# The difference between a Christian in error and a false teacher



## ReformedWretch (Sep 13, 2008)

Scott Bushy and I agreed a long time ago here on the PB that we both feel that we we're not Christians back when we spread our false (error?) beliefs. For example, I often boldly stated things like "A God that does not give His people free will is not my God!" How about this one, "Any God that could send a new born baby to Hell is no God that I would ever worship!" I also used to teach people that all they had to do was say the "sinners prayer" and they would be saved. I did and said these kind of things for years!

When I finally came to the doctrines of grace, and saw God for who He really is, it is then that I feel I truely "repented" of "me" and became a Christian. Some here argued that I always was a Christian, but simply in error. I honestly don't believe that. I was making horrible statements and teaching my "doctrine" to others any chance that I could. I certainly didn't plot people's destruction or knowingly serve Satan, but I don't see myself as a true "Christian" during those years. I decided what the truth about God and His words we're based on my ability to understand and how the Spirit "made me feel". 

So I ask all of you, are preachers, teachers, and even the people in the pews who think as I once did Christians in err, or are they lost sinners leading others astray?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

One needs not know all the mechanics of salvation to be saved. And one can be in gross error and still be saved.

There are many folks who have said the sinner's prayer and have been saved. Many were saved at Billy Graham rallies.

One can hold to the five points and still be damned.


There is a cognitive component of salvation: I am not sure of what those bare minimums of cognitive content is needed to be saved. The Old Testament saints would have probably failed a Bible school test on the Trinity.

There is also an attitudinal component of being saved; where we submit to the light we have and use it with right motives to love GOd and others and not as a tool to dominate others or win arguments or sound smart. 


I think there are many unsaved arminians and calvinists who err in areas that are polar opposite to one another.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Sep 13, 2008)

Sure, I can see your point. Can we however even begin to know the difference though? Which side to we err on?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

If one is Trinitarian and confesses the basics of Jesus as divine and human and that we are saved by grace than one may be saved.

NOTE: One can believe that one is justified by faith alone and saved by grace even while stressing the need to believe and accept that grace. Any inconsistency in the details does not negate that most evangelicals mouth the right basics at least even though they are not aware of many of their implications.


Given that a preacher mouths the basics, if they err on some of the finer details, I think we have to assume that we are not to call them a false teacher without furtehr proof but be ready to treat them as an erring brother and love them and lead them into further truth.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Sep 13, 2008)

Ok, but what if this person refuses to be lead in any way, shape, or form? Not only that, but this person insists that the truth is error and that he has and knows the real truth?


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 13, 2008)

> So I ask all of you, are preachers, teachers, and even the people in the pews who think as I once did Christians in err, or are they lost sinners leading others astray?



Thankfully, God doesn't save us based on having our doctrine right.

Think of this, a sinner dramatically converted from sin may know nothing about Christian doctrine but suddenly is given faith by God to believe Jesus is His Savior and Lord.

As Christians, we are commanded to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. It is sin to be ignorant, to form our "own" ideas about God that are not based on how He reveals Himself through Scripture, but it is only a matter of sin. Sin, of course, brings misery and consequences, but God graciously does not make our salvation based on it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 13, 2008)

Paul's Words to the Galatians may be helpful here...



> I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> Ok, but what if this person refuses to be lead in any way, shape, or form? Not only that, but this person insists that the truth is error and that he has and knows the real truth?



There are plenty of EPers, or theonomists, or paedobaptists, etc on the PB that refuse to be taught or led but are entrenched in their mistakes - and they probably are still saved.

All of us cling to false views to some degree and think we have it all together.

You WOULD restrict your statement to only include soteriological error, right, and not errors in ecclesiology and the "secondary" issues - right?


Even then (focusing more narrowly on soteriology) we do not have clearly defined boundaries:

You are probably asking the tired old question on here "Can arminians be saved." am I right?


I would say that the average arminian evangelical will agree vigorously with justification by faith and that we are saved through grace even if they get the mechanics wrong. 

Then, add a calvinist in his "cage stage" that preaches on Romans 9 every other Sunday in the name of "preaching the whole counsel of GOd" (when, ironically he is restricting his GOspel to a mere 5 points)...and your average evangelical arminian might become hardened to Calvinism and unwilling to be taught more - even though his life bears the fruits of repentance, he has persoanlly trusted in Jesus Christ as his Saviour and he knows that God is 3-in-one. I would say that these are saved, even when they hate calvinism, because most fight against a straw man or are reacting not against the Gospel but with other Christians (us) who make the Gospel ugly.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Sep 13, 2008)

[bible]Acts 16:30-34[/bible]

Paul says, in this passage, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved...." And the next sentence says that they "spoke the word of the Lord to him...." I don't think that they used the word "Lord" lightly. The implication is that Jesus must be Lord of your life from that point forward - i.e. you stop trusting in your own self and rely totally upon Him for your salvation. You submit fully to His ways/teachings and are instructed and guided by His Word from that time on. Isaiah 66:2 says that God has regard for the man that is humble in spirit and trembles before His Word (paraphrase), so the main point seems to be willingness to submit to the clear teachings of Scripture through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit (for how else do the Scriptures become clear to the minds of men?).

Paul and Silas took time to speak the word of the Lord to this man, and it seems from the context that this took place in no more than the space of one evening. Therefore I don't believe he was given a full seminary education at that time, but he did receive enough explanation to understand that it is Christ's Words that are the Words of Life and that he should submit himself to Christ. 

To answer your question then, if a person is unwilling to submit to the clear teachings of Scripture concerning the nature, work and person of Jesus Christ then I would doubt their conversion is real. However, one who is willing to study and submit to the Spirit revealed truths of Scripture, though he does not have every theological "i" dotted and "t" crossed, gives strong evidence of conversion. Thank God we do not have to be perfect to receive His gift of grace!

Note: As background, here is one of my pet peeves. The Bible is in plain language, written so that anyone who reads it may understand "all that is necessary for salvation". That means that the Grandmother in Bland, VA, who never made it past the 6th grade can read her Bible, and through the work of the Holy Spirit, become a follower of Christ probably more easily (in human terms) than the Harvard Divinity School Professor with all the degrees behind his name. The Gospel is for ALL people, regardless of background, race, nationality or education level. I'll get off my  now.​


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Paul's Words to the Galatians may be helpful here...
> 
> 
> 
> > I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.



Yes, nice quote - but what does it prove? 

"Another Gospel" is bad, but WHO actually teaches another Gospel, that is where the rub comes in.

Does an arminian teach another Gospel or an imperfect version of the true Gospel?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 13, 2008)

Anyone who preaches Work's Righteousness does preach another Gospel and is a wolf among sheep.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

Most do not preach works rigthteousness. 

They preach that we MUST grab the grace of Christ and choose to believe on Him for salvation. Without a personal and voluntary faith vigorously desired none can be saved..... so come on up and getcha some. If you have never confessed Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour God offers us salvation even now. If you don't know how to pray, then here is a sample prayer.

These people who say these things will assert that they believe in justification by faith and salvation by God's grace. They will also assert man's responsibility (which we should) in "deciding for Christ" and actively striving to follow Him.


I assert that most arminian evangelicals are NOT preaching another Gospel, but an errant version of the true Gospel. Therefore, the burden of proof is on us and we must treat them as brothers, pray for them (and not the imprecatory prayers) and treat them with courtesies befitting those in the faith.




Modalism and anti-Trinitarianism, however, are heresies and must be rejected.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 13, 2008)

The stereotype that held me back from embracing full Calvinism for decades was the charge that whereas broad evangelicals worship God (some better, some worse), the Calvinist just worships his theology. To the bulk of Christians around the world Reformed theology does not look sweet in its God-centered purity, but harsh, mean-spirited, arrogant, Pharisaical, nit picky, and sinfully introspective. While evangelicals are busy trying to obey the Great Commission, the TR are seen as a the nerds of Christianity, sitting among their stacks of books ("where was the 45th book on the theonomy or the latest polemic on the EP debate again?").

Our precision and penetrating scholarship is the envy of the evangelical world. However, in the hands of the immature (particularly the newly minted 5 pointer, "converted" from broad evangelicalism or worse . . . the MAINLINE), all too often we sound like medieval scholastics or post-Reformation Jesuits with our debates over line drawing that usually seems both uncharitable and hardly Christian.

I do not write this as an outsider or hostile brick thrower, but as a sadder and older observer of more than five decades of evangelicalism and the mainline church. One of my sons rolls his eyes whenever I begin to opine on Calvinism, shaking his head and saying: "Dad, you sound just like X (a friend from his teen years who became an evangelist for Reformed theology at Moody and who could not help 'educating' his old buds whenever they got together at school breaks and holidays). Ironically, my son's friend is now a third year student at Westminster Sem (Cal). When I gave all of my adult children the 2-DVD "Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism," last year, they chuckled and shook their heads.

"Dad," my attorney son began in trench condescension, "don't you know that 5 pt Calvinists are the Amway salesmen of the evangelical world? Most people run the other way when they see them coming. Don't go to the Dark Side, Dad. Believe in the Sovereignty of God, but stay away from the kooks and their web sites."

Oh well, for what it's worth.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 13, 2008)

BTW, that was not meant to be a wet blanket on this thread or any other. I LOVE the PB!!! My comment was merely to remind all of us that when we start parsing *too *precisely who is wrong, sinfully errant, or damnably heretical, we come close to a line we ought not ever cross.

My guess is that far more people are saved than agree with us, even on substantial points of doctrine. It won't stop me from remonstrating, criticizing, admonishing, and building cases against their views and going toe-to-toe with them about their errors. However, in the final analysis, I believe it would be better to refuse to usurp divine preogatives of _final_ determinations of judgment.

Say that view X, Y, or Z is wrong, errant, or heretical all you want. Refute error from the Word and in light of sound theology and apologetics. Just don't presume to sit in the seat reserved for the Son at the Second Coming when he will raise the dead, *judge the world*, and make all things new.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 13, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Most do not preach works rigthteousness.
> 
> They preach that we MUST grab the grace of Christ and choose to believe on Him for salvation. Without a personal and voluntary faith vigorously desired none can be saved..... so come on up and getcha some. If you have never confessed Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour God offers us salvation even now. If you don't know how to pray, then here is a sample prayer.
> 
> ...



Many arminians just get the mechanics wrong as you said. They believe in salvation through faith alone but aren't very coherent on how they support it while believing arminianism. If they truly believe in works salvation they aren't arminian (Arminius believed in total depravity though some of his followers didn't) but Pelagian and unsaved. I know many godly and saved arminians who trust in Christ alone.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> BTW, that was not meant to be a wet blanket on this thread or any other. I LOVE the PB!!! My comment was merely to remind all of us that when we start parsing *too *precisely who is wrong, sinfully errant, or damnably heretical, we come close to a line we ought not ever cross.
> 
> My guess is that far more people are saved than agree with us, even on substantial points of doctrine. It won't stop me from remonstrating, criticizing, admonishing, and building cases against their views and going toe-to-toe with them about their errors. However, in the final analysis, I believe it would be better to refuse to usurp divine preogatives of _final_ determinations of judgment.
> 
> Say that view X, Y, or Z is wrong, errant, or heretical all you want. Refute error from the Word and in light of sound theology and apologetics. Just don't presume to sit in the seat reserved for the Son at the Second Coming when he will raise the dead, *judge the world*, and make all things new.



The faults of the ones we love bother us most. So the fact that some grace folks are the least gracious folks I know hurts. Those syrupy evangelicals often out-love us.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Sep 13, 2008)

I was pretty much asking abut ME, myself 

Taking all those things into consideration, I seriously doubt my personal salvation at that time. I might also advise another is such a situation to be so mindful. Would I be wrong?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

I was saved at 18. I did not attend a church regularly for one year. It took me 2 years to join. I entered college and lived inconsistently for a year, slowly throwing off my sins...

But I was saved at 18 from what I can tell.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 13, 2008)

It seems funny to me that much of the criticism of calvinism that emanates from its own ranks is that our fixation with this or that doctrine, or our supposed 'smug intellectualism' turns off arminians, pelagians, and even unbelievers from hearing the truth. Funny because I thought part of a reformed soteriology was that none hears until God opens the ears. All the criticism may be entirely appropriate, but the reason the things would be wrong is that for the individual guilty of them, it means they are not walking in, and enjoying the benefits of, the whole counsel of God. NOT that it will hinder someone else from hearing and believing the truth. God does that, and even uses imperfect calvinists (and a lot of other stripes) to accomplish that task.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

Only God opens the ears, but God uses His people and we as those vehicles are important. Many folks don't like the word "Soulwinner" but the Bible uses it, and we ought all to be soulwinners as we try to give out those wonderful truths in a way that is loving and not "Smug intellectualism." The sovereignty of God is no excuse for sloppy technique or flippant motivation.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 13, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Only God opens the ears, but God uses His people and we as those vehicles are important. Many folks don't like the word "Soulwinner" but the Bible uses it, and we ought all to be soulwinners as we try to give out those wonderful truths in a way that is loving and not "Smug intellectualism." The sovereignty of God is no excuse for sloppy technique or flippant motivation.


Don't disagree with you too much Pergs. Just pointing out that the reason 'smug intellectualism' is wrong is that those who practice it are bound in ways that prevent _them_ from fully glorifying God and enjoying Him, not that it will prevent God's people from being brought to faith. As for 'sloppy technique', where that is present, it seems to me that the solution is to seek God diligently so as to be consumed with love for Him; draw near to Him and He will draw near to us. Not by learning canned methods and rote prayers.



> Heb 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe,
> Heb 12:29 * for our God is a consuming fire.*


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

Brad said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Only God opens the ears, but God uses His people and we as those vehicles are important. Many folks don't like the word "Soulwinner" but the Bible uses it, and we ought all to be soulwinners as we try to give out those wonderful truths in a way that is loving and not "Smug intellectualism." The sovereignty of God is no excuse for sloppy technique or flippant motivation.
> ...





Maybe we could start another post about how "good" versus "bad" technique helps or hinders evangelism. 

A method does not have to mean a "canned method" does it? 

Are we allowed to "practice evangelism" or "hone our skills" or "practice what we would say in this situation?" 

...Or am I being "not fully reformed" "pramatic" or "naive" as some have called me here (not you and not lately by the way) when it comes to evangelism.


I am sure I'll get a lot of maters thrown at me (you can be the first).....



Yes...Our God IS a consuming fire.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 13, 2008)

> DMcFadden
> McFadderator
> the world Reformed theology does not look sweet in its God-centered purity, but harsh, mean-spirited, arrogant, Pharisaical, nit picky, and sinfully introspective.



Wow. It seems this view is saying that focusing on God (instead of self) is all those bad things. It's almost a commentary saying God is that way (which is audacious and sinful for us to view our Creator that way).



> While evangelicals are busy trying to obey the Great Commission, the TR are seen as a the nerds of Christianity, sitting among their stacks of books



Yes, but being Reformed has become "cool" again. I was told by someone who went to the Dallas Theological Seminary bookstore, the "Reformed" books, once forbidden, are now very sought after, prominently displayed. People don't want to be part of the "broad evangelical" establishment when they can be Reformed!

And one personal observation having contended for years for this in my family, family-in-law and other circles... when people get "Reformed" THEY REALLY GET IT, and are changed big time.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 13, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


Pergs, you once asked me why it seemed I was often contrary, now it seems I should return the favor. I have no desire to throw any 'maters' at you. I was only trying to make the distinction between why the things you rightfully condemn are wrong; not because they shorten God's arm, but that they represent a shriveled faith in the one practicing them.

You are perfectly welcome to utilize any practices or hone any skills you deem fit to accomplish your goals as your conscience leads. My thought along those lines is that regardless of the practices or skills employed, they are all useless if not operating out of a sincere love for God and His people. The heart consumed by the love of God can't help but be a soulwinning witness of that love. The lack thereof is what 'hinders evangelism'. While God does use even false teachers to accomplish His harvest, I believe history shows that His preferred tools are those who hold most dear His crucified Son. 

Does this have anything to do with this discussion?:



> 1Ti 4:8-16 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. (9) This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. (10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (11) These things command and teach. (12) Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (13) Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. (14) Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. (15) Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. (16) Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, *and them that hear thee*.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

My point was that even zealous folks need training. 

And many of the Reformed drive folks away from the beauty of Christ in their mis-applied zeal. 

We have discussed this many times before and this even merited the label "The Cage Stage" of becoming reformed.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 13, 2008)

> My point was that even zealous folks need training.


No argument here.


> And many of the Reformed drive folks away from the beauty of Christ in their mis-applied zeal.


Must disagree on this one. Nothing drives Christ's own away from His beauty. Those that are not His own are driven away by their own hatred for Him.


> We have discussed this many times before and this even merited the label "The Cage Stage" of becoming reformed.


OK


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

Brad; I know folks that are saved, but in their pasts that process was slowed by clumsy or blockheaded attempts by Christians. These Christians made the beauty of Christ look ugly by their own actions.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 13, 2008)

> Brad; I know folks that are saved, but in their pasts that process was slowed by clumsy or blockheaded attempts by Christians. These Christians made the beauty of Christ look ugly by their own actions.


Pergs, brother, I understand your point, but I believe that the overarching reason that they did not come to faith at the earlier attempts was more to do with the fact that it was not the time appointed by God. There may or may not be things those making the clumsy or blockheaded attempts will answer for, but they are not the reason for the rejection. When I look back on the times I heard the Gospel and turned away, I don't look for some fault on the part of those making the presentation, I see the sin in my own heart motivating the rejection. When I was a less mature Christian, I may have looked at it that way, but as I've come to see more and more of the wretchedness of my own heart, those flaws have long receded in import. I'm just grateful that any bothered to try at all.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

Brad:

Don't use the will of God as an excuse.

OF COURSE, everything that happens is because of the will of God, but clumsy attempts DO drive folks away. ANd some do and have made the beautiful doctrines of Christ into ugliness. Yes, thank God that He blesses Any of our efforts.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 14, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > DMcFadden
> > McFadderator
> > the world Reformed theology does not look sweet in its God-centered purity, but harsh, mean-spirited, arrogant, Pharisaical, nit picky, and sinfully introspective.
> 
> ...



I think that the critics of Reformed theology do not see themselves as criticizing being God-centered. Rather, they look at our sometimes harsh judgmental attitudes, intellectual snobbishness, and willingness to engage in endless arguments over very fine points of doctrine and find that package pretty nerdy and unattractive. Nobody is criticizing God. The analogy would be more the way a family "puts up with" the weird and jerky relative, rolling their eyes at his loud proclamations and trying to marginalize his outbursts. For some of the evangelical community, that is how they view the Reformed camp.

Yes, it is "cool" to be Reformed again. But, that is still more faddish than substantive.

I certainly agree that when people "get it" about Reformed theology, they often really "get it."


----------



## Archlute (Sep 14, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> The stereotype that held me back from embracing full Calvinism for decades was the charge that whereas broad evangelicals worship God (some better, some worse), the Calvinist just worships his theology. To the bulk of Christians around the world Reformed theology does not look sweet in its God-centered purity, but harsh, mean-spirited, arrogant, Pharisaical, nit picky, and sinfully introspective. While evangelicals are busy trying to obey the Great Commission, the TR are seen as a the nerds of Christianity, sitting among their stacks of books ("where was the 45th book on the theonomy or the latest polemic on the EP debate again?").
> 
> Our precision and penetrating scholarship is the envy of the evangelical world. However, in the hands of the immature (particularly the newly minted 5 pointer, "converted" from broad evangelicalism or worse . . . the MAINLINE), all too often we sound like medieval scholastics or post-Reformation Jesuits with our debates over line drawing that usually seems both uncharitable and hardly Christian.
> 
> ...



Funny, but those same critics probably would not like many of our Synods/General Assemblies either. Just a thought.

By the way, who's the third year WSC student? I may know him - PM me with the name if you'd feel more comfortable.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 14, 2008)

bump. 

this is interesting because many people whom I dearly love are in a typical Dispensational Charismatic church.


----------



## PresReformed (Sep 14, 2008)

Pastor Brian Schwertley addresses false prophets while preaching through the Sermon on the Mount. They can be found here SermonAudio.com - Search Results highly recommended.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 14, 2008)

> DMcFadden
> 
> to engage in endless arguments over very fine points of doctrine and find that package pretty nerdy and unattractive. Nobody is criticizing God.



I know what you are saying, the impression some people have.

But, let's face it, we even have a philosophical view on this in Reformed. Human beings do not like "doctrine" because they do not highly value God's Word. It's hard work to understand, contend for, and far less, to follow once one does believe it.

The doctrines self-centered human beings do not like- that they have absolutely nothing to do with their own salvation, that God is just in electing some and not others, that God demands obedience of all His creation, instinctively human beings (natural self) do not like that.

This gets into the mix in evaluating "Reformed Theology" and yes I do think it can bring out real criticism of God. That's a spiritual problem, too.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 14, 2008)

I think the question of "...was I really a Christian..." is a common question that seems to imply that being a Christian is a matter of knowing every doctrine correctly. Of course, then we try to divine those doctrines that are "essential" and conclude that, if we believe those doctrines properly, then we're really saved (and hence a Christian).

On the one hand, we need to remember that our faith is a consequence of our election and union with Christ. On the other hand, it's not the doctrines we know properly but the faith we either possess or do not that does or does not procure His righteousness.

I don't want to dismiss the importance of properly being taught the things of God. Yet, when I encounter an individual who has been poorly taught, my view of the individual is not that they are non-disciples (read not Christians) but that they are poorly trained disciples that are in need of teaching. 

I think a Reformed (read Scriptural) view of discipleship is helpful here. Rather than mistaking being a disciple (Christian) with surely being united to Christ (something only God can know), we must remember that a disciple is one who is baptized and now under obligation to learn and be taught the things of God.

It's not as if the Reformers believed they weren't Christians before the light of the Gospel dawned upon them but they condemned the Papists for witholding the light of the Gospel from those that had been baptized into Christ.

I also have to say that I'm not one to get into one of those "...some of you are going to be surprised at how many Arminians are going to be in heaven..." kind of equations. As time goes on, my zeal for the Truth doesn't require me to cast others into outer darkness because they believe wrongly. I believe they are, by baptism, Christians who _require_ proper teaching. I am angry at the false undershepherds who will one day gnash their teeth when the sin of their neglect is revealed but the underfed sheep are still my brothers and sisters and, if they darkened the door of my Church, I would consider them those for whom I must strive together with to ensure that _none_ shrink back in disbelief. I would desire for them that they leave their Churches where therapy and glory are taught so they can hear the Gospel of Grace but they are Christians and will be judged as such if they do not believe upon Christ, and Christ alone, for their salvation.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 14, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think the question of "...was I really a Christian..." is a common question that seems to imply that being a Christian is a matter of knowing every doctrine correctly. Of course, then we try to divine those doctrines that are "essential" and conclude that, if we believe those doctrines properly, then we're really saved (and hence a Christian).
> 
> On the one hand, we need to remember that our faith is a consequence of our election and union with Christ. On the other hand, it's not the doctrines we know properly but the faith we either possess or do not that does or does not procure His righteousness.
> 
> ...



Very good way to put it, Rich. Thanks.


----------

