Liberalism

[Revmitchell]

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

Amen, Amen, and Amen!:thumbs:

 

[Baptist Believer]

I started to respond to your whole post. But I believe it would be an exercise in futility since you have this philosophy that believing in God is the same as believing in Christ and His atonement.

I believe in the Triune God. When people encounter the Father, they encounter Christ. When people encounter the Spirit, they encounter Christ. When people encounter Christ, they encounter both the Father and the Spirit.

When people come to know God, they come to Him knowing Christ.

I do not believe that when someone comes to know God (Christ) that it is “the same thing” as having specific knowledge of the atonement. I believe one can know initially know God without having specific knowledge of the atonement. That’s one of the main points of our discussion, and you are apparently not following our conversation very well if you think otherwise.

And this is the base of your, and Willards, entire heresy.

Since you don’t even understand my position, you certainly don’t have the credibility to claim my belief is heresy. For what it is worth, I didn’t come to this position through Willard. I had never heard of Willard until 1999. I actually worked the fundamentals of this out in my private study of the scripture back in 1986. I spent quite a bit of time working through the Bible from cover-to-cover, reading every word multiple times, to gain an understanding regarding what God is doing in the world and how He communicates with humankind. Once I had the big picture in mind, I started working through the stories and teachings of the Old and New Testaments.

What you are presenting is "Christian Universalism".

That’s absolute hogwash. I am not, nor have I ever been a universalist. As I have said in previous posts in this very thread, universalism isn’t biblical.

You present the false idea that to believe in God is also to believe in Christ. But you have that backwards. To believe in Christ is to believe in God. If you do not believe in Christ you do not believe in the one true and living God all though you may hold a belief in a god. True belief is tied up in believing in Christ. John 6:40

Since I believe that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (like all biblical Christians), you charge is baseless. The reason I was using the term God instead of Christ is that I’ve been referencing the story of Abram/Abraham and the recurring statement regarding his faith, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (see Genesis 15:6 for starters). It doesn’t say “Christ” or “Jesus”, it says “God”.

You have a grave misunderstanding of the faith of Abraham. The Galatians passage you reference is comparing works to faith. So your point is not made there.

Actually, the point is made in Genesis 15:6. Paul references Abraham’s faith as the prototype for our faith in Galatians and Romans.

And to do so can only be done in and eisegetical manner. Abraham had faith in God, but what was it about God that Abraham believed?

Actually, it was not something that Abraham believe “about God” (as you pose the question here), but that Abram/Abraham “believed God” Himself. It was in relationship to the promise that he would have a son produced from his own body.

There is no doubt he understood in atonement even at this point.(Genesis 15:7-12)

Abram/Abraham understood sacrifice (like most of the ancient world who sacrificed to various deities), but that’s something different than understanding the atonement of Christ (which is what you have been alleging is required).

Abraham did not simply have faith in an existent god.

And that’s never been my position. As I have stated before, everyone has knowledge that there is a God.

He had faith in the promise of God.

He had faith in God Himself, and also in God’s promises.

Remember, believing things that God says are true and in the facts of Christ’s atonement and the effective nature of Christ’s atonement doesn’t save anyone. The demons certainly believe that. The difference is believing (trusting in) God.

Noah also understood the need for atonement. (Genesis 8:20) and surely you understand that Adam and Eve understood atonement.

Again, you’re arguing issues of sacrifice and a general understanding of atonement, not Christ’s atonement for humankind. And as I’ve pointed out, the demons understand that.

No one can come to God and receive a right relationship without understanding the need for atonement.

I see you’ve backed away from specifying “Christ’s atonement”. Human history is full of atonement stories and examples. Pagans have sacrificed since almost the earliest days of humanity in order to appease the false gods.

Salvation and atonement are inseparable.

I have to respectfully disagree.

And let me just say as a side note that the use of the word heresy becomes appropriate when one presents themselves to be a Christian and a Baptist but present doctrine contrary to what they are presenting themselves to be. What you have presented is neither Christian nor Baptist.

Since you don’t even understand my position, I think you should have a bit more humility before you scream heresy. Apparently you’re reacting to assumptions about what I believe, not what I really believe.

Whether you are or not I will leave for others to determine. But it is without doubt that your error is grave. You should get yourself away from Willard's works based Christian Universalism.

As I pointed out earlier, I’ve come to this position on my own, more than 20 years ago. Willard did not significantly influence it. Furthermore, I don’t think Willard is a universalist at all. I’ve read a number of his books, listened to his lectures and have spoken with him in person about some of these issues. Of course that doesn’t prohibit folks on the internet from making all kinds of inaccurate charges...

 

[Baptist Believer]

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.

Amen! I agree.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Amen, Amen, and Amen!:thumbs:

Please note, we agree on this.

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe in the Triune God.

So does "Christian Universalism." And there is a difference in that and Universalism.

When people encounter the Father, they encounter Christ

.

Where does scripture say such? In your world all Jews are saved.

When people encounter the Spirit, they encounter Christ. When people encounter Christ, they encounter both the Father and the Spirit.

No they do not. There are three distinct personalities in the Triune Godhead. You seem to be trying to take what Jesus said and run it backwards. But to do so is in error and poor logic based on an incorrect view of the Trinity.

I do not believe that when someone comes to know God (Christ) that it is “the same thing” as having specific knowledge of the atonement.

I showed, through scripture, this to be untrue. You have to believe that Christ not only paid the sin debt on your behalf but that he rose from the grave(Romans 10:9), he was born of a virgin ( Matt 1:18, Hebrews 4:15), and without Him you will spend eternity in hell because of our sin (singular) (John 1:12, 3:18)which is the wrath of God on all His enemies (Rev 20:14). We have to acknowledge our sin (1 John 1:8) we must have a godly fear based on our sin (Romans 3:18) And we must go to Christ by way of the cross (1 Cor 1:17).

You have wrapped up universalism in the trinity and it at first glance looks like it is not any different. But the truth is the difference between your gospel and the Biblical gospel is as wide as the gulf between heaven and hell. And your gospel will send all who embrace it to the latter.


You want to characterize what I say as simply wanting to win a debate. But you have no knowledge of what my intentions are. When people who claim to be Christians espouse in public the false doctrines such as you do it must and always be met with the true gospel of the one true and living God.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally Posted by Baptist Believe
I believe in the Triune God.

So does "Christian Universalism." And there is a difference in that and Universalism.

For the record, I’m not any kind of universalist. Let’s put that false accusation to bed.

When people encounter the Father, they encounter Christ

Where does scripture say such?

Beyond the whole idea that there is one[/b] God, and that Jesus frequently identified Himself as “I AM” (a direct reference to God revealing Himself to Moses by His name, “I AM THAT I AM”) as recorded in John, Jesus said, “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.”

We worship one God, not three demi-gods. There are three Persons in the Godhead in perfect harmony and loving relationship to each other. In the incarnation of Christ, the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ in bodily form. I take that very seriously even though I don’t know exactly how it works.

In your world all Jews are saved.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t presume to know “my world”.

No, not all Jews are saved.

When people encounter the Spirit, they encounter Christ. When people encounter Christ, they encounter both the Father and the Spirit.

No they do not. There are three distinct personalities in the Triune Godhead.

There are three distinct Persons (not “personalities”] but there is one God. You are putting heavy emphasis on the three Persons, I am pointing out that we can’t take that so far that we lose sight of the fact that there is only one true God.

You seem to be trying to take what Jesus said and run it backwards. But to do so is in error and poor logic based on an incorrect view of the Trinity.

Please note what I said previously about Jesus expressing Himself as the “I AM” of the Old Testament. Given the fact that He identified Himself that way, I think I’m on solid ground.

I do not believe that when someone comes to know God (Christ) that it is “the same thing” as having specific knowledge of the atonement.

I showed, through scripture, this to be untrue.

Actually, you’re using scripture out of the context in which it was written. As I mentioned before, Paul is explaining what has previously happened to the Christians in Rome and giving them teaching regarding the gospel message. While I certainly affirm what Paul wrote regarding the more complete gospel message, you really need to go back to Genesis and to the early chapters in book of Romans to see what he says about Abraham.

You have to believe that Christ not only paid the sin debt on your behalf but that he rose from the grave(Romans 10:9), he was born of a virgin ( Matt 1:18, Hebrews 4:15), and without Him you will spend eternity in hell because of our sin (singular) (John 1:12, 3:18)which is the wrath of God on all His enemies (Rev 20:14). We have to acknowledge our sin (1 John 1:8) we must have a godly fear based on our sin (Romans 3:18) And we must go to Christ by way of the cross (1 Cor 1:17).

What you have here is a much more complete picture of the gospel than Abraham ever had before he “believed God and it was reckoned to his as righteousness.” Therefore, this is not particularly relevant to our conversation.

You have wrapped up universalism in the trinity and it at first glance looks like it is not any different.

I don’t know what you’re talking about here. I’m not talking about universalism at all, and I don’t know how someone could “wrap up” the doctrine of the Trinity with it anyway.

But the truth is the difference between your gospel and the Biblical gospel is as wide as the gulf between heaven and hell. And your gospel will send all who embrace it to the latter.

Nice accusatory rhetoric, based on your woefully incorrect assumptions. Can we put away the foolish rhetoric and have a conversation?

You want to characterize what I say as simply wanting to win a debate. But you have no knowledge of what my intentions are.

You’re right. All I know is what I read... baseless accusations, dire hand-waving rhetoric and characterizations of my opinions are heretical. Plus, we have conversed in the past and you have been very quick to condemn and make false characterizations. In fact, in earlier in this thread you mentioned that you don’t accept the term “moderate” because you believe that’s just a code-word for “liberal” (and you define a liberal essentially as a non-believer). In another recent exchange, you pointed out to someone else they we are posting in a debate forum, and that they shouldn’t be surprised if you want to debate. Since we are in a debate forum (a style of discourse that is more concerned about winning rhetorical points than actually illuminating truth), I wanted to request that we actually have a conversation that might yield fruit.

When people who claim to be Christians espouse in public the false doctrines such as you do it must and always be met with the true gospel of the one true and living God.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

If you would take the time to actually figure out what doctrines I espouse instead of making them up, you might have the right to condemn if I am wrong. But this is really getting old.

 

[gb93433]

Rev mitch,
I urge you to define conservative in your view, not a cut and paste, and let's see if we can measure up.

Too many hide under the cloak of practical atheism and call it conservatism.

 

[Revmitchell]

Salvation and where it comes from


Salvation comes by the Word of God

-There is no other means by which we can be given a correct understanding of salvation.

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

-There is no other way to know Jesus except by the Word of God

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

What did Abraham believe? He believed God's promise, he believed God's words. No one came come to God outside of the words of God.

Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.



Salvation is only through the Name of Jesus


Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


In order to know God you must first know Jesus


Act 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.


The promise of the Messiah began early on. It was revealed to Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the prophets. The Messiah reveals God and His nature. We cannot understand the Father, the Holy Ghost or the Trinity unless we understand Christ. The enitire gospel is that man is redeemed. No redemption no gospel. No understanding of redemption, sin, atonement, no gospel no God.

Anything else is a false gospel, another gospel, and heresy.

 

[gb93433]

No understanding of redemption, sin, atonement, no gospel no God.

Was Jesus the propitiation or expiation for our sins?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Salvation and where it comes from


Salvation comes by the Word of God

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

What did Abraham believe? He believed God's promise, he believed God's words. No one came come to God outside of the words of God.

Exactly.

God spoke directly to Abraham and Abraham believed (trusted in) God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

That's what I've been saying for the last few days, yet you refuse to accept those words from me. You seem to be more interested in condemning me than in paying attention to what I am actually saying.

In the same way, I believe anyone can be saved if God is dealing with them, even apart from human witness... just like Abraham.

Salvation is only through the Name of Jesus


Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Yes.

As long as you understand that when the scripture speaks of the "name of Jesus", it is actually talking about the Person of Jesus, not the "J-e-s-u-s" name of Jesus.

I've said nothing to contradict this position. (And, for what it's worth, neither has Dallas Willard.)

Anyone who is saved is saved through Jesus.

In order to know God you must first know Jesus

The promise of the Messiah began early on. It was revealed to Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the prophets.

Sure. When God reveals Himself to humans, He gives them a degree of understanding.

The Messiah reveals God and His nature. We cannot understand the Father, the Holy Ghost or the Trinity unless we understand Christ.

Any Person of the Godhead reveals the Other Persons of the Godhead. The nature of the Messiah (the Christ) is gradually revealed through the Old Testament, dramatically introduced in the Incarnation, and will be fully known when all things are new.

The enitire gospel is that man is redeemed.

There's more to the Old and New Testaments than simply redemption, but redemption runs all the way through it.

No redemption no gospel. No understanding of redemption, sin, atonement, no gospel...

Now you're starting to make certain information essential to someone receiving the grace of God. God certainly gives enough information for someone to trust Him, but I think we get ourselves onto shaky ground when we start specifying exactly what a person must understand before they are in right relationship with God. (REMEMBER, we are talking about a person who has not had the opportunity to hear a complete gospel message from a human or written witness and is being dealt with wholly by God's personal revelation to an individual. We ARE NOT talking about the gospel we are called to preach. We are called to preach a complete message, including, but not limited to, discussion of Christ's atonement.)

...no God.

What in the world are you talking about? God IS, whether or not a thorough gospel message is heard and understood.

Anything else is a false gospel, another gospel, and heresy.

I think you've lost sight of the subject of our discussion. I agree with the vast majority of what you've written here and I've pointed out the places where I have reservations regarding what you have said.

The response that started your cries of heresy against me simply pointed out that God is at work in people's lives across the world well in advance of an explicit Christian witness, and that God gives light and revelation to those who embrace the truth of God they already know, by sending missionaries, by sending scripture, or even by direct revelation of Himself to individuals.

And that's thoroughly biblical.

 

[Jim1999]

Quote: Was Jesus the propitiation or expiation for our sins?
---------------------------------------------

In theological terms we talk about Jesus being the "propitiation" for our sins. We, according to the actual meaning of the word "expiate", :"make amends for...", it does not apply to Jesus paying the price for the sins of all humankind on the cross. Close, but the word falls short.

We are still sinners, albeit saved by His grace.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Baptist Believer]

Was Jesus the propitiation or expiation for our sins?

Tough question.

I know this one is not directed to me, but your point is solid. If we are going to make the "correct" view of the atonement to be a prerequisite for salvation, then we've opened up a pandora's box of problems because there are very diverse views of the atonement among Christians. While Christians affirm the atonement, not many feel very comfortable explaining things in detail, and fewer (other than those who are theologically-trained) have done much serious thinking about it.

If I were answering the question, I'd say expiation, but I wouldn't be very comfortable narrowing things down that far.

I believe most of the theories of the atonement have nuggets of truth in their emphases, but I don't think any of them capture all of the meaning, intent, and objective truth of what happened in the atonement of Christ. If I were forced to choose a single popular theory, I would claim the "Christus Victor" viewpoint. But I think the best thing to do is preach the various depictions of atonement and redemption in scripture instead of trying to nail everything to a simple systematic viewpoint.

 

[Baptist Believer]

In theological terms we talk about Jesus being the "propitiation" for our sins. We, according to the actual meaning of the word "expiate", :"make amends for...", it does not apply to Jesus paying the price for the sins of all humankind on the cross. Close, but the word falls short.

You make a good point. What view(s) of the atonement do you hold?

 

[Revmitchell]

Now you're starting to make certain information essential to someone receiving the grace of God. God certainly gives enough information for someone to trust Him, but I think we get ourselves onto shaky ground when we start specifying exactly what a person must understand before they are in right relationship with God.

If you do not specifically know about Christ and His purpose then you do not know God.

 

[Revmitchell]

As long as you understand that when the scripture speaks of the "name of Jesus", it is actually talking about the Person of Jesus, not the "J-e-s-u-s" name of Jesus.

We come to God declaring that our ability to do so is because of what Jesus did on the Cross.

I've said nothing to contradict this position. (And, for what it's worth, neither has Dallas Willard.)

Willard's theology is works based Universalism.

Anyone who is saved is saved through Jesus.

This is a vague statement and can be applied to mean almost anything. Even your false concept that you canbe saved without knowing anything at all about the Savior or redemption.

Sure. When God reveals Himself to humans, He gives them a degree of understanding.

More vague rhetoric.

Any Person of the Godhead reveals the Other Persons of the Godhead.

This is false. And you have yet to provide any scripture to back it up.

The nature of the Messiah (the Christ) is gradually revealed through the Old Testament, dramatically introduced in the Incarnation, and will be fully known when all things are new.

What you mean by "nature" is anyone's guess. But His purpose has always been known.

There's more to the Old and New Testaments than simply redemption, but redemption runs all the way through it.

The entire Bible is centered on Christ. Not just runs through it.

What in the world are you talking about? God IS, whether or not a thorough gospel message is heard and understood.

This is not relevant to the salvation of men,

I think you've lost sight of the subject of our discussion. I agree with the vast majority of what you've written here and I've pointed out the places where I have reservations regarding what you have said.

Your false ideology that one can be saved without any understanding of the Savior or redemption is contrary to everything I have said.

 

[Baptist Believer]

And that is heresy.

By saying that God will give someone all the information needed to come into right relationship with Him?

Really?

I think God is competent to accomplish His will.

I can't take you seriously anymore.

 

[Revmitchell]

By saying that God will give someone all the information needed to come into right relationship with Him?

Really?

I think God is competent to accomplish His will.

I can't take you seriously anymore.

Now you took a small part of what you said and tried to apply it to what I said. Take me seriously or not this was not honest of you to do. If you are going to quote me then you need to give the entire statement you made. Not just a small part of it.

Now you're starting to make certain information essential to someone receiving the grace of God. God certainly gives enough information for someone to trust Him, but I think we get ourselves onto shaky ground when we start specifying exactly what a person must understand before they are in right relationship with God.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jesus Himself said straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few be that find it. You are trying to broaden the way by taking Jesus out of the picture. Whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[Revmitchell]

If you do not know the name of Jesus, if you do not know what He did for you or why, you neither know Jesus or God.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If you do not specifically know about Christ and His purpose then you do not know God.

I'm saying:

1. God initiates the relationship.
2. God gives revelation to a person.
3. If the person trusts that revelation, then God give more.
4. Repeat #3 until the person comes into right relationship with God (that is, comes to know God and trusts his life to Him).

You seem to be saying:

1.) God waits around for written or spoken gospel message to come to a person.
2.) Once the person gains a certain amount of information regarding the gospel, they come to a place where salvation is possible.
3.) One a person affirms a certain set of information (and probably makes a personal commitment to Christ - I'm not sure what you believe here), the person "knows" God.

Now I've likely misrepresented your views because you've spent most of your energy calling me a heretic instead of presenting your understanding, so feel free to correct my perception of your position.