If you have never heard of Jesus than all that is left is your works. No one can be saved by their works so yes one has to hear about Jesus and what He did before they can come to faith.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Must you hear the gospel to be saved?
- Thread starter Jacob_Elliott
- Start date
- Status
If you have never heard of Jesus than all that is left is your works. No one can be saved by their works so yes one has to hear about Jesus and what He did before they can come to faith.
Yes, he was asked the following question:
His response to this was the following:
Archie the Preacher
Member
Leaning toward hearing or reading...
C. S. Lewis made some statements in his novels (Narnia) indicating he (Lewis) seemed to believe one could be saved without a formal hearing of the gospel.
However, he didn't explain that view much and I never found any discussion of it in his works. (It may be there somewhere, I've just never found it.) So I'm a bit confused. I rather like C. S. Lewis and find him an excellent expositor of Christianity. However, without hearing the entire explanation I'm a bit reluctant to accept it fully.
I have also heard of isolated groups of indigenous people who have 'found' a Bible they could read and came to belief in Christ without a Christian in attendance to to direct the process. However, I cannot run those down and verify those stories, either.
I'm not a 'universalist'; that is, I don't believe God will just forgive everyone at the end and reverse His prior stance of holding sinners accountable. On the other hand, Matthew 18:14 and 2 Peter 3:9 indicate God's intention is that none should 'perish' or 'be lost'. So I think God might give some the benefit of the doubt as to their intent (not works).
I like what Rev Mitchell posted about Romans 2:6-10. It follows logically and agrees with the nature of God - as far as I can tell. But; there's any number of things that 'sound good' and eventually fade out or fail. ?
However, in the final analysis, Jesus directed us (believers) to preach, convince, baptize and teach. Obviously, God had a reason for such orders.
C. S. Lewis made some statements in his novels (Narnia) indicating he (Lewis) seemed to believe one could be saved without a formal hearing of the gospel.
However, he didn't explain that view much and I never found any discussion of it in his works. (It may be there somewhere, I've just never found it.) So I'm a bit confused. I rather like C. S. Lewis and find him an excellent expositor of Christianity. However, without hearing the entire explanation I'm a bit reluctant to accept it fully.
I have also heard of isolated groups of indigenous people who have 'found' a Bible they could read and came to belief in Christ without a Christian in attendance to to direct the process. However, I cannot run those down and verify those stories, either.
I'm not a 'universalist'; that is, I don't believe God will just forgive everyone at the end and reverse His prior stance of holding sinners accountable. On the other hand, Matthew 18:14 and 2 Peter 3:9 indicate God's intention is that none should 'perish' or 'be lost'. So I think God might give some the benefit of the doubt as to their intent (not works).
I like what Rev Mitchell posted about Romans 2:6-10. It follows logically and agrees with the nature of God - as far as I can tell. But; there's any number of things that 'sound good' and eventually fade out or fail. ?
However, in the final analysis, Jesus directed us (believers) to preach, convince, baptize and teach. Obviously, God had a reason for such orders.
Last edited by a moderator:
When I hear the argument - "What about those who never had a chance to hear the gospel? Will God be so cruel to make them perish when they never had a chance?"
A man is justified by faith, and faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
The sower sows the seed, which is the gospel. Some believe and are saved, and some don't
I look to one biblical precedent for the supposed dilemma of those who never heard the gospel - Ethiopian Eunuch.
He did have the scriptures, but didn't understand them. So he was in no better shape than someone who didn't have the scriptures.
Out of nowhere, BOOM !! There was Philip to explain the gospel to him. The eunuch believed in Christ only after being met with the gospel of Christ.
God knows where the fertile ground is; and if there is fertile ground in some remote village, God will make sure someone gets there to preach the gospel.
A man is justified by faith, and faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
The sower sows the seed, which is the gospel. Some believe and are saved, and some don't
I look to one biblical precedent for the supposed dilemma of those who never heard the gospel - Ethiopian Eunuch.
He did have the scriptures, but didn't understand them. So he was in no better shape than someone who didn't have the scriptures.
Out of nowhere, BOOM !! There was Philip to explain the gospel to him. The eunuch believed in Christ only after being met with the gospel of Christ.
God knows where the fertile ground is; and if there is fertile ground in some remote village, God will make sure someone gets there to preach the gospel.
so, the long and short of what you're saying is, forget about the blood, look at the faith of the man because THAT is what saved him ?
??? What on earth gave you that idea ???
Maybe because I wrote:
A man is justified by faith, and faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
That is merely Romans 3:28 and 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 stating that a man is justified by faith, and
Romans 10:17 stating that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (or Christ)
Do you also assume that Paul taught that we forget about the blood? That it is a man's faith that saves him?
Or do you assume Paul meant that a man is justified byway of faith, or through faith, as in Romans 3:22 and Ephesians 2:8 ?
If you got your impression from something else I wrote, then do tell.
why is it my "assumptions" that is in question now ? I have always stated that the salvation that resulted from WHAT CHRIST DID ON THE CROSS is totally different from the salvation that results in faith IN Christ.
Two different things.
you all are the ones who want to ADD FAITH to the finished work of Christ IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE EFFECTIVE and beneficial to the sinner.
I have asked you all, time and again, what of babies who NEVER HEARD THE GOSPEL. Are you going to say theirs is a different method of salvation, that God has a different "plan" for them ?
what about those who are mentally challenged and fail to understand what the gospel means ? God has a different approach to them ?
remember, the OP is about "hearing" the gospel, and I think those questions are fair.
If you ask me those questions, my answer will always be: grace and mercy, the willingness of the Lord Jesus Christ to be their Savior, and the total agreement of the great One-in-Three to redeem them independent of their abilities.
On the side of those who want to add other elements to the sovereign mercy of God and His absolute grace, their answer is, in short: it is a mystery.
There's no mystery at all.
It's all plain in the Bible, scattered all over, one has to simply ask the Giver of wisdom, instead of rely on seminary teachings.
You did appear to ignore that part of salvation James.
Since my sister with CP had no ability to read, hear or understand the written word, are you implying that she then was not fertile ground? Then her mental inability made her a reprobate? Please take me through what you believe to be the steps of salvation.
"Means" salvation is taking on a whole new meaning for me....I find that extremely enlightening!
The only problem with that is...I Haven't Always Been Here.
Have you seen when I joined this forum? about 6 weeks ago.
So how in the world am I supposed to know what you've always stated?
I've been on different forums for the past 12 years. Do you know what I always stated on those forums?
So, since I have no idea what you've always stated, you might just need to share some of your assumptions, so I can figure out how you came to your questions?
If you think I'm adding to the cross, then you also accuse the apostle Paul too, because I used the same (translated) words found in scripture.
There is a difference between merit and access
The merit is Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross
The access is faith. Believing the gospel. Hearing and believing the word of God.
I already cited scripture for this, no need to do it again
I stated in another thread a few weeks ago that there are two groups of "believers":
1) I have faith that I am saved because of the finished work of Jesus
2) I am saved because I have faith in the finished work of Jesus
Those in group #2 argue that it's all semantics, while those in group #1 know the difference
Faith in faith is futile, and does not save anyone.
You've never asked me anything in this matter. Don't assume you know my answer.
In another thread here, I think the one about having a born again experience, I stated a position on babies, and that would also apply to mentally impaired as well.
Scripture NEVER once addresses a baby's need to be "saved" because babies aren't sinners.
The impossible notion of a fictitious "spiritual death" passed on by Adam, whereby we are all born separated from God, and have a mystical "sin nature" fails on so may platforms that it is ridiculous.
First, our flesh and blood body is the ONLY part we get from Adam. Our spirit comes from God (Ecclesiastes 12:7, Zechariah 12:2). And God does not create sinful spirits.
To think that Adam could corrupt every spirit breathed into flesh by God is so heretical that it's not funny. So much for God's sovereignty if that's true
Romans 5 speaks of physical death and resurrection, just like 1Corinthians 15
Consequently, the doctrine called Traducianism was fabricated, where it is taught that our spirit comes from our parents. This was to alleviate the supposed problem in Romans 5:12. I cannot find anyone teaching it before Tertullian.
I'll side with scripture on the matter of where our spirit comes from, and God doesn't breathe sinful spirits. Babies are not sinners
The "original sin" fabrication also leads to difficulty with Christ. If EVERY physical descendant of Adam is born a sinner, then you have a Christ who would be a sinner. Or a Christ who really can't trace His lineage back to Adam.
VOILA !! Immaculate conception supposedly addressed this. But, then you have a Christ who was NOT made like us in all things, as is clearly stated in Hebrews 2:14-17
Not many options:
1) all men were born spiritually dead because of Adam, even Christ
2) all men except Christ were born spiritually dead because of Adam
If #1, He's not God, and you have a blatant heresy
If #2, He's not like us in all things, and therefore can't relate to us
All the arguing about dichotomy vs. trichotomy. For what? So we can deny the scriptures as to how we die spiritually? and consequently how the new birth works? Ludicrous.
The original sin fabrication rejects Romans 1-2, which teach that we have become futile, that we have exchanged the glory of God for an image, we BECAME fools.
How on earth does a fool become a fool? How does one acknowledge God no longer, if he never did in the first place? WE are without excuse, because WE go our own way. We all, like sheep were BORN astray? or Have GONE astray? I'll side with Isaiah 53:6 instead of tradition any day
The fictitious "original sin" runs into an absolute train wreck at the Second Coming of Christ. Jesus comes back, all the saints are resurrected (where there is no marriage, and thus no babies - cf. Matt 22:30), and all the sinners are destroyed 0 cf. Isaiah 13:9-11, Revelation 19:18&21.
So then. Who are the people who get deceived after the thousand years? If all the sinners are destroyed, and the saints aren't having anymore babies, where will all the nations come from at the end of the millennium? Answer - People aren't sinners until they go their own way. The nations will be comprised of those people not old enough to "go astray"
The "original sin" fabrication runs into a train wreck with infants who die. Where do they go? Scripture plainly says that one must believe the gospel in order to be saved. But babies can't believe, so what then? Augustine held the most consistent doctrine. He acknowledged the necessity of faith, and concluded that since a baby cannot believe, the baby goes to hell. Emotional reaction rejected that, and infant baptism was created as a way to attempt to secure grace for an infant. Problem is, the baby doesn't believe the gospel, so that baptism isn't worth a hill of beans.
Some others fabricated an "age of accountability" whereby a sinful baby would simply get a back door entrance into grace, where Jesus is made a liar in His statement that
Whosoever Believes In Me Shall Not Perish.
The problem isn't the scriptures, it's the traditions that bring error upon error
In Romans 7:7-11, Paul tells exactly when he died spiritually - When the law came. He says very plainly, Sin Came Alive And I Died.
So are babies "saved" some other way? NO
Babies aren't spiritually dead in the first place. How do you save someone who's not lost?
Same with people who are mentally retarded or otherwise severely impaired, they have never deliberately gone their own way, and therefore have never died spiritually.
I don't mean to get snippy, but I beg to differ with you, pinoy. You've never asked me those questions.
Unfortunately, most are so entrenched in Roman Catholic tradition that they're totally offended when someone points out that it doesn't jibe with scripture. I just know I'm gonna hear it from the original sin crowd
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep I posted it, Willard said it and it is completely heretical
This question you've just asked was part of what I was getting at in that other thread, when you told me you don't want to get into it, that you're firmly planted in your position.
Read what I wrote to Pinoybaptist and you'll probably find it there.
Problem is, if you never subject your beliefs to scrutiny, you never really know if you're believing man or God
Jacob_Elliott
New Member
:thumbsup: :godisgood:
Jacob_Elliott
New Member
:applause: :applause:
strange fire.
Fair enough.
Since you scoff at the belief that all men were born spiritually dead, then this'll be like talking to a wall.
you're an orange, the apostle is an apple.
he's always preached both eternal salvation and gospel salvation.
he stated to the Ephesians in no uncertain terms that they all were dead in trespasses and sins, and since they were not flesh-eating zombies, how could he be saying the flesh was what is dead but not the spirit, as I understand, you said.
and by extension you are saying that because 'faith' as you define it to be hearing and believing the word of God, therefore N
NE PRIOR to the preaching of the gospel and the advent of missions and missionaries beginning with the apostles have been saved. that the finished work of Christ is just that, finished, but ineffective, unless believed in by faith, and sincefaith comes thru hearing the word, then God has been totally merciless from the day of Creation to the first day the gospel was preached and the first man believed in and obeyed the gospel.
I have to live my life now.
I'll be back and discuss with you further later.
Is this what you mean?:
'Must you hear the gospel to go to heaven?'
If so, then the burden is on you to show that 'saved' means 'go to heaven'.
And while you're at it, show 'lost' to mean 'bound for hell'.
You'll be hard put to separate 'lost' from 'lost sheep'.
They're not 'goats', they're 'sheep'.
Last edited by a moderator:
OK......well then you and I disagree on a certain biblical interpretation, namely
Genesis 2:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
I recognize that God's warning wasn't merely about physical death (though it was that) but included spiritual death as well.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Seriously? Forty posts and no one has stated the obvious?
If one doesn't "hear" (or read) the gospel, how in the world will they have the basis of knowledge to believe for salvation?
If one doesn't "hear" (or read) the gospel, how in the world will they have the basis of knowledge to believe for salvation?
- Status