You said regarding one who has never heard the name of Christ or the gospel that if they "die in their sins" you believe they are condemned based upon "God's righteousness and His demand for justice".
This statement begs several questions. One of which is this: How can a person "die in his sins" and be condemned, if he never had any knowledge of what "sin" was (a la Romans 7:7)? What, then, would serve as the basis for his condemnation?
"12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. " (cont.)
(cont) "14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." - Romans 2:12-16
Calvinists don't take "pleasure" in writing off unbelievers/the unreached. It has nothing to do with pleasure, but only the Word of God. Secondly, I simply said (virtually quoting Romans 3 and Genesis 6 & 8) that men don't seek God. Calvinist or not, that's what it says and I don't know how to understand that otherwise.
I am holding back from debating the doctrines of grace because I still want to hear your answer to my question. If Romans 2 is your answer, please look for my video response (shortly).
That's good, because as I have told you I will not be drawn into such a debate. But you forced me to deal with you as a Calvinist, because you argued from that perspective. There was no other way.
I was not hiding my beliefs, I only asked what you thought of on a specific passage. And I was not drawing you into a debate about Calvinism - that is not what I want here. SO far you have only provided Romans 2 as a basis for your assertion, and I wholy reject that (video post taking a while to go).
Let me try to clear up some things about what I am not saying. a) I am not saying that those who have never heard the gospel will be declared righteous. b) I am not saying that anyone can be declared righteous by their works. Elements of how I view Romans 2 can be found in the commentaries of Darby, Johnson, Wesley and the Concordia Study Bible. Though, they do not all necessarily draw the same conclusion.
To be more clear about this. I think it would be most difficult and rare for anyone who has not heard the gospel to be saved. I think they would far more likely to follow a more visible way, such is the nature of man. However, I do not eliminate the possibility that God may deal with man in such a way. The Bible does not specifically say, this is what becomes of those who have never heard the gospel. But if anyone did get saved that way, there is no question that it would be a matter of faith.
And by faith, I mean faith in God and the willingness to follow as he leads. Perhaps in our modern age one could, most of the time, be led to Christ, but prior to the last 100 years or so and certainly before Christ, this was far less likely. We know from the OT that God did at times deal with places that did not live by the law of Moses and yet God dealt with them and even gave them chances to repent, consider Nineveh.
Also consider the fact that Rev. 7:9 tells us that there will be people from every nation, tribe, people and language who will be saved. Quite frankly, if your limited view of salvation were true, this would simply not be possible.
I will see what I can dig up with some of those leads, thank you, and I will respond in kind. Also, any more passages other than Romans 2, or is this pretty much where the stake rests?
On a clarifying note: Are you saying (as I think that you are) that a possibility exists that someone who has never heard the gospel may be declared righteous by faith (not in Christ, of course)?
Niniveh was given the chance to repent, exactly.... They were given that when a prophet of God brought the revelation of GOd to them. If one were to categorize that, it would be a point for my side of the argument.
Ah, but it does not say he brought them the law of Moses, which was the OT means of atonement. He told them God was going to destroy them and so they repented and God took compassion on them. So no, I think it's a point for my side.
What Jonah did was bring the revealed word of God to Nineveh - he brought news of God's wrath at their sin. The way in which man is justified is not different now than it was for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, or John the Baptist...it has always been through faith. And it was not in the revealed person of the Son as He had not yet been fully revealed, but it was in what had been revealed and the expectation of a Savior.
Ok, you went in a lot of different directions with this video, so I'm going to try and make sence of it and answer some questions. You seem quite upset with me that I brought up your Calvinism, but that was basically because your Calvinism being worn on your sleeve and was pretty hard to ignore. Your assertion that the unsaved cannot seek God, that God's grace is limited, and your understanding of the order of salvation (which is contrary to scripture) made it obvious.
You suggest that I treated you badly due to your Calvinism. I don't see that. I merely point out what you were trying to mask. You are asking me to prove prevenient grace as thought it were some unheard of concept and asking me to do that is calling me into a Calvinist/Arminian debate.
Ok, I finally got the video going again. Romans 1 and 2 don't change Romans 10, they just give us a fuller understanding of how God deals with mankind as a whole. The gospel as we find it in Romans 10 gives us the assurance of salvation. There can be no assurance outside of the knowledge of Christ as Lord and savior, but while Calvinists are pleased to just write off those who don't have that knowledge, I think they will be judged according to the to the light God has given them.
But the men in Romans 2 will still be condemned, not excused. Are you saying that Romans 2 is the primary SCripture reference that you're using to state the belief that I have contested?
I will take you up on that challenge and provide Scriptural support where all men are held guilty and condemned because of their sin, and that salvation is found only through faith in Christ. And I appreciate your responses and look forward to your Scriptural support as well.
That is not what I asked you. I asked you where it says (specifically) that these men are condemned? That is very important, because the context of the passage seems to suggest that they are not.
I understand what you intend by what you're saying, I simply asked for Scriptural support for your position (specifically on the quesiton that I ask at the end of the video). That's all. - also, are you going to post my response?
I thought I explained why I borrowed the reference, but think about it, the Samaritans were a good example of a people who did not have the whole truth. I approved the video. I haven't got to the end of it yet. I have been posting responses as I go along and restarting the video after I post and moving ahead. Unfortunately, the video is now having trouble loading, so I will have to wait for it to load again before I can watch the rest of it.
Worshiping God in spirit means you worship according to His nature which is spirit and not material. Therefore, we do not worship idols. Worshiping God in truth means we are seeking His truth and not our truth. His truth in this world is certainly Christ and salvation in found in him alone.
However, should people be condemned if the circumstances of their birth prevent them from ever hearing about Christ. This is what I doubt. Proverbs 8:17 says "I love those who love me; And those who diligently seek me will find me." I know you don't believe the unsaved can seek God, but the Bible and the order it gives us for the salvation process would seems to disagree with you. Not that this is man's work, it is God working in man, but grace is not irresistible.
If people died in their sins, then I agree with you, they would be condemned, but I also believe that God can reveal to men their sinfulness, even if they have not heard about Jesus. This is where Romans 1 and 2 come into play. Romans 1 says all men are without excuse due to the evidence of nature and in Romans 2 we see that it is those who obey the law who are declared righteous. The unknowing can do what is right, due to their conscience before God.
Romans 2 tells us that a man's conscience can both accuse and defend him. If you research some commentaries, I think you find I am not the one who believes such men will be judged by the light they have.
Our disagreement over the calvin/arminian "seeking" is not what is being addressed here. You have said that people who never hear the gospel might be covered by the blood of Christ if they respond to creation and conscience in a way other than the gospel dictates (which they haven't heard); by faith. Unless you can show by clear Scripture that this is the case, it is an unfounded "idea" that you have and needs to be conformed to the Word of God.
I am trying to explain to you how I get that idea from the word of God. You are not liking my explanation, but as I have said, study some commentaries on these verses and you find that I am not alone is taking them the way I do. The fact that you disagree can't be helped. I am responsible before God and those men whom God has placed over me for the way I handle his word. You are neither God nor one of those men, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't bend to your perspective.
I am not putting myself in the position of your mentor, I am just trying to figure out where you are getting your doctrine from. And so far, the only Scripture that you state as being a statement or a defense of your positoin is Romans 2. If there are more or better ones, please provide me with some sothat I can research.
I get my doctrine from a) 24 years of Bible study. b) A ministry degree c) Two decades spent researching apologetics, commentaries, church history, the church fathers, denominational differences and whatever else sparked my interest. I have always tested my doctrines against historical beliefs and I have always been covered and accountable to more learned and experienced men than myself. Not that any of that means a whole lot, but I don't ask people to do my homework for me as you just did.
I am trying to be respectful here,as is the call of the CHristian. I am just asking for which commentaries you use so that I can get to the point sooner rather than later. I'm not asking you to do my homework, just give me the textbook. Please. But even more than that, any Scripture (i'm looking again into Romans 2 to again look at what you're saying) to support this would be even better. Thanks!
I'll take that to mean you feel I am being disrespectful to you. That is not my intention. But if you are going to condemn what I teach, you may want to make sure that what I teach is not acceptable within the bounds of orthodoxy. You are asking me to prove I'm orthodox, without doing the homework necessary to prove that I am not. In other words, you are holding me guilty until proven innocent. But since you insist, I'll gather some references and get back to you.
First of all, my intention was not to asert that you are being disrespectful; because I noted in my video (left onthe cutting room floor for time sake, i'm afraid). My comment was borne out of my own frustration at not receiving the type of response (Scripture references) that I am looking for. I do apologize for that comment, because I did not think and do not want to convey that you are being disrespectful
You said regarding one who has never heard the name of Christ or the gospel that if they "die in their sins" you believe they are condemned based upon "God's righteousness and His demand for justice".
This statement begs several questions. One of which is this: How can a person "die in his sins" and be condemned, if he never had any knowledge of what "sin" was (a la Romans 7:7)? What, then, would serve as the basis for his condemnation?
NotYourTypicalNegro 3 years ago
"12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. " (cont.)
ericthered65 3 years ago
(cont) "14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." - Romans 2:12-16
ericthered65 3 years ago
re: calvinism...
Calvinists don't take "pleasure" in writing off unbelievers/the unreached. It has nothing to do with pleasure, but only the Word of God. Secondly, I simply said (virtually quoting Romans 3 and Genesis 6 & 8) that men don't seek God. Calvinist or not, that's what it says and I don't know how to understand that otherwise.
ericthered65 3 years ago
I am holding back from debating the doctrines of grace because I still want to hear your answer to my question. If Romans 2 is your answer, please look for my video response (shortly).
ericthered65 3 years ago
That's good, because as I have told you I will not be drawn into such a debate. But you forced me to deal with you as a Calvinist, because you argued from that perspective. There was no other way.
preacherman777 3 years ago
I was not hiding my beliefs, I only asked what you thought of on a specific passage. And I was not drawing you into a debate about Calvinism - that is not what I want here. SO far you have only provided Romans 2 as a basis for your assertion, and I wholy reject that (video post taking a while to go).
ericthered65 3 years ago
Let me try to clear up some things about what I am not saying. a) I am not saying that those who have never heard the gospel will be declared righteous. b) I am not saying that anyone can be declared righteous by their works. Elements of how I view Romans 2 can be found in the commentaries of Darby, Johnson, Wesley and the Concordia Study Bible. Though, they do not all necessarily draw the same conclusion.
preacherman777 3 years ago
To be more clear about this. I think it would be most difficult and rare for anyone who has not heard the gospel to be saved. I think they would far more likely to follow a more visible way, such is the nature of man. However, I do not eliminate the possibility that God may deal with man in such a way. The Bible does not specifically say, this is what becomes of those who have never heard the gospel. But if anyone did get saved that way, there is no question that it would be a matter of faith.
preacherman777 3 years ago
And by faith, I mean faith in God and the willingness to follow as he leads. Perhaps in our modern age one could, most of the time, be led to Christ, but prior to the last 100 years or so and certainly before Christ, this was far less likely. We know from the OT that God did at times deal with places that did not live by the law of Moses and yet God dealt with them and even gave them chances to repent, consider Nineveh.
preacherman777 3 years ago
Also consider the fact that Rev. 7:9 tells us that there will be people from every nation, tribe, people and language who will be saved. Quite frankly, if your limited view of salvation were true, this would simply not be possible.
preacherman777 3 years ago
I will see what I can dig up with some of those leads, thank you, and I will respond in kind. Also, any more passages other than Romans 2, or is this pretty much where the stake rests?
On a clarifying note: Are you saying (as I think that you are) that a possibility exists that someone who has never heard the gospel may be declared righteous by faith (not in Christ, of course)?
ericthered65 3 years ago
Niniveh was given the chance to repent, exactly.... They were given that when a prophet of God brought the revelation of GOd to them. If one were to categorize that, it would be a point for my side of the argument.
ericthered65 3 years ago
Ah, but it does not say he brought them the law of Moses, which was the OT means of atonement. He told them God was going to destroy them and so they repented and God took compassion on them. So no, I think it's a point for my side.
preacherman777 3 years ago
By faith in God as he has revealed himself to them. Not so far removed from Abraham was justified by faith, though he never heard the name of Jesus.
preacherman777 3 years ago
What Jonah did was bring the revealed word of God to Nineveh - he brought news of God's wrath at their sin. The way in which man is justified is not different now than it was for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, or John the Baptist...it has always been through faith. And it was not in the revealed person of the Son as He had not yet been fully revealed, but it was in what had been revealed and the expectation of a Savior.
ericthered65 3 years ago
That type of "anonymous faith" no longer works today because the Son has come.
ericthered65 3 years ago
Ok, you went in a lot of different directions with this video, so I'm going to try and make sence of it and answer some questions. You seem quite upset with me that I brought up your Calvinism, but that was basically because your Calvinism being worn on your sleeve and was pretty hard to ignore. Your assertion that the unsaved cannot seek God, that God's grace is limited, and your understanding of the order of salvation (which is contrary to scripture) made it obvious.
preacherman777 3 years ago
You suggest that I treated you badly due to your Calvinism. I don't see that. I merely point out what you were trying to mask. You are asking me to prove prevenient grace as thought it were some unheard of concept and asking me to do that is calling me into a Calvinist/Arminian debate.
preacherman777 3 years ago
Ok, I finally got the video going again. Romans 1 and 2 don't change Romans 10, they just give us a fuller understanding of how God deals with mankind as a whole. The gospel as we find it in Romans 10 gives us the assurance of salvation. There can be no assurance outside of the knowledge of Christ as Lord and savior, but while Calvinists are pleased to just write off those who don't have that knowledge, I think they will be judged according to the to the light God has given them.
preacherman777 3 years ago
But the men in Romans 2 will still be condemned, not excused. Are you saying that Romans 2 is the primary SCripture reference that you're using to state the belief that I have contested?
ericthered65 3 years ago
Where does it say those men will be still be condemned?
preacherman777 3 years ago
I will take you up on that challenge and provide Scriptural support where all men are held guilty and condemned because of their sin, and that salvation is found only through faith in Christ. And I appreciate your responses and look forward to your Scriptural support as well.
ericthered65 3 years ago
That is not what I asked you. I asked you where it says (specifically) that these men are condemned? That is very important, because the context of the passage seems to suggest that they are not.
preacherman777 3 years ago
I believe that I answered this in my video response to this one that is posted now. I did this from Romans 2
ericthered65 3 years ago
I understand what you intend by what you're saying, I simply asked for Scriptural support for your position (specifically on the quesiton that I ask at the end of the video). That's all. - also, are you going to post my response?
ericthered65 3 years ago
I thought I explained why I borrowed the reference, but think about it, the Samaritans were a good example of a people who did not have the whole truth. I approved the video. I haven't got to the end of it yet. I have been posting responses as I go along and restarting the video after I post and moving ahead. Unfortunately, the video is now having trouble loading, so I will have to wait for it to load again before I can watch the rest of it.
preacherman777 3 years ago
Worshiping God in spirit means you worship according to His nature which is spirit and not material. Therefore, we do not worship idols. Worshiping God in truth means we are seeking His truth and not our truth. His truth in this world is certainly Christ and salvation in found in him alone.
preacherman777 3 years ago
However, should people be condemned if the circumstances of their birth prevent them from ever hearing about Christ. This is what I doubt. Proverbs 8:17 says "I love those who love me; And those who diligently seek me will find me." I know you don't believe the unsaved can seek God, but the Bible and the order it gives us for the salvation process would seems to disagree with you. Not that this is man's work, it is God working in man, but grace is not irresistible.
preacherman777 3 years ago
If people died in their sins, then I agree with you, they would be condemned, but I also believe that God can reveal to men their sinfulness, even if they have not heard about Jesus. This is where Romans 1 and 2 come into play. Romans 1 says all men are without excuse due to the evidence of nature and in Romans 2 we see that it is those who obey the law who are declared righteous. The unknowing can do what is right, due to their conscience before God.
preacherman777 3 years ago
Romans 2 tells us that a man's conscience can both accuse and defend him. If you research some commentaries, I think you find I am not the one who believes such men will be judged by the light they have.
preacherman777 3 years ago
Our disagreement over the calvin/arminian "seeking" is not what is being addressed here. You have said that people who never hear the gospel might be covered by the blood of Christ if they respond to creation and conscience in a way other than the gospel dictates (which they haven't heard); by faith. Unless you can show by clear Scripture that this is the case, it is an unfounded "idea" that you have and needs to be conformed to the Word of God.
ericthered65 3 years ago
I am trying to explain to you how I get that idea from the word of God. You are not liking my explanation, but as I have said, study some commentaries on these verses and you find that I am not alone is taking them the way I do. The fact that you disagree can't be helped. I am responsible before God and those men whom God has placed over me for the way I handle his word. You are neither God nor one of those men, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't bend to your perspective.
preacherman777 3 years ago
What commentaries are you referring to?
I am not putting myself in the position of your mentor, I am just trying to figure out where you are getting your doctrine from. And so far, the only Scripture that you state as being a statement or a defense of your positoin is Romans 2. If there are more or better ones, please provide me with some sothat I can research.
ericthered65 3 years ago
I get my doctrine from a) 24 years of Bible study. b) A ministry degree c) Two decades spent researching apologetics, commentaries, church history, the church fathers, denominational differences and whatever else sparked my interest. I have always tested my doctrines against historical beliefs and I have always been covered and accountable to more learned and experienced men than myself. Not that any of that means a whole lot, but I don't ask people to do my homework for me as you just did.
preacherman777 3 years ago
I am trying to be respectful here,as is the call of the CHristian. I am just asking for which commentaries you use so that I can get to the point sooner rather than later. I'm not asking you to do my homework, just give me the textbook. Please. But even more than that, any Scripture (i'm looking again into Romans 2 to again look at what you're saying) to support this would be even better. Thanks!
ericthered65 3 years ago
I'll take that to mean you feel I am being disrespectful to you. That is not my intention. But if you are going to condemn what I teach, you may want to make sure that what I teach is not acceptable within the bounds of orthodoxy. You are asking me to prove I'm orthodox, without doing the homework necessary to prove that I am not. In other words, you are holding me guilty until proven innocent. But since you insist, I'll gather some references and get back to you.
preacherman777 3 years ago
First of all, my intention was not to asert that you are being disrespectful; because I noted in my video (left onthe cutting room floor for time sake, i'm afraid). My comment was borne out of my own frustration at not receiving the type of response (Scripture references) that I am looking for. I do apologize for that comment, because I did not think and do not want to convey that you are being disrespectful
ericthered65 3 years ago