The following Sunday School lesson was delivered earlier this month as a 2-part series on the grace of God. Part one introduced us to the topic and outlined the importance of correctly understanding justification by grace alone. Part two provided an illustration from the life of Martin Luther and exposed his inability to appease his conscience through his own righteousness.

***********

Now I started this anecdote by saying that one used to hear a story like this. Why would I say this? Why would one no longer tell the story of Martin Luther when discussing the issue of grace and justification? Well, I would tell you that by simply relaying a story about a young man burdened by his sins does little in a day and age when the wrath of God is rarely spoken of and the need for repentance is hardly preached.

In fact, there some scholars who are trying to do away with the concept of God’s wrath altogether. You might be thinking to yourself: How on earth can one simply dismiss this biblical doctrine? I would tell you there are several ways. One particular way, for example, is to remove the word "propitiation" as found in Romans 3:25 and replace it with the word "expiation". Now to most of us there really is no great difference between the words. After all, what are two Latin terms to most English speaking Evangelicals anyways? What is the difference and does it really even matter?

I would submit to you that it matters a great deal because of this—words have meaning and each of those terms means something specific. Expiation means "to make pious" and infers a removal of sin and guilt. While this is undoubtedly part of the work of the cross, it is not all. Propitiation is the other part of the equation. This carries with it the idea of placating or appeasing the wrath of God, making satisfaction, turning away wrath and reconciling a person to God. So as you can see, expiation, while part of the equation, does not adequately capture the entirety of what was accomplished at Calvary. Moreover, what amazes me about this particular debate is the implication of removing God's wrath. For the life of me, I cannot begin to figure out why some want to limit God by forbidding Him to demonstrate righteous indignation. Why do I say this? Consider.

Imagine for a moment that you return home from a long day of work, only to find that an intruder has breached your home and is attacking your family. What would be your initial reaction? Would you stand there, paralyzed with nothing but love and compassion for the very intruder who is violating the sanctity of your house and family? Would you be so overcome with love towards the assailant that you simply beg him to stop and to leave immediately? No, absolutely not. It is reasonable to assert that one would express outrage at seeing such an injustice and take appropriate action to rectify the situation. The natural response would be to fend off the assailant and protect the innocent. If ever there was one who witnessed such a tragic circumstance and failed to act righteously, no one would respect such an individual. In fact, we all would expect someone to take drastic measures in order to protect his family.

With that said, however, when we do not allow God to express a righteous anger and deny God the avenue to pour out his wrath upon those who have violated His Law, we are making God less than man. That is, when we insist that God cannot demonstrate anger against those who have dishonored the sanctity of His rule, then we are placing the Sovereign of the universe in a category below mankind. It is permissible for humans to react against great injustice and seek retribution so why should we not permit God to do the same? I would submit to you that the answer is obvious. 

Nevertheless, I suppose it is a moot point and there really is no need to concern ourselves with the subject of God’s wrath if sin is never preached in the first place. Who wants to be bothered with that sort of bad news anyways? Instead, all too often we seek to find comfort in knowing that we are "not that bad". We compare our lifestyle with our coworkers, our peers, our friends and family members, and other church attendees and we discover that we are just like the next guy--and that makes us at ease. It is comforting to know we fit in well with the world’s standard of right and wrong. When we subscribe to the world’s standards, of course, we will feel good about who we are.

In fact, if you want to know where our interests and priorities are I would encourage you to browse the shelves of your local Christian bookstore. If you truly want to capture the pulse of Evangelicalism in America today see what books are being published and which books made it in the stores. You will probably not be surprised to discover the mood in our society is ripe for literature that promises us wealth, health, and prosperity. I can almost guarantee that you would be hard pressed to find the Christian classics that inspired and blessed generations of faithful Christians.

Just the other day I viewed a sermon delivered by one of the best selling Christian authors of our day, a man whose audience numbers in the millions weekly. This particular message was from Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians—a book that is replete with the sobering view of man’s condition, a book that lays out our natural enslaved nature that follows the prince of the power of the air, and a book that takes into account God’s sovereign grace in saving us from our enslavement to sin. Yet, despite all of these great truths, never once did this Evangelist mention sin, the need for redemption, or the enslavement of our fallen natures. Instead, he delivered a message of greed. That is to say, he taught that God created mankind so that He could bless them. While this may contain elements of truth, it is disingenuous to give people a false hope of temporal blessings. God created us to obey His revealed Word—not to grant temporal blessings of every kind. People need the gospel message and not just empty words of promise.

We care more about the thought of feeling good and prospering than reflecting upon our own radical condition as revealed in Scripture. You see, we live in a world where many think there is only one sin—and that is the sin of making others feel bad or the sin of intolerance. No one wants to think of himself or herself as being a radically corrupted sinner. All too often we are lead to believe there is no such thing as right or wrong, just different. That, my friends, however, is a complete distortion of truth. The truth is worth proclaiming because it is the truth that will set us free. And if we are to be obedient to God and demonstrate our love to our fellow humans we will confront them with the truth. We will not allow them to believe, what we know to be, a lie.

Think for a moment back to the person who shared the good news with you. Imagine now where you would be if they had bought into this idea of plurality or relativism. Would you still be pursuing the evil intentions of your heart had not that person spoken out and proclaimed the gospel message? So why, then, should we think that we do not have a God-given mandate to participate in the great commission? What makes us believe that it is okay to keep silent?

to be continued...