Those who have not heard the Gospel

From Post 40 --

Hint: We are talking about salvation.

Hint: These questions Paul asks ARE the questions of this thread!!
The scope is for "whoever" -- without limit.

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed?
How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?
And how will they hear without a preacher?
How will they preach unless they are sent?

I find it hard to believe that you find this to be vague or non-specific to the point of this thread!

Now for the answer that Paul gave -- the one you keep avoiding in all your posts.

 

HP: In the case of the Eunuch, the Eunuch had received some of the Scriptures in writing. This was not intuitive light we are addresssing here. Having the Scriptures available for him to read was indeed a result of the direct efforts of men to evangelize. The question should be asked, could have the Eunuch been saved apart from the Scriptures being presented to him as well as having them explained by Philip. If you take the Eunuch’s own words you would arrive at the conclusion that Scripture alone was not even sufficient, although I personally would take exception to that. “And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.”

I believe in some cases the Word of God alone could serve as the sole preacher even to the ignorant, although that does not negate the involvement of man, even in the process of printing and making available the Word of God.

It appears to me that you and BR are kicking at the pricks when you try and make the gospel automatically granted to all men. For a man committed to missions this seems a bit odd in your case, Pastor Bob. Your position seems to say, regardless if any one is sent or not, all have the gospel automatically presented to them. That position is simply unfounded in reason or the Word of God. Where would world missions be today if that was the prevailing attitude in the Church? I thank God it is not.

What is amazing to me is where such a notion as BR and Pastor Bob hails from? Oh I almost forgot, Calvinism, as seen evident in Carey’s day. Was not Carey told to sit down when he voiced a desire to go to the heathen, for if God wanted to save the heathen He would do it without him and that his efforts were not needed?

Just the same, are there any notable theologians or commentators that hold such a position? In all the reading I have done I cannot think of one that would hold such a position as BR and Pastor Bob are holding to.

 

Point taken.

You must be mistaken, friend. I do not hold to this position. I merely state that all men are given a measure of light. They are given more light as they respond to the light they are given.

Clearly, you are confused as to my position on missions.

There is not a Calvinist bone in my body. I am on record here saying that I believe Calvinism is a damnable doctrine.

I do not base my positions upon notable or otherwise theologians or commentators.

You would do well to understand my position before you condemn it.

 

HP: If I have misunderstood your position I will be the first to make a public apology and ask for your forgiveness. What good would I find in beating against the wind? Misrepresenting another’s views is simply uncalled for as it is wrong.

HP: Is this light you speak of the light of salvation, or can this light lead one to salvation in and of itself?

 

I can only re-quote Titus 2:11 which states that the grace of God which brings salvation has appeared to all men. Also, God is not willing that any man should perish (in hell). In other words, God's will is that all men be saved. God, in my opinion, gives every man an opportunity to be saved. This could very well be the "day of visitation" mentioned in I Peter 2:12.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
The question is whether or not the light that Scripture states all receive encompasses the gospel message or not.

HP: Here, at least the way I understand you, you plainly equate the light that all men have with having received the gospel. Possibly you might explain to the list just what you meant by your remarks. How are your words here expressed to be understood by the listener as to something other than all receive the light of the gospel intuitively apart from any outside human effort? The only thing I know that I have expressed concerning your views is that you have gave testimony to the same notion that BR has claimed, that all have recieved the gospel message and that the gospel can be presented to man by the mere intuitive light granted to all men by God? Are you still certain I have or currently are misrepresenting your sentiments?

 

Amen!

I think the real crux of differing POV here is that some would state that without a technical detailed and specific account of the life of Christ (to some level of detail - draw your own line as each poster wishes) - the lost can not be saved.

On the other hand - the Bible points to a general knowledge and accountability in John 1, Romans 1, Romans 10 etc that IS tied not just to "failure" as we see in Romans 1 but is ALSO tied to SUCCESS as we see in Romans 2 and Romans 10.

The position of one side here is that the general knowledge God gives EVEN in conjunction with the convicting Holy Spirit AND Christ standing at the door and knocking -- is insufficient to get to the Romans 2:14-16 "result" that Paul declares it can have in some cases.

Given that this is "insufficient" and given that "missionaries are not assigned to every person on the planet" -- they see God as "giving many lost people no chance at all".

But here is the deal - where there is no accountability - no individual opportunity to act and to be saved - there is no penalty - no justice in condemnation. So the Bible says ALL the world is accountable (Romans 3, Gal 3) and also ALL the world is REACHED with the light of Christ John 1 and the convicting Holy Spirit John 16 and the voice of salvific revelation Romans 10.

The same group that wants to say "All THE WORLD is accountable" in Rom 3, Gal 3, DOES NOT want to admit that ALL the World is also reached as we see in John 1, and John 16 with REAL salvific work.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
Is this light you speak of the light of salvation, or can this light lead one to salvation in and of itself?

HP: Here you state that “God..gives everyman the opportunity to be saved.” This precludes any and all efforts of man, unless you take the position that somehow everyman is given the gospel by another man. Is that your position?

There is no reasonable way that one can arrive at the position that the verse in Titus 2:11 is to be taken to mean that every man women and child that has ever lived has had the gospel presented to them, or even in an absolute sense that ever man women and child will have the gospel presented to them subsequent to the advent of Christ on this earth. Is our fellow missionary brother John of Japan, and hundreds of thousands if not more like him, deceived?

So far I see little to convince me that I have misunderstood or misrepresented your position.

 

HP: This once again is simply contrary to Scripture. Scripture indicates that even those that have not the law, let alone the gospel, are condemned, NOT for failure to accept something that they have not even heard about, but rather for their inability to live up to the light of conscience they have. Your insistence that if they have some light or some knowledge that that somehow equates to having been presented with the gospel is completely unfounded.

I suppose in some sense all are reached with the ‘light of Christ,’ for Christ is indeed God and God has indeed most likely given to all men some intuitive knowledge of His existence and certainly all moral agents have been granted some ideas as to right and wrong. This still in no way equates to all having received the gospel message.

As you see it BR, is there any appreciable difference between your position and that of Pastor Bob?

 

If BR and Pastor Bob, as I understand them, are correct, are they not in direct opposition to this passage of Scripture as well?

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:



They represent all men having hope in the form of the gospel being presented to all, do they not? This passage speaks of the Gentiles being alienated , strangers, and without God AND hope in this world in their natural state at least.

 

Connected to this discussion is the notion of what constitutes the damning sin. Some would have us to believe that it is due to the rejection of Jesus Christ, and therefore to be consist hold tenaciously to the false notion that all that are condemned must have had the gospel presented to them at one point in time or another. They are in error on both accounts.


If a man lies on a bed dying of cancer, and the doctor walks in and says, “If you follow my prescribed plan, you will not die but live” and the man rejects the counsel of the doctor, was the cause of his death the cancer, or the rejection of the cure? I say he died of the cancer, and rejecting the cure sealed his fate.

Sin is the transgression of a known commandment of God. God sentences man to hell for his sins. If man is fortunate enough to hear the gospel and still rejects it, that will indeed seal his fate, but the damning sin is the willful act of disobedience to God’s moral law that has not been repented for and forsaken.

 

This represents the lost state. Anyone who is lost has no hope apart from Christ. You can not say "I am going to hell but my hope is in Christ" -- it makes no sense.

But more than this Paul argues that those who were not connected in some way with the true God, the True Bible the True religion are not participating in the nation-building covenants setup by God for Israel. But even then we find blessings on non-Jews in places like Isaiah 57 - for things like Sabbath keeping.

Paul is NOT arguing "God so loved the Jews for 4000 years until finally finally God so Loved the World and sent His Son".

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: You are making my point very succinctly. :thumbs:

At some point we are apart from the message of Christ. You would have us to believe that no man is devoid of the message of Christ and the gospel in your proclamation that all have had the gospel presented to them.

HP: Are you going to tell us that subsequent to and apart from the commonwealth of Israel, and the hope that was built into that schoolmaster of reconciliation, that there was hope of eternal life? Did God provide one plan of redemption for the Jew and another for the Gentiles? Where the Gentiles to be included in the original plan during the time of the schoolmaster? If so, how were they to partake of the needed sacrifices and ordinances without being killed upon entering the temple as uncircumcised Gentiles? Possibly it did not matter if they partook of the temple sacrifices as God prescribed, but could just create their own method of reconciliation??

HP: God so loved the world if no one ever would have been offered the gift of salvation. God is not under any obligation to provide an equal opportunity for redemption. You confuse love with mercy. “ I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and compassion upon whom I have compassion.” There is no unrighteousness of God in his choosing a particular group of individuals to entrust his mercy in and through. That is not a sign in the least that God does not love others he did not entrust the oracles of God to.

Even if one had been shown mercy as a Jew, that was no sign that they were to inherit eternal life. Once man has sinned, love does not necessitate to any that mercy be shown whatsoever. If love demands that mercy must be meted out universally, mercy fails to be unmerited now doesn’t it? It becomes nothing more than the necessitated outcropping of love. God’s justice could demand the exacting of the penalty for sin without exception and still be said to love the sinner.

Does God not love the angels that fell, that from all apparent evidence have not been shown nor will be shown 'mercy?' I say He does. Love does not demand an equal opportunity of a show of mercy.

 

HP, you have been on a roll with your last few posts. Your drawing a distinction between love and mercy is one of the most important contributions you have made to this discussion.

 

Funny this thread goes up, as I was just getting ready to start a discussion on many of these issues. We have seen both Calvinist and Arminian explanation of the "scandal of particularity" —that only Christ saves, and one must hear of Him, then be convinced of Him, and then receive Him, to be saved and escape an eternal Hell; yet most people in the world are not meeting all three of these conditions. Most don't see any reason to "change one religion for another". In many countries, religion is apart of culture, and as Christianity has become apart of "western" culture, they see it as becoming "western", and coming under the dominance of West. Others were once Christians, but have bad memories of hypocrisy, corruption, authoritarianism and outright abuse. Others just look at this whole history of the Church, which one called a "2000 year crime wave" Finally, others have not even heard of Christ altogether.

So to address the problem of those who never heard, the Arminians come up with "anyone can call out to God, and then He will answer and send the missionary so he can 'believe'". Others who do not believe this basically place it all in our hands. There are millions of people out there who could be saved, dying every day, so we have to hurry and try to get the Gospel out to them as fast as we can. They are all in our hands, and if they go to Hell, they will call out to you and say "why"? And many think that God is waiting for a certain amount of people to be saved before He will finally send Christ back to fix this sad world, ending all death and suffering once and for all. Yet, look at the average Church budget statements, and most of the money is going to pay a stationary 'pastor' (usually including all of his and his family's living and travel expenses) and other "staff", and maintain a building, and often other trappings (making it look nice, trying to get bigger buildings, fancy "worship" or even entertainment). What's left from all that goes to missions. And they still have to struggle to support themselves. So if it's in our hands, it doesn't look good at all. Some realize this and have bent the Gospel to allow for those who have never heard being saved by obeying as much truth as they can know through general revelation alone. But this is understandably seen by many as calling into question the necessity of Christ.
So the Calvinists take the easier road and just says God is most glorified in the damnation of most of humanity anyway, and only wants to save a few, so most of those who never heard were only created as "vessels of wrath", and He will send missionaries to the "elect" scattered out there. This, I believe is one reason Calvinism sticks. But can you really call that "good news"? Look out at any group of people around you*, and they are all are "lost" and going to Hell, and God has ordained it that way! (*That is, unless you are in a Church. But then, some of these Calvinists and other conservatives will claim that half of the people in the Church are really lost "tares"!)

Then, even once you accept Christ, there is the issue of the "right" beliefs, as we have been arguing here. And then other groups with OSAS and works salvation. So we still faced with the question, why can't we even agree on anything, and if we are wrong on some of these issues, are WE even saved?

We hold up the "general revelation" argument as it were the ultimate convicting evidence, but in reality, it is not. At least, not of the particular God of the Bible. That is what we are interested in; not just any "intelligence". Hence, in the ID debates I was in, people came up with what they called a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" analogy, as an example of any "intelligence" we can come up with to explain creation. The God of the Bible has specific set of PERSONAL characteristics. These are NOT evidenced in "design". Like the concepts of "justice"; perhaps the biggest, and most important attribute of God. The whole plan of salvation, and hence, the Judeo-Christian Gospel is based on this.

The ultimate case will be of CONSCIENCE.
That we all know deep down inside that we are "sinners". This is supposed to be why even those who have never heard of Christ are still "judged". They are supposed to know they have done wrong, which then points to a higher authority that determined right and wrong in the first place, whom they should appeal to for forgiveness. While I can relate this to my own inner experience; I find it hard to go up to others on a premise of "You know it's true". This argument is too subjective. When the person denies this, we are forced to conclude that he's just "holding the truth in unrighteousness". And then, what about our own doubts and inability to prove anything to each other?

. But if that's true, then why do so many truly find it hard to believe? And not just those trying to make excuses for living in sin, but even those in despair, really trying to find meaning to life. And even Christians, admit they have doubts! That is too SUBJECTIVE a hypothesis to stake the truth on!

Yet, we have this "irrefutable" answer system where we can walk away affirming to ourselves that we are right, and the other person is just "blind" or refusing truth, but without even being able to offer any concrete proof to them it is true.
The "Everyone has the light" argument is easy for one to say and tell themselves it's right, as they cannot see into anyone else's head or heart.

Another big point is that it is ALSO man's "conscience" that opposes the notion of Hell. Of course, now, instead of the conscience being attributed to general revelation, it is dismissed as "sinful human logic". So again, we have a fundamental attribution shift. The human mind and heart are only valid when they suit our arguments; otherwise, they are totally invalid.

It has also been said that the guiding principle in the universe we see is that of a "jungle" where there is no justice; only "survival": fight to stay alive, or die. Our universal answer to this is "the Fall". Basically, the universe is the way it is, because it is not as God created it. Sinful creatures rebelled against God, and then God cursed the physical realm, basically. God specifically mentioned the plants producing thorns, hard labor being necessary to survive on the earth, and childbirth becoming hard, and finally, death. Some hypothesize on an earlier rebellion of angels, to explain the seeming chaos and dacy across the universe (well beyong man's scope); with certain passages of scripture interpreted as referring to this. (The original contexts are usually about some earthly figure). And still, we don't agree on this stuff. No one is sure. It's all just hypothesis.
But then, to claim a "fall" then, leaves the realm of general revelation, as that is not observable. If some things in life are good as created by God, and others are fallen, then the argument of general revelation becomes ambiguous, as the mixture of "good" and "bad" in the universe does not tell us who created the good, and who cause the bad, or even if it was separate causes. So you can't claim the person "should have known", but "held the truth in unrighteousness". It's on this point that all our arguments fall flat. The few times I had tried to use this on my father, he pointed out that the rest of the universe is "violent", and "life only tells you one thing: survive!" and ever since then, it seems the "general revelation" argument has been more on his side!


And then, there were other debates in the Politcs section, regarding Conservative rhetoric, where those financially struggling, and minorities are always told to stop "whining" and being "covetous", while the rich and powerful are defended as "deserving" all they have because "the market says they're worth it". This clearly places "worth" on one's status in the "jungle". This is another big strike in favor of the "jungle" theory. Even avowed Conservative anti-Darwinians believe in it, --when it comes to socioeconomics! So it seems by our own unwitting admission, this is the way life is. You then wonder how or if anyone can really be judged then. Who can be blamed if "it's just the market"?

At least the evolutionists evidences such as man's tail bone, while they may not be absolute proof of common descent; let alone atheism or deism till seem more solid than the whole "fallen cosmos" concept which points to some ideal state of "perfection" no one has ever experienced or can even relate to. All we can say is "well; God created it that way, or allowed it to be affacted by the Fall; why, we don't know." so we have all these partial hypotheses, but no answer. Fine, but do we really have a basis then, to expect or even demand others to accept our hypothesis and reject others?

We have heaped up so many arguments on every issue in and out of the Church, and we always cop out with "we can't know everything" or "God' has kept that to Himself". This is used particularly in the issues of Calvinistic reprobation or preterition, why evil is allowed for so long and Christ doesn't come back already, the scandal of particularity, and when details on doctrines like the Trinity, creation, universal Flood, etc. are questioned. Anything we can't answer. Yet we claim to know so much when approaching others with these doctrines.

So all of this stuff has been bothering me lately, as we ourselves argue on and on about every possible issue under the sun.

 

Eric -

1. Evolutionism is junk science and bad logic -- no sense going down that failed - debunked road.

2. I think you are right that the "arbitrary selection" model of Calvinism fits a view of salvation that says "only those who have the right story can be saved and most people don't have it so God must not care about them".

But I am not Calvinist -- so I don't go for that model of salvation in the first place.

3. You need to take another look at what Pastor Bob said - it makes a lot more sense than "arbitrary selection" and it also makes more sense then the tuatology of "survivale of the fittest"

in Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
BR: This represents the lost state. Anyone who is lost has no hope apart from Christ.

Lost people have no hope until they become saved. They don't participate in the gospel until they become saved.

That is still true today.

Nope. They had the same one -- and it was not "become a Jew".

The Jews were given the role of "A royal priesthood" -- see Exodus 19.

But that was not "how they got saved".

Salvation was the same then as now - by grace through faith and works had nothing to do with how a person got saved... repentance and conversion did.

Yes but your view is that the realestate issues of earthly Israel = Salvation.

That was never true for Jew or Gentile.

Noah - gentile.
King of Salem - gentile.
Jonah witnesses to gentiles.

Baalam was a gentile prophet that had "gone bad".

I see a post on gentile evangelism from the OT coming up soon.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I agree with the "Bobs" (like Office Space )

We have:

1. Conscience (Law on our hearts)
2. Creation
3. Desire to live forever (Ecc. 3:11)

These three things garner the question for all of us "why are we here" and "what is the meaning of life"? If we seek these out truly, God supplies the answers.

 

Excellent. Then we are in full agreement.

I believe the eunuch had enough light from the OT to be saved providing he also had a knowledge of the cross of Christ and His resurrection. My grandfather used to use Is. 53:6 to win souls.

I count it a great privilege from God to call myself a missionary.

 

You evidently don't understand English. It nowhere says in this verse that "Christ stands at the door of every heart." It says "if anyone hears my voice," not "everyone hears my voice."