General Revelation

[Skandelon]

The idea that they were saved without being washed by the blood of Christ is heresy.

Is there anyone here making that claim?

 

[Van]

Hi Skan, you question is too convoluted to comprehend. Are you saying all roads lead to heaven? I mean you seem to be saying God just sends a compelling vision to everyone. Is that not your premise?

 

[Skandelon]

Hi Skan, you question is too convoluted to comprehend.

You are an intelligent individual. I believe if you read back over the previous posts more carefully it will be made clear.

Are you saying all roads lead to heaven?

Of course not.

I mean you seem to be saying God just sends a compelling vision to everyone. Is that not your premise?

No and since I haven't even mentioned a vision, I'm baffled as to how you came to that conclusion.

The closest thing that was brought up in regard to such an idea, would be when we were talking about those who never hear the gospel being sent 'special revelation' through the means of compelling a messenger to go, or possibly through a dream...both of which God has used in the past to get his message to mankind. Is that what you were referring to?

 

[Van]

I do not understand your convoluted response. You are too intelligent a person to pretend you cannot see the forest for the trees. Perhaps you do not understand what you are saying? You are not saying all roads lead to heaven? So the OT folks got to heaven without Jesus? Is that it. Still heresy, sir. Here is a clue, no one means no one. No need to revise no one to mean no one except the kind, nice and good folks who never heard the gospel.

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)

How could anyone be baffled because sending a vision and sending a dream are completely different. Yeah, right!

 

[Yeshua1]

So, the verse is saying that the lost don't have any excuse for not believing God exists? Yet, if they do believe God exists and they fear him, like many are said to have done in OT times, is it your contention that they couldn't be saved?

Would be saved IF the Lord also had decided to apply special revealtion to them!

 

[Van]

Bobby Talks to his Pastor about God


Bobby: "Pastor, does God love everybody?"

Pastor: "Yes, Bobby, even while we were still sinners He demonstrated His love for us.

Bobby: "How come it says in Romans 9 that He hated Esau?"

Pastor: "The Bible says that God hates all of us who sin, so since everyone sins (Romans 3:23), God both hates us because we are sinners and loves us in spite of the fact that we are sinners.

Bobby: “So why did God hate Esau before he had done anything bad?”

Pastor: "Lets look at Romans 9 and see if God explains it.

Bobby: “Here it is Pastor, Romans 9:13 say it was written in the OT somewhere that Jacob God loved and Esau God hated.

Pastor: “Bobby, do you see that tiny little “a” just before the word Jacob? That tells us the concordance in that narrow column next to the verse gives us the reference to the OT passage. Look at the column, and find the number 13, indicating the verse, and see what the “a” referenced.”

Bobby: “Wow, this is fun, real bible study! Pastor it says Mal. 1:2. And I know that Malachi is the last book in the OT. Here I found it. Here is what it says, “I have loved you, says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? declares the LORD, Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.” Pastor I still do not get it!

Pastor: “Notice the “you” in the phrase, I have loved you? The “you” refers to the nation of Israel, who doubts God’s love. God tells them that they should compare His love of their nation to His hate of Edom, the nation born of Esau. Relatively speaking God hated Esau. Sometimes the Bible uses strong words to highlight a contrast. For example in Genesis 29:30-33, we see that Jacob loved Rachel more that he loved Leah, so much more that scripture says Leah was hated. So we see that since God loves those He has chosen to be a member of His people more than those chosen to fulfill another purpose such as Esau, He can describe the difference in terms of love and hate. But we should not doubt that God loved us even when were sinners, He just loves us way more when we are holy and blameless in Christ.

Bobby: “Oh I get it now Pastor, God loved Jacob more than Esau, and to show how much more, scripture says God hated Esau. So how does God show His love to sinners, those who are still part of the world, part of fallen mankind.


Pastor: "Well, he gives everybody rain and sunshine, and he blesses the people of the earth with a conscience so they know right from wrong, and he has given them many gifts which they use to make the world a better and safer place to live. But most important of all, remember that John 3:16 says God so loved the world – and this refers to everybody, and we are all sinners – that He gave is Son so that whoever believes in His shall not perish but have eternal life.

Bobby: “Ok, but if He loves everyone, why does He not save everyone, He could because He is all powerful.”

Pastor: "Yes, Bobby, but His purpose is to choose for Himself a people for His glory. So when we repent and put our trust in Christ, we fulfill God’s purpose for our creation, we bring God glory. If God compelled everyone to come to faith, it would not fulfill His purpose. He has made a covenant of love with us, He has demonstrated His love for us, through Christ, and if we trust in Christ and love Christ with all our heart, God will keep His covenant and choose us to become part of His chosen people.”

Bobby: But why didn’t God put the gospel in the mind of everyone, like in a vision, so that everyone would have the opportunity to obtain mercy through faith in Christ?”

Pastor: God’s plan of using born again believers to spread the gospel, to make disciples of all nations provides those in Christ with a job, the ministry of reconciliation as ambassadors of Christ. We earn rewards, eternal rewards, when we let God use us to help bring others into the eternal kingdom. Could God have chosen another plan? Perhaps. But we as servants are called to carry out God’s chosen plan, not try and invent another plan where we avoid sacrificing and sharing in the suffering of Christ.

Bobby: "Is it love for God to give people good things for a few years to make them feel comfortable and worthwhile, and then send them to hell?"

Pastor: "Those who die in unbelief face perfect justice in the afterlife, so providing justice for all is a form of love for all.”

Bobby: "Is it love to let someone experience something good they will remember forever and always hate God for, because that good thing they loved more than forgiveness?"

Pastor: "Bobby that is a very important question!" In Romans we learn that everyone is without excuse, because an awareness of God arises from what He has made. And everyone has a conscience, so when people treat others differently than they treat themselves; they violate the law written on their heart. So as they are suffering for their misdeeds, they will regret not living right, and if they heard the gospel, not repenting and trusting in Christ. See Luke 16:19-31 to learn what the actual attitude of those in Hades will be.

Bobby: "O.K., Pastor. Did Jesus die for everybody?"

Pastor: "Yes, He gave His life as a ransom for all."

Bobby: "If Jesus died for everybody, why isn't everybody going to heaven?"

Pastor: "Bobby, as I explained already, Christ dying for everyone provides the means of salvation for everyone, but in order to receive the reconciliation, we must trust in and be devoted to Christ, and then God keeps His covenant of love and has mercy on us."

Bobby: "Well, Pastor, you told me that Jesus died for everybody, and that only those who accept him will be saved. So, this means Jesus' death and resurrection cannot save us of itself, but something more is needed, and that something more is what we do by accepting him. For those who do not accept Jesus, they will perish. That means that Jesus' dying for them cannot help them. In fact, it means that Jesus' work for them was a miserable failure. On the other hand, those who accept him make his work real by their acceptance—and they save his work from being a failure. Without us, Jesus, and his work of salvation—would be doomed! If Jesus cannot save us without the permission we give of our own free will, then we are the real saviors, and Jesus is the one we save! Wow! What would he ever do without us?!”

Pastor: "Bobby, I see that someone has been filling your head with falsehoods. Do not be led astray by the clever stories of men. The reason only those who believe in Him will be saved is that is God’s plan of salvation, whoever believes in Him shall not perish. You know John 3:16 don’t you, Bobby. Do not let anyone tell you differently. Jesus dying for everyone does not help those who die in unbelief, but it does provide the means for them to believe and be saved. Everyone that is saved is saved by Jesus, by the grace of God and not by the will of man. His work of the cross was a complete success; God reconciled all things to Himself. God desires all men to be saved according to His purpose and plan, not according to some fiction made up by men, in a misguided effort to change the gospel.”

Bobby: "Pastor."

Pastor: "Yes, Bobby."

Bobby: "Are you certain about what you just said to me?"

Pastor: " What do you think, Bobby?"

Bobby: “You believe what you say, and I am grateful because you have opened my eyes and given me much to consider. I praise God for Pastors that care about the truth and care about bringing the truth to lost sinners like me.”

Pastor: Thanks Bobby, God has given us His word and we should live by it.

Bobby: "Pastor, I have one last question. When God put Abraham to sleep, was he telling him what he thought of his human responsibility?"

Pastor: Where did you get that silly idea? Let’s look at what God actually says. Do you know where the Book of Genesis is located in the Bible?

Bobby: Yes, it is the first book, the one that lays the foundation for the rest of God’s word. And I even know that the account of Abraham is somewhere in the middle of the book!”

Pastor: Great Bobby, lets skim through the middle and see if we can find where Abram fell asleep and saw a vision from God. Here it is, Chapter 15:12-16. Abram has put his trust in God and God has credited it with righteousness, but Abram asks God how he will know that he will possess it. God gave him a vision and a sign, the oven and flaming torch. So God displayed His love for Abraham, and made a covenant with him. So God was telling Abraham so Abraham would know his descendents would inherit the Promised Land. The passage records God’s blessings toward Abraham after He credited His faith as righteousness, reinforcing the importance of our responsibility to listen and learn from God.

Bobby: Thanks Pastor, I have sure learned a lot, but the most import thing seems to be to trust in what God says, rather than in what men say God says. See you Sunday, and try not to spit into the mike.

 

[Skandelon]

So the OT folks got to heaven without Jesus? Is that it. Still heresy, sir. Here is a clue, no one means no one. No need to revise no one to mean no one except the kind, nice and good folks who never heard the gospel.

No one goes to heaven apart from Christ, but those in the OT didn't necessarily know his name or the details of the gospel. Righteousness was credited to Abraham's account because he believe in God and trusted his promises. Rahab was credited with righteousness because she feared the God of the spies and hid them. Neither of them would be in heaven if not for the atoning work of Christ, but we are NOT saved by Grace through knowledge of correct doctrine, we are saved by Grace through faith. That grace is made possible by Christ's work and that FAITH is in God and his promises (God includes Christ obviously, but not all are made privy to the full doctrine of the Trinity). Now, do you believe that the OT believers did know the name of Christ and understood the Gospel as we do today? If so, can you provide proof to that? If not, then we agree that Grace covers such ignorance and we shouldn't be debating this point.

How could anyone be baffled because sending a vision and sending a dream are completely different. Yeah, right!

No need to be snarky, we are just having a discussion. God obviously reveals himself to people in dreams in scripture, do you deny this? Again, I'm not arguing that he does do this today, I'm merely throwing out possible ways God COULD reveal himself if He so chooses so as to respond to the question about those in places that never have the gospel preached.

 

[kyredneck]

....but I'm with you on this eternal salvation stuff.

So what's your problem with 'this eternal salvation stuff'? You don't like the idea of having your name 'written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world'?

 

[Tom Butler]

So what's your problem with 'this eternal salvation stuff'? You don't like the idea of having your name 'written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world'?

I think we have to be sure that we understand what each of us means when using such terms. I don't want us to talk past each other.

First, I have no problem with the verse you quoted. I understand that the Lamb's being slain from the foundation of the world is figurative, because he was actually slain in real time. But it also confirms a larger truth. That this was the plan from eternity, and it was certain to happen.

I also understand that God doesn't learn anything new, so when he saved me, it wasn't just a sudden decision. It was known and decided from eternity in the mind of God, but happened in real time.

So, there is a sense in which my salvation was certain from eternity. And, it was certain that I would not die before the Lord saved me at age nine.

But, IF I had died in my lost condition, I would have gone to Hell. That's why I don't agree with the use of the term "eternal salvation."

I'm sure your view on this is consistent with other things you believe. I just don't see it the same way.

 

[Van]

Now, do you believe that the OT believers did know the name of Christ and understood the Gospel as we do today? If so, can you provide proof to that? If not, then we agree that Grace covers such ignorance and we shouldn't be debating this point.

Of course they "gained approval" through faith, and therefore were carried to "Abraham's bosom." But that was not "entering heaven" because John 3:13. So Grace did not cover entry into heaven without being washed by the blood of Jesus. And all these [OT saints], having gained approval through their faith, did NOT receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us [i.e. not in Christ with us] they should not be made perfect.

So your whole effort to support salvation without being placed spiritually in Christ by God is mistaken.

This is all pretty basic Skandelon, and anyone who claims God saves folks by grace but not through faith in Christ, is pushing unorthodox views, certainly not salvation by grace alone, through faith ALONE. I just do not understand folks who invent stuff and then say prove what scripture does not address is not true. That is not an example of living by the word of God.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Skandelon....
When you are finally finished debating with Icon......Oops, I mean "Van" (they are indistinguishable).....you might get yourself back to your intended OP:

I find that to be an interesting topic: When you could return to it.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

{Van} I just do not understand folks who invent stuff and then say prove what scripture does not address is not true.

No, you don't...and that is because you jump to unnecessary conclusions about what they are actually trying to say. You don't listen. Skan is many things...but not the heretic you think he is...But you don't know that because you don't pay attention to him. You THINK you know what he is trying to say...but you don't. You do not understand him, nor do you actually understand Calvinists, nor Molinists...nor Classical Arminians...nor anyone who doesn't agree with you 100%

You are basically incapable of differentiating between what someone who doesn't understand all things as you do, in accordance with their own way of expressing themselves....and the language of your own assumptions.
You don't speak Skan's language....really. Nor do you understand the "language" of those who do not agree with you in every minor detail. This is why you are finding yourself in a position of actually debating whether Skan believes in salvation by grace, and through faith, and via Jesus Christ alone.....You are making him restate incessantly what are assumed premises of basic Christian faith, and he is un-used to having to defend them from professed Christians.

Skan is unaware of the factoid that you are questioning his basic understanding of Salvation....He seems to think that certain fundamentals are basically assumed. He doesn't realize that you are veritably calling his own salvation into question. You are wasting everyone's time. I would personally be thrilled if he were allowed to return to the OP he was suggesting...Only, of course, if that is o.k. with you.

 

[Iconoclast]

Skandelon....
When you are finally finished debating with Icon......Oops, I mean "Van" (they are indistinguishable).....you might get yourself back to your intended OP:

I find that to be an interesting topic: When you could return to it.

Behave yourself Hos.....

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Behave yourself Hos.....

O.K. fair enough:type:

 

[Van]

Pitchback

No, you don't...and that is because you jump to unnecessary conclusions about what they are actually trying to say. You don't listen. Skan is many things...but not the heretic you think he is...But you don't know that because you don't pay attention to him. You THINK you know what he is trying to say...but you don't. You do not understand him, nor do you actually understand Calvinists, nor Molinists...nor Classical Arminians...nor anyone who doesn't agree with you 100%

You are basically incapable of differentiating between what someone who doesn't understand all things as you do, in accordance with their own way of expressing themselves....and the language of your own assumptions.
You don't speak Skan's language....really. Nor do you understand the "language" of those who do not agree with you in every minor detail. This is why you are finding yourself in a position of actually debating whether Skan believes in salvation by grace, and through faith, and via Jesus Christ alone.....You are making him restate incessantly what are assumed premises of basic Christian faith, and he is un-used to having to defend them from professed Christians.

Skan is unaware of the factoid that you are questioning his basic understanding of Salvation....He seems to think that certain fundamentals are basically assumed. He doesn't realize that you are veritably calling his own salvation into question. You are wasting everyone's time. I would personally be thrilled if he were allowed to return to the OP he was suggesting...Only, of course, if that is o.k. with you.

[inflammatory - please don't call others names]

Did I question Skan's salvation? Nope, because salvation does not depend on doctrine. You seem unable to understand Skan's position. In the form of a question, to provide plausible deniablity, he made an argument from silence, suggesting that God might send a "dream" (AKA vision) to some who never heard the gospel and therefore died in unbelief.

My view is that because of the Fall, we are conceived in iniquity, and nothing we can do will get us into heaven, including believing in God the Father as the OT Saints did.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no one, and I mean no one, enters heaven except through Jesus. This is the orthodox view.

 

[Van]

Can a person be saved based on General Revelation? My answer is no.

Does God provide salvation apart from folks hearing, understanding and fully embracing the gospel of Christ? My answer is no.

Does God say everyone conceived receives an opportunity to hear, understand and fully embrace the gospel of Christ? My answer is no.

This is the orthodox Baptist view. Therefore we are to pray for God to send more workers including how we can help in that endeavor, for the harvest time is now until Christ returns.

 

[Skandelon]

So your whole effort to support salvation without being placed spiritually in Christ by God is mistaken.

Who said they weren't 'placed spiritually in Christ by God?" I'm only saying they didn't necessarily know of Jesus of Nazareth. They didn't understand the gospel as we know it today and yet their mustard seed sized faith in what ever revelation they were granted WAS credited as righteousness BY GRACE. Who are you to say that God, in his Grace, couldn't place the OT believer in Christ without them even knowing his name? Why is knowledge of Christ necessary for Grace to be applied? Doesn't the scripture say that God overlooked such ignorance in times past?

This is all pretty basic Skandelon, and anyone who claims God saves folks by grace but not through faith in Christ, is pushing unorthodox views, certainly not salvation by grace alone, through faith ALONE. I just do not understand folks who invent stuff and then say prove what scripture does not address is not true. That is not an example of living by the word of God.

Invent stuff? Really? Nothing I'm arguing or saying here is new. It's one thing to disagree with my perspective but to lack knowledge about the history of this discussion while acting as if you know it all is quite unbearable for me. I best bow out before I write something I regret.

 

[Skandelon]

My view is that because of the Fall, we are conceived in iniquity, and nothing we can do will get us into heaven, including believing in God the Father as the OT Saints did.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no one, and I mean no one, enters heaven except through Jesus. This is the orthodox view.

I'm being accused of not affirming that Jesus is the only way to heaven, which is a false accusation. I've explained my perspective numerous times and in numerous ways, but I have not ONCE suggested that anyone can be saved apart from Christ's atoning work. We are discussing the lack of KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING of the incarnation by those who lived prior to it, yet who did 'fear the Lord' and 'believe in Him and his promises.' If anyone can't understand that distinction they probably shouldn't continue in this discussion.

 

[Skandelon]

EVERY man is responsible to know, and accept and profess what knowledge of God as has been appropriate for their specific time-frame

Agreed.

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.

Agreed. But did He HAVE TO? That is my question. Was their a legal requirement to be fulfilled, or was God 'free' to credit his level of faith in his given revelation as righteousness?

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....

Again, I agree, but that (1) assumes that level of revelation exists for everyone/everywhere equally OR (2) that God will make it exist to everyone who responds the their given level of light. #1 is clearly false, and I've affirmed that #2 is certainly viable and most preferred, BUT my speculative question centers around the necessity of God to do this, not whether or not He actually does. I hope He does, I even think He does, but is it required? If specific knowledge of Jesus wasn't required for OT believers, then that seems to suggest it may not be for NT believers who had never heard.

Assuming that free will is the correct world-view, couldn't a missionary told to go to a region disobey and a 'God-fearing' man (someone like Cornelius, who responded to the general revelation) die in ignorance of Jesus' atoning work? You may conclude that is NOT possible (which is fine, I might actually agree), but for the sake of this particular argument, just assume that IS a possibility. Could God credit that man's little bit of faith as righteousness or not? Is there any judicial or legal reason God would be comprising His justice or holiness to do so?

 

[Skandelon]

VERSES TO CONSIDER:

"In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." -- Acts 17:30

"...in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished" -- Rom 3:25b

"God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them." -- 2 Cor. 5:19

"For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." -- John 12:47-48​

Clearly God was able and willing to 'overlook ignorance' at some time in History. He was able and willing to leave sins unpunished for a time. He was able and willing to 'not count men's sin against them.' He was able and willing to not judge them based upon their sins, but instead upon their response to his words of reconciliation.

What does this tell us about God?