Featured General Revelation

General Revelation, Paul is telling us we have a starting point with everyone. Calvin believed that even atheist known that at one time there is a God, but at some point they denied Him. We can always start off with someone with general revelation of God by what He has made, if they still deny there is no God still there is no point to even go on, but you have planted a seed or watered one they are struggling with. I have had people tell me to shut up, they don't want to hear about it, they don't even want you to speak of God. To force something on someone plants a bad seed on their ideas about us and they don't even want you to start up with them because of past experiences. Through general revelation we can even establish the sacrifice, for us to live our life something else has to die for us to live physically. General Revelation is a great starting point.

 

So Skan,

If there are those who could be saved apart from hearing the Gospel message...are you not left with the same question you asked of the calvinist in your previous thread: What is the motivation for missions/evangelism? If even in your view, it is not necessary for salvation?

 

Many Baptists believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through Jesus. On the other hand, we have folks claiming God saves folks who die in unbelief because of their God's character or attributes or some other word for wholesale revision of God's stated revelation. The heaven's declare God's glory, but do not tell men to trust in Christ for salvation from the wrath of God because He is the Son of God and because He rose from the dead. To claim its in there, is akin to claiming a right to abortion is in the constitution. Merely an invention of men.

 

Yes, I believe the Spirit is sovereign, as is the Father and the Son. But God has established the means as well as the end.

Re post #7
I draw a distinction between being born from above and being saved. The Spirit regenerates a lost man, illuminates his mind and changes his desires, so that he understands that he is lost, needs a Savior and looks to Jesus for that salvation. The Spirit gives the gifts of repentance and faith, resulting in salvation.

 

How does God grant us repentance or give us faith a noun.

Is it not by knowledge, trust, and belief in His Son trust and belief being a verb an action from us?

Faith without deeds can such a faith save?

 

You have not said they die in unbelief...but you have said they die in ignorance of Christ....which begs the Rom. 10 question: "how will they believe in whom they have never heard? It seems those saying God can, or even will, save some who respond to general revelation by believing there is a God and wanting to know more about him...are not dealing with Romans 10, merely pointing to other passages that seem to say something different... ("My passage is better than your passage")

I do think the issue of OT Believers is a different issue, and should be handled separately.

 

I already gave examples. Perhaps you didn't read the content of them.

 

The Quakers and Wesleyans also believe this.

There is nothing preventing God from doing this. The scriptures affirm it.

 

I don't think you gave any scripture references that will hold up.

 

I don't think that this "Theoretical" scenario is possible...but engaging in such questioning can be fruitful. My immediate answer is that, no, God will not credit their faith in what "general" revelation they have as righteousness. I think the NAME of Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary.

"Could", yes, of course...."Will"...no, but, then again, I feel this particular specimen is one whose faith demonstrates a sufficient guarantee of further revelation: Is there not a story (I think it was Livingston) who preached to a Tribal Leader in Africa, who, upon hearing the gospel readily accepted, and said something to the effect that "I always Knew Him, I just did not know his name" or something to that effect? I would imagine that this is a very common scenario.

I think so....I think faith in Jesus Christ, specifically, and by his name alone is salvation possible.

Mind you: My thought stems from some bent towards Molinistic explanation...therefore I tend to assume two different types of people

1.) Ones who would NEVER accept Christ under ANY circumstances (they are the ones I tend to think find themselves in that "tribal" scenario)
2.) Those who would, or might accept given differing circumstances.

Therefore, those whose hearts are truly open to possible response to the gospel, such as those who satisfy the conditions of your "General Revelation" scenario.

Your question is critically important for Arminians or any non-Cals Skan, because the "what about those who never hear?" problem is one we MUST answer. Calvinists have an easy time of it. But what non-Calvinists have is (in reality) a problem if we break it down, wherein God is actually pre-destining to damnation ONLY, but not predestining anyone to life! We have a differing problem from Calvinists, and its worse. Calvinists have those predestined to LIFE and DEATH, we have only those pre-destined to DEATH!
Our two possible responses are:
1.) To posit that God will save some based upon their response to "General Revelation"...or, at least to hold to their being "beaten with few stripes" (Thus giving ourselves some comfort) Or:
2.) To deny that there is such a thing as anyone who might possibly respond to the gospel, who is left utterly without witness, thus forcing ourselves to conclude that such persons have a guarantee of further revelation of Christ specifically.

I suppose I hold to something like the second option, because I cannot wrap my head around a scenario, wherein any who do not accept Christ, specifically, or who are "born-again" can have eternal life.....

If we DO, accept such a scenario as my "option 1" presents, that you are suggesting, or, rather, the "general revelation saved"; then we actually have the quandry of, IMO encouraging us NOT to engage in Evangelism and Missions in that we would merely be making them responsible to respond to MORE than they would otherwise. We would be "raising the salvific bar" so to speak, whereas they would otherwise be required to respond ONLY to that general revelation. Sorry for the long post :tear: GREAT DISCUSSION!! :thumbsup:

 

True Tom, but some here holdt that if you are born again (as in regenerate) then you are eternally saved but that does not necessitate being temporally saved.

If you repent and believe (gospel calling) that is to discipleship, if you want it.
Thus temporally saved.

In that kind of view, you can be eternally saved, never having believed in Christ or even in fact reject him. Whether or not you accept the gospel call does not change your eternal status.

 

Why? Because you disagree with them?

 

I don't believe that. Where did that view come from? Is it somehow supposed to be connected to the view that regeneration precedes faith?

I know you and I probably disagree over the order of regeneration, but I'm with you on this eternal salvation stuff.

 

Here we have a typical misrepresentation of God. Something in His character requires Him to do what is not presented in scripture. We are conceived in iniquity, therefore separated from God who is holy. We are condemned for unbelief, thus without the salvation of Christ we are condemned. But since that seems so unfair, God must send a vision to everyone before they go to Hades, giving them the opportunity to trust in Christ. Pure fiction.

As Jesus said, what is it to you, how I treat others?

 

Oh and btw, no one under the OT schema, the Old Covenant, went to heaven. The idea that they were saved without being washed by the blood of Christ is heresy. There is no other way, folks. Read Hebrews 11:39-40.