# Is the gospel necessary to save?



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 2, 2020)

I ask this as I have been debating a Brother who says that God uses other means than the word of God to save. I call that hyper-Calvinistic heresy, and I believe that God uses means to save the elect. I do not think anyone can be saved without having heard about the Christ through the gospel.

What say ye blokes? 


I just can't seem to get through to this Brother. He wants to use Noah, Abraham, Enoch, and Paul, as God using other means to save ppl. I believe he is using these accounts where God spoke verbally to them and trying to superimpose them into today. I even showed him Hebrews 1. 

Any help from ye blokes would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 2, 2020)

If this is not in the correct forum, please move it to where it needs to be, and I offer my apology upfront.


----------



## Von (Sep 2, 2020)

There are stories of people getting saved without hearing the gospel - in a moment of clarity/God revealing Himself to them. It is definitely not the usual way of people getting saved and relying on it in a hyper calvinistic manner is to be in error. I would, however, be wary of saying never. You can end up like Eliphaz saying to Job:
_"Remember: who that was innocent *ever* perished? Or where were the upright cut off? *As I have seen*, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same. (Job 4:7-8 ESV)_
He made his experience the basis of his doctrine, when the exception to the rule was sitting in front of him.

Or the Pharisees:
_They replied, "Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that *no* prophet arises from Galilee." (John 7:52 ESV)_

Now it's easy to poo-poo these characters from the Scriptures, but be careful to say such and such a thing will never happen. 
The Lord once spoke through a donkey!

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 2, 2020)

Von said:


> There are stories of people getting saved without hearing the gospel - in a moment of clarity/God revealing Himself to them. It is definitely not the usual way of people getting saved and relying on it in a hyper calvinistic manner is to be in error. I would, however, be wary of saying never. You can end up like Eliphaz saying to Job:
> _"Remember: who that was innocent *ever* perished? Or where were the upright cut off? *As I have seen*, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same. (Job 4:7-8 ESV)_
> He made his experience the basis of his doctrine, when the exception to the rule was sitting in front of him.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your response. I just can't get around Romans 10:17 that says faith comes by hearing the word of God. And I think Paul was referring to the words of another witness, not God speaking directly to them.

I'm looking at this more through the unreached. Someone in a remote place that has never read a bible or had someone witness to them, I just can't find any bible to support of them coming to saving faith outside of hearing/reading the word.

I just see it that God uses means to save the elect, and the means being the word of God. Thanks again.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Von (Sep 2, 2020)

Your brother's problem is that he wants you to confirm the exception to prove the rule (if he is indeed espousing hyper-calvinism). So rather argue about that which is clear in the Scripture:
It is not on you to disprove his few exceptions - it rests on him to disprove the rule.

Just to get back to the example of Eliphaz:
His general rule was correct: _Those that plow iniquity, reaps the same (Job 4:8; cf Galatians 6:8)_. Where he overstepped his bounds was when he was so desperate to prove to Job that it *ALWAYS* happens, that he said: _Remember: who that was innocent *ever* perished?_ 
In our zeal to prove the rule, we often overstep our bounds.

Focus on the big argument: Hyper-calvinism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Von (Sep 2, 2020)

With regards to Romans 10:17 - Deaf people also come to Christ.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 2, 2020)

Von said:


> With regards to Romans 10:17 - Deaf people also come to Christ.


Agreed. But they can also read and read sign language.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 2, 2020)

Von said:


> Your brother's problem is that he wants you to confirm the exception to prove the rule (if he is indeed espousing hyper-calvinism). So rather argue about that which is clear in the Scripture:
> It is not on you to disprove his few exceptions - it rests on him to disprove the rule.
> 
> Just to get back to the example of Eliphaz:
> ...


Well, here’s one of his posts...




> I completely understand the necessity of Scriptures. I understand the sufficiency of scripture from your point of view. *But scripture is NOT entirely sufficient to save. Preaching of scripture is not sufficient to save*. Because your audience doesn't have the understanding that you have. What it will take to cause one person to come to Christ may be completely different from what it will take for another to come to Christ.
> 
> 
> But then, when, exactly is a person saved? Is it when they become aware of their Salvation? Or is it when God initially draws them to Christ? If it is when God initially draws them then as soon as a person contemplates the words of the gospel that the preacher has preached they are immediately saved.
> ...


----------



## Von (Sep 2, 2020)

OK...now I am on board!

Then, what about the following:
_And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, "Do not be afraid, but* go on speaking* and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you,* for I have many in this city who are my people.*" 
(Acts 18:9-10 ESV)_

It shows God's sovereignty in electing whilst at the same time commanding Paul to continue preaching.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Sep 2, 2020)

Many, many people are "saved without hearing about the Christ through the gospel"—or at least without hearing the way we typically think about it, with the details we would expect a good gospel presentation to include. 

The children of believers (or maybe all children) who die in infancy or in the womb are saved. They haven't heard the gospel as fully as we would have hoped to present it to them, or in many cases they haven't heard it at all as far as we can tell and as far as we understand hearing. But God still works faith in them and saves them.

Old Testament believers heard the gospel (Galatians 3:8), but it was rudimentary and did not yet include many of the details we would insist on today. Yet they were saved by faith in Christ without the knowledge of those details. In some cases, these believers had only the barest understanding of God and his saving purposes. Consider Rahab in Joshua 2:9-11. Her knowledge was severely limited, but based on what little she did know she exercised faith and was saved.

There are even hints that God may save some people merely by "speaking" through what is seen in creation. When Romans 1:20-21 says men are without excuse because God's divine nature (which is a _saving _nature) may be seen in creation and should result in honor and thanks to God, we can suspect that God might cause some people to respond in exactly that way and that he might consider it to be faith in Christ, the Creator. In fact, the very Romans 10 passage that speaks of the importance of preaching—"How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?" (Romans 10:14)—goes on to insist that those who have not been preached to have nevertheless heard the word of Christ: "But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for 'Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world'" (Romans 10:18). That's a citation from Psalm 19, in which "the heavens declare the glory of God," so that Paul seems to be affirming that God in some way calls men to himself merely by the witness of the creation. How many (if any) respond in saving faith is unclear, and not for us to know. But I do not want to place limits on God's saving mercy by completely ruling out the possibility that, given these hints, he might sometimes work faith this way.

None of this should make us think that preaching which fully proclaims the gospel of Christ is unimportant. If God might work through lesser means, how much more beautiful is the gospel fully revealed! How much more confident we can be that the Spirit will use it to work faith in those who hear! How much more eager we should be to preach it everywhere, to everyone! And surely we should think that God primarily would use the means of gospel preaching, given how glorious it is, and we should fear that those to whom we fail to bring this good news are still lost.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 2, 2020)

WCF X. Of Effectual Calling
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.

Dort III&IV, Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs
Article 4: The Inadequacy of the Light of Nature
There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But *this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him--so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness.* In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 2, 2020)

I have found many of the responses in this thread deeply troubling. The suggestion that one may attain to a saving knowledge of Christ without the special revelation contained in the gospel is a profoundly dangerous error. The revelation of God in creation is enough to leave a sinner without excuse; it is not enough to impart a saving knowledge of God. Only the gospel can do that.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.—Romans 1:16​​That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved... For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith _cometh_ by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.—Romans 10:9, 13-17​​For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where _is_ the wise? where _is_ the scribe? where _is_ the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.—1 Cor. 18-24​​This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?—Galatians 3:2​​And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.—2 Tim. 3:15 ​​And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended. And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive _it_, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.—Mark 4:13-20​​Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.—James 1:21 ​​

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 5


----------



## py3ak (Sep 2, 2020)

In addition to what was cited above, WCF X.3 is relevant:



> 3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit,[1] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. [2]So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[3]
> 
> 1. Luke 18:15-16 and John 3:3, 5 and Acts 2:38-39 and Rom 8:9 and 1 John 5:12 compared together.
> 2. John 3:8.
> 3. Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:12.



In the case of those _capable_ of an outward call, the absence of the outward call gives us no reason to expect that effectual calling would take place.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 2, 2020)

From the Baptist Catechism (1693):

Q. 3. _How may we know there is a God?_​_A._ The light of nature in man and the works of God plainly declare there is a God; (Rom. 1:19,20; Ps. 19:1, 2, 3; Acts 17:24) but his Word and Spirit only do it fully and effectually for the salvation of sinners. (1 Cor. 2:10; 2 Tim. 3:15, 16)​​Q. 27. _How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet?_​_A._ Christ executeth the office of prophet in revealing to us, by his Word and Spirit, the will of God for our salvation. (John 1:18; 1 Pet.1:10-12; John 15:15; and 20:31)​​Q. 34. _What is effectual calling?_​_A._ Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, (2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14) whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, (Acts 2:37) enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, (Acts 26:18) and renewing our wills, (Ezek. 36:26, 27) he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel. (John 6:44, 45; Phil. 2:13)​​Q. 94. _How is the Word made effectual to salvation?_​_A._ The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation. (Neh. 8:8; Acts 26:18; Psalm 19:8; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1:15-16, 10:13-17; 15:4; 1 Cor. 14:24-25; 1 Tim. 3:15-17)​

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 2, 2020)

Let me also add the testimony of John concerning his gospel:

_But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, 
and that by believing you may have life in his name._—John 20:31​
He very clearly asserts that life in Christ is predicated upon believing the testimony of Christ contained in the gospel.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 2, 2020)

Consider the plain teaching of our Lord...

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.—John 5:24​

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 2, 2020)

That infant children (or in utero) may be saved is certainly true and evidenced in Scripture. But some _apprehension of Christ _supernaturally endowed is still required for anyone to be saved. It may be rudimentary, but it still has to be the One saving Object of faith. The supernatural change of heart is needed, so that even a person of very little ability (for whatever reason) accepts whatever is taught it concerning individual sin, estrangement from God, and restoration by grace alone, through the mercy of God in Christ.

To be left afar from God, through the strange disposition of Providence in any age of the world, is no "luck of the draw," any more than to be born close to the church is a matter of happenstance. The earth has been under judgment since the fall, and men have forgotten God and in general been pleased to do so; and to inflict ignorance on their progeny. In this way they have hated their own seed, so great is their hatred of God their Judge. It is grace even to hear the gospel, and to know of some kind of Savior.

Otherwise, men under the weight of condemnation and feeling their burden, in worldly sorrow (2Cor.7:10) imagine a god with whom they can _treat._ They aim for acceptance on such terms as seem most good to them; while the effort only increases their condemnation. The believer has hope for his children _because _God has made such promises that the saint is able to lay hold on them and claim them for the sake of another, pleading God's own testimony before his throne.

Rahab was delivered _because _she did not wallow in self-pity with others, but forsook her Canaanite identity to join with the people of God. We know the word of God's salvation for Israel had come to her; we don't know how much residual knowledge of the faith of the patriarchs lingered in the land still, in spite of the iniquity of the Amorites. She knew that salvation and rest for the people of God meant destruction for his (and their) enemies. Being saved, she embraced the fullness of knowledge of the truth into which she and her father's house were subsequently catechized.

If we understand that *salvation* is an event (sometimes with a very clear start), an end, and a process--all three--we can affirm that the _way _of an individual's salvation may start in a very obscure place. But we must be extremely hesitant to spare our pitiful feelings for the lost by affirming their anxious zeal, or their presumed clearness of conscience (or if they have much of a conscience), as if those stood in the place of helpless abasement before the holy God followed by an assurance of his love through and for the sake of the One and only Mediator.

If God loves (eternally, through election in Christ) anyone, from any time or place, if it is his intent to leave that person in the world as his witness, then he will make it possible for the light of his truth to be seen by such an one. And ever since the Lord's resurrection, the saving truth that has been in the world has been nothing less than the finished work of redemption through the cross of Christ. Otherwise, they are without hope or God in the world, Eph.2:12.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 2, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> If God loves (eternally, through election in Christ) anyone, from any time or place, if it is his intent to leave that person in the world as his witness, then he will make it possible for the light of his truth to be seen by such an one.


Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch are perfect examples of this. When God would save them, what does he do? He sends them a preacher who preaches Jesus to them and they are saved by believing the Word preached.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2020)

Von said:


> There are stories of people getting saved without hearing the gospel - in a moment of clarity/God revealing Himself to them.





Jack K said:


> Many, many people are "saved without hearing about the Christ through the gospel"—*or at least without hearing the way we typically think about it*, with the details we would expect a good gospel presentation to include.





C. M. Sheffield said:


> I have found many of the responses in this thread deeply troubling.





Contra_Mundum said:


> That infant children (or in utero) may be saved is certainly true and evidenced in Scripture. But some _apprehension of Christ _supernaturally endowed is still required for anyone to be saved.



Bruce and Sheff are correct; There is only one gospel and that gospel is transmitted via the internal call of God. No man can be saved otherwise. The God who makes stones cry out 'Hosanna', is quite capable of carrying his message of grace and love to whomever he will; whenever He wills. In fact, the infant in the womb, will have better theology than u or I upon entering into glory. No bad theologies are in heaven!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2020)

I would lastly add, my above statement would be only applicable in scenarios where an elect person is without an option in actually hearing the outward/external call of God; is this normal? No. It is highly unlikely that the elect is in such a place; however, given the grace and love of Christ and the fact that the gospel is set forth to go to every tribe, tongue, and nation, one must believe that these scenarios exist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Sep 2, 2020)

This is interesting: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/muslims-dream-Jesus/ 

They end up with renewed minds, but start with dreams and visions.

I first heard about this in my PA PCA church years ago. A missionary to the Muslim world came in and talked about people who had visions of Jesus Christ appearing to them and telling them that He was God. They knew nothing of Christianity but went looking for answers and ended up in the church. A lot of WTS people went to my church and I never heard any backlash about it. 

You could say they were not actually saved until they heard the gospel later. But from some of the stories out there they believed and put their trust in Jesus before they understood anything except that He is God. 

Is the whole idea of confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that He was raised from the dead strictly a New Covenant change from the OT? I mean, did any of them under the OC grasp him dying as a man and coming back to life? In retrospect we can see it in prophetic passages, but weren't they saved by faith in a Messiah without a lot of mental understanding- the incarnation, resurrection ,etc? If so, would it not still be possible to have faith in the Jesus of a vision or dream, without knowing much more, especially if they were in an unreached isolated area?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2020)

Lynnie,
The gospel is 'good news'. In different epochs, different dispensations; but all good news. The internal call makes it efficacious. It is God's good news. In our age, a clearer view than in Abraham's day. This is not to say we have a hands up on those of Abe's day, mind u as their good news was as good news as ours.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Sep 2, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Lynnie,
> The gospel is 'good news'. In different epochs, different dispensations; but all good news. The internal call makes it efficacious. It is God's good news. In our age, a clearer view than in Abraham's day. This is not to say we have a hands up on those of Abe's day, mind u as their good news was as good news as ours.



Not to go off topic exactly, but I was thinking about this. Do you think Isaiah actually saw by the spirit the resurrection as we know it? Ch 53 seems like what we know as the gospel was revealed to him. Maybe David too in some of those prophetic passages, saw the crucifixion and resurrection. I know from Heiser's book that the OT Jews were very aware of the earthly visible Yahweh as God. I wonder if some of them saw him being put to death and rising again. I guess we will find out in heaven.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2020)

lynnie said:


> Not to go off topic exactly, but I was thinking about this. Do you think Isaiah actually saw by the spirit the resurrection as we know it? Ch 53 seems like what we know as the gospel was revealed to him. Maybe David too in some of those prophetic passages, saw the crucifixion and resurrection. I know from Heiser's book that the OT Jews were very aware of the earthly visible Yahweh as God. I wonder if some of them saw him being put to death and rising again. I guess we will find out in heaven.



Like an onion...


----------



## Jack K (Sep 3, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> WCF X. Of Effectual Calling
> 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.
> 
> Dort III&IV, Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs
> ...


Right. I know that's the answer. General revelation is insufficient; special revelation is necessary. But that answer also seems not to account for some situations, such as elect infants dying in the womb. Presumably, the Spirit somehow speaks to them about Christ in a way other than through gospel preaching, and works faith in Christ in them through somewhat different means than he does in you and me.

So, I'd appreciate any guidance the gang here might give in how to state things, given that exceptions like elect infants dying before they are born do seem to exist. My instinct is to affirm with vigor that to have faith in Christ a person needs to hear the gospel. I like the argument that if God elects someone for salvation, God will also find a way to bring a preacher to that person. Of course! How could God withhold such a blessing from one who is his child? But... we could just as easily say that if God elects someone he will also cause that person to be born and to become old enough to understand gospel preaching. Yet we don't.

Why do we apply one "rule" about the need to hear the gospel when God's providence means a person is incapable of understanding due to age or mental disability, but another when God's providence means a person is incapable of hearing due to having been born in pre-colonial America? I can think of some reasons why we might: God's faithfulness and his promises within covenant families, his affection for children, the childlike nature of faith, the Bible's emphasis on preaching to the nations, the fact that God appoints where and when people live based on his purposes (Acts 17:26)—but none of these quite provides the airtight explanation I'd like to have. My gut tells me that the first explanation (God's faithfulness and his promises within covenant families) is the strongest, but I wonder what the Baptists here or those who believe all dying infants are saved might say. Am a missing some stronger biblical argument? If so, what is it?

And how are we to account for Romans 10:18-20, where Paul takes a psalm that's clearly about general revelation in creation and treats it like special, gospel-proclaiming revelation? Dare we suggest that perhaps, as these verses seem to say, distant nations heard of Christ in some rudimentary way through the witness of creation, and some people truly found him? Or, as I would find it easier to affirm, is it just another case of a New Testament writer freely quoting Scripture without due regard for our neat theological categories and our proof-texting sensibilities?

If it were up to me to pick, I would much prefer the earlier verses in Romans 10 about how faith comes through hearing, and hearing through gospel preaching. They jive better with passages like Acts 14:15-17, which acknowledges the witness of general revelation but seems to find it insufficient without the arrival of gospel preaching. That's better, right? Certainly, it's the working model the church is called to follow. But I also have to acknowledge that the purpose of Romans 10 is to inspire missionary zeal, not to give us a blow-by-blow blueprint that reveals the secret workings of the Spirit as he speaks the call of God into every elect person's heart. So I pause before insisting that I know exactly what means the Spirit always uses to tell of Christ in every situation. I feel a need to acknowledge that the Spirit blows where he wishes, and we are not privy to all of his workings.

Am I wrong to pause that way? It would feel better to be more certain. Is there an argument I'm missing?


----------



## Von (Sep 3, 2020)

Von said:


> There are stories of people getting saved without hearing the gospel - in a moment of clarity/God revealing Himself to them.


Allow me to clarify what I said here. If I meant that one can be saved without Christ - please boot me off the PB (and pray for me...).
What I meant was that God can save someone (through Christ) without the use of a preacher. Is this the usual manner? No! Will this hypothetical person remain satisfied without the Word? No! He will long and gravitate towards like-minded believers.


C. M. Sheffield said:


> The suggestion that one may attain to a saving knowledge of Christ without the special revelation contained in the gospel is a profoundly dangerous error.


For the record: I agree wholeheartedly with you. The question in my mind is: Can God give this "special revelation contained in the gospel about the saving knowledge of Christ" without a preacher/Bible. In other words: Can God give a revelatory dream to a Hindu containing the essential elements of the Gospel in order that he might be saved?


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 3, 2020)

lynnie said:


> Is the whole idea of confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that He was raised from the dead strictly a New Covenant change from the OT? I mean, did any of them under the OC grasp him dying as a man and coming back to life? In retrospect we can see it in prophetic passages, but weren't they saved by faith in a Messiah without a lot of mental understanding- the incarnation, resurrection ,etc? If so, would it not still be possible to have faith in the Jesus of a vision or dream, without knowing much more, especially if they were in an unreached isolated area?



I believe the OT saints did indeed know these things, not with the same, great clarity that we do, yet they saw them from afar. I was just reading in my devotions this morning in Acts 26, here are some of the verses I noted in my journal on this very subject,

(Acts 26:6-8 ESV) " 6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! 8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?"

Here Paul says the hope of the Gospel is grounded in the promises (including the covenants of the OT) made by God to our fathers...and note his immediate question given that grounding, "Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?" - in other words you ought to know this from the OT Scriptures.

Note Paul's conclusion,

(Acts 26:22-23 ESV) " 22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: 23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.""

Paul says he is saying nothing about Christ and his life death and resurrection that is new, all these things were previously and earlier and anciently revealed by GOd through the prophets and Moses...they said these things would come to pass. What things? "23 that Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to riase from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.

So specifically the OT does indeed reveal that the Christ, the Messiah would be a man who would suffer and die, but rise again, and furthemore would proclaim (through his apostles initially) the light of the Gospel to both Jew and Gentile peoples.

These things are not merely interpreted retrospectively by NT saints, rather they were prospectively revealed to the OT saints.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Von (Sep 3, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> If God loves (eternally, through election in Christ) anyone, from any time or place, if it is his intent to leave that person in the world as his witness, then he will make it possible for the light of his truth to be seen by such an one.


I'm pondering this one...
I do see that if God has elected you from before the world was created, he would make a means available for you to be saved at the right time. But then, why not save everyone in exactly the same manner with a Damascus bright light moment?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 3, 2020)

The man on the island is not incapable of hearing the outward call. God in his providence may never send a preacher, but the man nonetheless is without excuse by the light of nature, which he never responds rightly to. The Confession is pretty clear. 

In terms of God revealing Himself by special revelation in dreams/visions: God obviously can do what He wants, just as he can elect infants dying in infancy, but we confess in WCF II that those former ways of special revelation are now ceased.


----------



## De Jager (Sep 3, 2020)

Von said:


> I'm pondering this one...
> I do see that if God has elected you from before the world was created, he would make a means available for you to be saved at the right time. *But then, why not save everyone in exactly the same manner with a Damascus bright light moment?*



Because it didn't please him to do it this way...the majority of Christians in the world were raised in Christian homes, and many of them do not have a damascus road experience. Paul is the exception, not the rule.


----------



## De Jager (Sep 3, 2020)

As for the original post, yes the gospel is necessary to save. In Acts 2, Peter makes the declaration that "the promise (of the gospel) is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off". In order to lay hold on any promise, the promise has to first be given. We take for granted the awesome privilege of being given the promise. There are many in the world who will never hear the external call of the gospel, let alone an internal call. Let us take heed then that we lay hold on this promise, for as Christ says, to whom much is given, much will be required.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Von (Sep 3, 2020)

De Jager said:


> Paul is the exception, not the rule.


I thought we are arguing the exceptions. All of us are in agreement with the rule.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Von (Sep 3, 2020)

From *RC Sproul's TRUTHS WE CONFESS, Volume 1, p26-27:*
_My best friend in college and seminary, Don McClure, was the son of a pioneer missionary. His father ministered for almost fifty years in the interior of Africa, in Ethiopia and in the Sudan, and was a close acquaintance of Haile Selassie. Don told me a story of a man who came to camp one night and asked Don's father to tell him about the Saviour. He lived in a remote village and had an overwhelming experience by which he knew that there was a Saviour for his sins. The native man was guided through the jungle for several miles in order to come to this camp and find out about the Saviour. That did not surprise me in the light of the Character of God. We see it manifested in the Old Testament, where God calls people out of paganism and directs them to the covenant community. Such things are extraordinary because they are so rare.
I have heard this comment: We can hope for the salvation of people who have never heard the gospel, but we dare not rest on it._

Are we all in agreement with this?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 3, 2020)

Von said:


> From *RC Sproul's TRUTHS WE CONFESS, Volume 1, p26-27:*
> _My best friend in college and seminary, Don McClure, was the son of a pioneer missionary. His father ministered for almost fifty years in the interior of Africa, in Ethiopia and in the Sudan, and was a close acquaintance of Haile Selassie. Don told me a story of a man who came to camp one night and asked Don's father to tell him about the Saviour. He lived in a remote village and had an overwhelming experience by which he knew that there was a Saviour for his sins. The native man was guided through the jungle for several miles in order to come to this camp and find out about the Saviour. That did not surprise me in the light of the Character of God. We see it manifested in the Old Testament, where God calls people out of paganism and directs them to the covenant community. Such things are extraordinary because they are so rare.
> I have heard this comment: We can hope for the salvation of people who have never heard the gospel, but we dare not rest on it._
> 
> Are we all in agreement with this?



Umm...in that anecdote, the man DID hear the gospel! He was not saved by responding rightly to the light of nature.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 3, 2020)

JP Wallace said:


> I believe the OT saints did indeed know these things, not with the same, great clarity that we do, yet they saw them from afar. I was just reading in my devotions this morning in Acts 26, here are some of the verses I noted in my journal on this very subject,
> 
> (Acts 26:6-8 ESV) " 6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! 8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?"
> 
> ...



This is a beautiful post. Thank you. "They saw them from afar" but in some way they did glimpse them.


----------



## JM (Sep 3, 2020)

I had a Primitive Baptist tell me that a criminal is pardon by the decree of the King and not when they find out about it.


----------



## Von (Sep 3, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Umm...in that anecdote, the man DID hear the gospel! He was not saved by responding rightly to the light of nature.


Yes. I know.

But he came to the realisation of the following:


Von said:


> had an overwhelming experience by which he knew that there was a Saviour for his sins.


which is not exactly general revelation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 3, 2020)

JM said:


> I had a Primitive Baptist tell me that a criminal is pardon by the decree of the King and not when they find out about it.


This person denies the instrumentality of faith, which is part and parcel of the Christian gospel.


----------



## De Jager (Sep 3, 2020)

JM said:


> I had a Primitive Baptist tell me that a criminal is pardon by the decree of the King and not when they find out about it.



Salvation is worked out in real time and space. In a sense every Christian was "saved" in eternity past when God made his elective decree. However these people still are at a real point in time are regenerated, converted, etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Sep 3, 2020)

If I could summarize:

1. There is no other way of salvation than faith in Christ. Period.

2. The ordinary means of hearing the gospel is through those preaching/witnessing using special revelation.

3. General revelation reveals that a) there is a God, and b) He is angry with us (Rom. 1:18). It does not reveal the way of salvation.

4. Salvation does not occur through general revelation alone, but special revelation is necessary.

5. One who is incapable of hearing the word (infants in the womb, possibly one who lives where the gospel was never preached) can be saved, not because general revelation was sufficient, but because God in some measure revealed Himself to them.

Do we all agree with these statements?


----------



## De Jager (Sep 3, 2020)

timfost said:


> If I could summarize:
> 
> 1. There is no other way of salvation than faith in Christ. Period.
> 
> ...



I agree, to me the only one where people would get squirmy is #5, but even then, the person receives the gospel, except not through the typical means of preaching. 

Interestingly enough this type of thing came up at the Ligonier Q&A at their Canadian conference last fall. There was a bit of divide in the panel, along baptist/reformed lines.


----------



## timfost (Sep 3, 2020)

De Jager said:


> Salvation is worked out in real time and space. In a sense every Christian was "saved" in eternity past when God made his elective decree. However these people still are at a real point in time are regenerated, converted, etc.



I think we have to be careful here. An imminent act of God is not an accomplishment act of God. The decree to save does not equal salvation. It equals certain salvation. If an imminent act of God in any sense equals an accomplished act, then we have an eternal creation, etc.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 3, 2020)

timfost said:


> I think we have to be careful here. An imminent act of God is not an accomplishment act of God. The decree to save does not equal salvation. It equals certain salvation. If an imminent act of God in any sense equals an accomplished act, then we have an eternal creation, etc.



I fully, agree, and that's why I said "in a sense". This is why I don't like the way our evangelical culture uses the word "saved".

There is no doubt that God's elective decree contributes to our overall salvation. It's not salvation in it's entirety, but it's part of the picture.


----------



## JM (Sep 3, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> This person denies the instrumentality of faith, which is part and parcel of the Christian gospel.



Of course, I completely agree. 


De Jager said:


> Salvation is worked out in real time and space. In a sense every Christian was "saved" in eternity past when God made his elective decree. However these people still are at a real point in time are regenerated, converted, etc.



Agreed. 

I love how Gerstner explains it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Sep 3, 2020)

De Jager said:


> I fully, agree, and that's why I said "in a sense". This is why I don't like the way our evangelical culture uses the word "saved".
> 
> There is no doubt that God's elective decree contributes to our overall salvation. It's not salvation in it's entirety, but it's part of the picture.



I think we agree in principle, though I wouldn't say we are saved in any sense before we were saved. Equating an imminent act with an accomplishment act has lead some to eternal justification. Since "saved" is past tense, I believe it causes unnecessary confusion. Again, I think our only disagreement might be in using certain terminology, not a different principle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 3, 2020)

timfost said:


> If I could summarize:
> 
> 1. There is no other way of salvation than faith in Christ. Period.
> 
> ...


No. One who lives where the gospel is not preached is not part of the “incapable”. I think the Confession properly separates the incapable from the unreached. God in his providence sends preachers to the “capable” elect. Even in the example above by R.C. 

Will I bind God in this? May it never be! But while Extrascriptural anecdotes may reveal the unsearchable and marvelous wisdom and grace of God, we can’t build doctrine on exceptions.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 3, 2020)

timfost said:


> If I could summarize:
> 
> 1. There is no other way of salvation than faith in Christ. Period.
> 
> ...


I'm with you until your fifth point. You said "one who lives where the gospel was never preached can be saved, not because general revelation was sufficient, but because God in some measure revealed Himself to them." I cannot agree with this. 

What basis is there for this in Scripture?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jack K (Sep 3, 2020)

timfost said:


> 5. One who is incapable of hearing the word (infants in the womb, possibly one who lives where the gospel was never preached) can be saved, not because general revelation was sufficient, but because God in some measure revealed Himself to them.
> 
> Do we all agree with these statements?


Yeah, this fifth statement is the one that's at issue. I think I would at least want to edit the final phrase to say something like "because God revealed Christ to him by some means other than typical gospel preaching." This at least affirms the necessity of apprehending and believing _on Christ_ rather than some generic "faith" that isn't distinctly Christian faith.

We still have the problem that true faith is a historical faith that depends on actual works performed by an actual Person, in space and time, and assents to those works and that Person being true. How are these things revealed to a baby in the womb so that he has such faith? This work of the Spirit must remain something of a mystery.

But if it is so, I am not willing to completely dismiss a person who asks about the possibility that the Spirit might also work something similar in others besides babies. So, I would take the statement as amended as a helpful starting point in a conversation that is, admittedly, littered with minefields we must carefully avoid and high hurdles to clear.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## De Jager (Sep 3, 2020)

timfost said:


> I think we agree in principle, though I wouldn't say we are saved in any sense before we were saved. Equating an imminent act with an accomplishment act has lead some to eternal justification. Since "saved" is past tense, I believe it causes unnecessary confusion. Again, I think our only disagreement might be in using certain terminology, not a different principle.



Yes, the bare word "Saved" is in the past tense, but the scriptures also speak of us "being saved" in a present, continuous sense. See 1 Corinthians 15:2.

We definitely agree in principle.


----------



## Nate (Sep 3, 2020)

timfost said:


> I think we agree in principle, though I wouldn't say we are saved in any sense before we were saved. Equating an imminent act with an accomplishment act has lead some to eternal justification.



Tim, I'm enjoying your posts and am largely in agreement with you. Just throwing this out there that at least some of the Dutch Reformed traditions do not completely write off eternal justification.

From the Conclusions of Utrecht:

*B. Eternal Justification*

In regard to the second point, eternal justification, Synod declares:

that the term itself does not occur in the Confessional Standards but that it is not for this reason to be disapproved, any more than we would be justified in disapproving the term Covenant of Works and similar terms which have been adopted through theological usage;

that it is incorrect to say that our Confessional Standards know only of a justification by and through faith, since both Gods’ Word (Rom. 4:25) and our Confession (Article XX) speak explicitly of an objective justification sealed by the resurrection of Christ, which in point of time precedes the subjective justification;

that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God’s Word and in harmony with our Confession it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith.

Wherefore Synod earnestly warns against any view that would do violence either to Christ’s eternal suretyship for his elect, or to the requirement of a sincere faith to be justified before God in the tribunal of conscience.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jack K (Sep 3, 2020)

Another thing: the meaning behind this thread's original question matters here.

If the question is, "Do some people truly believe in Christ even though the word they hear is rudimentary or error-filled and does not include many of the truths we would like to see in a good presentation of the gospel?" my answer is a clear yes.

If the question is, "Might a person on an island who has never heard any preaching of Christ whatsoever, never had a Bible washed up on the shore, etc. truly believe because God has revealed Christ to him in some other way?" I am willing to entertain the question because we should not presume to fully understand the workings of the Spirit in divine election and calling, but I remain skeptical and find it unlikely. I would appreciate more clarity.

The two questions are related and the answer to one might help inform the other, but the two questions also are not really the same. I think the distinction is important. I myself am guilty of not making that distinction clear in my first post on this thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 3, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I'm with you until your fifth point. You said "one who lives where the gospel was never preached can be saved, not because general revelation was sufficient, but because God in some measure revealed Himself to them." I cannot agree with this.
> 
> What basis is there for this in Scripture?



I'm not the best person to defend this, but I would reference any exposition of Canons of Dort, Head 1, article 17. And any defence of this is probably going to involve the account of David and the death of his child that he conceived by Bathsheba.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 3, 2020)

Jack K said:


> If the question is, "Might a person on an island who has never heard any preaching of Christ whatsoever, never had a Bible washed up on the shore, etc. truly believe because God has revealed Christ to him in some other way?" I am willing to entertain the question because we should not presume to fully understand the workings of the Spirit in divine election and calling, but I remain skeptical and find it unlikely. I would appreciate more clarity.



Hi Jack,
Well said. It is unlikely, in the case of the man on a deserted island. But, since we are able to imagine it, it is not completely preposterous. When we consider WCF ch 10, we assume that the portion in question applies to the blind, deaf and dumb only.

Shaw writes:


> The Holy Spirit usually works by means; and the Word, read or preached, is the ordinary means which he renders effectual to the salvation of sinners. But he has immediate access to the hearts of men, and can produce a saving change in them without the use of ordinary means. "As infants are not fit subjects of instruction, their regeneration must be effected without means, by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit on their souls. There are adult persons, too, to whom the use of reason has been denied. It would be harsh and unwarrantable to suppose that they are, on this account, excluded from salvation; and to such of them as God has chosen, it may be applied in the same man her as to infants."


----------



## Wretched Man (Sep 3, 2020)

JP Wallace said:


> I believe the OT saints did indeed know these things, not with the same, great clarity that we do, yet they saw them from afar. I was just reading in my devotions this morning in Acts 26, here are some of the verses I noted in my journal on this very subject,
> 
> (Acts 26:6-8 ESV) " 6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! 8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?"
> 
> ...


Interesting thoughts. I once listened to a sermon in which the pastor strongly asserted the Christians of the OT period understood about Christ far more than we tend to give them credit for.

What would all the OT references to teaching and meditating on the word be pointing to if not Christ?

I also think Melchizedek and Jethro are two figures who would indicate there was an understanding of salvation outside the tribes of Israel.


----------



## Kinghezy (Sep 3, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Interesting thoughts. I once listened to a sermon in which the pastor strongly asserted the Christians of the OT period understood about Christ far more than we tend to give them credit for.



I vaguely recall Reformed Forum, putting forward that the prophets had quite a bit of knowledge, based on some OT verse. I can't remember the verse or the Reformed Forum episode, but maybe this would jog someone else's mind?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Sep 3, 2020)

Kinghezy said:


> I vaguely recall Reformed Forum, putting forward that the prophets had quite a bit of knowledge, based on some OT verse. I can't remember the verse or the Reformed Forum episode, but maybe this would jog someone else's mind?


Their prophecies alone would indicate they had knowledge of Christ... as immediately confirmed in the beginning of the NT with Matthew 1:22-23 and Matthew 2:4-6.


----------



## timfost (Sep 3, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I'm with you until your fifth point. You said "one who lives where the gospel was never preached can be saved, not because general revelation was sufficient, but because God in some measure revealed Himself to them." I cannot agree with this.
> 
> What basis is there for this in Scripture?



I agree with @Jack K and find his qualification helpful to my statement. We know that God has revealed Himself directly throughout history apart from the written word and a human preacher (e.g. Abraham). Both our confessions confirm that an infant can be saved. All I'm saying is that God _can_, not that He _does_. I have no way of knowing if He does or if it is usual. If it occurs, it's extraordinary.

My primary point was that general revelation _itself_ is not sufficient for salvation, while leaving room for God revealing the gospel of Christ to someone who has no access to the Word written or spoken

I'm not stating this dogmatically, but I think inferentially it is possible, if not probable.


----------



## timfost (Sep 3, 2020)

Nate said:


> Tim, I'm enjoying your posts and am largely in agreement with you. Just throwing this out there that at least some of the Dutch Reformed traditions do not completely write off eternal justification.
> 
> From the Conclusions of Utrecht:
> 
> ...



Thanks for the quote. I still would take issue with the phrase eternal justification, though again, I don't disagree with a qualified explanation. 

Rom. 4:25 hardly gives good-- well-- justification for its use in my mind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Sep 3, 2020)

timfost said:


> I agree with @Jack K and find his qualification helpful to my statement. We know that God has revealed Himself directly throughout history apart from the written word and a human preacher (e.g. Abraham).


God's direct speech to Abraham would be an example of special revelation, though, and is a pre-biblical equivalent to the written Word we have today. Scripture specifically calls that revelation to Abraham "the gospel" (Galatians 3:8), but I don't think we should deduce from this that general revelation like the witness of creation equally deserves to be called the gospel. At most, we might see that Christ does not necessarily have to be mentioned by name (at least not in that time period) for God to preach the gospel, and thus start to wonder what other ways of working God might employ.


----------



## timfost (Sep 3, 2020)

Jack K said:


> God's direct speech to Abraham would be an example of special revelation, though, and is a pre-biblical equivalent to the written Word we have today.



This is the sense in which I'm speaking about. If someone is saved apart from the ordinary means, it is not separate from a) special revelation, and b) an equivalent to the written Word. Does that help clarify?


----------



## Jack K (Sep 3, 2020)

timfost said:


> This is the sense in which I'm speaking about. If someone is saved apart from the ordinary means, it is not separate from a) special revelation, and b) an equivalent to the written Word. Does that help clarify?


I think so. I suppose I was thinking that for Abraham having God speak directly _was_ ordinary means. But it might not make a big difference for this discussion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Von (Sep 4, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Hi Jack,
> Well said. It is unlikely, in the case of the man on a deserted island. But, since we are able to imagine it, it is not completely preposterous. When we consider WCF ch 10, we assume that the portion in question applies to the blind, deaf and dumb only.
> 
> Shaw writes


Yup, I'm also now in agreement. I like it when threads on the PB sharpens me - blunt edges made sharper and others being made smooth.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 4, 2020)

Jack K said:


> If the question is, "Might a person on an island who has never heard any preaching of Christ whatsoever, never had a Bible washed up on the shore, etc. truly believe because God has revealed Christ to him in some other way?" I am willing to entertain the question because we should not presume to fully understand the workings of the Spirit in divine election and calling, but I remain skeptical and find it unlikely. I would appreciate more clarity.




I presume that this answers the question with the answer to these questions. "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 4, 2020)

earl40 said:


> I presume that this answers the question with the answer to these questions. "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"


Precisely


----------



## Jack K (Sep 4, 2020)

earl40 said:


> I presume that this answers the question with the answer to these questions. "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"


But I don't think we should take that passage as a formula meant to explain how the Spirit always must work, or as a rule asserting the only way he ever works. For example, the Word might be read rather than preached, or the preacher might encounter a hearer at home rather than being sent out. The intent behind Paul's words must be considered, and there's little evidence that he is intending to explain the secret workings of the Spirit in calling people to Christ. Rather, Paul is explaining why the church's missionary effort is important.

In our rightful zeal to affirm the importance of preaching, Reformed folk have sometimes taken that passage out of context and acted as if Paul is presenting a flow-chart formula that explains the steps the Spirit always takes to bring any person to faith. Read it in context, and that doesn't seem to be the point of the passage.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 4, 2020)

There is nothing in Scripture that says a sinner may be brought to Christ without the outward and ordinary means of the Word read and/or preached. I will readily grant this may take different forms, but I cannot accept the notion that the Spirit reveals these immediately to the minds of some with no access to the Scriptures or other believers. Could he? Of course. Does he operate this way today? I have no reason from Scripture to believe he does. In the examples we find in the book of Acts, such as Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch, when the Holy Spirit of God would save these men, he sends them a preacher. And it needs to be remembered, the entire book of Acts could be summed up as God saving a world of lost sinners by sending them preachers (Matt. 28:19-20; Eph. 4:8, 11). God is able to bring a witness of his gospel to any sinner in any part of the world. In his providence, however, many never hear the gospel or read the Scriptures. This too is according to his wise and holy decree.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 4, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> There is nothing in Scripture that says a sinner may be brought to Christ without the outward and ordinary means of the Word read and/or preached. I will readily grant this may take different forms, but I cannot accept the notion that the Spirit reveals these immediately to the minds of some with no access to the Scriptures or other believers. Could he? Of course. Does he operate this way today? I have no reason from Scripture to believe he does. In the examples we find in the book of Acts, such as Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch, when the Holy Spirit of God would save these men, he sends them a preacher. And it needs to be remembered, the entire book of Acts could be summed up as God saving a world of lost sinners by sending them preachers (Eph. 4:8, 11). God is able to bring a witness of his gospel to any sinner in any part of the world. In his providence, however, many never hear the gospel or read the Scriptures. This too is according to his wise and holy decree.



Hi Chris, I have a couple of questions, that I believe are relevant, and I ask them in all sincerity with no malice.

Firstly, if it is true that there is nothing in scripture that indicates that a sinner may be brought to Christ without the outward and ordinary means of the Word read and/or preached, how was it that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb?

Secondly, I am wondering how you would counsel believing, godly parents in the following situations:
a) in the loss of a young one?
b) where their child is mentally disabled such that they cannot comprehend the gospel?

I think it is God's ordinary means to use the preached word through the lips of fallible, human preachers. _Yes, that is the ordinary way and we dare not rest on any other way._ But I cannot say that this is the only way that God can bring a sinner to himself. For example, consider Adam and Eve, their preacher was God himself. God gave them the good news of the Seed of the Woman, there was no intermediate preacher of the word. Even this one exception should make us cautious about saying that God cannot or does not do this today.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 4, 2020)

De Jager said:


> Hi Chris, I have a couple of questions, that I believe are relevant, and I ask them in all sincerity with no malice.
> 
> Firstly, if it is true that there is nothing in scripture that indicates that a sinner may be brought to Christ without the outward and ordinary means of the Word read and/or preached, how was it that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb?
> 
> ...


I’m not Chris, but the Confessions answer these questions.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 4, 2020)

De Jager said:


> Hi Chris, I have a couple of questions, that I believe are relevant, and I ask them in all sincerity with no malice.
> 
> Firstly, if it is true that there is nothing in scripture that indicates that a sinner may be brought to Christ without the outward and ordinary means of the Word read and/or preached, how was it that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb?


The first thing that must be done is to distinguish between the extraordinary and the ordinary. Appealing to God's speaking to the fathers and the prophets (of whom John the Baptist was the greatest) as being in any way normative is an error. These were unique and seminal events in redemptive history. The revelation of God is complete in Christ and contained in the Holy Scriptures. There is no continuing revelation.



De Jager said:


> Secondly, I am wondering how you would counsel believing, godly parents in the following situations:
> a) in the loss of a young one?
> b) where their child is mentally disabled such that they cannot comprehend the gospel?


Secondly, my counsel to parents who have lost young children has been to entrust themselves to God who is altogether wise, good, and just in all his dealings. If their little ones heard the Word of God and they prayed that God would save their children, they have reason to hope that God honored his word and heard their prayers. May we be certain God saved them? No. But then we are not infallibly certain of any professing believers spiritual state no matter how outwardly pious they may have lived. Nevertheless, we may be assured, the God of all the earth will do right (Gen. 18:25).

As for parents with mentally disabled children, I would encourage them to read the Bible to them, bring them to church to hear the preaching of God's Word, and to pray earnestly for their salvation. When all of that is done, let them entrust themselves to God and the Word of his grace knowing that God is able to do exceeding abundantly above all the we can even ask or think (Acts 20:32; Eph. 3:20-21).

The key thing to note in both of these examples is the presence of the Word of God. In that way, these examples are unrelated to the question of God saving someone without the Word either read or preached. Where God's word is, there is hope it may be used of God for the salvation of those who hear it. And that is a solace for godly parents when their little ones are taken from them.



De Jager said:


> I think it is God's ordinary means to use the preached word through the lips of fallible, human preachers. _Yes, that is the ordinary way and we dare not rest on any other way._ But I cannot say that this is the only way that God can bring a sinner to himself. For example, consider Adam and Eve, their preacher was God himself. God gave them the good news of the Seed of the Woman, there was no intermediate preacher of the word. Even this one exception should make us cautious about saying that God cannot or does not do this today.


I have been careful to state that God could save when and where and how he chooses. But we have no reason for believing he saves sinners apart from the "outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption." (WSC 88) Nor is there a reason for God to work in this way. He who works all things according to the counsel of his own will is in no bind to provide a witness of his gospel when and wherever one is needed. That being the case, I see no reason why he would lay aside his own appointed means to work in some mystical way upon a sinner without the Word of God.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 4, 2020)

In regards to infants dying in infancy, Dort is particularly pastoral. God has promised to be a God to us and our children. He works largely through households. So believers ought not doubt the election of their infants dying in infancy. Not by virtue of their being our children, but by virtue of His promises.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 4, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> The first thing that must be done is to distinguish between the extraordinary and the ordinary. Appealing to God's speaking to the fathers and the prophets (of whom John the Baptist was the greatest) as being in any way normative is an error. These were unique and seminal events in redemptive history. The revelation of God is complete in Christ and contained in the Holy Scriptures. There is no continuing revelation.
> 
> 
> Secondly, my counsel to parents who have lost young children has been to entrust themselves to God who is altogether wise, good, and just in all his dealings. If their little ones heard the Word of God and they prayed that God would save their children, they have reason to hope that God honored his word and heard their prayers. May we be certain God saved them? No. But then we are not infallibly certain of any professing believers spiritual state no matter how outwardly pious they may have lived. Nevertheless, we may be assured, the God of all the earth will do right (Gen. 18:25).
> ...



As someone pointed out earlier, we are talking about the exceptions. I know the rule, and I know the example of John the Baptist is not normative, I don't think anyone is claiming it is normative. But it happened, and he was just as much of a sinner as any of us. What events have transpired since then that lead you to believe that God will not do a similar thing to other individuals, that is, regenerate them in the womb, even if it is a rare case? 

As for small or disabled children, let me put it another way by way of example. Say that parents conceive a child and it dies in the womb or as a small infant before it has any chance to comprehend anything, let alone the gospel. You say "if their little ones *heard the word of God* and they (the parents) prayed that God would save their children", they have "reason to hope" that God heard their prayers, but that they cannot "be certain". I am going out on a limb and assume that by "hearing" the word, you assume some sort of perception or understanding - correct me if I am wrong.

In the case of a miscarriage, there is no chance that the child perceived the word. Yes, they may have heard sounds, but they did not comprehend it. Therefore, does your theology not lead to the conclusion that the child who dies in infancy is in hell, because such a child must "hear" the word in order to be saved? For these parents, while they may have comfort that God is good, there is no comfort available to them as to the state of their child. I don't see why we need to tiptoe around it. If it is true that such a child is in hell, we should be able to just say it.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 4, 2020)

De Jager said:


> As someone pointed out earlier, we are talking about the exceptions. I know the rule, and I know the example of John the Baptist is not normative, I don't think anyone is claiming it is normative. But it happened, and he was just as much of a sinner as any of us. What events have transpired since then that lead you to believe that God will not do a similar thing to other individuals, that is, regenerate them in the womb, even if it is a rare case?


I have no warrant from Holy Scripture nor example in the history of the church that God works in this way. It pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. The burden lies on you to demonstrate otherwise.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 4, 2020)

The exceptions laid out by the WCF are elect infants dying in infancy and those “incapable” of receiving the gospel message. 

The man on the island is not incapable, he has been given general revelation, which the Confession says he never uses rightly and simply leaves him without excuse. Special revelation is necessary, and the Confession rightly teaches that the former ways of God revealing his word, I.e. directly to men and confirmed by miracles, are now ceased. In these last days He has spoken unto us by His Son. That word has come to us by inscripturation of that foundational word laid by the apostles and prophets.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 4, 2020)

De Jager said:


> As for small or disabled children, let me put it another way by way of example. Say that parents conceive a child and it dies in the womb or as a small infant before it has any chance to comprehend anything, let alone the gospel. You say "if their little ones *heard the word of God* and they (the parents) prayed that God would save their children", they have "reason to hope" that God heard their prayers, but that they cannot "be certain". I am going out on a limb and assume that by "hearing" the word, you assume some sort of perception or understanding - correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> In the case of a miscarriage, there is no chance that the child perceived the word. Yes, they may have heard sounds, but they did not comprehend it. Therefore, does your theology not lead to the conclusion that the child who dies in infancy is in hell, because such a child must "hear" the word in order to be saved? For these parents, while they may have comfort that God is good, there is no comfort available to them as to the state of their child. I don't see why we need to tiptoe around it. If it is true that such a child is in hell, we should be able to just say it.


On this, I would simply direct you the Baptist Confession of Faith, "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, 8). But I am going to forgo interacting on these specific points since these are questions are unrelated to the OP. I'd rather not derail the thread or make the discussion too wide ranging.



convicted1 said:


> I'm looking at this more through the unreached. Someone in a remote place that has never read a bible or had someone witness to them, I just can't find any bible to support of them coming to saving faith outside of hearing/reading the word.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 4, 2020)

De Jager said:


> Yes, they may have heard sounds, but they did not comprehend it.



Two things: how do we know they did not comprehend it? How do we know that comprehension is a "requirement"?

Dry bones in the desert don't comprehend things. The Wind blows where he wishes and turns hearts of stone into hearts of flesh.

A side note. Long ago I worked with Bedouins in the Iraqi desert. They were real roaming sheep and camel herders. They knew about Jesus, somehow, because they would ask me questions about him. I wasn't a Christian then, but I knew the Bible pretty well. I told them what I could.

I wonder if any of them came to saving knowledge through the teaching of a pagan like me, who knew enough Scripture to give them the bare facts of Christianity, but who didn't believe himself. It's a sobering thing to me that even in my unbelief, I wanted to present the truth of Scripture to those who honestly inquired.

The Gospel has indeed spread throughout the world.

Reactions: Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## earl40 (Sep 4, 2020)

What I perceive is a reluctance to have God damn people who never heard of Him, or had any chance because they lived out of ear shot of preachers, such as the native American Indian. I remember someone said "What if God chose to use Western Christianity as the proper expression of His will vs. Eastern Christianity." This sentiment envelopes the thought that God does indeed cut out many from ever hearing His Word.....If that sentiment makes you cringe may I suggest "Who are you to question how God works?" Away with the thought that people can come to a saving knowledge without the way God prescribes in scripture.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 4, 2020)

VictorBravo said:


> *Two things: how do we know they did not comprehend it? How do we know that comprehension is a "requirement"?*
> 
> Dry bones in the desert don't comprehend things. The Wind blows where he wishes and turns hearts of stone into hearts of flesh.
> 
> ...



In my post I was playing "devil's advocate". I do not put it beyond the Lord to work wonders in the hearts of even babes in the womb. He can regenerate when he wills. Whatever the Lord pleases, he does. His normative method however, seems to clearly be to convert through the preaching of the word, and the hearing with God-given faith. I do not put it past Him to use amazing, incredible, exceptional means to preach that word. I do not put it past him to show Christ in a vision or a dream to a man in a remote place who has never heard of Christ. I cannot say that he doesn't do that. I also cannot say that he doesn't or will not save an infant who cannot "comprehend" or exercise a mature faith like an adult. 

What I heartily affirm, with all of the above said, is that the command that Christ gives is clearly to bring the gospel to the nations, and this through the ordinary means he has appointed, that is, preaching by fallible men. If in the end we find out that the Lord has saved some that never were "preached to" in the traditional sense, we will give glory to God but it is not our job to rely on such means.


----------



## PezLad (Sep 4, 2020)

The topic of visions has not been addressed; I think of Jonathan Edwards religious affections. Now this relates to former comments regarding muslims and visions, not only them, others who also claim great imaginations and sensations as legitimate experience of the Logos, even Christ. Satan does transform himself into an angel of light. Edwards says for example 
_No Sign 1_. The religious affections are very great, or raised very high. (127-31)

_No Sign 2_. They have great effects on the body. (131-35)

_No Sign 3_. They cause those who have them, to be fluent, fervent and abundant, in talking of the things of religion. (135-37)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 5, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I have no warrant from Holy Scripture nor example in the history of the church that God works in this way. It pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. The burden lies on you to demonstrate otherwise.



I try to remain as close to the scriptures as I possibly can in my theology. I don't try the "what if" approach or "could God do this that way?", &c. All of mankind is born ruined in Adam. In this fallen state, they are in a state of condemnation and the opposite of that is justification, and the only way one is justified is via faith, per Romans 5:1. Now, the only way one obtains faith is by going through the word, whether it be by a preacher/missionary/witness, &c. _God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe._[1 Cor. 1:21b NASB] Then there is _You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, *or by hearing with faith*?_[Galatians 3:1-2] Then there is Romans 10:14-17 _How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? *And how will they hear without a preacher*? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!” However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?” So *faith comes from hearing*, and hearing by the word of Christ._ And then lastly _In Him, you also, *after listening to the message of truth*, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory._[Ephesians 1:13-14] Let me throw one more in _For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it *the righteousness of God is revealed* from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”_[Romans 1:16-17]


To me its crystal clear, no gospel, no salvation. I just don't buy all these stories of ppl coming to faith w/o ever hearing or reading the word of God. I know God can do whatsoever He is pleased to do, but its not a matter of that, but a matter of what we know He will do as they have been clearly given to us in the bible.

It's like asking if God can create a rock too big for Him to lift or how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle. I just error on the side of caution and go by what God has told us the means by which He saves His elect, and that is the gospel, not directly given by Him, but by Him through His word, not mystical means.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 5, 2020)

> He saves His elect, and that is the gospel, not directly given by Him



Willis,
All men who are saved *hear* the gospel. This to include infants, deaf, dumb, and unconscious hospice patients. It is the internal call of God which is efficacious.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 5, 2020)

The gospel doesn’t necessarily have to be a motion picture of sorts about the sinless life of Christ and His crucifixion. The gospel, is good news and however God reveals that good news, ie the extent of Gospel good news the early saints received, is adequate. God defines the good news!


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 5, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Willis,
> All men who are saved *hear* the gospel. This to include infants, deaf, dumb, and unconscious hospice patients. It is the internal call of God which is efficacious.



But this is done via the word of God. Someone in a remote area who has never heard the gospel cannot be saved, as faith comes by hearing(I'd say reading it can save someone as well) the word of God. God does not zap someone with faith who has never heard the word.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 5, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> The gospel, is good news and however God reveals that good news, ie the extent of Gospel good news the early saints received, is adequate.



Reminds me of my wife's conversion story. She was being pestered by a friend who kept telling her that the Bible is the word of God. She ought to read it, etc.

So my wife finally, out of defiant exasperation and a touch of pride, opened up her childhood Bible that she had never read.

She got as far as Genesis 1:4 and put it down: "Uh-oh. Cindy is right. The Bible is the Word of God." ---"and God divided the light from the darkness."

She read it through in three weeks after that. No turning back. She ended up pestering me, too. Such is sanctification by a wife!

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 5, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Willis,
> All men who are saved *hear* the gospel. This to include infants, deaf, dumb, and unconscious hospice patients. It is the internal call of God which is efficacious.



1 Corinthians 1:21, Romans 1:16-17, Romans 10:14-17, Ephesians 1:13, 2 Timothy 3:14-15, Galatians 3:1-3, all point to the proclamation of the word of God that brings the elect to saving faith. Yes, faith is a gift of God, but it is given through the word.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 5, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> The gospel doesn’t necessarily have to be a motion picture of sorts about the sinless life of Christ and His crucifixion. The gospel, is good news and however God reveals that good news, ie the extent of Gospel good news the early saints received, is adequate. God defines the good news!



Tell me the death, burial and resurrection w/o using the scriptures. It cannot be done. 

This reeks of Andy Stanley's statement where he said we needed to take the spotlight off of the scriptures and putting it on the resurrection. He also said we don't believe the resurrection because of the bible, but by Matthew's firsthand witness of it. Well, he just awed the legs off his own argument, because Matthew's firsthand witness is found in the scriptures. 

I am not saying you are doing this, but it seems eerily similar to it. But God uses means to save the elect. And in every place I posited, it clearly states that this is done through His word either by hearing or reading it.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Willis,
> All men who are saved *hear* the gospel. This to include infants, deaf, dumb, and unconscious hospice patients. It is the internal call of God which is efficacious.



The internal call comes through the external call. _"How can they hear w/o a preacher?"_[Romans 10:14]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> The internal call comes through the external call. _"How can they hear w/o a preacher?"_[Romans 10:14]



Christ is the preacher.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> But this is done via the word of God. Someone in a remote area who has never heard the gospel cannot be saved, as faith comes by hearing(I'd say reading it can save someone as well) the word of God. God does not zap someone with faith who has never heard the word.


Christ brings the word to these that are providentially hindered by decree.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> Tell me the death, burial and resurrection w/o using the scriptures. It cannot be done.
> 
> This reeks of Andy Stanley's statement where he said we needed to take the spotlight off of the scriptures and putting it on the resurrection. He also said we don't believe the resurrection because of the bible, but by Matthew's firsthand witness of it. Well, he just awed the legs off his own argument, because Matthew's firsthand witness is found in the scriptures.
> 
> I am not saying you are doing this, but it seems eerily similar to it. But God uses means to save the elect. And in every place I posited, it clearly states that this is done through His word either by hearing or reading it.



You, dear Sir, are missing the point. The gospel is good news. It is genetically efficacious even to Abraham, in that which God reveals, to whomever He chooses.

what was the ‘good news’ that Abraham received?

Galatians 3:8 (KJV 1900): And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

You seem to be hanging your hat on the gospel, being the life, death and crucifixion; this is good news, surely, but not necessarily the good news in all other epochs,

as well, as mentioned, if infants can Be saved, it is by the ultimate preacher, the man Christ Jesus, delivering the ultimate good news, personally.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Christ is the preacher.


Not in Romans 10 he’s not. He uses His ppl to witness to the lost and He uses them as the means by which they hear the gospel.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

“it clearly states that this is done through His word either by hearing or reading it.”

God delivers it through Christ. The ears of the people in question, hear _Christ_ speaking.

* I emphasize the irregularity of these events


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> Not in Romans 10 he’s not. He uses His ppl to witness to the lost and He uses them as the means by which they hear the gospel.



That is the regular way men hear. We are speaking of the irregularity.

see WCF ch 10:3


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Christ brings the word to these that are providentially hindered by decree.


So they are saved w/o having heard or read the word of God? Wow! So much for the Great Commission.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> So they are saved w/o having heard or read the word of God? Wow! So much for the Great Commission.



Willis,
With all due respect, you’re not following. What I have posited does not rail against biblical truth nor the GC. All men MUST, hear!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> “it clearly states that this is done through His word either by hearing or reading it.”
> 
> God delivers it through Christ. The ears of the people in question, hear _Christ_ speaking.
> 
> * I emphasize the irregularity of these events


So, someone in a remote area, never having read a bible, never having someone witness to them, they can be saved? Uhhhhh, that’s mysticism my friend.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Willis,
> With all due respect, you’re not following. What I have posited does not rail against biblical truth nor the GC.


Again, in 1 Corinthians 1:21, it says God is well-pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of preaching. Not Him zapping ppl with faith w/o ever having read or heard one verse. Romans 1:16-17 says the gospel is the power of God to save both believing Jews and Gentiles and it also reveals the righteousness of God. In Ephesians 1:13 it says after hearing the gospel and having believed, they are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.

Nowhere in those passages does it say God saves them by directly giving them the gospel. God uses means to save His elect, and this means in the gospel given by His word, whether read or witnessed to.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> So, someone in a remote area, never having read a bible, never having someone witness to them, they can be saved? Uhhhhh, that’s mysticism my friend.



You fail to see the distinction between those w capacity and decree and those from these particular tribes, tongues and nations, i.e. those unable by decree.

How do elect infants ‘dying in the womb’ come to Faith? How do they hear and who is the preacher?


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Willis,
> With all due respect, you’re not following. What I have posited does not rail against biblical truth nor the GC. All men MUST, hear!


And how can they hear w/o a preacher?


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> You fail to see the distinction between those w capacity and decree and those from these particular tribes, tongues and nations, i.e. those unable by decree.
> 
> How do elect infants ‘dying in the womb’ come to Faith? How do they hear and who is the preacher?


The Bible doesn’t address them and I leave them (justly) in His hands.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> You fail to see the distinction between those w capacity and decree and those from these particular tribes, tongues and nations, i.e. those unable by decree.
> 
> How do elect infants ‘dying in the womb’ come to Faith? How do they hear and who is the preacher?


How do we know any infants are elect? How do we know all infants are elect? None can give a truly defensible answer via the word or God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> Again, in 1 Corinthians 1:21, it says God is well-pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of preaching.



Christ is the preacher- in these irregular, decreed, instances.



> Not Him zapping ppl with faith w/o ever having read or heard one verse.



u mean like the infants described, above?



> Romans 1:16-17 says the gospel is the power of God to save both believing Jews and Gentiles and it also reveals the righteousness of God.



this is true. Nothing I have says mitigate against this truth.



> In Ephesians 1:13 it says after hearing the gospel and having believed, they are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.
> 
> Nowhere in those passages does it say God saves them by directly giving them the gospel. God uses means to save His elect, and this means in the gospel given by His word, whether read or witnessed to.



I wouldn’t disagree. Nothing I’ve said mitigates against these truths.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> And how can they hear w/o a preacher?



Mind-block

Jesus is THE preacher


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> How do we know any infants are elect? How do we know all infants are elect? None can give a truly defensible answer via the word or God.



Well dear Sir, the confession I hold dear, which is a cliff notes commentary on the Bible say that the elect come from every tribe, tongue and nation; which in my estimation and most of my dead, dear antiquarians, agree. U are left w only three options: no child dying in infancy is saved. All infants dying in infancy are saved. Elect infants dying in infancy are saved. 2 of the 3 would require a preacher going to them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Mind-block
> 
> Jesus is THE preacher


***sigh***

Look at Ezekiel 37:1-11. God tells Ezekiel to prophesy to these dead dry bones. As he prophesies, God moves through them and raises them to life. God could have done this all by Himself w/o Ezekiel, but He used Ezekiel. He used Ezekiel’s words(they were God’s but Ezekiel spoke them) to accomplish His will.

That’s how the gospel works. We speak God’s word to His lost sheep, and He moves through them to save them.


I’m giving you scripture showing you God uses the gospel to save His sheep and you’re busy trying to show irregularities.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Well dear Sir, the confession I hold dear, which is a cliff notes commentary on the Bible say that the elect come from every tribe, tongue and nation; which in my estimation and most of my dead, dear antiquarians, agree. U are left w only three options: no child dying in infancy is saved. All infants dying in infancy are saved. Elect infants dying in infancy are saved. 2 of the 3 would require a preacher going to them.


I hold to the 1689 and they hold to the same belief as well. I leave them in God’s hand and He will always do the right.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

Mark 1:14–15 (KJV 1900): Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matthew 4:17 (KJV 1900): From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Mark 1:14–15 (KJV 1900): Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
> 
> Matthew 4:17 (KJV 1900): From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.


And? Of course Jesus preached while on earth. He came as a Prophet, Priest, and King.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

> I’m giving you scripture showing you God uses the gospel to save His sheep and you’re busy trying to show irregularities.



No man can be saved outside of the preaching of the gospel. Nothing i’ve said, as mentioned, mitigate against that fact. You’re just not hearing me.

There’s only one gospel. And all men are saved the same way. It matters not that their infants in the womb or lost on desert islands. God so decrees for stones to cry out, he can surely save a man that is in an irregular circumstance, If decreed in that circumstance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> And? Of course Jesus preached while on earth. He came as a Prophet, Priest, and King.



When has Christ ceased to be the man Christ Jesus and the man, the preacher?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> The Bible doesn’t address them and I leave them (justly) in His hands.



It surely does address them. The elect come from every tribe tongue and nation. That would include infants and people in irregular circumstances.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> When has Christ ceased to be the man Christ Jesus and the man, the preacher?


He is our Mediator for sure. But we are His mouthpiece now.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> He is our Mediator for sure. But we are His mouthpiece now.



That doesn’t answer my question. Is Christ still the preacher?


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

Yes. He preaches through us. As we give them the gospel we are speaking His word.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

convicted1 said:


> Yes. He preaches through us. As we give them the gospel we are speaking His word.



and in the example of infants decreed to die in infancy, who preaches to them?


----------



## JH (Sep 6, 2020)




----------



## timfost (Sep 6, 2020)

Brother @convicted1 ,

Could I suggest you take some time to reflect on this? @Scott Bushey is correct to demonstrate the problem you have with infants who die in infancy, to which you have not offered any real solution. How was John the Baptist filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb (Luke 1:15) without having heard the Word preached?

I think it would be helpful to meditate on this on the Lord's Day rather than debate it, especially since some of your posts have taken on a flippant tone.

Blessings,

Tim

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2020)

> I’m giving you scripture showing you God uses the gospel to save His sheep and you’re busy trying to show irregularities.



Nowhere have I argued against the typical way God saves men. Reread the posts.

The issue of irregularities only supplant the question in the opening post by advocating that a preacher MUST go to the men saved, even in irregular scenarios. In the irregular, that preacher would be Christ Himself carrying the external and internal call.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Sep 6, 2020)

timfost said:


> Brother @convicted1 ,
> 
> Could I suggest you take some time to reflect on this? @Scott Bushey is correct to demonstrate the problem you have with infants who die in infancy, to which you have not offered any real solution. How was John the Baptist filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb (Luke 1:15) without having heard the Word preached?
> 
> ...


All I am saying is that we are justified by faith. Yes, faith comes from God as His gracious gift, but it also comes through the word. Nowhere in scripture can we read Jesus preaching to infants in the womb. It’s only conjecture to say He does.

I don’t have a problem with infants dying in the womb(not saying I enjoy their dying, but theologically speaking, I hope you understand what I’m saying) as the Bible isn’t explicitly clear as to their eternal destiny.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 6, 2020)

Round and around we go. I think the thread should close until tomorrow.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 7, 2020)

As Tim cited the example of John the Baptist, I would also add the Apostle Paul:

Acts 9:3-6


----------



## earl40 (Sep 7, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> As Tim cited the example of John the Baptist, I would also add the Apostle Paul:
> 
> Acts 9:3-6



The dead were raised also at that time. Extraordinary things for extraordinary times.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Sep 7, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> As Tim cited the example of John the Baptist, I would also add the Apostle Paul:
> 
> Acts 9:3-6


In Paul's case, Jesus spoke directly _plus_ he sent a preacher, Ananias. One could argue that Paul's conversion actually took place on Straight Street in response to the visit of Ananias, not on the road to Damascus. In fact, I think this likely. So the example of Paul does not work so well. You still make other valid points, though.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 7, 2020)

It seems to me that any personal appearing either in person or dream or vision or voice from heaven of Jesus to the man on the island to reveal the way of salvation, as was the way of conversion of the apostles and prophets in scripture, is explicitly contrary to WCF 1.1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 7, 2020)

Not to be argumentative, Jack, and I appreciate your comment, Poole seems to hold to the scenario as I:

“Acts 9:3 (MPCHBV13): that the light which Paul saw might appear to be beyond that which the sun gives; and this light was a symbol of that inward light, wherewith his mind was now to be enlightened; as also of the purity of the doctrine he was to preach, and holiness of his life which he was to lead; and most probably it was caused by the glorified body of Christ, which appeared unto him.”

and Henry, citing Paul’s conversion:

“Acts 9:1–9 (MHCWB:CUOV): How suddenly and strangely a blessed change was wrought in him, not in the use of any ordinary means, but by miracles. The conversion of Paul is one of the wonders of the church. Here is,
1. The place and time of it: As he journeyed, he came near to Damascus; and there, Christ met with him.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 7, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> It seems to me that any personal appearing either in person or dream or vision or voice from heaven of Jesus to the man on the island to reveal the way of salvation, as was the way of conversion of the apostles and prophets in scripture, is explicitly contrary to WCF 1.1



This is a valid point. However, this fact, to which I am not arguing against, brings us back again to how elect infants dying in infancy, come to faith.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 7, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> This is a valid point. However, this fact, to which I am not arguing against, brings us back again to how elect infants dying in infancy, come to faith.



I would say the Divines have the paragraph on infants and incapable (I.e. bodily handicapped beyond the ability to receive the word preached) precisely to deal with this question. They don’t come through the outward call, only the inward. They are the exceptions, and dealt with in WCF 10 precisely for that reason. The man on the Island is not to be found in WCF 10.3 but in 10.4. What is being posited in this thread is that the man on the island can receive the outward call miraculously (I.e. direct revelation), which WCF 1.1 denies.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 7, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I would say the Divines have the paragraph on infants and incapable (I.e. bodily handicapped beyond the ability to receive the word preached) precisely to deal with this question. They don’t come through the outward call, only the inward. They are the exceptions, and dealt with in WCF 10 precisely for that reason. The man on the Island is not to be found in WCF 10.3 but in 10.4. What is being posited in this thread is that the man on the island can receive the outward call miraculously (I.e. direct revelation), which WCF 1.1 denies.



I disagree based solely upon the gospel construct; that being, the call is always externally and internally. in my opinion, you change the gospel by removing the external call. This is exactly why we are in the bog at this point in the thread.

in what u posit, u take the position that WCF ch 10:1 and 10:4 are in opposition. I suggest u relook at those passsges as they are not odds w each other, but harmonious.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 7, 2020)

Scott, you’ll have to explain precisely where you think I have misinterpreted the confession. 

God saves the elect by the inward call. For those capable, the inward call is by means of the outward call. Paragraph 3 explicitly deals with those who receive the inward call but are incapable of receiving the outward call. Paragraph 4 the non-elect won’t come because they reject the light of nature and if it comes to them, also the outward call. 

What you seem to be saying is that the inward call is inseparable from the outward call in ALL cases. 10.3 explicitly denies this. Furthermore, you are positing that the man on the island can be “outwardly” called by means of special, direct revelation from God apart from the scriptures and that word preached. 1.1 says God doesn’t speak that way any more. You may demur on me tying chapter 1 to chapter 10 in this way, but chapter 1 says the necessary knowledge of the way of salvation only comes by means of the scriptures.


----------



## Ajay (Sep 7, 2020)

This is the most disturbing thread I came across the Puritan Board. 
It seems like some brothers here want to explain the doctrine of regeneration in a way that they enter in the council of God's mind and figured out all the mechanism involved in the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit. 

When the first promise was made to Adam and Eve, How much of Christ's person and work is revealed to them inorder to be saved. Abel, Enoch and all the Old Testament saints even before the law of God given to Israel, how much do they know about the details of Christ ? Before the written word of God ,this Gospel story that was presented to Adam and Eve was circulating by a word of mouth. Abel heard it from his parents, we exactly dont know what amount of Christ Abel knows but He believed in the promise and brought better sacrifice. 

Question 1) is not Christ present in the promise even before the written word of God came in to existence ?

Question 2) is the Spirit work can be limited because the people are limited of non availability of the written word and also the preaching of the Gospel ? 



Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 7, 2020)

We’re all trying to be faithful to the scriptures, @Ajay . Faithful doctrine doesn’t just consist in saying God can do whatever he pleases.


----------



## Ajay (Sep 7, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> We’re all trying to be faithful to the scriptures, @Ajay . Faithful doctrine doesn’t just consist in saying God can do whatever he pleases.


My point is God can't be limited by our limitations. It is clear that Bible doesn't gives the mechanisms of inward calling but gave the evidences of it. 

Unlike the other doctrines like Trinity and hypostatic union , the doctrine of regeneration also is mysterious. We can only explain what was revealed in the scriptures. 

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 7, 2020)

Denver,
Have u followed the thread from its inception. It seems u are asking me to explain myself of items that I have already addressed.



> Paragraph 3 explicitly deals with those who receive the inward call but are incapable of receiving the outward call.



I believe u assume much. The components of the gospel is outward call and inward. You presume to believe Christ cannot be the preacher here to those in situations where their capacity or placement affects the norm. Did the people with Paul on the road to Emmaus hear any voices or just see a bright light? Did Paul hear a voice? Whose voice was that?

Question for ya: is Christ @ the right hand of the Father in the flesh? Yes, I do believe the calls are inseparable and hold that, given my examples and understanding of the finer details of the WCF, support it.



> but chapter 1 says the necessary knowledge of the way of salvation only comes by means of the scriptures.



U mean via the word? Like the Logos Himself?




Ajay said:


> This is the most disturbing thread I came across the Puritan Board.
> It seems like some brothers here want to explain the doctrine of regeneration in a way that they enter in the council of God's mind and figured out all the mechanism involved in the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit.



Ajay, u mean like the ordo salutis???



> When the first promise was made to Adam and Eve, How much of Christ's person and work is revealed to them inorder to be saved. Abel, Enoch and all the Old Testament saints



I addressed that earlier when I clearly delineated the gospel in different epochs-that being, a culminating message, that it is all 'good news'.



> ......even before the law of God given to Israel



??? See WCF ch 19:1 and 3


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 7, 2020)

Scott, Christ is the preacher of the inward call. I’m not sure what I’m “assuming” about Chapter 10 paragraph 3. It explicitly says they are “incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”

You and others continue to bring up Paul. I’ve already addressed multiple times why I don’t think that squares with our situation via WCF 1. 

It appears we are at an impasse.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 7, 2020)

*Moderating. This is going nowhere. Folks start citing period and other commentators so we can have more than just private opinion on what the WCF means in chapter 10. *

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 149-deleted (Sep 9, 2020)

I think there is another angle on this: I agree with Vos's conclusion in his _Biblical Theology_ that God's acts of revelation accompany his objective acts of redemption. Thus, in the absence of said objective acts in the present period until the glorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ, one cannot expect any revelation apart from the Word of God. Thus, when, as is claimed, the gospel is revealed to one who has not heard the preaching of the Word, one must then query if this counts as special extra-biblical revelation given to an individual. If not, what is the critertion that disqualifies it?

The most frequent stories I've heard of are dreams of Christ; I am heartened by the ones that end in the person coming and joining himself to the people of God (cf. Belg. Conf. 28). My view on this is it is God's sovereign ordaining of natural bodily functions: one may dream of anything, and it is God's ordaining that one's dreams bring one (no doubt with the inner operations of the Spirit on the conscience) to feel the inadequacy of the idols one has and to seek and find where this person may find the truth. This is no different (though it is more striking) to a person accidentally wandering into a church and being convicted by the sermon, clicking on the wrong YouTube link and hearing the gospel, or someone finding a Gideon's Bible while sorting garbage at a tip: it is not the special words of the risen Christ to the individual but his sovereignty over history and nature in contrast to, say, the conversion of Paul.

Thus I would agree with @convicted1 that no one can be saved apart from the Word of God. It is general revelation that is sufficient to convict and even condemn men, but it is only special revelation where the salvation of God in Jesus Christ is made known.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 9, 2020)

joep said:


> that no one can be saved apart from the Word of God.



I don't believe anyone said that one can be saved 'apart' from the word of God, but how that 'word' practically gets to the person, providentially hindered, like the example of an infant in the womb.


----------



## 149-deleted (Sep 9, 2020)

@Scott Bushey True, I understand: I was echoing the original question: perhaps I shouldn't have left out 'means other than'. Sorry about that.

I am only talking about cases like the hypothetical man on the island, or what @lynnie related of the Muslims seeing dreams: those capable of receiving the outward call. One can see that, if one takes that to result in conversion and as the supernatural and extraordinary conveying of the word, then it raises questions.

Firstly, one sees that these accounts (in the present!) are always accompanied by effectual calling, which is in contrast to ordinary preaching. One might retort that this is because such supernatural means are only used by God towards the elect, but there is no reason to suppose so. There is little reason why God would not use the communication of the word to confirm the reprobate in wickedness when they reject what they have received, which is what sometimes happens in the ordinary preaching of the word of God.

Secondly, one might respond to the above by saying that those who reject such communication would not be likely to testify to what has been made known to them, and hence we don't hear of it. In this case, the question raised is if such extraordinary communications are of equal weight to the ordinary preaching of the word? I have had dreams particularly when I have been reading of mythologies, but I have not started worshipping Odin: could a man not be excused similarly for ignoring what he has heard or seen? If he can, then we have created a new category for the communication of the gospel in a way that does not incur additional guilt for its rejection.

Thirdly, if he cannot be excused, one must question whether the communication of the word of God by supernatural means is not in itself special revelation? -- this is the question I raised in my last post. One can respond to this by saying it is not the means, but the content that constitutes what is and is not special revelation: if the content is the very Scriptures, then it is not a separate special revelation. The issue with that is that there is no account of such an occurrence in the whole of the Scriptures: existing revelation has always been conveyed by ordinary means, such as Jeremiah's second scroll when the first was destroyed by the king, Daniel reading of Jeremiah's prophecy, possibly Peter and Cornelius, Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. The existing revelation, in these accounts, was conveyed ordinarily. It is not just the content, but the means that constitute revelation: supernatural revelation is special revelation.

Specifically, and to answer what you said, @Scott Bushey, I don't see how you are able to have Christ as the external preacher in this age without it constituting special revelation. If you talk of Paul and Cornelius, remember that this was before the end of the apostolic age when such revelations ceased; remember also that these revelations were new and special: when Cornelius was commanded to send for Simon Peter, it was a new command, and the very commandment of God for him to do so. Even if Christ were to appear in a dream to the man on the deserted island, and say to him, “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.", I am asserting that that is new special revelation; it is a different case if a Bible washes onto the shore and he reads these words.

But I know there are great men like Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones who would disagree with me, so I might be wrong.


----------



## JH (Sep 9, 2020)

If I may add something of benefit to the discussion, we can certainly say WCF/LBCF 10.3 is an _exception_ to the general rule and means by which God works to save. This exception, shouldn't by any means frustrate the general rule and means, and it should not frustrate our hearts in the counsel and workings of God.

_Edit: _And for clarification of the above statement, I mean not that God uses any different means than the regenerative work that he always uses, but our perception of regeneracy in an infant is so fallible, and the confession of a babe so small, we cannot possibly perceive objectively speaking the nature of their regeneracy. It may be that after catechetical upbringing from infancy, that they not only have an intellectual knowledge of God and Christ, their sin, and the preciousness of Jesus, but that they truly do look unto God for all their hope and comfort, as they've been raised. These workings of God in babes, we could never perceive with infallibility.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 9, 2020)

Jerrod Hess said:


> but our perception of regeneracy in an infant is so fallible, and the confession of a babe so small, we cannot possibly perceive objectively speaking the nature of their regeneracy. It may be that after catechetical upbringing from infancy, that they not only have an intellectual knowledge of God and Christ, their sin, and the preciousness of Jesus



Jerrod,
We are not speaking in regards to the distinction between Regeneration or conversion, But of infants regenerated and converted, dying in infancy.


----------



## JH (Sep 9, 2020)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jerrod,
> We are not speaking in regards to the distinction between Regeneration or conversion, But of infants regenerated and converted, dying in infancy.


Scott,
I'm on the same page. I never meant to discuss the distinction between the two, as there really is none.


----------

