Regarding those who have never heard...

IF they had opportunity? You really believe that? What is the scriptural basis for your view?

This also seems to be an admission that not all have had the opportunity. And thus it contradicts this statement:

Then you said:

I Cor 1:21, which I quoted in a previous post, says differently.

Again, what is the scriptural basis for your view?

 

Please define the "gospel" (Good News) requirements for me, Butler. Just what does one have to understand and acknowledge about the Good News from the light given to all the world? Must one confess some certain words with the mouth or what??? Pleeease draw a that line pharisaical line for me. Inquiring minds want to know. :laugh:

 

First, let us not assume that the light you referred to is the gospel. The creation may teach us that there is a Creator. Beyond that, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God to salvation.(Romans 1:16) Creation does not tell us any of that.

The gospel of Jesus Christ reveals the righteousness of God. (Romans 1:17) The gospel of Jesus Christ reveals our unrighteousness, our need of a Savior, and identifies Jesus as that Savior.

That gospel reveals that Jesus' death and resurrection provides God with the basis for forgiving the sins of us who do not deserve forgiveness.

And Paul, later in Romans, lays out the requirements. Repentance toward God, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, confessing him as Lord.

Now, please explain to me your use of the term "pharisaical line."

 

And God said He would reveal the necessary light to every man that comes into the world. So I see the necessary opportunity for repentance, faith, and confession in each individual's response of love of the truth in what God has revealed to that individual as the determining factor. Would you like to be more specific as to the requirements of the above?

The Pharisees didn't think Christ was meeting the requirements (their rules) either. They thought they owned the Church too.

 

Of course. So please be clear. In your view can a person be saved without hearing that Christ died in his place for his sins and rose again?

 

You are not paying attention. The Light in the context of John 1 is Jesus Christ Himself, not any other "spiritual revelation." The Light is not simply "spiritual revelation." By calling it "spiritual revelation" you are fogging up the issues. Christ the Light is what lights everyone in the world in the way I've already set out.

 

The Light is Jesus Christ Himself in the context of John 1. Not some "necessary light" but the only Light.

 

Well, for instant, look at the native American Indian from history books. I studied in school how they would leave the heart of the animal they killed so that it's spirit would roam the woods. They also believed in a "happy hunting ground". So, to me, it looks like they knew of the afterlife. This was not something I think they would have conjured up of their ownselves. So, it kinda looks like God was showing them Himself, and they expressed it the best way they knew how.

 

Pardon me,C1,but that's balderdash."It kinda' looks like God was showing them Himself..." C'mon and fly right man.

 

You are not making sense. Simply saying that God uses us believers for His work DOES NOT mean that He cannot do it. That's ridiculous. God is omnipotent--can do anything--but that doesn't mean He has to do everything. I mean really, He can lead singing if He wants to, but has He done it in your church lately? No, He uses people.

Now, how does the Gospel--the Gospel about Christ's death and resurrection, mind you (1 Cor. 15)--get to people without evangelism? Please inform me.

Then please give me those Scriptures that say He wants to save people with a method other than Christians giving the Gospel.

The verse about God as no respector of persons is in Acts 10:34, Peter's words admitting that God wants to save Gentiles. It does not say in any way shape or form that God will save people apart from the Gospel Christ. You can't use Peter's words to mean someone on an island somewhere and be doing correct exegesis.

As for Light being "spiritual revelation," for the last time (I hope), the Light in John 1:9 is not some nebulous "spiritual revelation," but Jesus Christ Himself. Please get this right, then we can further discuss it. You can't redefine Christ as "spiritual revelation." He Himself IS God's revelation.

 

*sigh* Let's take a look at these verses again:

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Rom. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Rev. 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Show me a preacher in any of these verses. The best preacher that God ever anointed can not reveal God to them. God must reveal Himself to the lost. There is no "middle man" between mankind and Jesus. Jesus is our mediator to God, not man.

 

Convicted, the problem here is that real idolatry in the raw is shocking and anti-God. The native American Indians believing that the heart of the animal they killed roamed the woods is idolatry, an abomination to God. And the fact that they believed in a "happy hunting ground" is not proof of God showing Himself to them, but proof that they originally had the truth but lost most of it. The

No human religion turns man to Christ. The Indians did not get closer to God because of their beliefs, but farther from them. Romans 1 is very clear about this. It shows a progression from the knowledge of God (vv. 19-20) to refusing to glorify Him as God and thus having hearts that are spiritually dark (v. 21), to becoming fools who thought themselves wise (v. 22) to idolatry (v. 23) to all sorts of wickedness (vv. 24-31). And they take pleasure in such wickedness (v. 32). The American Indians were like that, as much as political correctness wants to glorify the "noble savage." The progression is from the truth away from God to idolatry.

 

I said “the” necessarily light, not “some”.

About that “Only Light”, the Spirit of Christ, the Giver of life is also from the beginning the Light of men and has promised hope to every man that comes into the world, therefore this makes it “necessary” this Spiritual Light be not only sufficiently bright to bring a genuine offer of salvation but that the promise of grace through faith is offered in absolute truth, it is “necessary” that both, Jesus Christ Himself is a true light and that light gives a true opportunity for all the creatures in creation to be led by the Spirit of Christ so that this truth may be freely received.

(Rom 8:14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

 

I can certainly understand why a missionary would be compelled to promulgate the notion of hardline restrictivism.

But there's other 'notions' (read sacred cow) involved here.

The notion that it is the great commission of the Church to populate heaven.

The notion that the gospel imparts life and immortality and is the instrument which the Church uses to populate heaven.

The notion that 'saved' [sozo] is synonymous with the acquisition of the free gift of eternal life.

 

Sorry, I'm not understanding what you are trying to say.

(1) Do you agree that Christ is the Light of John 1:9?
(2) Where does the Bible say that God "has promised hope to every man"? I don't find that anywhere in the Bible.
(3) Are you saying that you believe there can be a "genuine offer of salvation" without believers proclaiming Christ, as some have said?
(4) Finally, you say that Christ is "a" (indefinite article) true light, rather than saying that He is "the" (definite article) true light. So is it fair to say that you believe there is more than one true light? If not, what do you mean by this grammar?

 

I am shocked at what I am seeing on this board lately. Between the demeaning of scripture and this it is beyond reason.

What was said in the op was not just "its *possible* for someone to be regenerated by means other than a human evangelist". That is to misunderstand the op at best or to intentionally misdirect to justify this position. What is says is that there is another way to be saved other than the gospel and Jesus. The op is full blown heresy.

 

Very Bad Willis......here is why....

The indians worshipped demonic spirits