# Interested in y'all's feedback and thoughts on this.



## Gryphonette (Dec 4, 2007)

I in no way intend to dismiss or discount how justification is being twisted and warped these days, but It seems to me the twisting and warping actually begins at a more basic doctrine, i.e. "salvation."

For all its faults - and they are legion - the RCC doesn't define "salvation" differently than does traditional Reformed thought. Put rather inelegantly, salvation effectively means if someone dies, that someone will eventually wind up in glory.

The "eventually" is necessary due to the RCC's imaginative doctrine of purgatory, of course. But back when I was RC, it was understood that while purgatory's not any fun, it's still a positive thing to find oneself there, as it means one_ will_ someday go on to glory. 

Point being, "salvation" is intrinsically tied to "glorification" in both the RCC system and the traditional Reformed system.

Since the Reformers and the RCC had no real disagreement on what it means to be saved, the focus naturally was on the area in which they_ did_ disagree, i.e. _how_ one is saved, and whether one's salvation can be lost. 

But the FV and the NPP are hand-in-hand in their redefinition of "salvation", splitting it into current, temporal salvation and final, eternal salvation, with someone able to be saved in the _former _sense at the same time not being saved in the _latter_ sense, thus severing the tie between salvation and glorification. This way of looking at "What does it mean to be saved?" is different from both the traditional Reformed _and _RCC systems.

I'm thinking it's counterproductive to continue to argue with the adherents of the FV and/or the NPP about justification, since the basic soteriological disagreement lies further back in what salvation actually_ is_. If people cannot agree on what _salvation_ is, there's no way they're going to agree on_ justification_.

A lot of the people in the pews have never thought deeply on justification, considering it to be one of those $64 words that theologians like to talk about, but the PiP's _do_ have definite fixed beliefs about salvation. They're likely to either tune out when they hear or read "justification" or, because they're not rock solid on what it is, they're unable to distinguish the errors being taught about it when they come across 'em.

They're clear on what "salvation" is, however. If they could be shown the errors being taught about _that_, it would provide a hedge of protection against the rest of the heterodoxy being promoted by those who should know better.

I'm thinking it's a mistake to not concentrate harder on how the FV and NPP have been changing the definition of what it means to be saved.

OTOH, I could be all wet. 

Thoughts?


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 4, 2007)

Would agree that salvation is at the heart of it. But I'm not quite following you regarding salvation and glorification:



> But the FV and the NPP are hand-in-hand in their redefinition of "salvation", splitting it into current, temporal salvation and final, eternal salvation, with someone able to be saved in the former sense at the same time not being saved in the latter sense, *thus severing the tie between salvation and glorification*. This way of looking at "What does it mean to be saved?" is different from both the traditional Reformed and RCC systems.



Maybe you could unpack this a bit more.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 4, 2007)

I like what Herman Bavinck says about grace restoring nature. Salvation restores the man under God. Jan Veenhof wrote a fine monograph _Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck's Thought_.

Rushdoony's work on salvation is similar, _Salvation and Godly Rule_. He notes how in many langauges the words for salvation and "health" are quite similar. Salvation involes restoration.


----------



## Gryphonette (Dec 4, 2007)

To be saved is essentially to be destined for glorification, right? 

Now, there are those who believe one may be destined for glorification on Monday but, due to committing a "mortal" sin on Wednesday, is not destined for glorification on Wednesday evening. In other words,, one may be saved on Monday, but not on the following Thursday.

However, even in that soteriological economy, that person's status is "not saved" on Thursday. Maybe no one but the LORD's aware of it, but still, if he'd go to perdition if he died on Thursday, he's not saved on Thursday.

Let me put it this way...if the LORD doesn't count someone as saved for eternal glory, that someone _isn't_ saved. 

To the FV/NPP, however, he's still saved in the LORD's view "in some sense" on Thursday.

Remember, this is where the bifurcated justification arises in the FV....from a bifurcated salvation.

Checked it with Jon Barlow several months ago and he agreed, by jingo. ;^)


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 4, 2007)

> To the FV/NPP, however, he's still saved in the LORD's view "in some sense" on Thursday.
> 
> Remember, this is where the bifurcated justification arises in the FV....from a bifurcated salvation.



To go a little deeper, would not the issue for the FV come down to perserverance within salvation? Isn't this how one can be saved "in some sense" on Thursday but never in a real sense? One never knows who has been given the gift of perserverance? Therefore glorification is only a possibility and never an actuality (at least in some sense).


----------



## Gryphonette (Dec 4, 2007)

*From what I've understood, until one falls away, there's no distinction.*



wsw201 said:


> > To the FV/NPP, however, he's still saved in the LORD's view "in some sense" on Thursday.
> >
> > Remember, this is where the bifurcated justification arises in the FV....from a bifurcated salvation.
> 
> ...



The FV soteriological system is grounded in the temporal, i.e. what _we_ can see and what _we _experience. Mind, it certainly acknowledges the eternal aspects of salvation but insists that since we can't know the plans the LORD has for anyone - ourselves included - we're to concentrate on the temporal aspects.

Those the LORD has marked for eternal salvation will persevere, while those He hasn't, won't. The difference between the FV explanation of this doctrine and the Reformed explanation is the former say those who persevered for a time possessed a valid faith in the true Christ, while the latter say if someone only perseveres for a time, it proves they never had valid faith in the true Christ at all. 

This, naturally, is one place where the FV pulls the rug out from under assurance. If both Wilbur and Wanda possess true, valid faith in the Christ Who Is, and Wanda's faith goes the distance while Wilbur's trips and falls due to the LORD removing His persevering grace, then how can anyone who believes they _do_, in fact, have a valid faith in the true Christ be confidant the LORD will keep the persevering grace coming?

They can't. Very depressing.

However, It seems to me where the FV _really _stubs its toes is when it comes to those who are deceived as to their faith, yet persevere in it until the end. Unless I've badly misunderstood virtually all of the Reformed books and articles I've read, the traditional Reformed view is that someone whose faith is not real was never saved, period. Not in any way. No matter that he was baptized and may have taken communion every single week for decades....no true faith, no salvation.

For the life of me I've never been able to deduce how the FV would explain such a person winding up being barred from entering heaven's gate. I've asked several times, as have others, but to my recollection there's not been a comprehensible, substantive response given. If someone never actively repudiates Christ, and keeps covenant faithfulness by church attendance and taking the Lord's Supper, why would such a person be turned away at the end? 

But I digress. The primary point is that someone who has not been marked out for perseverance, or who perseveres but has a false faith, is regarded as "saved" - in the ubiquitous "in some sense" - by the FV. Here's a bit from Jon Barlow, posted at Green Baggins five months ago (according to Google documents, which is where I hammered together a response to him at the time):

"...when one joins the visible church, he is now part of a new society - separated from the world, given a new name (”Christian”), having new social relationships with others, living life in and among the body of Christ, exposed to the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, subject to receiving brotherly love and favor from other church members, under the discipline of God’s ordained ministers and elders, invited to the Church Christmas party, the pig roast, eating donuts with other members in the fellowship hall after church, having one’s children in Sunday School, having one’s spouse getting training in the Bible and in the ethics of relationships, getting to hear glorious music sung in praise of God, getting to raise one’s hands and pray with the company of other believers, etc.. Now, to me, _*that is a lot of what salvation is*_ - being a resident of Bethlehem rather than Sodom, living among Yahweh worshipers rather than among Molech worshipers." (emphasis added)

No, I replied, that is _not_ what salvation is. Jesus did not live, suffer, die and be resurrected so that anyone could eat donuts and listen to glorious music.

He and I parted cordially, agreeing to disagree. Our views of salvation are simply different, that's all.

Which brings us back to my theory: a wrong view of salvation is guaranteed to elicit a wrong view of justification. If someone's wrong view of justification has its roots in a wrong view of salvation, there's no point to trying to "fix" their view of justification while leaving their view of salvation alone.

(My apologies if this post is wildly disjointed, but I've been in and out and up and down while composing it.)

Anne


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 4, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> To be saved is essentially to be destined for glorification, right?



I hesitate to frame it like that because it seems to reduce salvation to escapism. While we deny the dispensational fire-insurance, the doctrine then seems to be framed on the same terms. I like the Bavinck way: restoration of man under God in the Kingdom of God. Sure, heaven and all that. Heaven is important, but it is not the end of the world. 

Of course, I agree with you. We don't "lose" our salvation, either. I have no problem saying that salvation has temporal benefits (note the connection between the terms for salvation and health in other languages).


----------



## Reformed Musings (Dec 4, 2007)

Hi Anne,

I only have a few seconds so I might have to unpack this later. I like a story that Dr. R. C. Sproul tells about being accosted on the street one time and asked: "Are you saved?" Dr. Sproul replied, "Saved from what?" to which the inquirer had no answer. 

I recount that incident to say that salvation is ultimately being saved from the wrath of our holy and just God. Glorification results from that because to be saved from His wrath, we must be reborn (Jn 3), justified and sanctified by the blood of Christ, being covered (imputed) with Christ's righteousness (active and passive obedience), and all by His grace. All that is necessary before we can be truly saved from His just wrath, and all that have these given to us by grace (i.e., the elect) are truly saved. Salvation is digital--either yes or no. There is not temporary in-between status or mythical "objective covenant".

To some extent, I think that's were FV misses the point of salvation. The reprobate in the visible church, despite the baptism, preaching, pig roasts, and pot lucks, are NEVER saved from God's wrath at ANY time. Once the elect are regenerated and justified, they are ETERNALLY and completely saved from God's wrath. Jesus describes the reprobate in the visible church as the tares and the elect as the wheat. The tares were never temporarily wheat that just didn't persevere.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but it sounds like the beginnings of a new blog post...


----------



## Gryphonette (Dec 4, 2007)

Just so, Bob! 

I like the digital illustration. ;^)

Yes, that's precisely where the FV falls off the dock regarding salvation, and it's from_ that_ error that the rest of the "temporary union" errors flow.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 4, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I like what Herman Bavinck says about grace restoring nature. Salvation restores the man under God. Jan Veenhof wrote a fine monograph _Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck's Thought_.
> 
> Rushdoony's work on salvation is similar, _Salvation and Godly Rule_. He notes how in many langauges the words for salvation and "health" are quite similar. Salvation involes restoration.



That does remind me of the way the Psalmist often uses the term "salvation". 

Weren't the words of Acts 4:12 "there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved' originally applied to Caesar Augustus - who promised to bring military, economic and societal salvation to the Roman Empire?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 4, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > I like what Herman Bavinck says about grace restoring nature. Salvation restores the man under God. Jan Veenhof wrote a fine monograph _Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck's Thought_.
> ...



Right. Salvation cannot be separated from kingship and ruling.


----------



## Gryphonette (Dec 4, 2007)

I'm missing your point, I fear. Are you saying that anyone who deliberately places themselves...or is placed as a tot through baptism...under Christ's kingship_ is_, in some sense, saved? Even if they are not elect and are never regenerated?






My apologies in advance if I'm being dim as a five-watt bulb.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 4, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> I'm missing your point, I fear. Are you saying that anyone who deliberately places themselves...or is placed as a tot through baptism...under Christ's kingship_ is_, in some sense, saved? Even if they are not elect and are never regenerated?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I never mentioned baptism and do not hold to baptismal regeneration. I don't know where that came in.


----------



## Gryphonette (Dec 4, 2007)

Alright, delete the baptism reference.

I'm not argumentative by nature, nor unusually smart or dumb as dirt, but I've had a rough time figuring out how your posts have addressed the point I was trying to make initially, which is that a bifurcated, dual-level salvation naturally leads to a bifurcated, dual-level justification, sanctification, etc., and that it's useless to address the dual-level justification error while leaving the dual-level salvation error untouched.

Where Christ's kingship and ruling fits into this, I'm not sure. Could you 'splain, please? ;^)

Mare-see boo-koo.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 4, 2007)

It seems like Anne is simply trying to find a way to explain the errors of FV to the folks in the pews. They're likely to find arguments about justification obscure. (I think she's right, BTW, remember all the fuss in the news when ECT came out, and people were told that the RC and the Lutherans had ended their historic disagreement on justification by faith?) Most people unfortunately get it down to fire-insurance; am I going to heaven or hell; so to explain to them that FV teaches that there are two kinds of salvation, temporary and permanent, might help them understand. 

Granted, we know that permanent salvation has temporal benefits!


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 4, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> Alright, delete the baptism reference.
> 
> I'm not argumentative by nature, nor unusually smart or dumb as dirt, but I've had a rough time figuring out how your posts have addressed the point I was trying to make initially, which is that a bifurcated, dual-level salvation naturally leads to a bifurcated, dual-level justification, sanctification, etc., and that it's useless to address the dual-level justification error while leaving the dual-level salvation error untouched.
> 
> ...



Hmmm...I like how you phrased that: bifurcated salvation = dual level justification. I am going to dwell on that befor e I answer.


----------



## Gryphonette (Dec 4, 2007)

You _treasure_!





Exactly. And there can certainly be - and, through God's grace, often are - temporal benefits and blessings that come along with salvation, but not necessarily. Some of our brothers and sisters in Christ live in areas where the temporal benefits such as Jon Barlow outlined are nonexistent, and in fact their temporal situation would be much _improved_ were they to abandon Christ.

But they don't. Praise God for such saints as they. They don't.

Can't imagine going to someone enduring frequent persecution for the faith and nattering on about temporary salvation and potluck suppers and great music.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 4, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> You _treasure_!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, I think we are talking about each other and using "temporal" in at least three different ways. 

First, my original thoughts: it seemed to me that you were using salvation in a very narrow sense. It looked like you formed the doctrine to merely be "escape" from creation into heaven. I realize that is not the point of your posts, which I didn't interact with. I merely thought before we can go there, we have to clear up some debris. While I understand the point about security and salvation, I have problems with how the term is being used. I think there are more dimensions to it.

Secondly, I added another dimension to salvation: restoration and kingship. Salvation restores man to godly rule under God. If he restores him, then what was his original goal and purpose--dominion and to bring the world from the Garden of Eden outward unto God. The fact that the ungodly persecute our brethren does not change the fact of this doctrine.

Thirdly, what about temporality? Does "persecution" undo the kingship aspect of salvation? Absolutely not. Revelation 2, 5, 6, and 20 speak of the godly ruling on earth in the millennial kingdom (I realize many of my Reformed brethern disagree with me here--fine).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2007)

Anne,

Boy! Now I fear this post is going to be lengthy but I'm going to *try* to acknowledge a few things you said and, hopefully, clarify some things.

I think, in one sense, you are right. Rome and the Reformation agree on that there is merit involved in salvation. The FV borrow some NPP ideas that originally claimed that Paul didn't understand Judaism was a religion of Grace. Then others came along and stated that Luther really messed up Pauline theology.

Rome and the Refomation agree on the idea that, though salvation is worked in a corporate setting, there is a concern for how the individual is saved. Rome though, departs from the Scriptures in defining an idea of congruent merit where we do the best we can do and God is gracious to "fill in the gaps" and reward us more than we deserve. We have to do our part. Yes, you're right, in the RCC system, as long as you have _just enough_ merit then you will at least get to purgatory and, whether a second there or a million years, all eventually get to heaven. 

It is, at its heart, semi-Pelagian because, although they insist Grace is necessary for salvation, Grace is not sufficient to save in itself but we must cooperate with the Grace. We can thus cooperate with Grace to superabounding merit that not only gets us directly into heaven but we can have excess to contribute to others who are slackers. Alternatively, we can frustrate the Grace and sin and actually kill all saving grace within us and be immediately bound for Hell with a single act. The hope, then, that a Roman Catholic has is not the kind that 2 Peter 1:1-4 speaks of as an inheritance waiting to be fulfilled. Rather, for the _moment_, I have hope that _I've_ obeyed today, all my sins are confessed and absolved by penance and works of charity, and that I plan on obeying for the foreseeable future.

Thus the Sacraments become key to this system as the Church can dispense Grace to make up for our slackness in these areas and actually give us merit that we don't have to perform acts of contrition for. In fact, Baptism is so "super-duper gracious" that it washes away sin entirely. I've actually heard Roman Catholics envious of older people that get baptized because they get that huge "get out of jail" free card where the rest of them will have to perform works of charity to overcome their misdeeds or pay the Church for them in the form of indulgences.

I think you understand this all Anne but I want to build the picture for others reading this.

Now, the Reformed view is completely different. It confesses, with the Scriptures, that God _justifies the unrigteous_. The man is not _actually_ just but God declares Him to be Just. He does not do so capriciously, of course, as His Justice has been satisfied in the Cross. The sole instrument of laying hold of Christ and His benefits is faith alone. Through faith a man is united to Christ in His death and resurrection and, thus, his sin has been judged in the Cross and, as surely as Christ rose, he has been made alive with Christ. The union _inexorably_ leads to sanctification and glorification because faith itself was the gift of God to the person He made alive (regenerated) to believe. It's all tied up in the electing Grace of God.

There is no "halfway salvation" in the Reformed scheme. The only possibility for forgiveness of sins is to have Christ really atone for your sins. There is no halfway being united to Christ in His death and resurrection. You have either been crucified with Christ and live in newness of life or you are not alive at all and still dead in your sins and trespasses. There is no halfway regeneration and there is no halfway faith. There is either life and faith or no life and no faith. There is, thus, reason for real assurance that you are justified, are being sanctified, and will be glorified or there is no assurance at all. That assurance, that hope, that faith, the newness of life - everything - is tied up in the electing Grace of almighty God.

Now, the typical thing that an FV person will say is that: "I want to be able tell someone they're really a Christian" or "I want to tell a person that they really have the benefits that Paul is talking about in Romans 5-8. Can you do that?"

My answer is that I can declare God's promise and declare it in such a way, as Paul does, that those who really have faith will be strengthened and impelled by it.

But, the sad irony is that by their scheme, they can give assurance to absolutely nobody because they've just completely destroyed the Gospel.

They want to take all those benefits that I listed above and say that each and every saving benefit that God promises to those whom He has foreknown, predestined, called, and glorified can be said to be true of everyone n the visible Church _in some sense_. What sense? Who knows.

But here is where the wheels really fall off the train. What was the sole instrument that lays hold of Christ and His Benefits in the Reformed/Biblical formula: FAITH. What is the instrument by which a person is united to Christ in the FV schema: BAPTISM. By being in the New Covenant, they say, one is united to Christ. Not faith, covenant. As long as you remain _faithful_ in the Covenant then you remain united to Christ.

I can't even describe for you adequately how many ideas that just completely turns on its head in terms of priorities and the understanding of what we're pursuing.

The elect and the reprobate differ in this schema in the sense that one remains faithful while the other doesn't. One of the disgusting qualities of this system is the man who might actually believe this excrement might be left with this: "OK, that's nice that you can declare to me with utmost confidence that I'm united to Christ. The Reformed Church down the street said they couldn't declare to me and give me that personal assurance but you guys really sold me on the idea that you can, for certain, tell me that because I'm baptized and in the visible Covenant. There's just one problem? What good is it to be united to Christ if I'm not one that's going to endure to the end?"

It's gross because now faith and union with Christ are not enough to save. A person in this system can rightfully wonder what difference it is that he possesses these things. In the Scriptures, however, real possession of these things is ground zero for confidence and motivation. They're the engine for everything else in the Christian life. For the FV guy, he can say he possesses them but then the new ground zero is whether or not he'll be faithful to the end. For this reason, even though the FV eschews merit, it is _substantively_ similar to the Roman Catholic notion that "...I know I'm united to Christ and seem faithful today but the verdict is still out if I'm saved tomorrow."

Honestly, if I had a choice between RCC and the FV and those were my only choices, I'd go back to the Roman Catholic Church because they could offer me more confidence.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 5, 2007)

Okay, let me take another crack at this! 



> Which brings us back to my theory: a wrong view of salvation is guaranteed to elicit a wrong view of justification. If someone's wrong view of justification has its roots in a wrong view of salvation, there's no point to trying to "fix" their view of justification while leaving their view of salvation alone.



Your theory is correct on a macro level. Just as a wrong view of justification guarantees a wrong view of salvation (a micro level!). But I would say that you would need to start at the micro level, which will solve the macro level. 

I would say that though the doctrine of salvation may sound like a simple doctrine, there is a lot that goes into it. As long as no one asks how they can be sure that they are saved, the doctrine of salvation is very simple; Repent and believe! Unfortunately folks do ask how all this works (how can a sinner stand before a righteous God?). With that we begin the discussion how exactly we are saved. 

So it goes back to fixing the micro in order to fix the macro.


----------



## Gryphonette (Dec 5, 2007)

*Hmmm. I dunno.*



wsw201 said:


> I would say that though the doctrine of salvation may sound like a simple doctrine, there is a lot that goes into it. As long as no one asks how they can be sure that they are saved, the doctrine of salvation is very simple; Repent and believe! Unfortunately folks do ask how all this works (how can a sinner stand before a righteous God?). With that we begin the discussion how exactly we are saved.
> 
> So it goes back to fixing the micro in order to fix the macro.



How is it possible to accurately and productively discuss how [fill-in-the-blank] may be accomplished without a clear idea of _what_, exactly, [fill-in-the-blank] _is_? 

Still seems reasonable to say one first needs a firm grasp of what it means _to_ be saved before one can tear into how that is to be accomplished. 

Anne


----------

