I am entertaining the possibility of the actual message being delivered in a vision or dream.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You can be saved without the Gospel???
- Thread starter Reformed1689
- Start date
- Status
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Not saying it is impossible, but also no precedence in Scripture for it.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
How does it take his comments out of context?
Agreed.
Just a few thoughts...
As far as heresy goes it is helpful to have a definition. Donald McKim* defines heresy as, "A view chosen instead of the official teachings of a church. Such a view is regarded as wrong and potentially dangerous for faith." Heresy can take two forms. First, there is big "H" heresy and then there is small "h" heresy. Big "H" heresy is any false teaching that presents a false gospel and is so serious that it can imperil the soul of the one holding/teaching it. An example of a big "H" heresy is Arianism. At its core Arianism is an attack upon the deity of Jesus Christ. It is the central belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Arianism imperils the soul of those who believe it and those who teach it. Ecclesiastically speaking, the term "heresy" is typically reserved for big "H" heresies. Small "h" heresies are often called errors or false/erroneous teachings. For instance, as a Baptist, I consider infant baptism to be a false teaching. However, I do not believe it imperils the souls of our Presbyterian brethren who practice it**.
I mention this because we should take great care when speculating whether someone is advocating heresy. I hope @robycop3 weighs in on this thread so he can clarify his beliefs.
*Donald K McKim is the author of the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms.
**On the basis they do not teach baptismal regeneration.
As far as heresy goes it is helpful to have a definition. Donald McKim* defines heresy as, "A view chosen instead of the official teachings of a church. Such a view is regarded as wrong and potentially dangerous for faith." Heresy can take two forms. First, there is big "H" heresy and then there is small "h" heresy. Big "H" heresy is any false teaching that presents a false gospel and is so serious that it can imperil the soul of the one holding/teaching it. An example of a big "H" heresy is Arianism. At its core Arianism is an attack upon the deity of Jesus Christ. It is the central belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Arianism imperils the soul of those who believe it and those who teach it. Ecclesiastically speaking, the term "heresy" is typically reserved for big "H" heresies. Small "h" heresies are often called errors or false/erroneous teachings. For instance, as a Baptist, I consider infant baptism to be a false teaching. However, I do not believe it imperils the souls of our Presbyterian brethren who practice it**.
I mention this because we should take great care when speculating whether someone is advocating heresy. I hope @robycop3 weighs in on this thread so he can clarify his beliefs.
*Donald K McKim is the author of the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms.
**On the basis they do not teach baptismal regeneration.
This seems a fair question.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Fair, but off topic for this thread.
I definitely don't like Roby's wording and usually don't like his arguments even if I may partially or completely agree with him on some things.
First I'll go through the basic Jesus things.
John 3:16-21 NLT
“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. [17] God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him. [18] “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. [19] And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. [20] All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. [21] But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants. ”
Now some argue that verses 16-21 are John's commentary, but I don't think it matters. The key thing is that the only way given in the New Testament of not perishing but having everlasting life is "belief" in Jesus. And, in full context, the passage makes it clear that this belief is not simply knowledge of facts but a desire to love the light and be near it.
So, what about babies, heathens on the other side of the world just after Jesus's death, etc?
Well, there just isn't very much about it in the Bible. Jesus never told the parable of the man who never heard the gospel. Jesus also never told the parable of the baby who died in child birth. All of Jesus's parables assume that at least part of the good news was provided to the people and the people either rejected the message or Jesus.
I guess one could believe as Augustine and Calvin and that if a baby didn't make it to the christening in time that the baby went to hell. Or that all babies go to heaven and therefore the lucky ones in the New World were the ones to die in child birth. Or something in between. I won't claim to know. However, I trust God to do the right thing and I'm sure he has it handled one way or another, or possibly in a way no one has thought of.
I agree with another on this forum in that I don't believe Christianity is a death cult. Jesus and the apostles emphasize how to live - not how to die, or what happens to the dead. Besides a very brief mention of Baptism of the dead by Paul, there are no Christian burial rites. In fact, if you look in the Old Testament, one can't find any elaborate burial rites there either. This is quite unusual for a religion as most every other religion emphasizes burial. Christianity doesn't.
So, when someone asks what happened to some guy who died in North America over a thousand years ago, I'm not very interested. Like the disciples of Jesus's time I am most concerned about what I should be doing and spreading the good news. So, I do believe it would be quite normal for this to be mostly left out of scripture as it is.
I do know the following: After his death, resurrection, and acsension Jesus did in fact visit at least one unbeliever, Paul. At no point did Jesus say he was never going to appear before anyone else ever again.
Now I don't know what happened over 1,000 year ago in North America. Jesus may have actually appeared to someone. If Jesus appeared to that person, that person could obviously believe in him and might have even convinced others to do the same. Is there any record of this? Not that I know of, but the people of North America aren't known for keeping accurate historical records. But could it have happened? I think it is possible. Can someone be saved if Jesus personally presents himself to that person. I would say definitely yes. Is this circumventing the Gospel? I would say no because Jesus is the WORD and the LIGHT. Jesus presenting himself would be presenting the Gospel.
Now, that being said, I do believe there is too much idolization of other religions by many Christians. The North Americans of 500 years ago did not live Christlike lives and all indications show that they were unlikely to have been visited by Jesus or if some were visited by Jesus, it was in isolated and likely rare instances. I also don't believe that people in other religions can reject Christianity yet somehow end up in heaven by "doing good stuff" or "wanting to follow something similar to but not Jesus."
Generally I try not to worry about this. The nice thing about reading the Biblical narrative is that I've learned to trust God's wisdom and love. I'm sure he has it worked out somehow.
Last edited:
Old Testament saints were justified by faith in the same way people are today. The scripture says that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3). Old Testaments saints had types and shadows of the yet-to-be-revealed New Covenant. Today it is different. The New Covenant has been revealed and the New Testament states clearly the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). Of the Gospel, the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith states:
20.2 This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.
( Romans 1:17; Romans 10:14,15,17; Proverbs 29:18; Isaiah 25:7; Isaiah 60:2, 3 )
When creating a new thread, I think it would be appropriate to quote his entire post as oppose to one part. Quoting just a part in a new thread limits the discussion to simply, "Can one be saved without the Gospel?" The simple answer is no.
However, Roby's original post is a little more nuanced than that. He brings up the revelation through nature thing in the first chapter of Romans. While this revelation through nature only condemns people, other natural revelations exist in the Bible. The best known is when the Three Wise Men follow a revelation in nature to find Jesus.
"But JESUS knows who's who among those people, & I believe He saved those who did right without having never heard of God or His law."
The last part by itself makes Roby look rather bad. It makes Roby look like he believes that getting into heaven is based on works alone - no faith required. Atheists and Muslims welcome. I don't think he believes this. Or, at least, I hope he doesn't.
Last edited:
Noah Hirsch
Active Member
The problem with saying that those who do good and haven’t heard of the gospel are saved is that it is contrary to the Scripture teaching that “...there is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not, so much as one.” (Romans 3:10-12 ASV) Because there is no one who is good or righteous of themselves the only way one can be justified before God is by the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ through faith. To be justified is to be declared righteous. God in justifying sinners declares them as righteous, not counting their trespasses against them, but crediting the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ to their account. If people who have not heard the gospel can be saved because they do good works, then it would follow that not all who are justified would be justified on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone. We are all sinners by nature and condemned in Adam (Ephesians 2:1-3, Romans 5:12-19) until Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us through faith alone. We do not become sinners, accountable before God, and condemned by means of the hearing of the gospel, but we fell in Adam into sin and condemnation.
One of my missions professors told the story of how in the early mid 1900s in South America there was a group of unreached high in the mountains that they decided to try and evangelize
They went to the people group and ask if they could preach the Gospel and were told no several times. They asked why and were told that they believed in God- the whole village. The Prof was like yes we understand but we want to more fully tell you about Him. No
They asked again why and were told No. so they said, please tell is about this god that you worship. The village chief then explained the Gospel to them since he was also the pastor. They were then asked how did you hear about the Gospel, we thought you were an unreached PG?
Turns out, a ladies Sunday School group had bought Bibles, commentaries etc for a PG invthe same area that could not read Spanish. The aviators were laughing about it and decided to just toss the materials out of the plane as they flew over this village. The village people read the materials and were comverted by the Gospel. They all were amazed at how the villagers talked Bout the big bird that dropped all of these materials out of its claws. Lol
Wasted money? I think not
Dr Cad said we would be amazed at how much they had right in doctrine.
They went to the people group and ask if they could preach the Gospel and were told no several times. They asked why and were told that they believed in God- the whole village. The Prof was like yes we understand but we want to more fully tell you about Him. No
They asked again why and were told No. so they said, please tell is about this god that you worship. The village chief then explained the Gospel to them since he was also the pastor. They were then asked how did you hear about the Gospel, we thought you were an unreached PG?
Turns out, a ladies Sunday School group had bought Bibles, commentaries etc for a PG invthe same area that could not read Spanish. The aviators were laughing about it and decided to just toss the materials out of the plane as they flew over this village. The village people read the materials and were comverted by the Gospel. They all were amazed at how the villagers talked Bout the big bird that dropped all of these materials out of its claws. Lol
Wasted money? I think not
Dr Cad said we would be amazed at how much they had right in doctrine.
Like John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb?
Our Presbyterian brethren use that event to support infant baptism. That irregular occurrence aside, there are two things to keep in mind about John the Baptist. 1. He was born and died before Jesus and before the New Covenant was inaugurated. So, he was no different than Abraham or David. 2. He saw "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" face-to-face. That was a confession of belief that Jesus is the Messiah.
This was the ORIGINAL POST from which you took issue.
Do you not see the bold and underlined "...doers of the law will be justified..."
By pulling a single line from the post, you are not presenting the thinking behind what was stated.
The thinking is applied to those who may not know specific names for God, who may not know the full story concerning the death, burial, and resurrection, but they DO know they are sinners. They Do know that there must be redemption, and therefore they are "doers of the law" by the very reason that the law is written in their heart.
The Scriptures state that the purpose of the law was as a teacher pointing towards Christ.
If, by having the law written on the heart, one lives accordingly, THE SCRIPTURES state that person is justified.
One justified is saved.
What the posts focused upon is that it doesn't take someone teaching the law to bring awareness of sin and the need of a redeemer, for EVERYONE already has the written standards of God on their heart.
Here are some examples:
Moses knew it was wrong to kill or he wouldn't have hidden the body. The law was already written on the heart long time prior to it being presented in written form from Sinai.
Did Moses know the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John? Did he know of the cross?
Yet, was not Moses redeemed?
How about Noah, Job, Seth?
Does not the Scriptures state, "FAITH comes by HEARING, and hearing by the WORD of God?
If God's word is written already on the heart, and one responds to that in an appropriate fashion yet not know all the facts of names, dates, places given in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, but responds according to Romans 2:13 that person is justified - saved.
Now, I don't know why this would alarm anyone on the BB. It isn't heretical, nor is it out of step with the Baptist "tradition" and teaching.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
The Westminster makes exceptions for those beyond the reach of the gospel, infants, and the impaired. “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Acts 10:34–35 (KJV 1900) Which could mean the born again live according to the Two Great Commandments energised in their hearts by the Holy Spirit apart from the gospel.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
And here is what we know, there is only one person in history that has done this. ONE. Jesus Christ.
No, that may be what the post talked about, but the part quoted in this OP is where his post went into straight heresy.
Moses looked to the future Messiah. The savior. He believed the promise. So in that sense, yes. He did.
That is not what this is saying at all. Nobody lives according to the law.
Of course it is heretical.
One of the problems that folks sometimes reveal is the narrow mindedness of what God can do.
Paul taught the message of reconciliation, that God had reconciled the world to Himself.
What did the commission, first given to the disciples and by extension to us, actually state:
Paul later in Romans asks some very pointed questions:
Paul goes on to explain the gentile inclusion and Israel. Something for another thread.
But, often, folks look at the questions, assume answers are given, and come up with views that may not be the whole panorama.
The principle is: The Word heard brings about that faith to express.
That preaching is the God ordained method of bringing the message.
But, Paul isn't asking all the questions that could be ask pertaining to the topic, because in Romans 2 he already dealt with the question by giving an answer.
Paul taught the message of reconciliation, that God had reconciled the world to Himself.
What did the commission, first given to the disciples and by extension to us, actually state:
“Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Paul later in Romans asks some very pointed questions:
14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?
And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
15And how are they to preach unless they are sent?
And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?
And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
15And how are they to preach unless they are sent?
Paul goes on to explain the gentile inclusion and Israel. Something for another thread.
But, often, folks look at the questions, assume answers are given, and come up with views that may not be the whole panorama.
The principle is: The Word heard brings about that faith to express.
That preaching is the God ordained method of bringing the message.
But, Paul isn't asking all the questions that could be ask pertaining to the topic, because in Romans 2 he already dealt with the question by giving an answer.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
The whole post does not change his last statement at all.
- Status