General Revelation

[Van]

Pitchback

Please don't be patronizing.

I answered your question. I was not being "patronizing." I had referenced the biblical basis before. Mind reading is virulent on this forum with folks claiming they know my motives, but what is actually going on is they are assuming the worst, and certainly not that my attitude is love of my brothers and sisters. Rather than accept my efforts at building others up, folks claim all sorts of petty behavior, none of it true.

 

[quantumfaith]

I answered your question. I was not being "patronizing." I had referenced the biblical basis before. Mind reading is virulent on this forum with folks claiming they know my motives, but what is actually going on is they are assuming the worst, and certainly not that my attitude is love of my brothers and sisters. Rather than accept my efforts at building others up, folks claim all sorts of petty behavior, none of it true.

Fair enough, apologies for reading it the wrong way.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Hi Skandelon,

The so-called "inclusive view of salvation" can be goggled and you can read all about it and its RCC origin. The "exclusive view" is the orthodox fundamentalist Baptist view. There is no other name under heaven, so knowledge of Jesus, i.e. the gospel of Christ, the power of God for salvation.

It is true that all mankind was "bought" such that everyone belongs to the New Covenant opportunity, providing justification of life to all men. However to receive the reconciliation requires belief in the one of a kind Son of God.

But what about God sending a dream version of the gospel and enabling babies and the feeble minded to understand and embrace it? Not mentioned in scripture, a fiction created apart from scripture alone doctrine, thus unorthodox.

Trust in what the Bible says, and not in what men propose based on what the Bible does not say.

I beg to differ. The original Quakers said that it is true that there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved except Jesus, but it is not the "outward" knowledge which is essential, but the inward, experiential knowledge. And there are many scriptures that affirm the same; I have cited some of them elsewhere. Or do you believe a just, merciful, and loving God would send someone to hell based on unavoidable ignorance? I do not, and the Bible affirms God does not do this.

 

[Van]

Yes we read our Bibles differently

I beg to differ. The original Quakers said that it is true that there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved except Jesus, but it is not the "outward" knowledge which is essential, but the inward, experiential knowledge. And there are many scriptures that affirm the same; I have cited some of them elsewhere. Or do you believe a just, merciful, and loving God would send someone to hell based on unavoidable ignorance? I do not, and the Bible affirms God does not do this.

First, I agree salvation is based on whether God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness or not. It is not based on doctrine, but on a genuine love of Christ and a willingness to march through fire for our Lord. However, there is no other name under heaven whereby a person may be saved.

Now the idea of "believing in the name of Jesus" means we believe in what we have learned about Jesus from second hand sources, rather than from interacting with Jesus in the flesh 2000 years ago. Thus Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One chosen to redeem us as the Lamb of God.

Would God send someone to Hell (i.e. Hades and Gehenna) due to unavoidable ignorance? Nope. How about being conceived in iniquity, and spiritually dead, separated from God. Yes. My view is not supported by a generalized assertion, i.e. a loving and just God would not do this, but on specific scriptures, i.e. John 3:18 says we are condemned already because of unbelief. Therefore before you believe, you are not uncondemned, but condemned already. When did this unbelief, i.e. lack of belief in the name of Jesus occur? At conception. We were "by nature" children of wrath before we were chosen.

Now if you would like to present the scriptures used to support salvation of the innocent, I will be glad to consider it once again. However, when actually studied the arguments from scripture, rather than from an assumed behavior by a loving God, collapse like a deck of cards.

 

[Yeshua1]

First, I agree salvation is based on whether God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness or not. It is not based on doctrine, but on a genuine love of Christ and a willingness to march through fire for our Lord. However, there is no other name under heaven whereby a person may be saved.

Now the idea of "believing in the name of Jesus" means we believe in what we have learned about Jesus from second hand sources, rather than from interacting with Jesus in the flesh 2000 years ago. Thus Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One chosen to redeem us as the Lamb of God.

Would God send someone to Hell (i.e. Hades and Gehenna) due to unavoidable ignorance? Nope. How about being conceived in iniquity, and spiritually dead, separated from God. Yes. My view is not supported by a generalized assertion, i.e. a loving and just God would not do this, but on specific scriptures, i.e. John 3:18 says we are condemned already because of unbelief. Therefore before you believe, you are not uncondemned, but condemned already. When did this unbelief, i.e. lack of belief in the name of Jesus occur? At conception. We were "by nature" children of wrath before we were chosen.

Now if you would like to present the scriptures used to support salvation of the innocent, I will be glad to consider it once again. However, when actually studied the arguments from scripture, rather than from an assumed behavior by a loving God, collapse like a deck of cards.

whatever the term 'god crediting" it towards us due to faith does NOT mean our faith is the basis of salvation, for THAT is due to the death of jesus upon the Cross!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

{Skandelon} BUT my speculative question centers around the necessity of God to do this, not whether or not He actually does.

Generally, with God...I do not think it usually fruitful to separate what he does "necessarily" and "actually". Humans may be duplicitous or un-predictable. I do not think God to be very unpredictable. I think that when we understand what are his "necessary" qualities...than we miss something if we think him likely to divulge from them...He IS who he is, and he doesn't deviate from it....in a way, he is actually more SIMPLE than we are. He doesn't suffer from some form of inner conflict like we do.

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?

Let's take this from the Abraham example....this thing I think you are missing is that Abraham was aware of...and totally cognizant of EVERY level of REVEALED revelation extant at THAT TIME. Abraham is not like someone devoid of modern revelatory truth...such as the "Heathen"...Abraham possessed "ALL" of what revealed truths there were about God in his time-frame. Thus, they are incomparable. Abraham is not to be confused with someone in our era (which possesses a more specific knowledge of Christ's atoning work) Abraham was only responsible to respond to God as God had told him to "Go into a land that I shall tell thee of"...and to "sacrifice thy Son, thine only Son, Isaac."....Abraham was responsible ONLY for those things, and the "sum-total" of all revelation at his "time-frame" or in his own "dispensation", was all he was responsible for, because God has revealed nothing more. Abraham was fully aware of all of God's revelation to mankind relevant to his time-frame....So, it is not quite the same as someone in our era who is uninformed of the fullness of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Is there any judicial or legal reason God would be comprising His justice or holiness to do so?

Yes...I think so. I think, however, we tend to suffer from a basic lack of Historical knowledge about the ancient world...and the extent to which God has truly revealed himself to all nations...including the gentile ones. If we study books like Daniel, and Jonah, and even the 56th chapter of Isaiah, what we will find is (IMO) a dearth of Spiritual revelation available to so-called "gentile" nations within their own contexts. A study of the book of Habbakukh should reveal to us that God has disseminated the revelation of truth to all peoples FAR more than we moderns usually tend to think he does. The ancient world...and the forth-coming generations..were not NEAR as devoid of Scriptural revelation as we tend to think they were.
If the prophet Daniel alone had an effect upon the Persians...Than what that means is that God had placed him SPECIFICALLY within that Socio-historical time-frame to dessiminate more Spiritual truths than we moderns can comprehend.

Read the Historical works of Will Durant...what you will find is ancient Historical Persian texts, about how a man...and I quote: "For his soul, a man hath sacrificed the lamb...for the lamb, the man hath traded his life..." (This is a quotation from an ancient Persian text). There are acrtually ancient Sumerian texts which read similarly. What I am getting at, is that the Persian Empire (for instance) had SO MUCH Uninversal influence in it's era, that that particular dissemination of idea was so immediately wide-spread we hardly fathom it. Study in detail the accounts of why Christ so passionately threw out the "money-changers" in the temple...and you will find his quotation from Isaiah 56....What enraged Christ was Jews who had, (via their legalities) prevented GENTILES from worshipping and finding salvation. It isn't that it was a "House of prayer".....(per se) that enraged him...but it was that is was a "House of Prayer"...."For ALL NATIONS" That was the quote from Isaiah 56 to which Jesus refered.....Read it!!!! What this actually shows us, IMO, is that God TRULY desires the salvation of EVERY MAN...in contradiction to what the Calvinists teach...God has truly, and ALWAYS desired that ALL MEN, throughout all time, and in every era be saved. God made himself so clearly known in ALL time-frames...that he truly desires that all men repent, in contradistinction to the teachings of Calvinism.....But we do not need to compromise on the revelation of Jesus Christ to understand that or arrive there.

There will be, in heaven, I think, FAR MORE saved ancient gentiles than we think there will be. Even Ninevah, repented and believed, according to the prophet Jonah. Fully 60,000 people...(an incalculably high number in the ancient world) repented and believed. God, Skan, in short, has left no-one devoid of appropriate revelation...BUT...they are ALL responsible for what extent of revelation God has given man to date....God has NOW...revealed that salvation is only through the name of Jesus Christ....and all men will be responsible to respond to THAT NAME and that name alone for salvation.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

First, I agree salvation is based on whether God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness or not. It is not based on doctrine, but on a genuine love of Christ and a willingness to march through fire for our Lord. However, there is no other name under heaven whereby a person may be saved.

Now the idea of "believing in the name of Jesus" means we believe in what we have learned about Jesus from second hand sources, rather than from interacting with Jesus in the flesh 2000 years ago. Thus Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One chosen to redeem us as the Lamb of God.

Would God send someone to Hell (i.e. Hades and Gehenna) due to unavoidable ignorance? Nope. How about being conceived in iniquity, and spiritually dead, separated from God. Yes. My view is not supported by a generalized assertion, i.e. a loving and just God would not do this, but on specific scriptures, i.e. John 3:18 says we are condemned already because of unbelief. Therefore before you believe, you are not uncondemned, but condemned already. When did this unbelief, i.e. lack of belief in the name of Jesus occur? At conception. We were "by nature" children of wrath before we were chosen.

Now if you would like to present the scriptures used to support salvation of the innocent, I will be glad to consider it once again. However, when actually studied the arguments from scripture, rather than from an assumed behavior by a loving God, collapse like a deck of cards.

Not sure I wanted to get into this again, but here are a few scripture passages which I mentioned in other places: John 1:9; Titus 2;11, Romans Chapter 2. The issue is settled with me, so I really have no desire to debate it. You and others can believe as you will.

 

[Van]

Lets have a look:

Not sure I wanted to get into this again, but here are a few scripture passages which I mentioned in other places: John 1:9; Titus 2;11, Romans Chapter 2. The issue is settled with me, so I really have no desire to debate it. You and others can believe as you will.

John 1:9: There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. The assertion here is that this verse means God gives the gospel light to everyone, including those who never heard the gospel. The actual message is the world did not know Him. Therefore they had not been enlightened. Thus as many as received him, even those who believed in His name, to them He gave the right to become children of God. So the context of the verse clearly teaches the assertion, universal enlightenment, is mistaken doctrine.

Titus 2:11: 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, The assertion here is that to bring salvation to all men, it means all men understand and either accept or reject it. However, once again this assertion is mistaken. The first soil of Matthew 13 had the gospel presented, yet it remained unknown. So again the actual idea is the gospel of Christ provides the means of salvation to all men, but not all men are able to avail it. For example no one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father, and therefore, if you do not hear or learn, i.e. accept, embrace, the gospel, you are not drawn, just as the first soil was not drawn. John 12:32 says if I be high and lifted up, I will draw all men. But again, the idea is the men must "behold" Christ dying for them on the cross, and that insight escapes those who have hardened their hearts, and those who never "behold" i.e. never hear the gospel in the first place.

Romans 2 teaches we condemn ourselves by treating others differently than we treat ourselves, we do not do unto others as we would have them do unto us. So even though we never heard the gospel, we piled up wrath against ourselves. Verse 6 teaches God will render to every one according to his or her deeds. Thus if a child dies before doing anything good or bad, (see Romans 9) he has not stored up any wrath. But he or she remains condemned and separated from God due to unbelief, John 3:18.

Now verse 7 must be understood to apply to folks who have been born again, thus able to do good. Before that, all our works of righteousness are filthy rags.

In verse 13 we have another verse that teaches we can be justified by being "doers" of the Law, which refers to "love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. The only folks able to keep those commandments and thus be doers of the law, are born again folks, made perfect in Christ.

At the end of the passage we see that folks without the Law violate the law written on their hearts, and those with the law violate it, so everyone is under condemnation, and ignorance of the Law does not provide justification.

Bottom line, there is no actual support for salvation of the innocent in scripture, but there is support for God rendering to the innocent such as babies and the feeble minded according to their deeds, which suggests a lack of punishment because they have not done anything bad.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

John 1:9: There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. The assertion here is that this verse means God gives the gospel light to everyone, including those who never heard the gospel. The actual message is the world did not know Him. Therefore they had not been enlightened. Thus as many as received him, even those who believed in His name, to them He gave the right to become children of God. So the context of the verse clearly teaches the assertion, universal enlightenment, is mistaken doctrine.

Titus 2:11: 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, The assertion here is that to bring salvation to all men, it means all men understand and either accept or reject it. However, once again this assertion is mistaken. The first soil of Matthew 13 had the gospel presented, yet it remained unknown. So again the actual idea is the gospel of Christ provides the means of salvation to all men, but not all men are able to avail it. For example no one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father, and therefore, if you do not hear or learn, i.e. accept, embrace, the gospel, you are not drawn, just as the first soil was not drawn. John 12:32 says if I be high and lifted up, I will draw all men. But again, the idea is the men must "behold" Christ dying for them on the cross, and that insight escapes those who have hardened their hearts, and those who never "behold" i.e. never hear the gospel in the first place.

Romans 2 teaches we condemn ourselves by treating others differently than we treat ourselves, we do not do unto others as we would have them do unto us. So even though we never heard the gospel, we piled up wrath against ourselves. Verse 6 teaches God will render to every one according to his or her deeds. Thus if a child dies before doing anything good or bad, (see Romans 9) he has not stored up any wrath. But he or she remains condemned and separated from God due to unbelief, John 3:18.

Now verse 7 must be understood to apply to folks who have been born again, thus able to do good. Before that, all our works of righteousness are filthy rags.

In verse 13 we have another verse that teaches we can be justified by being "doers" of the Law, which refers to "love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. The only folks able to keep those commandments and thus be doers of the law, are born again folks, made perfect in Christ.

At the end of the passage we see that folks without the Law violate the law written on their hearts, and those with the law violate it, so everyone is under condemnation, and ignorance of the Law does not provide justification.

Bottom line, there is no actual support for salvation of the innocent in scripture, but there is support for God rendering to the innocent such as babies and the feeble minded according to their deeds, which suggests a lack of punishment because they have not done anything bad.

Well, of course I strongly disagree with your interpretations, but also of course you knew that. I suppose there is no need to go further.

 

[Skandelon]

Hi Skandelon,

The so-called "inclusive view of salvation" can be goggled and you can read all about it and its RCC origin. The "exclusive view" is the orthodox fundamentalist Baptist view. There is no other name under heaven, so knowledge of Jesus, i.e. the gospel of Christ, the power of God for salvation.

It is true that all mankind was "bought" such that everyone belongs to the New Covenant opportunity, providing justification of life to all men. However to receive the reconciliation requires belief in the one of a kind Son of God.

But what about God sending a dream version of the gospel and enabling babies and the feeble minded to understand and embrace it? Not mentioned in scripture, a fiction created apart from scripture alone doctrine, thus unorthodox.

Trust in what the Bible says, and not in what men propose based on what the Bible does not say.

I googled those terms but most of the links seemed to speak more about the idea of all religions leading to heaven, not our issue. Can you specifically link me to a known Baptist scholar who expounds on your perspective? Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

Heir,

What about Rahab? You speak of Abraham being fully knowledgable of all the revelation of 'his time.' Would you consider this to be true of a uneducated prostitute who God's deems righteous because in faith she hids the Israelite spies? How about the thief on the cross next to Christ? Was he fully aware of the atoning work being accomplished while defending Christ against the other mockers?

See my point? I'm not sure that argument holds much water considering the apparent lack of knowledge that many had who were clearly deemed righteous in the sight of God. (again, not by their own merit, but by His sheer act of grace)

 

[Van]

I googled those terms but most of the links seemed to speak more about the idea of all religions leading to heaven, not our issue. Can you specifically link me to a known Baptist scholar who expounds on your perspective? Thanks

Why is it not our issue. If a good Muslin dies without ever hearing the gospel of Christ, would he go to Hades and Gehenna without an opportunity, or would God send him a dream or vision and provide him with the opportunity? I say no, you suggest yes is a possibility. This is not an orthodox view.

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

Knowledge of Jesus, i.e. His name, is required for salvation.
I know the doctrine is obscure and it is no wonder you have never understood it. Try googling "Sola Fide."

 

[Van]

Here is a link to an article that lays out the various "salvation of the ignorant" views.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/salvati...3-those-who-have-never-heard-survey-major-pos

 

[HeirofSalvation]

What about Rahab? You speak of Abraham being fully knowledgable of all the revelation of 'his time.' Would you consider this to be true of a uneducated prostitute who God's deems righteous because in faith she hids the Israelite spies?

Well...Rahab was eventually made an Israelite, so she became a party to the whole of God's Revelation. She responded to the news of the coming of the Israelites with fear..."The beginning of wisdom", but she isn't an example of anyone who was "saved" outside of full and complete knowledge of God's "salvific" plan that was made known to all Israel.

How about the thief on the cross next to Christ? Was he fully aware of the atoning work being accomplished while defending Christ against the other mockers?

Well....he called him "Lord", and he begged for Christ to "remember him"....that is sufficient for anyone I would think. We know his heart was repentant, and he accepted "Who" Christ was by proclaiming Christs Divinity. Although, no, he certainly didn't quite understand all the ends and outs of atonement. I don't think that is necessary for anyone in today's day and age. I think we tend to assume too often, in this day and age, that for salvation....one must be able to recite the "Four Spiritual Laws"...and explain what being "born again" means in detail. I don't think that is true. I do see what you are saying in at least the sense that to cry out to Jesus for salvation with a contrite and repentent heart is sufficient, and we sometimes preach as though that heart condition is insufficient. It really is enough though. Reading John Newton's account of his own salvation doesn't quite read to us as modern-day Baptists of an account of going forward at the invitation time at a Billy Graham crusade, and "being born again" and "asking Jesus into his heart" and "getting saved" and all those other buzz-words we often associate with salvation. He just cried out to God for mercy...and using his own words....I think that is the source of some of our confusion sometimes on these topics. We have sort of made the entire thing more formal and complicated than it really is.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Here is a link to an article that lays out the various "salvation of the ignorant" views.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/salvati...3-those-who-have-never-heard-survey-major-pos

Excellent article...thanks :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Why is it not our issue. If a good Muslin dies without ever hearing the gospel of Christ, would he go to Hades and Gehenna without an opportunity, or would God send him a dream or vision and provide him with the opportunity? I say no, you suggest yes is a possibility. This is not an orthodox view.

Ok, now I see your misunderstanding. I wasn't arguing that God WOULD send everyone a dream to provide them an opportunity.

We were talking about those who respond to the general light of God's revelation being sent MORE revelation (i.e. he who is faithful with little is given more). And I was talking about the various means God MAY chose to use in order to get his revelation to those people. Obviously sending a missionary/preacher is the most common/notable means God uses to reveal his will, but scripture does speak of the use of dreams as well, so I suggested it as a POSSIBLE thing he could do if he had to get revelation to someone He wanted to reach. He could also write the gospel in the sky, if he wanted to, but I didn't mention that because scripture never speaks of it...it does speak of dreams.

I'm not attempting to say that God is going to make sure every person gets an opportunity to respond to the special revelation of the gospel. Okay? I think you jumped in the middle of my conversation with Heir and you came to a false conclusion about what I was saying. No big deal, but now that I've explained myself a few times you need to try to meet me half way and attempt to understand my perspective a little better.

Knowledge of Jesus, i.e. His name, is required for salvation.

So Rahab and other OT believers weren't saved in you opinion, but they are at Abraham's Bosom...some limbo state in the middle? Is that right? I've asked for clarity on this several times.

I'm about to read the link you just posted, so maybe that will help...

 

[Yeshua1]

Ok, now I see your misunderstanding. I wasn't arguing that God WOULD send everyone a dream to provide them an opportunity.

We were talking about those who respond to the general light of God's revelation being sent MORE revelation (i.e. he who is faithful with little is given more). And I was talking about the various means God MAY chose to use in order to get his revelation to those people. Obviously sending a missionary/preacher is the most common/notable means God uses to reveal his will, but scripture does speak of the use of dreams as well, so I suggested it as a POSSIBLE thing he could do if he had to get revelation to someone He wanted to reach. He could also write the gospel in the sky, if he wanted to, but I didn't mention that because scripture never speaks of it...it does speak of dreams.

I'm not attempting to say that God is going to make sure every person gets an opportunity to respond to the special revelation of the gospel. Okay? I think you jumped in the middle of my conversation with Heir and you came to a false conclusion about what I was saying. No big deal, but now that I've explained myself a few times you need to try to meet me half way and attempt to understand my perspective a little better.

So Rahab and other OT believers weren't saved in you opinion, but they are at Abraham's Bosom...some limbo state in the middle? Is that right? I've asked for clarity on this several times.

I'm about to read the link you just posted, so maybe that will help...

ALL jews that were save din the OT are saved by same thing we now are, by the atonement of jesus upon the Cross as propiation for sins!

the elected out ones would have been saved by grace thru faith on the basis of the Messiah to come, as we today are save same way by he who already had come!

And Muslims/jews/gentiles etc...

ALL of us are sinners who need the Grace of God in order to save us now!

God knows those whom He has ordained to be saved by jesus death, and he will provode the means for them to somehow hear the good news and to get saved!

 

[Skandelon]

Here is a link to an article that lays out the various "salvation of the ignorant" views.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/salvati...3-those-who-have-never-heard-survey-major-pos

I agree, this is a very good and informative article. Thanks for posting it.

I want to highlight a few things from it here:

"In response to both universalism and restrictivism—viewed by many Christians as extremes—a wide number of views have been developed that situate themselves between these polar views."​

Van, you appear to hold to a restrictionism position (the one consistent with Calvinistic approach, ironically enough), yet this author seems to acknowledge that restrictionism is most often seen as an 'extreme' and that there are other more moderate views in the middle (which includes the one I hold to) yet you've accused me of being 'unorthodox' and 'making stuff up.' You've also accused me of believing that people can be saved apart from Christ, yet this author clearly explains exactly what I've been arguing all along, which is...

"The listed adherents of all these views agree that Jesus is the only Savior... According to inclusivism, Jesus is the particular savior of the world, but people can benefit from the redemptive work of Christ even though they die never hearing about Christ—if they respond in faith to God based on the revelation God has given them. (NOTE: this is consistent for my view of OT believers, and I've been discussing the "universal sending" possibilities that Heir was alluding to regarding this 'dispensation.')​

Does this article help you to see that my view (1) is not denying Christ is the only means by which anyone is saved and (2) is not unorthodox?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree, this is a very good and informative article. Thanks for posting it.

I want to highlight a few things from it here:

"In response to both universalism and restrictivism—viewed by many Christians as extremes—a wide number of views have been developed that situate themselves between these polar views."​

Van, you appear to hold to a restrictionism position (the one consistent with Calvinistic approach, ironically enough), yet this author seems to acknowledge that restrictionism is most often seen as an 'extreme' and that there are other more moderate views in the middle (which includes the one I hold to) yet you've accused me of being 'unorthodox' and 'making stuff up.' You've also accused me of believing that people can be saved apart from Christ, yet this author clearly explains exactly what I've been arguing all along, which is...

[INDENT]"The listed adherents of all these views agree that Jesus is the only Savior... According to inclusivism, Jesus is the particular savior of the world, but people can benefit from the redemptive work of Christ even though they die never hearing about Christ—if they respond in faith to God based on the revelation God has given them. (NOTE: this is consistent for my view of OT believers, and I've been discussing the "universal sending" possibilities that Heir was alluding to regarding this 'dispensation.') [/INDENT]

Does this article help you to see that my view (1) is not denying Christ is the only means by which anyone is saved and (2) is not unorthodox?

The problem is that NONE can be saved apart from the special revelation of God in Christ, which is preached by the Gospel of Christ!

 

[Skandelon]

The problem is that NONE can be saved apart from the special revelation of God in Christ, which is preached by the Gospel of Christ!

So, regarding OT believers who never had the gospel preached to them, do you believe:

1) God revealed the gospel to them supernaturally prior to their death? If so, how and what exactly do you believe they knew about the gospel?

2) God revealed the gospel to them after their death?

3) God never revealed the gospel to them, thus they were never saved.

4) _____________[fill in the blank]