# Soteriological understanding for the individual.



## raderag (Feb 16, 2006)

When did soteriological knowledge become so connected with personal salvation? Historically, soteriology was seen as an ecclesiastical issue, and one that was at the forefront of orthopraxy. Even Dordt saw the issue as an ecclesiastical one, removing the teaching from the Church without condemning the adherents as damned. Luther believed that the issues of soteriology were the foundation of the horrible practices and sacradotalism of the Catholic Church, and thus sought to reform her through orthodox Soteriological teaching. It is not until modern times I believe that you see such an emphasis on the individual believing the right soteriology in order to be saved. Of course, the second great awakening was the reemergence of the Pelagian error, and this was seen as a major salvation problem for many evangelicals, but it was more of an issue with bad practices (anxious bench, etc) than that of an individual understanding election. The point was that the bad practices were preventing or distorting the hearing of the Gospel.

Am I off base here?

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by raderag]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 16, 2006)

Faith and repentance reside in soteriology, not ecclesiology. Faith and repentance require knowledge. 

Practically, for a person to truly get out from under the tyranny of vanity and worldly pride and self-will and the world in general and the devil himself and his kingdom you have to have understanding of the order of salvation. For myriad reasons.

When soteriology is tossed into ecclesiology you get things like baptismal regeneration and ritual and men taking the place of the Word and the Spirit. 

Notice the current heresy of Federal Vision wants to subsume justification under ecclesiology.


----------



## raderag (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> Faith and repentance reside in soteriology, not ecclesiology. Faith and repentance require knowledge.
> 
> Practically, for a person to truly get out from under the tyranny of vanity and worldly pride and self-will and the world in general and the devil himself and his kingdom you have to have understanding of the order of salvation. For myriad reasons.
> ...



So, why did we just realize this in the modern age? 

Luther's catechism and even the Larger Catechism don't pay that much attention to the order of salvation.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> ...



Each generation has to deal with its own problems. For the Reformers and Luther is was Justification as he asked the question "who does one stand before a Holy God?". To say they didn't pay much attention to the order of salvation is a misnomer. The RC's confusion between justification and sanctification was key, which needless to say, is part of the order of salvation.

The order of salvation has always been key to not only the Reformed faith but to every other system of doctrine. For instance Wesleyian Arminianism evolved into Wesleyian Perfectionism because they believed that one could lose their salvation. Needless to say this can have a major impact on the Gospel message. Where is the Good News?

Correct me if I'm wrong Bret, but I get the feeling that you are trying to find out what is the minimum one needs to know in order to be saved?


----------



## raderag (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Wayne, I don't think you are seeing my point. My point is that while the order of salvation was an important issue throughout history, it was usually one pertaining to what the Church teaches. It was not used as a test for individual salvation as some would like to apply it now. I am not minimizing the importance of these doctrine, but rather trying to put them in their original context. I think it is demonstratively a problem in that many "reformed" seem to have a good grasp on TULIP, yet struggle greatly in defending against Nestorianism or other Christological errors.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 16, 2006)

><I>Wayne, I don't think you are seeing my point. My point is that while the order of salvation was an important issue throughout history, it was usually one pertaining to what the Church teaches.</I>

"pertaining to what the Church teaches"?


----------

