Thank you for a beautiful, insightful post! I looked up Isaiah 57:15. Before I got to it, I was smitten by v. 12 – “I will expose your righteousness and your works, and they will not benefit you.”

What an indictment of a works-based salvation!

Then, I was comforted by vv. 17 – 19.

“I was enraged by his sinful greed; I punished him, and hid my face in anger, YET HE KEPT ON IN HIS WILLFUL WAYS.” [No comfort there, is there?]

The next verse continues the thought.] “I have seen his ways, but I will heal him; I will guide him and restore comfort to him, creating praise on the lips of the mourners in Israel. Peace, peace, to those far and near, says the Lord. ‘And I will heal them.’”

Healing, peace, and praise come to those whom God is guiding and restoring.

This is why Isaiah is sometimes called “The Fifth Gospel.”

Ultra-conservatives might say ‘I am saved by God because I am a moral person and I have the correct doctrine.’

I think you are mostly right in your assessment. But I think conservatives would object to the statement I just quoted. I don’t know of any conservative churches of Christ where they think they are saved by their own morals and doctrine. Even the most conservative churches I know of still believe that our most righteous acts are like filthy rags, and that our only hope of salvation is Jesus. They agree that Jesus pays our debt; we cannot. They would say personal righteousness and sound doctrine are necessary conditions for salvation, but not sufficient. Most progressives I know would also say that. The difference is in whether grace covers the doctrinal errors we don’t recognize.

Since you wrote this, I have been thinking about it. It seems to me there is a greater divide between “conservatives” and “progressives.” I think there is a deeper difference about how one views salvation.

It seems most progressives see the essence of Christianity in “salvation by grace.” Salvation is not because of what we do, but because of what Christ has done for us. The prospect that I am accepted by God by sheer grace is humbling and in that, there is freedom and joy. My part of salvation is to humbly accept the gift and from that, live a moral and submissive life in Christ.

Ultra-conservatives might say ‘I am saved by God because I am a moral person and I have the correct doctrine.’ Ultra-conservatives may see themselves as having a moral high ground over those who do not share in the religious fervor and correct doctrine. Therefore, ‘I am saved because I have the correct beliefs about God and live a moral life…therefore I am covered by the grace of God.’

There is power in having superior morals and superior doctrine. Where ultra-conservatives lack may be in humility, sensitivity, forgiveness, and love…the essence of the ministry of Christ. The message of grace threatens their sense of being right which threatens their sense of power.

Progressives, on the other hand, may not be so sure of their doctrine but may focus on the healing, forgiveness, and loving a lost and dying world for Christ. Progressives may focus more on ministry and less on doctrine.

It may be that the conservatives have a hard time comprehending and practicing the “softer side” of Jesus and it may be harder for the progressives to identify with the judgement and discipline of God.

I may be saying the same thing as you, but that is how I understand the difference. I am not pigeon-holing anyone, I am only trying to understand how we practice the grace of God in our lives from the two different perspectives. I am not saying one is more correct than the other (although I might prefer one over the other). I am very willing to be corrected if I am in error here.

See my posts —

What is “Faith”? Part 1 (Toward a Definition)

What is “Faith”? Part 2 (James, Paul & the Spirit)

explaining the essential unity of faith and penitence.

I had that same class, among others, under Dr. Floyd and experienced the same realization. What an amazing man! He brought me to a full realization of grace and forgiveness and I am forever in his debt. I believe that the “kicker” for me was the realization that John’s words in 1 John 1:7-9 teaches a continual forgiveness for those who are consistent followers.

Here we find ourselves merely farther left on this indeterminate “scale of repentance” than the traditional belief. I still find this concept of salvation being dependent upon our “penitence” being hard to accept. Phil and Jay assume different points upon this continuum, but neither biblically demonstrates the nature of this continuum nor how to determine its parameters. Jay adds a new “authority” concept to the discussion, but even the Twelve were not infallible. Ask Peter about Paul busting his chops over the ham sandwich question. And just about every brother I know will claim the scriptures as his “authority”. I still do not find convincing the argument establishing penitence, rather than faith, as the sine qua non of the believer’s salvation.

By way of example, some would say that the doctrine of the Trinity is a salvation theme, subject to perdition for getting it wrong. That certainly would’ve been news to the first century believers and to believers into the early fourth century. It took 60 years of this empire-wide feuding largely inflamed by Athanasius and Arias – and their partisans – to result in the imperial adoption of this doctrine by law (where such insistence had not previously been considered necessary or important).

What was once – and remains, for the discerning – a mystery became a doctrine, the failure to get right resulting in death (and not just spiritual death).

For what it’s worth.