Those who have not heard the Gospel

[Pastor_Bob]

Would you affirm or deny that such intuitive light and revelation of nature, in and of themselves, will ultimately lead all men to the gospel or not?

I do not claim to know everything, nor do I claim to have all the answers. One thing I do know is that I will not be backed into a corner and forced to give an answer that you will not be satisfied with anyway.

 

[BobRyan]

Amen, Amy!


BobRyan keeps bringing up the facts of history about Christ. As he says, we are not saved by the facts of history about Christ. As he does not say, we can only be saved through Christ Himself. But one has to see the atonement of Christ as the means of salvation. He doesn't have to know the historical details of the atonement.

1. God is able to save no matter that the person has no access to scripture as Paul points out in Romans 2:13-16.

2. God HAS used nature as his voice for "Good news" as Paul points out in Romans 10.

3. The "details of the atonement" were not fully understood by the saints of Heb 11 - yet they were saved.

Basically you can't keep looking at the texts and simply saying "it can't be done" when text after text shows that it can.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

No, I do not "equate" these two things. One can receive a measure of light that confirms in their heart the existence of God. Then, they may receive more light that convinces them of their accountability to God, and so on.

To say that this man, upon receiving this light, has received the gospel is not practical. It is almost as if God gives them one chance to be saved. That is like explaining to a 12 month old child how to walk and then saying, "This is your only chance; either walk now or forget about it."

Amen! Preach it!

"God so loved the WORLD that He gave" -- God is not willing for any to perish.

Please review the scripture I have offered and see if my conclusion is far-fetched. God wants all men saved. The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. Can the lack of obedience of one man here in America damn the soul of the man in the Ivory Coast of Africa?

As man responds to the light he's given, God continues to illuminate. If this man is seeking God with his whole heart, God promises to be found.

Amen - preach IT!

Those who suppose that the only reason for missions and evangelism is the "innability of God" or even "God unwilling to reach ALL" are getting it all wrong.

God IS "Convicting ALL the WORLD" John 16

and Christ is the "Atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2

God "sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" 1John 4:10-14.

Christ stands at the door and knocks "IF ANYONE hears HIS VOICE and OPENS the door HE will come in". Rev 3.

But even an age with a half dozen Bibles in every home and dozens of evangelists on radio and TV -- people STILL can choose so refuse the flood of light given - how much more can people in darkness CHOOSE to reject the light they are given EVEN at lower levels of accountability?

Simply citing examples of people TURNING to darkness rather than light is not proof that the light "does not work" or is "insufficient".

Adam's light was "sufficient".

King Saul's light was "sufficient"

Timonthy's light was "sufficient".

Abraham's light was "sufficient".

And Enoch was taken directly to heaven without dying.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
...the way I understand you, you plainly equate the light that all men have with having received the gospel.

HP: And so on and so on and so on…..until all have the opportunity to receive the gospel message? Certanly all men receive some light of conscience, and possibly the insight of the existence of some higher power or authority intuitively, but this is not the gospel nor does it lead to the gospel message……..or does it to you?

The General revelation plus personnal work of the Holy Spirit leads to conviction and the person CHOOSING to walk in the Spirit - receiving a new heart and new birth -- but not in "knowing details" about the life of Christ or the details of atonement.

God is able to send rain with our "knowing how he does it".

We benefit from rain sent - even when we don't see the rain that fills the rivers with water coming downstream to us.

HP: Would you affirm or deny that such intuitive light and revelation of nature, in and of themselves, will ultimately lead all men to the gospel or not?

The Bible never claims that General revelation leads to a full unfolding of the NT text details.

The Bible never claims that the result of the light shining on each person (Whether they have a Bible or not) will result in each person becoming saved or fully comprehendintg the Gospel.

In Romans 10 we are told that the "good news" comes through the voice of nature and faith necessary for salvation is enabled on that alone.

I am going to have to go with scripture on that one EVEN though not ALL who have Bibles are saved -- and not all who DON't have Bibles are saved.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: I see the main issue possibly slightly different. I see the main issue as to whether or not ‘general knowledge and accountability’ equates to ‘all receiving the light of salvations offer.’ Skip the technical detailed part. Could that simply not be, in light of the fact that no one has stated or implied anything closely resembling your words, a mere false facade offered for the express purpose of trying to grant to a failing notion positive traction at the expense of fair play?

Christ tells Nicodemus that EVEN though he does not see and fully understand how the Holy Spirit works - He STILL causes the New Birth to happen.

You keep arguing that this can not possibly happen if we do not first know what God is doing.

God keeps arguing in scripture that He can AND DOES do this salvific work EVEN though people are not informed fully on the subject.

I am not sure why this is a sticking point -- it seems clear enough in scripture.

Another crucial area is whether or not one can believe in a name they have never heard of

Again - you appeal to DETAILS of biograpy (the name Jesus for example) that the saints listed in Heb 11 (some of whom were taken directly to heaven) did not know.

The bible examples clearly show that your insistance on "specific story details" is a arbitrary line that is not demanded in scripture.

If I am a pagan among those hearing the story of the Gospel and the name of Christ proclaimed then clearly it is binding on me to accept that Gospel invitation or perish. But if no such opportunity exists (as we see with the new covenant saint of Rom 2:13-16 with no access to scripture at all) and I STILL "hear the voice and open the door" not knowing what it is - the Rev 3 result of new-birth, fellowship, and the Law written on the heart -- happens.


Those around Nicodemus that had NOT heard the details on the new birth were experiencing it "anyway" because God is not stopped by the informed state of the sinner.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

1. This is not "our arguments" it is the ONE God makes in Romans 1.
2. You are so focused on denying the obvious here that you miss it time after time. When we see a sick person we do NOt "become confused because it is ambiguous as to which part of the person is working and which part is sick and so therefore a problem to be fixed". RATHER we see clearly the healthy organs and systems vs the sick and infected ones. We do not go into confused fog trying to figure out the mystery of what it means to have a formerly healthy system now in decay, sickness and decline.

This is being said by atheist darwinsts -- when they see a beautiful garden they see only predation, disease, starvation and survival of the fittest.

The Christian sees -- the work of infinite intelligence, design, love, beauty that is there just for the enjoying and a delicate precise balance in nature.

Hint: Romans 1 refers to that Christian perspective when it comes to the "invisible attributes of God" seen in nature.

1. The origin of the sin and death is "the fall of mankind" according to Romans 5 and Romans 8. As Christians we are inclined to accept the Bible solution.

But Non-Christians DON'T believe it. So we try to use general revelation to prove that they "should know", but what they see is BOTH the garden AND predation, disease, survival, etc. That is explained only by the Fall, which is taught in special revelation. But they don't believe special revelation!
This is what happened in the ID debates I was in. The evolutionists pointed out that our arguments always came back to a presupposition of special revelation, somehow. Yes, we believe the Bible, but we're trying to prove it to THEM! It's not a "granted" to them. So I see us using general revelation to prove that they are condemned for not believing special revelation; but then we have to turn special revelation when general revelation doesn't fully support that assertion. That is a cycle.

But one thing that is painfully obvious to all - is that flowers do not pop up on Mars if you add enough water. you need SEEDS.

The intelligent design argument is apparent to all (Hint - Brian Greene's Elegant Universe summary as an example of what the atheists are confronted with)

The fact is that a living planet like this one is the EXCEPTION - like finding an air-conditioned fully funtionally computer center in the middle of the desert.

Just curious, how do you answer the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" rebuttal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
On one hand; I would say that when people have their minds made up this much, go to this length in their argument against religion, Jesus would tell us to shake the dust off our feet; only most of us aren't missionaries here; and have no other place to go to. Still, do we have any answer for this, besides "they're out to get us" or "they're just blind"?

General revelation plus the specialized and individual work of GOD the Holy Spirit on the heart - will encourage the person to OPEN The door that Christ knocks on so that He will THEN come in and fellowship as Rev 3 says.

But GR does NOT first carry with it all the answers to the universe FIRST and then based on having ALL knowledge - motivate sinners to accept Christ as your savior.

No such argument has ever been made here.

The statement says that the "INVISIBLE attributes of God are CLEARLY seen in nature" not just that God - exists but some specifics about the invisible attributes of God.

However all agree we have EVEN MORE attributes of God in the Bible than we have in General revelation and WE STILL need faith. You keep arguing that as long as faith is needed - there is no valid avenue to God, to salvation, no benefit to the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart of ALL mankind IF the response He is working to get from ALL mankind is positive FAITH and acceptance of the will of God in our lives.

So you're on one hand still arguing general revelation, based on Romans 1, but then you're saying there is also the Holy Spirit working in every single person's heart. Isn't that the conscience argument? Or are you saying it is yet something else?

Also, why is faith said to be so "hard", even by believers, then? Or as has been pointed out elsewhere, why can't believers agree on anything, if God's spirit is giving everyone the truth? All of this confusion in Christian debate makes it hard to go to the world and tell them they are going to Hell for rejecting "truth", when we can't even agree quite on what it is, what Christ did, etc. You keep accusing me of "denying", "arguing", etc. but I'm really not in argument mode now. I'm really at wit's end when it comes to our witness to the world.

Then, John says that natural revelation and conscience don't even matter; they're just condemned for not receiving Christ (which depends on them hearing about, and then being convinced of Him). But this is going against all the reasons people give as to why they should be judged for "sin". The whole idea drawn and argued from John 3:19 is that they knew they were wrong. Now, even this is being dismissed, if I understand correctly. That sounds almost like a hyperCalvinist view of "man's responsibility" (or lack thereof).

 

[Tom Butler]

Well, we seem to have a problem here, regarding those scripture passages in which all means all, any means all, and the world means all.

They are cited to show that since God wants all to be saved, he MUST have made the gospel available to everyone without exception.

Indeed, not only must God, he is obligated to do so; to do otherwise would not be fair of God. (Of, course, if God is obligated, then grace is excluded; and God doesn't have to be fair; he can do with us what he wants).

Here's the problem. We know that today, on this earth, many don't even know who God is, much less know who Jesus is, or what the gospel is. No missionary is preaching to them. They have no Bibles. No tracts are dropped from airplanes.

So how do we resolve the two statements? Particularly when Paul asked how can they hear without a preacher (Romans 10)? Some simply say, we don't know, but we believe everybody has heard, someway, somehow. Somebody said, it's no big deal God and the Holy Spirit can take care of that little problem.

Either way, that presents another problem--that God is pleased to save some in other ways besides the "foolishness of preaching." (I Cor 1:21)

If that's the case, John of Japan, come on home.

 

[christ4life]

I do not believe they will be judged because they have not heard the Gospel. I believe they will be judged according to sin..... Romans 1:20 they will be without excuse.

 

[webdog]

Here's the problem. We know that today, on this earth, many don't even know who God is, much less know who Jesus is, or what the gospel is. No missionary is preaching to them. They have no Bibles. No tracts are dropped from airplanes.

Wrong. The Bible tells us they do know (Romans 1).

 

[Rippon]

WD , Tom Butler was saying that many do not know who Jesus is or what the Giospel is . No missionary has preached to them . They have no Bibles . No tracts are dropped from airplanes .

WD thinks the above is wrong according to Romans 1 . Where in that chapter of Romans does it say or even intimate that all have heard the Gospel ( not to mention the other things Tom brought up ) ? Verses 19-21 certainly do not allude to your theory .

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: WD , Tom Butler was saying that many do not know who Jesus is or what the Gospel is . No missionary has preached to them. They have no Bibles. No tracts are dropped from airplanes.

WD thinks the above is wrong according to Romans 1 . Where in that chapter of Romans does it say or even intimate that all have heard the Gospel ( not to mention the other things Tom brought up ) ? Verses 19-21 certainly do not allude to your theory .

HP: Excellent comment Rippon.:thumbs: Indeed Tom Butler is correct in his statement. :thumbs:

There should be no question as to how false doctrines come into the church with the clear demonstration of that on this list. One way is a false or careless handling of the Word of God as BR has clearly demonstrated in his use of texts in Romans, claiming that they show that all have been given the gospel. That is a false notion unfounded by the Word of God, reason, and the experience of good men including John of Japan and multitudes of missionaries like him.

 

[webdog]

WD , Tom Butler was saying that many do not know who Jesus is or what the Giospel is . No missionary has preached to them . They have no Bibles . No tracts are dropped from airplanes .

WD thinks the above is wrong according to Romans 1 . Where in that chapter of Romans does it say or even intimate that all have heard the Gospel ( not to mention the other things Tom brought up ) ? Verses 19-21 certainly do not allude to your theory .

I'll let Tom Butler say what he meant, but what you are saying is NOT what he said.

"Have they not heard? Of course they have..."

 

[Pastor_Bob]

According to Jesus Christ Himself, God is able to reveal truths of His Son to man without the aid of "flesh and blood."
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Either Jesus was mistaken here and Peter really did learn this truth from some man, or He was correct in saying that Peter received this truth directly from God the Father without human help.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

According to Jesus Christ Himself, God is able to reveal truths of His Son to man without the aid of "flesh and blood."
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Either Jesus was mistaken here and Peter really did learn this truth from some man, or He was correct in saying that Peter received this truth directly from God the Father without human help.

Great post, Pastor Bob!

Sheds new light on

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Was Paul speaking of the preacher as the one that the Lord Jesus Christ said God would send... the Comforter who, would convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment?

 

[Amy.G]

Romans 10 is addressed to the Jews who have heard. It is not saying that the whole of humanity has heard the gospel of Christ, but that the scriptures have been revealed to the Jews.

Context.

 

[Tom Butler]

Here's the problem. We know that today, on this earth, many don't even know who God is, much less know who Jesus is, or what the gospel is. No missionary is preaching to them. They have no Bibles. No tracts are dropped from airplanes.

Wrong. The Bible tells us they do know (Romans 1).

Rippon and Heavenly Pilgrim understand exactly what I was saying, and I appreciate their defense of my statement.

I agree that the creation suggests the existence of a Creator. The existence of a law (which may be written on their hearts) suggests the existence of a lawgiver. But it is going beyond the scripture passage to say that those same people know of the gospel and of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Tom Butler]

According to Jesus Christ Himself, God is able to reveal truths of His Son to man without the aid of "flesh and blood."
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Either Jesus was mistaken here and Peter really did learn this truth from some man, or He was correct in saying that Peter received this truth directly from God the Father without human help.

The fact is that Peter did have human help. He had the law and the prophets, which laid the groundwork for the Messiah's coming. He had heard John the Baptist preach the arrival of the Lamb of God. The Father revealed the truth to Peter, but not independently of anything Peter had learned before.

 

[Tom Butler]

1. God is able to save no matter that the person has no access to scripture as Paul points out in Romans 2:13-16.

2. God HAS used nature as his voice for "Good news" as Paul points out in Romans 10.

3. The "details of the atonement" were not fully understood by the saints of Heb 11 - yet they were saved.

Basically you can't keep looking at the texts and simply saying "it can't be done" when text after text shows that it can.

The question today for us is not "can he?" It is, "does he?"

Before we can answer yes, we must deal with Romans 10, which asks, "how can they believe in him whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher"?

And we must deal with I Cor 1:21, "it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save them who believe."

These two passages are perfectly compatible with Romans 1 and 2.

 

[webdog]

The fact is that Peter did have human help. He had the law and the prophets, which laid the groundwork for the Messiah's coming. He had heard John the Baptist preach the arrival of the Lamb of God. The Father revealed the truth to Peter, but not independently of anything Peter had learned before.

Jesus said he didn't...you say he did. Who should we believe?

 

[BobRyan]

The question today for us is not "can he?" It is, "does he?"

Before we can answer yes, we must deal with Romans 10, which asks, "how can they believe in him whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher"?

Correct. See Post 48 -- this thread for Romans 10...

And here is a summary

Notice the question that Paul asks --


14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?


Paul then opens the door to the argument that those living long ages before the cross could not possibly have known the details about Christ that we know --

17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;

Notice what Paul says in response to those who claim "they have never heard"??


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Rom 10:
8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;

13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”
14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?”

17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;

Question - HOW can Paul say of the OT pre-cross people "INDEED THEY HAVE heard"??

What is HIS argument for making that claim?

Read the text.

(Ps 19 is quoted here)

“THEIR VOICE HAS GONE OUT INTO ALL THE EARTH,
AND THEIR WORDS TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD.”

Ps 19 The full text is as follows

1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,

5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Clearly Paul is appealing (AGAIN) to NATURE's voice in DECLARING the
truth of God - so that "they (the people - Jew and Gentile) DID HEAR" - fulfilling the
condition -- Vs 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;

It has to be noticed that this is the very subject being discussed on this thread!

in Christ,

Bob