What makes the gospel appealing to the unbeliever?

[Revmitchell]

Now you're saying something different than your post #14.

Not really.

 

[Rippon]

So what is appealing? The "Way out." That is, the gospel or knowledge of God (Rom 1:19). All revelation is "general revelation." There is no such phrase as "special revelation" or "particular revelation" in the Bible. Those are fabrications to explain one HUMAN understanding of salvation.

skypair

No , special revelation refers to a supernatural understanding of Scripture -- not a person understnding with their natural ability .
Natural revelation refers to what has been mentioned in Romans 1:20 .It has nothing to do with salvation or the gospel .
These two terms are convenient devices to describe scriptural things . They are not fabrications any more than the extra-biblical word Trinity which describes the biblical concept .
I have never heard of particular revelation .

 

[Amy.G]

All revelation is "general revelation." There is no such phrase as "special revelation" or "particular revelation" in the Bible. Those are fabrications to explain one HUMAN understanding of salvation.

skypair

I don't think you'll find the term "general revelation" in the Bible either.

 

[TCGreek]

Not really.

Well, let's look at your two statements agains:

1. "Natural revelation points to God and the gospel. There is no need to separate the two. Except in maybe John Calvins world."

2. "The destination is not the gospel. The destination is God. Both natural revelation and the gospel are but arrows. God is the final destination. If you really want to jump into these semantics."

In your first statement, you have natural revelation pointing to both God and the gospel.

In your second statement you have both natural revelation and the gospel pointing to God.

In your first statement, God and the gospel are the destination.

But in your second statement, only God is the destination.

I don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that these statements are dissimilar.

 

[webdog]

So most agree that it is the Holy Spirit who makes the gospel appealing to an unbeliever.
Agreed.
How would you describe how He does this?

The Law written on their hearts.
Conscience.
Desire to live forever (Ecc. 3:11)
Written and spoken Word.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

The one thing that makes the good news so appealing is the bad news. Hell is real and unless the sinner believes the good news, the bad news is Hell will be his/her eternal reality! (Romans 6:23)

 

[Sopranette]

But a non believer would not believe in hell, either.

love,

Sopranette

 

[Revmitchell]

The problem is not that people do not believe in heaven hell or God. Such mind stes are rare. The problem is submission to God in spite of the fact that they have some idea about hell, heaven, and God. The day of judgement will not be based on failing to believe these exist. The problem on judgement day will be that they rejected Him in spite if believing God sent His Son. The rich young ruler is a prime example.

 

[Tom Butler]

A few years ago, a brother and I were out one evening visiting for our church. We knocked on a door which was answered by a young man who shared a home with two other bachelor brothers.

They invited us in, and eventually the subject got around to spiritual things. I asked them, what would you say it takes for one to be saved--to come into a right relationship with God?

Here is the answer I got: "You must realize that you are a sinner, under condemnation. You must repent of your sins and confess Christ as Savior and Lord."

I was stunned. I expected some vague answer about living right, doing good things, etc. What I got from these three young men was what I would have told them had they asked.

I asked, "Well, have you ever done that?"

The answer: "Naw, we never have, and don't plan to anytime soon."

These three brothers knew the way to Christ, and articulated it clearly. They simply refused to do it.

What theological truth can we draw from this anecdote?

 

[webdog]

These three brothers knew the way to Christ, and articulated it clearly. They simply refused to do it.

What theological truth can we draw from this anecdote?

...that they are no different than any other person who dies and goes to hell. "They exchanged the Truth for a lie"

 

[skypair]

No , special revelation refers to a supernatural understanding of Scripture -- not a person understnding with their natural ability .

I reiterate -- "special revelation" is not a phrase that the Bible uses, is NOT found in scripture. Therefore, it is of HUMAN origin. HUMANS, of course, can make it mean anything they want to. They "invented" it! :laugh:

So I am assuming that you take the term back to 1Cor 2:14-15 -- talking about the "spiritual man" vs. "natural man." Only thing is, in 2:1-6 Paul tells us plainly that the gospel (you call "general revelation") IS UNDERSTOOD by the unsaved, natural man with NO supernatural ability. That is why in 2:6 he says, "we speak wisdom to them that are PERFECT." They are saved already -- spiritual men! NOT "natural" as they were in 2:1-5.

Natural revelation refers to what has been mentioned in Romans 1:20 .It has nothing to do with salvation or the gospel .

I'll assume "natural revelation" = "general revelation" in Calvinese. That it has nothing to do with salvation would be to allow man an excuse for not knowing God and becoming saved, would it not?

That is has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. That it has nothing to do with the eternal gospel -- that salvation is of the Lord -- or with the OT gospel -- the "gospel of the kingdom" -- is false in that Calvinism only knows of one gospel, the "special revelation."

These two terms are convenient devices to describe scriptural things . They are not fabrications any more than the extra-biblical word Trinity which describes the biblical concept.

Trinity is of human fabrication too -- but it's is also generally accepted as describing a truth. No one but Calvies/Reformies accept that there is "special revelation" only to some ("elect") whereby they alone are saved.

Now we likely WOULD accept "special revelation" as "the deeper things of God" that only the saved could understand.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I don't think you'll find the term "general revelation" in the Bible either.

True enough. But then there is little misunderstanding of the meaning of it or how God accomplishes it, is there.

skypair

 

[skypair]

But a non believer would not believe in hell, either.

But they ALL believe in death. And God says He has put it in their minds to look beyond that even.

Even in his most sinful considerations, the alternative is death. In adultery -- there's ecstacy and death. In lying -- there's escape and death. That's what the Spirit's message of "sin" to the whole world is (John 16:8).

Calvinism only accounts for the one side of temptation and thereby makes man a slave to that which is so obviously self-ish! But God says man is equally and "all their lives" "IN BONDAGE" to "fear of death!" Heb 2:15 (There's that word "bondage" that Luther so loved to point man's will in only one direction with!)

And as we all know, the conscience can become "hardened" to the "death" side so that we begin to believe we "shall not surely die!" But as soon as we suffer loss thereby, we again face the death option.

skypair

 

[skypair]

These three brothers knew the way to Christ, and articulated it clearly. They simply refused to do it.

What theological truth can we draw from this anecdote?

Unwilling. I know I wasn't willing for many weeks because I wasn't "ready." I didn't know if I had considered the implications for my life and the "grounding" in scripture of that new alternative were.

The one thing I did know from the get-go was that God spoke to each of us personally through the Bible which was an entirely new thought to me!

Conversion, as even Sproul will tell you, is knowledge - assent - appropriation. You can know something and not believe it -- you can assent to something you know little about (which is why I hesitated). But if you convince yourself that you know enough, you will appropriate what you believe in the manner God/Christ commands you to.

If you suspect that ANYTHING is going on beyond your view -- these people are just tallying "body count," God has some secret agenda to ruin my life here, only the "elect"/chosen will be saved regardless of what they say or pray -- you will not appropriate.

If you think that there is an easier way "in," you will not appropriate.

Those are what I think your anecdote means.

skypair

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, let's look at your two statements agains:

1. "Natural revelation points to God and the gospel. There is no need to separate the two. Except in maybe John Calvins world."

2. "The destination is not the gospel. The destination is God. Both natural revelation and the gospel are but arrows. God is the final destination. If you really want to jump into these semantics."

In your first statement, you have natural revelation pointing to both God and the gospel.

In your second statement you have both natural revelation and the gospel pointing to God.

In your first statement, God and the gospel are the destination.

But in your second statement, only God is the destination.

I don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that these statements are dissimilar.

Pointing to something does not automaticlly mean a "final' destination. However, your semantical gymnastics here are rather ridiculous. Do you have anything substantial to add to this subject.

 

[saturneptune]

Pointing to something does not automaticlly mean a "final' destination. However, your semantical gymnastics here are rather ridiculous. Do you have anything substantial to add to this subject.

TC Greek always gives a good, solid explanation for Scripture. He is very well versed, and find him very insightful.

On the other hand, when terms such as "ridiculous" and "lack of substance" arise, thoughts automatically go to your posts.

Our final destination is God, and the Lord Jesus. If that fact is difficult, maybe you should consider another profession.

 

[TCGreek]

TC Greek always gives a good, solid explanation for Scripture. He is very well versed, and find him very insightful.

On the other hand, when terms such as "ridiculous" and "lack of substance" arise, thoughts automatically go to your posts.

Our final destination is God, and the Lord Jesus. If that fact is difficult, maybe you should consider another profession.

Thank you, Saturneptune.

 

[TCGreek]

Pointing to something does not automaticlly mean a "final' destination. However, your semantical gymnastics here are rather ridiculous. Do you have anything substantial to add to this subject.

There's an obvious discrepancy to your two statements, and instead of admitting such, you're pretending that it doesn't exists.

 

[Rippon]

TC Greek always gives a good, solid explanation for Scripture. He is very well versed, and find him very insightful.

On the other hand, when terms such as "ridiculous" and "lack of substance" arise, thoughts automatically go to your posts.

Our final destination is God, and the Lord Jesus. If that fact is difficult, maybe you should consider another profession.

I agree with you SN . TCG is scriptural , insightful and well-reasoned in his posts here and elsewhere on the BB .

 

[Revmitchell]

There's an obvious discrepancy to your two statements, and instead of admitting such, you're pretending that it doesn't exists.

There is no discrepency in my post. There is no "pretending" on my part. But I see there is one who only knows how to travel around the board making attacks rather than talking about anything substantial as well backing you up. It doesn't help. Now I will ask again. Do you have any thing substantial to add?