What happens to those who haven't heard the Gospel?

[David Cooke Jr]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
Okay, here you go. I would like to know what you think. I have my own ideas, but I would like to see what everyone thinks happens to those who have not heard the Gospel, such as many Muslims (from another thread), or the tribes in the jungles of Africa, or those who can't comprehend the Gospel, such as babies, handicap, etc.

Thanks everyone!

Neal

Neal,
I don't know. I know their lives are not as rich and fully human as they were designed to be. As to where they spend eternity, I'm not sure. And I think alot of what people say they "know" about this subject is speculation, even if its based on their interpretation of scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Helen:
Our responsiblity for our sins came about through the actual acts of known sin. That is consistent throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New. From Romans 5: "But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." Does that mean no law is in existence? Or does it mean the law is not known? Which?

It means the Law of Moses, as it usually does in Pauline writing. You have stood this whole argument on its head making it exactly the opposite of Scripture in order to support your view.

I often see Calvinists take the "all" from the first part of that (sinners) and the "many" from the second part (the saved) and try to compare/contrast them. That is poor exegesis.

I have never seen one do that. If they do, it is bad exegesis. But no worse than what you are doing with it. The all in Adam are compared to the all in Christ; the many in Adam are compared to the many in Christ. The point of Romans 5 is the modus operandi of sin and righteousness. We get them both the same way. As I say, your position leads to a works righteousness based on this passage.

Because of Christ, no one's sin nature separates them from God.

Again, absolutely false and there is no nice way to say that. It simply is not true. Man is born in sin separated from God. That is why he needs a Savior. The more I read of you, the more you sound like a Pelagian, or at best a semi-pelagian. That is abominable theology.

I don't doubt your sincerity but I doubt more and more how much you have really reckoned through this. It is not that difficult based on Scripture. All this time you have been saying you are not an arminian, I have been doubting you. Now I see you are right. You seem to be closer to pelagianism.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
As to where they spend eternity, I'm not sure. And I think alot of what people say they "know" about this subject is speculation, even if its based on their interpretation of scripture.

Why isn't the revelation of God in Scripture good enough? I don't understand the confusion. It seems that when God speaks, that should settle the issue.

 

[Frogman]

Brothers and Sisters,

Our view has been tarnished by the fact that we are depraved creatures, and this because of the fall of Adam. The creation, the world, the heavens, (not that which is the abode of God), the creatures etc. fell not willingly, Rom. 8.

We then apply, from our own thinking, the atonement to man. Yet, the Bible proclaims "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1.29 The Atonement of Christ is a reconciliation of all sin. It stands then that only those who are elected receive it, for even the sin of unbelief is a sin, and all sin cannot be said to be reconciled for if some, many, or any are able to 'not believe' and thus be condemned.

Jesus said also I believe in Mark, but maybe not, '...he who believes shall be saved, he who believes not is condemned already.' That is a paraphrase and I am without my Bible, so clarifications are welcomed.

I see, however, the only way to reconcile it in our minds is as the sin of the world, that which entered in because of the fall of Lucifer; the sinfulness of man entered through the fall of Adam. Christ's work was to fully atone for all sin. If one is left unreconciled, then His work is not perfect, and could not have answered to the righteousness of God, nor any of His attributes.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
[qb]Our responsiblity for our sins came about through the actual acts of known sin. That is consistent throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New. From Romans 5: "But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." Does that mean no law is in existence? Or does it mean the law is not known? Which?

It means the Law of Moses, as it usually does in Pauline writing. You have stood this whole argument on its head making it exactly the opposite of Scripture in order to support your view.</font>[/QUOTE]But Larry, the law as given to Moses was known before Moses. That is clear not only in the Bible but in Hammurabi's Code. The law given to Moses was the written Law by the hand of God Himself. It was not different from the law as it was already known, but it was minus all the additions humans had made to it -- again reference the Code of Hammurabi for evidence of those additions.

You cannot stop with Moses in terms of the law itself. It goes back much further than that. Yes, Paul was referring to the law as given to Moses -- without all the extras people added on -- but my questions stands. If sin is not taken into account where there is no law, for whom does this apply? I'm not standing anything on its head. Paul would not have said this if it did not apply to someone! Or to everyone at some time in their lives.

Nor am I trying to 'make' Scripture fit my view. It is my sincere and fervent desire to make sure that whatever I think is in accord with Scripture. I do not find Calvinism to be that.

... As I say, your position leads to a works righteousness based on this passage.

I have no idea where you get that. I consider that nonsense! I have stated so many times that there is nothing we can do to earn, help with, or maintain our salvation. Christ did everything.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Because of Christ, no one's sin nature separates them from God.

Again, absolutely false and there is no nice way to say that. It simply is not true. Man is born in sin separated from God.</font>[/QUOTE]Is that why we must become as little children if we want heaven? Is that why the angels of the little ones ALWAYS see the face of the Father in heaven? Is that why the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as the little ones?

Jesus does not seem to hold with your ideas about the babies and little ones. He did not seem to feel or teach that children are born separated from God. Nor do I see that anywhere in the Bible. Sin nature, yes. Separation from God, no. Christ atoned for their unintentional sins the same way He atoned for yours and mine.

That is why he needs a Savior. The more I read of you, the more you sound like a Pelagian, or at best a semi-pelagian. That is abominable theology.

I already responded to accusation once in the C/A forum. I denied it specifically then and categorically now.

I don't doubt your sincerity but I doubt more and more how much you have really reckoned through this. It is not that difficult based on Scripture. All this time you have been saying you are not an arminian, I have been doubting you. Now I see you are right. You seem to be closer to pelagianism.

Well, at least you're past the Arminian accusation. That's a step forward...

And yes, I have 'reckoned' through this. The Bible does not support or advocate Calvinism in any way. God so loved the WORLD, Larry. The whole, wide world. Everyone in it. That's what Jesus said. I also think it is quite simple. I believe Him.

 

[Frogman]

Helen,

It would be wonderful if it were so. But, the simple truth is it requires God to move upon a degenerate soul to regenerate it, after this the individual dealt with is able to see themselves as God sees them, before this we cannot see ourselves deserving of Hell.

Those who were bitten of the serpent in the O.T. were those who were instructed to look to the Bronze serpent and be healed, only those who are made aware of thier nature are those who will look to Christ. This is all the work of God, no matter how many key strokes we engage to argue one side or the other. No man will confess he is a sinner until he is shown he is a sinner, this is an internal work of the Holy Spirit.

The work Christ came to perform was to "fulfill all righteousness" Matt. 3. He did this, this righteousness is then given as a cloak to cover the nakedness of only those who are quickened to know they are dead in sins and trespasses.

Christ specifically said in John 17 that he 'prayed not for the world.' and he mentioned the fact that those he had been given were first the father's. The group however large that shall be saved is always spoken of as a known Group; never unknown in the sight of God.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Rev. G]

In addition, the babies and children and retarded belong to Christ full stop. Matthew 18 deals with this as does 19:14. You can see I am not a Calvinist!

Helen:

First, sounds like you are actually holding the "Calvinist" majority opinion on this!

Second, your attitude towards "Calvinism" and "Calvinists" is disturbing because you seem to go out of your way to make accusations, etc. Please be careful when you make statements such as:

I'm tired of your insults, angry spirit, vituperation, etc. etc. I am not a heretic. I am a born again Christian, conservative mold, who denies the heresies of Calvinism.

And:

The Bible does not support or advocate Calvinism in any way.

Not in any way? Then how can you hold the position on infants, the retarded, etc.? Please be careful with your words, Helen. Especially when you start throwing around the "H" word (heresy).

Church history will not support your position. Only Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism have been condemened as heresy by the Church. Augustinianism / Calvinism never has.

Another problem is that you stated this:

And to say that anyone goes to hell for their sin (except for the sin of rejecting the truth from God) is a heretical teaching.

This is highly vituperative language, especially since the "orthodox" position has long been that people are sent to Hell for their sin.

"And the dead were judged according to their works..." - Revelation 20:12 (see also v. 13)

"Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience..."
- Colossians 3:5-6

One last thing:

Claiming that God loves some people and hates others from before conception is an insult to His character.

Romans 9:10-13 declares:
"And not only this, but when Rebecca also had coceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, 'The older shall serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.'"

This is declared in Scripture. I know that your interpretation may differ from those who hold to it literally, but please don't speak down to them because they do. This, and comments that imply "I believe the Bible, but 'Calvinists' don't really believe the Bible." do not foster a sense of Christian fellowship in which people can amicably discuss these issues.

Rev. G

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Helen:
But Larry, the law as given to Moses was known before Moses.

Not entirely true, and not the point anyway. The Law as given to Moses was the civil code of Israel. It did not exist before Moses per se. Certain tenets of the Law did hwoever. You must realize the difference between the law and the Law. That is a distinction that you apparently are not making. Paul is talking about the Law, not the law.

And I don't think we can equate Hammurabi with Moses, in terms of their law.

Nor am I trying to 'make' Scripture fit my view. It is my sincere and fervent desire to make sure that whatever I think is in accord with Scripture. I do not find Calvinism to be that.

But my contention is (and has been shown to be true) that you ignore the plain meaning of Scripture such as Romans 5 and 7 to support your preconceived notions about what the test must say so as not to contradict your preconceived conclusion. For instance,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />... As I say, your position leads to a works righteousness based on this passage.

I have no idea where you get that. I consider that nonsense! I have stated so many times that there is nothing we can do to earn, help with, or maintain our salvation. Christ did everything.</font>[/QUOTE]By ignoring the meaning of Romans 5 and making it means opposite of what it does mean, you unwittingly do just that. Consider again the teaching of Romans 5. Paul is teaching how we become righteous. His argument is that we become righteous in the same way that we become sinners (vv. 18-19). Therefore, if you are right that we become sinners by our acts of sin, then according to Paul we must become righteous by our acts of righteousness. That is why I say that you contradict Paul and teach (unwittingly) salvation by works. If you are right, then Romans 5 is wrong. You can't have it both ways -- that we become sinners by our own acts and righteous by someone else's act. Romans 5 says that we are sinners because of Adam and righteous because of Christ.

Is that why we must become as little children if we want heaven? Is that why the angels of the little ones ALWAYS see the face of the Father in heaven? Is that why the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as the little ones?

Again you seem to miss the point of Christ's teaching. His teaching was that we must come to him with an attitude of complete dependence, the attitude of a little child who, when his father holds out his arms, jumps without thinking that the Father might drop him. Christ is not referring to sinlessness in children. That has nothing at all to do with the passage at hand.

Nor do I see that anywhere in the Bible. Sin nature, yes. Separation from God, no. Christ atoned for their unintentional sins the same way He atoned for yours and mine.

Ps 51, Romans 5 among other places teach that man is separated from God by his sin. He is born as an "old man" meaning an "in Adam" man. At salvation that "old man" was crucified so that we would no longer be slaves to sin (rom 6). According to you, apparently, we were not born as an "old man" and yet not as a "new man" either since that doesn't come until salvation. So what are we when we are born if not an "old man" and not a "new man"?? Again, it doesn't seem that you have reckoned with Scripture on these issues.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The more I read of you, the more you sound like a Pelagian, or at best a semi-pelagian. That is abominable theology.

I already responded to accusation once in the C/A forum. I denied it specifically then and categorically now.</font>[/QUOTE]You denials not withstanding, your theolog sounds an awful lot like it. As for getting past the arminian accusation, pelagianism is not a step in the right direction. It is further away from biblical truth than arminianism is.

The Bible does not support or advocate Calvinism in any way. God so loved the WORLD, Larry. The whole, wide world. Everyone in it. That's what Jesus said. I also think it is quite simple. I believe Him.

I believe God loved the world ... the whole wide world. You have read me say that enough to where you know that is not the difference between you and I. I think it is very simple. Yet to say that the Bible does not support calvinism in any way is simply flat out wrong. You will have a hard time convincing those who know the Bible that Calvinism has no biblical support. The more one reads and studies Scriptures, the more calvinistic he becomes in most cases. It is how I became one. The more I studied, the more I realized there is no other answer that can deal with all of Scripture. Not being content to deal with part of it, I went where Scripture took me.

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Helen writes:
I have 'reckoned' through this. The Bible does not support or advocate Calvinism in any way.

Scott states:
Your speaking in absolutes on the subject at hand discredits your position.

Are all these men blind and in error?

Past Calvinists:
Jesus
The Apostles
The Apostle Paul
Augustine
Luther
John Knox
John Owen
C. Love
Francis Turretin
William Ames
William Perkins
John Calvin
Zwingli
William Carey
Richard Baxter
Lewis Sperry Chafer
William Cowper
Martin lloyd-Jones
Isaac Watts
Charles Spurgeon
John Gill
Matthew Poole
Theodore Beza
John Bunyan
Kuyper
Thomas Boston
Warfield
Thomas Shepard
Johnathan Edwards
Thomas Goodwin
Ezekiel Hopkins
Jeremiah Buroughs
Samuel Davies
William Gurnall
Octavius Winslow
Matthew Mead
Witsius
Dabney
Hodge
Custance
A.W. Pink
John Gerstner
McCheyne
Loraine Boettner
Boice
John Piper
D. James Kennedy
MacArthur
And so many not mentioned.............

[ November 22, 2002, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

[Bible Student]

I know I will regret this post and will probably not post another on the subject. I am not a calvinist nor am I a armenian, I believe both views are extreem. Anyone saved by God's Grace is saved because God said so. I water and plant and GOD GIVES THE INCREASE and I will leave it at that.

With that said now to the question that was asked at the start of this thread.

Okay, here you go. I would like to know what you think. I have my own ideas, but I would like to see what everyone thinks happens to those who have not heard the Gospel, such as many Muslims (from another thread), or the tribes in the jungles of Africa, or those who can't comprehend the Gospel, such as babies, handicap, etc.

I will only answer to those in regions who have never heard and will stand by the Word of God on this:

Rom 1:18-25

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
KJV

 

[Pastor_Bob]

What did God mean when He inspired these Scriptures?

John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world . (KJV)

Is this passage not teaching that every man is given a certain measure of light and the opportunity to respond to that light?

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men , (KJV)

Is this passage not teaching the same principle?

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Pastor Bob,
But the term *election* is in the good word. The term itself is excluding. Everyone in an election are not elected.

You agree that men are *given* to Christ by the father right?

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

~Does God give Christ "ALL" men? If God gives Christ only some men, why is that?

Also, aren't all that are "drawn" by God, raised up on the last day?

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Surely you don't believe that "ALL" will be raised on the last day.

[ November 21, 2002, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

[Rev. G]

I know I will regret this post and will probably not post another on the subject. I am not a calvinist nor am I a armenian, I believe both views are extreem. Anyone saved by God's Grace is saved because God said so. I water and plant and GOD GIVES THE INCREASE and I will leave it at that.

Yep, you sound like an "extreme 'Calvinist'" to me.

Rev. G

 

[Rev. G]

What did God mean when He inspired these Scriptures? [John 1:6-9] Is this passage not teaching that every man is given a certain measure of light and the opportunity to respond to that light? [Titus 2:11] Is this passage not teaching the same principle?

Every single individual has the responsibility / duty to trust God for salvation and to turn away from sin. No one but the Hyper-Calvinists will deny that.

Rev. G

 

[tyndale1946]

God said it!... I believe it!... And that settles it!... Brother Glen

 

[Rev. G]

Scott:

Other than Jesus and the Apostles ( ), let's consider some of the people on your list of "Calvinists". They need to be "discounted".

Augustine - Is he really that important? Just because he is called the most important figure in the history of the Church after Jesus and Paul? Just because he was used by God to "officially" recognize the canon? After all, he believed in paedobaptism and thought sex was bad. Ignore him.

Luther - Although he wrote more on predestination / election than did Calvin, we should ignore him too. Some have accused him of creating the Holocaust (forget Hitler and the Nazis and the fact that they were into Eastern religion and leftist politics). While many within Evangelical circles want to hold on to Luther just for the sake that he was used by God to ignite the Protestant Reformation, I think he should be taken off of your list.

John Knox - You can't be serious?!? The guy who said, "Give me Scotland, or I die!" Too evangelistic. Besides, ironically enough, Calvin was his mentor. And, some say he hated women (just like that other guy you mentioned, St. Paul).

John Owen - While THE DEATH OF DEATH IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST has yet to be refuted, that is no reason to put this guy on here. Just because he was Cromwell's chaplain doesn't mean anything, either.

Francis Turretin - Nobody wants to read somebody who writes in Latin.

William Ames / William Perkins - Puritan soul-winners. They don't count, they believed in evangelism.

John Calvin - He can't be listed as a "Calvinst" (that's a whole other discussion). Besides, he was responsible for sending out church planters and missionaries all over Europe. He was also responsible for sending out the first "foreign" missionaries. Take him off the list. He's too evangelistic.

Zwingli - Hey, don't Baptists get their view of the Lord's Supper from this guy? He couldn't have held to unconditional election! Could he? He did! Well, at least he was okay on the communion issue. What do you mean he later changed his view to be more in line with Calvin? Let's move on....

William Carey - "Father of Modern Missions." Besides, haven't you heard the story about the man who stood up and....

Richard Baxter - Although his preaching and writing appear to be thoroughly Calvinistic, Dave Hunt's scholarly research has shown that Baxter actually opposed Calvinism. I think his book, 'The Reformed Pastor', is going to be renamed at a later date. Hunt has spoken. Sorry, Scott.

Lewis Sperry Chafer - He is responsible for a lot of teaching at DTS, where they believe in grace. You can't have him for that very reason.

William Cowper / Isaac Watts - These guys were hymn writers. Calvinists only deal with abstract theological concepts, not real issues like prayer, evangelism and worship. C'mon!

Charles Spurgeon - Although he is the MOST quoted preacher (Baptist preacher at that) in the universe, many have asserted that he was just a "modified 'Calvinist'". Everyone knows, after all, that he was a great soul-winner. I think that takes him off your list, doesn't it?

Matthew Poole - If he were on "your" side, people would have to stop using his commentaries!

John Bunyan - He wrote 'Pilgrim's Progress'! Not only that, but the scholar Dave Hunt has also stated that Mr. Bunyan opposed Calvinism. So there!

B. B. Warfield - He is the one who really defined and defended the doctrine of inerrancy. Warfield's mantle has now been passed on to Adrian Rogers, so you can't claim Warfield anymore.

Johnathan Edwards - Yeah, and the Great Awakening was not only a revival where multitudes were converted, but probably a renewal of Reformed Theology as well. Get a grip, Scott!

Samuel Davies - He was the greatest instrument of evangelism in the South during the Great Awakening. Evangelitic - can't have him!

John Piper - He is always talking about the supremacy of God and missions. He even wrote a book on missions. 'Nuff said.

D. James Kennedy - The creator of "Evangelism Explosion" a Calvinist? Yeah right!

John MacArthur - Well, maybe, but he NEVER preaches or writes on the subject, so he is just a "closet Calvinist" and you can't have him.

Sorry, Scott, these individuals you have listed believe too much in evangelism and things like that. You are the weakest link - good-bye!

 

[Rev. G]

God said it!... I believe it!... And that settles it!

God said it. That settles it!

 

[Scott_Bushey]

You never cease to amaze me Rev!

Excellent expose!

 

[Bible Student]

Pastor Bob 63 Last night I took the passsage you used to night and copied the Strongs definitions into it and it reads like this:

9 That was the true Light , (NT:5457 phos (foce); from an obsolete phao (to shine or make manifest, especially by rays; compare NT:5316, NT:5346); luminousness (in the widest application, nat. or artificial, abstract or concrete, literal or figurative):
which lighteth (NT:5461 photizo (fo-tid'-zo); from NT:5457; to shed rays, i.e. to shine or (transitively) to brighten up (literally or figuratively): every (NT:3956 pas (pas); including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole) man (NT:444 anthropos (anth'-ro-pos); from NT:435 and ops (the countenance; from NT:3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being that cometh (NT:1519 eis (ice); a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases) into the world.

(I added the bold)

I can not get only slected out of that verse. Also I did a study of the word elect, elected etc and it primiarily means favored not slected. There is a differnce if you ckeck out the difinitions.

[ November 21, 2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Bible Student ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bob,

John 1:9 refers to common grace, the image of God in man, the knowledge that all have so that all are without excuse; Titus 2:12 may speak of common grace or it may speak of the fact that the offer of salvation is universal. Neither verse contradicts the calvinistic view.

Bible student,

As for the meaning of elect, you need to redo your word study. The word means "to choose" and is most often translated that way.