Comments on: On Teaching Edwards’ “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God”

By: links for 2009-07-15 | The 'K' is not silent

links for 2009-07-15 | The 'K' is not silent — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:01:59 +0000

[...] On Teaching Edwards’ “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God” | internetmonk.com (tags: article theology editorial history sovereignty) [...]

By: Dave N.

Dave N. — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 04:12:30 +0000

Agree it cannot be skipped. But imagine that this sermon is of the major and relatively few points of contact between the general populace and Christianity. Sick.

By: iMonk

iMonk — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:27:23 +0000

I appreciate Murray’s work and have greatly profited from it, but his bio on Edwards is hagiography. Marsden was quite a revelation and explained a lot.

By: joe

joe — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:15:26 +0000

I have not read Marsden’s bio, but I will tell you that Iain H Murray’s bio is rather inspiring. I will also tell you that I heard John R DeWitt years ago preach an “angry” sermon that was probably 100 percent theologically correct and probably used of God. I turned me off. Millions of people. Millions of sermons. Millions of styles.

By: Randy Carey

Randy Carey — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:35:26 +0000

FYI for Pastor Chad. Those lyrics are from “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” a beautiful old hymn recently re-arranged by Michael W. Smith.

By: iMonk

iMonk — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:57:13 +0000

Roger:

Because I edited it.

Read the FAQ for moderation guidelines.

By: John Bell

John Bell — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:11:26 +0000

No one speaks more passionately or eloquently about the love of God in Christ, the glories of the eternal state, or the grace of God extended toward sinners than Jonathan Edwards. He uses vivid description in EVERTHING he preaches – be it hell or heaven. People whose understanding of Edwards is shaped almost exclusively by “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” are getting a distorted portrait.

I wonder if people would think the descriptions Edwards employs of hell, or his theological understanding of God’s angry disposition toward unrepentant sinners would be excessive 30 billion years into eternity when unbelievers are still suffering the just wrath of God in hell? I know that sounds very stark statement, but if hell is a real place, and sinners are not just annihilated, then I feel his sermon is not over the top or unloving at all. Edwards is talking to “multitudes” in his congregation (he had a church of over 1000 people) who are, in his estimation as their pastor, nominal Christians.

By: Patrick Lynch

Patrick Lynch — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:43:54 +0000

“Did he display his kindness to show the brightness of His kindness or is God just kind because he is love.”

To expand on what you were saying, the former description of God is rather… um. Satanic?

A God who deals out mercy capriciously to a few for the purpose of monstrously showing up the rest of His damned Creation, a God whose nature it is to hide His light rather than to be seen and help everyone see, seems to be the antithetical vision of God, indeed the kind of anti-god, that Paul was warning the Corinthians about:

“In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

In fact, the whole passage (2 Corinthians 4:1-6) describes a God (and a relationship with him, and a responsibility to non-believers) who isn’t randomly good, but desiring to use believers who see to conduct to God all the people who cannot see Him! (2 Corinthians 4:13-14)

By: Roger du Barry

Roger du Barry — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:51:54 +0000

Roger du Barry wonders why the noun, Michael, and the phrase, Edwards got it right, were moderated from his post?

Bemused and amused
England

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:46:35 +0000

If God is a Calvinistic then I think the discussion of whether or not Edwards is to harsh is unwarranted. God loves His own glory above all things, If he determines a mob of humanity to everlasting agony for the praise of His glorious justice than in my view the puritans were at least consistent in their sermonizing. A vessel of perfect mercy or a vessel of perfect wrath all for His glory, and if He hates perfectly vessels fit for destruction why I am I commanded to love and pray for them. I think are view of the nature of God will reflect the homilies we give in a fundamental way. Are you and object of divine affection or a vessel prepared for destruction. Double predestination will effect how we view God more than how he views us. Did God ultimately create us to share in is defied humanity for love or for his glory. Did he display his kindness to show the brightness of His kindness or is God just kind because he is love.