General Revelation

[Skandelon]

How could they without nullifying John 3:13. So your claim is baseless.

John 3:13 says, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man." So? Many believe that heaven is timeless and that all believers will enter heaven at the same "time" because when we leave this dimension we all enter eternity. Some call the time lapse 'soul sleep' or something of that nature, but that has NOTHING to do with this debate. In fact it is SO disconnected to our discussion that the very article you posted didn't even mention it.

If there is a layover before getting to heaven, FINE. It doesn't make much difference as to the various views presented in the article you posted. Why did you call the OT Saints, "SAINTS" if they aren't being sanctified? You have IGNORED the fact that the scriptures speak of these people being "credited as RIGHTEOUS" because of their faith (and that faith isn't in the name of Jesus)...now whether or not there is some additional post-death evangelism needed before they go onto heaven is really a whole other debate and almost completely unrelated (not to mention speculative, at best).

Yes, some think Abraham's bosum is Paradise, but again that view will not stand up to study. Therefore it is not the orthodox view.

That is like saying, "I disagree with that interpretation, so it must not be orthodox." Orthodox means that it adheres to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional...and since more Christians (especially in the Baptist tradition) hold to my perspective you have no ground for this claim.

I linked to the article to provide a basis for discussion with those who had never actually studied the topic

Then use it as a basis for our discussion and stop drawing false conclusions that even the article clearly shows are not accurate (i.e. 'you don't believe in faith alone' or 'you don't believe Christ is the only savior of the world'...etc)

Limbo is a fiction you keep dragging into the discussion.

Limbo: "The abode of the souls of the just who died before Christ's coming."

Now I have 3 questions. Can you please respond to each of them specifically.

1. How is what you have described as Abraham's Bosom not "limbo" according to the definition above?
2. And if everyone will go from Abs Bosom to heaven, what difference does this distinction even make in regard to our discussion regarding faith in the name of Christ?
3. And what do you do with the fact that Abraham (and his bosom) were credited as righteous based upon his faith in God without knowing the name of Jesus?

But this was a one time opportunity for those who gained approval through faith under the Old Covenant.

What do you mean by 'gained approval.' Is that the same as 'credited as righteousness?' And how is that different from what we are credited when we respond in faith to the gospel? Is that 'righteousness' they were credited not quite as 'righteous' as ours? Is their 'approval' just not quite good enough to earn or merit God's grace? This makes no sense to me so can you please explain it?

The fact that you believe in the possibility of postmortem salvation under the New Covenant demonstrates you hold unorthodox views.

When did I say I ever believed that?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1 continues to deny God's inspired words. I have shown that the Biblical view is no one is saved except through Jesus. The idea that the OT saints were made perfect apart of Christ is fiction. Exclusivism has been the orthodox view, not only of Baptists, but of evangelicals. What is not in the Bible is the idea that under the New Covenant, those who die in unbelief, are given a postmortem vision or dream enabling the ignorant to embrace Christ.

ALl saved under the Old Covenant were saved under the basis of the Cross of Christ!

And Jesus preached to the spirits in Hades when he was resurrected, but that was NOT the OT believers, but upon those there from time f the flood of Noah, who had denied their need to escape the flood by accepting God!

 

[Yeshua1]

[quote snipped]

Please remember that God has ALWAYS dealt with salavtion to Man same fashion, regardless of the time periods involved, as it is always on the basis of the Messiah death, and that by grace alone/faith alone a sinner is redeemed and becomes a saint!

 

[quantumfaith]

[quote snipped]

Please remember that God has ALWAYS dealt with salavtion to Man same fashion, regardless of the time periods involved, as it is always on the basis of the Messiah death, and that by grace alone/faith alone a sinner is redeemed and becomes a saint!

Yeshua, how do you KNOW this unequivocally? Is God not able to "handle" things as He sees fit?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua, how do you KNOW this unequivocally? Is God not able to "handle" things as He sees fit?

He had decreed/predestined that the death of jesus would be the ONLY basis for atonement of Sins , so His death is what God grants forgiveness of all sins thru.period!

 

[quantumfaith]

He had decreed/predestined that the death of jesus would be the ONLY basis for atonement of Sins , so His death is what God grants forgiveness of all sins thru.period!

I am NOT suggesting that there is "some other way" or "many ways" to eternal life in the presence of God.

 

[Van]

John 3:13 says, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man." So? Many believe that heaven is timeless and that all believers will enter heaven at the same "time" because when we leave this dimension we all enter eternity. Some call the time lapse 'soul sleep' or something of that nature, but that has NOTHING to do with this debate. In fact it is SO disconnected to our discussion that the very article you posted didn't even mention it.

There is no basis in scripture for this "time travel" science fiction. They had to wait. Soul sleep is not an orthodox Baptist view, it is a JW view.

If there is a layover before getting to heaven, FINE.

More misdirection, more muddying the waters. No one, but you, said there was a wait. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord in Heaven is how scripture reads.

It doesn't make much difference as to the various views presented in the article you posted. Why did you call the OT Saints, "SAINTS" if they aren't being sanctified?

News flash, a saint is someone who has be sanctified, i.e. set apart.

You have IGNORED the fact that the scriptures speak of these people being "credited as RIGHTEOUS" because of their faith (and that faith isn't in the name of Jesus)...now whether or not there is some additional post-death evangelism needed before they go onto heaven is really a whole other debate and almost completely unrelated (not to mention speculative, at best).

1) I did not ignore any fact. Tell me what person was credited as righteous?

Are you talking about Romans 4:3 which says Abraham's belief was credited to him as righteousness.

Romans 4:5 says our faith in Christ is credited as righteousness.

So Abraham's strong faith was reckoned or credited to Abraham as righteousness.

The fact is only when a person's spirit is placed in Christ are they made righteous.

You made the argument that Rahab went to heaven without believing in the name of Jesus to support the premise that the light of general revelation might be sufficient to be saved. Utterly false premise and unorthodox.

That is like saying, "I disagree with that interpretation, so it must not be orthodox." Orthodox means that it adheres to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional...and since more Christians (especially in the Baptist tradition) hold to my perspective you have no ground for this claim.

You are making up one fiction after another. I supported my view, and provided the quote that says Exclusivism is orthodox, and your "wider hope" view is not.

Then use it as a basis for our discussion and stop drawing false conclusions that even the article clearly shows are not accurate (i.e. 'you don't believe in faith alone' or 'you don't believe Christ is the only savior of the world'...etc)

More strawman arguments. If you believe we must hear the gospel and receive it during our lifetime to be saved, then we agree. If you hold to some other view, no matter how long you dance, you are dancing on an unorthodox dance floor. If you believe a good Muslim might get a dream out of the blue to present the gospel message and the opportunity for salvation as he physically dies, this is an argument from silence, and therefore violates the scripture alone doctrine. Unorthodox.

imbo: "The abode of the souls of the just who died before Christ's coming."

Never mentioned in the Bible, yet another unorthodox view being advocated by Skandelon.

Now I have 3 questions. Can you please respond to each of them specifically.

1. How is what you have described as Abraham's Bosom not "limbo" according to the definition above?

Misdirection, you introduced the concept never mentioned in scripture.

2. And if everyone will go from Abs Bosom to heaven, what difference does this distinction even make in regard to our discussion regarding faith in the name of Christ?

Nonsense, I explained that NOBODY goes to Abraham's bosom. Can you not read?????

3. And what do you do with the fact that Abraham (and his bosom) were credited as righteous based upon his faith in God without knowing the name of Jesus?

Asked and answered. Again you are ignoring my posts, asking questions already answered.

What do you mean by 'gained approval.'

They did not go to Hades, but to Abraham's bosom. Hebrews 11:2 says "gained approval." The footnote says it means obtained a testimony. The NET footnote says the got a commendation from God.

Is that the same as 'credited as righteousness?' And how is that different from what we are credited when we respond in faith to the gospel? Is that 'righteousness' they were credited not quite as 'righteous' as ours? Is their 'approval' just not quite good enough to earn or merit God's grace? This makes no sense to me so can you please explain it?

I am presenting scripture and you are saying scripture makes no sense because it conflicts with your doctrine. Let me say it yet again. Skandelon, the OT Saints obtained approval through faith. God set them apart, in Abraham's bosom. Being set apart in Abraham's bosom is not the same as being set apart in Christ. In Christ we are made perfect, we are justified, and so they did not obtain entry into Christ because they did not believe, yet, in the name of Jesus.

Folks, Skandelon's views are not orthodox, they are liberal. Exclusivism is the orthodox view, i.e. the only way to the Father is through faith in the name of Jesus. This is true for everyone. No one has ever gone to heaven without faith in Christ, obtained during their lifetime, except for the one time emptying of Abraham's bosom shortly after Christ died on the cross.

General revelation is sufficient for us to know God exists and that we should treat others as we would want them to treat us. We are condemned at conception, by nature children of wrath, and all these extra-biblical claims of orthodoxy are simply fiction. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved. The Gospel of Christ.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

There is no basis in scripture for this "time travel" science fiction. They had to wait. Soul sleep is not an orthodox Baptist view, it is a JW view.

There's the "Time-travel" accusation which Van denies that he makes...We merey await Van's reitteration of the "Crystal-ball" accusation which he also denies that he makes....

One down...One more to go...Just wait until he gets so angry that he accuses Skan of "Crystal-ball" Paganism...It'll happen, and then he will erupt in rage that you call him on it....He has already suggested that Skan believes in "Post Mortem" Salvation...(and he so obviously doesn't) but that accusation? Well, it'll come...Just wait.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There is no basis in scripture for this "time travel" science fiction. They had to wait. Soul sleep is not an orthodox Baptist view, it is a JW view.

More misdirection, more muddying the waters. No one, but you, said there was a wait. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord in Heaven is how scripture reads.

News flash, a saint is someone who has be sanctified, i.e. set apart.

1) I did not ignore any fact. Tell me what person was credited as righteous?

Are you talking about Romans 4:3 which says Abraham's belief was credited to him as righteousness.

Romans 4:5 says our faith in Christ is credited as righteousness.

So Abraham's strong faith was reckoned or credited to Abraham as righteousness.

The fact is only when a person's spirit is placed in Christ are they made righteous.

You made the argument that Rahab went to heaven without believing in the name of Jesus to support the premise that the light of general revelation might be sufficient to be saved. Utterly false premise and unorthodox.

You are making up one fiction after another. I supported my view, and provided the quote that says Exclusivism is orthodox, and your "wider hope" view is not.

More strawman arguments. If you believe we must hear the gospel and receive it during our lifetime to be saved, then we agree. If you hold to some other view, no matter how long you dance, you are dancing on an unorthodox dance floor. If you believe a good Muslim might get a dream out of the blue to present the gospel message and the opportunity for salvation as he physically dies, this is an argument from silence, and therefore violates the scripture alone doctrine. Unorthodox.


Never mentioned in the Bible, yet another unorthodox view being advocated by Skandelon.



Misdirection, you introduced the concept never mentioned in scripture.
Nonsense, I explained that NOBODY goes to Abraham's bosom. Can you not read?????
Asked and answered. Again you are ignoring my posts, asking questions already answered.

They did not go to Hades, but to Abraham's bosom. Hebrews 11:2 says "gained approval." The footnote says it means obtained a testimony. The NET footnote says the got a commendation from God.


I am presenting scripture and you are saying scripture makes no sense because it conflicts with your doctrine. Let me say it yet again. Skandelon, the OT Saints obtained approval through faith. God set them apart, in Abraham's bosom. Being set apart in Abraham's bosom is not the same as being set apart in Christ. In Christ we are made perfect, we are justified, and so they did not obtain entry into Christ because they did not believe, yet, in the name of Jesus.

Folks, Skandelon's views are not orthodox, they are liberal. Exclusivism is the orthodox view, i.e. the only way to the Father is through faith in the name of Jesus. This is true for everyone. No one has ever gone to heaven without faith in Christ, obtained during their lifetime, except for the one time emptying of Abraham's bosom shortly after Christ died on the cross.

General revelation is sufficient for us to know God exists and that we should treat others as we would want them to treat us. We are condemned at conception, by nature children of wrath, and all these extra-biblical claims of orthodoxy are simply fiction. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved. The Gospel of Christ.

Absolutely untrue. Conservative Quakers and Wesleyans hold that view, and many General ("Arminian") Baptists. You really hurt your cause by throwing out the "liberal" charge.

 

[Van]

There's the "Time-travel" accusation which Van denies that he makes...We merey await Van's reitteration of the "Crystal-ball" accusation which he also denies that he makes....

One down...One more to go...Just wait until he gets so angry that he accuses Skan of "Crystal-ball" Paganism...It'll happen, and then he will erupt in rage that you call him on it....He has already suggested that Skan believes in "Post Mortem" Salvation...(and he so obviously doesn't) but that accusation? Well, it'll come...Just wait.

Yet another post devoid of content, just Van bashing. Do you have something to contribute concerning the topic?

No quote will be forthcoming where I deny I refer to the time travel justification of mistaken doctrine. Ditto for denying I refer to Crystal Ball theology. Thus simply false charges, strawman arguments to shift discussion from the unorthodox views being suggested to my behavior.

I believe we must hear the gospel and respond to the gospel during our lifetime. Those that die without hearing the gospel or believing in that gospel go to Hades. That is the orthodox view.

Questions for all those who call themselves Baptists.

1) Is "Soul Sleep" a mistaken doctrine of JW? My answer is yes.

2) Does God send a dream or vision to those who are dying without an opportunity to trust in Christ? My answer is no. There would be no need for more workers for the harvest if God was going to do the harvest supernaturally.

3) Is the light of General Revelation sufficient for entry into the kingdom of His Son. My answer is no.

4) Does scripture mean what it says in John 3:13, that no one had entered heaven when Jesus was walking the earth, which demonstrates Abraham's bosom is not heaven.

5) Did Paul use Paradise, and heaven, i.e. the third heaven of God, interchangeably, demonstrating Paradise is another name for heaven.

Summary, if no one entered heaven, and paradise and heaven are the same, then Abraham's bosom is not Paradise. This is the scripture alone view.

 

[Van]

Absolutely untrue. Conservative Quakers and Wesleyans hold that view, and many General ("Arminian") Baptists. You really hurt your cause by throwing out the "liberal" charge.

Thanks but those who say the Bible does not mean what it says, are liberals. Those that add to scripture using arguments from silence are liberals. Those that stick to what the Bible actually teaches are conservative.

Lets take the case of those who espouse KJVonlism. They oppose "liberals" and do not see themselves as liberals. But the espouse a doctrine not found in scripture by orthodoxy. So they are liberals, but do not know or believe that they are.

Now, which view, soul sleep, wider hope, post mortem offer of salvation is not liberal?

 

[Skandelon]

They had to wait.

No one, but you, said there was a wait.

Hmmm. Need I say more?

Soul sleep is not an orthodox Baptist view, it is a JW view.

Van, I wasn't making an argument for soul sleep...I was simply showing that different scholars have had ways they deal with the time lapse of entering eternity and your particular view of Abraham's Bosom is just another one of those theories that really has little to do with the justification by faith of the OT believers.

You made the argument that Rahab went to heaven without believing in the name of Jesus to support the premise that the light of general revelation might be sufficient to be saved. Utterly false premise and unorthodox.

Yet your view also has her going to heaven after the bosom layover, so why are you baulking? I don't care how you speculate she gets there, I care that she gets there. I care about the fact that her faith was credited as righteousness yet she didn't know the name of Jesus. Can we talk about that?

If you believe a good Muslim might get a dream out of the blue to present the gospel message

Ok, that does it. We are done. You aren't even trying to understand my view. May I suggest you go back and actually study the article you posted so you can better understand the perspectives being debated here. I can't continue to repeat myself over and over only to continue to have you misrepresent everything I say. It's over.

I may address your quotes when I get a chance, but as long as you continue to pull this stuff, I'm done with interacting with you...

 

[quantumfaith]

Hmmm. Need I say more?
Van, I wasn't making an argument for soul sleep...I was simply showing that different scholars have had ways they deal with the time lapse of entering eternity and your particular view of Abraham's Bosom is just another one of those theories that really has little to do with the justification by faith of the OT believers.

Yet your view also has her going to heaven after the bosom layover, so why are you baulking? I don't care how you speculate she gets there, I care that she gets there. I care about the fact that her faith was credited as righteousness yet she didn't know the name of Jesus. Can we talk about that?

Ok, that does it. We are done. You aren't even trying to understand my view. May I suggest you go back and actually study the article you posted so you can better understand the perspectives being debated here. I can't continue to repeat myself over and over only to continue to have you misrepresent everything I say. It's over.

I may address your quotes when I get a chance, but as long as you continue to pull this stuff, I'm done with interacting with you...

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Skandelon]

"Exclusivism holds that an explicit response of repentance and faith to the preaching of the Gospel is necessary for salvation. Until recently, this has been the dominant position of the church and still is the majority position in conservative evangelical circles.
Ken Keathley
Assistant Professor of Theology and Philosophy
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
.

He also believes:

What is bothering us is that it appears only a small percentage of humanity has even had the opportunity to be saved. Or have they? Allow me to attempt to reframe the question of percentages. Like most evangelicals, I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that those who die in infancy go to heaven....(I do not view the mentally handicapped or infants as morally responsible individuals.)

and..

Our Lord is the Lord of the harvest. I am satisfied with the Molinist argument that God has ordained a world such that every one who would say “yes” to Christ will, in fact, have the opportunity to do so. This permits us to similtaneously affirm God’s universal salvific desire (2 Pet 3:9) and the essentiality of the Gospel in such a way that also affirms the sovereignty of God. The Lord of the harvest knows what He is doing.

Do you agree with these statements and think they are also 'orthodox' views? BTW, you do know that two orthodox believers can disagree about certain disputable matters of faith, right?

I also agree with his point, "in any debate is that whoever gets to assign the labels generally wins." And, Van, this seems to be an issue of labels, not definitions, with you. For it appears that Ken is using this term more as a contrast with salvation through other world religions and not specifically regarding general faith in God and his promises as with OT Believers.

I tried to find Ken's answer regarding OT believers since that is the topic we are addressing, but unfortunately I've not found anything. Does he speak of Abraham Bosom that you know of?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thanks but those who say the Bible does not mean what it says, are liberals. Those that add to scripture using arguments from silence are liberals. Those that stick to what the Bible actually teaches are conservative.

Lets take the case of those who espouse KJVonlism. They oppose "liberals" and do not see themselves as liberals. But the espouse a doctrine not found in scripture by orthodoxy. So they are liberals, but do not know or believe that they are.

Now, which view, soul sleep, wider hope, post mortem offer of salvation is not liberal?

I thought we were talking about salvation being offered to those who never heard of Jesus, on the basis of the use they have made of the light they had -- a scriptural principle held by conservative Quakers and Wesleyans for hundreds of years.

 

[Van]

I thought we were talking about salvation being offered to those who never heard of Jesus, on the basis of the use they have made of the light they had -- a scriptural principle held by conservative Quakers and Wesleyans for hundreds of years.

Hi Michael, that is the "wider hope" liberal doctrine.

 

[Van]

Hi Skandelon, feigning outrage is a common behavior of liberals, i.e. Clinton pointing his finger and saying I did not have sexual relations with that woman. So save your sophistry, I know your game.

Folks note Skandelons misrepresentation by editing my posts. They had to wait was addressing Skandelon's assertion that everyone entered eternity as the same time, the time travel doctrine. I pointed out that the OT saints had to wait, and therefore did not enter eternity at the same time as those under the New Covenant.

Next, I was addressing the concept that folks who die under the New Covenant went to some way station, but I was telling Skandelon for the second time there is no wait, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

But read how Skandelon edited and presented it!!

So you are not arguing for soul sleep but you brought it into the discussion. As what another red herring?

And to repeat for the third time, Rehab did not go to heaven based on obtaining approval through faith. Only after she was placed spiritually in Christ and was made perfect, did she go to heaven. Therefore, no one goes to heaven without knowledge of the name of Jesus, He is the way. So this position of Skandelon is asserting without mentioning it that someone under the New Covenant can utilize the method the OT saints used. Total fiction.

Folks, Skandelon has presented the idea that General Revelation might provide sufficient light to obtain salvation, just as the OT saints gained approval through faith in the light available to them. This is a fiction. The mystery of Christ has now been revealed, He is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him.

1) Skandelon suggested Abraham's bosom was Paradise, i.e. the third heaven. False, no matter how many hold that unstudied view.
2) Skandelon suggested under the New Covenant people might go to a way station. False, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
3) Skandelon suggested Exclusivism was not the orthodox baptist view. It is.

 

[Van]

Do you agree with these statements and think they are also 'orthodox' views? BTW, you do know that two orthodox believers can disagree about certain disputable matters of faith, right?

Note the change of subject, Skandelon said Inclusivism was orthodox, and I said Exclusivism was orthodox. He said provide a reference. I did. But did he say, yes I agree, Exclusivism has been the orthodox Baptist view. Nope, instead, he changes the subject and brings up to other quotes.

I also agree with his point, "in any debate is that whoever gets to assign the labels generally wins." And, Van, this seems to be an issue of labels, not definitions, with you. For it appears that Ken is using this term more as a contrast with salvation through other world religions and not specifically regarding general faith in God and his promises as with OT Believers.

None of this was included in my reference, so more change of subject. I did not support my view of Exclusivism by citing Ken's beliefs, I supported my assertion that Exclusivism is the orthodox view at your request. You seem to desire to change the subject to Ken's beliefs, rather than what the Bible actually teaches.

I tried to find Ken's answer regarding OT believers since that is the topic we are addressing, but unfortunately I've not found anything. Does he speak of Abraham Bosom that you know of?

The reference you are looking for is Luke 19. Jesus speaks of Abraham's bosom.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Hi Michael, that is the "wider hope" liberal doctrine.

That is simply not true. This doctrine was held by conservative Christians for hundreds of years, long before the advent of modernism.

 

[Van]

Hi Michael,

I provided a quote which said Exclusivism was the orthodox view among Baptists and Evangelicals.

Now that view might be wrong, but that is the view I was taught in Baptist churches. I had not even heard of wider hope until I encounter Arminians on the internet.