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).
Apparently He willed it.
Would you consider yourself a Utilitarian, a spiritual descendant of John Stuart Mill?
By definition, I think a sin is a transgression against a religious law, so sin seems to be relative to one's religion.
I believe that God is above our earthly religions, and I believe that we do as God intended, consequently I don't believe we sin against God.
Yes, and also being offensive, mean cruel, etc., but that is just how we are as individuals...some good, some bad, some in between.
I agree, plus, there is some inherent stuff that I believe God put into us.
I agree.
How is a pre-determined, non-free choice, really a choice at all?
You are saying that any system of morality is entirely subjective.
It appears that way to me. Although it also appears that there are some that seem to be inherent in most civilised persons, throughout history. I think, what it really boils down to, is that the subject of morality, for want of better terminology, cannot really be put into a black or white category. That is why I say that we as humans will strive forever, and as hard as we can, to try and find some moral absolutes...but, in reality, there will always be an exception to the rule. I chalk it up as one of God's mysteries, that we probably will never understand or totally agree on.
Have you come to a conclusion about whether taking a human life is right or wrong?
I believe that taking a life is permissible in some circumstances. My authority is the bible for determining those circumstances.
Do you consider God "wholly other", that is to say "God's logic is different that human logic?"
So we agree that taking a human life is not an absolute, but is relative to the situation? I'm glad we agree on something. What I don't understand, is why so many do not approve of moral relativism? It happens all the time, everywhere, I believe it's a large part of what makes us human....the ability to distinguish when something horrible, is OK.
Of course, God is God, we are humans, as a matter of fact, I don't even know if God has logic...isn't it a human trait?. He created us with what we call logic, why should it even matter to Him?
Let's assume you work 20 miles away. God gives you a car and a pair of roller skates. Because you decide to drive to work and not to rollerskate every single time does not mean you don't have a "real" choice.
Does God know which you will choose? I think your choice would be obvious.
God created us as logical, rational beings. We are able to understand His Word in a logical manner.
Didn't God know 1000yrs ago that you would choose the car? Isn't everything that happens after and a result of, already known?
If it was already known what you were going to do, and it is impossible to do something other than what God knows you will do. I still don't see a choice. God knowing what you will do, and the inability of God to be wrong, forces you to make the choice that was known 1000 yrs before your birth.
Besides, how do you really know that you could have chosen differently? I understand you believe you could, but there is no way of knowing.
I agree that we were created as logical human beings, that doesn't mean we are on the same logic level as God, does it?
Logic is logic. Are we on the same level as God? No. However, He knows we are logical beings, and therefore, knows that His Word must also be logical.
stuartcr: "What I don't understand, is why so many do not approve of moral relativism?"
I might become a believer in moral relativism - but it depends on the circumstances. Perhaps if you freepmail me your full name, credit card number and expiration date, your social security number, your phone number, and your address, then I might become a believer in moral relativism. Obviously, anything I choose to do with this information would be up to my own morals or standards of conduct.
Of course our logic is logic, we don't know anything else. Since I believe that God does communicate to us individually, then He must use our logic to communicate with us. I just don't think that a lot of what else God does, is necessarily logical to us.
Right, that will happen...besides, I really don't care how you believe.
I will ask you once again. What is the basis for yoru belief that God talks to individuals directly? And saying it is "self-evident" is not a valid basis for that belief.
The bible, my authority, is the same for all societies, all generations, all ethnic groups, etc.
Your subjective, societal moral relativism changes with the whim of the masses. So what was okay last time in taking a life may not be okay this time, etc.
You didn't answer my question, "Would you consider yourself a Utilitarian, a spiritual descendant of John Stuart Mill?
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.