bring people into repentance and conversion.

ANY preaching that is true, that leads people to repentance is a good thing.

Can you post the sermon? You can find it online I’m sure.
I’d be interested in discussing it from a Catholic perspective.
 
In my recollection, it’s called, “Sinners in the hands of an angry God.”

And it’s about lukewarm Christians. Those Christ said, that he’d rather have us hot or cold, but since we are merely lukewarm, he would spit us out of His mouth.
Revelation 3 (I think) in the words to the Laodicean Church.
 
Well I don’t know that Catholics “should” think of it at all.

I know that personally I don’t think of God in terms of “angry”. To me this runs contrary to Love which, since John tells us that “God is Love” (1 John 4:8), must run contrary to God.

Rather, I view it as Sinners at the Hands of an disappointed God. A Saddened God. Yet none the less a Just God.

Peace
James
How is anger contrary to love? God frequently shows anger throughout the Bible and in the estimations of the saints throughout the ages
 
Jonathan Edwards was a Protestant, but the substance of this sermon is more about the context human beings live in, rather than a theological diatribe. So I’m curious what Catholics should think of it; it’s a famous work, so I’m sure Catholic theologians have commented on it frequently.
Just reading the wikipedia article on Jonathan Edwards. Learned a lot more than I did in the eighties, when only presented with his sermon. I found it interesting that he has been compared to Hans Urs von Balthazar.
 
How is anger contrary to love? God frequently shows anger throughout the Bible and in the estimations of the saints throughout the ages
Remember that humans use human terms to express things.
Anger is a negative human emotion that manifests itself in often violent ways. If God, who IS Love, finds need to chastize his children and uses a punishment (drought, flood, war, disease), that chasizement might be understood and recorded as anger by the scripture writers, but it is in fact, a well thought out, specifically executed correction in the eyes of God.

Like a parent who does not get angry, and yet punish. The Child may “read” anger in the parent’s chastizement, but the parent is actually disappointed, and feels the need to apply some well thought out and specifically executed correction ranging from a time out, to a paddling, to “grounding” to whatever…

Now - I won’t say that “tecnically” anger is opposed to Love…Perhaps by dictionary and theological definitions it is not, but I DO know that Anger is listed as one of the cardinal or deadly sins…and as such is something God would not have anything to do with.
So I don’t see our Loving Father becoming angry with us.
Disappointed yes - Angry No
But maybe that’s just me

Peace
James
 
Remember that humans use human terms to express things.
Anger is a negative human emotion that manifests itself in often violent ways. If God, who IS Love, finds need to chastize his children and uses a punishment (drought, flood, war, disease), that chasizement might be understood and recorded as anger by the scripture writers, but it is in fact, a well thought out, specifically executed correction in the eyes of God.

Like a parent who does not get angry, and yet punish. The Child may “read” anger in the parent’s chastizement, but the parent is actually disappointed, and feels the need to apply some well thought out and specifically executed correction ranging from a time out, to a paddling, to “grounding” to whatever…

Now - I won’t say that “tecnically” anger is opposed to Love…Perhaps by dictionary and theological definitions it is not, but I DO know that Anger is listed as one of the cardinal or deadly sins…and as such is something God would not have anything to do with.
So I don’t see our Loving Father becoming angry with us.
Disappointed yes - Angry No
But maybe that’s just me

Peace
James
What is a sin for humans is not a sin for God. Jesus Himself described harsh and eternal punishments for those who rejected Him
 
There are times when it is good to be angry, and times when it is not good to be angry.

The scriptures are full of what is described as the anger of God, and Our Lord Jesus Christ displays, as a lesson to us for when it is necessary.

That said I think normally people are self indulgent about it, and led by it, rather than using it properly. Under its control, rather than making a controlled use of it to achieve some actually foreseen good.

‘There is an anger which is engendered of evil, and there is an anger engendered of good. Hastiness of temper is the cause of the evil, divine principle is the cause of the good, such as that which Phinees felt when he allayed God’s anger by the use of his own sword.’

Pope St. Gregory the Great

‘We must beware lest, when we use anger as an instrument of virtue, it overrule the mind, and go before it as its mistress, instead of following in reason’s train, ever ready, as its handmaid, to obey.’

Pope St. Gregory the Great

'Only the person who becomes irate without reason, sins. Whoever becomes irate for a just reason is not guilty. Because, if ire were lacking, the science of God would not progress, judgments would not be sound, and crimes would not be repressed.

Further, the person who does not become irate when he has cause to be, sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices: it fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all the good, to do wrong.’

St. John Chrysostom

‘It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God’s work, since he who has power to punish “is God’s minister,” as stated in Romans 13:4.’

St. Thomas Aquinas
 
What is a sin for humans is not a sin for God. Jesus Himself described harsh and eternal punishments for those who rejected Him
Well - I don’t really want to get into a big philosophical discussion about this.
I have simply expressed how I view my relationship with the Father who Love me, even though I am not a very good child…😦

If it serves your spiritual life better to view it differently than I do, then by all means do so.

Peace
James
 
IMHO, Jonathan Edwards is fully on point in the dire warnings he provides. While God has shown unfathomable love to sinners in Christ, it is also an explicit truth of the Old and New Testament that God has continual wrath toward the wicked who refuse His mercy.

Psalm 5:7 Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity: Thou wilt destroy all that speak a lie. The bloody and the deceitful man the Lord will abhor.(Douay-Rheims)

John 3:36 He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.(Douay-Rheims)

As to the very real and eternal expression of the wrath God toward the unrepentant sinner in hell–a long list of statements by Christ as well as the Apostles could be provided.

As a quick example of the Church’s teachings on the matter of God’s eternal wrath against sinners realized in hell–St. John Chrysostom:
“For when you hear of fire, do not suppose the fire in that world to be like this: for fire in this world burns up and makes away with anything which it takes hold of; but that fire is continually burning those who have once been seized by it, and never ceases: therefore also is it called unquenchable. For those also who have sinned must put on immortality, not for honor, but to have a constant supply of material for that punishment to work upon; and how terrible this is, speech could never depict, but from the experience of little things it is possible to form some slight notion of these great ones. For if you should ever be in a bath which has been heated more than it ought to be, think then, I pray you, on the fire of hell: or again if you are ever inflamed by some severe fever transfer your thoughts to that flame, and then you will be able clearly to discern the difference. For if a bath and a fever so afflict and distress us, what will our condition be when we have fallen into that river of fire which winds in front of the terrible judgment-seat. Then we shall gnash our teeth under the suffering of our labors and intolerable pains: but there will be no one to succor us: yea we shall groan mightily, as the flame is applied more severely to us, but we shall see no one save those who are being punished with us, and great desolation. And how should any one describe the terrors arising to our souls from the darkness? For just as that fire has no consuming power so neither has it any power of giving light: for otherwise there would not be darkness. The dismay produced in us then by this, and the trembling and the great astonishment can be sufficiently realized in that day only. For in that world many and various kinds of torment and torrents of punishment are poured in upon the soul from every side. And if any one should ask, and how can the soul bear up against such a multitude of punishments and continue being chastised through interminable ages, let him consider what happens in this world, how many have often borne up against a long and severe disease. And if they have died, this has happened not because the soul was consumed but because the body was exhausted, so that had the latter not broken down, the soul would not have ceased being tormented. When then we have received an incorruptible and inconsumable body there is nothing to prevent the punishment being indefinitely extended. For here indeed it is impossible that the two things should coexist. I mean severity of punishment and permanence of being, but the one contends with the other, because the nature of the body is perishable and cannot bear the concurrence of both: but when the imperishable state has supervened, there would be an end of this strife, and both these terrible things will keep their hold upon us for infinite time with much force. Let us not then so dispose ourselves now as if the excessive power of the tortures were destructive of the soul: for even the body will not be able to experience this at that time, but will abide together with the soul, in a state of eternal punishment, and there will not be any end to look to beyond this. How much luxury then, and how much time will you weigh in the balance against this punishment and vengeance? Do you propose a period of a hundred years or twice as long? And what is this compared with the endless ages? For what the dream of a single day is in the midst of a whole lifetime, that the enjoyment of things here is as contrasted with the state of things to come. Is there then any one who, for the sake of seeing a good dream, would elect to be perpetually punished? Who is so senseless as to have recourse to this kind of retribution?” (Ad Theod. 1.10)

Jonathan Edwards correctly speaks of the great opportunity we now have in Christ during this short time of mercy:
'Tis doubtless the case of some that heretofore you have seen and known, that never deserved hell more than you, and that heretofore appeared as likely to have been now alive as you: their case is past all hope; they are crying in extreme misery and perfect despair; but here you are in the land of the living, and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would not those poor damned, hopeless souls give for one day’s such opportunity as you now enjoy!

And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has flung the door of mercy wide open, and stands in the door calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners…"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top