# Elect among the unreached



## kvanlaan

So Jim-bob lives in the wilderness in Wyoming. He never hears the gospel and goes to his grave never having heard the gospel. Is it possible that he could be among the elect, having never heard the Word of God? What is the scriptural warrant for either side?


----------



## satz

I think if Jim Bob was one of the elect he would be saved in exactly the same way as infants or toddlers who never heard (or gained the capacity to understand) the gospel.

Once you admit one category of persons who never hear the gospel (people dying in infancy) may be elect, I see no valid reason to exclude the other category (the unreached).


----------



## kvanlaan

Then all who die in infancy are hell-bound?


----------



## satz

Either that or there is the biblical possibility (i.e. the scripture we have does not rule out the chance) that there are elect adults who live and die without the gospel. 

I would tend toward the latter.


----------



## charliejunfan

if He was a cognantly able person God would have, in his providence, someone go to him and speak the gospel to him. with infants it is the same, if God wanted them to grow up they would have heard the gospel and been converted outwardly as a result of the seed of faith that grew with them and someone coming to them since they were elect, cause remember it is for His glory that the word either indicts or illumines. I hope I explained that clearly. His providence has people reach those who are elect and cognant. Faith is, I believe part of our imputed righteousness based on his paying for unbelief on the cross and Him being our covenantal head. This is how I think it would all go down. I do not have a verse that specifically states this though.


----------



## Blue Tick

Jim Bob perished in his sins. He was never part of the elect. 
This is why there should be an urgency to preach and reach people with the gospel. If Jim Bob was part of the elect he would have heard the gospel some how.

Romans 10:14-17


> 14 How 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? [3] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.



Romans 2:12


> 12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.



Luke 13:5


> 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”





Jim Bob is not in the same position as covenantal blessing as elect infants.
1 Corinthians 7:14


> 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.



Acts 16:13-14


> One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.




Acts 15:16-34


> 25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, 26 and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's bonds were unfastened. 27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” 29 And the jailer [6] called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.



Acts 18:8


> Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.


----------



## OPC'n

"Once you admit one category of persons who never hear the gospel (people dying in infancy) may be elect, I see no valid reason to exclude the other category (the unreached)."

HELLO! That is exactly right! Election is a very important part of the salvific pie, but it is not the entire pie and the Gospel lays out exactly what is needed for the salvation of man's soul. None of the Scriptures that the WMC uses to support infant election stands under scrutiny? What??? I don't even have to scrutinize the Scriptures it uses...they just don't even support infant election in any fashion. Here is a short  on the Scriptures they use:

The good writers of the WMC left out vv 17 of Luke 18: Now they were bringing
even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it,
they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children
come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17
Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child
shall not enter it."

“for to such belongs the kingdom of God” I believe is referring to that
verse which follows this statement. Indeed vv 17 is a definition of vv 16. So
the kingdom of God belongs to those who receive it as a child. How does a child
receive anything from a parent? They receive what they need without any
contributions from themselves but only from their parents. This reinforces
salvation by Christ alone through faith alone by grace alone. It doesn’t
support infant election.

John 3:3, 5 has to do with being born again. I’m unsure why they use this as a
supporting verse for infant election. It certainly doesn’t exclude the hearing
of the Gospel unto salvation.

Acts 2:38-39 does give them a promise of salvation to them, their children, and
those far off. But can you say that all of a believer’s children receive that
promise? Can you say that all who are far off receive that promise. No, nor
would you. In another way, wouldn’t you agree that this text isn’t
excluding their children from growing up? Nothing in this verse alludes to
dying infants. It just says that their children will receive the promise. Their
children will always remain their children no matter how old they get. Indeed,
salvation would have been exclusive to that generation only if we took this
verse to mean to them and their children who would never grow up and have
children of their own, who would have children of their own, etc on which the
promise would continue not because of earthly inheritance but by the mere fact
that generations were continuing on and thus salvation would be given to
certain members of each generation.

Rom 8:9, 1 John 5:12 are also not supportive texts for infant election. Nor
does it support the doctrine that there are those who are saved without hearing
the Gospel…something I find hard to believe is found in the WMC! I might as
well take the plunge and be a Universalist and be done with the matter.

John 3:8 only informs us that we do not have a hand in our salvation and that it
is by the Holy Spirit. This texts confirms Luke 18 the first text used.

How does Acts 4:12 or 1 John 5:12 support this doctrine? It only states that
there is only one Way, Jesus Christ, for salvation.

This is our supporting evidence for infant election? This is all we have? I’m
still unconverted to this doctrine.


----------



## charliejunfan

right if someone is outside of the womb and is average in mind capabilities then God would in His providence have someone preach the Gospel to him. Maybe with infants He has the gospel/Word spoken around them lol, just to be like see you guys, I can do anything, its all me! not you!


----------



## charliejunfan

Federal Headship, we are in him, it is through Christ that all this is possible, even our grabbing on the Him by faith, it is a gift, he gives us faith, since He paid for our unbelief, there are some very good articles on apuritansmind chezeck it out.


----------



## Herald

Let me throw this into the discussion:

1689 LBC 10.3
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; _*so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. *_
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )


----------



## Herald

kvanlaan said:


> Then all who die in infancy are hell-bound?



Brother, no. Elect infants who die in infancy go to heaven.

1689 LBC 10.3a
_*Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated *_and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases;

Of course we don't know who is elect or not. Some teach that those infants born into Christian homes and die in infancy are elect. I have to trust that the God of universe will do right and rest on His mercy.


----------



## OPC'n

Herald said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then all who die in infancy are hell-bound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, no. Elect infants who die in infancy go to heaven.
> 
> 1689 LBC 10.3a
> _*Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated *_and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases;
> 
> Of course we don't know who is elect or not. Some teach that those infants born into Christian homes and die in infancy are elect. I have to trust in the God of universe will do right and rest on His mercy.
Click to expand...


None of the Scriptures that the WMC uses to support this doctrine actually support it. None.


----------



## Herald

sjonee said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then all who die in infancy are hell-bound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, no. Elect infants who die in infancy go to heaven.
> 
> 1689 LBC 10.3a
> _*Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated *_and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases;
> 
> Of course we don't know who is elect or not. Some teach that those infants born into Christian homes and die in infancy are elect. I have to trust in the God of universe will do right and rest on His mercy.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the Scriptures that the WMC uses to support this doctrine actually support it. None.
Click to expand...


I know that this part of the LBC and WCF is hotly debated by some. Personally I believe elect infants go to heaven, but I could be wrong.


----------



## charliejunfan

Amen!


----------



## OPC'n

Joshua said:


> It's _WCF_ not _WMC_


_
_.....*WCF is Westminster Confession of Faith and I was referring to the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Same but different...sorry for using an abbreviation with which you are not familiar...didn't mean to confuse anyone but I'm going to keep using that one because I'm not speaking of the WCF in its entirety*.


> And there need not be any Scriptures that support _infant_ election, so long as there are Scriptures that support election *period. *If we believe Election is true (and we do), then we believe that whomsoever God elects, He calls, whom He calls, He justifies, whom He justifies, He sanctifies then glorifies. This is not difficult to comprehend


...*right, it's not difficult. What do you do with the rest of the requirements of the salvific pie?*


> So, then, what do we say? We say that whomsoever God elects, He saves. The secret things belong to the Lord Our God. Just _how_ does He get the Gospel to these dying infants, and these who are without "cognitive" understanding? I dunno. But I do know this: If the Lord can resurrect dead sinners who initially hate Him and can cause these to love Him, he can also do it to dying infants and those who are without "cognitive understanding."


...*I'm not saying that He doesn't have the power to do this. I'm just saying that we have to accept Scriptural support on how salvation is accomplished.*


> It's HIS prerogative, and I assure you, He is capable.


...repectfully...just because you say something doesn't make it right. You in fact have to have Scriptural support. I could say that God is powerful enough to create a god just like Himself but that doesn't make it so. Even God isn't that powerful. The very fact that the god is created makes that god a created being and not God. So you just can't say, "God is powerful enough to do it!" You have to say, "Is this how God chose to do it?" and then back it up with Scripture.


----------



## Herald

sjonee said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's _WCF_ not _WMC_.....*WCF is Westminster Confession of Faith and I was referring to the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Same but different...sorry for using an abbreviation with which you are not familiar...didn't mean to confuse anyone but I'm going to keep using that one because I'm not speaking of the WCF in its entirety*.
> 
> And there need not be any Scriptures that support _infant_ election, so long as there are Scriptures that support election *period. *If we believe Election is true (and we do), then we believe that whomsoever God elects, He calls, whom He calls, He justifies, whom He justifies, He sanctifies then glorifies. This is not difficult to comprehend...*right, it's not difficult. What do you do with the rest of the requirements of the salvific pie?*
> So, then, what do we say? We say that whomsoever God elects, He saves. The secret things belong to the Lord Our God. Just _how_ does He get the Gospel to these dying infants, and these who are without "cognitive" understanding? I dunno. But I do know this: If the Lord can resurrect dead sinners who initially hate Him and can cause these to love Him, he can also do it to dying infants and those who are without "cognitive understanding."...*I'm not saying that He doesn't have the power to do this. I'm just saying that we have to accept Scriptural support on how salvation is accomplished.*It's HIS prerogative, and I assure you, He is capable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...repectfully...just because you say something doesn't make it right. You in fact have to have Scriptural support. I could say that God is powerful enough to create a god just like Himself but that doesn't make it so. Even God isn't that powerful. The very fact that the god is created makes that god a created being and not God. So you just can't say, "God is powerful enough to do it!" You have to say, "Is this how God chose to do it?" and then back it up with Scripture.
Click to expand...


Let's get something straight. You have the right to disagree with the confessions but not to teach against them. In other words, you've made your objection known, now let it be. I am NOT saying the confessions are infallible on this subject. The eternal destiny of infants that die in infancy is emotionally charged. I am not one to shut down debate on a topic randomly, but on this one it's best to make your view known and then move on.


----------



## Herald

sjonee, btw please click on the signature requirements at the bottom of my post and follow the instructions on how to set up you signature. Thank you.


----------



## OPC'n

I've looked and I guess I don't know where to go to fix my sig. Do I go under avatar?


----------



## Herald

sjonee said:


> I've looked and I guess I don't know where to go to fix my sig. Do I go under avatar?



Go to "User CP" --> "Setting and Options" --> "Signature"


----------



## OPC'n

Absolutely! And I too mean "respectfully". I have no reason to not respect you. As for this discussion, no one has convinced me that it is true. The writers of the WMC's use of Scripture in their support of this doctrine didn't use Scripture which support this doctrine. I truly hope that I'm wrong and that you are right. I just cannot put my mind to giving one group of people (those who cannot cognitively understand the Gospel) special treatment while the rest of mankind has to live by how the salvific process is done. In my mind, there truly is only One Way and by only one means. I promised myself that I wouldn't have this conversation with people who have children though. So even though I usually don't back off a debate, I certainly will this one if that is what you want. I don't have any children, and although I want all children to go to heaven, I'm not as effected by this discussion as most people are and so I want to be sensitive. So, it's up to you.


----------



## OPC'n

I agree with election completely. I just believe that Scripture states there is more to salvation than just election. I think many people put all their eggs into the one basket of election at times. But there's more: 

Romans 10:14 How 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? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. 

I understand that many people believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect infant and preaches the Gospel to them and that is how they receive salvation, but that is not indicated in Scripture. Scripture is clear about how the salvific process would happen. God decided that He would use the foolishness of mankind's preaching to spread His Gospel. He even decided that not all who heard His Gospel would receive it. He even decided that there would be those who would never hear it. Never have I read that anyone was saved who didn't hear the Gospel, or that there were some who heard the Gospel by a different means than that of mankind preaching it to them. The reason I hold onto this so fervently is not because I don't want babies to go to heaven, but because Scripture tells us not only of election but also of having to hear the Gospel from mankind, etc. I realize that the Holy Spirit could preach the Gospel since it was He that gave the apostles this revelation in the first place, but His ability isn't in question, the question is *how* He said the Gospel would be preached and that it had to be preached by mankind. These are just as important parts of the salvific process as election. Parts that cannot be discarded for one segment of mankind. 


"


----------



## Mayflower

kvanlaan said:


> So Jim-bob lives in the wilderness in Wyoming. He never hears the gospel and goes to his grave never having heard the gospel. Is it possible that he could be among the elect, having never heard the Word of God? What is the scriptural warrant for either side?



Read the next articel:

The Man on the Island: Facing the Truth About those who Never Hear the Gospel by Russell D. Moore
http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/The_Man_on_the_Island.pdf


----------



## Pergamum

kvanlaan said:


> So Jim-bob lives in the wilderness in Wyoming. He never hears the gospel and goes to his grave never having heard the gospel. Is it possible that he could be among the elect, having never heard the Word of God? What is the scriptural warrant for either side?



Is Jimbob an infant or is he mostly braindead? That seems like it might make a difference.


----------



## Pergamum

Very excellent book selection for this topic:

Millard Erickson, "How Shall They Be Saved."


----------



## kvanlaan

So, to sum up: Jim-bob is out of luck. Covenant infants are saved, and all other unreached/uncognizant are not saved. Am I reading this correctly?


----------



## OPC'n

kvanlaan said:


> So, to sum up: Jim-bob is out of luck. Covenant infants are saved, and all other unreached/uncognizant are not saved. Am I reading this correctly?



Not according to Scripture.


----------



## BobVigneault

Sarah, it would be more expedient if you would say, "Can somebody show me that this is true, from scripture?" You are claiming the authority of scripture in your response before you have considered all of scripture. 

There are implicit and explicit arguments to be made from scripture and you have not considered them all yet.


----------



## Pergamum

Where are you going with this?


I would also add the mentally deficient into the same category as the infant.


----------



## OPC'n

BobVigneault said:


> Sarah, it would be more expedient if you would say, "Can somebody show me that this is true, from scripture?" You are claiming the authority of scripture in your response before you have considered all of scripture.
> 
> There are implicit and explicit arguments to be made from scripture and you have not considered them all yet.



Sorry, Bob. That was me trying to lighten things up. Kind of like the joke about when a Baptist who was at a paedo/credo debate came up to a man sitting at a table with books on it and told the man he hoped there were no books on the table about paedobaptism. The man looked around at his table and said, "No, I don't see the Bible here" 

IAC, I did ask that question in a round about way. I gave the Scriptures that are used to support this doctrine with the hopes that someone would retort what I said about them specifically. You may if you have the time. I've said before that I hope I'm wrong....


----------



## BobVigneault

Sorry Sarah, I don't have much of a sense of humor, having dedicated my life to seriousness. I don't believe there is any place for humor on a board of this type.

Furthermore, if I give away all the answers then it will leave little room for discussion. When I settle a deep theological puzzle such as this then every one else clams up because my intellect is somewhat intimidating when I let it off the leash.

So, I am destined to keep my intellect curbed but well cared for, to take it on daily walks, brush it when it's coat gets matted, feed it a low fat high protein diet and and just love it and pray it doesn't bite anyone until it's necessary to bring it to the vet and have it put to sleep.

Blessings


----------



## OPC'n

! I felt a rush just reading that! Open fire! I can handle it and who cares who has to clam up...no sleepy time for it!


----------



## Pergamum

BobVigneault said:


> Sorry Sarah, I don't have much of a sense of humor, having dedicated my life to seriousness. I don't believe there is any place for humor on a board of this type.
> 
> Furthermore, if I give away all the answers then it will leave little room for discussion. When I settle a deep theological puzzle such as this then every one else clams up because my intellect is somewhat intimidating when I let it off the leash.
> 
> So, I am destined to keep my intellect curbed but well cared for, to take it on daily walks, brush it when it's coat gets matted, feed it a low fat high protein diet and and just love it and pray it doesn't bite anyone until it's necessary to bring it to the vet and have it put to sleep.
> 
> Blessings




Don';t forget to spay and neuter your intellect too, Bawb.

My intellect....well, I had to put it down because it bit someone.


----------



## Scott1

I think we understand preaching the Gospel to be the "ordinary" means of salvation. God establishes both the ends (who is saved) and the means, what instrument is used to do that.

"Ordinary" allows for "extraordinary" that God can regenerate and give saving faith without limitation though, clearly, He ordinarily uses the Church preaching the Gospel to do so.

Of course, God can send someone (or something) to the person in your example.

We cannot be presumptious, beyond what Scripture says, in the case of infants or others, only know that God is gracious and He is not limited by any means.


----------



## toddpedlar

Scott1 said:


> I think we understand preaching the Gospel to be the "ordinary" means of salvation. God establishes both the ends (who is saved) and the means, what instrument is used to do that.
> 
> "Ordinary" allows for "extraordinary" that God can regenerate and give saving faith without limitation though, clearly, He ordinarily uses the Church preaching the Gospel to do so.
> 
> Of course, God can send someone (or something) to the person in your example.



Though the premise was that God in His providence did not. Hence in the case of the OP, it would be improper to assume that Jim-bob might be elect. (though God can elect any He chooses - the Scriptural warrant just isn't there for that expectation, though). The expectation must be that for those capable of being called outwardly (mental capacity - we're not talking about those providentially hindered from hearing the word that they'd be capable of understanding), the word must come to them and be received. Scripture (and the Confession) is silent on those unable to be outwardly called.

On the associated issue of infants dying in infancy being elect, I think we have a totally different situation. There is some Scriptural warrant to believe some of them may be, according to God's promises to His covenant people. God's promises of being God to the children of His people do NOT extend to every human being - hence the distinction between dying infants of believers vs. dying infants of unbelievers. 

I don't think there is Scriptural warrant to go so far as some do and say that every infant dying in infancy is elect - and the WCF doesn't go there, but is very measured in its statements about the death of infants. The Assembly looked at Scripture and made what statement they could; that is, based on Scripture, they could not rule out that some infants dying in infancy may be elect and hence could be objects of God's saving grace.


----------



## Herald

Sarah, hey! Don't start the "pile on the Baptist" stuff. I'm not as nice as Bawb, err Bob. I purposefully keep my intellect chained in the backyard and don't feed it. Once in a while I look for a nice plump paedo and set it loose.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

kvanlaan said:


> So Jim-bob lives in the wilderness in Wyoming. He never hears the gospel and goes to his grave never having heard the gospel. Is it possible that he could be among the elect, having never heard the Word of God? What is the scriptural warrant for either side?



[bible]Deuteronomy 29:29[/bible]


----------



## Pergamum

In my expereinces baptists are usually plumper.


----------



## Prufrock

> In my expereinces baptists are usually plumper.



That can't be. They have big tent revivals every weekend in my town where they do flips and jump and run around. Surely, therefore, all baptists do this, and lose weight. Ergo, Baptists are not plump.

[I just unchained _my_ intellect on all y'all]


----------



## Prufrock

On a more serious note, can someone who is much more familiar with the Westminster Assembly Minutes answer about the last clause of WCF X.3 -- "So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word."

In the debates and minutes, what exactly _did_ they intend by this. Was it strictly those mentally incapable of understanding? 

(I'm not asking for what everyone things scripture says on this; I want to know, historically, what the divines intended)


----------



## Scott1

> "So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word."



This is intended to show that God is not even limited by a person's hearing (understanding) someone preach the Gospel for God to save that person.

While preaching the Gospel and hearing and understanding it are the ordinary means God has ordained, He is not limited by them (or anything).



> Scripture is clear about how the salvific process would happen. God decided that He would use the foolishness of mankind's preaching to spread His Gospel.



Yes, "ordinarily" this is the means by which God uses to bring people to Himself. But God is not limited by anything, including His ordinary means. For example, it appears God gave King David assurance that his unborn son would be saved though it appears he could not hear or understand the Gospel.

I think also we need to be careful presuming what an infant, for example, can "understand" or how he might be responding when we are talking God miraculously regenerating someone. We really do not know.

These are good questions. They tend to become clearer when we accept that God is 100% sovereign in salvation, and God is not limited by anything He has created, nor by our understanding of Him, His means, or anything about Him.


----------



## Grace Alone

Ditto to Josh. The Holy Spirit can and does regenerate without hearing the gospel. I will say that this happened to me while I was attending a spiritually dead church where the gospel was certainly not preached. My awareness of needing to believe came to me without any words from a man, although I certainly was aware of Jesus and God in a general sense. So I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit can regenerate the elect through whatever means He wants.


----------



## OPC'n

Herald said:


> Sarah, hey! Don't start the "pile on the Baptist" stuff. I'm not as nice as Bawb, err Bob. I purposefully keep my intellect chained in the backyard and don't feed it. Once in a while I look for a nice plump paedo and set it loose.



Oh, I'm all up for that one too! I'll just sick my pastor on you.


----------



## Grace Alone

I do not believe that salvation is dependent on the level of man's understanding. I think it is 100% dependent on God and His choosing of the elect. And I cannot see from scripture that the elect would *not* include some babies and mentally handicapped people. Therefore, elect infants and others incapable of understanding the gospel would be saved through the work of the Holy Spirit period. We start stepping into Arminian territory when we add in the requirements of man's part.


----------



## charliejunfan

Um....Paul!! Paul Paul Paul His conversion story is great, did someone come up and tell him he was a sinner and all of that? NO! God was just like, you know what Paul, why do you persecute me? Paul was supernaturally transformed by the grace of God.


----------



## OPC'n

"This is true, but must it always be a man's preaching? How was Saul converted on the road to Tarsus? How was John the Baptist regenerated in the womb? Hmm ..."

There were a set of men who received the Gospel straight from the Holy Spirit and not from men....I know you know of whom I'm speak. We cannot take their experience and say, "This is another way mankind receives the Gospel." The cannon is closed not only to new info but also to new ways of people receiving the verbal word of the Gospel...and I don't mean ipods.  Also, John the Baptist did end up hearing the Gospel by mankind.

I do have a question. If the Holy Spirit preaches the Gospel to the infant and the cognitively delayed group, then why can't I say that the man in the jungle who is of the elect but hasn't heard the Gospel preached by mankind is saved just like the infant? I find that verging on Universalism.


----------



## charliejunfan

I believe that if someone in the jungle is elect and lives past the womb that God in His providence would send a Christian over there to preach the gospel thus resulting in an outward conversion expressing an inward faith planted by the Holy Spirit. All this for His glory, it is for His glory that the gospel either hardens or softens. So, again, by His providence He would have someone go to that person and preach, not that He has to but since they are intellectually able to understand wouldn't this be the means used?


----------



## Scott1

> sjonee
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> 
> I do have a question. If the Holy Spirit preaches the Gospel to the infant and the cognitively delayed group, then why can't I say that the man in the jungle who is of the elect but hasn't heard the Gospel preached by mankind is saved just like the infant? I find that verging on Universalism.



God is 100% responsible for election, regeneration, justification and adoption. Man has no part in this at all. So, it is not dependent on man's understanding, whether an infant child or an ignorant person apparently isolated from ever hearing the Gospel.

The fact that God can convey the Gospel outside of ordinary means and cause faith in a person, without limitation, does not mean that God intends to save everyone as universalism teaches. Universalism says every man will, in the end be saved and yet Scripture speaks of "the wicked not inheriting the Kingdom of God" and judgment of eternal death throughout.

One other though here- God can even speak the Gospel inwardly to a person.


----------



## charliejunfan

Our God is He who gives us eyes to see and Ears to hear, who commands the dead to rise, and crippled to walk, in response to people thinking it was only by the means of Abraham's bloodline, Christ said that these stones He could raise up as children of Abraham.


----------



## OPC'n

"God is 100% responsible for election, regeneration, justification and adoption. Man has no part in this at all. So, it is not dependent on man's understanding, whether an infant child or an ignorant person apparently isolated from ever hearing the Gospel.

The fact that God can convey the Gospel outside of ordinary means and cause faith in a person, without limitation, does not mean that God intends to save everyone as universalism teaches. Universalism says every man will, in the end be saved and yet Scripture speaks of "the wicked not inheriting the Kingdom of God" and judgment of eternal death throughout.

One other though here- God can even speak the Gospel inwardly to a person." 

This quote thing isn't working for me!



OK, so I don't really understand Universalism so we'll/I'll leave that out of my question. Can you say that you believe that God has some elect jungle men who will never hear the Gospel preached by mankind who will be saved as the infant? 
__________________


----------



## charliejunfan

Further, we need to understand Christ's Federal headship over us, If we believe that it is Christ's righteousness that is seen by the Father in our place and that through our life it is imputed to us, conforming us to the image of Christ, then wouldn't we also believe that it is Christ's faith that is seen for us and that this is imputed to us as well? How can we say arminians turn faith into a work if we believe that it is genuinely our faith that God is pleased in? It is not, it is the gift of God purchased for us on the cross, along with all the other perfect righteousness of Christ. Somebody scold me if i said something freaky


----------



## charliejunfan

Yes elect Jungle babies lol will be saved, but if God had wanted them to grow up God in His providence would have a human being approach them and give them the gospel confirming his election by outward recognition of the gift of faith AKA conversion(owtward realization of inward regeneration). Also remember that we are not saying that they are elect because they are infants, they are elect because they are loved, just like the rest of us who are saved, it is just as much dependent on His mercy and good pleasure alone.


----------



## Prufrock

I really wish I had a copy of it on me so I could reference him, but if anyone has a copy of John Owen's Theologoumena Pantodapa (his Biblical Theology), they should consult the "Digression on Universal Grace;" in that section he brings up the repeatedly he problem of the person in heathen nation where the gospel has never been preached. If someone has that and can give us some quotes, that would be one weighty person to add to the discussion.


----------



## OPC'n

I know that no one is capable of coming to faith. That isn't my issue. Whether you are Jonathan Edwards or an infant in reasoning, it takes the Holy Spirit to regenerate you. I know this and have known this for many, many years. I understand your statement, but it isn't the issue of which I speak. The issue is whether or not God has decided that He will use some other means besides mankind's preaching to spread the Gospel. That is the issue of which I speak. Has He? If so, where does He say He has? Remember, I'm not trying to convert you guys...you're trying to convert me...I too want babies to go to heaven.


----------



## OPC'n

charliejunfan said:


> Further, we need to understand Christ's Federal headship over us, If we believe that it is Christ's righteousness that is seen by the Father in our place and that through our life it is imputed to us, conforming us to the image of Christ, then wouldn't we also believe that it is Christ's faith that is seen for us and that this is imputed to us as well? How can we say arminians turn faith into a work if we believe that it is genuinely our faith that God is pleased in? It is not, it is the gift of God purchased for us on the cross, along with all the other perfect righteousness of Christ. Somebody scold me if i said something freaky




I agree completely...100%. But again, that isn't the issue of which I speak.


----------



## charliejunfan

With those who are intellectually able, God usually had the gospel preached to them, but we know that that is not His only means because of Jeremiah(is this the right name?), John the baptist, and Paul. We approach this the same way we would approach Paedo baptism, we look at scripture in tota and draw from the text, there is no verse that says Baptize your infants, but we know that we should because of the everlasting promise to Abraham.


----------



## Prufrock

Sarah, I don't think the issue is whether or not we want babies to go to heaven. That is irrelevant. What everyone is saying is simply that we cannot know who is elect and who is not. We can evaluate signs and make informed judgments upon the basis of those signs, but where those signs are _not applicable_, i.e., in someone in whom neither the signs _nor the contraries_ are capable of being manifest, how can we make such a judgment? We know the ordinary means of drawing one to Christ. No one is questioning that. It's in our confession. It is not so strange to say that an infant can be among the elect. You've even acknowledged that they _can_ be saved, by acknowledging the case of John the Baptist. It doesn't matter whether you say that was an extraordinary case or not. It happened; it can happen. So how can we judge that all infants are non-elect. That is what you have to do to hold the position you're holding, and that is a completely unwarranted assumption.


----------



## OPC'n

Prufrock said:


> Sarah, I don't think the issue is whether or not we want babies to go to heaven. That is irrelevant. What everyone is saying is simply that we cannot know who is elect and who is not. We can evaluate signs and make informed judgments upon the basis of those signs, but where those signs are _not applicable_, i.e., in someone in whom neither the signs _nor the contraries_ are capable of being manifest, how can we make such a judgment? We know the ordinary means of drawing one to Christ. No one is questioning that. It's in our confession. It is not so strange to say that an infant can be among the elect. You've even acknowledged that they _can_ be saved, by acknowledging the case of John the Baptist. It doesn't matter whether you say that was an extraordinary case or not. It happened; it can happen. So how can we judge that all infants are non-elect. That is what you have to do to hold the position you're holding, and that is a completely unwarranted assumption.



Whether we know or don't know someone is of the elect is not the issue. Again, I know this. To which signs do you refer? Do you mean the fruit of the Spirit? This isn't my issue either. I never acknowledged they could be saved when I referred to John the Baptist...quite the opposite...I stated that he eventually heard the Gospel when he grew up. It does matter that those men were extraordinary...it happened to them only. There are not any Paul's walking around saying that they heard Christ from heaven telling them the Gospel...if there are then we quickly get them medical help. Again, you cannot take the apostles' experiences which were unique to them only and say that we can use those examples for the infant/cognitively disabled.


----------



## Scott1

> sjonee
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> Can you say that you believe that God has some elect jungle men who will never hear the Gospel preached by mankind who will be saved as the infant?



The sovereignty of God means that God is not limited by anything He has created in saving people. 

I think you understand in your question assumption that we are not saying that God saves every single infant (we do not know how many or how few). We know God is gracious and that He can. 

The isolated person in the jungle, in your hypothetical case, WILL be saved by God if God has chosen to save him. God will either send someone or something to preach the Gospel to him but God is never limited in any means. Understand, He will only do this for the Elect and only upon basis in faith in Christ alone. This is not "universalism" which says either that there are no non-elect or it doesn't matter what one believes for salvation.

So, please understand that believing God can save an unborn child or a savage in an isolated jungle by sending an angel (only that this is possible), is NOT universalism. It is the biblical representation of the 100% sovereignty of God and our limitation as created beings in understanding him.

It might be helpful to understand this from the standpoint of "receiving" of Gospel. No person ever has been, is, or ever will be saved except by God's grace through faith in Christ's righteousness alone. The difficulty we have is in attributing cognitive ability to people as necessary to "receive" the Gospel. That's why the Westminster Confession, in the posts above, summarizes the doctrine of Scripture to be God's sovereignty over everything, 100%, and that He established both ends (who is saved) and the means (ordinarily preaching the Gospel, and a person confessing faith in Christ alone) but that God can also operate extraordinarily.

I really believe a baby can have saving faith in Christ- he may not be able to articulate it or we may not understand his articulation of it, but it is there in an infant God has chosen to save.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

Well, this has always been an interesting topic. 

Faith...by hearing (understanding) and hearing (understanding)by the Word(Rhema) of God.

And they shall all be taught of God.

Many others can be quoted, but let's consider John the Baptist, filled with the Spirit while still in the womb. The Spirit gave him some kind of ABILITY, that enabled him to leap upon hearing of Mary's pregnancy.

I don't believe anyone is saved apart from the gospel, but rather as the Canons of Dordrect state, it is about Ability. Those dead in trespasses and sins can not make, in and of themselves, an accepting of the gospel message...and yet we have seen that something happened in John the Baptizer. 

This is just a meditation of my own, but I think of the first man (woman) and how they were formed of the dust of the earth, and that God breathed into them the breath of life...how was it they could immediately converse with God? Did they gain understanding of language and even there existence on their own? Or was it a part and parcel of this "breathed into them the breath of life (lives)? 

It is to me a mystery, how God does save His elect infants, in that in just about most cases, they cannot convey to me that God has given them the Ability to understand spiritual truth (the gospel). Just this morning on NBC morning show, they had a man (and I also have seen a woman) that can't forget anything, they remember being in the womb, and every event of everyday of their lives...and then there is this less than two year old girl who can read already. Amazing!

So, what God purposed to do, He will do...even if we cannot wrap our finite brains around it. I believe that the WCF Shorter mentions in it that in baptism, the believer is to baptise their infants as well, for in part, we don't know if God in His Decree of Election has not purposed to Justify the infant through regeneration (which we know is of no merit of ours) and by this gives the child spiritual life giving them the ABILITY to understand and KNOW the things of the Spirit of God.

With all that, the Secret THINGS are of the LORD...and I will just be obedient, if ever blessed with children, to have that gift of God baptised, showing that me and my HOUSE, we will serve the LORD.


----------



## OPC'n

charliejunfan said:


> With those who are intellectually able, God usually had the gospel preached to them, but we know that that is not His only means because of Jeremiah(is this the right name?), John the baptist, and Paul. We approach this the same way we would approach Paedo baptism, we look at scripture in tota and draw from the text, there is no verse that says Baptize your infants, but we know that we should because of the everlasting promise to Abraham.



Ummm....you will be hard pressed to pass that one off to anyone! We are not prophets who audibly hear God speak to us. We have His Word and that is all. We are sneaking over into the "needing Ativan" aisle!


----------



## OPC'n

"The isolated person in the jungle, in your hypothetical case, WILL be saved by God if God has chosen to save him. God will either send someone or something to preach the Gospel to him but God is never limited in any means."

I'm not sure what you mean by "something" to preach the Gospel to him...can you elaborate? IAC, the jungle man heard the Gospel from someone before dying. That's my point.


----------



## Prufrock

Sarah,



> I stated that he eventually heard the Gospel when he grew up.


.
What is the purpose of mentioning this. He either was regenerate from the womb or he wasn't. You can't say that he was regenerate based upon his _future_ hearing of the gospel.



> It does matter that those men were extraordinary...it happened to them only.


 The burden of proof rests upon you here. Where in scripture can you assuredly claim that God will/cannot do this again?

First, this issue really only respects infants who die in infancy. Children of believers will not say that they mysteriously heard God preach to them the gospel -- as they grow, and become rational creatures, they hear it through the ordinary means. Such is the basis and foundation of their faith.

Those who die in infancy, however, have certainly never had this happen. And again, the burden of proof would rest on you to show that they _cannot_ be regenerate. No one claims to know that any in particular are. We have pointed to the examples of it happening -- you have to convince that these could have only happened those times.


----------



## Scott1

sjonee said:


> "The isolated person in the jungle, in your hypothetical case, WILL be saved by God if God has chosen to save him. God will either send someone or something to preach the Gospel to him but God is never limited in any means."
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "something" to preach the Gospel to him...can you elaborate? IAC, the jungle man heard the Gospel from someone before dying. That's my point.



It is possible, for example, God could send an Angel. God spoke through Balaam's donkey and ministered by birds to Elijah.

Now understand, these are not the "ordinary" ways but God is not limited.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Herald said:


> Let me throw this into the discussion:
> 
> 1689 LBC 10.3
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; _*so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. *_
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )



hmmm.

I think I heard that somewhere before...

WCF 10.4

Chapter X
Of Effectual Calling


> I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
> 
> II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
> 
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.


----------



## Prufrock

"What everyone is saying is simply that we cannot know who is elect and who is not. We can evaluate signs and make informed judgments upon the basis of those signs, but where those signs are not applicable, i.e., in someone in whom neither the signs nor the contraries are capable of being manifest, how can we make such a judgment?"

I still stand by the above statement: we behold the child, and say, "he may or may not be elect;", you behold the child, and, provided he has died, say, "he certainly was not elect." We leave it to God; you make a pronouncement. If you are going to make a pronouncement, you ought to be able to offer proof. Why not, considering that he has, in fact, regenerated infants before, leave it to God and with the rest of the Christian tradition say, "Well, maybe. We don't know, but we can surely hope."


----------



## Pergamum

I might be ruining it for a few jungle folks who would be getting a free pass if I didn't come along.


----------



## OPC'n

Thefleshprofithnothing,
I might possibly be convinced by your statement here "The Spirit gave him some kind of ABILITY, that enabled him to leap upon hearing of Mary's pregnancy." He was filled with the Holy Spirit something which is unusual. This filling of the Holy Spirit could have made him leap with joy because Mary literally carried within her the Gospel. Thank you for answer my question. I have to say that I'm halfway convinced. Now all I need to know is whether or not John the Baptist had a new nature while in the womb. I'm going to ponder this thoroughly. You guys might have a convert on your hands!


----------



## Prufrock

Jungle folks -- I think it's safe to say -- are out in our tradition.

Although, this could save our churches a lot of time and money: if we _don't_ do missions, then we might increase the chances of a few being saved. Better play it safe then sorry. Who do we value more: those who have a chance without us, but might lose it if we come; or those who don't have a chance without us, but _maybe_ if we come? Hmmm...

(Yes, I'm being facetious...)


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

The gospel is THE POWER of God unto salvation...
Does Paul say there is any other means? Even in the case of John the Baptizer, there was some substance in Mary's conversation with Elizabeth, and the Spirit moved John to leap in the womb.

I also find it difficult to believe God regenerates anyone apart from the gospel...for it is by the foolishness of preaching (the cross) that men become saved...it is the mingling of the Spirit, the words from God himself upon the regeneration of the person preached to, that the man understands. Not the preacher himself. I see no evidence in Scripture or any Catechism where anyone was save apart from preaching.

That does not mean that an infant, who does know the voices of the one's around them after birth, because while in the womb they hear them, cannot be regenerated. It is a mystery to me, but as I said, GOD gives ABILITY; but not apart from preaching.

Even in the case of Peter...Thou art the Christ! The Son of the Living God!...This was shown to him of the Father. And Christ responded to Peter, that he was BLESSED, for flesh and blood had not revealed it unto him, but the Father revealed it. But this was not apart from the Word, for He was there, they beheld him and held him...they lived with the Word...so apart from Him, they would still have been ignorant of the way of eternal Life.

So, jungle Jim-Bob...remains lost in his sins, because Christ said "My words are Spirit, and THEY are Life". How can they hear lest a preacher be sent? Hence the need to preach. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.


----------



## Prufrock

The above post, though a joke, is part of a point: whether or not God could somehow save that jungle man without the hearing of the gospel (which I think is clear, he won't), is slightly irrelevant and is harmful to the zeal of our missions work. If we don't assume they _need_ salvation, why use so much energy and resources?


----------



## OPC'n

Well, once again thank you all it was a great debate. Thank you all for your time. Again, thank you, Thefleshprofithnothing, for you first post! I bet everyone wishes you had shown up sooner!


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing




----------



## Scott1

*Westminster Confession*




> Chapter X
> Of Effectual Calling
> 
> I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
> 
> II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
> 
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]



*Scripture proofs*



> [1] ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. EPH 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.
> 
> [2] 2TH 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2CO 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
> 
> [3] ROM 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. EPH 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved). 2TI 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
> 
> [4] ACT 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. 1CO 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. EPH 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.
> 
> [5] EZE 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
> 
> [6] EZE 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh. PHI 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. DEU 30:6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. EZE 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
> 
> [7] EPH 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power. JOH 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. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
> 
> [8] SON 1:4 Draw me, we will run after thee. PSA 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. JOH 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. ROM 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
> 
> [9] 2TI 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. TIT 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. EPH 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved). 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. ROM 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.
> 
> [10] 1CO 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ROM 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. EPH 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved).
> 
> [11] JOH 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. EZE 36:37 Thus saith the Lord God; I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them; I will increase them with men like a flock. JOH 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
> 
> [12] LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. JOH 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 1JO 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ROM 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
> 
> [13] JOH 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
> 
> [14] 1JO 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ACT 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Sarah, welcome to PB!

I wrote a bit of stuff about infants being elect and regenerated in the womb here (toward the end): http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/john-1-12-13-baptism-revisited-38633/

Was not John the baptist regenerated in the womb?

Does an infant "receive" her mother? "Believe" in her mother? Infants may know the Lord while in the womb. I give some examples in this post.

Kevin, 

About Jim-bob in the wilds of Wyoming; "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:11, 12)​
The entire human race was under wrath, consigned to destruction by our first parents (and our own sin), but on some God had compassion and rescued them from their dark and wicked state of being. We go into the jungles of the world and the wilds of the mountains to call forth God's elect.

Sarah, I don't think you could sic your pastor on anyone who was defending the Westminster Standards -- not an _OPC_ pastor!

Glad to have you aboard.

Steve


----------



## Leslie

To add another twist--how about a Jim-Bob who lived in Timbuktu before the missionaries came? God revealed Himself to Jim-Bob in a Richardson/Eternity In Their Hearts manner so that Jim-Bob loved the Creator God and hoped/trusted to be forgiven and loved by Him in return. There was such a guy in my adopted ethnic group, in the 1920's. He turned the entire group into forsaking idolatry and awaiting the coming of the white guy with the book who would teach them the whole truth. Would anyone consign him to hell?


----------



## toddpedlar

Leslie said:


> To add another twist--how about a Jim-Bob who lived in Timbuktu before the missionaries came? God revealed Himself to Jim-Bob in a Richardson/Eternity In Their Hearts manner so that Jim-Bob loved the Creator God and hoped/trusted to be forgiven and loved by Him in return. There was such a guy in my adopted ethnic group, in the 1920's. He turned the entire group into forsaking idolatry and awaiting the coming of the white guy with the book who would teach them the whole truth. Would anyone consign him to hell?



Um, did he know Christ? 

How do you know that this 'revelation' was a revelation from God and not from the enemy? What was it a revelation of? Satan can masquerade as an angel of light. Wouldn't it be the most Satanic of deceptions to cause a people to forsake idolatry and "await the coming of the white guy with the book"? 

Sorry, but this doesn't qualify. Their souls still would be stained with sin and they would be unacceptable in God's eyes to stand before His throne. Apart from Christ, there is no salvation. Christ isn't in this story (unless you've simply not said so).


----------



## Prufrock

Owen once stated (pardon the loose paraphrase) that no one is saved by the knowledge of God as appease-able; men are saved by faith God _appeased_. That man, according to Owen, could be assured of nothing from God. He may have had his own assurance of god's goodness, just as many religions offer -- but this was not faith from God, which has its _foundation_ in Christ. God may have used this man as a preparation for the gospel to come to a people.

Thus far Owen and his perspective. Take it or leave it.


----------



## Scott1

Leslie said:


> To add another twist--how about a Jim-Bob who lived in Timbuktu before the missionaries came? God revealed Himself to Jim-Bob in a Richardson/Eternity In Their Hearts manner so that Jim-Bob loved the Creator God and hoped/trusted to be forgiven and loved by Him in return. There was such a guy in my adopted ethnic group, in the 1920's. He turned the entire group into forsaking idolatry and awaiting the coming of the white guy with the book who would teach them the whole truth. Would anyone consign him to hell?





> Romans 5:12
> 
> 12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:



The problem is that all men are born in sin (cf Romans 3:23). God's standard in 100% holiness (cf Matthew 5:48). So, all men are born into a bias, a tendency toward sin. It comes "naturally." 

God is just in punishing sin. Justice demands that sin be punished (not rewarded with heaven).

We say man has the moral inability, because of his sin nature, to change his constituent nature so he can freely rest and trust in Christ's righteousness alone for salvation. Only God can do that for a sinner by FIRST changing his nature. That takes a miracle and only God can do it.

The Westminster Confession summarizes the doctrine of Scripture to say:



> Chapter IX
> Of Free Will
> 
> III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]
> 
> IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.[10]



The Scripture proofs for each statement and proposition:



> [4] ROM 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. JOH 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
> 
> [5] ROM 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
> 
> [6] EPH 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved). COL 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.
> 
> [7] JOH 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. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. EPH 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; 1CO 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. TIT 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> [8] COL 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. JOH 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
> 
> [9] PHI 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. ROM 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
> 
> [10] GAL 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. ROM 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 18 For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
> 
> [11] EPH 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. HEB 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect. 1JO 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. JUD 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.


----------



## Scott1

> Leslie
> Puritanboard Sophomore
> 
> Would anyone consign him to hell?



The reason this seems unfair, even outrageous to us as fallen creatures is that we believe from our self-centered view that we are not really sinners and God is not really holy.

God's Word, however, reveals clearly that God hates sin, takes it personally because He has commanded His creatures to obey him. His Word reveals he has promised to punish it.

What should be more remarkable is that He chooses to spare some from just punishment, not because of anything they did (as all have sinned) but because of the good pleasure of His will (cf Ephesians 1:5). He is just in giving sinners what they deserve. That's what is not "fair"- letting sinners escape judgment!


----------



## toddpedlar

Scott1 said:


> Leslie
> Puritanboard Sophomore
> 
> Would anyone consign him to hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason this seems unfair, even outrageous to us as fallen creatures is that we believe from our self-centered view that we are not really sinners and God is not really holy.
> 
> God's Word, however, reveals clearly that God hates sin, takes it personally because He has commanded His creatures to obey him. His Word reveals he has promised to punish it.
> 
> What should be more remarkable is that He chooses to spare some from just punishment, not because of anything they did (as all have sinned) but because of the good pleasure of His will (cf Ephesians 1:5). He is just in giving sinners what they deserve. That's what is not "fair"- letting sinners escape judgment!
Click to expand...


exactly.

Hell is the default destination, as it were, for every conceived person. We all, every one of us, bear Adam's sinful nature.

God would be just in sending every person to Hell - NOBODY, by virtue of an unfortunate birth location, or whatever, deserves any different. God by his grace has designed to save some. THAT is mercy. THAT is a marvel in and of itself. We seem to think that "everyone deserves a chance". Problem is, it just ain't so.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Leslie said:


> To add another twist--how about a Jim-Bob who lived in Timbuktu before the missionaries came? God revealed Himself to Jim-Bob in a Richardson/Eternity In Their Hearts manner so that Jim-Bob loved the Creator God and hoped/trusted to be forgiven and loved by Him in return. There was such a guy in my adopted ethnic group, in the 1920's. He turned the entire group into forsaking idolatry and awaiting the coming of the white guy with the book who would teach them the whole truth. Would anyone consign him to hell?



Leslie,

I think we interacted on the Providence thread. You might want to go back and look at some of the things I quoted Calvin as saying about how God superintends all things.

Let me tell you how I operate when it comes to dogmatically asserting what I know God does: the Word of God.

In other words, if somebody asks me: Does God save all who place their trust in the person and work of Christ then I can emphatically tell them "Yes." If somebody asks me if God uses the Church to raise up missionaries to send forth the Gospel for the salvation of men's souls then I can say "Yes."

Why can I be dogmatic? Am I speculating at this point as to what God, from all eternity, has decreed in the inner counsel of the Trinity?

No. I can be dogmatic because God has revealed His activity in time and space.

Now, if somebody asks me a question like you did then I can only go on the things revealed. Am I able to dogmatically assert that God, by some instrumentality, prepared this man for the Gospel? No, but neither am I able to unequivocally accept this "testimony" as being from God in a dogmatic fashion. Why does anybody believe they have warrant to do so?

In this case, I'm very happy that this man led his people from some type of idolatry but how could they have known the object of their faith? Is the hope of a white man a trust in Christ?

Why can't we just stop speaking where the Scriptures stop? This is why my response to Kevin was very terse: Deuteronomy 29:29. Some are simply not satisfied with the things revealed. Yes we can praise and be overawed at God's Providence and His unsearchable ways but let's be careful to affirm what God has revealed, reject what God has revealed to reject, and be silent where the Scriptures are silent.

Finally, with respect to Hell, no man consigns another to Hell. God, alone, is the Judge of the living and the dead.


----------



## Pergamum

Leslie said:


> To add another twist--how about a Jim-Bob who lived in Timbuktu before the missionaries came? God revealed Himself to Jim-Bob in a Richardson/Eternity In Their Hearts manner so that Jim-Bob loved the Creator God and hoped/trusted to be forgiven and loved by Him in return. There was such a guy in my adopted ethnic group, in the 1920's. He turned the entire group into forsaking idolatry and awaiting the coming of the white guy with the book who would teach them the whole truth. Would anyone consign him to hell?



Richardson himself denies that these "pre-salvation" nuggets of knowledge are salvific. 

They are preparations for the Gospel but are not the Gospel. 

I know a man who has walked a week to find a missionary because he claimed to have had dreams since his youth of a white guy coming who held the truth about the afterlife. Weird, but not enough to save - but certainly a Cornelius type of experience that I think that God may still give (no new revelation here by the way) to prepare some places for the Gospel.


----------



## Pergamum

A question that may help to ask:


Are the heathen damned because they have rejected Christ?

Or,

Are the heathen damned because they are sinners who need a Saviour?




To reject Christ requires a knowledge of Christ, but we all are sinners.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> A question that may help to ask:
> 
> 
> Are the heathen damned because they have rejected Christ?
> 
> Or,
> 
> Are the heathen damned because they are sinners who need a Saviour?



Yes.



> To reject Christ requires a knowledge of Christ, but we all are sinners.



The sinner does not know Christ (1 Cor. 2:14), but that does not change the fact that the call is to repent and believe.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Perg,

All men are condemned in Adam because what may be known of God is suppressed in unrighteousness. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Men were condemned before Christ came.

The BUT is the Gospel, Damnation is our end but for Christ.

I want to return to my thought about this man and stories of men having dreams to find missionaries.

If a man was to embrace the Gospel after such a dream then what a tremendous Providence that would be. I would not reject God's agency in it any more than I reject His superintendence of all things but I would not dare to speak for its salvific effect.

In fact, here is something to be on the guard for: there are many who simply hear these stories and assume that, because it is such a phenomenal story that the person who came that far and heard the Gospel was saved.

This gets back to living by the Word. If I was to interview such a fellow and I thought he didn't understand the Gospel I wouldn't think: "Oh, well, his story is so remarkable that he must be elect so I don't need to worry about his conversion. He must have been converted by that missionary because his story is so remarkable."

It's the same thing with dreams of Jesus by Muslims.

I need to check their testimony against the Word of God. I need to hear what they believe. I'd want to ensure they've really heard the Gospel knowing that they might have encountered a oneness Pentecostal or heard about who Christ is on TBN.

If I believed such a man did not understand Christ and His work then I would not allow him to rest on the laurels of his remarkable story. How many people do we know that operate with a works righteousness that claim the miraculous all the time and use their experience of the miraculous to override what God's Word says about Christ. In fact, that very thing is institutionalized in the Roman Catholic Church that claim miracles all over the world to validate its false Gospel.

Thus, in the end, our confidence is not in remarkable stories about people dreaming about Jesus but in the story of Christ and Him crucified. Be prepared for the idea that Satan could use such dreams to give men confidence that they have been saved and they close their ears to the Gospel as a result.


----------



## Pergamum

Rich, I agree with all you have said and I think of Lourdes and other Catholic "miracles" that serve as props to people's faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Rich, I agree with all you have said and I think of Lourdes and other Catholic "miracles" that serve as props to people's faith.



 I mainly wrote the follow-on for Leslie because she seems to keep bringing these stories up. I'm not sure if there is a desire to validate them and I'm just trying to help her understand we need to be careful to stand on the Word.


----------



## Mushroom

Man, did this thread generate alot of interest fast! But that's cool, and dang if'n I ain't impressed with all the defenses put forth for infant election - so many I haven't bothered to read 'em all. Cuz, well.... I'm prolly a tad mentally incompetent to unnerstan' 'em all.

Which is my main defense of the idea that God may save both pre- and post-natal infants, toddlers, autistics, and others incapable of what we 'smarter' folks define as a proper understanding of the gospel; because regardless of how 'smarter' I think myself to be than, say, an infant, both of us are as dumb as a speck of dirt before almighty God.

I thank Jesus with all my being that He bothered to save such a wretched (and mentally incompetent) one as myself, and while I understand that the normal means He uses in salvation is the hearing of the Gospel, I am just dumb enough to concede that He is perfectly capable of redeeming His people in any other way He ordains, and smart enough not to argue with Him about it.


----------



## Leslie

Isn't the bottom line of being a Christian allegiance to the Creator-God rather than intellectual assent to propositional truth? How much theological understanding did Adam have or Enoch or Rahab? On the other hand theologically-competent Calvinists may still be their own gods, their allegiance to their own agendas rather than the Creator-God. It seems to me that the watershed is one's obedience to the light he has, not the amount of light he has been given. Isn't such obedience evidence of regeneration, even if the amount of light is minimal?


----------



## OPC'n

Jerusalem and others,
I've already said that I'm pretty convinced of this doctrine...if you go back to the bottom of page 2 I explain there.



Leslie said:


> To add another twist--how about a Jim-Bob who lived in Timbuktu before the missionaries came? God revealed Himself to Jim-Bob in a Richardson/Eternity In Their Hearts manner so that Jim-Bob loved the Creator God and hoped/trusted to be forgiven and loved by Him in return. There was such a guy in my adopted ethnic group, in the 1920's. He turned the entire group into forsaking idolatry and awaiting the coming of the white guy with the book who would teach them the whole truth. Would anyone consign him to hell?



Sometimes these stories get a life all their own. They are added to once a missionary finds these people, hears their stories, the missionary gets all excited and thinking more than he should about the story, tells the "jungle" man what he was feeling and hence the story grows arms and legs. I for one can believe that people who have never heard the Gospel know that there is a god who is good. They also know that they themselves are not good and that something must be done to reconcile the two. EVERY religion has this belief system. This belief system isn't the Gospel, however. Christ is the Gospel. So just because a jungle man has a story like this one doesn't mean God reveal the Gospel to him.


----------



## Pergamum

Maybe we should start a new thread about jungle men and their pre-Gospel stories. 

In various myths and beliefs around the world are often stories of universal fall and flood and a resurrction or new birth of sorts from a Messenger who would come with Words of Life.

I think these things can be fit into our theological grids without distorting them.


----------



## Scott1

> sjonee
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> This belief system isn't the Gospel, however. Christ is the Gospel. So just because a jungle man has a story like this one doesn't mean God reveal the Gospel to him.



Exactly.

There is more to salvation.

God alone can change the constituent nature of a human being so he savingly believes and rests in Christ's righteousness alone for salvation. 

When God does that, on the basis of His choice in eternity past (election), he effectually calls the person at the appointed time by regenerating them with the Holy Spirit. This immediately frees the person from the dominant control of sin over their nature and causes saving faith. God justifies that person in His sight at that moment by that faith in Christ's righteousness alone, and adopts Him into the Body of Christ, forever!

This is 100% an act of God (He is sovereign) and there is nothing man could possibly do to change his nature without God acting first. That's why it is truly by God's grace- His unmerited, unearned, undeserved favor.

Over time, this will bear out in the life of a Christian- it will show. Not perfection, that happens in the state of glory only but the person reflects a changed (forever) nature that God made. That's why we can rejoice that we can never lose salvation because it was never ours to give (but that may be a topic for another thread).


----------



## toddpedlar

Leslie said:


> Isn't the bottom line of being a Christian allegiance to the Creator-God rather than intellectual assent to propositional truth? How much theological understanding did Adam have or Enoch or Rahab? On the other hand theologically-competent Calvinists may still be their own gods, their allegiance to their own agendas rather than the Creator-God. It seems to me that the watershed is one's obedience to the light he has, not the amount of light he has been given. Isn't such obedience evidence of regeneration, even if the amount of light is minimal?



So a good Buddhist, having only the light of Buddhist teaching, is saved?

A good Hindu, the same?

A good animist, the same?

Are you serious, Mary?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Leslie said:


> Isn't the bottom line of being a Christian allegiance to the Creator-God rather than intellectual assent to propositional truth? How much theological understanding did Adam have or Enoch or Rahab? On the other hand theologically-competent Calvinists may still be their own gods, their allegiance to their own agendas rather than the Creator-God. It seems to me that the watershed is one's obedience to the light he has, not the amount of light he has been given. Isn't such obedience evidence of regeneration, even if the amount of light is minimal?



Is this what you think the Gospel is: obedience to the light we have? This is pelagianism, pure and simple. Do you acknowledge yourself a sinner and incapable of obeying the light you have? Do you understand that Christ is the just and justifier of lost sinners? Do you understand that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? I fear less for the soul of your friend than for your own understanding of what the Gospel is. Whose obedience to the light are you saved by Leslie?

Further, how am I supposed to interact with your question? Am I supposed to interact with your proposition about the nature of salvation? Truth about God is more than propositions but it is not less. What Paul writes in Romans 1-3 is either true or it is not. Do you believe it? Please pick up your Scriptures and read Romans 1-3 before you respond.


----------



## Pergamum

We are all saved with less than full light and mental assent is not enough but must be joined with obedience, I think (I hope) was Leslie's point.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> We are all saved with less than full light and mental assent is not enough but must be joined with obedience, I think (I hope) was Leslie's point.



No sir. That's not the point. I want Leslie to answer the question. This is serious business. The experience of this friend has become normative for her. She accuses men of having an agenda but she has only provided stories of men and has not supported anything she's arguing for by the Scriptures. Nobody here for a moment has argued for bare mental assent to propositions. The issue is the light that is available to men and what kind of obedience we are speaking of. 

I'm quite tired of these cavils where Biblical answers are provided to speculative questions and, because they don't "fit" the experiences of men, they are rejected as somehow being allegiance to some "Calvinistic agenda".

What kind of answer am I supposed to provide? Should I answer with my own experience and how I spoke in tongues as a Roman Catholic at the age of 16? I believed, at that time, I had been baptized in the Holy Spirit on the experience of a wave of emotions. I still have family members convinced they are saved and "in tune with the Spirit" who openly embrace Roman Catholic doctrines and rebuff any explanation of what faith in Christ truly is. Are they going to be saved by the light they have?

Folks, if we're going to have confidence in something let it be the Word. If I have to be accused of having an agenda because I trust the Word and walk by faith in the written Word and not by the sight of hundreds that have religious experiences and tell me they have been saved who, nevertheless, reject Christ as He is revealed then I'll wear that badge proudly. What I will not permit is allowing this board to be a platform for "spirituality" that undermines the Gospel itself by coming just close to it, imitating the terms used, but ultimately stopping short of what the Gospel is and, in the process, destroying its very essence.

Need I remind everybody the countless thousands that look on and read these boards for theological understanding. I will not allow men or women to instruct on the nature of salvation that contradicts the Sciptures themselves knowing full well that others may be led astray who read this.


----------



## Grace Alone

Okay, related question about Jim-Bob. Can't God regenerate him and then send the missionary a few days/months/years later? Or do you believe that regeneration and hearing the gospel occur simultaneously?

I have an opinion about it, but I'd like to hear other answers first.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grace Alone said:


> Okay, related question about Jim-Bob. Can't God regenerate him and then send the missionary a few days/months/years later? Or do you believe that regeneration and hearing the gospel occur simultaneously?
> 
> I have an opinion about it, but I'd like to hear other answers first.



What I believe is immaterial. This is the problem with this conversation.

Why do we want to know the mechanism of regeneration? Why do we want to keep trying to conceive/speculate on ways that God might have regenerated a man? John 3 states
[bible]John 3:8[/bible]
If Christ tells me that I don't know when or how this occurs then I believe Him.


----------



## Grace Alone

Okay, Rich. That's fine. That's what I believe, too, about regeneration.

So do I understand you to say that one cannot be saved supernaturally without a human being preaching the gospel to them? And does that apply to infants?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grace Alone said:


> Okay, Rich. That's fine. That's what I believe, too, about regeneration.
> 
> So do I understand you to say that one cannot be saved supernaturally without a human being preaching the gospel to them? And does that apply to infants?



What I'm saying is that the secret things belong to God and the revealed things belong to us and our children.

I let God be God with respect to His counsel.

We know, from the things revealed, that God saves infants and the simple. Everything else, I don't come down hard and say God doesn't work somewhere (unless it contradicts what He says) but neither do I chalk up every tale as authoritative or something that adds to my knowledge of what I know God is doing.

We need to be very humble about the Providence of God. Just like we wouldn't presume to tell people that God caused an earthquake to kill people in a movie theater because He disapproves of R rated movies, we ought not be so presumptuous as connecting all the dots and presuming upon how He works here and there when we have no revelation of His workings.

It is enough for us to know our duty and how to treat people when they cross our path.


----------



## Grace Alone

I totally agree. I do not presume to think I know all the ways in which God works nor do I understand all His purposes. He can do anything he wants.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

Regeneration IS knowing something...as Paul in Corinthians states, that He hath sent us His Spirit, that we may KNOW...etc.

Understanding of Something comes from the Spirit at that very moment in time...When the Comforter is come, He will not speak of Himself, but will bring all things to your rememberance that I have told you...paraphrase. Why need regeneration days months or years in advance? Just in case someone dies without the Father knowing it? or some other reason? (Not to say that the person asking the question is one that is believing such).

Why do men feel the need to complicate matters so? The gospel is the Power of God unto Salvation, first to the Jew and also the Greek...I don't see the problem here...go into all the world and preach...Why did the Apostles risk life and limb to preach the gospel to the gentiles and scattered Israel if it weren't necessary?

Why were they put to death for preaching? If God COULD save, if it were His means to regenerate apart from the Gospel, why send out His elect children to be beaten, stoned, flogged, crucified, boiled in oil, filleted alive, and fed to lions, beheaded and burned for light for an evil Cesar's garden? Does that make better sense to you? That God can save people apart from the gospel, but hey! Let's send out people to preach it just for the fun of it, so that wicked men who hate Me, can mutilate and kill them.

NO! God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise...and that is where the problem here seems to be. God has simply stated through Christ and the Apostles the means by which HE desired from His eternal decree to save some by the foolishness of preaching...and yet some refuse to see it?

I'm a bit distraught...and concerned for some in here. I will have you in thoughts and prayers.

Grow in His Grace.


----------



## satz

I am happy to say that the bible is silent about the possibility of elect persons who live to adulthood and die without the gospel. But I don’t believe some of the propositions used to rule out the possibility can be proved from the bible. 

There bible does not say God cannot, or will not regenerate without the gospel. John 1:12-13 and 3:8, as well as other verses tell us that regeneration not just ordinarily but always takes place independent of the gospel. Even if a man is regenerated in the middle of a gospel sermon, the gospel still had no role at all in his regeneration. The gospel does not bring life to men (in the sense of regeneration). Rather it brings life and immortality to light (2 Tim 1:10). The gospel shows us who is regenerate because the regenerate will believe and respond to it. But the gospel itself does not regenerate.

Because of this, there is no reason that I see to believe Jim-Bob from the OP could not have been regenerated, if indeed he was elect.

Next, I see no indication that God has said in the bible that all the elect will believe the gospel. The use of any verse that says anyone who does not believe is damned will also damn each and every infant, toddler and mentally deficient person. A man who hears the gospel and rejects it gives evidence of still being in his sins (Mark 16:16), but that says nothing about people like Jim Bob who never had the chance to hear.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

Chance?


----------



## Prufrock

> but that says nothing about people like Jim Bob who never had the chance to hear.



I think we're unfortunately letting some of our perspective slip: men are sinners. This is why we are condemned. It's not that we're all neutral, and God has given us a chance for something more. Jim-bob never had a chance? Jim-bob is a condemned sinner, just as you and I are: what is it to me if God has never thrown a lifeline to the already justly condemned. 

Let's not lose our perspective in this thread.

But also,


> Regeneration IS knowing something


, I'm not so sure that's an entirely true statement.


----------



## Prufrock

> Even if a man is regenerated in the middle of a gospel sermon, the gospel still had no role at all in his regeneration. The gospel does not bring life to men (in the sense of regeneration). Rather it brings life and immortality to light (2 Tim 1:10). The gospel shows us who is regenerate because the regenerate will believe and respond to it. But the gospel itself does not regenerate.



Also, just to let you know so you can take it into consideration -- this is a very unReformed, and unConfessional teaching.


----------



## Prufrock

Sorry to put up another post, but there just seems to be a lot of confusion going on about very central Reformed and broadly catholic teachings in this thread. Again, God _graciously_ saves _condemned sinners_. Why on earth would we want to look at someone and say, "well, he's doing enough, God should save him, too."? 

But more importantly, it seems we're replacing our God, YHWH, The LORD, with a vague notion of some creator god. God's people, those whom he saves, are _not_ people who hold some concept of a creator god who is good and who requires obedience; we are not the people of a god, but of YHWH. His people are those who are marked with _his_ name. We cannot substitute _the_ God for "god." It is derogatory to his name to say that someone who worships some concept which could be representative of the gods of almost any religion, culture or people (or of none of them), in doing so, thus fears Him. He is not a concept, but an individual being.

Hopefully, taking these things into consideration can help steer us back on the right track.


----------

