We don’t like to think about an angry God. Older Christians did. You know, the “fire and brimstone preacher” warning of “the wrath of God.” We’ve progressed beyond that nonsense. Well, some of us have. The Bible hasn’t. The Bible says His people “provoked Him with their high places” (Psa 78:58) and you remember how God reacted to the golden calf incident—he threatened to annihilate them (Exo 32:10). Apparently idolatry does it. In Numbers 11 God burned some of His people to death because they grumbled (Num 11:1). Talk to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah about an angry God. Ask Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1-2). See what Uzzah says (2 Sam 6:7). It is indisputable that the God of the Bible can be an angry God. But why? What makes God mad?
Romans 1 does something remarkable. Paul does not begin with immorality, violence, injustice, or idolatry. He begins with failure to recognize God. He treats it not as one sin among many, but as the root from which all other sins grow. Paul’s logic is simple and devastating: When man refuses to acknowledge God, he must invent something else to worship. And once the center is wrong, everything else collapses outward.
Paul says humanity “knew God” but refused to honor Him or give thanks. That refusal is not ignorance—it is rejection. It is the creature turning away from the Creator, the branch severing itself from the root. This is the primal sin. The fountainhead. The first fracture. Everything else flows from it.
Once man refuses to recognize God, he does not become neutral—he becomes idolatrous. He exchanges the glory of the immortal God for images. He trades truth for lies. He worships creation instead of the Creator. Idolatry is not a separate sin; it is the expression of the refusal to recognize God.
After that, the decline is documented. Paul’s structure in Romans 1 is intentional. God “gives them up” to further degradation of sin. First, they refuse to recognize God and turn to idolatry. Then it’s moral corruption. Then it’s relational breakdown, social disorder, and finally celebration of evil. This is not a list of unrelated sins. It is a chain reaction. The wrath of God is revealed not simply because man sins, but because man rejects the God who defines reality.
Scripture consistently shows that God’s anger is not random or impulsive. It is relational. It is covenantal. It is the righteous response of a holy God to the creature’s refusal to acknowledge Him. In Eden, the first sin was not eating fruit—it was distrusting God. In Israel’s history, the greatest sin was not moral failure—it was idolatry. In the prophets, God’s wrath burns hottest when His people forget Him. In Romans 1, the entire human collapse begins with “they did not honor Him as God.” The failure to recognize God is not merely one sin among many—it is the root sin. Everything else is the fruit.
If we follow Paul’s argument, we see that God’s wrath is not primarily about rules broken, but about relationship rejected. The creature refuses the Creator. The image-bearer refuses the One whose image he bears. The heart designed for worship refuses the only One worthy of it. And once that refusal takes place, sin becomes inevitable. The center is gone. The anchor is cut. The compass spins. God’s wrath is not arbitrary—it is the righteous response to the world’s refusal to acknowledge the God who made it.
Romans 1 presents the failure to recognize God as the core of all other sins. It is the first rebellion. The foundational rejection. The sin beneath every sin. Everything else that angers God grows from that root.
10 comments:
It is that list of God giving people up to their sins that makes me believe America is due for judgment. We've turned away and it is what we deserve.
You have done a wise thing to focus on the root transgression of man, which is rejecting God’s rightful place in the lives of each and every one of His creatures; this is true “reality therapy” and should silence the mouths of every denier. We can know that from the Bible narratives--which depict very limited events within specific times and places--we learn of only a miniscule fraction of all the acts of rebellion and neglect committed towards God by the human race, day in and day out, over eons of time. This represents a mind-boggling amount of rebellion from people who should spend their days thanking their Creator for granting them life. (It is sad to consider that the very first creatures wasted no time committing this transgression.) When one understands the magnitude of our rebellion against God (as you have laid it out so well today), it is not at all difficult to understand His wrath. What is more stupefying is God’s great patience and tolerance of such unrighteousness.
“God’s wrath is not primarily about rules broken, but about relationship rejected.”
Even in our limited human experience, we can know the pain and sorrow of being heartlessly dismissed by another person and deemed insignificant to them; how much greater does the Lord experience these emotions in light of His great love and benevolence towards us.
Not to anyone in particular, but in thinking this over, it occurs to me that the concept of an "angry God" is both hated and embraced ... by individuals at the same time. Most of us hate the idea of an angry God ... right up until we think of the "sins" we dislike most in others. You know, "I'd never do that!" So we "call down God's wrath" on them, at least mentally, for their gross transgressions ... just not for our own. God wouldn't be mad at me. Only ... them. That list varies, I suppose, between individuals. And often we're EXACTLY guilty of the sins we're pointing fingers at ... we just don't realize it. The idea of an God angry at sin is NOT outlandish and we all know it to some degree. But I still contend that the "sins" aren't the issue--those individual transgressions--but the sin of failing to acknowledge God as He has made Himself known.
Oh, look! Stan’s back. :)
Dan, just so you know ... insulting comments like referring to God as "god" (intentionally lowercase) and "in this theory of yours" when the documentation is given and "whimsical god" for a biblical version from Scripture (and NOT from any version of God I've ever understood) ... those kinds of comments are not in the category of "friendly conversation." Those kinds of comments are intentionally demeaning (and judgmental) and are exactly the reason you remain unpublished and unanswered here.
There is some serious hate when you are banned from speaking somewhere and yet insist on trying to continue to press your vitriol. Take the hint and go talk to people that will actually put up with your anger.
I don't think it's hate as much as it is anger and arrogance. Dan and his troll seem to think so highly of themselves and their hunches that they believe that inflicting themselves on others is somehow their right or something.
Arrogance could account for some of it, but it seems to me that it would take something much deeper to persist after what, 10 years of being banned? I've commented on other blogs and videos, believing very strongly in my veracity. But once it becomes clear to me that nobody is listening, I move on.
Arrogance seems to be pretty much what you'd expect from someone who's been banned for 10 years and still comments. He clearly believes that what he has to say is so important that it must be posted wherever he wants it to be. Hate and anger could play a role as well.
As have I. The difference is that we are normal people who don't demand that we be accepted on our own terms in places where we are not welcome. It's a leftist thing, to demand inclusion in places where you are not wanted.
Craig, have you perhaps come to the point of suspecting that Dan gains something from what he does, or he wouldn’t keep doing it? You imply that he goes where he is “not welcome” (which is true of Winging It), but clearly he feels welcome enough at certain sites (like yours) where he is apparently permitted to engage regularly and vigorously. Perhaps from his perspective he is “answering a fool according to his folly” and thus feels led to persist in what we see as arrogance and obstinance. In other words: Is he being enabled in his bad behavior? Just a thought.
Post a Comment