Liberalism

Yes, I'm a Trinitarian. The God of the Old Testament is Father, Son (Christ) and the Holy Spirit as well.

Intellectual knowledge of God is not salvation. Knowledge of God (as in knowing God) brings us into right relationship with Him. However, you seem to define salvation as something possessed other than merely a right relationship with God.

Yes.

Sure it is. Maybe you've just jumped to a conclusion instead of paying attention.

You're the one who has introduced the phrase "a general knowledge of God" and qualified it by saying it is "outside of Christ".

I pointed out a few posts ago that if someone receives and embraces the light they have, that God will give them more revelation of Himself... to the point of right relationship (that is, a saving relationship). That's hardly heresy. And no one has claimed that people are saved "outside of Christ." Let's give that a rest.

 

A former pastor of mine had just started a series of sermons on the above idea [Bolded] but was unable to finish because the Lord took him home. He was one of the best preachers I have heard and I have always regretted he was unable to finish.

 

Amen brother. I'll stand and second that :thumbs:

 

What is the biblical justification for the assertion that those who come to God have to understand the essence of the atonement before they are in right relationship with Him?

Certainly they cannot simply know about God. They must know God.

 

Extremism sees the world in a binary fashion...black v. white...liberal v. conservative...us v. them. There are no shades of grey or spectrum of color. Such is the nature of those who wish to impose their will on others.

 

I have had the same thing happen until I ask them to knock on doors with me and do ministry with me. So often they quickly have excuses. Their particular camp got exposed for what it really was. In reality they are practical atheists.

 

I am still learning more and more about the significance of that. I do not find that to be a requirement for coming to God.

Heb. 111:6, "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

They must know something about God before they can know Him.

 

On this point, I agree with the Rev.

I have been taught the scriptures since I was four years of age. I knew that Jesus died for my sins all this time, but it was not until I "realized" Jesus as my personal Saviour at my confirmation that I became "saved". I rather like the Church of England expression "realized" in relation to the conversion experience. It takes pure and correct knowledge and transfers that knowledge to reality in the Christ.

For some it is an impure realization, and others quite an emotional experience, but this event must happen at some point in each person's life, and each experience requires some knowledge of the redemptive act of the Saviour.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That's true. Paul expresses it well in the opening chapters of Romans where he declares that creation itself is evidence of God. Only a fool says in his heart that there is no God.

So everyone, by their existence, has a basic understanding that there is Someone greater than themselves. The next step is recognizing that that Someone is reaching out to them in grace and love.

 

You act like you've caught me in something... :laugh:

I'm happy to tell you exactly what I believe and why. I'm a bit mystified by your tone. :wavey:

 

To get the context, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus who is considered “the” teacher of the Jews. He is discussing the need and nature of the new birth, beyond the current religious traditions of the Jewish people. Jesus references the incident when the children of Israel had rebelled against God and were bitten by snakes, Moses was instructed to make a bronze serpent for the children of Israel to use as a focus of confrontation and faith which resulted in their healing and redemption from physical death.

Unfortunately, this does not answer my question: “What is the biblical justification for the assertion that those who come to God have to understand the essence of the atonement before they are in right relationship with Him?”

Since Jesus is talking to a teacher who has a vast amount of information regarding what God has been doing in the world and a significant portion of scripture committed to memory, Jesus is obviously not dealing with the issues we are discussing.

To get the context, Paul is writing to Christians (those who have already heard the gospel message and are involved in churches in the vicinity of Rome) and is explaining what has already happened in their lives and how they need to express it to others. Paul is expressing a much more complete gospel message here than what we are discussing, so this is not particularly relevant to our discussion.

The part of Paul’s teaching that is most relevant to our discussion is found in Galatians and the argument Paul builds in the earlier part of Romans regarding how all have knowledge of God and how Abraham “believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”

It is certainly done through the written word and the gospel message that is preached, but it’s also obviously biblically clear that it is not done exclusively through the written and preached word since Paul takes great pains to show that Abraham came to faith (Genesis 15:6) long before a scrap of scripture was written and before circumcision or the Jewish faith existed.

I don’t want to reduce the gospel simply to the atonement, that’s a modern error, but I certainly believe the cross of Christ is in the heart of the gospel. Biblically, the essence of the gospel is that we have been invited to share the life of God by being in right relationship with Him. (John 17:3) God initiates this relationship and we must consciously respond to His invitation. Everyone comes to the Father through Christ, whether we have much information about Christ at all. Certainly, in some way the atonement has created this possibility, however, I don’t think information about the atonement is required for God to bring someone into right relationship.

I agree completely! But that’s not the issue we are discussing. We are not talking about those who have access to a presentation of the gospel. You had alleged that one must understand the essence of the atonement before God extends life to someone who is lost.

If someone knows God, they know Jesus... even if they don’t know a whole lot about Him.

Knowing God is the essence of the gospel. God will continue to give illumination to those who receive the light they already have. Like Abraham (and so many modern stories of God dealing with people initially well outside of a Christian witness), God does not leave people where they are but continues to work with the and teach them.

The gospel is simply the “good news” that life is found in God (in Christ).
Knowing God (becoming a friend of God) is salvation.

Sure.

Again, you seem to speak of “salvation” as some sort of status that is applied apart from knowing God.

I haven’t advocated the belief in “some God”! I have always been talking about the one true God, Maker of heaven and earth, Who has expressed Himself in the Persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This God is greater than our imaginations and convenient theologies and is at work in the world even outside of direct human Judeo/Christian influence.

Again, I point to Abraham and what Paul said about him.

And if God is speaking to someone directly, they have heard the word of Christ.

Hardly. I think you are missing some aspects of God’s character and a number of key passages in scripture.

Again, let’s deal with what the Bible says. I believe it is authoritative and infallible. Screaming heresy and expressing disbelief and outrage does nothing for our conversation.

And while we’re at it, I do want to have a conversation, not a debate regarding this issue.

The difference between a conversation and a debate is that in a conversation, if someone misspeaks or is not clear in their explanations, the other person doesn’t use it as a club to continually thrash the other person after the position is clarified, recanted or reconsidered. I don’t have a problem admitting when I am wrong and I hope you don’t either. If you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that I am mistaken, then I can change and everyone is better for it. I hope the same is true for you.

On the other hand, debates are often fought to win an argument, using all sorts of rhetorical tactics to cloud the issues and put the opponent at a perceived disadvantage so someone can claim victory. It often turns into a fight dominated by egos, power and mean-spirited words that is the anti-thesis of Christian conduct and diminishes everyone and the cause of Christ. I know how to play that stupid game, but have no interest in that.
If you are willing to have a conversation, I am willing. But this thread is allegedly about liberalism.

I have a lot going today, but I’m hoping to draft a concise exposition of my understanding of this subject and why I believe the way I do tonight or tomorrow. I’ll start a new thread and we can have a discussion that deals substantially with the issues.

 

I agree with most of what you said here. Perhaps the primary issue where all of us are talking past each other has to do with what we believe about the nature of God's work in the lives of those who are being saved.

From my perspective, I see God working with all humankind to draw us to Christ. Jesus said he would draw all persons unto Himself (John 12:32). He had previously stated that no one could come to the Father except that they be drawn by the Father (John 6:44). In other words, people don't just choose God unless God is already working in their lives. And Jesus taught that no one comes to the Father but through Him (John 14:6).

Now how do we reconcile these three clear teachings from Christ (recorded by the same author!)?

One way to do it is to assume that all persons will be drawn to Christ and all will be saved. While that's a nice thought, the Bible clearly doesn't support that view.

A second way to do it is to believe that God draws people to Christ only when the gospel message is preached with a certain level of completeness. This view has the advantage of reconciling significant portions of the New Testament (as traditionally interpreted by Baptists), but does not effectively deal with a number of passages in the Old and New Testaments that shows God working beyond this limited view. Furthermore, it seems to undermine the desire of God for all person to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) since huge portions of our world have been cut off from Christian witness for much of Christian history (for instance, North and South America).

Another way to understand it, and it's the way I understand things, is that God is indeed working in every living person (at least, to various degrees) who is willing to receive the truth about God. This God-human interaction continues unless the person decides to reject the truth in a permanent way (only God would know exactly when) and chooses darkness rather than light. For those who remain in the light and continue to learn from God, God will bring additional revelation and information. At some point, they are in right relation with God and are saved because of that relationship. Since God is the one making it possible for people to believe, and since God is dealing directly with people who continually believe and trust Him, even though they don't have much information, on what basis can we declare them outside of God's grace? We don't seem to have too much trouble believing that infants who are not baptized, are not church members, and have not heard, understood, and responded to a gospel message are somehow in God's grace because of their condition. How hard is it to believe that there may be adults out there with whom God is communicating who have trusted all they know themselves to be to all they know God to Be?

 

My dear Baptistbeliever. Whilst I am stating what I believe in general terms, the specifics I leave to theology.

My calvinism does not prevent me from preaching a "free and open" gospel to all humankind. I will employ everything possible to reach the lost soul. I truly believe this is my calling. It does not, however, change my theology, on election and predestination.

I do not accept the so-called "age of accountability". The lost are lost regardless of age or circumstance. The only scripture we can rest on regarding an infant child, is David's claim that he would see his son in heaven. Perhaps the reformed people have something in the "covenant promise" and the responsibility rests with those making such a promise. I always claimed this at an infant's or child's funeral.

On these points I am not contentious, and can enjoy fellowship with other believers.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Certainly. I think I oversimplified things. Obviously five-point Calvinism is another way to reconcile the issues we're discussing, although I don't happen to agree with that theology. However, I do appreciate my Calvinistic brothers and sisters for taking seriously the clear biblical teaching of God initiating our relationship with Him and that God sustains and completes it.

Yes. In my bleary-eyed early Friday morning post, it slipped my mind that Calvinistic Baptists usually don't worry about "age of accountability" since it is not "required" in their theology to uphold a sense of God's fairness.

I have a good friend who grew up Presbyterian and is now Baptist who is hard-core five-point Calvinist. He holds to the convenantal view of the salvation of children, but he hasn't been able to convince me of it yet. However, there is certainly modest scriptural support for the Christian influence of a parent having a spiritual effect on their children.

You demonstrate that every day, and many of us around here are thankful for your civility and warmth.

 

Some look at the cross and say, "Thank you, Jesus, for dying for me." We tend to forget it is also the awful actions of mankind, in their sinful state, and Jesus experiencing the condemnation for the sin of the whole world. The shame and mockery of the crown of thorns; the gorging of His side to drain the life blood from Him, the gross humiliation of being place between two common criminals and His eventual removal and encasement in the tomb. Thankfully, He rose again to show the victory over sin, and the triumphant seat at the right hand of God the Father.

The cross of Christ is central in scripture. The Old Testament saints looked forward to this Sacrificial Lamb, and we look back to that memorable life of Jesus. Without Jesus, the Christ, there is no redemption, there is no hope, their is no future life in God's heaven.

Thank you, Jesus.

Cheers,

Jim