Saved Without Hearing The Gospel?

[Charlie24]

What was the substance of his faith? Believing that a god, or even The God of the bible exists does nothing for a man. He was aware that it was sin to go with the king into the King's pagan temple:

2 Kings 5:18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”

So, this seems to suggest that he was aware of the Law and had knowledge of God that we are unaware of, just as with Rahab. The bible doesn't give every single detail of what people knew, but the fact they (rahab, naaman, etc) means that they knew more than just "the God of Israel exists" and there is no indication that anyone has ever been saved apart from the gospel at any point.

There was no Gospel before the Law, that's why Paul said, "sin is not imputed where there is no Law."

we have so much knowledge of God now that we can't imagine what it was like 4-5000 years ago when there was only God's creation for the Gentiles to recognize.

 

[Silverhair]

Oh man, we in this present dispensation of Grace with the knowledge given to us through the NT Scripture have tons of knowledge Naaman didn't have in the dispensation in which he lived. Simply believing in God in not enough, we have instructions from God what we must do to be saved that they didn't have.

Charlie you have to remember that those of a certain particular view have limited the sovereignty of God.

They will say He is absolutely sovereign then deny just that.

 

[Silverhair]

It’s impossible to be more clear than this;
Acts 17:30; John 14:6; Acts 4:12.

Will we be like the pope, and start believing muslims and brothers and sisters in Christ?

The Bible says all in Adam are dead. All in CHRIST are alive. Christ is the Ark. Everyone not in the Ark are lost.

Does the Pope or Muslims believe in the true living God of scripture? No they do not.

If you read through what I posted you will see that it points to the faith in the true God of scripture.

Those that are in God/Christ will be saved. That is what we see in both the OT and the NT.

Isa 55:6 Seek H1875 the LORD H3068 while He may be found H4672; Call H7121 upon Him while He is near H7138.

the LORD H3068

H3068
- Original: יהוה
- Transliteration: Y@hovah
- Phonetic: yeh-ho-vaw’
- Definition: Jehovah = the existing one
1. the proper name of the one true God


Act 15:17 SO G3704 THAT THE REST G2645 OF MANKIND G444 MAY SEEK G1567 THE LORD G2962, AND ALL G3956 THE GENTILES G1484 WHO G3739 ARE CALLED G1941 BY MY NAME G3686,'

THE LORD G2962

G2962
- Original: κύριος
- Transliteration: Kurios
- Phonetic: koo’-ree-os
- Definition:

2. in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
c. this title is given to: God, the messiah

 

[John of Japan]

I've been laying off for a while, but this thread begs for good theology.

First of all, no one has mentioned the protoevangelion, Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." With this prophecy we see that all from Adam and Eve on could know that God was going to send the Seed of the woman to give salvation. So salvation before the cross was trust in the coming Messiah. And God's salvation has always been by faith; the Bible is clear about that. "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38).

Was there a "gospel" before the cross? Well, of course "gospel" simply means "good news," and there was plenty of good news before the cross. Prov. 25:25 says, "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country." It was certainly good news for a saint before the cross to learn that repentance (as per John the Baptist) and faith provided salvation through the coming Messiah. If someone wants to insist that there was not the NT Gospel of Christ before the cross, fine, you don't have to call it the Gospel of Christ per se, but there was certainly the good news of the coming Messiah.

As for the idea that there can be any kind of salvation in the NT era without Christ, the Bible is very clear in many passages about that. Without faith, "the just" cannot live righteous lives. Furthermore, I've researched all the main religions as a missionary, and preached to Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, and Hindus, and others, and I'm here to tell you that all of those religions lead directly away from the true God and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot get saved through them or any religion. Only Christ can save.

And if that is not true, folks, I wasted 36 1/2 years of my life (deputation plus evangelism) giving the Gospel to the Japanese. And the Great Commission is then a wasteful effort, with the inerrant Bible mistakenly telling us to get the Gospel into all the world. Not to mention, when I teach missions, lay hands on missionaries and send them away, that is also a waste if someone can get to Heaven without knowing Christ.

 

[Silverhair]

I've been laying off for a while, but this thread begs for good theology.

First of all, no one has mentioned the protoevangelion, Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." With this prophecy we see that all from Adam and Eve on could know that God was going to send the Seed of the woman to give salvation. So salvation before the cross was trust in the coming Messiah. And God's salvation has always been by faith; the Bible is clear about that. "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38).

Was there a "gospel" before the cross? Well, of course "gospel" simply means "good news," and there was plenty of good news before the cross. Prov. 25:25 says, "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country." It was certainly good news for a saint before the cross to learn that repentance (as per John the Baptist) and faith provided salvation through the coming Messiah. If someone wants to insist that there was not the NT Gospel of Christ before the cross, fine, you don't have to call it the Gospel of Christ per se, but there was certainly the good news of the coming Messiah.

As for the idea that there can be any kind of salvation in the NT era without Christ, the Bible is very clear in many passages about that. Without faith, "the just" cannot live righteous lives. Furthermore, I've researched all the main religions as a missionary, and preached to Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, and Hindus, and others, and I'm here to tell you that all of those religions lead directly away from the true God and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot get saved through them or any religion. Only Christ can save.

And if that is not true, folks, I wasted 36 1/2 years of my life (deputation plus evangelism) giving the Gospel to the Japanese. And the Great Commission is then a wasteful effort, with the inerrant Bible mistakenly telling us to get the Gospel into all the world. Not to mention, when I teach missions, lay hands on missionaries and send them away, that is also a waste if someone can get to Heaven without knowing Christ.

I agree that those that hear the gospel message are responsible to make a real choice. But I also believe that as you said "the Bible is clear about that. "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38)."

Those that respond to the various means that God uses to draw them to Himself and place their trust in the living God of scripture will be saved. I am thankful that God does not need to hear words but looks at the heart.

So, no you did not waste your time for 36 1/2 yrs. I just do not limit the sovereign God of creation to what man thinks He has to do.

 

[Charlie24]

I've been laying off for a while, but this thread begs for good theology.

First of all, no one has mentioned the protoevangelion, Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." With this prophecy we see that all from Adam and Eve on could know that God was going to send the Seed of the woman to give salvation. So salvation before the cross was trust in the coming Messiah. And God's salvation has always been by faith; the Bible is clear about that. "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38).

Was there a "gospel" before the cross? Well, of course "gospel" simply means "good news," and there was plenty of good news before the cross. Prov. 25:25 says, "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country." It was certainly good news for a saint before the cross to learn that repentance (as per John the Baptist) and faith provided salvation through the coming Messiah. If someone wants to insist that there was not the NT Gospel of Christ before the cross, fine, you don't have to call it the Gospel of Christ per se, but there was certainly the good news of the coming Messiah.

As for the idea that there can be any kind of salvation in the NT era without Christ, the Bible is very clear in many passages about that. Without faith, "the just" cannot live righteous lives. Furthermore, I've researched all the main religions as a missionary, and preached to Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, and Hindus, and others, and I'm here to tell you that all of those religions lead directly away from the true God and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot get saved through them or any religion. Only Christ can save.

And if that is not true, folks, I wasted 36 1/2 years of my life (deputation plus evangelism) giving the Gospel to the Japanese. And the Great Commission is then a wasteful effort, with the inerrant Bible mistakenly telling us to get the Gospel into all the world. Not to mention, when I teach missions, lay hands on missionaries and send them away, that is also a waste if someone can get to Heaven without knowing Christ.

The way I see it and understand it is that the Gospel actually goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. But no where close to the understanding we have today with the completed canon of Scripture.

When Adam a Eve sinned, God provided for them coats of animal skins. This is a picture of the atoning work of Christ in the future.

Those animals gave their life for Adam and Eve to be covered, as Christ gave his, the perfect Lamb of God.

That covering for Adam and Eve did not mean salvation, it meant that salvation was possible by faith.

There is no evidence in Scripture that Adam and Eve ever repented of their sins, and if they didn't the covering provided for them by God gained them nothing. Just as today, the atonement of Christ is of no benefit unless one repents and believes.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

There was no Gospel before the Law, that's why Paul said, "sin is not imputed where there is no Law."

Respectfully Charlie, I believe your response is faulty in its interpretation of that verse. Adam in the very beginning was told not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - he transgressed therefore he sinned and was in need of good news of which @John of Japan referred to, right at the fall of man God was giving the gospel. Romans 5:12 precedes v.13 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—" So if death came to all people because of Adam's sin, and they themselves sinned having a sin nature, obviously God dealt with men according to their sins, thus the gospel had to have existed (logically speaking - and of course scripturally speaking it did) even if a specific Law didn't exist.

 

[Charlie24]

Respectfully Charlie, I believe your response is faulty in its interpretation of that verse. Adam in the very beginning was told not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - he transgressed therefore he sinned and was in need of good news of which @John of Japan referred to, right at the fall of man God was giving the gospel. Romans 5:12 precedes v.13 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—" So if death came to all people because of Adam's sin, and they themselves sinned having a sin nature, obviously God dealt with men according to their sins, thus the gospel had to have existed (logically speaking - and of course scripturally speaking it did) even if a specific Law didn't exist.

If you read post #26 you will see what I meant. There is much to be explained in order to understand that the Gospel has always existed but there were many in the world who had no access to it.

There was no Gospel for them to understand unless God sent someone to them.

If you can understand what I mean.

 

[Charlie24]

If you read post #26 you will see what I meant. There is much to be explained in order to understand that the Gospel has always existed but there were many in the world who had no access to it.

There was no Gospel for them to understand unless God sent someone to them.

If you can understand what I mean.

Those that lived thousands of years ago before the Law of Moses had no Law and sin was not imputed where there is no Law, as Paul said.

But that did not set them free from the fact they were sinners and lost in this world.

Their sins were not imputed in the sense that judgement will not be near as severe for them as it is for those who have the knowledge of God as we do, or even those who had the Law.

Paul said they still have no excuse by the presence of God's creation and a conscience that gave them some sense of right and wrong.

 

[canadyjd]

Let's take the Syrian general, Naaman for example. I think it was a form of leprosy he had, if I remember correctly.

In his household was a young Jewish servant that told him she knew of a prophet in Israel that could heal him. Finally Naaman went to Israel to find this prophet.

Cutting the story short, Naaman was healed and said, now I know that there is one God in Israel. He was saved by faith in Jehovah God, his sins were covered by the coming Messiah.

He was saved the same way as Abraham, justified by faith in believing God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.

He was saved by the knowledge available at the time he lived, along with so many more.

First, the passage in 2 Kings concerning Naaman says absolutely nothing of him being “saved” as Abraham was. It never says his “faith” was counted as righteousness. It doesn’t say he was “saved” at all.

The passage says Naaman was ordered to go to Israel by his king. Once in Israel, he became angry at the prophet Elisha for not coming out to greet him, sending a messenger instead. He was angry about the message to bath 7 times in the Jordan, claiming it was filthy and the rivers in Syria were much cleaner.

The passage says Naaman’s servants convinced him to do as the prophet had said, pointing out it was but a small thing to bath in the river.

Naaman did not go into the river by faith. His “profession” came only after God had healed him without him showing any faith. If anything, that is a foreshadowing of the work of God Holy Spirit in regenerating prior to faith.

Was he saved? I Don’t know but look at how he responded. He did say there was no other God but the God of Israel. He then attempted to pay the prophet, who refused. He then collected dirt to build an altar back in Syria to make Sacrifices to the God of Israel.

Do you believe sacrifices on an altar in Syria were pleasing to God. No, of course not. God was very careful to describe in detail how sacrifices were to be done. It is possible the Jewish captives instructed him more closely concerning God and His promised Messiah, but that is assuming something not in the passage.

We know very little of Naaman, but to claim he “responded to the light he was shown” for salvation apart from faith in the promised Messiah is not supported by the text.

Peace to you

 

[Charlie24]

First, the passage in 2 Kings concerning Naaman says absolutely nothing of him being “saved” as Abraham was. It never says his “faith” was counted as righteousness. It doesn’t say he was “saved” at all.

The passage says Naaman was ordered to go to Israel by his king. Once in Israel, he became angry at the prophet Elisha for not coming out to greet him, sending a messenger instead. He was angry about the message to bath 7 times in the Jordan, claiming it was filthy and the rivers in Syria were much cleaner.

The passage says Naaman’s servants convinced him to do as the prophet had said, pointing out it was but a small thing to bath in the river.

Naaman did not go into the river by faith. His “profession” came only after God had healed him without him showing any faith. If anything, that is a foreshadowing of the work of God Holy Spirit in regenerating prior to faith.

Was he saved? I Don’t know but look at how he responded. He did say there was no other God but the God of Israel. He then attempted to pay the prophet, who refused. He then collected dirt to build an altar back in Syria to make Sacrifices to the God of Israel.

Do you believe sacrifices on an altar in Syria were pleasing to God. No, of course not. God was very careful to describe in detail how sacrifices were to be done. It is possible the Jewish captives instructed him more closely concerning God and His promised Messiah, but that is assuming something not in the passage.

We know very little of Naaman, but to claim he “responded to the light he was shown” for salvation apart from faith in the promised Messiah is not supported by the text.

Peace to you

I guess you would say the same of Rahab after she acknowledged God.