Skip to main content

What does Jonathan Edwards hope to accomplish with his message in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?

Jonathan Edwards' goal was to awaken people to what, to him, was the very real danger of continuing in their sin, to get them to repent and call on God for mercy. Though he intended to scare and sober his audience, his goal was not to drive them away, but ultimately to bring them to God.


Edwards preached the sermon in response to what he sensed was a complacent attitude in the town where he was preaching. People were professing Christians, but they assumed that by attending church, they had done all they needed to do. They were not thinking in terms of God as being a real entity whom they had wronged, and with whom they desperately needed to repair the relationship. Edwards sought to shake them out of their complacency by putting vividly before them just how ugly sin is in the sight of God, and how seriously God takes sin. Only then would they take their own sin equally seriously, enough to repent of it, actually stop doing it, and change their lifestyle while calling on God for help.


Thus, Edwards' use of the words "angry God" was not intended to tell his audience that God had rejected them forever. (Then they would give up, or lash out at God in reciprocal anger.) Rather, he was in essence saying, "Your attitude and lifestyle is angering God ... do something about it!" He points out that when people turn to God in repentance, God will quickly forgive.


Edwards' ideal response to such a sermon from his audience would be for them to repent, with genuine sorrow, over their sin; hate it, desire to leave it, and to beg with God to forgive them and draw them closer to Him, and to do all this, not in a "go-home-and-think-about-it" kind of way, but with a sense of urgency. This is exactly the response that many in the congregation had, even weeping and crying out in the middle of the service.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.