- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (12/9)
- Next Post »A La Carte (12/10)
RCT: The Holiness of God (IX)
- 12/09/10
- 16
We have just a few chapters left in our reading of R.C. Sproul’s classic book The Holiness of God. This week we come to chapter 9 which is titled, “God in the Hands of Angry Sinners,” a clear play on the title of Jonathan Edwards’ most famous or notorious sermon.
Summary
I hope no one will accuse me of laziness if I continue posting lists of my favorite quotes from the chapter. I am trying this this time around because a) it may help jog the memories of those who are reading along and b) it gives a sense of the chapter for those who are not reading the book but who are enjoying these posts; it is the way they can most benefit from these articles.
In this chapter Dr. Sproul uses Edwards’ sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” as a jumping-off point to look at an aspect of God’s holiness that we naturally hate: his wrath.
If we despise the justice of God, we are not Christians. If we hate the wrath of God, it is because we hate God Himself. A loving God who has no wrath is no God. He is an idol of our own making as much as if we carved Him out of stone.
If we are unconverted, one thing is absolutely certain: We hate God. The Bible is unambiguous about this point. We are God's enemies. We are inwardly sworn to His ultimate destruction. It is as natural for us to hate God as it is for rain to moisten the earth when it falls.
By nature, our attitude toward God is not one of mere indifference. It is a posture of malice. We oppose His government and refuse His rule over us. Our natural hearts are devoid of affection for Him; they are cold, frozen to His holiness. By nature, the love of God is not in us.
If God were to expose His life to our hands, He would not be safe for a second. We would not ignore Him; we would destroy Him.
The failure of modern evangelicalism is the failure to understand the holiness of God.
We may dislike giving our attention to God's wrath and justice, but until we incline our selves to these aspects of Gods' nature, we will never appreciate what has been wrought for us by grace.
Loving a holy God is beyond our moral power. The only kind of God we can love by our sinful nature is an unholy god, an idol made by our own hands. Unless we are born of the Spirit of God, unless God sheds His holy love in our hearts, unless He stoops in His grace to change our hearts, we will not love Him.
Next Week
For next Thursday please read chapter 10, "Looking Beyond Shadows."
Your Turn
The purpose of this program is to read these classic books together. This means that it's now your turn to offer your thoughts or your questions on this week's reading. You can do so by leaving a comment here or by posting a link to your own site if you left a comment there. Of course there is no need to say anything. Just read and enjoy if that's more your style.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (16)
This was a great chapter. The last part that you cited really hit me in the gut as I read it. It is all too easy to conjure up thoughts of a god who does not fit the characteristics given throughout scripture to fit our sinful nature, thus allowing for us to not feel the weight and guilt of our transgression. What a dangerous thing to do!
I am thoroughly enjoying this book, so much so I’ve already finished it :)
God BlessCrystal <><
Tim, thank you for hosting this, I really enjoy reading along with this wonderful group of people.
I wrote my comments on this chapter at my blog: http://bit.ly/g0A8X6
Have a most joyous day!
Don’t consider yourself lazy for giving us great quotes, Tim. All good stuff.
This chapter stepped on my self-righteous toes.
We violate His holiness; we insult His justice; we make light of His grace. These things can hardly please him.
So what’s a self-righteous sinner to do? Throw myself on His mercy!
More on my blog: http://bit.ly/fcVUhL
R C Sproul’s questions at the end of each chapter have been a great resource to apply and contemplate the content and truths he has presented in each chapter. The questions at the end of chapter nine served as a reflection on my journey. I have spent many years in churches where J. Edwards sermon would have been offensive, and I would have been enraged by such language and instruction. How gracious God has been to show me in deeper ways the depth and ugliness of my sin before Him ……. Gaining a glimpse of His holiness and righteous wrath, provides greater understanding of how deep and offensive I have grieved my Father …….. ultimately drawing me to the Cross where I can only bow in humble surrender in eternal gratitude for His redemption and reconciliation. Only with His Spirit can I now reverently whisper, “I love you, Lord …… ”
This was one of the most uncomfortable chapters to read.
Last night my small group starting discussing whether God sees degrees of sin, and I was the only one who didn’t think that all “sin is sin” in God’s eyes. I had thought through the issue recently because of what we read in chapter 8. I’m so thankful for this book and RCT.
I really appreciate what you wrote, Chris. It closely describes my experience as well:)
Over the years, I had only heard about the famous sermon, but when I set about to read Johnathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, a few years ago, I was moved by the language and the scope of his certainty as it pertained to the wrath of God. It was shocking and forced me to reckon with an aspect of God’s character that had otherwise been overshadowed by innumerable teachings of His grace, love and mercy.
Fortunately, I did not despise the sermon. From it, I learned that without a true understanding of His nature, we will never know Him aright. We must bow before the throne of this great and terrible God, One who is just and cannot look upon sin. The glory of the cross is that only in Christ are we made holy and righteous in His sight. Apart from Him, we are deserving of scorn, but in Him we’re found in the hollow of His hand.
I enjoyed this chapter very much. R.C. Sproul takes a candid yet reverent look at a grave matter, sympathizes with the sinner yet never excuses him.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Elizabeth, I’m like you were, having heard of Edwards’ sermon for years, but never read it. But you have read it now, and I still haven’t. You (and Dr. Sproul!) have encouraged me to give it a go. Thank you for sharing your experience with it.
“If we despise the justice of God, we are not Christians.”
This bold statement really helps us to distinguish between truth and false hope. Even some of the sections of sermons i have heard about God’s justice, have been wrapped in so much grace, so as almost to say our “god” really really doesn’t like sin, but he loves you so much more than he hates sin, so don’t worry about that side of him to much.
I have been using some of the material from this book in my sunday school class. The section about us as people, having a natural inclination and position of hating God, not just being indifferent or neutral with him, was not all the pleasing to hear.
Most of our churches, as Sproul points out, are semi-pelagian. Some sort of prevenient grace was established so we are almost totally depraved, but not fully. I hear reformed language sprinkled in, but only to add flavor. While terrifying, His justice also gives me hope! I know that all will be set right with the un-justice of our world.
I have been very encouraged throughout every chapter of this book. I am thankful to be following along!
After reading the first page of this chapter, I was driven to consume Edward’s sermon before progressing with the remainder of the chapter. I was not repulsed by Edward’s message. Certainly it was enlightening, but I suppose it conveyed what I was hoping to come to know about God. That he truly is angered by sin. And that I am truly blessed, and undeservedly so, to be touched by his Grace through his election of me as his son.
Which brings me to the Augustinianism mentioned at the closing of this week’s chapter. This is where I could use some feedback, please! Was Edwards an Augustinian? If so, what would the point of his now famous sermon have been on the unregenerate of his congregation? Surely the unsaved members of his congregation would not have been convinced by his message and by their intellect alone to accept Christ as their savior. Being God has elected us by Grace, our having not heard Edward’s message, or a similar message in our modern time, would have no bearing on our being justified. If we are saved by Grace alone, who was Edwards speaking to, other than to inform his already saved parishoners about the true nature of God? Hearing or reading such a sermon would therefore be beneficial only as far as it instructs in the character of God; not in the convincing of someone that they are in need of salvation. Wouldn’t fire and brimstone preaching then merely be sermons to the choir?
I am Reformed thinker, but am struggling with this point after reading this chapter. Did Sproul include this chapter along with Edwards sermon merely to further explain the character of God to us fellow believers? For surely without the Grace of God, having heard or read Edward’s sermon could never alone convince one that they are on slippery ground. Thus, why would nonbelievers even need to hear a message such as Edward’s? What ends does it achieve?
Or are Sproul and Edwards speaking to the choir…on the Grace and nature of God?
Beau, you offer good questions. I have no answers. Maybe someone else will know?
I think (can’t remember where I read this) Edwards actually preached the sermon at a different church from his own at the request of a fellow minister. So you could view it as a sort of “revival” sermon from a guest speaker who didn’t know about the state of the souls there other than what had been told him by his friend. And from the content of the sermon, it seems that it was thought there were many unconverted (or, falsely-converted) folks there.
I was first exposed to this sermon about 10 years ago as a young teen-age believer and was both convicted and encouraged by it. Like Sproul says in the book, one of the major thrusts of the sermon is that the listeners are still in God’s hands and that today is still a day of mercy and salvation!
Hi Beau,
By understanding the purpose of preaching (Scripture calls it “foolishness” to the one who is perishing), we’re given a perspective that makes sense and I trust answers your questions.
“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” - 1 Cor. 1:17-18 (KJV)
and,
“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” -1 Cor. 1:20-21
Perhaps Romans 10:14 says it all: “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”
What Edwards’ sermon did for me after reading it was to clarify things, strengthen the things that remain, and give me a more immediate sense of the fear of God. But far be it from me to say that someone who is an unbeliever and reads it would not fall on his knees and cry out for mercy. That would be the wisdom of God!
Elizabeth:
Thank you for your comment! After my post was made I was reminded of the words of Romans 10 that you referenced. Also, God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and Grace could be manifested at any time of God’s choosing.
Yes, for me as well, Edwards sermon more illuminated the nature and character of God and added to my fear of him.
Perhaps Edward’s sermon was glorifying to God. And if that was the sole result, then perhaps that would have been sufficient.
I am interested in any further clarifications should others wish to comment.
Beau,
You wrote:”Perhaps Edward’s sermon was glorifying to God. And if that was the sole result, then perhaps that would have been sufficient.”
I agree. Soli Deo Gloria!
However, I do believe that whenever God is most glorified in a sermon, that is when men are most apt to come penitently before Him.
Agreed!
Thank you Beau and Elizabeth and everyone …….. this was insightful and helpful to have this “conversation” ……. your insights have been profitable. Thank you!