My own anchor and the basis of my view of reality is that “God is love” -- note that, and consider the implications: not that God loves (though He does of course) or that God commands love (again He does), but that He is Love, that the foundation of all that is created, the fons et origo, the alpha and omega is Love. And it seem to me that to say God is one is not only to say that there is only one God, but that God of His nature is a unified whole, that His justice is not separable from His love or His mercy. One of the Hebrew words for “justice” -- ts’dakah -- has a range of meaning that includes “justice,” “righteousness,” “charity,” “alms” -- almost like approaching a “unified field theory” of attributes of God.
C.S. Lewis recounts asking an uneducated sexton about a proposed change to the wording of the BCP from “indifferently administer justice” to “impartially administer justice” -- the man had no idea of what “impartially” meant, but said that “indifferently” (being unacquainted with its later connotations) meant “making no difference between one man and another.” Which pretty well sums up the general human understanding of justice. We are enjoined in the OT not to judge for the rich man because he is rich or for the poor man because he is poor. The Calvinist God does not seem to live up to the requirements He places on men . . . Unless of course He is giving men carte blanche to judge according to whim.
I think in speaking to the “wrath” of God, we must remember that we have only human language to speak of anything and only our human analogies, which accounts for much of the anthromorphism of -- especially -- the OT, I.e., we interpret as the wrath of God that which we wouldn’t do unless we were really, really, really mad. “Wrath” in Thomistic philosophy (and broadly elsewhere) is a “passion” (I don’t think I have to point out that the love I spoke of above is distinct from that romantic love properly classified as a passion). Now “passions” are called that because we are “passive” under them; they act upon us. But God, Who is “impassible” (unchangeable) isn’t moved by passions. (The sufferings of Christ, incidentally, are referred to as “The Passion” because -- unthinkably and incredibly, gloriously and out of Love -- He Who is God and thus Pure Act allowed Himself to suffer, to be passive (a “patient,” if you will -- same root).
That’s probably more than long enough for one post. I hope it gives some idea of where I’m coming from.
I wouldn't disagree. The issue isn't what God is. Rather the issue is what man is. God is love. Man hates this love:
God is perfect, beauty, love, peace, etc. All those very good quality we crave. Yet unbelievers don't really want them. They do the very thing that is against the nature of God-against perfect love, perfect peace, perfect joy. And as believers were not much different. All we have to do is look in a mirror to understand that while we desire these characteristics of God, it is difficult for us to practice them.
It is because of this very principle that God calls men "wicked", "evil", and "perverse". Men are at eminity with God. I don't understand how anyone can read the OT, especiall the Psalms and not understand this. Here is but a small sample:
Psa 5:8-9 Lead me, O LORD, in your righteousness because of my enemies; make your way straight before me. For there is no truth in their mouth; their inmost self is destruction; their throat is an open grave; they flatter with their tongue.
Psa 7:10-11 My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart. God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day.
God is love. Man hates this love. That is the problem.
And we must have at least this anchor, or some anchor. Else, we don't know if at the end of all our systematic theology or proof texts if we have out-thought ourselves and managed to build a quite solid proof for a very wrong idea of God.
If we end up with an unjust, capricious unloving and unlovable God… we have made a wrong turn somewhere. We may be able to "prove" every turn, but we have failed in where our theology has lead.