Prevenient Grace

[reformedbeliever]

If they ask to know God wouldn't they get Jesus?

Read Romans 1. They know about God but instead replace God with an idol or their own representation of God. Take budists for example. They have a god. They have faith in their god. Thier god will not save them. Actually that is probably not a great analogy, as they believe in reincarnation I think. But you get the point.

 

[Benjamin]

Read Romans 1. They know about God but instead replace God with an idol or their own representation of God. Take budists for example. They have a god. They have faith in their god. Thier god will not save them. Actually that is probably not a great analogy, as they believe in reincarnation I think. But you get the point.

So after getting revelation from God and asking to know Him you think God would lie to them?

 

[reformedbeliever]

I just wanted to add that this is something that is said quite often here on the BB. This is not a fact, but is an assumption only, for our guests reading this thread. This cannot be proven by Scripture.

*now taking you back to our regularly scheduled program....

Web, it is a fact that out of the thousands of missionaries that have gone all over the world, that there are many people who have lived and died without ever hearing the Gospel. That is a fact. Now if you want to say that God could have supernaturally revealed the Gospel to them before they died and they were unable to share that with their people, then to that i'd have to agree. So now why do we have missions?

 

[reformedbeliever]

So after getting revelation from God and asking to know Him you think God would lie to them?

If God reveals to people His Son Jesus through the Holy Spirit, then yes they would be saved. God does not reveal Himself to people in a saving way other than through the Holy Spirit and the Gospel. That is what the Bible says and God does not lie. It matters not what I say, what matters is what God's Word says.

 

[webdog]

Web, it is a fact that out of the thousands of missionaries that have gone all over the world, that there are many people who have lived and died without ever hearing the Gospel. That is a fact.

How do you know this is fact? How do you know that there are those who have died who never heard the Gospel? This is something only the dead person and God can know.

Now if you want to say that God could have supernaturally revealed the Gospel to them before they died and they were unable to share that with their people, then to that i'd have to agree.

RB, how does this answer square with number 1? Here you state God could have revealed the Gospel supernaturally...but in the first response you stated that it is a fact there are those who have died without this. Not trying to paint you into a corner... (well...maybe a little )

So now why do we have missions?

First, we are commanded to, and second, we should want to.

 

[Benjamin]

If God reveals to people His Son Jesus through the Holy Spirit, then yes they would be saved.

Yes, if they believe. Glad we could agree! :wavey:

 

[reformedbeliever]

How do you know this is fact? How do you know that there are those who have died who never heard the Gospel? This is something only the dead person and God can know.

RB, how does this answer square with number 1? Here you state God could have revealed the Gospel supernaturally...but in the first response you stated that it is a fact there are those who have died without this. Not trying to paint you into a corner... (well...maybe a little )

First, we are commanded to, and second, we should want to.

You are a good painter! :laugh: Of course I don't know for sure. I can't put God in a box.... but it sure seems like there are many who never hear.... especially from the testimony of their survivors. What God does supernaturally between the time a person is unconsicus and when they die is a mystery. I'd like to think that there is a possibility that they can hear the Gospel... maybe a little hope?

Yup, I wanna share the Gospel, and we are commanded to. Thanks web. You keep me on my toes. Now i'm gonna go cook some gumbo. Got a lot of international students coming for a late lunch. Grace and peace.

 

[Andy T.]

Web,

I don't see how you can discount the thousands of testimonies of missionaries who finally reach a people with the Gospel, and the people tell the missionary that this is "news to them". These tribes have had people born, grow up and die, and not one person has ever informed the others in their tribe that they were visited and given a new revelation about a God named Jesus. How is that? How can these tribes that have self-existed for thousands of years never have one testimony of some special revelation from among their tribesman?

You are really reaching on this one when you try to claim that everyone hears the Gospel.

 

[webdog]

Web,

I don't see how you can discount the thousands of testimonies of missionaries who finally reach a people with the Gospel, and the people tell the missionary that this is "news to them". These tribes have had people born, grow up and die, and not one person has ever informed the others in their tribe that they were visited and given a new revelation about a God named Jesus. How is that? How can these tribes that have self-existed for thousands of years never have one testimony of some special revelation from among their tribesman?

You are really reaching on this one when you try to claim that everyone hears the Gospel.

While it might have been "news to them", you cannot say for fact it was news to those who died. I have also heard testimones of other missionaries who after telling the natives about Christ said "Oh, so THAT'S who that was". At any rate, it's all second hand information, therefore, cannot be substantiated as fact.

I think what's "reaching" is to claim to know what a dead person knows or doesn't know. It's "reaching" to claim as FACT that there are those who have died without hearing the Gospel. That's pure specualtion and assumption based on flawed, finite logic. God's above our finite little minds.

 

[webdog]

You are a good painter! :laugh: Of course I don't know for sure. I can't put God in a box.... but it sure seems like there are many who never hear.... especially from the testimony of their survivors. What God does supernaturally between the time a person is unconsicus and when they die is a mystery. I'd like to think that there is a possibility that they can hear the Gospel... maybe a little hope?

Yup, I wanna share the Gospel, and we are commanded to. Thanks web. You keep me on my toes. Now i'm gonna go cook some gumbo. Got a lot of international students coming for a late lunch. Grace and peace.

I'll take a side of shrimp jambalaya along with that...MMMMMM :thumbs:

I gotta go, too. For some reason I became really hungry...

 

[Andy T.]

Web,

Your right - neither of us can prove it scientifically (just like neither of us can prove scientifically the Resurrection to an unbeliever). But the overwhelming majority of evidence is that there are some people who never hear the Gospel.

 

[JDale]

Well the problem with that, among others, is that He does not give prevenient grace to all. There are many who never hear the Gospel. Now you might say that they know God by His general revelation or special revelation of Himself, but that would be to say that there is another way other than Jesus Himself. There is no other name in heaven in which a person must be saved. Not all hear about Jesus.

"Prevenient grace" is not an "event," so much as a process. One is held accountable for the amount of light they receive. The fact that they never hear the Gospel does not absolve them of their responsibility to "seek God" from the revealed light that they DO see through common grace, general revelation and conscience. Even those who have not heard the gospel are enabled to respond to what they HAVE heard. It won't save them, but it can "draw them" closer. This is in keeping with what we read in Romans 2, and is another prime evidence of God's sovereignty.

"There is NO other name [than Jesus] given under heaveny by which men MUST be saved" (Acts 4:12). No one is saved by "prevenient grace." No one is saved via common grace, general revelation, or conscience. Those are all means God uses to draw people to Him. Their failure to respond to Him in this process is THEIRS.

And, incidentally, that they haven't heard the Gospel is not (at least directly or explicitly) their fault -- it is the fault of the Church for failing in their mandate to preach the gospel to "the whole world."

JDale

 

[JDale]

JDale,

Ultimately, our difference lies in that I see all good in this world as the direct result of the active work of God, while you let man retain some amount of the glory (even if it is only .0005%). I realize that may come across as dismissive of your view - it's not intended to be, but that is how I see it. And I realize that in the Classical Arminian view, God does get the overwhelming majority of the glory. And I also realize that we agree on the essentials of the Gospel, which is why I will gladly fellowship with you.

AT:

I appreciate this post. Thank you for your willingness to fellowship -- and for not calling me a "heretic." :laugh:

Please be assured that I am not looking for nor do I believe I can claim EVEN .0005% of the glory for my salvation, as it is ALL of His grace, for His glory! I understand your utmost respect for God's sovereignty, and your concern that some theological concepts might compromise that. And, I too realize that we agree on the essentials of the Gospel.

"It is good for brethren to dwell together in peace..."

Anyone for a chorus of "Kum-by-yah?"

Thanks AT -- and blessings,

JDale

 

[npetreley]

Please be assured that I am not looking for nor do I believe I can claim EVEN .0005% of the glory for my salvation, as it is ALL of His grace, for His glory!

I appreciate your claim, but it is not consistent with your theology. If your decision is the hinge and turning point of your own salvation, then you have the right to claim at least some portion of the credit (or glory, as you have put it) for being saved.

 

[JDale]

If God reveals to people His Son Jesus through the Holy Spirit, then yes they would be saved. God does not reveal Himself to people in a saving way other than through the Holy Spirit and the Gospel. That is what the Bible says and God does not lie. It matters not what I say, what matters is what God's Word says.

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. NNE is saved apart from Jesus. And indeed, apart from the Gospel and the Holy Spirit ("special revelation"), while mankind may gain a general "knowledge" of God, that does not save.

Some would aregue that, if they respond positively and desire to "know more perfectly the way," that God will -- in His sovereign power -- see to it that they HEAR the Gospel, and have an opportunity to respond. Consider these cases in the Book of Acts: (1) The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8, (2) Cornelius (Acts 10), (3) Apollos (Acts 18:24ff). They had varying degrees of light, and as they responded, God made sure they received all the Revelation they needed to come to Him.

JDale

 

[JDale]

I appreciate your claim, but it is not consistent with your theology. If your decision is the hinge and turning point of your own salvation, then you have the right to claim at least some portion of the credit (or glory, as you have put it) for being saved.

npe, my Brother:

I have no right to claim anything with regard to my salvation. Since Sept. 28, 1980, I have always and only relied upon HIS grace and mercy, and I will not experience His joys and blessings in this life or the life to come apart from His grace and mercy. I don't deserve it, not even for a second, not even .0005% worth of it.

Perhaps I cannot convince you that I claim no credit or deserve no merit in my salvation, and maybe I'm not a talented enough teacher or debater to persuade you that my theology is consistent with my claim (or lack thereof), but I can't help that. I can only share with you what God did for me, and tell you it is wholly of Christ Jesus.

Blessings,

JDale

 

[Rippon]

JDALE , to insist that it is the church's fault for failing to preach the gospel as pervasively as it should have through the ages is not biblical . Not one of His sheep will perish . The Lord will secure the salvation of each and every person for whom He died . In Isaiah 53:10 it says : "When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish , he will be satisfied ... " . ( NLTse) There will be no lost person for whom He was not able to bring to a saving union with Himself .

The Lord has seen to it ( by the sheer pleasure of His will ) to hide the saving truths of His Word from millions through the centuries . China is but one example I could mention . So , if you want to arraign God for following His sovereign purpose in not being willing to disclose Himself to those millions -- go ahead . I will not join you on this . God is good . He does everything perfectly . His will is not countered by puny mortals .

All of which is not to say that any of us are off the hook in our solemn duty to teach , preach the G.C. to everyone within our circle and beyond .

Another thing . Those who have not heard the Gospel are not " enabled to respond " to what they have heard or seen . They are without excuse , they are responsible and accountable to the Lord -- but they do not have any enablement to respond . In Romans 2:15 it says : "They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts , for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right . " ( NLTse) . But in those first chapters of Romans nowhere is your contention borne out .

 

[npetreley]

npe, my Brother:

I have no right to claim anything with regard to my salvation. Since Sept. 28, 1980, I have always and only relied upon HIS grace and mercy, and I will not experience His joys and blessings in this life or the life to come apart from His grace and mercy. I don't deserve it, not even for a second, not even .0005% worth of it.

Perhaps I cannot convince you that I claim no credit or deserve no merit in my salvation, and maybe I'm not a talented enough teacher or debater to persuade you that my theology is consistent with my claim (or lack thereof), but I can't help that. I can only share with you what God did for me, and tell you it is wholly of Christ Jesus.

Blessings,

JDale

Like I said, whether you claim any credit or not, your soteriology necessitates that at least some of the credit goes to you. Why? Because your personal will and the personal will of an unsaved person is what makes the difference between the fact that you are saved and the other is not. You, yourself, made the difference between you and the other person, not God.

I'm sorry you don't see that, but it's rather obvious. Perhaps I can't word it well enough for you to understand, so I'll quote Spurgeon on exactly this point:

I do not care to argue upon this point, except I put it thus: If any say, "It is man himself who makes the difference [i.e., man's choice]," I reply, "You are involving yourself in a great dilemma; if man himself makes the difference, then mark—man himself must have the glory." Now, I am certain you do not mean to give man the glory of his own salvation; you would not have men throw up their caps in heaven, and shout, "Unto ourselves be the glory, for we, ourselves, were the hinge and turning point of our own salvation." No, you would have all the saved cast their crowns at the feet of Jesus, and give to Him alone all the honour and all the glory. This, however, cannot be, unless, in that critical point, that diamond hinge upon which man's salvation shall turn, God shall have the control, and not the will of man.

 

[webdog]

Like I said, whether you claim any credit or not, your soteriology necessitates that at least some of the credit goes to you. Why? Because your personal will and the personal will of an unsaved person is what makes the difference between the fact that you are saved and the other is not. You, yourself, made the difference between you and the other person, not God.

This is yet another strawman.
When you accept a gift, the acceptance of that gift by the givee never necessitates that the givee plays any role in the gift giving process but accepting it, nor is accepting the gift 'work', or the main function of the gift giving process. That's makes no sense.

 

[Blammo]

This is yet another strawman.
When you accept a gift, the acceptance of that gift by the givee never necessitates that the givee plays any role in the gift giving process but accepting it, nor is accepting the gift 'work', or the main function of the gift giving process. That's makes no sense.

Neither does the givee contribute anything to gift given.