My own comment there is this:
"Reflecting on where you are going with this, Bosco!
If an outcome of your 'campaign' in this series of posts was the removal of the line (replacement with something 'more acceptable'), then where in song in the 21st century church would we give voice to a cornerstone of the gospel?
That cornerstone is that God is judge, seeks justice, hates sin, determines to punish perpetrators of sin, reacts to humanity's inhumanity to one another, declares war on evil and determines that sin's power will be overcome by all means necessary (= 'God's wrath').
Further, it is foundational to the gospel that 'all have sinned': the wrath of God is against us all as sinners. There is no world in which the wrath of God is rightly directed against Hitler, Stalin, and George W. Bush but a huge theological embarrassment for the rest of us nice people who vote social democrat, recycle, and give to Greenpeace.
I vote for keeping the lines as a salutary reminder to all singers that we are sinners, by nature the object of God's wrath, but by the grace of God now formerly that object as God in Christ has satisfied himself that justice has been achieved."
One trouble I have with the kind of talk which plays 'wrath' versus 'love' is that it fails to take account of a reality of life. Wrong happens. How are we to respond? Does 'love' mean we are never 'angry' about wrong-doing? Without 'anger' would we pursue justice, work hard to capture criminals, put energy in making changes to try to ensure that wrong-doing is constrained or even eliminated?
Recently in our city a young teenage girl was murdered by her mother's ex boy-friend. Then, after the trial was over, we learned that the man had previously been in jail in Australia for the killing (manslaughter, technically) of another teenager. We further learned that we have no system for ensuring that when a criminal such as this man is deported to NZ, his record follows him and is made available for relevant people. For we also learned that a few days before the murder here, the mother had talked to the police about her concerns about the man, but they felt constrained not to tell her about his previous record. (Why, I do not know as it is and was a matter of public record).
Is not human wrath in this situation the righteous response which determines that the crook will be caught, tried, punished, that the 'system' will be changed so that, as far as possible, there will be no repeats. In short, where would society be without human wrath against sin?
May we not ask why human wrath might be right in this kind of situation, and, if I may say so, an obvious reaction, but God's wrath must be subject to great scrutiny and only referred to in Christian speech such as a song with elaborate explanation accompanying it?