What is the biblical justification for the assertion that those who come to God have to understand the essence of the atonement before they are in right relationship with Him?
Jesus for one. He said in John 3
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
To get the context, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus who is considered “the” teacher of the Jews. He is discussing the need and nature of the new birth, beyond the current religious traditions of the Jewish people. Jesus references the incident when the children of Israel had rebelled against God and were bitten by snakes, Moses was instructed to make a bronze serpent for the children of Israel to use as a focus of confrontation and faith which resulted in their healing and redemption from physical death.
Unfortunately, this does not answer my question:
“What is the biblical justification for the assertion that those who come to God have to understand the essence of the atonement before they are in right relationship with Him?”
Since Jesus is talking to a teacher who has a vast amount of information regarding what God has been doing in the world and a significant portion of scripture committed to memory, Jesus is obviously not dealing with the issues we are discussing.
Paul did
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
To get the context, Paul is writing to Christians (those who have already heard the gospel message and are involved in churches in the vicinity of Rome) and is explaining what has already happened in their lives and how they need to express it to others. Paul is expressing a much more complete gospel message here than what we are discussing, so this is not particularly relevant to our discussion.
The part of Paul’s teaching that is most relevant to our discussion is found in Galatians and the argument Paul builds in the earlier part of Romans regarding how all have knowledge of God and how Abraham “believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
And how this is done is strictly through His Word:
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
It is certainly done through the written word and the gospel message that is preached, but it’s also obviously biblically clear that it is not done
exclusively through the written and preached word since Paul takes great pains to show that Abraham came to faith (Genesis 15:6) long before a scrap of scripture was written and before circumcision or the Jewish faith existed.
The very essence of the gospel is that Jesus died on the cross.
I don’t want to reduce the gospel simply to the atonement, that’s a modern error, but I certainly believe the cross of Christ is in the heart of the gospel. Biblically, the essence of the gospel is that we have been invited to share the life of God by being in right relationship with Him. (John 17:3) God initiates this relationship and we must consciously respond to His invitation. Everyone comes to the Father through Christ, whether we have much information about Christ at all. Certainly, in some way the atonement has created this possibility, however, I don’t think information about the atonement is required for God to bring someone into right relationship.
That is what we are to preach.
I agree completely! But that’s not the issue we are discussing. We are not talking about those who have access to a presentation of the gospel. You had alleged that one must understand the essence of the atonement before God extends life to someone who is lost.
If Jesus is not preached there is no gospel.
If someone knows God, they know Jesus... even if they don’t know a whole lot about Him.
Knowing God is the essence of the gospel. God will continue to give illumination to those who receive the light they already have. Like Abraham (and so many modern stories of God dealing with people initially well outside of a Christian witness), God does not leave people where they are but continues to work with the and teach them.
If there is no gospel there is no salvation.
The gospel is simply the “good news” that life is found in God (in Christ).
Knowing God (becoming a friend of God) is salvation.
All of salvation is Christ centered.
Sure.
And salvation does not get vicariously applied...
Again, you seem to speak of “salvation” as some sort of status that is applied apart from knowing God.
...by some belief in some God.
I haven’t advocated the belief in “some God”! I have always been talking about the one true God, Maker of heaven and earth, Who has expressed Himself in the Persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This God is greater than our imaginations and convenient theologies and is at work in the world even outside of direct human Judeo/Christian influence.
Again, I point to Abraham and what Paul said about him.
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
And if God is speaking to someone directly, they have heard the word of Christ.
Anything else is another gospel that neither Christ nor Paul preached.
Hardly. I think you are missing some aspects of God’s character and a number of key passages in scripture.
And it is complete heresy. I had no idea anyone on this board believed such.
Again, let’s deal with what the Bible says. I believe it is authoritative and infallible. Screaming heresy and expressing disbelief and outrage does nothing for our conversation.
And while we’re at it, I do want to have a conversation, not a debate regarding this issue.
The difference between a conversation and a debate is that in a conversation, if someone misspeaks or is not clear in their explanations, the other person doesn’t use it as a club to continually thrash the other person after the position is clarified, recanted or reconsidered. I don’t have a problem admitting when I am wrong and I hope you don’t either. If you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that I am mistaken, then I can change and everyone is better for it. I hope the same is true for you.
On the other hand, debates are often fought to win an argument, using all sorts of rhetorical tactics to cloud the issues and put the opponent at a perceived disadvantage so someone can claim victory. It often turns into a fight dominated by egos, power and mean-spirited words that is the anti-thesis of Christian conduct and diminishes everyone and the cause of Christ. I know how to play that stupid game, but have no interest in that.
If you are willing to have a conversation, I am willing. But this thread is allegedly about liberalism.
I have a lot going today, but I’m hoping to draft a concise exposition of my understanding of this subject and why I believe the way I do tonight or tomorrow. I’ll start a new thread and we can have a discussion that deals substantially with the issues.
