Reformed view of the unproselytized

[LovesOurLord]

I'm pretty new to Reformed theology, having embraced it recently over Arminianism. I'm continuing my studies on various topics and this is one that is confusing to me. What is the fate of those who are never preached the gospel so have no opportunity to accept Christ?

Btw, I'm asking this here because I haven't joined a Reformed church yet, though I have one in mind.

I see from people such as Piper and Sproul that those who haven't been taught the Gospel go to heaven because God doesn't punish them for not hearing it. Now if that's the case, 1) why bother preaching the Gospel to anyone, and 2) What about verses that say nobody can go to the Father except by the Son? This sounds like borderline Universalism to me and contradicts teachings regarding the remnant being saved.

There are entire nations of people who aren't being proselytized, such as in Islamic countries that forbid Christian proselytism and churches, and I'm wondering if this is allowed by God because they are not elect.

 

[Jonaitis]

I'm pretty new to Reformed theology, having embraced it recently over Arminianism. I'm continuing my studies on various topics and this is one that is confusing to me. What is the fate of those who are never preached the gospel so have no opportunity to accept Christ?

Btw, I'm asking this here because I haven't joined a Reformed church yet, though I have one in mind.

I see from people such as Piper and Sproul that those who haven't been taught the Gospel go to heaven because God doesn't punish them for not hearing it. Now if that's the case, 1) why bother preaching the Gospel to anyone, and 2) What about verses that say nobody can go to the Father except by the Son? This sounds like borderline Universalism to me and contradicts teachings regarding the remnant being saved.

There are entire nations of people who aren't being proselytized, such as in Islamic countries that forbid Christian proselytism and churches, and I'm wondering if this is allowed by God because they are not elect.

John Piper and R.C. Sproul teach that people go to heaven if they never heard the gospel? You need to show me where they say this, brother, because I have never known them to believe that.

It is understood that if someone did not hear the gospel, they will be punished for their sins. God is not obligated to save anyone, and he is not obligated to show Christ to anyone. If they die without the gospel, they will die in their own sins. The gospel is good news that no one deserves to hear or have, we all deserve to be punished on judgement day, and this would be the destiny of those who did not hear the gospel. It is perfectly just, because God will deal with them according to his justice.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

John Piper and R.C. Sproul teach that people go to heaven if they never heard the gospel? You need to show me where they say this, brother, because I have never known them to believe that.

It is understood that if someone did not hear the gospel, they will be punished for their sins. God is not obligated to save anyone, and he is not obligated to show Christ to anyone. If they die without the gospel, they will die in their own sins. The gospel is good news that no one deserves to hear or have, we all deserve to be punished on judgement day, and this would be the destiny of those who did not hear the gospel. It is perfectly just, because God will deal with them according to his justice.

Aren't people punished for Adam's sin in the reformed view?

 

[Jonaitis]

Aren't people punished for Adam's sin in the reformed view?

Yes, he represented us as our federal head in the Garden. However, we believe that we will be punished for both Adam's first transgression (original sin) and our own actions (actual sin) under the law.

 

[Jonaitis]

There aren't many Reformed folk on this site, have you tried the Puritanboard?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, he represented us as our federal head in the Garden. However, we believe that we will be punished for both Adam's first transgression (original sin) and our own actions (actual sin) under the law.

What is the justification for being punished for a sin we did not commit but our first father, Adam, committed? I can understand us having the consequences of Adam's sin but not having it imputed to us because we didn't commit it. Are all sins inherited or just this one, if this one is the only one inherited why do we not inherit others?

 

[Jonaitis]

What is the justification for being punished for a sin we did not commit but our first father, Adam, committed? I can understand us having the consequences of Adam's sin, but not having it imputed to us because we didn't commit it. Are all sins inherited or just this one, if this one is the only one inherited why do we not inherit others?

Note: I speak as someone from who believes original sin is both the imputation of Adam's guilt and transmission of Adam's damaged nature, as is the typical position of the Reformed standards. However, not everyone believes that Adam's transgression had that same scope. Calvin, for an example, did not believe that his guilt could ever be imputed to his posterity, as he thought that it was unjust for God to punish the "innocent." Rather, he, and others, believe that we are guilty on account of being corrupted by nature alone and that Adam's transgression affected us inherently as that which God condemns us with (since we are born as the antithesis of the righteousness of God).

In answer to your question is that we understand Adam as having stood as the root and public representative of the whole human race, in a covenant relationship, before God in the Garden. The consequences of his fidelity to the law he was given there affected us, because we were under him as our federal head. If he sinned, we all are account with him guilty.

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." - Romans 5:18-19

In the idea of double imputation of Christ, we see Jesus as the second Adam who represents us in his righteous life and atoning death at the cross (removing the guilt of original and actual sin under the law). If Jesus can represent us as our public representative in the New Covenant, then Adam was no less a representative in the Covenant of Works. Just as Christians are credited with the righteousness of Christ by faith, we were condemned by the guiltiness of Adam's transgression as our federal head by birth.

I am about to head off for the night.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Note: I speak as someone from who believes original sin is both the imputation of Adam's guilt and transmission of Adam's damaged nature, as is the typical position of the Reformed standards. However, not everyone believes that Adam's transgression had that same scope. Calvin, for an example, did not believe that his guilt could ever be imputed to his posterity, as he thought that it was unjust for God to punish the "innocent." Rather, he, and others, believe that we are guilty on account of being corrupted by nature alone and that Adam's transgression affected us inherently as that which God condemns us with (since we are born as the antithesis of the righteousness of God).

In answer to your question is that we understand Adam as having stood as the root and public representative of the whole human race, in a covenant relationship, before God in the Garden. The consequences of his fidelity to the law he was given there affected us, because we were under him as our federal head. If he sinned, we all are account with him guilty.

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." - Romans 5:18-19

In the idea of double imputation of Christ, we see Jesus as the second Adam who represents us in his righteous life and atoning death at the cross (removing the guilt of original and actual sin under the law). If Jesus can represent us as our public representative in the New Covenant, then Adam was no less a representative in the Covenant of Works. Just as Christians are credited with the righteousness of Christ by faith, we were condemned by the guiltiness of Adam's transgression as our federal head by birth.

I am about to head off for the night.

Seems to me unjust to impute to us an action we ourselves did not commit. By making it a legal matter instead of a matter of our natures being corrupted you appear to make God's rightful condemnation of us for our own sins less meaningful when you insist that even if someone has not committed any sins, they by their very existence are sin to God.

I need not point out that infants in this view, the conceived children who die in pregnancy or abortion are by this view are held guilty of Adam's sin to which they have no excuse, even in their ignorance, because by merely existing as children of Adam (unable to think or act rationally) are held guilty of Adam's original sin despite them personally having not committed it. You cannot carve out an exception for them lest you begin carving out exceptions for the proselytized since their ignorance is no excuse is as well. Those with mental handicaps who are unable to think clearly would also be condemned.

This doesn't even take into account the traditional double predestination view reformed folks have. That no matter what certain people do, believe, they are condemned by God's preordained will which glorifies him somehow.

Just a few reasons why I find the reformed view disturbing.

 

[LovesOurLord]

John Piper and R.C. Sproul teach that people go to heaven if they never heard the gospel? You need to show me where they say this, brother, because I have never known them to believe that.

I seem to have phrased my OP incorrectly but ultimately comes down to that the only ones that can be saved are those who have heard and accepted the Gospel, no?

"Now, let’s go back to your original question, 'Does God send people to hell who have never heard of Jesus?' God never punishes people for rejecting Jesus if they’ve never heard of Jesus. When I say that, people breathe a sigh of relief and say, 'Then we’d better not tell anybody about Jesus because somebody might reject him. Then they’re really in deep trouble.' But again, there are other reasons to go to hell. To reject God the Father is a very serious thing. And no one will be able to say on the last day, 'I didn’t know that you existed,' because God has revealed himself plainly. Now the Bible makes it clear that people desperately need Christ. God may grant his mercy unilaterally at some point, but I don’t have any reason to have much hope in that. I think we have to pay serious attention to the passionate command of Christ to go to the whole world, to every living creature, and tell them of Jesus." -- RC Spoul, Source: Ligonier Ministries

John Piper answered similarly.

 

[LovesOurLord]

There aren't many Reformed folk on this site, have you tried the Puritanboard?

Yeah I looked at that last night. They seemed to want me to write an essay about why I want to join. It was weird, so I left. It also wanted my church information which I thought was intrusive.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I'm pretty new to Reformed theology, having embraced it recently over Arminianism. I'm continuing my studies on various topics and this is one that is confusing to me. What is the fate of those who are never preached the gospel so have no opportunity to accept Christ?

Btw, I'm asking this here because I haven't joined a Reformed church yet, though I have one in mind.

I see from people such as Piper and Sproul that those who haven't been taught the Gospel go to heaven because God doesn't punish them for not hearing it. Now if that's the case, 1) why bother preaching the Gospel to anyone, and 2) What about verses that say nobody can go to the Father except by the Son? This sounds like borderline Universalism to me and contradicts teachings regarding the remnant being saved.

There are entire nations of people who aren't being proselytized, such as in Islamic countries that forbid Christian proselytism and churches, and I'm wondering if this is allowed by God because they are not elect.

You might look into what Reformed & Presbyterian believers have written concerning the death of infants as it pertains to salvation. Also I recommend considering the role of monergistic regeneration as opposed to synergistic regeneration and the implications of monergistic regeneration as it relates to your questions. Said and done I think you'll come out realizing it is the opposite of universalism. Monergism is God centered, God exalting, and as Scripture informs us, salvation belongs to the Lord. Why bother preaching the Gospel? That God commands it and He uses it to demonstrate His power, should be enough reason. That it is foolishness to those who do not believe is not a reason. John 6:44 refers to election from eternity, refers to God the Father choosing before the foundation of the world. Those whom He chose He draws, He supernaturally and monergistically regenerates, and through this miracle, God can and does impart all that is necessary for a sinner to be justified. Spiritual regeneration involves resurrecting dead faith to living faith, and that faith is a gift from God it can only be in Christ, and sealed by the Spirit. So then, it depends not on man, but on God, and with God, all things are possible.

 

[Jonaitis]

Yeah I looked at that last night. They seemed to want me to write an essay about why I want to join. It was weird, so I left. It also wanted my church information which I thought was intrusive.

I've always saw that as being accountable to a community of other believers. They don't want to add anyone, they want it to be a healthy community between brothers and sisters with likemindedness.

If that is intrusive, then you wouldn't want me to be your elder/pastor. I am personal with people, if you want to be a part of our community you will have allow the ministers of the church to be able to hold you accountable, even when it comes to personal issues. If you seem to be drifting or caught up in some sort of sin, I believed it should be immediately addressed in an orderly and loving fashion. If you are missing one Sunday, I would call and see if everything is okay. If I don't see your wife attending, then I would ask about it. As a shepherd of the flock, I want to know and look out for each of the sheep so that I would build them up and help them in their walk with God. I would be very intrusive in your life, I would even barr you from the Lord's table if I found out that there is something questionable that you are not willing to address in your life. I don't want to take it to an extreme, but I find it important that other believers should look out for the spiritual welfare of one another (minister or not). I appreciate that the Puritanboard does that in a sense, as well as filtering members, even though they are not a church.

You are free to do what you want.

 

[JM]

Aren't people punished for Adam's sin in the reformed view?

People are born sinners, they sinners by nature and by choice.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What is the justification for being punished for a sin we did not commit but our first father, Adam, committed? I can understand us having the consequences of Adam's sin but not having it imputed to us because we didn't commit it. Are all sins inherited or just this one, if this one is the only one inherited why do we not inherit others?

A sinful nature is inherited, not a particular sin. This means from birth the sinner is unable to please God, because God is Holy, without imputation of His righteousness in Christ, none are able to be Holy, none are righteous, all fall short of the glory of God.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Seems to me unjust to impute to us an action we ourselves did not commit. By making it a legal matter instead of a matter of our natures being corrupted you appear to make God's rightful condemnation of us for our own sins less meaningful when you insist that even if someone has not committed any sins, they by their very existence are sin to God.

I need not point out that infants in this view, the conceived children who die in pregnancy or abortion are by this view are held guilty of Adam's sin to which they have no excuse, even in their ignorance, because by merely existing as children of Adam (unable to think or act rationally) are held guilty of Adam's original sin despite them personally having not committed it. You cannot carve out an exception for them lest you begin carving out exceptions for the proselytized since their ignorance is no excuse is as well. Those with mental handicaps who are unable to think clearly would also be condemned.

This doesn't even take into account the traditional double predestination view reformed folks have. That no matter what certain people do, believe, they are condemned by God's preordained will which glorifies him somehow.

Just a few reasons why I find the reformed view disturbing.

1.) Is God not able to save an infant apart from an act of their will? If yes, then you conceed to our doctrine of Mongergistic regeneration or else embrace a doctrine of inclusivism rather than exclusivism in Christ.

2.) Double predestination is not the traditional Reformed view of Predestination, single is the historical consensus view. However there is an inescapable conclusion for all orthodox Christians whom embrace the traditional views of omniscience and immutability of God as it concerns all of the unsaved. The same can be said for all Christians who embrace a substitutional atonement theology or else Christ also died for those cast into the lake of fire. How often I have heard alter calls along the lines of, "Christ died for you" from those opposed to Particular Redemption.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

1.) Is God not able to save an infant apart from an act of their will? If yes, then....

That could be, "Yes, he is able," or it could be, "Yes, the statement is true," which are opposites.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That could be, "Yes, he is able," or it could be, "Yes, the statement is true," which are opposites.

Sorry but I do not understand what you mean. :/ In theory I believe God can save all infants whom die in infancy, He can monergistically regenerate every one of them. However, the question still remains, does He? Well, based on Scripture, I am led to the conclusion He only does this in the instances of believers and their children. However at the same time, I'd like to be more open and optimistic. God is so merciful and gracious, who am I to even question His free sovereign choices? God is good and wise, I may stumble, but I trust Him.