Those who have not heard the Gospel

I do not claim to know everything, nor do I claim to have all the answers. One thing I do know is that I will not be backed into a corner and forced to give an answer that you will not be satisfied with anyway.

 

1. God is able to save no matter that the person has no access to scripture as Paul points out in Romans 2:13-16.

2. God HAS used nature as his voice for "Good news" as Paul points out in Romans 10.

3. The "details of the atonement" were not fully understood by the saints of Heb 11 - yet they were saved.

Basically you can't keep looking at the texts and simply saying "it can't be done" when text after text shows that it can.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Amen! Preach it!

"God so loved the WORLD that He gave" -- God is not willing for any to perish.

Amen - preach IT!

Those who suppose that the only reason for missions and evangelism is the "innability of God" or even "God unwilling to reach ALL" are getting it all wrong.

God IS "Convicting ALL the WORLD" John 16

and Christ is the "Atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2

God "sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" 1John 4:10-14.

Christ stands at the door and knocks "IF ANYONE hears HIS VOICE and OPENS the door HE will come in". Rev 3.

But even an age with a half dozen Bibles in every home and dozens of evangelists on radio and TV -- people STILL can choose so refuse the flood of light given - how much more can people in darkness CHOOSE to reject the light they are given EVEN at lower levels of accountability?

Simply citing examples of people TURNING to darkness rather than light is not proof that the light "does not work" or is "insufficient".

Adam's light was "sufficient".

King Saul's light was "sufficient"

Timonthy's light was "sufficient".

Abraham's light was "sufficient".

And Enoch was taken directly to heaven without dying.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The General revelation plus personnal work of the Holy Spirit leads to conviction and the person CHOOSING to walk in the Spirit - receiving a new heart and new birth -- but not in "knowing details" about the life of Christ or the details of atonement.

God is able to send rain with our "knowing how he does it".

We benefit from rain sent - even when we don't see the rain that fills the rivers with water coming downstream to us.

The Bible never claims that General revelation leads to a full unfolding of the NT text details.

The Bible never claims that the result of the light shining on each person (Whether they have a Bible or not) will result in each person becoming saved or fully comprehendintg the Gospel.

In Romans 10 we are told that the "good news" comes through the voice of nature and faith necessary for salvation is enabled on that alone.

I am going to have to go with scripture on that one EVEN though not ALL who have Bibles are saved -- and not all who DON't have Bibles are saved.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Christ tells Nicodemus that EVEN though he does not see and fully understand how the Holy Spirit works - He STILL causes the New Birth to happen.

You keep arguing that this can not possibly happen if we do not first know what God is doing.

God keeps arguing in scripture that He can AND DOES do this salvific work EVEN though people are not informed fully on the subject.

I am not sure why this is a sticking point -- it seems clear enough in scripture.

Again - you appeal to DETAILS of biograpy (the name Jesus for example) that the saints listed in Heb 11 (some of whom were taken directly to heaven) did not know.

The bible examples clearly show that your insistance on "specific story details" is a arbitrary line that is not demanded in scripture.

If I am a pagan among those hearing the story of the Gospel and the name of Christ proclaimed then clearly it is binding on me to accept that Gospel invitation or perish. But if no such opportunity exists (as we see with the new covenant saint of Rom 2:13-16 with no access to scripture at all) and I STILL "hear the voice and open the door" not knowing what it is - the Rev 3 result of new-birth, fellowship, and the Law written on the heart -- happens.


Those around Nicodemus that had NOT heard the details on the new birth were experiencing it "anyway" because God is not stopped by the informed state of the sinner.

in Christ,

Bob

 

But Non-Christians DON'T believe it. So we try to use general revelation to prove that they "should know", but what they see is BOTH the garden AND predation, disease, survival, etc. That is explained only by the Fall, which is taught in special revelation. But they don't believe special revelation!
This is what happened in the ID debates I was in. The evolutionists pointed out that our arguments always came back to a presupposition of special revelation, somehow. Yes, we believe the Bible, but we're trying to prove it to THEM! It's not a "granted" to them. So I see us using general revelation to prove that they are condemned for not believing special revelation; but then we have to turn special revelation when general revelation doesn't fully support that assertion. That is a cycle.

Just curious, how do you answer the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" rebuttal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
On one hand; I would say that when people have their minds made up this much, go to this length in their argument against religion, Jesus would tell us to shake the dust off our feet; only most of us aren't missionaries here; and have no other place to go to. Still, do we have any answer for this, besides "they're out to get us" or "they're just blind"?

So you're on one hand still arguing general revelation, based on Romans 1, but then you're saying there is also the Holy Spirit working in every single person's heart. Isn't that the conscience argument? Or are you saying it is yet something else?

Also, why is faith said to be so "hard", even by believers, then? Or as has been pointed out elsewhere, why can't believers agree on anything, if God's spirit is giving everyone the truth? All of this confusion in Christian debate makes it hard to go to the world and tell them they are going to Hell for rejecting "truth", when we can't even agree quite on what it is, what Christ did, etc. You keep accusing me of "denying", "arguing", etc. but I'm really not in argument mode now. I'm really at wit's end when it comes to our witness to the world.

Then, John says that natural revelation and conscience don't even matter; they're just condemned for not receiving Christ (which depends on them hearing about, and then being convinced of Him). But this is going against all the reasons people give as to why they should be judged for "sin". The whole idea drawn and argued from John 3:19 is that they knew they were wrong. Now, even this is being dismissed, if I understand correctly. That sounds almost like a hyperCalvinist view of "man's responsibility" (or lack thereof).

 

Well, we seem to have a problem here, regarding those scripture passages in which all means all, any means all, and the world means all.

They are cited to show that since God wants all to be saved, he MUST have made the gospel available to everyone without exception.

Indeed, not only must God, he is obligated to do so; to do otherwise would not be fair of God. (Of, course, if God is obligated, then grace is excluded; and God doesn't have to be fair; he can do with us what he wants).

Here's the problem. We know that today, on this earth, many don't even know who God is, much less know who Jesus is, or what the gospel is. No missionary is preaching to them. They have no Bibles. No tracts are dropped from airplanes.

So how do we resolve the two statements? Particularly when Paul asked how can they hear without a preacher (Romans 10)? Some simply say, we don't know, but we believe everybody has heard, someway, somehow. Somebody said, it's no big deal God and the Holy Spirit can take care of that little problem.

Either way, that presents another problem--that God is pleased to save some in other ways besides the "foolishness of preaching." (I Cor 1:21)

If that's the case, John of Japan, come on home.

 

I do not believe they will be judged because they have not heard the Gospel. I believe they will be judged according to sin..... Romans 1:20 they will be without excuse.

 

Wrong. The Bible tells us they do know (Romans 1).

 

WD , Tom Butler was saying that many do not know who Jesus is or what the Giospel is . No missionary has preached to them . They have no Bibles . No tracts are dropped from airplanes .

WD thinks the above is wrong according to Romans 1 . Where in that chapter of Romans does it say or even intimate that all have heard the Gospel ( not to mention the other things Tom brought up ) ? Verses 19-21 certainly do not allude to your theory .

 

HP: Excellent comment Rippon.:thumbs: Indeed Tom Butler is correct in his statement. :thumbs:

There should be no question as to how false doctrines come into the church with the clear demonstration of that on this list. One way is a false or careless handling of the Word of God as BR has clearly demonstrated in his use of texts in Romans, claiming that they show that all have been given the gospel. That is a false notion unfounded by the Word of God, reason, and the experience of good men including John of Japan and multitudes of missionaries like him.

 

I'll let Tom Butler say what he meant, but what you are saying is NOT what he said.

"Have they not heard? Of course they have..."

 

According to Jesus Christ Himself, God is able to reveal truths of His Son to man without the aid of "flesh and blood."
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Either Jesus was mistaken here and Peter really did learn this truth from some man, or He was correct in saying that Peter received this truth directly from God the Father without human help.

 

Great post, Pastor Bob!

Sheds new light on

Romans 10:14 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?

Was Paul speaking of the preacher as the one that the Lord Jesus Christ said God would send... the Comforter who, would convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment?

 

Romans 10 is addressed to the Jews who have heard. It is not saying that the whole of humanity has heard the gospel of Christ, but that the scriptures have been revealed to the Jews.

Context.

 

Rippon and Heavenly Pilgrim understand exactly what I was saying, and I appreciate their defense of my statement.

I agree that the creation suggests the existence of a Creator. The existence of a law (which may be written on their hearts) suggests the existence of a lawgiver. But it is going beyond the scripture passage to say that those same people know of the gospel and of the Lord Jesus.

 

The fact is that Peter did have human help. He had the law and the prophets, which laid the groundwork for the Messiah's coming. He had heard John the Baptist preach the arrival of the Lamb of God. The Father revealed the truth to Peter, but not independently of anything Peter had learned before.

 

The question today for us is not "can he?" It is, "does he?"

Before we can answer yes, we must deal with Romans 10, which asks, "how can they believe in him whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher"?

And we must deal with I Cor 1:21, "it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save them who believe."

These two passages are perfectly compatible with Romans 1 and 2.

 

Jesus said he didn't...you say he did. Who should we believe?

 

Correct. See Post 48 -- this thread for Romans 10...

And here is a summary

Notice the question that Paul asks --


14 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?


Paul then opens the door to the argument that those living long ages before the cross could not possibly have known the details about Christ that we know --

17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;

Question - HOW can Paul say of the OT pre-cross people "INDEED THEY HAVE heard"??

What is HIS argument for making that claim?

Read the text.

It has to be noticed that this is the very subject being discussed on this thread!

in Christ,

Bob