THose Who Haven't Heard

Hmm... I have seen the Calvinists and like minded give scriptural evidence but have seen none given by the Inner light/Open Theist type theology.

The fact is billions die without ever hearing the name of Christ and they go to their own condemnation. They like us don't deserve salvation. We all deserve HELL! but God in His Grace (Which means undeserved favor) chooses to save some us rebellious worms.

Michael you said,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Incidentally, the Quakers got their belief in the "Inner Ligth of Christ" from the General Baptists who were influenced by the Mennonites. Of course, Particular or Calvinist Baptists were influenced by Reformed Protestantism which is the antithesis of Anabaptist doctrine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I question that. The General Baptist statement of 1654 was designed to refute Quaker heresy which was threatening to undermine Baptist theology forthe intro to the confession reads, We therefore do desire that whosoever read it [the Confession] may weigh the Scriptures produced; and if it be according to the Scriptures, there is light in it; for its the Scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles that we square our faith and practice by, accounting that light within (not witnessed by the Scriptures without) which some much talk of to be deep darkness...Let the Scripture therefore be the rule of thy faith and practice... as well as the 1678 General Baptist confession the Orthodox Creed which rejected Quaker teaching. Of course the General Baptists as a whole eventually went into Unitarianism.

Quaker inner light theology was not part of Menno Simmons doctrine or any of the other Biblical Anabaptists such as Sattler, Hubmaier, Grebel, Blaurock, Manz but only the unorthodox Anabaptists such as Hans Hut, Thomas Munzer, and Hans Denck who the Mennonites and Swiss Brethern looked at as unorthodox. I suggest you read William Estep's The Anabaptist Story.

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
Pastor Larry, Chris, Dr. Bob or anyone else who it may concern.
1) By who and by who's blood were the OT saints saved by? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jesus Christ, of course.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2) Not once in the OT is Jesus ever directly mentioned, so are they all in hell?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've just called them OT saints, so how could they be in hell?

But before you yell "I got you!" consider the importance of progressive revelation in redemptive history. To each man a measure of faith is given - for the OT saint it was faith in the coming Redeemer, The gospel preached to Abraham, the coming Christ, and for the NT saint it is faith in the revealed Jesus as Christ. After Christ has been revealed, we do not return to an OT economy of faith. Salvation has always been by grace, through faith.

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

Katie said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does that mean that a person is saved by the name of Jesus, or the work that Jesus did on the cross. They seem different to me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is a name? A name tells who someone is. The names of God tell who He is. The name "Jesus" doesn't save anybody in and of itself. Many people have had that name! It's not about the 5 letters J-E-S-U-S. It's about WHO He is.

Jesus = version of Joshua meaning Jehovah saves
Christ = anointed, Messiah
Emmanuel = God with us
Lord = controller, master
Redeemer = one who delivers, purchases, ransoms
Savior = deliverer

Jesus Christ, also identified in Scripture as "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" is our only way to reconciliation with God through the atoning work of His death and resurrection. There is no other way. We can't separate His name from what He did. What He did was a demonstration of His name, Who He is.

-- Danette

Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? "GOD FORBID!"... Brother Glen

Katie said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I thought one did not know Jesus intimately until after their are saved. How can we know Him intimately before we are saved if we are seperated from God by sin? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what was meant by intimate knowledge may have been intended to make a distinction between intellectual knowledge and experiential knowledge. There is a HUGE difference between these two.

The Word says that even the demons believe but that doesn't save them. They know the truth but they can't have a faith relationship with Christ. There are also a lot of people who think they are saved because they intellectually assented to the fact that they are sinners, that Jesus was God's Son who died on the cross to pay for sin, and they've prayed a prayer to get their free ticket to heaven, but they are not saved because it is all merely an intellectual exercise not mixed with faith. Faith requires the obedience of abandonment of my life for His (faith without works is dead James 2:14-26).

Rom. 6:3-11 describes the reality of what occurs when we truly accept Christ. That's not about intellectual knowledge about Christ, it's about introduction to an entirely new {i]way of life[/i] -- experiencial knowledge of Christ. The intimacy grows with time as we walk in that relationship with Christ.

-- Danette

Oops! 'Scuze the typos, please!

-- Danette

Kiffin,

I did not say the General Baptists affirmed Quakerism, only that the Quakers were influenced in their idea of the "Inner Light of Christ" through the General Baptists. I read that directly on an Arminian Baptist website; I can't remember which one, and I'm kicking myself that I didn't book mark it, but I hope you believe I'm telling you the truth about it.

In actuality, there is a great deal of similarity in the Arminianism of the General Baptists, the Methodists, the Quakers, the Salvation Army. All have similar ideas of God's grace and Light.

Danette:

Very good posts!

I find it somewhat amusing and amazing that Calvinists who are regularly extolling the sovereign grace of God would deny that God could and would save someone who had never heard of Christ. Even the Primitive Baptists affirm this, but then they are CONSISTENT Calvinists--I respect that about them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
I find it somewhat amusing and amazing that Calvinists who are regularly extolling the sovereign grace of God would deny that God could and would save someone who had never heard of Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am one of those "regularly extolling" Baptists as you know, Michael. God can and does save anyone, anywhere, anytime HE so choses. He is God and salvation is His balliwick, not mine.

Every elect individual is blood-bought by the Son and regenerated by the Spirit. No distinction of age, creed, gender, etc. They will all be saved. And all the non-elect will continue of their own bondaged-will toward the Lake of Fire.

Question is "how" does he work this out? The calvinist says that salvation is of the Lord - that throught the regenerating work of the HS, HE gives me the gifts of faith and repentance. Then I, enabled by regeneration and gifted with faith/repentance, call on the name of the Lord (without which I cannot be saved).

Are you contending that the regeneration of non-believers who have never heard of the name of the Lord is somehow different? Obviously they cannot "call" on someone they have not "heard" about (Rom 10:10-17).

Forgive my continual questions, but this is such a foreign unscriptural position that I have NEVER come across a Baptist who holds it in 30+ years of ministry.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:

Forgive my continual questions, but this is such a foreign unscriptural position that I have NEVER come across a Baptist who holds it in 30+ years of ministry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, Dr, Bob, it comes down to one's locus of truth: sola scriptura, or one's own vain imaginations. Time and time again opinion and personal desires of what is "right" is matched against God's modus operandi as revealed in His holy word - and Scripture must always prevail.

"...Yea, hath God said?..." Gen 3:1

Fortunately, true Baptists don't have an official interpreter of scripture, whether that be an infallible church or man--except for the SBC with its new creed, the BF&M 2000, the "instrument of doctrinal accountability." But then the SBC is no longer truly Baptist.

Anyway, thank God that Chris Temple and others like him cannot mediate between me and God; so, I'll continue to acknowledge Christ as my sole mediator and interpret scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Chris and his comrades, on the other hand, don't need the Holy Spirit to help them interpret scripture anymore because the "new" SBC does that for them. Thus, I'll rely on the Holy Spirit, and Chris can rely on his and the SBC's vain imaginings, distortions, opinions, and personal desires of what is right--a large group can be guilty of these things just as an individual can; just look at the Roman Catholic Church if you doubt it. Of course, the SBC and the RCC are beginning to look a lot alike.

Whew! It took a lot of reading to get here.
I've got some questions if anyone cares to answer them. If not, that's okay-- I'm used to Christians shaking the dust off their feet and leaving. From my perspective, though, it usually looks like their running away before they have to answer any reasonable arguments. I'm not talking about theodicy-- God doesn't need us to justify Him. I'm talking about supporting your own arguments. Alwys running away after scracthing the surface of an argument is just plain pitiful. I want to point out- Christ did not run from reasoned arguments, he silenced His critics with them(i.e., Sadducees on question of resurrection).

A person can subscribe his or her whole life to the Westminster Confession and never know love. Here are my questions:

Do we have the knowledge of good and evil, whether elect or non-elect since the Garden of Eden? God seemed to be saying so-- Genesis 3:22. If that's the case, why does so many people, those claiming to be Christians as well as others, admit that sending infants to hell is not justice? If God preordained everything, wasn't He just tempting Adam with sin when he exposed him to the forbidden fruit? Or David with the census? I Kings 22:23-- How's this fit in when we don't have free choices? Does it suggests God lies to man to exercise His sovereign choices? My questions are serious and I have a lot more. The infalapsarian is as guilty as the Arminian for putting the choices in man's hands. They just put it in Adam's hands. The supralapsarian has God as the author of sin. If we can't believe because of any free response of ourselves to God's call, that makes it pretty strange that those of use who have heard God's Word and tried in vain to believe should be punished worst of all.

As far as babies and those unable to comprehend the message of the Lord, I certainly don't believe the Bible teaches that any are cast into the Lake of Fire. Daniel 12:2 seems to suggest that some people do not rise for eternal life or eternal condemnation. I hope conditional immortality is the case, and I'm sure some hope that the non-elect suffer eternal misery.

One website that I believe is helpful for those trapped by the Who chose who argument is www.theshovel.net/argument/

To those who aren't going to persevere as saints: there is www.infidels.org

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Slain Arminian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Alwys running away after scracthing the surface of an argument is just plain pitiful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting how you bring this up and then do just what you condemn. You have not addressed any arguments at all. There have been some very clear arguments made here and you have addressed none of them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do we have the knowledge of good and evil, whether elect or non-elect since the Garden of Eden? God seemed to be saying so-- Genesis 3:22. If that's the case, why does so many people, those claiming to be Christians as well as others, admit that sending infants to hell is not justice?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes we do. That is why Rom 2:14-15 is true. The image of God in man informs every man of the existence of God and of basic right and wrong (conscience). Interesting though that you throw in sending infants to hell – IMO it would be just because they are born into sin. However, it does not appear to be the way God works. God does preordain everything but he didn’t tempt Adam to sin – that was the serpent (read the text). Same with David. You are trying to fit an infinite God into the box of your understanding. I would recommend reading this article for an answer to the question you have. Article on God and EvilYou must realize that God is infinitely perfect and it is wrong, not to mention useless, for our small minds to sit in judgment on him.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If we can't believe because of any free response of ourselves to God's call, that makes it pretty strange that those of use who have heard God's Word and tried in vain to believe should be punished worst of all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a typical misconception. First, no one who is regenerate tries in vain to believe. Those who do not believe, do not believe because they do not want to believe. Some may make a false profession to be true. But those are not truly regenerate and they are trusting in the wrong thing. Man’s free will is depraved (that is why we call it total depravity – it affects everything). He can act only in accordance with his depraved nature and therefore all his choices, apart from unilateral divine intervention, are sinful choices to reject God. God is not keeping anyone out of heaven who wants to be saved. Nobody who believes the Bible believes that. God changes the will of man so that he will certainly choose to be saved.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Daniel 12:2 seems to suggest that some peopel do not rise for eternal life or eternal condemnation. I hope conditional immortality is the case, and I'm sure some hope that the non-elect suffer eternal misery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dan 12:2 says nothing of the kind. Scripture tells us that all will be raised – some to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt – which is what Dan 12:2 says. Rev 20:11-15 makes clear that ALL are raised and ALL are judged. The ones whose names are not in the book of life are cast into the Lake of Fire. Your ‘hopes’ should be brought into line with revelation rather than interpreting revelation in light of what you hope. It is a much more sound way to conduct theology.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Fortunately, true Baptists...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess you are saying that YOU are a true Baptist? Can you cite the historical evidence that establishes your beliefs as the standard and fundamentalists beliefs as the departure?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...don't have an official interpreter of scripture...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So are you implying that your beliefs are original with you? That you have not been influenced by anyone else's thoughts or ideas? You just prayerfully studied the Bible and came up with the things you posts here?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But then the SBC is no longer truly Baptist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The SBC is probably more Baptist than it used to be. However, a hierarchy of any kind above the local level has never been biblical nor truly Baptist. My impression is that you are just upset about being on the losing side. If the liberals had won, I doubt you would have lamented your beliefs being codified.

The break up of the SBC was inevitable. It is not possible much less biblical to be independent in doctrine/faith matters and unified in actions, resource allocation, seminary training, missions, etc. No one believes what they believe because they think they might be wrong...including you. This is made obvious by your condescending tone when you tell those of us who believe that the Bible's normal meaning should be accepted, how ignorant and brain washed we are.

As much as possible, I try to accept what the Bible says (in context) and change my views in accordance to it. I cannot agree with those who filter the Bible through their own opinions/feelings before accepting or rejecting it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll continue to acknowledge Christ as my sole mediator and interpret scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you are saying that the Holy Spirit tells you which scripture means what it says and which scripture means what you think it ought to say?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Chris and his comrades, on the other hand, don't need the Holy Spirit to help them interpret scripture anymore because the "new" SBC does that for them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Solely judging from Chris' posts and attitude on this board, I believe this to be a terrible mischaracterization of his attitude, methods, and spirit. You attack him for agreeing with the recent SBC positions. Why? Because the are unbiblical? Unhistorical? Baseless?....No. Apparently, the basis of your attacks are that he has not received the same Holy Spirit revelations about which scripture is literal and which is not that you have.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Chris can rely on his and the SBC's vain imaginings, distortions, opinions, and personal desires of what is right<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Currently, in contrast to your opinions, I would say that he is demonstrating considerable spiritual insight and sound judgment <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...the SBC and the RCC are beginning to look a lot alike.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly what agreement do you see between the recently adopted doctrinal stands of the SBC and the RCC? If anything, what you believe is more like the RCC. They also believe that men have the power to interpret scripture according to what the feel it should say rather than what it says.

You accuse others of being Pharisees for not adhering to the spirit of the law. Christ also had a problem with those who added their opinions to the law. We need both the Spirit and the Truth. It seems that you have fabricated a conflict between the two.

Scott J,

I have already listed the historical Baptist distinctives, but I'll do it again: Priesthood of the believer; church-stateseparation; soul competency; absolute autonomy of the local church; confessions of faith instead of creeds. That's enough for now, and it's certainly enough to prove that the SBC is no longer Baptist because the SBC hold to none of these anymore.

On the losing side? I don't have a side, and I'm not a liberal. BTW, I'm just as strongly opposed to left-wing fundamentalism as I am to the right-wing variety. And I'm also against creeds of whatever variety.

Produce where I called anyone ignorant and brainwashed, or apologize for your misstatement. Notice I'm being nice--for now.

In your zeal to defend Chris Temple as an example of saintliness, I suggest that you have not read many of his posts to me. Perhaps you missed the one where he accused me of holding to damnable heresy because I disagreed with his interpretation of scripture.

I have not fabricated a conflict between the Spirit and the Truth; I know there is none. However, I've got a newsflash for you homeboy: Chris Temple ain't the Holy Spirit, and neither are you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do we have the knowledge of good and evil, whether elect or non-elect since the Garden of Eden? God seemed to be saying so-- Genesis 3:22. If that's the case, why does so many people, those claiming to be Christians as well as others, admit that sending infants to hell is not justice? If God preordained everything, wasn't He just tempting Adam with sin when he exposed him to the forbidden fruit? Or David with the census? I Kings 22:23-- How's this fit in when we don't have free choices? Does it suggests God lies to man to exercise His sovereign choices? My questions are serious and I have a lot more. The infalapsarian is as guilty as the Arminian for putting the choices in man's hands. They just put it in Adam's hands. The supralapsarian has God as the author of sin. If we can't believe because of any free response of ourselves to God's call, that makes it pretty strange that those of use who have heard God's Word and tried in vain to believe should be punished worst of all.

As far as babies and those unable to comprehend the message of the Lord, I certainly don't believe the Bible teaches that any are cast into the Lake of Fire. Daniel 12:2 seems to suggest that some peopel do not rise for eternal life or eternal condemnation. I hope conditional immortality is the case, and I'm sure some hope that the non-elect suffer eternal misery.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slain Arminian,
Amen Brother, the calvanistic views don't hold any biblical weight at all when compared to the scriptures. It is a free gift, but you (you) have to accept it. "Whosoever will," I believe the Bible says.


God speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
As much as possible, I try to accept what the Bible says (in context) and change my
views in accordance to it. I cannot agree with those who filter the Bible through their
own opinions/feelings before accepting or rejecting it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Scott. And this is the great gulf between liberals/moderates and biblical believers; one, admitting fallibility, submits to the full authority of Scripture; the other, adhering to humanistic superiority, imposes unsubmissive, humanistic presuppositions onto the Scripture in order to validate their preferences.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
I have already listed the historical Baptist distinctives, but I'll do it again: Priesthood of the believer; church-stateseparation; soul competency; absolute autonomy of the local church; confessions of faith instead of creeds. That's enough for now,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well...not quite enough. I think a couple that you left out are a bit more relevant, namely "Biblical Authority" and the "Two biblical church offices".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and it's certainly enough to prove that the SBC is no longer Baptist because the SBC hold to none of these anymore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If I were SBC, I would probably argue that the statement of faith they adopted was a confession in that they did not demand that churches adopt it. My understanding is that they simply took a vote and said this is the official position of the SBC. As far as I know, the SBC has not tried to oppress dissenting churches. Maybe you have examples?

In that I am not SBC, I don't think it was a biblical organization even before the recent problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't have a side, and I'm not a liberal. BTW, I'm just as strongly opposed to left-wing fundamentalism as I am to the right-wing variety.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You really don't think you have a side? You set yourself up in opposition to conservatives/fundamentalists then deny you have taken a side?

Perhaps this is a matter of definitions. I would consider your views on women pastors, Bible doctrine, interpretation of the Bible, open theism, etc. to be liberal. Also, I don't see any evidence of God's respecting the "gray" area of moderates or lukewarmness that you seem to be claiming for yourself. Nonetheless, you are not lukewarm. You have taken positions strongly and they are not conservative/fundamentalist views.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Produce where I called anyone ignorant and brainwashed, or apologize for your misstatement. Notice I'm being nice--for now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Of course, there are some militant fundamentalists who'd rather have a creed, which leads me to believe they're either ignorant of Baptist history and principles or not truly Baptists." Fundamentalist are not in opposition to individual interpretation of scripture.

"So, to disagree with militant fundamentalism is sin? HA!" By implication, you accused Chris of group think.

"Hank, No, just using correct grammar.
Chris, Nice piece of fundamentalist revisionism." Two birds with one post! Hank's language skills are derided and Chris' knowledge of history.

"Oh, my eyes ARE open; I can see YOU very clearly, and I can also clearly see what fundamentalists are--and it ain't a pretty sight." The clear implication here is that Joey's eyes are not open.

"Come on people, how about a little discernment? The fundies would like us not to use our God-given ability of discernment and reasoning and accept their pronouncements about what these passages mean without any questioning." Fundamentalists are opposed to discernment and reasoning???

"God's character can't be on display where the pastorate is confined to a "good ol' boys club."" Being from the south, we both know that the good ol' boys club denotes ignorance.

"Brian,
I am paying attention, and I admit you are wrong." A somewhat less than polite way of calling someone ignorant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...I suggest that you have not read many of his posts to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have probably read as many of his to you as yours to him. IMO, he has by and large disagreed with you with restraint and an acceptable degree of respect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Perhaps you missed the one where he accused me of holding to damnable heresy because I disagreed with his interpretation of scripture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I did miss it. The question in my mind is did he confront you with a truth you did not like or in an un-Christian manner.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, I've got a newsflash for you homeboy: Chris Temple ain't the Holy Spirit, and neither are you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not claim that status for either of us. And as a matter of fact, I don't think either of us claimed the right to determine which parts of scripture God meant and which parts He meant to say something else.

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


Dan 12:2 says nothing of the kind. Scripture tells us that all will be raised – some to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt – which is what Dan 12:2 says. Rev 20:11-15 makes clear that ALL are raised and ALL are judged. The ones whose names are not in the book of life are cast into the Lake of Fire. Your ‘hopes’ should be brought into line with revelation rather than interpreting revelation in light of what you hope. It is a much more sound way to conduct theology.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


According my NKJV, Daniel 12:2 states "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,/Some to everlasting life,/Some to everlasting contempt and shame." This certainly does not say that everyone is raised. I grant you that many will rise for the first and second resurrection, but at least some will never reawaken.

Rev. 20:11-15 says this is my Bible: "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."

I see nowhere in this passage that says all men will be raised. Of those raised, those who are not in the Book of Life shall be cast into the Fire. The rest of the unsaved mortals shall sleep in the dust. Yes, we're born into sin, but I believe that means a sinful world where we can learn good and evil and choose the evil. We can't have eternal life without Christ's atonement because of Adam's sin, but we are cast into the lake of fire for committing our own sin. Children are too young to comprehend sin.

I believe Christ is the Son of God. Later, God will let me know if my faith has been spurious. I won't be surprised to find that it is, because my doubts grow daily by discussing doctrines such as T.U.L.I.P. with other Christians which by Calvin's own admission is dreadful. But discussing T.U.L.I.P. I must, for its implications impact everything-- especially issues related tosotiology and Biblical inerrancy.

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Slain Arminian ]

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Slain Arminian ]