Liberalism

I believe in the Triune God. When people encounter the Father, they encounter Christ. When people encounter the Spirit, they encounter Christ. When people encounter Christ, they encounter both the Father and the Spirit.

When people come to know God, they come to Him knowing Christ.

I do not believe that when someone comes to know God (Christ) that it is “the same thing” as having specific knowledge of the atonement. I believe one can know initially know God without having specific knowledge of the atonement. That’s one of the main points of our discussion, and you are apparently not following our conversation very well if you think otherwise.

Since you don’t even understand my position, you certainly don’t have the credibility to claim my belief is heresy. For what it is worth, I didn’t come to this position through Willard. I had never heard of Willard until 1999. I actually worked the fundamentals of this out in my private study of the scripture back in 1986. I spent quite a bit of time working through the Bible from cover-to-cover, reading every word multiple times, to gain an understanding regarding what God is doing in the world and how He communicates with humankind. Once I had the big picture in mind, I started working through the stories and teachings of the Old and New Testaments.

That’s absolute hogwash. I am not, nor have I ever been a universalist. As I have said in previous posts in this very thread, universalism isn’t biblical.

Since I believe that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (like all biblical Christians), you charge is baseless. The reason I was using the term God instead of Christ is that I’ve been referencing the story of Abram/Abraham and the recurring statement regarding his faith, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (see Genesis 15:6 for starters). It doesn’t say “Christ” or “Jesus”, it says “God”.

Actually, the point is made in Genesis 15:6. Paul references Abraham’s faith as the prototype for our faith in Galatians and Romans.

Actually, it was not something that Abraham believe “about God” (as you pose the question here), but that Abram/Abraham “believed God” Himself. It was in relationship to the promise that he would have a son produced from his own body.

Abram/Abraham understood sacrifice (like most of the ancient world who sacrificed to various deities), but that’s something different than understanding the atonement of Christ (which is what you have been alleging is required).

And that’s never been my position. As I have stated before, everyone has knowledge that there is a God.

He had faith in God Himself, and also in God’s promises.

Remember, believing things that God says are true and in the facts of Christ’s atonement and the effective nature of Christ’s atonement doesn’t save anyone. The demons certainly believe that. The difference is believing (trusting in) God.

Again, you’re arguing issues of sacrifice and a general understanding of atonement, not Christ’s atonement for humankind. And as I’ve pointed out, the demons understand that.

I see you’ve backed away from specifying “Christ’s atonement”. Human history is full of atonement stories and examples. Pagans have sacrificed since almost the earliest days of humanity in order to appease the false gods.

I have to respectfully disagree.

Since you don’t even understand my position, I think you should have a bit more humility before you scream heresy. Apparently you’re reacting to assumptions about what I believe, not what I really believe.

As I pointed out earlier, I’ve come to this position on my own, more than 20 years ago. Willard did not significantly influence it. Furthermore, I don’t think Willard is a universalist at all. I’ve read a number of his books, listened to his lectures and have spoken with him in person about some of these issues. Of course that doesn’t prohibit folks on the internet from making all kinds of inaccurate charges...

 

Amen! I agree.

 

Please note, we agree on this.

 

For the record, I’m not any kind of universalist. Let’s put that false accusation to bed.

Beyond the whole idea that there is one[/b] God, and that Jesus frequently identified Himself as “I AM” (a direct reference to God revealing Himself to Moses by His name, “I AM THAT I AM”) as recorded in John, Jesus said, “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.”

We worship one God, not three demi-gods. There are three Persons in the Godhead in perfect harmony and loving relationship to each other. In the incarnation of Christ, the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ in bodily form. I take that very seriously even though I don’t know exactly how it works.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t presume to know “my world”.

No, not all Jews are saved.

There are three distinct Persons (not “personalities”] but there is one God. You are putting heavy emphasis on the three Persons, I am pointing out that we can’t take that so far that we lose sight of the fact that there is only one true God.

Please note what I said previously about Jesus expressing Himself as the “I AM” of the Old Testament. Given the fact that He identified Himself that way, I think I’m on solid ground.

Actually, you’re using scripture out of the context in which it was written. As I mentioned before, Paul is explaining what has previously happened to the Christians in Rome and giving them teaching regarding the gospel message. While I certainly affirm what Paul wrote regarding the more complete gospel message, you really need to go back to Genesis and to the early chapters in book of Romans to see what he says about Abraham.

What you have here is a much more complete picture of the gospel than Abraham ever had before he “believed God and it was reckoned to his as righteousness.” Therefore, this is not particularly relevant to our conversation.

I don’t know what you’re talking about here. I’m not talking about universalism at all, and I don’t know how someone could “wrap up” the doctrine of the Trinity with it anyway.

Nice accusatory rhetoric, based on your woefully incorrect assumptions. Can we put away the foolish rhetoric and have a conversation?

You’re right. All I know is what I read... baseless accusations, dire hand-waving rhetoric and characterizations of my opinions are heretical. Plus, we have conversed in the past and you have been very quick to condemn and make false characterizations. In fact, in earlier in this thread you mentioned that you don’t accept the term “moderate” because you believe that’s just a code-word for “liberal” (and you define a liberal essentially as a non-believer). In another recent exchange, you pointed out to someone else they we are posting in a debate forum, and that they shouldn’t be surprised if you want to debate. Since we are in a debate forum (a style of discourse that is more concerned about winning rhetorical points than actually illuminating truth), I wanted to request that we actually have a conversation that might yield fruit.

If you would take the time to actually figure out what doctrines I espouse instead of making them up, you might have the right to condemn if I am wrong. But this is really getting old.

 

Too many hide under the cloak of practical atheism and call it conservatism.

 

Was Jesus the propitiation or expiation for our sins?

 

Exactly.

God spoke directly to Abraham and Abraham believed (trusted in) God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

That's what I've been saying for the last few days, yet you refuse to accept those words from me. You seem to be more interested in condemning me than in paying attention to what I am actually saying.

In the same way, I believe anyone can be saved if God is dealing with them, even apart from human witness... just like Abraham.

Yes.

As long as you understand that when the scripture speaks of the "name of Jesus", it is actually talking about the Person of Jesus, not the "J-e-s-u-s" name of Jesus.

I've said nothing to contradict this position. (And, for what it's worth, neither has Dallas Willard.)

Anyone who is saved is saved through Jesus.

Sure. When God reveals Himself to humans, He gives them a degree of understanding.

Any Person of the Godhead reveals the Other Persons of the Godhead. The nature of the Messiah (the Christ) is gradually revealed through the Old Testament, dramatically introduced in the Incarnation, and will be fully known when all things are new.

There's more to the Old and New Testaments than simply redemption, but redemption runs all the way through it.

Now you're starting to make certain information essential to someone receiving the grace of God. God certainly gives enough information for someone to trust Him, but I think we get ourselves onto shaky ground when we start specifying exactly what a person must understand before they are in right relationship with God. (REMEMBER, we are talking about a person who has not had the opportunity to hear a complete gospel message from a human or written witness and is being dealt with wholly by God's personal revelation to an individual. We ARE NOT talking about the gospel we are called to preach. We are called to preach a complete message, including, but not limited to, discussion of Christ's atonement.)

What in the world are you talking about? God IS, whether or not a thorough gospel message is heard and understood.

I think you've lost sight of the subject of our discussion. I agree with the vast majority of what you've written here and I've pointed out the places where I have reservations regarding what you have said.

The response that started your cries of heresy against me simply pointed out that God is at work in people's lives across the world well in advance of an explicit Christian witness, and that God gives light and revelation to those who embrace the truth of God they already know, by sending missionaries, by sending scripture, or even by direct revelation of Himself to individuals.

And that's thoroughly biblical.

 

Quote: Was Jesus the propitiation or expiation for our sins?
---------------------------------------------

In theological terms we talk about Jesus being the "propitiation" for our sins. We, according to the actual meaning of the word "expiate", :"make amends for...", it does not apply to Jesus paying the price for the sins of all humankind on the cross. Close, but the word falls short.

We are still sinners, albeit saved by His grace.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Tough question.

I know this one is not directed to me, but your point is solid. If we are going to make the "correct" view of the atonement to be a prerequisite for salvation, then we've opened up a pandora's box of problems because there are very diverse views of the atonement among Christians. While Christians affirm the atonement, not many feel very comfortable explaining things in detail, and fewer (other than those who are theologically-trained) have done much serious thinking about it.

If I were answering the question, I'd say expiation, but I wouldn't be very comfortable narrowing things down that far.

I believe most of the theories of the atonement have nuggets of truth in their emphases, but I don't think any of them capture all of the meaning, intent, and objective truth of what happened in the atonement of Christ. If I were forced to choose a single popular theory, I would claim the "Christus Victor" viewpoint. But I think the best thing to do is preach the various depictions of atonement and redemption in scripture instead of trying to nail everything to a simple systematic viewpoint.

 

You make a good point. What view(s) of the atonement do you hold?

 

By saying that God will give someone all the information needed to come into right relationship with Him?

Really?

I think God is competent to accomplish His will.

I can't take you seriously anymore.

 

I'm saying:

1. God initiates the relationship.
2. God gives revelation to a person.
3. If the person trusts that revelation, then God give more.
4. Repeat #3 until the person comes into right relationship with God (that is, comes to know God and trusts his life to Him).

You seem to be saying:

1.) God waits around for written or spoken gospel message to come to a person.
2.) Once the person gains a certain amount of information regarding the gospel, they come to a place where salvation is possible.
3.) One a person affirms a certain set of information (and probably makes a personal commitment to Christ - I'm not sure what you believe here), the person "knows" God.

Now I've likely misrepresented your views because you've spent most of your energy calling me a heretic instead of presenting your understanding, so feel free to correct my perception of your position.