Rejection of the Gift of Faith or Suppressing the Truth
The rejection of God’s gift of faith, ‘biting the hand that feeds you,’ comes from ignoring or refusing general revelation from God. Even if someone does not recognize it or acknowledge it, it is rebellion against God. Romans 1:25 says that this lack of someone’s recognition and acknowledgement is turning the truth of God into a lie and worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator.
Romans 1:18-32 answer the question about what everyone knows. They know enough to deserve the wrath of God for rejecting Him. How do we know what we know? God tells us. One of the weaknesses of science is that it cannot prove a universal negative. People cannot be everywhere at once and see everything that can be seen to negate that something did or did not happen. Only God knows what people know and do not know. If God Almighty says people know it, then they know it. Science or man’s observation cannot prove this wrong.
It’s worse than not knowing. People “hold” or suppress the truth in their unrighteousness (1:18). When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God (1:21). And everyone starts by knowing God through general revelation.
Moving from General Revelation to More Revelation
General revelation is not enough revelation to give saving faith. Scripture says faith, which is saving faith, comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Very commonly people will question the love, grace, and mercy of God because people somewhere in the Congo or Ecuadorian jungle could not hear, see, or know enough for salvation. If none of these people did ever hear enough to receive saving faith, the implication or assumption of scripture is that they had the opportunity or they could have heard and known it.
When someone receives general revelation, he can and will receive more revelation. Everyone will receive enough revelation to receive more revelation. The Bible confirms this with various examples. The Lord Jesus talks about this when He mentions how much the people of Sodom (Matthew 10:15), Tyre and Sidon (11:21), and the queen of the South knew (12:42) versus Capernaum, Bethsaida, and Chorazin. When you look at that list, God judged Sodom and Tyre and Sidon and saved the queen of the South, and these are similar examples. What is the distinguishing or differentiating factor is what they did with the revelation they received.
Examples of Reception
Various people do have available to them in their lifetimes different amounts of revelation. The latter areas above received more to different degrees of revelation than the former. These examples give evidence of that. Furthermore, scripture communicates this same truth through narrative portions that are also authoritative for doctrine. One good example, given a lot of space in Acts 10-11, is Cornelius, the centurion. The Bible provides a paradigm for this point with the salvation of Cornelius, the centurion. One can also point to all those saved through mission endeavors and efforts throughout Acts.
Cornelius shows what happens when someone receives the revelation he has. God will give more. History also gives many other examples of this. Other examples in the Bible show in a negative sense what happens with certain ones who reject the revelation they do have, such as Pharoah in Egypt. Certain foreigners, like Nebuchadnezzar and those in the city of Nineveh show God’s mission and mercy mindset.
The Impediments to Reception
I want to go back to the 50 dollar example of sufficient revelation for saving faith. You won’t get to 50 until you receive 10. 10 is not enough. People will not get to 50 without receiving less than that, leading up to 50.
Someone who keeps receiving revelation of God will arrive at scripture to receive. Then someone must keep receiving scripture until finally he receives the gift of faith. That’s how it happens according to scripture. Jesus talks about the impediments to reception in Matthew 13. That is the best answer as to why someone does and someone else doesn’t receive saving faith.
Jesus presents four categories in Matthew 13 and each of them have to do with a receptive heart or not. He presents the saving revelation as seed. Three categories reject the revelation and one receives. One heart is a hard heart, another a worldly heart, and then one hard to categorize, what I would classify as a superficial heart, something either solely emotional or merely intellectual.
None of the four types of heart look like predetermination. God is sovereign. God chooses who He will save, but figured into that choice is how someone responds to revelation. He is sovereign over how He saves and does not save. All the way through and in the end, God is the determiner. Salvation is of the Lord. When He saves a person, that means He keeps saving someone.
When does someone get the sufficient scriptural knowledge for saving faith? Less knowledge from revelation is not helpful. Deep knowledge is better. in 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul tells Timothy that knowledge of the holy scriptures make someone wise unto salvation.
More to Come
Amen. Thank you for writing. God lights everyman that comes into the world (John 1:9). If that man responds to the light, the Lord will send him more. He will be given the $10, $20, $30, and finally the $50. This metaphor is really helpful for thinking about the drawing process God offers. It makes me wonder, do you think people can get to $30 and perhaps, think they have $50? And be somewhat stuck? My mind is bringing some examples to me where that might be the case.
Hi Benjamin,
Good verse John 1:9. It’s worth breaking out into all the various light God gives, which is best and most represented by Jesus Christ Himself.
Yes, I believe that along the way to 50 in the metaphor, people get stuck at 30 and never beyond that. Those are the ones in John 2, who believe. Their belief is insufficient to save, but it didn’t come from nothing.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thank you for this series.
Maybe you will deal with this in upcoming parts; if not, I would be interested in hearing what you would say to someone who says that people only suppress general revelation, rather than responding positively to it, and only when special revelation in Scripture comes do people respond positively to grace by the drawing of the Spirit. The argument would be texts that say things like that the Gentiles in the OT were without hope, etc. when, it would seem, that if some responded positively to general revelation, they would not be without hope, as well as the question of why no people in places without Scripture seem to respond positively to general revelation to the point where they came to the point where they would get special revelation and be saved. In other words, what if someone grants your argument that God would give greater revelation to those who respond to general revelation, but then says that nobody responds positively to it?
Thank you.
I don’t know where people would get the idea that no one responds to general revelation towards salvation, when that is why people are without excuse. They would have an excuse. What would be the point? I can’t say that I have a verse either way that says one way or the other, but plain reading would say that someone does not have to suppress. I’ve made some arguments above.
I believe that in the context those Gentiles in Ephesus, who were hopeless, were so because they didn’t know Jesus Christ. Even with general revelation someone is still without hope without Jesus, which isn’t saying that they could not be saved.
In addition to John 1:9 (mentioned in another’s comments) John 3:18 and Titus 2:11 are relevant to your discussion. According to the Jesus (John 3:18), the single reason any human experiences eternal condemnation is “because he has not believed.” The verb, tense (perfect) and voice (active) express the fact of an individual, informed and permanent refusal to believe (be persuaded). A. T. Robertson described this as “a permanent attitude” of refusal. Necessarily implied in this refusal to believe are: 1) Conviction by the Holy Spirit, 2) Necessary information, and 3) Ability and opportunity to make an informed choice. It is not possible for any human to “stumble ignorantly into hell.” Babies who die, for example, cannot experience eternal condemnation because they are incapable of accepting or rejecting God’s offer of grace. Thank you for writing.
JC Barger
Thanks. Very good, J. C. Barger.
I don’t believe that John 3:18 teaches that “the single reason any human experiences eternal condemnation is ‘because he has not believed'”. The context in v19 tells us what the condemnation is–“that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.”
I think the Bible is clear elsewhere (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:4; James 2:10; Galatians 3:10) that it is our transgression against God’s law that makes us worthy of Hell. Colossians 1:20-21 tells us that we were enemies of God “by wicked works.” II Corinthians 5:18-21 tells us that we need to be reconciled to God because of our sin. Romans 5 is clear that condemnation came upon all men because of our sin nature inherited from Adam.
I believe that John 3 teaches that the reason people avoid coming to the light is because they love their sin, but I don’t believe it teaches that condemnation is solely for unbelief. I believe that it is true that Romans 1 teaches that we prove that we are “without excuse”, because God gives everybody the opportunity to come to the light, and instead people “hold the truth in unrighteousness”.
It is like saying that the reason I have a flat tire is because I haven’t fixed the leak, but in reality the cause was that I ran over a nail. Avoiding the solution (belief) will keep my tire flat, but it was the nail (sin) that was the cause.
The “the only sin that sends a sinner to hell” teaching seems to remove the doctrine of original sin from the equation, not to mention the whole idea of a just and holy God bringing judgment upon mankind for our sins (not just the sin of unbelief). This leads to the “the only sin that a sinner needs to repent of is the sin of unbelief” teaching that is so common among the anti-repentance crowd. We need to repent of sin, because sin is an offense against a holy God and has incurred God’s wrath and condemnation.
Dear Mr. Barger & Bro Brandenburg,
Thanks for those thoughts. God clearly does have a universal saving will, as seen in Titus 2 and 2 Peter 3:9, and He does give light in some sense to every man. Christ’s death is for every man. But I don’t think the only reason the lost are condemned is that they have not believed in the Son. Those who never hear of the Son are condemned for every one of their sins, and for their sinful nature itself, before any specific acts of sin.
I think it comes down to the question of whether general revelation only condemns or also draws. If it only condemns, that is not God’s fault, nor does it give man an excuse. The reason it condemns is because of man’s sinful nature and His universal refusal to seek after God apart from grace (Romans 3:11). People who resist the Spirit to the point that they have committed the unpardonable sin will never be saved, but that does not give them an excuse when they stand in judgment–they could still have been saved if they would come, but they will never come, and that makes their condemnation the worse.
Scripture does say that the Holy Spirit produces faith through the Word, special revelation (Rom 10:17). I am not sure (genuinely not sure) if we can say that general revelation does the same thing. I would lean towards a “no,” but I could be wrong.
A question just off the top? Who said that saving faith either doesn’t come from special revelation? Or, that saving faith comes from general revelation? I said explicitly in these two posts that saving faith comes from special revelation. What I wrote in these two posts actually fits what this guy, Thomas Ross, wrote about pisteuo, used in the aorist tense, that this kind of non-saving faith very often precedes true saving faith. Before someone gets to continuous action or perfect action belief, you yourself have written, Thomas, he might have sometimes the point action belief. I would categorize Nicodemus as one of those men, who didn’t have saving faith until after he was at an intellectual assent type of belief. Someone that moves from general revelation to special revelation starts with a non-saving faith and moves to a saving one.
When we read John 1:9, I believe it is in a salvific sense that He lights every man, not “in some sense,” like the light is ambiguous. I disagree with you that we don’t know that the light is salvific. Jesus came into the world and His light lights every man. We know what that is about. The Son of man came into the world to save sinners. Did it accomplish other things? Yes, He declares the Father, etc.
Sure, people who never hear of the Son won’t believe in the Son. Sure. You don’t think we know that? Yet, based on everything that I’ve written above, which is true, someone receives general revelation before he gets to special revelation. I don’t get the criticism here, except to criticize for the sake of being a critic. I’ve never heard this position that general revelation only condemns. I believe scripture proves it also draws. Paul used it as an evangelistic method, that is, everyone knows God and who is that God? He is Jesus. That was what was occurring all over the Roman world, if you look at Paul in Romans. His method with Gentiles was to identify the true God who had received some general revelation. Cornelius, the centurion, is an example of this.
I’ve never heard your position, Thomas. Can you point me to the crowd of general revelation is only condemning. Please show me how you get that and who is advocating for that position.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thanks for your response. Here is one of many examples:
We have seen that through universal general revelation God has disclosed to people His existence, perfections, and moral demands. But we have also seen that sinful man consistently repudiates this elemental knowledge of God and perverts it into unspeakable idolatry. Thus, in practice, GENERAL REVELATION SERVES ONLY OT CONDEMN MAN, not to save him. However, the God of grace and mercy did not abandon the sinner in his state of self-willed rebellion. God has broken into man’s sin-darkened existence with a special supernatural revelation that holds out the offer of spiritual healing. By this fresh revelatory initiative, God offers Himself to man not only as a power to be encountered but as a Person to be known in a fellowship of trust and commitment.10
Bruce A. Demarest, General Revelation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982), p. 248.
I added in the capitalization.
On the other hand, it seems like the Father drawing all men, when drawing is to salvation, seems that there is something universal there. I am not sure whether that would be God’s revelation of Himself in creation and the like, however. But Scripture indicates some sort of universal drawing to Christ in John 12:32.
Please note that I did not say that you believed people could be saved only through general revelation. I quoted Romans 10:17 to point out that Scripture indicates that saving faith comes through special revelation, so we have a specific basis for saying that the Spirit uses special revelation to produce a positive response.
This is not a verse, but I don’t believe missionaries have ever gone to an unreached country and found even one person who had positively responded to general revelation and had therefore somehow received special revelation and thus received salvation before they arrived. It looks like every single person who died before the missionaries arrived, possibly for hundreds of years, went to hell; nobody responded positively to general revelation to the point where he got special revelation and then passed on the special revelation to others, so that they knew about Jesus Christ, much less formed a NT Baptist church there before anyone went and preached to them. Of course, if Scripture teaches that people, despite their depravity, respond positively to general revelation, then Scripture must take priority over experience.
I would be interested in hearing why you believe the light in John 1:9 is specifically a light that leads to salvation, rather than, say, the ability to think rationally, to have an innate sense that God exists, and other things like that. I like the idea that the light is something that can lead to salvation in John 1:9, but I’m not confident that all the steps to get there hold, at least at this point.
I recognize that these are not all the easiest questions to answer.
Thank you.
Pretty much, I think, I answer in part three of this series, which I just wrote. I had never heard this view about general revelation, that is just condemns, so obviously I had never read this book. I still don’t believe that general revelation does not contribute toward salvation. I think that is the point of talking about it by Paul in Romans.
John 1:7-12,
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
“the Light, that all men through him might believe”
And then some did not receive and some did receive and they were saved.
By the way, I think that the idea that God, in His middle knowledge, knew that those who never hear the gospel would not have received it had they heard it is an attractive idea. However, there certainly is no Scripture that explicitly makes that affirmation, and it seems hard to reconcile with statements like Christ’s about how Tyre and Sidon would have listened had they received what the people in Capernaum received.
Bro. Brandenburg and Bro. Thomas, thank you for your comments; they’re thought-provoking, which is good. I’m inclined to believe that general revelation is enough to teach that God exists but not enough to save the soul. It follows that it stands in condemnation of those who deny the existence of God. In that sense, it is condemning. But it is not all-encompassing in its condemnation, for how would we know that lust was a sin if the Law had not told us, “Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7; Gal. 3:24)? General revelation is enough to make man without excuse, for God does draw all men; therefore, all men can know God if they seek Him out. For God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. God sees all the hearts of men at once, and He ponders them (Prov. 21:2). He can see who is responding to the light made available through birth and general revelation. This light is not enough to save the soul, but it is enough for God, in His providential power, to ensure that a missionary crosses the path of the individual who responds to the light given to them. I think this is why we see that all people are without excuse, and why the “whole world” (Col. 1:3-4) and “every creature” (Col. 1:23) already had the gospel preached to them before the close of the first century. How this was possible, and continues to be possible, only God knows. This might also explain anecdotal stories of missionaries encountering peoples in the most remote areas of the world who confessed they knew there was a God but did not know Who He was, and were ready to receive the Gospel from the missionaries. This also makes God just, for God sends missionaries/evangelists/soul winners to places where people are responding to the light He gave them, as revealed through general revelation, further emphasizing that all people are without excuse.
I believe that general revelation is all encompassing in condemnation in the sense that Paul talks about it in Romans 1-2. He says that the Gentiles without the law are condemned by the law written in their hearts. That’s also where I see that this operates toward justification by faith. I think of Job, who himself understood that no man could be justified before God.
Thanks, I will plan to look forward to reading part 3.
Providentially, I just ran across this today (I was not working on anything that had me thinking about this blog at the time). I would be interested in hearing if you agree, or, if not, what you disagree with and why. It is from the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689. It is a Calvinist confession, and we aren’t Calvinists, but that does not mean everything it says is wrong, of course. It seems that they are negative about people responding to general revelation and coming to saving faith.
Thanks again.
CHAP. XX.
Of the Gospel, and of the extent of the Grace thereof.
1. THE Covenant of Works being broken by Sin, and made unprofitable unto Life; God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ,1 the Seed of the Woman, as the means of calling the Elect, and begetting in them Faith and Repentance; in this Promise, the2 Gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and therein Effectual, for the Conversion and Salvation of Sinners. [page]
2. This Promise of Christ, and Salvation by him, is revealed only by3 the Word of God; neither do the Works of Creation, or Providence, with the light of Nature,4 make discovery of Christ, or of Grace by him; so much as in a general, or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the Revelation of him by the Promise, or Gospel;5 should be enabled thereby, to attain saving Faith, or Repentance.
3. The Revelation of the Gospel unto Sinners, made in divers times, and by sundry parts; with the addition of Promises, and Precepts for the Obedience required therein, as to the Nations, and Persons, to whom it is granted, is meerly of the6 Soveraign Will and good Pleasure of God; not being annexed by vertue of any Promise, to the due improvement of mens natural abilities, by vertue of Common light received without [page] it; which none ever did7 make, or can so do: And therefore in all Ages the preaching of the Gospel hath been granted unto persons and Nations, as to the extent, or streightning of it, in great variety, according to the Councell of the Will of God.
4. Although the Gospel be the only outward means, of revealing Christ, and saving Grace; and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in Trespasses, may be born again, Quickened or Regenerated; there is morover necessary, an effectual, insuperable8 work of the Holy Spirit, upon the whole Soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual Life; without which no other means will effect9 their Conversion unto God. [page]
1 Gen. 3:15.
2 Rev. 13:8.
3 Rom. 1:17.
4 Ro. 10:14, 15, 17.
5 Pro. 29:18; Isa. 25:7, with ch. 60:2, 3.
6 Ps. 147:20; Act. 16:7.
7 Rom. 1:18 etc.
8 Ps. 110:3; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 1:19, 20.
9 Joh. 6:44; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6.
W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia; Boston; Chicago; St. Louis; Toronto: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 257–258.
It makes sense to me that strong Calvinists would deride general revelation as a means of arriving at saving faith. They very often believe that regeneration precedes faith.