Is the gospel necessary to save?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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
 
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.”
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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?


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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
@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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top