Do You Believe in Absolutes?

[Jerry Shugart]

...the Bible directly contradicts your "if" scenario by saying there is "NONE that seeketh after God, no, NOT ONE" - Psa. 14:2; Rom. 3:10-11. So I will not go down "hypothetical lane" when the Bible flatly denies such a lane exists.

Again, the verses you quote are only in regard to those who do not fear or reverence God. However, nature by itself leads many to a reverence of Him. One part of nature which displays God's eternal power and glory is the weather. And this in and of itself results in many having a reverance of God:

"He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.After it a voice roareth: he thundereth with the voice of his excellency; and he will not stay them when his voice is heard...Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty...Men do therefore fear him" (Job 37:3-4,22,24).

In this case the phrase "fear Him" is speaking of man's reverence of God and not being afraid of Him. The following verse is speaking of the display of God's glory as seen in nature and it can be understood by all men everywhere:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard" (Ps.19:1-3).

The heavens display the "glory" of God and all men who do not surpress the truth that God exists can understand His majesty. And the "knowledge" that is displayed is so awesome that men that hear that "voice" certainly have a reverence of God. Again, one of the meanings of The Hebrew word translated "fear" in this verse is "to inspire reverence or godly fear or awe" (Gesenius's Lexicon).

And that is exactly its meaning at Job 37:24.

With that in view we know that the verses which you continue to quote from the third chapter of Romans can only be understood as referring to only those who do not fear God.

You jumped from fact to fiction. Fact is that all men have the ability to perceive a God exists but that does not mean they have ability to know him personally. Knowing him is "eternal life" and comes only through the gospel of His Son (Jn. 17:3; 2 Cor. 4:6).

Paul addressed that when he told those who worshipped an 'unknown God" that God can overlook the ignorance which men have about God. He also said the following to these same people:

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us" (Acts 17:26-27).

All men have the ability to believe that God exists and to revere Him. And those people will indeed seek the Lord. And here is what is said about them:

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Heb.11:6).

All men have the ability to believe that God exists and and seek the Lord so therefore all have the opportunity to be rewarded by Him. And since God rewards them we can know that they have "faith" because 'without faith it is impossible to please God."

Not only that, but the following verses are speaking about those who have a reverence for God:

"For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us" (Ps.103:11-12).

"Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him" (Eccl.8:12).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi Ruiz,

You asked:

Yet, for laughs, what theologian are you getting this stuff from.

Believe it or not some of us actually read the Scriptures and are not dependent on "theologians" to tell us the meaning of what is said in the Bible.

Why did you not even attempt to defend the "stuff" that you teach here?:

That is the point of reformed theology. We are regenerated then we can see, and finally we believe. It is not them receiving the spirit, it is the Spirit which births them, then they can believe. I don't put the cart before the horse, but rather say that unless they are born again they cannot believe. Regeneration must come first then they can see second.

Then why did you fail to address what I said here that demonstrates that you are wrong?:

First Paul said that one must receive the Spirit before he can understand the things of God:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God" (1 Cor.2:11-12).

There is only one way of receiving the Spirit and that is by believing the gospel, as evidenced by the following rhetorical question asked by Paul:

"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Gal.3:2).

No one can know the things of God until he receives the Spirit and that does not happen until he believes the gospel.

It is through regeneration will they believe, so then we turn to the Bible and Special Revelation.

You correctly state that the words "born again" refers to regeneration and we can see that no one is "born again" or "regenerated" apart from the gospel:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

Therefore we can understand that before a person can be regenerated he must first hear the gospel. But you do not understand this principle and you have a person being regenerated BEFORE hearing the gospel or any Special Revelation.

They do not say anyone apart from knowing Special Revelation were saved either. You are clearly assuming where clear scriptures speak.

As I have already demonstrated, nature by itself leads many to a reverence of God. One part of nature which displays God's eternal power and glory is the weather. And this in and of itself results in many having a reverance of God:

"He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.After it a voice roareth: he thundereth with the voice of his excellency; and he will not stay them when his voice is heard...Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty...Men do therefore fear him" (Job 37:3-4,22,24).

In this case the phrase "fear Him" is speaking of man's reverence of God and not being afraid of Him. The following verse is speaking of the display of God's glory as seen in nature and it can be understood by all men everywhere:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard" (Ps.19:1-3).

The heavens display the "glory" of God and all men who do not supress the truth that God exists can understand His majesty. And the "knowledge" that is displayed is so awesome that men that hear that "voice" certainly have a reverence of God. Again, one of the meanings of The Hebrew word translated "fear" in this verse is "to inspire reverence or godly fear or awe" (Gesenius's Lexicon).

And that is exactly its meaning at Job 37:24. This is what the Scriptures say about those who reverence God:

"For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us" (Ps.103:11-12).

"Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him" (Eccl.8:12).

I would invite your exegesis of Romans 3, as that is a clear verse.

The third chapter of Romans is much more than a "verse." The following verse demonstrates that the people being referred to are those who have no fear or reverence of God:

"There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Ro.3:18).

I still cannot believe that despite all the evidence, you believe someone is saved by General Revelation. That is nowhere found in Scripture. That is man centered philosophy and not considered Biblical theology.

Are you the judge as to what is considered "Biblical theology"?

Yes, there is the command to have faith. Yet, we also know that faith if a gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). The question is, does the command most necessarily means we are given the ability? You believe it does. I will say that the Bible says that since faith is a gift, it demands that we have been given that gift.

You have not proven that faith is a gift and God only gives some people that gift and withholds it from the rest. Let us look at this verse again:

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us" (Acts 17:26-27).

All men have the ability to believe that God exists and to have a reverence of Him. And those people will indeed seek the Lord. And here is what is said about them:

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Heb.11:6).

All men have the ability to believe that God exists and and to seek the Lord so therefore all have the opportunity to be rewarded by Him. And since God rewards them we can know that they have "faith" because 'without faith it is impossible to please God."

 

[Ruiz]

Hi Ruiz,

You asked:

Believe it or not some of us actually read the Scriptures and are not dependent on "theologians" to tell us the meaning of what is said in the Bible.

Why did you not even attempt to defend the "stuff" that you teach here?:

Then why did you fail to address what I said here that demonstrates that you are wrong?:

I wonder the same thing and I really am ending this conversation and will let you have the last word after I make a couple of points.

1. If you are the only one saying something, you probably are not right. If you are the only person in all of church history to espouse a theological belief and viewpoint, either you are the greatest mind in church history or too arrogant to realize you are wrong. Yes, I do turn to other theologians. Why? First, I am not the smartest person in church history. Secondly, I realize that I may be wrong and would rather gain wisdom from men much greater than me. If I think the Bible is "clear" but no one else agrees with me, then I probably am expressing arrogance more than truth.

2. What you have espoused violates several clear hermeneutical principles. This is one of the reasons I have strongly stressed the "analogy of faith" in other threads. I know some are tired of hearing it, but over and over throughout this discussion I have ever wondered how anyone who holds to the AOF could ever embrace your viewpoint. I conclude that they cannot.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ruiz: 1. If you are the only one saying something, you probably are not right. If you are the only person in all of church history to espouse a theological belief and viewpoint, either you are the greatest mind in church history or too arrogant to realize you are wrong. Yes, I do turn to other theologians. Why? First, I am not the smartest person in church history. Secondly, I realize that I may be wrong and would rather gain wisdom from men much greater than me. If I think the Bible is "clear" but no one else agrees with me, then I probably am expressing arrogance more than truth.

HP: That can be good and that can be bad. Some of the so-called smartest minds carried out some of the most heinous attacks on others. Some of the smartest minds used their positions to kill and destroy the lives of others, and destroyed the work of any and all that opposed them with the the power they held. Some of the 'smartest' minds brought heathen notions into the Church, one such notion that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

I personally chose to read and study some of the smartest minds I believe from God's perspective, as shown in the clear evidence of the impact they had on their listeners in directing change in their lives in a real way for the good. In doing so were crucially instrumental in the greatest revival of religion this nation has ever seen and most likely will ever see. My interest was peaked as I pondered, I wonder what these men taught that was so effective in the salvation of others, effectiveness that no man can reasonably disavow?

Ruiz. 2. What you have espoused violates several clear hermeneutical principles.

HP: Now that is a clearly debatable principle. :thumbs:

Ruiz: This is one of the reasons I have strongly stressed the "analogy of faith" in other threads. I know some are tired of hearing it, but over and over throughout this discussion I have ever wondered how anyone who holds to the AOF could ever embrace your viewpoint. I conclude that they cannot.

HP: What is AOF? I do not like to guess about abbreviations. I am sorry but I for one have evidently not read many of your other posts stressing the 'analogy of faith.' Could you point to any posts I can read that would solidify your views? If so I would appreciate it. I would love to discuss faith with you as time permits. Possibly Sat. and or Sunday?

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, the verses you quote are only in regard to those who do not fear or reverence God.

I demonstrated that the verse you quoted (which you use again to end this post) clearly demonstrates your theory on "fear" is wrong! The first part of that verse addresses a SINGULAR "sinner" while the latter part of that verse addressess a PLURAL them (Eccle. 8:12). Two different classes of people but you continue to make the PLURAL them to be the "sinner" in the former part of that verse.

The term "fear" in the context of the people of God is used as a TECHNICAL term to describe the character of God's people who obey God out of reverence. those who are God's people. Used in such contexts that kind of fear NEVER is applied to lost people but instead they are characterized the very reverse as having no fear of God.

In Contexts dealing with lost people in connection with the manifest POWER, wrath and judgement of God are the only contexts where "fear" is attributed to lost people. There it is the idea of terror.

However, nature by itself leads many to a reverence of Him. One part of nature which displays God's eternal power and glory is the weather. And this in and of itself results in many having a reverance of God:

"He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.After it a voice roareth: he thundereth with the voice of his excellency; and he will not stay them when his voice is heard...Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty...Men do therefore fear him" (Job 37:3-4,22,24).

Again, this is a context of manifest power and the fear here is terror, frightened, awe, not one where obedience out of reverential fear occurs.

You are making assumptions that you simply have no basis to assume.

With that in view we know that the verses which you continue to quote from the third chapter of Romans can only be understood as referring to only those who do not fear God.

This context is clearly presented by Paul to prove there are NO JEWS and NO GENTILES that are not "under sin" - Rom. 3:9.

He is not talking simply about a select group of people different from others but UNIVERSAL MANKIND as a race as he concludes the description introduced in Romans 3:9 with UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE in verses 19-20:

Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Rom. 3:19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Therefore, when he says there is "no fear" the context is speaking of EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING in their lost state:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Paul addressed that when he told those who worshipped an 'unknown God" that God can overlook the ignorance which men have about God. He also said the following to these same people:

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us" (Acts 17:26-27).

What they "should" do and what they will do are not the one and the same. All men "should" repent because of the goodness of God but not all do. So again you make another giant presumptive leap without any basis.

All men have the ability to believe that God exists and to revere Him. And those people will indeed seek the Lord.

You have absolutely no basis to say this except by pure EISGESIS



[/QUOTE]Not only that, but the following verses are speaking about those who have a reverence for God:

"For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us" (Ps.103:11-12).

"Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him" (Eccl.8:12).[/QUOTE]

These two scriptures completely condemn your whole position and your too spiritually blind and ignorant to see it even if it is spelled out in baby language for you!

Note Psalm 103:11-13 is addressed to saved people - those who are objects of God's mercy, those whose transgressions have been removed from them and here "fear" is in the context of saved people as a technical expression for those who OBEY him as beleivers.

Ecclesiastes 8:12 speaks of TWO different kinds of people who are in contrast to each other. The former being a SINGULAR lost person "a sinner" while the latter PLURAL saved persons "them" and again "fear" used as a technical term for God's people who characteristically obey him whereas the very term "sinner" describes one who DOES NOT OBEY HIM!

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: That can be good and that can be bad. Some of the so-called smartest minds carried out some of the most heinous attacks on others. Some of the smartest minds used their positions to kill and destroy the lives of others, and destroyed the work of any and all that opposed them with the the power they held. Some of the 'smartest' minds brought heathen notions into the Church, one such notion that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

I personally chose to read and study some of the smartest minds I believe from God's perspective, as shown in the clear evidence of the impact they had on their listeners in directing change in their lives in a real way for the good. In doing so were crucially instrumental in the greatest revival of religion this nation has ever seen and most likely will ever see. My interest was peaked as I pondered, I wonder what these men taught that was so effective in the salvation of others, effectiveness that no man can reasonably disavow?



HP: Now that is a clearly debatable principle. :thumbs:



HP: What is AOF? I do not like to guess about abbreviations. I am sorry but I for one have evidently not read many of your other posts stressing the 'analogy of faith.' Could you point to any posts I can read that would solidify your views? If so I would appreciate it. I would love to discuss faith with you as time permits. Possibly Sat. and or Sunday?

Ruize was being tactful and kind. I won't be so tactful and kind. You and Jerry are not interested in truth at all. You are interested in defending your false doctrine no matter what evidence is placed before you.

Your false doctrine has been thoroughly disproven over and over again but you simply repeat the same lies, the same perverted interpretations and you will continue to do so. Hence, Paul's words apply to both of you as far as I am concerned- "He that is ignorant let him be ignorant." I have got better things to do then continue on this merry go round of repetitious nonsense.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If you are the only one saying something, you probably are not right. If you are the only person in all of church history to espouse a theological belief and viewpoint, either you are the greatest mind in church history or too arrogant to realize you are wrong.

Dear brother, you need to broaden your horizons!

I am not the only person who has seen these truths. Take Sir Robert Anderson, for example. Charles Spurgeon said that Anderson's book Human Destiny is "the most valuable contribution on the subject I have seen." James M. Gray, who served for thirty years as President of Moody Bible Institute and was one of the seven editors of the original Scofield Reference Bible, said the following about Anderson:

"Sir Robert Anderson is in some respects the most remarkable of current writers on religious subjects, whether we consider his personal history or the range and character of his work…To sit at the feet of a man with such knowledge, mental power, courage and native wit, who is at the same time Spirit taught, is for the true Christian one of the greatest privileges."

Here are Anderson's words about the subject under discussion:

"Paul's sermon at Athens is no less clear as regards the condition of the heathen. As he said at Lystra, they were not left without a witness, in that God did good, and gave rain and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. By such things, he declares again in another place, God's eternal power and Godhead are clearly seen, so that they are without excuse. And so here, God left the heathen to themselves, not that they should forget Him, but that they should seek Him, even though it were in utter darkness, so that they should need to grope for Him -'to feel after Him, and find Him.' And, though there was ignorance of God, He could wink at the ignorance and give blessing notwithstanding, for 'He is a rewarder of diligent seekers.' Moreover, this is still the case with all whom the witness of the Holy Ghost has not yet reached. If it be asked whether any have, in fact, been saved thus, I turn from the question, though I have no doubt as to the answer" (Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1978], 10-11).

 

[The Biblicist]

Dear brother, you need to broaden your horizons!

I am not the only person who has seen these truths. Take Sir Robert Anderson, for example. Charles Spurgeon said that Anderson's book Human Destiny is "the most valuable contribution on the subject I have seen."

You are inferring by this that Charles Spurgeon beleived every word in his book and especial the words you quote. Spurgeon did not believe such nonsense. Even Sir Robert Anderson hesitated to make the conclusion that God has in fact saved some through general revelation alone as he said:

"If it be asked whether any have, in fact, been saved thus, I turn from the question, though I have no doubt as to the answer"

He turned from the question because he could produce no Biblical evidence to answer it and he knew he would be just giving his own personal opinion in its defense.

The scriptures make it clear that it is God's pleasure to save through special revelation not general revelation as there is NOTHING in general revelation that reveals Jesus Christ as the redemptive provision for sinners. There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ and there is no way to be placed "in" Christ but through special revelation of KNOWLEDGE of God through CHRIST:

Jn. 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Natural revelation provides only the light of God's existence and his power but NO LIGHT OF SALVATION through Christ!!!!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace" (Heb.11:31).

There is absolutely no evidence in the Bible which even hints that Rahab was aware of any Special Revelation from God. In fact, we can see the source of her faith that the God of Israel is the true God:

"And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath" (Joshua 2:9-11).

 

[The Biblicist]

"By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace" (Heb.11:31).

There is absolutely no evidence in the Bible which even hints that Rahab was aware of any Special Revelation from God. In fact, we can see the source of her faith that the God of Israel is the true God:

"And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath" (Joshua 2:9-11).

What she knew came from what she "heard" not from what she SAW!!!!! You have no way of determining the limitations on what she HEARD! The sources of what she HEARD came from mulitiple venues (Egypt, Amorites). Moses and Israel gave forth a testimony and that testimony is revealed in Hebrews 4:2:

Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Those who rebelled in the wilderness are the ones it did not profit (Heb. 3:16 "some").

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What she knew came from what she "heard" not from what she SAW!!!!! You have no way of determining the limitations on what she HEARD!

Even though she witnessed the source of her faith and it did not include any special revelation you just invent some:

Moses and Israel gave forth a testimony and that testimony is revealed in Hebrews 4:2:

Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Those who rebelled in the wilderness are the ones it did not profit (Heb. 3:16 "some").

The ones who perished in the wilderness were among those who came out of Egypt by Moses:

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses" (Heb.3:16).

The "them" of Hebrews 2 is not speaking of anyone but those who came out of Egypt by Moses--the Israelites.

Are you under the impression that Rahab came out of Egypt by Moses?

 

[The Biblicist]

Even though she witnessed the source of her faith and it did not include any special revelation you just invent some:

The ones who perished in the wilderness were among those who came out of Egypt by Moses:

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses" (Heb.3:16).

The "them" of Hebrews 2 is not speaking of anyone but those who came out of Egypt by Moses--the Israelites.

Are you under the impression that Rahab came out of Egypt by Moses?

Artful dodge! I never said or even implied she came out of Egypt. I said the text you quoted explicitly used the word "HEARD" rather than "SAW"! So she did not come to faith by what she SAW but what she "HEARD."

The text also identifies some of the sources from which she HEARD.

I used Heb. 4:2 to prove that Israel DURING THE WILDNESS Journey had the gospel PREACHED UNTO THEM and therefore you cannot prove that what she "HEARD" did not include what they PREACHED as well as what they DID in the wilderness.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Artful dodge! I never said or even implied she came out of Egypt. I said the text you quoted explicitly used the word "HEARD" rather than "SAW"! So she did not come to faith by what she SAW but what she "HEARD."

I dodged nothing. You provided no evidence at all that Rahab ever heard a special revelation. In fact, she herself says what it was that brought her to her conclusions and she said nothing about any sprecial revelation.

I used Heb. 4:2 to prove that Israel DURING THE WILDNESS Journey had the gospel PREACHED UNTO THEM and therefore you cannot prove that what she "HEARD" did not include what they PREACHED as well as what they DID in the wilderness.

First of all, the gospel was preached to those who came out of Egypt by Moses. Can you give any evidence that anyone was preaching anything to anyone other than the Israelies during the time when Rahab walked the earth?

Rahab said exactly why she believed that the God of Israel is the God of heaven and earth and she said nothing about any special revelation:

"I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath" (Joshua 2:9-11).

If her belief that Israel's God is the God of heaven and earth was based on a special revelation then why didn't say so and state what that revelation was? Your whole argument is based on an "assumption" that she did receive a special revelation but she just failed to mention it.

 

[The Biblicist]

I dodged nothing. You provided no evidence at all that Rahab ever heard a special revelation. In fact, she herself says what it was that brought her to her conclusions and she said nothing about any sprecial revelation.

Quite the contrary. WHAT SHE HEARD DID NOT COME FROM GENERAL REVELATION!!

What God did at the Red Sea was SPECIAL REVELATION by God conveyed by TESTIMONIES which she HEARD.

first of all, the gospel was preached to those who came out of Egypt by Moses. Can you give any evidence that anyone was preaching anything to anyone other than the Israelies during the time when Rahab walked the earth?

Her source was not GENERAL REVELATION but what she HEARD orally! Can you prove that the gospel was not equally passed down orally in what she "HEARD"?

Even Abraham had the gospel preached to him (Gal. 3:8) by God and that is SPECIAL REVELATION as the gospel promise summarized in the promised "seed" does not come by GENERAL REVELATION.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

How about some discussion on absolutes. What about you Biblicist? Refresh us on your input into the topic of this discussion. Are there any absolutes? Are what you call absolutes meaningful in finding or testing a notion for truth?

 

[The Biblicist]

How about some discussion on absolutes. What about you Biblicist? Refresh us on your input into the topic of this discussion. Are there any absolutes? Are what you call absolutes meaningful in finding or testing a notion for truth?

Yeah, here is an absolute! No matter what Biblical, logical or practical evidences presented that decimate your theory, you will either ignore them, reintepret them or deny them. That is an absolute!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Quite the contrary. WHAT SHE HEARD DID NOT COME FROM GENERAL REVELATION!!

What she heard was nothing more than the general information which was known by the Gentiles who were aware of the history to the children of Israel.

It is ridiculous to call this general information "special revelation" or the "gospel."

Can you prove that the gospel was not equally passed down orally in what she "HEARD"?

She tells us exactly what lead her to believe that the God which the children of Israel worshipped is the God of heaven and earth:

"I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath" (Joshua 2:9-11).

There is nothing there that even hints that she was given any special revelation or the gospel.

Even Abraham had the gospel preached to him (Gal. 3:8)

The "good news" preached to Abraham is the fact that through him will all the nations be blessed!:

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" (Gal.3:8).

Now back to our earlier disagreement. I said:

Paul addressed that when he told those who worshipped an "unknown God" that God can overlook the ignorance which men have about God. He also said the following to these same people:

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us" (Acts 17:26-27).
To this you said:

What they "should" do and what they will do are not the one and the same. All men "should" repent because of the goodness of God but not all do. So again you make another giant presumptive leap without any basis.

Are you saying that God would command men to do things which they do not have the ability to do?:

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30).

 

[The Biblicist]

What she heard was nothing more than the general information which was known by the Gentiles who were aware of the history to the children of Israel.

It is ridiculous to call this general information "special revelation" or the "gospel."

Gentiles did not receive this information from GENERAL REVELATION BY GOD (Psa. 19; Rom. 1:20-21). It was SPECIAL REVELATION by God just as the Bible is special revelation by God that is now general information to many. However, such information was delivered by God APART FROM natural revelation!

Today the gospel is general information because the Bible has been so widely spread. However, this general information is derived from SPECIAL REVELATION and such is the case with the information that travelled by word of mouth to Jericho! You cannot prove that the gospel that was preached along with this other special revelation was not also "general information" delivered with the rest!!!


"I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath" (Joshua 2:9-11).

.

The "good news" preached to Abraham is the fact that through him will all the nations be blessed!:

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" (Gal.3:8).

That is the same SPECIAL REVELATION delivered to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15 of the promised seed. Now that promise has been more restricted to the seed of Abraham among all other humans.

Now back to our earlier disagreement. I said:

Paul addressed that when he told those who worshipped an "unknown God" that God can overlook the ignorance which men have about God. He also said the following to these same people:

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us" (Acts 17:26-27).
To this you said:

Are you saying that God would command men to do things which they do not have the ability to do?:

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30).

This is a command not a request! The argument over ability is clearly answered by Paul directly and explicitly on many occassions (Rom. 3:10-11; 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14).

It is answered by Christ (Jn. 3:18-20; 6:44-45; 64-65; 10:26).

Man is able to choose freely according to his own desires! Nothing prevents him from choosing righteousness but his own love for darkness and hatred for righteousness. That love and hate desires are rooted in his heart and driven by the underlying motive that refuses to recognize and glorify God as God but rather to choose and do all that he chooses and does for any other reason but for the glory of God. That is the SINFUL NATURE man is born with and inherited from Adam when he fell into sin and that is passed down to every generation through birth and the obvious evidence is the fact that infants not only are subject to death but NATURALLY ARE PRONE TO EVIL needing no training to express every fruit of the flesh BEFORE they can be taught what is right!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Man is able to choose freely according to his own desires! Nothing prevents him from choosing righteousness but his own love for darkness and hatred for righteousness.

If you are right how do you explain the following verse?:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves" (Ro.2:14).

Paul describes the law as being "holy" and "just" and "good":

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Ro.7:12).

How do you explain the fact that a man can "do by nature the things contained in the law" since, according to your ideas, he does not chose righteousness because of his own love for darkness and hatred for righteousness?

 

[The Biblicist]

If you are right how do you explain the following verse?:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves" (Ro.2:14).

Paul describes the law as being "holy" and "just" and "good":

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Ro.7:12).

How do you explain the fact that a man can "do by nature the things contained in the law" since, according to your ideas, he does not chose righteousness because of his own love for darkness and hatred for righteousness?

The most heathen culture has a peverted law or standard as conscience does not provide any perfect law. They may not kill their own brother but they may think it is perfectly alright to kill your brother. They may not kill one of their own tribe members but they may believe it is alright to kill, rape or pillage the neighbor villiage. Paul's point is that all men operate according to some standard due to the light of conscience. When they violate conscience, and all do, they can be held accountable according to the light they have and what they did with it.

The Context begins in verse 12 that demonstrates God's judgment is just and part of that justness is that man is judged according to the light he has not according to the light he does not have. He is judged according to the works under whatever law he operates by. No man keeps any law given to him without offence and to offend in one point is to offend all points.