A few years ago I was up at a Men’s Retreat in Leoni Meadows with my father.  It was right about the time that I was seriously questioning and comparing SDA teaching to the Bible.  While I was there, they had a popular SDA speaker who was preaching through a series on the sermon on the mount.  His name is Herb Montgomery, maybe you have heard of him.

After one of his sermons I pulled Herb Montgomery aside and asked him something that had bugged me about one of his sermons.  My question was, “Are you saying that God has no Wrath at all?”.  It was an honest question to ask in the context of the sermon he was giving.  I noticed that he backed up and got really uncomfortable, then he told me that he wouldn’t answer that question.

Why would SDA be uncomfortable with the doctrine of the Wrath of God?  As usual this post isn’t really going to dig into that concept.  I have covered this theme theologically in my series on the Great Controversy, which I recommend that you read if you have not already.  Today I am going to present a comparison between the Wrath of God in the Holy Bible with that of the Clear Word.  Did the SDA feel the need to change any of these verses?  If so why would they?

Notice that both verses above compare the disposition of believers to unbelievers with regards to eternal life.  But the Clear Word leaves out the Wrath of God abiding on those who do not believe in God.  This is likely because the idea of something abiding on someone that doesn’t exist doesn’t really make any sense.  Which is one of the reasons why annialiationism doesn’t make very much sense Biblically speaking.  Obviously the concept had to be removed entirely from the Clear Word.

Also notice that Wrath though isn’t even a thing in the Clear Word, that gets pencil whipped out of the text altogether.

Notice that the Clear Word adds in this concept of God needing to vindicate his name.  What kind of puny idol needs to be vindicated? Who could remove God almighty from his throne to such a degree that vindication is even warranted?  And if such were possible would not the one that knocked him down be more powerful?

Also notice that punishing man for iniquity is removed and replaced with a vague notion of carrying out justice.  All I am saying here is that the latter lends itself to a wider degree of interpretation than the former.  What kind of Justice?  Social justice?  Civil Justice?  The Holy Bible is very clear as to the kind of Justice being administered, but the Clear Word seems to seek to obfuscate that clarity.

In the Holy Bible we see that God defines himself and his actions by carrying out his great vengeance.  In the Clear Word we see that this is dialed down to great displeasure.  On the one hand you have the Wrath of Almighty God and on the other you have someone in tears having a temper tantrum.  These two different books are not teaching us about the same Being.

Let’s just be honest, the Holy Bible is giving us a much clearer picture here.  Also, we see again that the Clear Word has deleted the word “wrath” altogether.  I guess that wrath might simply be a no-no word in Adventism.  

Here we see that word displeasure again, it’s almost like the writer of the Clear Word just wants to dial down the wrath of God as someone would a thermostat.

Looks like the anger of God just had to be pencil whipped right out of the Psalms, we can’t have that now can we!  

In the above passage, in the Holy Bible, you have God’s righteous judgement on a wicked people.  In the Clear Word you have an idol doing the best he can to stop another nation from attacking Israel again.  He is like a mob boss trying to send a message or something.

How ridiculous!  

Notice that in the Holy Bible no such excuses are given, and that is because God doesn’t need an excuse!

God is righteous and just to condemn and judge sin any time he sees fit to do so.  In this story in 1 Samuel we see types and shadows of the judgement day to come.  In the Clear Word we have another temper tantrum of a tear faced and scratchy voiced idol doing the best he can to stop the amalakites from harming Israel.

God does not recoil at the sight of wickedness, but rather it is wickedness that is damned the sight of God.  Notice that the Clear Word reverses this concept altogether and makes God bend to the wicked rather than the other way around.  We see God’s power and wrath burning in the Holy Bible against evil, and in the Clear Word we see God recoiling and turning his nose up instead.

These texts are not talking about the same Deity.  One is the God of the Bible and the other is an idol.  Which do you serve?

We can’t just leave the word “wrath” alone can we?  That has to go no matter the context.  Displeasure and wrath are not interchangeable words.  Why would we want an idol that is  merely displeased by murder and rape?  It’s almost as if the author of the Clear Word just doesn’t think God cares about these things.

Notice that the Holy Bible teaches that we are by our very nature under the Wrath of Almighty God.  This is inescapable on your own.  Each of us need the Blood of Jesus to cover and wash away our sins, for which we rightly deserve God’s present and eternal wrath.

In the Clear Word it’s not even there as an afterthought.  He doesn’t even bother to water it down for us, the author just nixes the teaching out of existence.

Conclusion

Whether they use the Clear Word or not the doctrine of the Wrath of God isn’t really a thing in Adventism.  The Holy Bible teaches the Holiness, Wrath, and Love of God as these three infinities.  God is Holy and perfect in an infinite sense, and because of this aspect regarding his nature his just Wrath burns against sin.  To say that his wrath is less than eternal would be to also say that he is less Holy for the scripture equates the two in many places.

Without the Wrath of God one cannot theologically understand the Love of God.  For just as his Holiness and Wrath are eternal and infinite so is his Love which he expressed on the Cross.  This is why in SDA theology the Love of God becomes rather vague and ill defined.  In removing the Wrath of God you also remove the other two, your source can no longer be the scripture and you end up defining the Nature of God philosophically instead.

All of that is getting a little deeper than I intended to go in this post, but since I have touched on it before I think it is a fair wrap up.  Clearly though SDA are quite uncomfortable with the Wrath of God, were they not then there would have been no need to remove it from so many clear passages as seen above.