The people at WF often distinguish their church from others in their profession of the view that "the knowledge of God filling the earth like water to the seas." They fault other christian bodies for being so focused on getting persons into heaven (and a particular view of heaven as an Edenic paradise). Instead of getting caught up in all this talk about what a person must do to get to heaven (or what a church must do to get a lot of people into heaven--again heaven as paradise), we as believers, should be focused on what we need to do to encourage the coming of the kindgom of God, to earth--which is essentially, the knowledge of God filling the earth. What does it mean that the knowledge of God fill the earth? Well, since knowledge is intimately linked with "knowers," the knowledge of God fills the earth only when all the living inhabitants of the earth have come to know God. This knowledge of God is to share in spiritual life according to Gangadean. They site John 17:3, that eternal [perhaps more accurately, 'everlasting'] life is knowing Him (God). It isn't getting to heaven, it is knowing the creator.
One motivation for this way of thinking about matters is that it is supposed to avoid some of the major philosophical/theological problems plaguing the idea that spiritual life consists of being "saved." Worrying about how to get people "saved" is to be focused soteriology, and brings up issues about what the minimum requirements are of achieving this status. For sure, this is a difficult problem to address insofar as one gets caught up in it and I don't think anyone has a successful answer. So Gangadeanians have sometimes said that one can avoid getting into such thorny territory, by adopting their view, namely, to frame spiritual life in terms of a doxological focus. (I don't mean to say that adopting a doxological focus is motivated solely by the need to avoid the above problems, but it has been stated to me as a real one nonetheless).
Unfortunately, I've never seen how this is supposed to escape the problem that plagues a soteriological view of salvation. Notice that the same problem or at least an analogous one will arise for those that are doxologically focused. Suppose we accept that everlasting life in the per Christianity is knowing God. But then what exactly does it mean to know God? I mean clearly if one could know everything there is to know about God, then one would count as knowing God. Unfortunately, that seems out of reach presuming of course that we are finite in our capacities to know and that there are an infinite number of propositions to know about God. So that won't do. Nor does it seem right to say that I know God just in case I know one true proposition about God (say that he exists). Certainly that can't be the extent of spiritual life or salvation in any Christian sense! (The demons know that God exist and shudder at his name!) So then what counts as knowing God qua spiritual life? And more generally speaking (doxologically) what counts as the world being filled with this knowledge of God? Must I know one or a thousand propositions about God? Is the earth filled with the knowledge of God when everyone living knows at least one true proposition about God? Two? A dozen? A hundred? And which ones? The problem at this point should be obvious. We want to know what it means to be saved and what it requires (else you might spend your whole life thinking you are living spiritually, while actually dead in your trespasses). But how can one be sure? Well, it would seem to depend in large part on what it means to be spiritually alive. But it turns out there is no non arbitrary account that is forthcoming. Note that things look even worse for Gangadean and his followers given their idiosyncratic views about knowledge, clarity and inexcusability. If one is able to know that one is spiritually alive, then one must know the conditions under which such obtains. But if one knows these conditions, one should be able to spell them out.
So it seems, that in this respect, the Gangadeanians are no better off than those that might have the issue of debating about what it takes to get to heaven on the more traditional evangelical view. My point is not that this thus favors the soteriological focus (as Gangadeans call it) over the doxological one, I just mean that avoiding the problem of vagueness can't count as a point for the view that Gangadeanians push since they too have a similar problem.
