General Revelation

[psalms109:31]

General Revelation, Paul is telling us we have a starting point with everyone. Calvin believed that even atheist known that at one time there is a God, but at some point they denied Him. We can always start off with someone with general revelation of God by what He has made, if they still deny there is no God still there is no point to even go on, but you have planted a seed or watered one they are struggling with. I have had people tell me to shut up, they don't want to hear about it, they don't even want you to speak of God. To force something on someone plants a bad seed on their ideas about us and they don't even want you to start up with them because of past experiences. Through general revelation we can even establish the sacrifice, for us to live our life something else has to die for us to live physically. General Revelation is a great starting point.

 

[12strings]

So Skan,

If there are those who could be saved apart from hearing the Gospel message...are you not left with the same question you asked of the calvinist in your previous thread: What is the motivation for missions/evangelism? If even in your view, it is not necessary for salvation?

 

[Skandelon]

So Skan,

If there are those who could be saved apart from hearing the Gospel message...are you not left with the same question you asked of the calvinist in your previous thread: What is the motivation for missions/evangelism? If even in your view, it is not necessary for salvation?

I'm not saying its not necessary to accomplish the ultimate goal. Relationship with Christ can't happen unless they hear the gospel, and that is the ultimate goal. The goal is not just avoiding hell.

Also, if a little revelation could provoke man's will to consider acknowledge God exists and loves man, then how much more could a powerful appeal of the Good New convince someone of His existence and love?

Plus, in this particular argument, I'm speaking more about people who lived prior to the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of the gospel. This is the time when the scripture says that God overlooked their ignorance/sin for a time, remember? And based on his act of mercy for them, I'm SPECULATING about His ability and willingness to show such mercy to those who may not ever hear the gospel.

Heir of Salvation, may be right in his assessment, that God will ensure that a person who responds to a little light will get more. Personally, I think that is correct (which would necessitate the role of the missionary as well). But, I'm speaking more theoretically about if God has any impediments of justice which could keep Him from choosing to credit people as righteous if he wanted to? If he saw a tribal man, who didn't know the scriptures or anything about doctrine, cry out to the heavens for help and mercy in his painful circumstances, COULD God choose to graciously credit that man with righteousness based merely on that humble cry? Is their something preventing God from doing this? Is there some legal impediment keeping God from doing this?

 

[Van]

Many Baptists believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through Jesus. On the other hand, we have folks claiming God saves folks who die in unbelief because of their God's character or attributes or some other word for wholesale revision of God's stated revelation. The heaven's declare God's glory, but do not tell men to trust in Christ for salvation from the wrath of God because He is the Son of God and because He rose from the dead. To claim its in there, is akin to claiming a right to abortion is in the constitution. Merely an invention of men.

 

[Skandelon]

we have folks claiming God saves folks who die in unbelief

Who has said that?

 

[Tom Butler]

Well, yea, Christ did tell us that the Spirit blows where He wills; doesn't sound as if He limited God or tied His hands now did He? Don't you believe Christ?

Per post #7:

"What do you mean by 'SAVED'? (I assume you gom it up, as do the many, and make it to be synonymous with the 'birth from above')"

Yes, I believe the Spirit is sovereign, as is the Father and the Son. But God has established the means as well as the end.

Re post #7
I draw a distinction between being born from above and being saved. The Spirit regenerates a lost man, illuminates his mind and changes his desires, so that he understands that he is lost, needs a Savior and looks to Jesus for that salvation. The Spirit gives the gifts of repentance and faith, resulting in salvation.

 

[psalms109:31]

How does God grant us repentance or give us faith a noun.

Is it not by knowledge, trust, and belief in His Son trust and belief being a verb an action from us?

Faith without deeds can such a faith save?

 

[12strings]

Who has said that?

You have not said they die in unbelief...but you have said they die in ignorance of Christ....which begs the Rom. 10 question: "how will they believe in whom they have never heard? It seems those saying God can, or even will, save some who respond to general revelation by believing there is a God and wanting to know more about him...are not dealing with Romans 10, merely pointing to other passages that seem to say something different... ("My passage is better than your passage")

I do think the issue of OT Believers is a different issue, and should be handled separately.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

First, God did what? Second, give me examples of how he had done it, will continue to do it, and how He affirms that? Because I see that there is no other name other than Jesus whereby we must be saved. I don't see that as general revelation.

I already gave examples. Perhaps you didn't read the content of them.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I'm not saying its not necessary to accomplish the ultimate goal. Relationship with Christ can't happen unless they hear the gospel, and that is the ultimate goal. The goal is not just avoiding hell.

Also, if a little revelation could provoke man's will to consider acknowledge God exists and loves man, then how much more could a powerful appeal of the Good New convince someone of His existence and love?

Plus, in this particular argument, I'm speaking more about people who lived prior to the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of the gospel. This is the time when the scripture says that God overlooked their ignorance/sin for a time, remember? And based on his act of mercy for them, I'm SPECULATING about His ability and willingness to show such mercy to those who may not ever hear the gospel.

Heir of Salvation, may be right in his assessment, that God will ensure that a person who responds to a little light will get more. Personally, I think that is correct (which would necessitate the role of the missionary as well). But, I'm speaking more theoretically about if God has any impediments of justice which could keep Him from choosing to credit people as righteous if he wanted to? If he saw a tribal man, who didn't know the scriptures or anything about doctrine, cry out to the heavens for help and mercy in his painful circumstances, COULD God choose to graciously credit that man with righteousness based merely on that humble cry? Is their something preventing God from doing this? Is there some legal impediment keeping God from doing this?

The Quakers and Wesleyans also believe this.

There is nothing preventing God from doing this. The scriptures affirm it.

 

[Bronconagurski]

I already gave examples. Perhaps you didn't read the content of them.

I don't think you gave any scripture references that will hold up.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

{Skandelon} But, I'm speaking more theoretically about if God has any impediments of justice which could keep Him from choosing to credit people as righteous if he wanted to?

I don't think that this "Theoretical" scenario is possible...but engaging in such questioning can be fruitful. My immediate answer is that, no, God will not credit their faith in what "general" revelation they have as righteousness. I think the NAME of Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary.

If he saw a tribal man, who didn't know the scriptures or anything about doctrine, cry out to the heavens for help and mercy in his painful circumstances, COULD God choose to graciously credit that man with righteousness based merely on that humble cry?

"Could", yes, of course...."Will"...no, but, then again, I feel this particular specimen is one whose faith demonstrates a sufficient guarantee of further revelation: Is there not a story (I think it was Livingston) who preached to a Tribal Leader in Africa, who, upon hearing the gospel readily accepted, and said something to the effect that "I always Knew Him, I just did not know his name" or something to that effect? I would imagine that this is a very common scenario.

Is their something preventing God from doing this? Is there some legal impediment keeping God from doing this?

I think so....I think faith in Jesus Christ, specifically, and by his name alone is salvation possible.

Mind you: My thought stems from some bent towards Molinistic explanation...therefore I tend to assume two different types of people

1.) Ones who would NEVER accept Christ under ANY circumstances (they are the ones I tend to think find themselves in that "tribal" scenario)
2.) Those who would, or might accept given differing circumstances.

Therefore, those whose hearts are truly open to possible response to the gospel, such as those who satisfy the conditions of your "General Revelation" scenario.

Your question is critically important for Arminians or any non-Cals Skan, because the "what about those who never hear?" problem is one we MUST answer. Calvinists have an easy time of it. But what non-Calvinists have is (in reality) a problem if we break it down, wherein God is actually pre-destining to damnation ONLY, but not predestining anyone to life! We have a differing problem from Calvinists, and its worse. Calvinists have those predestined to LIFE and DEATH, we have only those pre-destined to DEATH!
Our two possible responses are:
1.) To posit that God will save some based upon their response to "General Revelation"...or, at least to hold to their being "beaten with few stripes" (Thus giving ourselves some comfort) Or:
2.) To deny that there is such a thing as anyone who might possibly respond to the gospel, who is left utterly without witness, thus forcing ourselves to conclude that such persons have a guarantee of further revelation of Christ specifically.

I suppose I hold to something like the second option, because I cannot wrap my head around a scenario, wherein any who do not accept Christ, specifically, or who are "born-again" can have eternal life.....

If we DO, accept such a scenario as my "option 1" presents, that you are suggesting, or, rather, the "general revelation saved"; then we actually have the quandry of, IMO encouraging us NOT to engage in Evangelism and Missions in that we would merely be making them responsible to respond to MORE than they would otherwise. We would be "raising the salvific bar" so to speak, whereas they would otherwise be required to respond ONLY to that general revelation. Sorry for the long post :tear: GREAT DISCUSSION!! :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

but you have said they die in ignorance of Christ....which begs the Rom. 10 question: "how will they believe in whom they have never heard? It seems those saying God can, or even will, save some who respond to general revelation by believing there is a God and wanting to know more about him...are not dealing with Romans 10, merely pointing to other passages that seem to say something different... ("My passage is better than your passage")

Well, actually if you read on in Romans 10 it appears Paul is arguing that Israel has already heard, which is the reason I bring up the OT 'God fearers.' They may have some semblance of understanding for the coming Messiah, but they don't necessarily know the "NAME" or fully understand the cross/atonement as we know it today...yet God credits righteousness to their account.

I do think the issue of OT Believers is a different issue, and should be handled separately.

I don't see how, as that is the foundation for why I even bring up this question. If there is not a legal impediment where God's justice would be comprised then couldn't God justify whoever he wanted to based on ANY criteria He established? He could choose to save all redheads (which is beyond the agent's control) or He could choose to save only those who never cut their hair (which is within the agent's control). So, the question becomes whether or not God has always, and always will only choose to save those who hear the actual NAME of Jesus and believe....or if God, who is just and reasonable, COULD discern the heart of man in response to whatever level of revelation He has and either (1) credit righteousness to his account based upon that response, or (2) send more light (compel a missionary to go, send a dream, etc)

 

[Skandelon]

I think the NAME of Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary.

Do you think that is only true since the coming of Christ, or was this true of the OT believers?

BTW, I believe as you do about present day believers. I think God ensures the gospel revelation comes to those who may respond to the light of his general revelation...but I'm just exploring ideas on this point since the question about the 'person who never heard Jesus' name' always comes up.

Is there not a story (I think it was Livingston) who preached to a Tribal Leader in Africa, who, upon hearing the gospel readily accepted, and said something to the effect that "I always Knew Him, I just did not know his name" or something to that effect? I would imagine that this is a very common scenario.

Exactly, and I'm just speculating as what would happen if this 'tribal leader' had died prior to hearing his name.... I think we both can agree that God can and would get a messenger to him, if that was the set criteria God needed to justly save him, but since it wasn't necessarily the criteria of OT believers I'm just wondering about today. Make sense?

I think so....I think faith in Jesus Christ, specifically, and by his name alone is salvation possible.

Please understand, I'm not in any way arguing that there is any other means of atonement than through Christ...I'm only speaking of a person's faith in the Triune God, but who may not know or understand the full nature of that trinity, and thus may not actually know the name of Jesus...as would be the case with some of the OT believers who God did appear to credit with righteousness.

Your question is critically important for Arminians or any non-Cals Skan, because the "what about those who never hear?" problem is one we MUST answer. Calvinists have an easy time of it. But what non-Calvinists have is (in reality) a problem if we break it down, wherein God is actually pre-destining to damnation ONLY, but not predestining anyone to life! We have a differing problem from Calvinists, and its worse. Calvinists have those predestined to LIFE and DEATH, we have only those pre-destined to DEATH!

Only if you hold to the belief that people can't be lead to a greater light through the general revelation...or that God couldn't get the message to that person through SOME means...is this a problem IMO.

If we DO, accept such a scenario as my "option 1" presents, that you are suggesting, or, rather, the "general revelation saved"; then we actually have the quandry of, IMO encouraging us NOT to engage in Evangelism and Missions in that we would merely be making them responsible to respond to MORE than they would otherwise.

I don't think so, and I explained why in my response to 12Stings above....

 

[Allan]

Yes, I believe the Spirit is sovereign, as is the Father and the Son. But God has established the means as well as the end.

Re post #7
I draw a distinction between being born from above and being saved. The Spirit regenerates a lost man, illuminates his mind and changes his desires, so that he understands that he is lost, needs a Savior and looks to Jesus for that salvation. The Spirit gives the gifts of repentance and faith, resulting in salvation.

True Tom, but some here holdt that if you are born again (as in regenerate) then you are eternally saved but that does not necessitate being temporally saved.

If you repent and believe (gospel calling) that is to discipleship, if you want it.
Thus temporally saved.

In that kind of view, you can be eternally saved, never having believed in Christ or even in fact reject him. Whether or not you accept the gospel call does not change your eternal status.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well, actually if you read on in Romans 10 it appears Paul is arguing that Israel has already heard, which is the reason I bring up the OT 'God fearers.' They may have some semblance of understanding for the coming Messiah, but they don't necessarily know the "NAME" or fully understand the cross/atonement as we know it today...yet God credits righteousness to their account.

The dis-connect here is rather simple and I hope we can understand one another....Obviously, you are correct, in that the "NAME" of Jesus Christ was not critical in the OT schema. There is no doubt that Abraham (for instance) did not in any way profess some allegiance to some theoretical personage known as this "Jesus Christ" personage, and Abraham and Isaac both were unfamiliar with this "cross" idea...and all of this what-not....But I think you are sort of equivocating in a way.... We are decidedly responsible for what revelation God has given us in accordance with what particular dispensation in which we live... I believe that in reference to the "Abrahamic Covenant" one was responsible to accept what measure of "details" that Abraham understood. We are sort of arguing details here:

I might try to put it this way...and my point is to try to get you to divorce yourself from equivocating between OT believers and NT believers, as they exist in a different level of dispensation...

EVERY man is responsible to know, and accept and profess what knowledge of God as has been appropriate for their specific time-frame, and their specific "Dispensation" <---Yes, I am using that word in the "Scofield" sense... which is apparently taboo around here....I believe that there is a perfect positive correlation between all of those in any given OT level of revelation, or, put differently, any OT dispensation, between those who accept what level of given faith is required in the OT sense, and what would be available in the NT sense....

Abraham did NOT, know of, or accept "Jesus Christ" as his "personal Lord and Saviour"...but...lemme put it this way: IF HE HAD LIVED IN THIS DISPENSATION HE WOULD HAVE. The Bible holds all men responsible for what level of "revelation" God has given/provided, and ALL things in the OT invariably pointed to Christ...

I think you are sort of missing the issue with confusing the OT issue with the NT issue...They are not separate. They are one and the same. OT believers were responsible for accepting and believing what level of revelation existed at that time, and NT believers for what level of revelation exists now....

Given these premises...I will be "quippy" with my responses to the rest of your questions:

I don't see how, as that is the foundation for why I even bring up this question. If there is not a legal impediment where God's justice would be comprised then couldn't God justify whoever he wanted to based on ANY criteria He established?

He established those criterion "Dispensation-by-Dispensation" and, in (IMO) with what level of understanding he knew that man was capable of comprehending....Secretly...I think there is some reality to the thought that man "evolves" socially (like the God-haters think) but, man has learned over time to "grow-into" their faith, and God has always "met" man where he was, and only in accordance with his capacity to understand.

He could choose to save all redheads (which is beyond the agent's control) or He could choose to save only those who never cut their hair (which is within the agent's control). So, the question becomes whether or not God has always, and always will only choose to save those who hear the actual NAME of Jesus and believe....or if God, who is just and reasonable, COULD discern the heart of man in response to whatever level of revelation He has and either (1) credit righteousness to his account based upon that response, or (2) send more light (compel a missionary to go, send a dream, etc)

Precisely MY point...We agree 100% here: This is the key point of your post I hold to:

So, the question becomes whether or not God has always, and always will only choose to save those who hear the actual NAME of Jesus and believe....or if God, who is just and reasonable, COULD discern the heart of man in response to whatever level of revelation He has

What level of "revelation" he has is UNAFFECTED by whether he be an OT believer or a NT believer....Can we not agree that there are millions of OT believers who have never even heard of this "Moses" person...or this "Law" stuff that he came up with? Abel and Enoch were "Preachers of Righteousness" LONG before any Jewish Law or otherwise...but, they were responsible to respond to all revelation as provided....The distinctions don't even rest upon "OT" or "NT" believers, but in numerous different "dispensations" Pre-flood, and post-flood, and pre-Abraham, and post-Abraham, and pre-Moses, and Post-Moses...ad nauseum. Man has been responsible to respond to what level of Revelation that God has given him....and I believe that in this era...God has required that man accept Jesus Christ, and by name, and NTHER...by which he might be saved...That being said, I do not think that there is any person who accepts what level of revelation God has provided them who WOULD NOT understand and accept the culmination of the ultimate ideal of Jesus Christ...

I sum up this way....Abraham was justified by faith...and with the level and amount of revelation he had...However,... If, as a NT Christian missionary, you were to explain Jesus Christ to him...(and if he could understand it) he would readily accept, without reservation. I don't think Abraham could necessarily understand that though, and God has known that, and has revealed himself to mankind accordingly.....If, however, Abraham were "privy" to the knowledge that to "by faith" sacrifice his only Son Isaac were the picture, in type, of Jesus, he would invariably know and understand and accept it. His faith would be rewarded, even though he did not know or understand the "why"...Abraham actually (according to Scripture) believed a falsehood: Abraham, (wrongly) believed that God would "resurrect" his son.....but God did not do so...God had chosen to never have him killed in the first place!!! God has made Isaac a "type" of Christ, but not perfectly so. Isaac was "obedient unto death" as Christ was, but God DID resurrect Jesus. and not Isaac. See what I mean?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I don't think you gave any scripture references that will hold up.

Why? Because you disagree with them?

 

[Tom Butler]

True Tom, but some here holdt that if you are born again (as in regenerate) then you are eternally saved but that does not necessitate being temporally saved.

If you repent and believe (gospel calling) that is to discipleship, if you want it.
Thus temporally saved.

In that kind of view, you can be eternally saved, never having believed in Christ or even in fact reject him. Whether or not you accept the gospel call does not change your eternal status.

I don't believe that. Where did that view come from? Is it somehow supposed to be connected to the view that regeneration precedes faith?

I know you and I probably disagree over the order of regeneration, but I'm with you on this eternal salvation stuff.

 

[Van]

So, the question becomes whether or not God has always, and always will only choose to save those who hear the actual NAME of Jesus and believe....or if God, who is just and reasonable, COULD discern the heart of man in response to whatever level of revelation He has and either (1) credit righteousness to his account based upon that response, or (2) send more light (compel a missionary to go, send a dream, etc)

Here we have a typical misrepresentation of God. Something in His character requires Him to do what is not presented in scripture. We are conceived in iniquity, therefore separated from God who is holy. We are condemned for unbelief, thus without the salvation of Christ we are condemned. But since that seems so unfair, God must send a vision to everyone before they go to Hades, giving them the opportunity to trust in Christ. Pure fiction.

As Jesus said, what is it to you, how I treat others?

 

[Van]

Oh and btw, no one under the OT schema, the Old Covenant, went to heaven. The idea that they were saved without being washed by the blood of Christ is heresy. There is no other way, folks. Read Hebrews 11:39-40.