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).
I don't know what you want to hear. I have told you what the basis for my beliefs is, if you don't consider it valid, then so be it...it doesn't change anything for me...but I'm sure it will give you an opportunity to say something about how I believe.
I didn't know that was your question. I don't even know what a Utilitarian is.
I said we agree on the relativity of taking a human life, that's all. Isn't saying that the taking of a human life is OK sometimes, dependent upon the situation....relative? If not, please give me an example of something that is morally relative.
In Christianity, human logic comes from God, an aspect of creation that is derived from His own character.
OK, we don't agree.
Do you know who John Stuart Mill is and do you agree with his "greater good" philosophy?
You said, "taking a human life is not an absolute, but relative to the situation." I say, "taking a human life is not an absolute, because the sanction may change." In other words, the act that determined the judgement of taking the life is still morally wrong. However, the sanction for the act may change.
Murder is morally wrong, but capital punishment may be tempered with mercy. So that, life imprisonment is the sanction rather than death.
I am not familiar with his philosophy.
As you say, taking a human life is not an absolute.
While murder is morally wrong, is war? They both take human lives.
If someone claimed that God told them to kill their family, would you accept this as God communicating with that individual? Would you have a problem with them doing that?
You mean like what Abraham was told to do? Yes, but I would have a problem with it, besides, it's against the law.
But, according to your beliefs, you can't have a problem with it,since that is just how God communicates with others. You are straddling the fence. You can't have it both ways.
The Word of God is God's final revelation to man. There is no need for individual communication directly between God and man anymore.
I do not believe that a Christian is called to be a Pacifist.
When you say that you believe in God, what does that mean to you?
I didn't say I can't have a problem with it, I said that is the way it is. It doesn't have anything to do with the way God made me feel about things.
You are claiming that God will allow one person to view something as wrong, and yet another person to view it as right. That is not logical.
So taking human life in war is OK? Isn't that relative to something? How does one know they are on the morally right side of a war?
Basically, it means I believe there is a creator of all things, that is ultimately responsible for everything.
So it's not logical to us, maybe it is to God.
Do you believe it is morally right or wrong to take a human life?
God knowing the choices you make 1000 years before your birth has nothing to do with the choices you make; just like God knowing you will alway take the car to work has nothing to do with you rejecting the rollerskates. The problem isn't that you don't see the difference. You're too smart for that. The problem is you really don't wish to understand this.
"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 didn't say you could have chosen differently. I said God knows the choices you will make. Perhaps you meant to say, "..how do you really know that you could NOT have chosen differently?" Simply. God knows everything, there is a plan, and there is a path that God leads a person on. God is not fooled by the direction one takes.
stuartcr: "besides, I really don't care how you believe."
You don't care how I believe only as long as it does not affect you. That is the point in my previous post/offer. When our beliefs result in action (which they ultimately always do), these actions often conflict with others of opposing beliefs. This is why moral relativism is untenable and cannot thrive - total anarchy results when moral relativism is practiced by all.
Your refusal to provide the requested information proves that you do, in fact, care how I believe...
I do not wish to go around in circles with someone who doesn't even believe in logic and absolute truth. You are free to believe what you will, but I pray that you will decide to trust God's Word to be your guide.
God Bless.
Well, it seems that we disagree.
The Word of God tells us the God grants authority to governments to protect the oppressed and to punish the evildoers.
that is ultimately responsible for everything.
Responsible to who?
How can what you believe about me, affect my beliefs?
My refusal was strictly financial, and had nothing to do with what you think about my beliefs about God.
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.