The SBC and Calvinism

[Michael Wrenn]

I believe our brother has once again painted himself into a corner.

Next will come the accusation that we are all horrid Calvinists and narrow-minded. If so, I agree... And, gladly.

Sheesh... give me time. I have a life away from here. Just went to visit my mom who may be facing a mastectomy, or worse.

 

[Luke2427]

Sheesh... give me time. I have a life away from here. Just went to visit my mom who may be facing a mastectomy, or worse.

Can I give it a shot in your stead?

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment until you return so we can work this out better.

No less than J. I. Packer holds to the theoretical possibility of heathen salvation apart from the hearing of the Gospel but he notes, "but what we cannot safely say is that God ever does save anyone this way."

John Stott, a highly respected reformed theologian and minister, said:

I believe the most Christian stance is to remain agnostic on this question. . . . The fact that God, alongside the most solemn warnings and about our responsibility to respond to the gospel, has not revealed how he will deal with those who have never heard it. . . . [H]owever, I am imbued with hope. I have never been able to conjure up (as some great evangelical missionaries have) the appalling vision of the millions who are not only perishing but will inevitably perish. On the other hand . . . I am not and cannot be a universalist. Between these extremes I cherish the hope that the majority of the human race will be saved.

No one is saying that one can be saved apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. His sacrifice and resurrection is and always has been the only way any man will ever enter heaven.

The position I am taking for sake of discussion is that God can reveal enough of himself to the unevangelized and regenerate them and have them repent and worship him like Seth and Enos and two thousand years of people did before the flood and these people be saved.

This is not universalism and it does not deny the exclusivity of Christ nor does it question that Gospel proclamation is God's overwhelmingly normative means of saving the lost.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Can I give it a shot in your stead?

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment until you return so we can work this out better.

No less than J. I. Packer holds to the theoretical possibility of heathen salvation apart from the hearing of the Gospel but he notes, "but what we cannot safely say is that God ever does save anyone this way."

John Stott, a highly respected reformed theologian and minister, said:


No one is saying that one can be saved apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. His sacrifice and resurrection is and always has been the only way any man will ever enter heaven.

The position I am taking for sake of discussion is that God can reveal enough of himself to the unevangelized and regenerate them and have them repent and worship him like Seth and Enos and two thousand years of people did before the flood and these people be saved.

This is not universalism and it does not deny the exclusivity of Christ nor does it question that Gospel proclamation is God's overwhelmingly normative means of saving the lost.

Thank you; that is excellent.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I would care more about replying to Amy and mandym if they weren't so mockingly accusatory and ridiculing in their responses to me.

I'm going to keep this short because now I'm defending scriptural truth and historical accuracy against a fanatical Romanist on another thread.

Basically, the Quaker view of the Inward Light of Christ and John Wesley's view of this light and what he called prevenient grace -- both of these positions based on John 1:9 and in harmony with the teachings of Romans 2 -- hold that those who never heard the Gospel will be judged on the basis of the use they make of the light they have.

The PB's hold that God in His sovereignty chose a certain number out of the human race to elect to salvation and that some who never heard the Gospel are included in this number.

The "Catholic" position, of which there are variations between the RCC and EOC, has been stated in this forum. I won't go into that here.

 

[DaChaser1]

Can I give it a shot in your stead?

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment until you return so we can work this out better.

No less than J. I. Packer holds to the theoretical possibility of heathen salvation apart from the hearing of the Gospel but he notes, "but what we cannot safely say is that God ever does save anyone this way."

John Stott, a highly respected reformed theologian and minister, said:


No one is saying that one can be saved apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. His sacrifice and resurrection is and always has been the only way any man will ever enter heaven.

The position I am taking for sake of discussion is that God can reveal enough of himself to the unevangelized and regenerate them and have them repent and worship him like Seth and Enos and two thousand years of people did before the flood and these people be saved.

This is not universalism and it does not deny the exclusivity of Christ nor does it question that Gospel proclamation is God's overwhelmingly normative means of saving the lost.

I will try to give him few more answers that I do NOT hold to, but have read expressed on this topic!

God will elect out for Himself his people, regardless of placing faith in Christ on this earth primitive baptists

God will elect to save those whom He has foreeknowledge that they would have received jesus IF they had chance here on earth to have heard Some Arminians

variation of that is that God has elected to save those who had no chance to hear Gospel, same way saves infants who cannot place faith reqired to get saved

God will honor sincere faith of those in other religions who never heard the gospel, or a "perverted" version of it Roman catholic

 

[Tom Butler]

Okay folks, here is the answer to the question under debate. It is found in Romans 2:14-15.

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

We're not talking about infants, toddlers, or the mentally retarded. They cannot be held responsible for either rejecting Jesus or disobeying the law they know nothing about.

First, in 2:12 Paul says as many of those who sinned without the law will perish without the law. In other words, they will perish, but not due to the condemnation of the written law.

Second, Paul says those who have never heard the gospel have "the law written on their hearts." He calls it the conscience.

Paul also says the Gentiles (or heathen) are a "law unto themselves."

In other words, they have their own moral code of right and wrong.

They will be judged against their own moral code, and because of their sinful nature, they cannot live up to it. Thus they will have to acknowledge that the condemnation against them is just.

They cannot be condemned for rejecting Jesus of whom they have never heard.

If God will cut them some slack for the lack of knowledge of Jesus, then for heaven's sake, let's bring all our missionaries home, lest somebody hear the gospel and reject it.

 

[glfredrick]

Sheesh... give me time. I have a life away from here. Just went to visit my mom who may be facing a mastectomy, or worse.

Hope and pray for the best for her and for you!

 

[Luke2427]

Okay folks, here is the answer to the question under debate. It is found in Romans 2:14-15.
We're not talking about infants, toddlers, or the mentally retarded. They cannot be held responsible for either rejecting Jesus or disobeying the law they know nothing about.

First, in 2:12 Paul says as many of those who sinned without the law will perish without the law. In other words, they will perish, but not due to the condemnation of the written law.

Second, Paul says those who have never heard the gospel have "the law written on their hearts." He calls it the conscience.

Paul also says the Gentiles (or heathen) are a "law unto themselves."

In other words, they have their own moral code of right and wrong.

They will be judged against their own moral code, and because of their sinful nature, they cannot live up to it. Thus they will have to acknowledge that the condemnation against them is just.

They cannot be condemned for rejecting Jesus of whom they have never heard.

If God will cut them some slack for the lack of knowledge of Jesus, then for heaven's sake, let's bring all our missionaries home, lest somebody hear the gospel and reject it.

The primary motive for preaching the Gospel is the glory of God- not the salvation of men.

Many missionaries DO go to places that reject them and as a result those people are more damned than had they never heard. But we don't advocate not sending missionaries to such places and people. Why? Because God SAID go. We go in love for him and desirous to obey and please him and tell the world about him- it matters not if the whole WORLD reject it.

Of course we expect and hope that many will receive it and they do- but ourr primary motive for preaching the Gospel is FAR nobler than the salvation of sinners- it is the glory of God.

The verses you supply just establish that these people are gulity before God. I do not dispute that at all.

What I am arguing for is the possibility that God can save the heathen who've never read or heard a single shred of Scripture- this is not God's normative way of saving but it cannot be said that God cannot save through Christ without special revelation.

There simply is no Bible that says otherwise.

No- not even Romans 10.

 

[glfredrick]

If we carry out to a logical end the issues with those not hearing being better off and assured of heaven, then the best missionary tactic is to simply off people before they have a chance to hear -- sooner the better -- best to get them while they are still infants and innocent... :BangHead:

 

[psalms109:31]

Matthew 4:7
Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ”

Luke 13
Repent or Perish
1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Actually it is to do as all of the word of God tells us to do, believe God and faith without deeds is dead and faith without love is worthless. Main thing is what are you going to do with the message, devil loves for us to look at things we can not change to not to change the things we can by the Holy Spirit leading us and to know the difference.

Hebrews 5:
11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

 

[Don]

Basically, the Quaker view of the Inward Light of Christ and John Wesley's view of this light and what he called prevenient grace -- both of these positions based on John 1:9 and in harmony with the teachings of Romans 2 -- hold that those who never heard the Gospel will be judged on the basis of the use they make of the light they have.

Is this what you're ascribing as the arminian view?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Hope and pray for the best for her and for you!

Thank you; I appreciate that very much. We've been on an emotional roller-coaster for days, and with my health problems, I've been on a physical one, too.

I enjoy the debate/discussion here; hope I can keep it up. Going back and forth with all you "Doctrines of Grace" folks (is that better? ) has me tired out, and now a Roman Catholic is after me!

I owe so much to my mom that I could never describe it all. She is one of the best people God ever created! She's been sick most of her life and has suffered greatly. I had hoped that her last years and days would be peaceful and mostly suffering-free. I still pray for that, and I hope and pray that God will see it best to grant her a few more years with us.

Again, thanks to you and everyone for your prayers.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

If we carry out to a logical end the issues with those not hearing being better off and assured of heaven, then the best missionary tactic is to simply off people before they have a chance to hear -- sooner the better -- best to get them while they are still infants and innocent... :BangHead:

Who has said that they are better off and assured of heaven? I haven't, and no one holding the positions I cite believed/believe that, either.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Is this what you're ascribing as the arminian view?

Generally, because it is not confined to Wesleyans, so I broadened it to "Arminian".

 

[kyredneck]

....In other words, they have their own moral code of right and wrong.......

No, Ro 2:13-15 is talking about REGENERATED GENTILES. There's no 'moral code' in THE CONTEXT, it's THE LAW and these Gentiles are called DOERS OF THE LAW because they have THE LAW WRITTEN UPON THEIR HEARTS.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1724760&highlight=desolate#post1724760

 

[glfredrick]

Who has said that they are better off and assured of heaven? I haven't, and no one holding the positions I cite believed/believe that, either.

No, but I am making the argument based on a logical conclusion, seeing as how you prefer making logical arguments instead of those that carry the weight of scriptural exegesis. You sort of eliminated the possibility for you to make true scripturally-sound arguments when you came public with your belief that ALL of the Bible is not ALL God's Word, but rather that the Bible has some of God's words within it. Therefore, logic is your only remaining ally, unless, that is, you claim some form of specific revelation -- spiritual insight of some nature -- apart from human logic OR apart from the revealed text.

 

[Tom Butler]

The primary motive for preaching the Gospel is the glory of God- not the salvation of men.

Many missionaries DO go to places that reject them and as a result those people are more damned than had they never heard. But we don't advocate not sending missionaries to such places and people. Why? Because God SAID go. We go in love for him and desirous to obey and please him and tell the world about him- it matters not if the whole WORLD reject it.

Of course we expect and hope that many will receive it and they do- but ourr primary motive for preaching the Gospel is FAR nobler than the salvation of sinners- it is the glory of God.

The verses you supply just establish that these people are gulity before God. I do not dispute that at all.

What I am arguing for is the possibility that God can save the heathen who've never read or heard a single shred of Scripture- this is not God's normative way of saving but it cannot be said that God cannot save through Christ without special revelation.

There simply is no Bible that says otherwise.

No- not even Romans 10.

I suppose it is possible that God can save someone who never heard the gospel or of Jesus Christ. But it is argument from silence.

Except that Paul wrote in I Cor 1:22 that it pleased God to save through the foolishness of preaching. I'm not talking about infants, toddlers, the mentally ill or retarded here. I believe they are safe. But we still have to deal with clear, unmistakable, not-subject-to-any-other-interpretation scripture like this one.

Regarding my comment that we ought to bring our missionaries home if God saves independently of the gospel, I understand and agree with your response. We preach, send missionaries, etc. because Jesus told us to do so. My comment was aimed at the very argument you make--the possibility that some are saved independently of the gospel or knowledge of Jesus Christ.

 

[DaChaser1]

I suppose it is possible that God can save someone who never heard the gospel or of Jesus Christ. But it is argument from silence.

Except that Paul wrote in I Cor 1:22 that it pleased God to save through the foolishness of preaching. I'm not talking about infants, toddlers, the mentally ill or retarded here. I believe they are safe. But we still have to deal with clear, unmistakable, not-subject-to-any-other-interpretation scripture like this one.

Regarding my comment that we ought to bring our missionaries home if God saves independently of the gospel, I understand and agree with your response. We preach, send missionaries, etc. because Jesus told us to do so. My comment was aimed at the very argument you make--the possibility that some are saved independently of the gospel or knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Think we need to preach Christ, do all we can through sending missionaries, radio, Tv out etc...

And trust the Judge of whole earth to what is right, and to realise that God has reserved to himself"hidden things/mystery" chosen NOT to reveal to us yet!

 

[mandym]

Think we need to preach Christ, do all we can through sending missionaries, radio, Tv out etc...

And trust the Judge of whole earth to what is right, and to realise that God has reserved to himself"hidden things/mystery" chosen NOT to reveal to us yet!

And not assume that people die without hearing the gospel or that God will save them after the fact not having been convicted of the gospel.

 

[DaChaser1]

And not assume that people die without hearing the gospel or that God will save them after the fact not having been convicted of the gospel.

All that we can do is as Jesus commanded...

Go firth into entire world, proclaiming salvation/forgivesness of sins in his name!