General Revelation vs. Special Revelation

[skypair]

Amy,

And why did Abel offer a sacrifice? Had God commanded him to? Or did he know in his heart that he was a sinner in need of a savior?

Happy Thanksgiving!

Obedience, IMO. He saw God do it on Adam's behalf. The idea was blood for blood, life for life on account of sin. It was amplified post-flood to where a murderer could be executed, right? That's a pretty far cry from knowing Jesus Christ, wouldn't you say?

I believe they were conscious of sin throughout the OT and that repentance toward God in whatever form He demanded was evidence of faith (re: Heb 11), right? Abel brought the "more excellent sacrifice" by faith -- Cain brought his own sacrifice on account of lack of faith.

What is the sacrifice of faith now? Jesus, right? What was it in the OT? animal blood. Abraham was called to sacrifice Isaac, right? Did Abraham say, "This is Jesus?" Of course not! I doubt he realized at the time what the imagery was -- but he was already saved by faith and his obedience in sacrifice was proof!

skypair

 

[skypair]

Naw, I think I’ll keep that statement just as it is. :smilewinkgrin:

So what happened? What does this history mean? It means that, exactly as Romans 1 teaches, the Chinese once had the truth (centuries before Christ) as a nation but as a nation rejected it, descending into terrible wickedness.

Great history lesson, John! Your point about those 2 cultures being familiar with Adamic God and sacrifices for sin could multiplied all over the earth! But look at how Judaism was distorted by the Pharisees and yet Jesus said the truth was also there, right? Religion is one of God's "authorities to you for good," one of 7 "horns," that God has given for us to FIND God. Do you see that?? Do you call that "general" or "specific" revelation?

Friend, you should have listened to Dr. Rogers more on this matter. I dare say he would never have taught salvation outside of Jesus Christ, strictly from general revelation.

Not sure. I've been a member of his church or listening to his tapes for 30 years. I don't think anything he said precludes that. I do know he was a dispensationalist and he believed all infants were innocent (going to heaven). How, for one, would you suggest the infants got to heaven without Christ?

Well, that’s a new one on me. Every orthodox theologian I’ve ever read would disagree with this one. Personally, I’m born again, sanctified and saved right now. :jesus:

That's good news because we should be able to come to "unity of the faith and of the knowledge of Son of God." (Eph 4:13)

Did you notice you changed the terms I used in your testimony? If you are "saved" and "born again" as you say, you are more specifically "justified" and sanctified already and, though not "celestially" glorified yet, you are indeed "terrestrially" glorified. I'm not sure they would disagree if they understood the distinctions. See, WE are sanctified and glorified terrestrially by the indwelling Spirit -- something the OT saints WEREN'T. They are merely JUSTIFIED awaiting the "resurrection of the just" (to earth) to be sanctified and glorified terrestrially. Wanna discuss?

I interpret Romans to teach that the entire direction of Humankind is depraved, and they are without excuse because of their depravity, because that is what the passage majors on, not salvation. They head away from God and not toward Him, they do not seek God, they do not want Him. (And no, I’m not a Calvinist.) Thus, every person without Christ in the world is without excuse in that they did not seek Him based on the knowledge they had of Him from nature.

The scripture says "when they KNEW God, they glorified Him not." The invisible things of Him are clearly seen,... even His eternal power and Godhead." John. It's NOT that they don't "seek" Him -- it's because they reject Him that they are without excuse. Just like the rest of us, John. Again, it's not a matter of they can't be saved by what they know. It appears in Rom 1 that they WON'T be saved -- which is why you are a missionary. :wavey:

In that book, a pygmy elder told Bill Rice about climbing a tree, looking up at the stars and saying, “God, if you be there, show Yourself to me.” God sent the pygmy messengers years later in the form of American evangelist Rice, a missionary and an interpreter. He then trusted Christ and was saved. But he was not saved until hearing the Gospel message of Christ.

And this is all good concerning the time we live in. What about preChrist? And do you suppose that the pygmy was already "justified" by his desire to obey God?

Okay, give me an example from AD of someone who became a monotheist with a belief in a Savior without knowing about Jesus.[/COLOR] Though unconfirmed, there's the story behind the "altar to the UNKNOWN GOD." (Acts 17) It is reported that a man who worshipped this God, a hermit like JtB, was called after all the pagan ceremnoies had failed to stave off a horrible plague in Athens. After much prayer, he had the Greeks to build altars and sacrifice sheep that laid sown in the morning (sheep usually eat in the morning) and the sacrifice was accepted -- the plague stopped. According to the story, he was a believer

Since you are in the OT, though, we’ll talk about Abel, Seth and Noah. They all responded to God’s special revelation, not general revelation. They had: (1) a clear knowledge of sin from how God dealt with Adam and Eve; (2) a clear knowledge of the necessity of sacrifice from how God dealt with Cain and Abel; (3) a clear knowledge of a coming Savior Who would bruise the serpent’s head from the protoevangelium, the “first Gospel” of Gen. 3:15.

Point 3: You presume that their knowledge was more specific than it was. First off, it was of a "seed." Second, it was of a "conquorer" bruising Satan -- NOT of a sacrifice SLAIN (the word God used was "bruised") for them. I would go so far as to say, therefore, that all the OT saints were saved by "general" revelation as they could not know (Col 1:26-27) the mystery of Christ. I think maybe you make too much of this "general" vs. "specific" dichotomy.

In short, the OT saints before Moses had a full-blown faith with a Savior and a sacrifice, and it was not based on general revelation but on special revelation. So, they DID have a knowledge of Christ, though He had not come yet.

If one truly has a "full blown" faith, it should lead to the same outcome we experience, right? Indwelling Holy Spirit, 'new commandment," etc. To me, they didn't have "full blown" faith if they didn't have these, at least. Am I wrong?

Actually, no, I don’t limit God’s witness to two religions. I don't see God's witness in any religion per se. I limit it to general revelation (which the Bible never says can lead to salvation) and special revelation (necessary for salvation).

I think what you are saying is that no one can have the indwelling Holy Spirit ("saved" as you and I understand it) without "special revelation." That is true!

Human religion is so corrupt that it can never give a right witness to God.

And parents are so depraved that God could never relate His truth through them? Our conscience is so depraved that God can't speak to us through that either (vs. what Rom 1:19 says -- "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;...")??

Do you have any idea what filthiness.

Well, consider Phil 1:15-18. What are your thoughts about that?

HAPPY THANKSGIVING! And how can I help support you over there? What mission group?

skypair

 

[John of Japan]

Hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Today is a busy one so I can't take time for long answers, but maybe brief ones will serve.

Great history lesson, John! Your point about those 2 cultures being familiar with Adamic God and sacrifices for sin could multiplied all over the earth! But look at how Judaism was distorted by the Pharisees and yet Jesus said the truth was also there, right? Religion is one of God's "authorities to you for good," one of 7 "horns," that God has given for us to FIND God. Do you see that?? Do you call that "general" or "specific" revelation?

I don't think this is parallel. I think you will agree that Judaism is a special case, since unto them were committed the "oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2), the special revelation of the OT. No other religion has had such a privilege, unless you call the 1st century Christians who received the NT a religion. (I prefer to call them a "faith," but that's a minor point.)

Not sure. I've been a member of his church or listening to his tapes for 30 years. I don't think anything he said precludes that. I do know he was a dispensationalist and he believed all infants were innocent (going to heaven). How, for one, would you suggest the infants got to heaven without Christ?

I'm sure you've been much blessed through his ministry.

As I said before, I agree with this position, but believe that there is too little Biblical data about infants after death for us to use that to prove adults in, say, Africa, can be saved without knowing about Christ.

That's good news because we should be able to come to "unity of the faith and of the knowledge of Son of God." (Eph 4:13)

Did you notice you changed the terms I used in your testimony? If you are "saved" and "born again" as you say, you are more specifically "justified" and sanctified already and, though not "celestially" glorified yet, you are indeed "terrestrially" glorified. I'm not sure they would disagree if they understood the distinctions. See, WE are sanctified and glorified terrestrially by the indwelling Spirit -- something the OT saints WEREN'T. They are merely JUSTIFIED awaiting the "resurrection of the just" (to earth) to be sanctified and glorified terrestrially. Wanna discuss?

Going back to what you wrote there, I misinterpreted you. Sorry!

But again, as a dispensationalist I fail to see how God dealing with OT saints justifies thinking folks can be saved without knowing Christ in the NT dispensation.

My personal position about the OT saints is that I believe they were included in the body of Christ immediately at His death and resurrection.

The scripture says "when they KNEW God, they glorified Him not." The invisible things of Him are clearly seen,... even His eternal power and Godhead." John. It's NOT that they don't "seek" Him -- it's because they reject Him that they are without excuse. Just like the rest of us, John. Again, it's not a matter of they can't be saved by what they know. It appears in Rom 1 that they WON'T be saved -- which is why you are a missionary. :wavey:

Right! But I absolutely do not believe that the Bible teaches that anyone can be saved simply through general revelation, through seeing God in nature (or religion or conscience, etc.). General revelation can only start them seeking Christ, not save them.

And this is all good concerning the time we live in. What about preChrist? And do you suppose that the pygmy was already "justified" by his desire to obey God?

No, the pygmy was not justified until he believed in Christ. Rom. 3:24--"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

Though unconfirmed, there's the story behind the "altar to the UNKNOWN GOD." (Acts 17) It is reported that a man who worshipped this God, a hermit like JtB, was called after all the pagan ceremnoies had failed to stave off a horrible plague in Athens. After much prayer, he had the Greeks to build altars and sacrifice sheep that laid sown in the morning (sheep usually eat in the morning) and the sacrifice was accepted -- the plague stopped. According to the story, he was a believer

Nice effort, but the story is kind of hazy in history. Was he truly a believer in a Savior, or simply in the supreme "good" in Heaven that Plato taught?

Point 3: You presume that their knowledge was more specific than it was. First off, it was of a "seed." Second, it was of a "conquorer" bruising Satan -- NOT of a sacrifice SLAIN (the word God used was "bruised") for them. I would go so far as to say, therefore, that all the OT saints were saved by "general" revelation as they could not know (Col 1:26-27) the mystery of Christ. I think maybe you make too much of this "general" vs. "specific" dichotomy.

A "seed" had to be a Person. By the Conqueror bruising Satan, surely that meant to the patriarchs that the curse of sin would be destroyed. Granted, they may not have known that the "Seed" would die for sin, but they had to have faith that He would make all things right.

Once again, though, can we get to the NT dispensation? Even if I admit the dichotomy is hazy in the OT dispensations, we are not living then. We are living in 2006.

If one truly has a "full blown" faith, it should lead to the same outcome we experience, right? Indwelling Holy Spirit, 'new commandment," etc. To me, they didn't have "full blown" faith if they didn't have these, at least. Am I wrong?

By "full blown" faith, I did not mean a faith identical to NT faith.

I think what you are saying is that no one can have the indwelling Holy Spirit ("saved" as you and I understand it) without "special revelation." That is true!

Not sure what you mean here. Is someone in 2006 Africa saved and fit for Heaven through looking up at the stars and postulating an eternal God? I don't see that in Scripture. That's the only way I would use "saved" in this discussion--saved from sin and Hell by grace and fit for Heaven.

And parents are so depraved that God could never relate His truth through them? Our conscience is so depraved that God can't speak to us through that either (vs. what Rom 1:19 says -- "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;...")??

I don't see this as a parallel. I agree that parents and conscience are part of general revelation. I see that someone determining in their hearts that there must be a true God is general revelation. However, the religions I've studied and see here in Japan are not that way. They are full of idolatry and filthiness, not efforts to determine truth.

As for parents and conscience, they may help or hinder the seeker. Conscience becomes depraved without Christ. I know folks whose conscience bothers them unless they commit the heinous sin of idol worship at the family "god shelf" altar every morning--and then make sure their children do too!

Well, consider Phil 1:15-18. What are your thoughts about that?

This is one of my favorite passages! I always rejoice when Christ is preached. I'm not sure how it is germane to our discussion, though. When Christ is preached, folks can be eternally saved from sin and Hell. When nature preaches, folks can say, "Hmm, maybe there is a God."

HAPPY THANKSGIVING! And how can I help support you over there? What mission group?

skypair

And a Happy Thanksgiving to you, too! :wavey:

Thanks for your kind inquiry about support. If God so leads, any support can be sent to Baptist World Mission for the ministry of John R. Himes. See our website at: www.baptistworldmission.org.

 

[skypair]

I think you will agree that Judaism is a special case, since unto them were committed the "oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2), the special revelation of the OT.

And before that, the revelation was to Adam and Noah. Granted, at Babel there seemed to be none but didn't God say somewhere that He never is without a witness? (Acts 14:17) Didn't Rom 3 say that the Gentiles keep the law without a witness? I suppose the question would be is that a mark of faith, right?

No other religion has had such a privilege, unless you call the 1st century Christians who received the NT a religion.

Right. But really, it any besides the NT revelation truly "special" revelation? Or do we know by the mysteries that ours it THE special revelation?

As I said before, I agree with this position, but believe that there is too little Biblical data about infants after death for us to use that to prove adults in, say, Africa, can be saved without knowing about Christ.

Well, I prefer the word "justified" ("phase 1" in salvation) in both cases. See what you think Isa is talking about in Isa 49:20-23. This, to me, is evidence of the resurrection of children into the MK.

But again, as a dispensationalist I fail to see how God dealing with OT saints justifies thinking folks can be saved without knowing Christ in the NT dispensation.

My main assertion is that 1) there are still people "unreached" from the earliest of AD times (Native Americans, say). 2) If children pass into heaven without Christ, there must be at least one other way, and 3) "God is not willing that any should perish" -- He WILL provide a means, even if it is via the resurrection of the just rather than the resurrection of Christ.

My personal position about the OT saints is that I believe they were included in the body of Christ immediately at His death and resurrection.

Not the "body." The "body" is physical with the Holy Spirit indwelling, right? Into the spirit they entered for sure because they were taked to heaven.

Right! But I absolutely do not believe that the Bible teaches that anyone can be saved simply through general revelation, through seeing God in nature (or religion or conscience, etc.). General revelation can only start them seeking Christ, not save them.

Which all of an appropriate age DO because God says they "know" -- He is "clearly seen." That's the general revelation.

No, the pygmy was not justified until he believed in Christ. Rom. 3:24--"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

He was not "NT converted" for sure. But even as Paul speaks of justification by faith in Christ, it is assumed under the new covenant that one is also sanctified by the Holy Spirit as we are. Therefore, you are correct to say the pygmy is not "saved" until be believed but that is not a proof that he wasn't "justified" by his faith in God. Remember, he was looking for the God who had revealed Himself.

Nice effort, but the story is kind of hazy in history. Was he truly a believer in a Savior, or simply in the supreme "good" in Heaven that Plato taught?

The book was titled (I'll see if I still have it) "He Hath Put Eternity in their Heart." And I would say for SURE he didn't know the Savior. That would have ruined the thesis. But again, we'er not talking about Christian salvation but about justification which is all that was available before Christ.

A "seed" had to be a Person. By the Conqueror bruising Satan, surely that meant to the patriarchs that the curse of sin would be destroyed. Granted, they may not have known that the "Seed" would die for sin, but they had to have faith that He would make all things right.

Amen!! Take away iniquity I think they said. Dan 9:27 for instance.

Once again, though, can we get to the NT dispensation? Even if I admit the dichotomy is hazy in the OT dispensations, we are not living then. We are living in 2006.

We can. As dispensationalists, we admit that there are 2 gospels, not one. Perhaps what we have been looking at are those 2 gospels -- one general (OT, trib) and one special (NT). Maybe the former continues in operation much as the law does having its particular impact today as well.

Not sure what you mean here. Is someone in 2006 Africa saved and fit for Heaven through looking up at the stars and postulating an eternal God? I don't see that in Scripture.

Rom 1 -- your pygmy story a case in point if no "messenger" comes to him. I've heard similar stories of African tribes saying they worshipped for years the same God that a lately coming missionary has revealed to them.

I'm not saying I'd want to be saved that way since it entails living again in a sinful earth in the MK for 1000 years and coming under the law of Mt 5-7 (sounds hard but maybe it won't be).

I don't see this as a parallel. I agree that parents and conscience are part of general revelation. However, the religions I've studied and see here in Japan are not that way. They are full of idolatry and filthiness, not efforts to determine truth.

And yet they teach that there is a God or gods, right? They teach our own imperfection, right? Isn't that like the preaching in Phil 1? They preach all manner of things about God yet they preach God.

Thanks for your kind inquiry about support.

I'll go save it right now and pray about it. I'm in a situation where (SBC) I'd rather know who I am supporting and how to pray than just pass my money on to an organization. In fact, our church has done away with the one missions offering I really liked -- Looti Moon. I liked it because the money went direct to overseas missions. Now you know what we got? That special giving is to our churches own, for the most part, local missions which in a megachurch, I believe you will understand could be coming out of regular offerings. It's frustrating, John.

skypair

 

[John of Japan]

And before that, the revelation was to Adam and Noah. Granted, at Babel there seemed to be none but didn't God say somewhere that He never is without a witness? (Acts 14:17) Didn't Rom 3 say that the Gentiles keep the law without a witness? I suppose the question would be is that a mark of faith, right?

You are talking about Rom. 2, conscience as general revelation. But don't forget that the clear NT teaching is that law is a schoolmaster, but does not save. So if someone through their conscience seeks morality, we may hope that they are lead to seek the true God. And if they are then God will send a witness of Christ.

This has to be quite rare, though. Romans 3 is very clear about this: "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; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." The rare exception is through the drawing of the Holy Spirit, of course.

Right. But really, it any besides the NT revelation truly "special" revelation? Or do we know by the mysteries that ours it THE special revelation?

Nothing in the world comes anywhere near the NT revelation. I've read Confucious, Buddha, a little bit of the Hindu Upanishads (enough to decide not to), some of the Koran, etc. There is absolutely nothing in any of those writings to lead you to the true God. In fact, Buddha was an atheist (and an arrogant man who called himself "greater than the gods"), Confucious taught no relationship with God (though as I have said he believed in Shang Ti), the Hindu writings are full of uncleanness, the Koran teaches many nasty things (in particular against women)--I could go on and on.

Well, I prefer the word "justified" ("phase 1" in salvation) in both cases. See what you think Isa is talking about in Isa 49:20-23. This, to me, is evidence of the resurrection of children into the MK.

I think the passage in Isa. is OT and for the Jews. I'm not sure there that it is talking about the MK.

My main assertion is that 1) there are still people "unreached" from the earliest of AD times (Native Americans, say). 2) If children pass into heaven without Christ, there must be at least one other way, and 3) "God is not willing that any should perish" -- He WILL provide a means, even if it is via the resurrection of the just rather than the resurrection of Christ.

You have no Biblical basis for saying "there must be at least one other way. Yes, God is not willing that any should perish, but He has decreed that Christ is the only way, and that "There is none other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). To postulate some other way of salvation not mentioned in Scripture is to go in the face of the plain teaching of Christ in so many passages: "I am the door" (definite article, the sole door), "I am the way, the truth and the life" (all definite articles, not "a way, a truth, and a life")--I don't have time to even give all the passages, but I hope you will interact with these I have mentioned.

He was not "NT converted" for sure. But even as Paul speaks of justification by faith in Christ, it is assumed under the new covenant that one is also sanctified by the Holy Spirit as we are. Therefore, you are correct to say the pygmy is not "saved" until be believed but that is not a proof that he wasn't "justified" by his faith in God. Remember, he was looking for the God who had revealed Himself.

The book was titled (I'll see if I still have it) "He Hath Put Eternity in their Heart." And I would say for SURE he didn't know the Savior. That would have ruined the thesis. But again, we'er not talking about Christian salvation but about justification which is all that was available before Christ.

In order to prove your point, you must have Scripture showing that general revelation can save.

We can. As dispensationalists, we admit that there are 2 gospels, not one. Perhaps what we have been looking at are those 2 gospels -- one general (OT, trib) and one special (NT). Maybe the former continues in operation much as the law does having its particular impact today as well.

I am afraid this is speculative. Do you have Scripture to carry the OT salvation into the age of grace?

And yet they teach that there is a God or gods, right? They teach our own imperfection, right? Isn't that like the preaching in Phil 1? They preach all manner of things about God yet they preach God.

But you see, the god/gods they worship is nothing at all like the true God of the Bible! He is petty, selfish, human-like, much like the gods of the ancient Greeks and Romans. The gods of Hinduism are particularly wicked.

The legend of the original gods of Shinto, and how Amaterasu the sun goddess created Japan, is corrupt enough that I dare not relate it in public. Suffice it to say that there was human-like lust involved, and the gods were squabbling. This legend goes back probably 2000 years or more, with the first written account being in the 7th century, I believe. (The Japanese had no written language before then). Where in all of the mess of the Shinto gods could a person come anywhere near the true God?

I'll tell you where Shinto leads, with its concept that there is a spirit-god in everything. I had a woman once tell me she never told a lie because the cockroaches could hear her and knew if she was lying. Even though she found a semi-morality (she was lying when she said she never lied), she was nowhere near discovering the eternal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of absolute holiness and love.

I'll go save it right now and pray about it. I'm in a situation where (SBC) I'd rather know who I am supporting and how to pray than just pass my money on to an organization. In fact, our church has done away with the one missions offering I really liked -- Looti Moon. I liked it because the money went direct to overseas missions. Now you know what we got? That special giving is to our churches own, for the most part, local missions which in a megachurch, I believe you will understand could be coming out of regular offerings. It's frustrating, John.

skypair

Wow, that's shocking that an SBC church doesn't support the Lottie Moon offering! I hope they do find some avenues to support overseas missions. A megachurch like that must absolutely find ways to reach the world, not just their own neighborhood.

 

[John of Japan]

Early Missionaries?

You know, I'm not convinced that the Amerindians, various Asian countries, etc., never had the Gospel until modern times. There is actually not a little evidence in various countries to prove that missionaries made it all around the world in the early centuries, though the church history books often ignore the possibility.

The original 11 apostles + Matthias all were foreign missionaries, with the exception of James, who was slain in Jerusalem. Thomas went to India, where the Coptic Christians still claim him. Peter ended up on southern Russia--I could list a lot more here.

Quite a few Nestorian missionaries made it to China many centuries ago, long before the 19th century Protestant missionaries finally made it. The presence of the Nestorians is proven by various artifacts in China, where they were called the Luminous Religion. For an example of a Nestorian missionary in China, see my story about Rimitsu on the BB: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33499

Did missionaries ever make it to the Amerindians before Protestants finally began reaching them for Christ in the form of David Brainerd and others? They certainly might have. There was actually quite a bit more travel between the "Old World" and the "New World" before Columbus stumbled his way over, from all I've read.

Suppose missionaries did make it to N. & S. America centuries ago. If so, chances are history would never have been able to record it. How would they have been welcomed? If they landed in S. America, they might have been offered to the Mayan gods as human sacrifice--something that is now said to have been quite common. If they made it to N. America, they could have run into one of the cannibalistic tribes in what later became the area from New England over to Michigan. Or, they may have fallen into the hands and pots of one of the wild tribes of the southwest which thrived on cruelty and torture. Either way, only God would know. :type:

 

[skypair]

John,

Well, it looks like we are trying to "push a string." :1_grouphug:

Yes, God is not willing that any should perish, but He has decreed that Christ is the only way,

Christ the only way, true -- the question is, when does He appear to OT saints? to deceased infants? to those who may believe on God through "general revelation?" The answer to that is FOLLOWING THE RESURRECTION OF THE JUST.

These all who NEVER saw Him will be resurrected to His kingdom and receive Him. He is, indeed, the only Way In fact, I'll go you one better -- "there is no other NAME given under heaven given among men whereby ye MUST be saved." Acts 4:12 So how do those who NEVER knew His name get saved? They are resurrected as "just" to NAME His NAME!

It's a pretty glorious gospel we have, isn't it?? And we being the "firstfruits" of it confirms what I have just said.

Do you have Scripture to carry the OT salvation [gospel of general revelation] into the age of grace?

None per se. But we know that conscience, family, human gov't, law, etc. continue upon all who are lost, right? And even to us who are saved, they are "advisory," no?

But you see, the god/gods they worship is nothing at all like the true God of the Bible!

Hence Phil 1:15-16 -- "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely..." Right? I believe one main point of general revelation is "higher authority."

Wow, that's shocking that an SBC church doesn't support the Lottie Moon offering! I hope they do find some avenues to support overseas missions.

Two points here: 1) We do contribute a percetage of our budget to SB Missions. 2) I find many megachurches becomg "self-absorbed."

Here's another example. You know Paul's entreaty for a love offering for the Jerusalem saints in 2Cor 8-9? He was raising from the poor for the poor! Well, our church uses Paul's sermon to take up money -- millions of dollars -- and spend it within our wealthy church. I mean they use Paul's sermon about loving and helping poorer churches to raise money for themselves! Sanctuary remodeling, the latest communications equipment, parking lot busses, separate "Prayer Center (as if we didn't have room for the few who come to pray as it is. or as if churches just south of us hit by Katrina couldn't have used our love offering! Well, they just announced that they are canceling this project -- but that's a year after the money was already raised.),... I marvel that they can year to year come up with these million dollar spending plans to get rid of the money!! I'm about fed up with giving here.

skypair

 

[John of Japan]

John,

Well, it looks like we are trying to "push a string." :1_grouphug:

Christ the only way, true -- the question is, when does He appear to OT saints? to deceased infants? to those who may believe on God through "general revelation?" The answer to that is FOLLOWING THE RESURRECTION OF THE JUST.

The first two, I'll continue to believe in. There is Scriptural evidence for them. But "to those who may believe on God through 'general revelation'?" Alas, there is no Scriptural evidence.

These all who NEVER saw Him will be resurrected to His kingdom and receive Him. He is, indeed, the only Way In fact, I'll go you one better -- "there is no other NAME given under heaven given among men whereby ye MUST be saved." Acts 4:12 So how do those who NEVER knew His name get saved? They are resurrected as "just" to NAME His NAME!

It's a pretty glorious gospel we have, isn't it?? And we being the "firstfruits" of it confirms what I have just said.

Actually, the Gospel is clearly defined by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1-8, and it doesn't include those who know not Jesus Christ. The Gospel is implicitly about Christ's death for our sins and resurrection, and the proofs thereof (His burial and the witnesses). This Gospel cannot be expressed only by general revelation.

JOJ wrote: Do you have Scripture to carry the OT salvation [gospel of general revelation] into the age of grace?
Skypair answered: None per se. But we know that conscience, family, human gov't, law, etc. continue upon all who are lost, right? And even to us who are saved, they are "advisory," no?

And this is the fatal weakness of your position. There is no Scriptural evidence for salvation through general revelation. Therefore, we believers are God's tool for winning the lost--not the stars, conscience, etc.

Two points here: 1) We do contribute a percetage of our budget to SB Missions. 2) I find many megachurches becomg "self-absorbed."

Here's another example. You know Paul's entreaty for a love offering for the Jerusalem saints in 2Cor 8-9? He was raising from the poor for the poor! Well, our church uses Paul's sermon to take up money -- millions of dollars -- and spend it within our wealthy church. I mean they use Paul's sermon about loving and helping poorer churches to raise money for themselves! Sanctuary remodeling, the latest communications equipment, parking lot busses, separate "Prayer Center (as if we didn't have room for the few who come to pray as it is. or as if churches just south of us hit by Katrina couldn't have used our love offering! Well, they just announced that they are canceling this project -- but that's a year after the money was already raised.),... I marvel that they can year to year come up with these million dollar spending plans to get rid of the money!! I'm about fed up with giving here.

skypair

Sounds to me like it is time for your church to lift their eyes to the worldwide harvest, set out in a new direction, and start their own mission board devoted to worldwide evangelism and church planting, rather than institutionalism! An IFB megachurch recently did so, and already has over 50 missionaries under the board. Just my opinion. :smilewinkgrin: :type:

 

[skypair]

The first two, I'll continue to believe in. There is Scriptural evidence for them. But "to those who may believe on God through 'general revelation'?" Alas, there is no Scriptural evidence.

I concede. :love2: I cannot PROVE my point. I just do not think that deceased infants go to hell. So whatever exception that represents, the door appears to be open on a resurrection of the "just."

Actually, the Gospel is clearly defined by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1-8, and it doesn't include those who know not Jesus Christ. The Gospel is implicitly about Christ's death for our sins and resurrection, and the proofs thereof (His burial and the witnesses). This Gospel cannot be expressed only by general revelation.

I love 1Cor 15:1-8! And that absolutely IS our gospel! And you will agree that is for OUR era, right? Nothing for OT here, is there?

And this is the fatal weakness of your position. There is no Scriptural evidence for salvation through general revelation. Therefore, we believers are God's tool for winning the lost--not the stars, conscience, etc.

I believe what I call "general revelation" is anything other than NT "special revelation." That's why I said we're "pushing a string" until we agree on that definition. Is there some objection you see to that definition.

Sounds to me like it is time for your church to lift their eyes to the worldwide harvest, set out in a new direction, and start their own mission board devoted to worldwide evangelism and church planting, rather than institutionalism! An IFB megachurch recently did so, and already has over 50 missionaries under the board. Just my opinion. :smilewinkgrin: :type:

Sounds good to me!

skypair

 

[John of Japan]

I meant to answer this yesterday and got busy. Sorry!

I concede. :love2: I cannot PROVE my point. I just do not think that deceased infants go to hell. So whatever exception that represents, the door appears to be open on a resurrection of the "just."

I don't think they do either. But I don't see that as a parallel to a fully responsible adult who comes simply sees God in nature but doesn't seek Him until the Gospel is heard.

I love 1Cor 15:1-8! And that absolutely IS our gospel! And you will agree that is for OUR era, right? Nothing for OT here, is there?

Agreed.

I believe what I call "general revelation" is anything other than NT "special revelation." That's why I said we're "pushing a string" until we agree on that definition. Is there some objection you see to that definition.

skypair

Yes, I do differ here. I would define general revelation more narrowly, as how God is revealed through nature and conscience, and I wouldn't include any human actions, such as those resulting in religions--religion being a man-made system. I believe this to be a pretty standard definition in theology.

In his Lectures in Systematic Theology, Thiessen includes three things in general revelation: nature, history and conscience (pp. 32-35). He says this about general revelation: "This is found in nature, history, and conscience. It is communicated through the media of natural phenomena occurring in nature or the course of history'; it is addressed to all intelligent creatures generally and is accessible to all; it has for its object the supplying of the natural need of the man and the persuasion of the soul to seek after the true God" (p. 32).

Note especially Thiessen's statement of the object of general revelation. It is to help man seek after God, not to save man. :type:

 

[Marcia]

Do you not consider that any revelation of God to men is for the purpose of salvation?

I think that Rev 1-2 shows us that general revelation condemns men because the creation is evidence of a Creator, but men ignore it; and our conscience is evidence of a moral lawgiver, but we ignore it and can't be saved by our own morals.

The beginning of Romans is about how all men are condemned before God, not saved.

 

[John of Japan]

I think that Rev 1-2 shows us that general revelation condemns men because the creation is evidence of a Creator, but men ignore it; and our conscience is evidence of a moral lawgiver, but we ignore it and can't be saved by our own morals.

The beginning of Romans is about how all men are condemned before God, not saved.

Well said, Marcia. :thumbsup:

Just to clarify, you mean Rom 1-2 instead of Rev 1-2, right? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Bro. James]

General Revelation/ Special Revelation

We got both.

The general: shows all of homo sapiens to be without excuse regarding the fact that GOD IS. Further, the general revelation shows that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, there are none righteous, not one. This is completely contrary to the nature of man--who thinks he can somehow justify his depraved condition by some merit of himself. Wrong answer. Man loves darkness, by nature. He is not looking for the real light--this includes the Illuminatti.

The special: For by grace we are saved through Faith, not of ourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, no one can boast. We are His workmanship, created in Jesus, the Christ, unto good works; which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.

Faith comes by hearing--hearing the Word of God. No one comes to the Father until the Spirit draws--through the preaching of The Word. We have no Faith of ourselves until The Spirit imparts--that gift. We have no spark of goodness of ourselves, contrary to popular opinion. We do not even know we are lost and undone until God shows us our dilemma--then His grace.

Most of this dialogue is part of the long battle between grace, works, grace/works, etc. raging since Cain and Abel offered sacrifices--long before Calvin and Arminius.

Depravity is an all-inclusive condition--we have no sparks of good--without the gift of God.

"All of them which Thou gave Me I have kept, save one."--Jesus to the Father.

"It is finished"--Jesus, from the tree, having shed His innocent blood.
Choose wisely,

Bro. James

 

[Tom Butler]

There's an interesting passage in Matthew 11:25-27.

25--At that time, Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and has revealed them unto babes.

26--Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.

27--All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Consider that Jesus had just upbraided the cities where he had done mighty works, and they still didn't repent.

Then he thanks the Father that the Father had hidden the truth from some people, and revealed it to others. And that the Father did it because it was a good thing to do.

And then, Jesus said only those to whom he reveals the father will know him. This suggests that there are some to whom Jesus will not reveal the Father.

Hmm, something ain't right here. God desires all to come to repentance, then hides the truth from some, and reveals it to others? Why, that's not fair. Hmmm.

Can we say "special revelation?"

 

[Allan]

Tom:

You forget that due to Israels rebellion and unbelief God blinded them as a Nation from the Truth as part of His rebuke to their sin. But what seems harsh is a blessing to us 'now' and to them 'later' when God removes the viel from their eyes that they may see.

Can we say 'under judgment'. :thumbsup:

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom:

You forget that due to Israels rebellion and unbelief God blinded them as a Nation from the Truth as part of His rebuke to their sin. But what seems harsh is a blessing to us 'now' and to them 'later' when God removes the viel from their eyes that they may see.

Can we say 'under judgment'. :thumbsup:

I can, because I agree with you.

Most Jews have been blinded ever since their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. God has hidden the truth from them. But not all. Jesus said God has revealed it to some. Those to whom He has revealed it are the recipients of the special revelation.

 

[psalms109:31]

vail

They vail that covers thier eyes is of thier own making. To this day God is not going to remove it.

Only Jesus can remove, but they are going to have to put thier trust in Jesus.

God is not going to remove it, only they can by turning away thier own understanding of God's word and believe in Jesus.

Remember they were cut out for unbelief

 

[skypair]

John,

Yes, I do differ here. I would define general revelation more narrowly, as how God is revealed through nature and conscience, and I wouldn't include any human actions, such as those resulting in religions--religion being a man-made system. I believe this to be a pretty standard definition in theology.

I agree that you describe the "pretty standard definition" of "general revelation." However, since family, human authority, etc. (the dispensations) are also NOT special -- perfectly descriptive of Christ and the new covenant gospel -- I consider them "general" rather than "special" revelation.

Do you see my point? If YOU include conscience and nature, why are not the other dispensations "general?" Did any of them show THE Way -- or just point toward that special revelation?

And the reason I make a "fine point" out of it is that acceptance of "general revelation" results in justification (OT) but "special revelation" results in justifiaction and sanctification simultaneously!

As to Thiessen's points -- 1) isn't "systematic theology" the Reform/Calvinist view of sotierology? 2) Perhaps I need another category to explain what I am saying. Clearly, the OT saints did NOT know Jesus Christ. If you look at John the Baptist's converts (Acts 19), they were OT believers yet knew NOTHING about the Holy Ghost. That, to me, is "another salvation" than WE experience, right? Did they get saved by "general" revelation (law, say) or "specific" revelation?

If this OT salvation is different, "non-special" -- what is to say there is not a "justification according to innocence" for infants? A "non-special" justification according to conscience?

Anyway, I'm glad to see others have "entered the fray," so to speak. Most believers have only one concept of salvation which ignores dispensations and God's dimension of time. Look forward to your reply. :type:

Just one accompanying thought -- your Japanese converts need NOT think that their ancestors or parents 1) could not be saved and 2) did not have an opportunity to be saved under this/my sotierological model. Think about it.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I think that Rev 1-2 shows us that general revelation condemns men because the creation is evidence of a Creator, but men ignore it; and our conscience is evidence of a moral lawgiver, but we ignore it and can't be saved by our own morals.

The beginning of Romans is about how all men are condemned before God, not saved.

Marcia,

And I agree with you as far as you have taken the passage. Most men DO reject the revelation God gives them. But notice, the passage does NOT address the of those who DO receive the revelation, does it? It shows the UNBELIEF option -- not the BELIEF option. If you go with the UNBELIEF option, you would have to say that even the Jews weren't saved, wouldn't you?

skypair

 

[skypair]

No one comes to the Father until the Spirit draws--through the preaching of The Word. We have no Faith of ourselves until The Spirit imparts--that gift.

AMEN, Bro James!!

Listen to the Spirit of the OT -- Prov 8:35-36, "For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death."

The Spirit MUST work both in "general revelation" and in "special revelation" -- there is absolutely NO argument there!!

Depravity is an all-inclusive condition--we have no sparks of good--without the gift of God.

Infants included? Sure they have no "good" yet, but depravity?? I think you are putting on your "judge" hat and not your "Berean" hat.

skypair