What is a liberal?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: 1) The verbal inerrancy of Scripture.
2) The divinity of Jesus Christ.
3) The virgin birth.
4) The substitutionary atonement of Christ.
5) The physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ.

HP: Thanks DHK. I was just not certain all on the list would have the same list, nor that all would call #1 a ‘cardinal doctrine.’

For the sake of this illustration we shall use your list. Would these be considered as absolute, or are these understood subjectively? For instance, would one be in agreement with #1 who believed it was given verbally inerrant but changed over time through different translations? We know absolutely that all versions do NOT say the same things.

The question then would be which translation is closest to the verbal inspiration? What is the import of #1 if there is no absolute proof seeing that we have no ‘original’ manuscripts that one can point to as ‘the original inerrant copy?’ Do we not have to accept by faith this point of #1, and is it not a subjective task to determine which version we believe by faith is the one each individual shall use or follow?

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan, when deciding who is and who is not a liberal, (obviously believed by you as being ordained by God to do so, never again to be revisited or deviated from by the least iota) did they by chance decide what the real relevance of being one is? Do they automatically get counted out of the Kingdom? Did these men that drew up the strict boundaries for the word ‘liberal’ establish the real import of attaching this word with their strict definition to it? Again, is the punishment for being a liberal (under their obviously God-ordained duty to define a liberal) decided once for all and for the whole world for being classified as a liberal? If there is no established penalty for being one, again what is the import of their conclusions?
Who has God passed this ‘liberal determining’ torch to today? Why is it some men years ago could use their intellect and debate or discuss together to establish the meaning of the word ‘liberal,’ and all others that dare to even suggest that other issues might be legitimate boundaries for the word today are simply labeled as ‘ignorant’ by men such as yourself? It would seem apparent to me that you look at the men that established the meanings, that obviously prevail in at least some theological circles, much the same regard as Catholics do the proclamations of the Pope, i.e., infallible……. or so it might in fact appear.

I see two issues here, HP.

(1) You may have been genuinely insulted by my calling you ignorant. Now I didn't mean it to be an insult since as I said I myself am ignorant in literally 1000's of areas. But maybe you feel I was tactless. If you do believe I was tactless and insulting, while admitting you don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but feel I should have said something more tactful like "HP needs more study," then PM me and I will humbly apologize.

(2) You may genuinely feel you have just as much knowledge and ability to define liberalism as I do. If this is true, I propose a contest. Let's each give our qualifications to define what a liberal is. I'll start, then it's your turn, and we'll let the denizens of the BB decide who is qualified--kind of a resume for the subject. If you are indeed well qualified by your training and experience, once again, I'll apologize.

First item in the resume, how long have you studied the issues? I've studied liberalism and related issues since 1970-1972, when I was a student at BJU, thus for over 36 years. Bob Jones Jr. and my grandfather had a difference of view on two subjects: ecclesiastical separation and the inspiration of Scripture. I didn't take my grandfather's word on the issues, but studied both subjects in detail. I've studied liberalism off and on ever since, as my library shows.

Secondly, what is your education in theology? I have a BA in Bible and an MA in Biblical studies from a regionally accredited graduate school.

Okay, your turn. How long have you studied this issue? What is your education?

I'm particularly interested in knowing where you learned what you said in post #109, the one I originally objected to (something no church historian or theologian I've studied held to):

One cannot conceive of a more liberal notion concerning salvation than what is being set forth by DHK and others even on this list. When you can have saving faith and or saving belief without continued obedience, or saving faith or saving belief divorced from continued obedience, one has presented the most liberal theology one can imagine.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

AAA: 1. Arminians and others...

2. They undermine the gosple of GRACE....

Sorry, no offense intended...

HP: No offense taken. :wavey:

Some on this list will call you ignorant, but I for one realize that you have as much a right to use the word 'liberal' as R.A. Torry, JOJ, or anyone else. I would say that I disagree with your assessment for I do not believe ‘they’ (Arminians in particular) undermine grace in the least, but again, if you desire to attach the word ‘liberal’ in pointing to them, have at it.

If you believe that Arminians and others stray from the gospel of grace as presented in Scripture, and you also believe as JOJ stated himself

JOJ: ”in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith”

and you believe that the doctrine of grace from your perspective is a ‘cardinal doctrine,’ then I can follow your thinking although again I believe you are in error. That would be reason for debate, but not for labeling you as being ignorant.

 

[Darron Steele]

...Some on this list will call you ignorant, but I for one realize that you have as much a right to use the word 'liberal' as R.A. Torry, JOJ, or anyone else. ...

I have not seen where anyone has said that anyone does not "have a right to use the word `liberal.'"

My understanding is that this thread is about the meaning of the word when it comes to theology. The standard meanings of "theological liberalism" and "theological liberal" etc. have been established for decades.

All I have seen so far is that you want the words to mean what you want, and it seems to peeve you off that the words have long-established standard meanings -- to the point of taking it as personal hostility and lashing out. If you could document where someone actually said that anyone -- including you -- is forbidden to use that word, it would be most illuminating.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darron Steele: If you could document where someone actually said that anyone -- including you -- is forbidden to use that word, it would be most illuminating.

HP: Not forbidden, just denoted as ignorant. :thumbs:

PS. No one is 'peeved' here in the least.:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

HP: Thanks DHK. I was just not certain all on the list would have the same list, nor that all would call #1 a ‘cardinal doctrine.’

For the sake of this illustration we shall use your list. Would these be considered as absolute, or are these understood subjectively? For instance, would one be in agreement with #1 who believed it was given verbally inerrant but changed over time through different translations? We know absolutely that all versions do NOT say the same things.

The question then would be which translation is closest to the verbal inspiration? What is the import of #1 if there is no absolute proof seeing that we have no ‘original’ manuscripts that one can point to as ‘the original inerrant copy?’ Do we not have to accept by faith this point of #1, and is it not a subjective task to determine which version we believe by faith is the one each individual shall use or follow?

The accepted definition of "inspiration" has been along the lines of the one given by Benjamin Warfield:

[FONT=&quot]"Inspiration is that extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of Our Sacred Books, in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (Benjamin Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 420)[/FONT]

First note that it is the writers that were inspired, meaning the Apostles and prophets that actually wrote the manuscripts that makes up the present Word of God.
Second, inspiration only extended as far as the books that God wanted inccluded in His Canon; that is, not every thing they said was inspired.

Third, inspiration extended therefore only to the original manuscripts not to versions, translations, that which we have today.

What we have today are "preserved" in the more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts that still remain. From a process of lower textual criticism (not higher textual criticism), we ascertain the correct reading of the Word God. There are not that many variants when it comes right down to it.


It is the Liberals that use a process called Higher Criticism to make a direct attack on the veracity of the Word of God, to discredit it, take the supernatural out of it, and bring it down to the level of any other book.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

First note that it is the writers that were inspired, meaning the Apostles and prophets that actually wrote the manuscripts that makes up the present Word of God.
Second, inspiration only extended as far as the books that God wanted inccluded in His Canon; that is, not every thing they said was inspired.

HP: I would agree in what you have posted here, but you and I should know without the actual authenticated original manuscript(s), faith and subjectivity come into play. I sometimes wish that were not so, but I believe God has His reasons for even that which in some ways seems as a detriment to the establishment of truth. Even His very Word must be accepted by faith. His very Word is subject to subjective interpretation and personal application. Again, I believe God has designed it that way to see how we act when we do not have all the answers laid out for us in stone. Even if they were in stone, we are made in such a way that our minds must subjectively examine what is stated and accept it as valid truth by faith. For instance. “Thou shalt not kill.” We still clearly understand that there are instances when killing is indeed justified, although murder never is. I see that in a large degree as subjectively established truth, (via God instilled intuitve truths involving justice) yet just the same, in accordance with truth. I have to accept my interpretation based upon all the evidence and wisdom God grants to me and by faith apply it to my life and the way I conduct myself.

How are we doing so far? Agree or disagree? If you feel that I am not using the word subjective or subjectivity properly, feel free to try and help me coin my words better. We should all be learning daily through the help and interaction with gain from others.:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

John of Japan: First item in the resume, how long have you studied the issues? I've studied liberalism and related issues since 1970-1972, when I was a student at BJU, thus for over 36 years. Bob Jones Jr. and my grandfather had a difference of view on two subjects: ecclesiastical separation and the inspiration of Scripture. I didn't take my grandfather's word on the issues, but studied both subjects in detail. I've studied liberalism off and on ever since, as my library shows.

Secondly, what is your education in theology? I have a BA in Bible and an MA in Biblical studies from a regionally accredited graduate school.

Okay, your turn.

HP: Truth is not established in direct correlation with the credentials one thinks he has or the alphabetical denotations subsequent to ones name, nor to who ones father or grandfather is or was nor to whether or not the school attended was accredited, Ivy League, or neither.

I simply classify myself as a seeker of truth and as such a follower of Jesus Christ. I post these two concepts as my only credentials.

 

[DHK]

HP: I would agree in what you have posted here, but you and I should know without the actual authenticated original manuscript(s), faith and subjectivity come into play.

Faith, yes; Subjectivity, no.
We base most of our Christian on faith. Our salvation is based on faith, but it is not blind faith, nor is it subjective. My faith is rooted and grounded in the gospel message. I know that Christ lived. It is a historical fact that cannot be denied.
I know that he died and was buried--cannot be denied.
I also know that he rose from the dead--one of the most historically attested facts of history.
On the basis of these facts I place my faith in him. It is not a blind faith.

In the same way I place my faith in the promises of God Word. He promised to preserve His Word. There are many evidences given in the Bible and outside of the Bible that He has. Just as I have faith in the truthfulenss of the Gospel, I have faith in the truthfulenss of the preservation of God's Word. It is not a blind faith. It is not subjective. It is based on facts, on knowledge. It is not subjective.

I sometimes wish that were not so, but I believe God has His reasons for even that which in some ways seems as a detriment to the establishment of truth. Even His very Word must be accepted by faith. His very Word is subject to subjective interpretation and personal application.

The acceptance of the Bible as the inspired Word of God and preserved to this day is not a subjective belief. It is to be accepted by faith. But that is not subjective.
However in its interpretation there are many things that may be considered subjective, or open to interpretation. We see that on this board. What is not open for discussion are the fundamentals of the faith. They are not subjective. They are not up for debate. They are absolutes. If you begin to deny these fundamentals you put yourself in the class of a godless Christ-denying liberal, who wants nothing more than to destry the very tenets of our Christian faith. The fundamentals of our faith are not open for interpretation.

Again, I believe God has designed it that way to see how we act when we do not have all the answers laid out for us in stone. Even if they were in stone, we are made in such a way that our minds must subjectively examine what is stated and accept it as valid truth by faith.

Not when it comes to the fundamentals of our faith.

For instance. “Thou shalt not kill.” We still clearly understand that there are instances when killing is indeed justified, although murder never is.

Your qualifier in the last phrase of the statement makes everything very clear. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill," is more accurately translated "Thou shalt not murder." That is what the command is speakng of. Thus, even in your own admission there needs to be no debate on this command.

I see that in a large degree as subjectively established truth, (via God instilled intuitve truths involving justice) yet just the same, in accordance with truth. I have to accept my interpretation based upon all the evidence and wisdom God grants to me and by faith apply it to my life and the way I conduct myself.

But in the Ten Commandments you accept "Thou shalt not murder," the true meaning of the command.

How are we doing so far? Agree or disagree? If you feel that I am not using the word subjective or subjectivity properly, feel free to try and help me coin my words better. We should all be learning daily through the help and interaction with gain from others.:thumbs:

We are doing great. There is no debate on those fundamentals listed that were agreed on in 1895. Don't you agree with that?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: We are doing great. There is no debate on those fundamentals listed that were agreed on in 1895. Don't you agree with that?

HP: I will start with the most important part. I fully agree with all the fundamentals of the faith you listed. :thumbs:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: I would agree in what you have posted here, but you and I should know without the actual authenticated original manuscript(s), faith and subjectivity come into play.

DHK:Faith, yes; Subjectivity, no.

HP: Noah Webster quotes Watts on subjective. “ Certainty-is distinguished into objective and subjective; objective, is when the proposition is certainly true of itself; and subjective, is when we are certain of the truth of it.” Can we in reality separate faith from subjectivity? Do we not establish and know something subjectively when we hold it by faith?

I am asking here not setting myself up as a teacher on the subject.

 

[John of Japan]

HP: Truth is not established in direct correlation with the credentials one thinks he has or the alphabetical denotations subsequent to ones name, nor to who ones father or grandfather is or was nor to whether or not the school attended was accredited, Ivy League, or neither.

I simply classify myself as a seeker of truth and as such a follower of Jesus Christ. I post these two concepts as my only credentials.

So your statement quoted above (post #109) about what liberalism is was only your opinion, and you have no historical or theological basis for it. Would that be accurate? Or do you have a theological or historical source for your opinion? A mentor? A book you read?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JOJ: So your statement quoted above (post #109) about what liberalism is was only your opinion, and you have no historical or theological basis for it. Would that be accurate? Or do you have a theological or historical source for your opinion? A mentor? A book you read?

HP: Yes there is a book that I read. It is also my theological source and my historical source. It is called the Bible. It may be my opinion in a sense as I hold to what it presents by faith, but it is not a product of my opinions. Hope this helps.

 

[DHK]

HP: I will start with the most important part. I fully agree with all the fundamentals of the faith you listed. :thumbs:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: I would agree in what you have posted here, but you and I should know without the actual authenticated original manuscript(s), faith and subjectivity come into play.

1. You state you agree with all the fundamentals listed.
2. The fundamentals listed are in no way subjectively known. They are objective truths. There is no misinterpretaton of these facts.
3. If the above statement be true, then the Canon of Scripture that we have today (though not the original mss) must be accurately preserved in the transmission of the revelation of the truth of God's Word. The source for those fundamentals comes from the Scripture. In 1895 they didn't have the originals, but only the same resources that we have today. Yet they decided on objective truth. It is not subjective.

The degree of subjectivity that comes into play here is so minimal that it is insignificant. I think I know what you are getting at. But let me put it this way:
There is more evidence to authenticate the veracity of the Bible as the Word of God, than there is evidence to authenticate the works of Shakespeare as to be genuinely Shakespearean.
How many extant Shakespearean manuscripts do we have today. Do any have contradictions? Can any be called into question as forgeries?
In contrast, we have over 5,000 NT manuscripts that attest to the NT. The weight of evidence attesting to the veracity of the NT is over-bearing. It almost is so great as if it leaves no room for subjectivity.

HP: Noah Webster quotes Watts on subjective. “ Certainty-is distinguished into objective and subjective; objective, is when the proposition is certainly true of itself; and subjective, is when we are certain of the truth of it.” Can we in reality separate faith from subjectivity? Do we not establish and know something subjectively when we hold it by faith?

I am asking here not setting myself up as a teacher on the subject.

The humanist states: "The only absolute is that there are no absolutes."
Much of our unbelieving world no longer believes in objectivity. There is nothing objective in the so-called science of "evolution." Every science that becomes affected by evolution also becomes subjective in nature.
Look at what is happening with all of our technical marvels in science. We send a probe up to Mars. What for? Because these same men believe that our lives might have originated from that planet! They are looking for ice--H20, the building blocks of life. All of their technology and science is for one aim--religion, subjectivity, etc. If they found former life, would Christ have died for that life too? More subjectivity--those things which we do not know for certain. Humanism, evolution, teaches along those lines. But the Biblie doesn't. It teaches absolutes.

To believe in evolution requires blind faith (big bang, for example).
To believe that Christ died for my sins requires faith based on facts. It is not blind. It is certain. There is no subjectivity involved.

An experience is subjective. To that end, at the point of salvation each person has a different and unique experience. Some experience great joy, and others great peace. With some there is lttle emotion at all. The experiences are subjective. But the facts of salvation are objective. They remain true and absolute. It is the facts of salvation that I put my faith in, not the emotions, not the subjective experience.

 

[John of Japan]

HP: Yes there is a book that I read. It is also my theological source and my historical source. It is called the Bible. It may be my opinion in a sense as I hold to what it presents by faith, but it is not a product of my opinions. Hope this helps.

No, it doesn't help at all. You're running from the question. Aren't you going to stand up for what you said in post 109? Where in the Bible does it say what you said liberalism is in your post that I objected to? In fact, where in the Bible is liberalism, according to you?

I know many passages that teach concerning the historical movement called liberalism as it appeared in the late 20th century, but none that call liberalism what you called it. So come on and give. Stop being vague. (Or is "vague" a personal attack to you?)

If the Bible is your sole historical source, then you must admit that you have no knowledge of history from 96 AD to 2008 AD. I really don't believe that for a minute.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: 1. You state you agree with all the fundamentals listed.
2. The fundamentals listed are in no way subjectively known. They are objective truths. There is no misinterpretaton of these facts.

HP: Let’s take the objective truth that God exists. If there was not a man created, that truth would still be an objective truth would it not? When I come to a place where I understand the concept of God, and believe it to be true for myself, it has became a subjective truth, known to myself. The truth is still an objective truth, yet it is subjectively held by those that believe it to be true. I do not understand why you seem to act as if though either it must be an objective truth or a subjective truth.

I also cannot see why objective truths cannot be misunderstood subjectively. Take the situation 500 years ago when many thought the ‘objective truth’( which has existed since the creation of the world, that the world is round) was in error ‘subjectively.’ Why cannot the same be said of any of the fundementals listed? Cannot someone hold a false notion 'subjectively' concerning an 'objective truth?' If not, why not?

 

[DHK]

HP: Let’s take the objective truth that God exists. If there was not a man created, that truth would still be an objective truth would it not? When I come to a place where I understand the concept of God, and believe it to be true for myself, it has became a subjective truth, known to myself. The truth is still an objective truth, yet it is subjectively held by those that believe it to be true. I do not understand why you seem to act as if though either it must be an objective truth or a subjective truth.

Your gave a good example. I don't object, so far.

I also cannot see why objective truths cannot be misunderstood subjectively. Take the situation 500 years ago when many thought the ‘objective truth’( which has existed since the creation of the world, that the world is round) was in error ‘subjectively.’ Why cannot the same be said of any of the fundementals listed? Cannot someone hold a false notion 'subjectively' concerning an 'objective truth?' If not, why not?

The truth "that God is" is never defended in the Bible, but only assumed. Genesis 1:1 begins: "In the beginning God created...." It assumes the existence of God; never sets out to prove God's existence. Thus God's existence is a matter to be taken by faith, and as you say is subjective. This is in contrast to man atheistic evolutionists who do not believe in God as Creator, but rather that some primoridial force was there already. A Big Bang occured. And thus all the perfectly ordered galaxies, solar systems, etc. came into existence. It takes more "faith" to believe in that "god" than the God of the Bible. But it takes faith nevertheless.

There are some things that are entirely objective, and are not subjective whatsoever.
1+1=2 That is an objective statement without subjectivity.
The President of the U.S. is George Bush.
And about 2000 years ago a man named Jesus Christ lived on the face of this earth.
That is not a subjective truth but objectve. The things we know about Christ are not subjective, but objective. Not only are they recorded in the Bible but also in history. Christianity is a faith that is based on historical facts.

 

[Ed Edwards]

A Mystic believes that Christian truths are to be Spiritually discerned (don't worry about the physical, it just gets one off-track). A mystic would be likely to join a Convent (female) or Monastery (male) or else go live alone so they can devote time to prayers. A mystic would be sort of a anti-evangelistic, focusing on themselves and there own Spirituality and not worrying about saving others. Mystics generally display the Spiritual Gifts of: abstinence, poverty, and/or martyrdom (suffering for Christ) rather than the ministry gifts, or miracle gifts.

Here is a Mystic Christian site:

http://christiancounterpoint.yuku.com/

-

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: Let’s take the objective truth that God exists. If there was not a man created, that truth would still be an objective truth would it not? When I come to a place where I understand the concept of God, and believe it to be true for myself, it has became a subjective truth, known to myself. The truth is still an objective truth, yet it is subjectively held by those that believe it to be true. I do not understand why you seem to act as if though either it must be an objective truth or a subjective truth.

DHK: You gave a good example. I don't object, so far.

HP: I also cannot see why objective truths cannot be misunderstood subjectively. Take the situation 500 years ago when many thought the ‘objective truth’( which has existed since the creation of the world, that the world is round) was in error ‘subjectively.’ Why cannot the same be said of any of the fundementals listed? Cannot someone hold a false notion 'subjectively' concerning an 'objective truth?' If not, why not?

DHK: The truth "that God is" is never defended in the Bible, but only assumed. Genesis 1:1 begins: "In the beginning God created...." It assumes the existence of God; never sets out to prove God's existence. Thus God's existence is a matter to be taken by faith, and as you say is subjective.

HP: Would you not agree that the existence of God is an absolute truth, regardless of whether or not any man even exists, or if no man alive believes it to be true? I would see that truth as the Apex of all absolute truths. If we accept it as truth we have to believe it for ourselves subjectively, but it is not established as a mere subjective concept. Just as one needs to subjectively conclude that the earth is round, that does not take away from the absolute truth that it is, nor does our subjective acceptance of the truth make it a subjective truth. It would be an absolute truth subjectively intuited and believed, would it not?

Subjective truth would be truth that is not absolutely true for every man under the same circumstances. For instance an illustration of a purely subjective truth might be that I believe fishing is fun. Absolute truths are truth that are true regardless if one recognizes them to be truth or not and are the same for every individual regardless of their circumstances, preferences, likes or dislikes and in spite of acceptance of the truth or rejection of the truth. I am certain some on the list will have much better definitions for the two. I hope that others might get involved as we go along to add insight to our discussion.

 

[DHK]

HP: Would you not agree that the existence of God is an absolute truth, regardless of whether or not any man even exists, or if no man alive believes it to be true? I would see that truth as the Apex of all absolute truths. If we accept it as truth we have to believe it for ourselves subjectively, but it is not established as a mere subjective concept. Just as one needs to subjectively conclude that the earth is round, that does not take away from the absolute truth that it is, nor does our subjective acceptance of the truth make it a subjective truth. It would be an absolute truth subjectively intuited and believed, would it not?

I agree that the existence of God must be considered as an absolute truth. The Bible declares that there is no excuse for belief in Him (Rom.1:20).
In the NT God was manifest in the flesh, and John says we beheld his glory. Jesus demonstrated Himself to be deity through His words, His works, and especially His resurrection. He proved that He was God. There is no excuse not to believe in that truth as objective truth. The certainty of the facts are there.

The only subjectivity that enters into the equation is what we term as "experience." We are commanded to believe on the person of Jesus Christ in order to have salvation. What happens at that time (though in a sense should be objective), to some extent is subjective, simply because everyone's salvation experience is different. The Holy Spirit interacts with different individuals in different ways. But the objective facts of the gospel will never change. And those facts are the facts that must be believed in order to have salvation.

Subjective truth would be truth that is not absolutely true for every man under the same circumstances. For instance an illustration of a purely subjective truth might be that I believe fishing is fun. Absolute truths are truth that are true regardless if one recognizes them to be truth or not and are the same for every individual regardless of their circumstances, preferences, likes or dislikes and in spite of acceptance of the truth or rejection of the truth. I am certain some on the list will have much better definitions for the two. I hope that others might get involved as we go along to add insight to our discussion.

"I believe fishing is fun" is descriptive of an experience.
All experience is subjective. The experience of salvation is subjective, differening from person to person.
The facts are objective, absolute, never changing. They cannot.

Generally speaking many Charismatics tend to rely on their experience more than the facts of the Word of God, and thus depart from the objective truth of God's Word. The Oneness Pentecostal demands that unless you have the experience of speaking in tongues you cannot be saved. But subjectivity or experiences do not saved. It is the objective facts of the gospel, and one's belief in them that save. The varying emotions that follow after salvation may be good emotions, but are a result of salvation and have nothing to do with acquiring salvation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: It is the objective facts of the gospel, and one's belief in them that save.

HP: What objective fact of the gospel does not the devil himself believe in? Objective facts, even our subjective mental assent acknowledging the truth of objective facts saves no one. Truth in and of itself, nor the mere acknowledgement of truth, saves no one. Obedience to the truth via repentance and faith does.