Biblical Order of Salvation

OK. And for those who never hear the gospel, what is their destination?

The Archangel

 

As I said I don't know. It doesn't look good for them, did God try to reach them at all? You tell me.

Darren

 

That is not biblical.

Are we really to think a Native American Indian in AD 800 would know who Christ is?

A better translation of John 1:9--The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. (ESV)

The above translation is much more in line with the Greek.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Unfortunately, the Bible is clear and it isn't based on God's trying to reach them, as believers are God's means of evangelization. No, it doesn't look good for them--the Bible clearly states in so many places that if one doesn't have faith in Christ they will not be saved. (See Romans 10:14-17)

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Archangel...

I have no idea. But some could have been.

God could have dealt with some. Spoken to their heart and conscience. Told them to forsake the practices that they had been participating in.

God could have told them to abandon all that they had been involved in and seperate from it all. Put their trust totally into his hands. Told them "I'm not the sun, I'm not the wind, and I am not the totem pole. I am the creator of all of that...now trust me. You are broken, and you know it, and I can fix you and make things right...and give you what you desire more than anything...eternal life."

This would be Jesus Christ doing this.

By heeding Gods call to repent, and take up Gods offer of depending on Him. (Faith)

Because the person offering this change to them would be the Lord Jesus Christ.

...who "gives light to every man who comes into the world."

 

The issue for me is, can God save someone where the "gospel" is not available. No where have I said man can do a good job and please God, God reaches out to man, man responds. Everywhere that I have stated of the response of man happens because God is the initiator.

Darren

 

Darren,

You stated:

This is the wrong question.

The question is this: Is anyone saved without explicit faith in Christ?

The answer is no.

The question is not what God can and can't do. The question is what God has already said he would do. God clearly states that He saves only and exclusively through Christ--an explicit faith in Him.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Unfortunately, your "theology" is based on a bad translation of John 1:9. That's the root problem. It causes you to discount Romans 10:14-17 where it clearly states that we, as representatives of Christ and not Christ Himself, are to take the Gospel to the nations.

If there is no person to take the Gospel to unsaved, ignorant persons, the Gospel simply does not go to those persons.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Perhaps "saved" isn't the word because I'm not refering to the New Covenant at all. This is really a basis for God's judgement on them.

Darren

 

Archangel...

My goodness, are you actually reading my posts, or just skimming them and reading the parts you disagree with???

I have said clearly and repeatedly that we are to take the gospel to our neighbors, co-workers, family members, people in other countries, etc etc etc.

I have said it over and over again. We are instructed and commisioned to do so, and we have been rightly doing so for 2000 years now.


The part we are discussing is ONLY the part about those through the centuries who live their entires lives and are never given the gospel witness. These millions are never one time told about Jesus Christ because the wittnesses were simply unable to get to them due to travel restrictions.

You say that are damned to hell for not having faith in Christ, even though they never heard of Him.

I have more confidence in God than that.

I have presented scriptures that give good reason to believe that God Almighty, through Jesus Christ Himself, could very well have presented the gospel of Jesus Christ to these people Himself, through their hearts, minds and conscience since the scriptures testify that Christ gives the "Light" of the gospel witness to every man who comes into the world.. (John 1: 6-13)

You dont consider Jesus Christ to be a person?

 

Using your (il)logic, then the best thing the church could do for the lost is refuse to carry the gospel to those who sit in darkness. That way they have a shot at going to heaven via the "ignorance" route.

The doctrine of election covers this controversy. God will certainly see to it that all His elect will hear the gospel so that they may be saved. The same God who "elects" also has mandated the means whereby they come to Him ... through the preaching of the gospel of His Son.

I think that Paul's argument in Romans 10:14-17 pretty much destroys your line of reasoning.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

Yes, but what you are missing is what I have been saying all along--Believers are the means; the only means of sharing the Gospel. In other words, there are no mystical means--God does not share the Gospel without humans sharing the Gospel. That is the meaning of Romans 10.

I don't think you've been reading my posts!

You have presented Scriptures, that is true. But you have presented a bad translation. First of all, John never uses "light" to refer to anyone but Christ. He never uses it to refer to man...which is what your wrong translation suggests. The true light is coming into the world, that's John's meaning; that's what all his other usages of the word mean.

The translation that you doggedly hold to is wrong. Many prominent Greek scholars are against you and your translation on this.

Even then, this raises a question: Is everyone "enlightened?" Is the Muslim enlightened? The Buddhist? What about the Muslim nomads that never meet a Christian, are they enlightened? This is exactly what you are suggesting.

The only possibility for your suggestion to be right is for a person to have a Bible or a printed Gospel presentation and read it. But that's not what you are suggesting.

Give me a break! Don't say dumb stuff.

No, I'm not saying that. The Bible is saying that.

Then you are believing a heretical theology. You may have confidence in a god, but it is not the God of the Bible. He is clear--only an explicit faith in Christ can save. And that faith comes only by hearing and that hearing comes only from a human being sharing the gospel.

The theology you are suggesting is more at home in a Roman Catholic understanding, not a Baptist understanding, and certainly not a Biblical understanding of salvation.

Again, this is a huge theological error. Your position, taken to its logical conclusion, would have us stay home from the mission field just to make sure certain people groups stayed ignorant.

As a pastor, I'd encourage you to re-examine your position and turn from espousing a heretical position.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

That is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. These are circumstances that despite the churches best efforts the gospel would not be heard by certain individuals or people groups. Calvinism in my opinion just says they are all doomed to the lake of fire (in fact they deserve it) and God didn't do anything to help them, since the gospel was not available to them at all.

The Calvinist doctrine of election only functions within Calvinism. That being the case God made no effort to show mercy, love or grace to any sinner on their way to the lake of fire, whether that sinner heard the gospel or not, it wouldn't be any different if they are not elect.

Darren

 

Lux et Veritas...

Oh my. What a ridiculous thing to say.

I never get into any of the election/freewill debate threads.

Did God/Christ choose me?

Yes.

Did I choose God/Christ?

Yes.


So much for the election/freewill controversy. :laugh:

 

Alive in Christ, Darren, et al.

The root problem in your position is that you think man is "neutral." You may not phrase it that way, but that is what your discussions have shown. I can't think of why you think man is "deserving" of anything but Hell.

All of us have sinned and the wages of sin is death. There is no middle ground.

God would be perfectly just to not have given Christ and let us all perish in Hell.

Thanks be to God that He did not do that!

Please notice: None of the above comments have anything to do with Calvinism. These following comments will, however. Again, I am not meaning to ruffle your feathers buy what I have to say, please trust me on this.

I find it almost comical that two Arminians who rail against the idea of God intervening through Regeneration (although Darren doesn't articulate it quite that way) are suggesting that God does, precisely, interfere with humans to share the Gospel. Is not what you are suggesting dangerously close to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that Calvinists support?

It is dangerous to see grace as something which is deserved. There is no mistake, this is exactly what is happening in your argument. This is why Calvinists, typically, completely and absolutely reject the Arminian position of sin and redemption. Also your arguments come dangerously close to a Pelagian position. Although many, if not all of you, would and have become upset at being called a Pelagian...if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Truly, I never thought I would be arguing the exclusivity of Christ on a "Baptist Board." Certainly I expected to have disagreements over my Calvinism--that comes with the territory and I'm used to holding what is seen as the minority position, at least within the SBC. But any suggestion that Salvation is possible without an active, exclusive faith in Christ which comes by hearing is flat wrong and unbiblical.

I am saddened by this.

Blessings to you!

The Archangel

 

TheArchangel...

:laugh:

I fled the blasphemous "Great Whore" back 27 years ago when God drew me to Himself and sealed me into His body.

I dont know about your Baptist group, but mine places a high priority on the "priesthood of the believer", meaning of course that we all have the freedom to search the scriptures...sola scriptura...and come to our scriptural convictions.

This particular subject is not even close to being a "foundational truth" such as sola scriptura, justification by faith alone, the Trinity, etc etc.

You are entitled to your view, and I am entitled to my view.

No. its not.

That is pure absurdity. God is alive..in us..leading us to go and take the gospel to people. He has commisioned us to do it...and we do.

Why do you keep taking what I am saying and thrusting it into some other context that I am not adressing.

Let me try it...ONE...MORE...TIME...

I am NOT talking about me, you, my church, your chuch, my baptist group, your baptist group, or evangelicalism in general.

I am talking about millions of people (either centuries past or now) who live their entire lifetime and for whatever reason...never...one...time...hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Since the scriptures seem to indicate that its possible, and since we know God can see peoples heart and can speak to them in that way, I believe its possible for God to take the gospel to those people, communicate it to them in their heart and conscience, and the ones who enter into faith...God can save them.

If you dont agree...fine.

But I believe our God is great and mighty and can do as He pleases with His creation.

Because He uses us for His purposes does not mean God Almighty is DEPENDANT upon us for anything.

God spoke...and the universe exploded into existance.

...and you think He is dependant on US to save someone???

C'mon.


God bless.

 

Not at all, you are jumping to conclusions. My line of thinking is focused on the character of God. His love, His mercy, His grace.

Agreed.

And does God love or care about perishing man?

Obviously you aren't getting what I'm trying to say.

Never said any such thing. You are falsely mistaking it to be deserved on the part of man rather than grace being offered due to God's character.

Wrong again.

Talk about over reaction...

And all for the wrong reasons....

:1_grouphug:

Darren

 

The answer was given in my response. I have never claimed someone could be saved without the Gospel.

 

You have started with the the presupposition that not all have heard, something that cannot be proven or disproved by either you or I. Who preached the Gospel to Saul on the road to Damascus?

 

Nobody here has shown, or said man is "neutral". That is your strawman you have erected. You are a hard person to figure out. You can be quite cordial in discussions to some, then quite arrogant and rude in your discussions with others. You state it's not about calvinism and arminianism...yet 3/4 of your post is geared towards just that