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).
Where have I ever said anything deragatory or anti, about anyone's religion?
I believe in one God...how many times must I repeat it, for you to understand? Since I believe in one God, then I cannot say I believe in THE any God....this cannot be that hard to understand.
Still sounds relative to me.
That is not your method. Your method is to let others make assumptions. You then ask the same questions that atheists have argued with christians about for many centuries, while it is assumed that you are a christian. Of course, their assumption is not your fault, but it is your deliberate method.
I have already told you that taking a life is permissible in some circumstances and the authority to do so is derived from God as revealed in the bible. The moral truths of the bible apply to all societies, generations, ethnic groups, etc.
Sounds like a lot of Free Republic religion thread posters, except that in their theology, God turns to ask their opinion first before deciding whether to drop the sinners into the pit. ;)
I'm sorry that you make incorrect assumptions.
I am not familiar with the questions that atheists have made throughout history, but apparently they must be somewhat valid, if no one has come up with the answers yet.
Doesn't everyone have some sort of method to what they do?
So taking a human life is not an absolute, and is relative to the circumstance. Fine, that is what I have been saying all along.
I know nothing about how other people choose to revere God, I am unable to grasp the idea of a false god, or multiple gods, only one God.
I do not believe there is a WHAT God or a THE God...just God...how can you not understand this? I have no other way way of communicating this to you, and I am sorry you cannot grasp it.
I have said, repeatedly, that my belief in one God, is just something inside me, I have no explanation...you must be able, by now, to understand this. Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over? If you cannot understand, just say so.
I have no idea what you mean by which God, where did you find Him, etc. none of that makes any sense to me.
???
LOL!!! And some will insist there are those who will tell God to drop them in.
I think that's what I've been doing.
To clarify and help me in my lack of understanding, would you answer this simple question:
Do you believe in the God of the Old and New Testaments?
I have answered that in all the detail that I have available, 2 times already. Is it my english that you do not understand, or are you incapable of accepting any answer other than the one that you want to hear?
No, respectfully, you have not answered my question.
You've said you believe in God.
However, that was not my question.
I asked if you believe in the God of the New and Old Testaments. Instead of answering that question with a simple "yes" or "no," you reply, "I believe in God."
That is not answering the question I asked. You know it. I know it. Anyone reading this knows it.
And the God of the New and Old Testament knows it.
Of course I know it, and everyone else knows it....you want the answer you want, regardless of whether I can honestly answer it the way you want. I have repeatedly explained that I am incapable of answering your question the way you want it answered...yes or no. What more can I say? You would have me compromise my beliefs, just for the satisfaction of getting the desired answer.
I believe in God....there is no THE God that I know of, how then can I answer?
So, feel free to broadcast that stuartcr will not answer a simple yes or no answer....because from many of your past replies, I have noticed this trend in your responses.
I want to thank you and everyone else on this thread for what I learned these last few days. As I have said a number of times over the years, one of the reasons I join these religion threads, is to try and learn about people, and why they believe as they do. I haven't figured that out yet, but what I have learned, is that many people seem to require reinforcement or some form of validity/proof for their own beliefs/faith. This appears to manifests itself in the constant, and sometimes repeated, requests for proof or validation from me, of my beliefs. While I almost always qualify my statements with the fact that I do not possess, nor have a need for, any substantiating evidence for my belief in God, sometimes, this doesn't seem to get across to people. Many think that I know these things to be fact. I try to remind people, that I am the first person to say that I might very well be wrong.
While it may appear to you, that I am anti-Christian, believe me, I am not anti- any religion. It's just that I frequent FreeRepublic, and the only religion threads, are Christian based. If their were any others, I would gladly ask them the same questions.
validity/proof for their own beliefs/faith
I believe that God is personal and His Spirit testifies to my spirit through His Word to the truth and I require no further validation.
sometimes, this doesn't seem to get across to people
Maybe you should try a different method of communication. ;)
I would gladly ask them the same questions.Do you think 'they' would receive your questions without wanting to know more about your beliefs? You see, Christians are concerned for God's glory and your salvation. It isn't necessarily that they are threatened, but rather they may be confident that you are wrong and in danger of spending eternity in hell. It is loving for a Christian to tell someone that they are hell bound unless they turn to the living God.
I thank God daily, that we are all individuals.
Good, as I said, I require none either...but it appears that there are some that do.
Being on the internet, we have to use the limited skills we have, perhaps I will acquire new ones.
I never know how anyone will receive my questions, but that hasn't stopped me yet...although, I find that I do get frustrated and/or offended sometimes.
Thanks
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.