Posted on 06/20/2005 4:38:37 AM PDT by HarleyD
”Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God" (Rom. 11:22). “
In the early part of this century liberalism took mainline Protestant churches by storm. It might be argued that the first half of the present century ushered in the most serious spiritual decline since the Protestant Reformation. Evangelicalism, which had dominated Protestant America since the days of the founding fathers, was virtually driven out of denominational schools and churches. Evangelicalism managed to survive and even thrive outside the denominations. But it never regained its influence in the mainline groups. Instead it has flourished chiefly in relatively small denominations and non-denominational churches. In a few decades, liberalism virtually destroyed the largest Protestant denominations in America and Europe.
One of the most popular spokesmen for liberal Christianity was Harry Emerson Fosdick, pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City. Fosdick, while remaining strongly committed to liberal theology, nevertheless acknowledged that the new theology was undermining the concept of a holy God. Contrasting his age with that of Jonathan Edwards, Fosdick wrote,
Fosdick was never so right. He correctly saw that liberalism had led to a warped and imbalanced concept of God. He could even see far enough ahead to realize that liberalism was taking society into a dangerous wasteland of amorality, where "man's sin, his greed, his selfishness, his rapacity roll up across the years an accumulating mass of consequence until at last in a mad collapse the whole earth crashes into ruin." 2
Despite all that, Fosdick ultimately would not acknowledge the literal reality of God's wrath toward impenitent sinners. To him, "the wrath of God" was nothing more than a metaphor for the natural consequences of wrongdoing. Writing in the wake of World War I, Fosdick suggested that "the moral order of the world has been dipping us in hell."3 His theology would not tolerate a personal God whose righteous anger burns against sin. Moreover, to Fosdick, the threat of actual hell fire was only a relic of a barbaric age. "Obviously, we do not believe in that kind of God any more."
Fosdick wrote those words almost eighty years ago. Sadly, what was true of liberalism then is all too true of evangelicalism today. We have lost the reality of God's wrath. We have disregarded His hatred for sin. The God most evangelicals now describe is all loving and not at all angry. We have forgotten that "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31). We do not believe in that kind of God any more.
Ironically, this overemphasis on divine beneficence actually works against a sound understanding of God's love. It has given multitudes the disastrous impression that God is kindly but feeble, or aloof, or simply unconcerned about human wickedness. Is it any wonder that people with a such a concept of God defy His holiness, take His love for granted, and presume on His grace and mercy? Certainly no one would fear a deity like that.
Yet Scripture tells us repeatedly that fear of God is the very foundation of true wisdom (Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Mic. 6:9). People often try to explain the sense of those verses away by saying that the "fear" called for is a devout sense of awe and reverence. Certainly the fear of God includes awe and reverence, but it does not exclude literal holy terror. "It is the Lord of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, and He shall be your dread" (Isa. 8:13).
We must recapture some of the holy terror that comes with a right understanding of God's righteous anger. We need to remember that God's wrath does burn against impenitent sinners (Ps. 38:1-3). That reality is the very thing that makes His love so wonderful. We must therefore proclaim these truths with the same sense of conviction and fervency we employ when we declare the love of God. It is only against the backdrop of divine wrath that the full significance of God's love can be truly understood. That is precisely the message of the cross of Jesus Christ. After all, it was on the cross that God's love and His wrath converged in all their majestic fullness.
Only those who see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God can fully appreciate the magnitude and wonder of His love. In this regard our generation is surely at a greater disadvantage than any previous age. We have been force-fed the doctrines of self-esteem for so long that most people don't really view themselves as sinners worthy of divine wrath. On top of that, religious liberalism, humanism, evangelical compromise, and ignorance of the Scriptures have all worked against a right understanding of who God is. Ironically, in an age that conceives of God as wholly loving, altogether devoid of wrath, most people are tragically ill-equipped to understand what God's love is all about!
The simple fact is that we cannot appreciate God's love until we have learned to fear Him. We cannot know His love apart from some knowledge of His wrath. We cannot study the kindness of God without also encountering His severity. And if the church of our generations does not regain a healthy balance soon, the rich biblical truth of divine love is likely to be obscured behind what is essentially a liberal, humanistic concept.
Notes
1. Harry Emerson Fosdick,Christianity and Progress (New York: Revell, 1922), 173-74 (emphasis added).
2. Ibid., 174.
3. Ibid (emphasis added).
It does seem to all go back to the bible. If one believes in the bible as you do, then I'm sure. But not all believe in the bible as you do...and there is just no way of proving any of this. It would take a belief that I do not have in me, to believe in the bible as you do. I cannot force myself to believe.
How does being the creator, make God by definition just? As I stated earlier, I believe God is above what we consider justice.
Where do we, as humans, get our idea of justice?
We shall see, and this forum will be one of the first places I announce it.
Who isn't fallen?
I'll have to answer it tomorrow, as I'm am late leaving already. You will answer my questions, won't you?
Since our sense of justice seems to change with society and periods in history, I guess, it's one of those self-evident things...unless you are a lawmaker.
Your tagline above really has me puzzled.
Why do you believe that? On what do you base that statement?
Everyone
I must leave, I will be back tomorrow.
On everything I have said here today. All is as God intends it to be...
I will be back tomorrow.
Have you looked around lately?
Okay.
If God wills. 8~)
Dr. E, stuart does not believe in the concept of sin.
How about "naughtiness?"
Naughtiness to be regarded as naughtiness would have to be defined as naughtiness by the community. So what is naughty to you and I may not be naughty to stuart and vise versa, I think. Society being the determiner of naughtiness.
God designed us exactly the way He wanted us.
"If David could not do otherwise, then where was his freedom of choice?"
Who said we are "free" to choose. We make choices. But our choices are within God-defined limits. David made his choice based upon God's perfect plan. It wasn't a "free" choice. It was a choice. "Freedom" is a error the church believes today.
Since I believe that God communicates with us as individuals, then yes, I believe that worship is as the individual prescribes it.
Please explain the basis for your belief that God communicates with us as individuals. And it being "self-evident" is not a valid basis.
OK, I went back to #85...are you asking me the same questions that the author asked?
If so, then I will say that I do not believe there are any fixed standards of human behavior that apply to all of mankind, I believe the standards are dependent on the society, it's time in history, geographic location, the individual, and a lot of other variables.
I determine what is right and wrong by my God-given conscience and societies mores.
I do not know what has been revealed to others.
If not, what are the questions?
Yes, and I believe that men act as men..no one has fallen and no one has risen.
Of course, if you compare man to something which he is not...like an angel or God, then of course he has fallen...or risen if compared to an animal.
It seems to depend on one's reference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.