# Saved by believing a doctrine?



## john_Mark (Apr 14, 2005)

I get so tired of hearing the strawman that's put forth when we say that Roman Catholic Church and more currently and inseperably the Pope didn't have the Gospel since he didn't hold to faith alone. 

The statement is something like this:

"Do we have a doctrine of justification by faith alone by grace alone by Christ alone, or do we have salvation by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone?"

Who has ever stated that one is saved by believing 'in' the doctrine? I get so tired of hearing this, especially, in light of the Pope's death and the critics of consistent non-roman catholics.

What is your reply to such a statement?


----------



## AdamM (Apr 14, 2005)

I agree. The statement tossed around seems to imply that the Pope was some simpleton, hayseed incapable of understanding the nuances of theology, when the truth is the exact opposite. The Pope understood full well the Protestant position and he rejected it. In that case doctrine has to mean something. Why would anyone assume the Pope's rejection of the Gospel was unrelated to doctrine? Isn't doctrine simply what people believe? Or what if the Pope personally trusted the righteousness of Christ alone for his salvation, but allowed his church to teach something different, what would that say about him? Can a person who understands the issues involved and rejects the Gospel really have any hope of salvation?

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Average Joey (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> I get so tired of hearing the strawman that's put forth when we say that Roman Catholic Church and more currently and inseperably the Pope didn't have the Gospel since he didn't hold to faith alone.
> 
> The statement is something like this:
> ...



Well the belief of their "doctrine" shows that they did not believe in Christ alone to save them.

It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.


----------



## john_Mark (Apr 14, 2005)

I just want to throw my hands up over all of this ecumenism that I see since the pope's death. Not to mention the compromises to the Gospel prior to the pope's death. We've got the reformed catholics, the internet monk, popular evangelical "leaders" in the news, the NPP the FV...what else.....who knows.

I grow tired of being called "evangelical" and need a new term. We are all still anathema from Rome. Heretics! Yet, Rome is embraced like everything has changed! The irony (if I can call it that) is that Rome's official positions haven't changed towards protestants. It's only changed if you are any non-Christian religion. It's the protestants that are changing. 

If you aren't protesting anymore then why be called a protestant? Why not "go home to Rome"?


----------



## Scott (Apr 14, 2005)

"Yet, Rome is embraced like everything has changed! The irony (if I can call it that) is that Rome's official positions haven't changed towards protestants."

I think that the Vatican II documents evidence a different perspective on Protestants. They limit Trent's anathemas to those of the Reformation era and do not implicate moderns in those events. VII also recognizes that non-Catholic believers are rightly called "Christians" and "brothers" by Catholics. While some Catholics won't admit it, this is quite a change.


----------



## tdowns (Apr 14, 2005)

It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway. [/quote]


I still have a problem with saying Arminians or Calvary Chapel adherents have a different gospel than Romes. When it comes to Salvation, they both state the following.

Rome: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?

Calvary Chapel: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?

Am I wrong in this?

Would those that say the Pope is the AntiChrist also say Chuck smith is the smaller anti-Christ?

I'm typing some what flippantly...but seriously, I still struggle with the softer stance people will take toward calvary, etc. and the sometimes super harsh stance they take towards Rome.

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

I know it's been covered, I'm just commenting.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by tdowns007]


----------



## openairboy (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> 
> Who has ever stated that one is saved by believing 'in' the doctrine? I get so tired of hearing this, especially, in light of the Pope's death and the critics of consistent non-roman catholics.
> 
> What is your reply to such a statement?



When I read a lot of Gordon Clark I heard this type of stuff a lot. Robinson says stuff like, "preachers who ought to have known better taught that faith is trust in a person, not belief in a creed" & when it is mentioned that faith is something more he asks, "What is this something?" He gets this from Gordon Clark, who believes 'saving faith' is assent to propositions.

Maybe I'm too influenced by Frank Sinatra's love and marriage, but I don't think you can have one without the other. So, given the context of the discussion, which is OFTEN taking place between Reformed Catholics (RC) and the Robinson crowd, then this type of proposition should be fully assented to.

openairboy

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## Average Joey (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.




I still have a problem with saying Arminians or Calvary Chapel adherents have a different gospel than Romes. When it comes to Salvation, they both state the following.

Rome: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?

Calvary Chapel: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?


[Edited on 4-14-2005 by tdowns007] [/quote]

That`s why I said that "They believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway."They say Christ alone but....


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 14, 2005)

"But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered" - Romans 6:17


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.




I still have a problem with saying Arminians or Calvary Chapel adherents have a different gospel than Romes. When it comes to Salvation, they both state the following.

Rome: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?

Calvary Chapel: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?

Am I wrong in this?

Would those that say the Pope is the AntiChrist also say Chuck smith is the smaller anti-Christ?

I'm typing some what flippantly...but seriously, I still struggle with the softer stance people will take toward calvary, etc. and the sometimes super harsh stance they take towards Rome.

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

I know it's been covered, I'm just commenting.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by tdowns007] [/quote]



I couldn't agree more. It seems like many people are willing to overlook the meritorious conditions that the Arminians put on justification, but are quick to condemn Rome for theirs. Sure Rome's is more obvious and explicit, but the Arminian "free-will" scheme is just as much "I'll do this, and God will reward me with justification" idea. Do we think that the twice charge of heresy with Arminianism was just a slap on the wrist?! This is not Christ Alone, this is works alone.

"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace, but as debt." Romans 4:4

"Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." Romans 11:5,6


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Yet, Rome is embraced like everything has changed! The irony (if I can call it that) is that Rome's official positions haven't changed towards protestants."
> 
> I think that the Vatican II documents evidence a different perspective on Protestants. They limit Trent's anathemas to those of the Reformation era and do not implicate moderns in those events. VII also recognizes that non-Catholic believers are rightly called "Christians" and "brothers" by Catholics. While some Catholics won't admit it, this is quite a change.



Scott,

Vatican II does not repeal Trent. All it does is provide intellectual cover for Papists to seem ecumenical, when really it is all on their terms. Vatican II says that the sin of schism is applicable only to the Reformers, and not to the "separated brethren." But remember, do be a "brother" in the RC sense, you must espouse RC doctrine. To believe in justification by faith alone (as all adherents to the WCF and 1689 do) would make one anathema.

The thing that really drives me nuts is the postmodern nitwits at RefCat and the lowest common denominator evanjellycals that desire rapproachment with Rome because of the Pope's death have absolutely NO experience with Rome. I doubt that anyone at RefCat (for example) has ever spent serious time attending Mass, talking with serious RC theologians, or ever been a part of the Church of Rome. They just blab on and on about what Rome really means, with no experience at all to back them up, and with only postmodern claptrap to pronounce. As one who has an entire family of Catholics (including a cousin who is a priest and two Eucharistic ministers in the family), who spent the first 7 years of his schooling in a Roman Catholic school, and who was an altar boy, I find their statements to be ridiculous and naive.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> ...



Is the gospel a doctrine?

Merriam-Webster online defines a doctrine this way:

"2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief :"

Using this definition, the gospel is a doctrine. Is Sola Fide part of the gospel? I would recommend Sproul's "Faith Alone" for a good treatment of this. Here is a quote: 

The gospel "includes not only an announcement of the person of Christ and his work in our behalf, but a declaration of how the benefits of Christ´s work are appropriated by, in, and for the believer"¦"


----------



## openairboy (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Is the gospel a doctrine?
> 
> Merriam-Webster online defines a doctrine this way:
> ...



Look at that! I thought I was just in cahoots with Frank Sinatra, but it looks like I have Sproul on my side.

openairboy


----------



## AdamM (Apr 14, 2005)

> I still have a problem with saying Arminians or Calvary Chapel adherents have a different gospel than Romes. When it comes to Salvation, they both state the following.
> 
> Rome: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?
> 
> ...



Trever, I think there is a significant difference in seriousness between the errors of Arminianism and Rome. Arminianism still holds to sola fide (although inconsistently) while the Roman system is opposed at its core to sola fide (imputated righteouness verses the Roman system of infused grace.) I think we would agree that all theological errors are not of equal significance, but the postmoderns tell us that if we find error in any system that that invalidates any critique of errors in any other system (unless of course it's those irenic postmoderns ripping whoever isn't part of thier tolerance brigade.)


----------



## tdowns (Apr 14, 2005)

*Show me State*

Thanks for the reply Adam. 

I have relatives in St. Charles, The Downs, Crows, and Browns. My Uncle used to run/own Branickies Hardware. I don't know if I spelled that right. And I have all kinds of cousins running around there. I was born in Rola MO.

Maybe I'll stop in the next time I visit.


----------



## AdamM (Apr 14, 2005)

> I think that the Vatican II documents evidence a different perspective on Protestants. They limit Trent's anathemas to those of the Reformation era and do not implicate moderns in those events. VII also recognizes that non-Catholic believers are rightly called "Christians" and "brothers" by Catholics. While some Catholics won't admit it, this is quite a change.



Scott, although we can all rejoice that the Roman church allows us into heaven, what significant changes have they made to thier soteriology? Are they now embracing imputation? Are they ready to abandon the penitential system (thier 2nd plank of jusification?) As long as they hold that a person is justified before a Holy God by an infused righteousness, you have an entriely different religion that happens to use the same terminology and a shares some common cerimonies. The two systems certainly can't both be true, as the recent Joint Declaration attempts to claim. I fail to see how we do anybody a favor or how it can be an act of grace to even hint that the Roman system is somehow compatible with Biblical faith. If sola fide isn't true and my justification is indeed dependent upon an infused righteousness as Rome claims, I will as the Apostle suggests eat drink and be merry for the rest of my days, because I know I'll burn in hell for eternity.


----------



## AdamM (Apr 14, 2005)

> Thanks for the reply Adam.
> 
> I have relatives in St. Charles, The Downs, Crows, and Browns. My Uncle used to run/own Branickies Hardware. I don't know if I spelled that right. And I have all kinds of cousins running around there. I was born in Rola MO.
> 
> Maybe I'll stop in the next time I visit.



That is great Trevor. IM me next time you come to town and we will have to get together and have coffee or a barley pop depending upon your persuasion and the time of day.


----------



## tdowns (Apr 14, 2005)

*Barley Pop*

If it's summer...and it usually is...it'll be a barley pop if it's after noon, talk about humidity. Thanks for the invite, I'll be sure to do it.


----------



## Augusta (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.




I still have a problem with saying Arminians or Calvary Chapel adherents have a different gospel than Romes. When it comes to Salvation, they both state the following.

Rome: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?

Calvary Chapel: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?

Am I wrong in this?

Would those that say the Pope is the AntiChrist also say Chuck smith is the smaller anti-Christ?

I'm typing some what flippantly...but seriously, I still struggle with the softer stance people will take toward calvary, etc. and the sometimes super harsh stance they take towards Rome.

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

I know it's been covered, I'm just commenting.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by tdowns007] [/quote]

I read this with my mouth open because my husband, who's whole family 9 siblings and his dear mother are all catholic, used this argument with me when I was taking the side that Rome is apostate and the pope is the anti-Christ. He was saying that if I am going to say they have a false gospel then I have to say that about the arminians also. 

I do know one thing. When I understood finally and truly what Christ had done for me without my help, I could not stand to go to my evangellyfish church and sit under that teaching. I think it would be the same for a catholic who came to a right knowledge of the gospel. I don't think they could stand it.

I think alot of us are easier on the arminians because we were one once. However just because we were in an arminian church does not mean that church was God's means to bring us to saving faith. Just as an person can be saved DESPITE the teaching they are under, I also believe I was saved DESPITE the teaching I was under. I did not learn the true gospel in my church and they were not nearly as bad as some evanjellyfish churches. I learned the true gospel on the radio listening to RC Sproul. Then a radical change happened in me. So radical my family noticed it right away and I was the "good girl" of the family who went to church regularly. I was even told that I acted like I was a new christian. I don't know if I was save before that radical change or not. 

We don't like to think like this because many of us have family in these arminian churches just like my husband has his RC family members. We don't want to think that these people aren't saved. I am beginning to wonder though and it scares the heck out of me. I wouldn't give it much thought based on just my experience but I have heard on this board many people talk about having an almost identical response and not being able to stomach what their church was putting out. They really don't preach the gospel. The preach the law with saving grace as an after thought. Even then only if you want it bad enough and nurse it along and take your spiritual temperature once in while and see how you are progressing. 

There is an elephant in the room and no one wants to point it out. I know I am still not ready to but then I am only an armchair theologian an not a minister of the gospel.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> ...



I read this with my mouth open because my husband, who's whole family 9 siblings and his dear mother are all catholic, used this argument with me when I was taking the side that Rome is apostate and the pope is the anti-Christ. He was saying that if I am going to say they have a false gospel then I have to say that about the arminians also. 

I do know one thing. When I understood finally and truly what Christ had done for me without my help, I could not stand to go to my evangellyfish church and sit under that teaching. I think it would be the same for a catholic who came to a right knowledge of the gospel. I don't think they could stand it.

I think alot of us are easier on the arminians because we were one once. However just because we were in an arminian church does not mean that church was God's means to bring us to saving faith. Just as an person can be saved DESPITE the teaching they are under, I also believe I was saved DESPITE the teaching I was under. I did not learn the true gospel in my church and they were not nearly as bad as some evanjellyfish churches. I learned the true gospel on the radio listening to RC Sproul. Then a radical change happened in me. So radical my family noticed it right away and I was the "good girl" of the family who went to church regularly. I was even told that I acted like I was a new christian. I don't know if I was save before that radical change or not. 

We don't like to think like this because many of us have family in these arminian churches just like my husband has his RC family members. We don't want to think that these people aren't saved. I am beginning to wonder though and it scares the heck out of me. I wouldn't give it much thought based on just my experience but I have heard on this board many people talk about having an almost identical response and not being able to stomach what their church was putting out. They really don't preach the gospel. The preach the law with saving grace as an after thought. Even then only if you want it bad enough and nurse it along and take your spiritual temperature once in while and see how you are progressing. 

There is an elephant in the room and no one wants to point it out. I know I am still not ready to but then I am only an armchair theologian an not a minister of the gospel.   [/quote]

Tracy,

I can relate to your situation on so many levels. My parents are "hyper" arminians, I was an arminian for most of my life, and I know many of them. It is vital that on this issue, we do not judge according to our emotions, but according to the true gospel of grace.

As George Whitefield said: "We are all born Arminians. It is grace that turns us into Calvinists."


----------



## Scott (Apr 14, 2005)

Fred: I read the VII docs differently. They seem to embrace people who do not accept Roman dogma. Your comments on RefCat lack of experience with Rome is noted. I am not defending either RefCats or Rome. 

Adam: I agree that officially there have not been substantive changes in the areas of theology you mentioned. The same problems they had then they still have (papacy, justification, prayer to saints, corrupt views of Mary, etc.). They are now very broad in terms of fellowship, though. They accept many divergent views within the Church. It is sometimes said that Rome is broader on the inside than out. Now, this is not necessarily a good thing. In the US, the Roman church is dominated by mainline liberals. They are also much broader on the outside too after VII, though. You just have to avoid the small number of Roman apologists out there (most of whom are self-appointed and hold no official rank in or appointment by the Church). They write like we were still in the Tridentine era.

I don't think that Rome should hold any attraction for sincere believers these days, but her character has changed quite a bit. I am shocked when reading about the role of Mary, the treasury of merits in heaven, and the like. It is unbelievable what they accept.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Apr 14, 2005)

Fred: I am curious - how did you become Reformed if your family is so strongly Catholic?


----------



## Robin (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.




I still have a problem with saying Arminians or Calvary Chapel adherents have a different gospel than Romes. When it comes to Salvation, they both state the following.

Rome: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?

Calvary Chapel: God saves you but you need to do certain things and not do certain things to keep your salvation. How is this Christ Alone?

Am I wrong in this?

Would those that say the Pope is the AntiChrist also say Chuck smith is the smaller anti-Christ?

I'm typing some what flippantly...but seriously, I still struggle with the softer stance people will take toward calvary, etc. and the sometimes super harsh stance they take towards Rome.

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

I know it's been covered, I'm just commenting.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by tdowns007] [/quote]

Many do refer to Chuck Smith as "Pope Chuck." Plus, the CC statement of beliefs pamphlet confuses faith as being the "grounds" of justification. (This makes it a work, Btw. Faith is the means that link to the grounds-Christ.)

Robin


----------



## Robin (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> Who has ever stated that one is saved by believing 'in' the doctrine? I get so tired of hearing this, especially, in light of the Pope's death and the critics of consistent non-roman catholics.
> 
> What is your reply to such a statement?



Christ was arrested and executed for His "different doctrine" and a tacit search of "doctrine" in the NT reveals it is essential - but it is the content of it that matters:

Matthew 15:9
And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."' 
Matthew 16:12
Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 
Mark 1:27
Then they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? What new doctrine is this? For with authority [ NU-Text reads What is this? A new doctrine with authority.] He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him." 
Mark 7:7
And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 
John 7:16
Jesus [ NU-Text and M-Text read So Jesus.] answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 
John 7:17
If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. 
John 18:19
[ Jesus Questioned by the High Priest ] The high priest then asked Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine.

(It's lots of work, but read these in context.)

If the objector is not willing to read the Scriptures to understand...then they're supressing the truth in unrighteousness...shake the dust off your sandals, in that case.

Robin


----------



## Augusta (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...



Tracy,

I can relate to your situation on so many levels. My parents are "hyper" arminians, I was an arminian for most of my life, and I know many of them. It is vital that on this issue, we do not judge according to our emotions, but according to the true gospel of grace.

As George Whitefield said: "We are all born Arminians. It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." [/quote]

No emotions here Jeff. Just analyzing when I believe my conversion occured. It occured In my humble opinion when I was taught the true gospel off the radio. Not at my arminian church. Now I didn't draw any conclusions and even stated I am not ready to say they aren't saved just yet either but I wonder if this is not my own hang up because I came from there and have family still there. 

We all pretty much agree already that catholics can be saved despite their false doctrine but that they won't stay in the catholic church and we find that easy. What I am wondering aloud is why are we not applying that same rule to arminians? There is no way I could stay in my old church. Is it based on our own hang ups because we can't be objective about it yet? The ex-catholics are. I just see a double standard here that MAYBE should not exist. 



[Edited on 4-15-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 14, 2005)

> No emotions here Jeff. Just analyzing when I believe my conversion occured. It occured In my humble opinion when I was taught the true gospel off the radio. Not at my arminian church. Now I didn't draw any conclusions and even stated I am not ready to say they aren't saved just yet either but I wonder if this is not my own hang up because I came from there and have family still there.



I am sorry if it sounded like I was accusing you of basing your doctrine from emotions, I didn't mean to come across that way at all. I guess what I am trying to convey, is that we must judge saving faith in light of scripture only, and when that doctrine doesn't fit with the salvation of our own family and friends, it is easy to say "Arminians are saved" mostly because we want our friends and family to be saved. I have been guilty of this myself.



> We all pretty much agree already that catholics can be saved despite their false doctrine but that they won't stay in the catholic church and we find that easy. What I am wondering aloud is why are we not applying that same rule to arminians? There is no way I could stay in my old church. Is it based on our own hang ups because we can't be objective about it yet? The ex-catholics are. I just see a double standard here that MAYBE should not exist.



I agree that there is a double standard that must be removed. This is a very controversial topic, but one that is necessary to discuss. It will increase a person's knowledge of what saving faith is, and will cause you even more to get down on your knees and thank God for his gracious election that he provided to YOU.

The simple fact is, that people need to make the correlation from the Catholic view that salvation is by faith + works, while the Arminians scheme turns faith into a work. By giving merit to their faith, they cheapen salvation to the point that it "only takes one act of obedience before God will justify a person." The Catholic says it takes many. The christian answer, is that justification/salvation is not of our obedience. If it was, we have no hope of being saved. Saving faith includes belief that NONE of our obediences will earn us justification in the sight of God. The Westminster Divines understood this:

Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 72. What is justifying faith?

A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,[297] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[298] and Word of God,[299] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the *disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*,[300] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[301] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[302] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[303]

May God receive ALL the glory for his work of Salvation!


----------



## AdamM (Apr 15, 2005)

> The simple fact is, that people need to make the correlation from the Catholic view that salvation is by faith + works, while the Arminians scheme turns faith into a work. By giving merit to their faith, they cheapen salvation to the point that it "only takes one act of obedience before God will justify a person." The Catholic says it takes many. The christian answer, is that justification/salvation is not of our obedience. If it was, we have no hope of being saved. Saving faith includes belief that NONE of our obediences will earn us justification in the sight of God.



Jeff, I know this was hit on earlier in the thread, but I think it is a big mistake to equate the seriousness of error found in most garden variety Arminianism with that of Rome. Most Arminians affirm sola fide albeit **inconsistently**by attributing thier own choice as the casue of faith. Although in fairness typically they don't see that choice or decision as meritorious or inherentely righteous. You still generally have forensic justification and imputation, which results in a system that is illogical and runs against the clear teaching of scripture, but is nowhere close to the errors of the Roman church. 

The Roman church **consistent** with their soteriology rejects sola fide and forensic justification in favor of justification via infused/inherent righteousness. Roman church soteriology is an entirely different system, not simply an error regarding who initiates faith.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > The simple fact is, that people need to make the correlation from the Catholic view that salvation is by faith + works, while the Arminians scheme turns faith into a work. By giving merit to their faith, they cheapen salvation to the point that it "only takes one act of obedience before God will justify a person." The Catholic says it takes many. The christian answer, is that justification/salvation is not of our obedience. If it was, we have no hope of being saved. Saving faith includes belief that NONE of our obediences will earn us justification in the sight of God.
> ...



Adam,

I think that Arminians ARE consistent in their theology. The five points of Arminianism are just as consistent as the five points of Calvinism. Their theology REVOLVES around God rewarding thier obedience with justification. I don't see Arminians as "confused," but consistently merit based. They may admit to imputed righteousness, but only after their infused righteousness believes, and God rewards that one act of obedience with justification. 

The point comes down to "Did Christ fulfill ALL the conditions for salvation?" The Christian says YES, and this includes faith! The Arminian says NO, Christ did 99%, you must do 1%. He died on the Cross, but your part is making the decision. 

I am not trying to just "condemn" all that hold the title of Arminianism, many probably don't know what it is! My goal is to reclaim the specificity of saving faith, and that it is Christ Alone!


----------



## Augusta (Apr 15, 2005)

Thanks for your clarification Jeff. And thanks for that reference to the WCF. I had not seen that one. I really need to read the entire thing. 

Adam which is more insidious an overt rejection of the true gospel or a subtle one. All we are saying here is that right now there is a double standard. RCC is an easy target because they are overtly wrong on justification and church practice. Talk about strange fire in worship. My arminian church had some pretty wacked worship too. 

I am not even decided one or the other because I don't know yet if I am even allowed or commanded to say what churches are preaching a false gospel or not. It seems that would be arrogant. Yet I also believe the HS imparts knowledge. But then so does my sister who believes she has prophetic gifts and hears from the HS about all kinds of things. Hers seems to me obviously at odds with scripture but she thinks the same of me. 

I think though that the double standard may be extreme and it doesn't sit well having sincere people on both sides of our family believing they are christians who follow Christ yet one side it arminian and the other RC.  If I am going to apply a standard of faith alone, through Christ alone, by grace alone, I have to apply it to both sides don't I? Thinking out loud.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> ...



Many do refer to Chuck Smith as "Pope Chuck." Plus, the CC statement of beliefs pamphlet confuses faith as being the "grounds" of justification. (This makes it a work, Btw. Faith is the means that link to the grounds-Christ.)

Robin [/quote]

No coincidence that the Canons of Dordrecht address justification in the midst of a discussion on definite atonement:

The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:

Paragraph 4 
Who teach: That the new covenant of grace, which God the Father, through the mediation of the death of Christ, made with man, does not herein consist that we by faith, inasmuch as it accepts the merits of Christ, are justified before God and saved, but in the fact that God, having revoked the demand of perfect obedience of faith, regards faith itself and the obedience of faith, although imperfect, as the perfect obedience of the law, and does esteem it worthy of the reward of eternal life through grace. 
For these contradict the Scriptures: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood (Rom. 3:24, 25). And these proclaim, as did the wicked Socinus, a new and strange justification of man before God, against the consensus of the whole Church.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 15, 2005)

Because this issue is constantly discussed, I must throw in my hat. There is NO such thing as Doctrinal Regeneration. Or Doctrinal Salvation. There is abosolutely no hint of this in the WRIT. 

Doctrine is a fruit of Salvation. In fact, Read this from HErman Hoeksma, who is considered as Hyper.

taken from the January 2, 1919 issue of the Banner:

"You know, a Calvinist (excuse the term; I am not any too fond of it myself. Never do I use it if I can help it. I don´t think I have used it a half dozen times from the pulpit, which is not very frequent in three years and a half), I say a Calvinist is after all a distinctive Christian. Not all Christians are Calvinists. Mark, I say: "˜not all Christians are Calvinists.´ They may be Christians all right. Sure! Dear children of God, with whom I love to shake hands. I don´t believe that there is a Calvinist that denies this. I don´t think that there is a Calvinist who maintains that the Calvinists are the only Christians. And those who love to waste paper (and that in this time when paper is so valuable!) by fighting against Calvinists who maintain that they are the only Christians on earth, are fighting a shadow, a product of their own imagination. No, but I claim that a Calvinist is a Christian of a distinctive type, with distinctive principles and views, in distinction, namely, from other Christians. Never let any method of reasoning lead you to the belief that all Christians are Calvinists, for then things will be getting so dark, that you lose all power to distinguish. The Methodist is a good sincere Christian, all right. Of course he is! A dear brother. But he is not a Calvinist. The same is true of the Anabaptist, the Lutheran, etc. All together they constitute the church of Jesus Christ on earth, as long as they confess that Jesus is the Christ. But within that large circle there are different shades and forms of faith, and the Calvinist also maintains his own distinctive world and life view in their midst. Now, what I mean to say is that to maintain your distinctive character as a Calvinistic Christian, you must not merely be able to discern clearly what distinguishes you from the rest, but you must have the courage of your conviction such as can be the fruit only of the faith in the Word of God. Only the conviction that our form of faith is the purest expression of Scripture (again, mark, I do not say: the only form or expression) can give us the courage to refuse amalgamation. And therefore, it is necessary, that we are conscious of the relation between our Reformed Faith and the Word of God."


May by Gods grace, anyone who believes that Heavan will consist of only those who profess our doctrnes be crushed and humbled at the feet of Our Gracious Savior.


Joseph


----------



## tdowns (Apr 15, 2005)

*Joseph*

Joseph, I agree with you, and the article.

The point is in dealing with false doctrines consistently. 

When I refer to Arminians, I'm using the term loosely to describe your varied synergistic doctrines out there. 

My perception, is that there is an emotional charge of negativity to the attacking of Rome from the Evangelical/Reformed church, and an emotional charge of positivity and leniency toward the Arminian churches. We should be consistent in dealing with both.

I think it is debatable that Rome is so much worse than the random Arminian Church. It is bad, I'm not saying it isn't, but I've seen the flock of local non-denom' or Calvary Chapel churches just as messed up theologically as any Catholic I've talked to.
At least in Rome, they have defined their doctrines, and some are solid. If you ever listen to some very prominent Pastors within the Calvary Chapel movement, you'll hear questionable descriptions of trinity, I've heard very problematic statements about resurrected bodies, and forget about eschatology...bottom line, there is more than bad theology in terms of only salvation.
At least in Rome you know what they believe, and as far as Trinity, attributes of God, etc...they get it right. But with many churches in America, they don't just get Salvation wrong, they get many other things wrong as well. At least with Rome you can look to their catechism and point to the error, with many American churches, they just give their lip service to Saved by Faith alone, and it becomes more difficult.

Also,-- I should have used the " " option--but someone above stated that with Rome you have to continue to work, but with Arminian, it's only that first act of faith.

From my understanding, this is not true. I've heard many times Calvary Chapel believers state, that if at any point they die while sinning, they would go to hell. Well that is putting their salvation in their own hands for longer than the first act of faith. 

Once again, I believe many are saved despite false doctrines, because, God saves despite our depravity, but it is important to be consistent in dealing with false doctrines, no matter what church is teaching them.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 15, 2005)

> No coincidence that the Canons of Dordrecht address justification in the midst of a discussion on definite atonement:
> 
> The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:
> 
> ...



Good point.

Was the Synof of Dort wrong in condemning Arminianism as heresy and removing Arminian preachers from their pulpits if the doctrine was not really that bad?

In my humble opinion, modern day Arminianism is really Finneyism which is Pelagianism (to be generous you could say its Semi-Pelagianism) and is a heresy.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 15, 2005)

God will not share his glory with anyone!


----------



## Augusta (Apr 15, 2005)

I don't like that calvinists are given a title of a particular christian. In my mind calvinism is just shorthand for biblical doctrine. All he did was reinterate what the apostle Paul had already said. He just organized it under neat little titles. Gotta go. Will be back later.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 15, 2005)

Wayne and Jeff. THis still begs the question on what has to be believed in order to be saved.

Scripture is clear on some points, but not all we have lined up

Are their different standards for people with intellect vs dummies? I am a dummy, I do nto know greek, nor hebrew. Can I still be saved?

Christ found me before I knew what limited atonement was. Did He save me, or reveal the gospel to me first? 

Show me one instance where Christ interacted with a person, went through the WCF, TULIP, etc etc. gave them a test, then saved them.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Wayne and Jeff. THis still begs the question on what has to be believed in order to be saved.
> 
> Scripture is clear on some points, but not all we have lined up
> ...



Joe,

Dummies can be saved-I am proof of that! 

Humor aside, "what must be believed in order to be saved?" To state this question more clearly...What is the content of saving faith? What kind of faith does God grant his chosen? 

Saving faith is belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is his person, his work done 2000 years ago, and how that work is appropriated to his people. I think we all agree on that. 

Paul summerized the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:

1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 
1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 

He is clearer, and more specific in Romans 3:

Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 

I think that this argument comes down to the question of what the gospel is NOT. Paul emphasises this several places.

The gospel includes belief in Christ alone for salvation. It is that simple. The question is, do Catholics/Arminians believe this? My answer is no. They include some of their own righteousness with Christ's righteousness. They include some of their own obedience, with Christ's obedience. The Catholics include ALOT of thier own, while the Arminians include (with some branches anyway) their ONE obedience of faith. This is not the gospel. It is not a question of smartness, intellectual brilliance. Belief in this gospel is a gift from God, and is a simple for a child to believe, but deep enough for theo-geeks (like myself) to dable in forever.


----------



## openairboy (Apr 15, 2005)

I think, as the discussion is being fleshed out, we are seeing why (agree or disagree) people make the claim, "We are saved by a person and not a doctrine." For example, I came to Jesus Christ for the foregiveness of sins. I was utterly convinced that he alone was risen from the dead and he alone could pardon me of my guilt. It wasn't for about 2 or 3 years that I understood anything about "imputation" or "the righteousness of God". I am still utterly convinced that it was Christ and not my comprehension of these things that saved me. I knew Him. Others can chalk it up to whatever they want, but I was 'Arminian' by default. I would've 'spoke' like a Calvinist ("God saved me!" God being the actor of salvation), but wouldn't defended the universality of the atonement ("God so loved the world', which Luther would have as well) and the 'ability' of man to 'fall away' (which Luther would have as well). I believe I was saved. Some can Protest this point if they want, but I knew whom I believed for my salvation. 

I am amazed that what Paul passed on as first importance is not what most of us would deem "first importance". We would run with a systematic theology exam and not the acts of God in history, especially the death, buriel and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For most, this is merely the propositions that need to be assented to to get to the real issue, which is more sinner centered actually than most Reformers claim, and that is an individuals standing before God. As I read through Acts I don't find the, "On a scale of 1 to 10..." or "Why should I let you into my heaven?" No, I find the simple proclamation of that Jesus Christ is Lord. He is granting repentance. He granted me repentance in the simplicity of 1 Peter 5:7. I wanted to die and I "heard" the voice of Christ, "Caste your anxiety on to me because I care." WOW! Here is One that cares. In the infancy of my faith I said, "You say you care. Well, here you go." He took my anxiety. Yes, I knew he died; yes, I knew he rose from the dead. Otherwise it would've been absurd to caste my anxieties to a dead man. I, however, knew nothing of imputation and WORKS wasn't even a category that I was thinking about. I just knew I was wretched and it caused great grief.

The fact that the early Church's baptism formula was the Apostle's Creed, shows the importance of doctrine, but would we think that a person who 'assented' to such would be saved? The boys at Trinity Foundation find errors in the Creed and it insufficient. You can as well. You can shout 'sola scriptura', but I will take the catholic Church over our 'sola' any day. 

On the popular reading of Galatians, would some you say that Peter was lost? Was he a proto-Pelagian? Was he adding something to Jesus? Did he fall away? If he would've died adding circumcision, would he have been justified? 

Yes, the Gospel needs to be defined, which I believe is marked out the Apostles Creed and Confession that 'Jesus Christ is Lord', and believed, but 'doctrine' doesn't regenerate. So, the issue, I think, has come full circle. Does a 'doctrine' save? Or a person? Were the Israelites 'saved' out of Egypt, because they understood 'the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ, and how that is imputed to our account'? 

This post doesn't negate sound doctrine, but I hope that we understand where the infancy of our faith came from, where we are going, and how we have developed. After all, Luther, that great trumpeter of the solas, held to baptismal regeneration, apostacy, and a host of other things that many around here would pawn off as Arminian, heresy, and a host of other things.

In the end, Jesus Christ alone will have saved me and you.

openairboy

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## Augusta (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> I think, as the discussion is being fleshed out, we are seeing why (agree or disagree) people make the claim, "We are saved by a person and not a doctrine." For example, I came to Jesus Christ for the foregiveness of sins. I was utterly convinced that he alone was risen from the dead and he alone could pardon me of my guilt. It wasn't for about 2 or 3 years that I understood anything about "imputation" or "the righteousness of God". I am still utterly convinced that it was Christ and not my comprehension of these things that saved me. I knew Him. Others can chalk it up to whatever they want, but I was 'Arminian' by default. I would've 'spoke' like a Calvinist ("God saved me!" God being the actor of salvation), but wouldn't defended the universality of the atonement ("God so loved the world', which Luther would have as well) and the 'ability' of man to 'fall away' (which Luther would have as well). I believe I was saved. Some can Protest this point if they want, but I knew whom I believed for my salvation.



You sound like you understood that you were saved by Christ alone. I was always taught that I accepted Christ and that it had to be my love for him that made me choose him because he wants us to come to him of our own free will not by force. I heard the statement, I am not kidding, "God is a gentleman, he will not force you to do anything."  I was taught a false gospel. 

If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16, 1 Cor. 1:18, 1 Cor 1:23-24, 1 Cor 2:2-5, 2 Tim 1:8-10) then is the power going to accompany a false gospel? Will a false gospel have the power of God behind it? I say no.

When I heard Sproul tell me that it was God who pulled me out of the mire and not myself. That it was Christ in his mercy who did all for me and then applied it to me without my help because I was indeed helpless, then I had a change of mind. I had a new mind. I had the mind of Christ. 

When we are born again, made new, circumsized in the heart, given a heart of flesh, this forensic work, happens when the seed of the gospel falls on fertile ground. Now we know that it is hearing ears (or fertile ground) that will hear the gospel which is the "power" of salvation. Now perhaps I was fertile ground waiting around all those years to hear the true gospel and it was once I heard it that I was pulled out of darkness into his marvelous light. 

Everything was different after that. Before when I read the bible it was cryptic to me. After that I had the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16) I was taught "by the spirit" things which before were "foolishness" that I could not understand (1 Cor 2:13-16.)

This is why I believe yes you can be saved anywhere you are if you hear the true gospel but if you get a warped gospel it is NOT the power of God for your salvation. You don't have to be able to recite the tulip you just have to understand 1. the depth of your sin, 2. that nothing you did gave you salvation it was God helping you, 3. that the righteousness and forgiveness that you RECEIVE is not your own. All of that is basically the tulip but our come to understand the last three when you are given the mind of Christ, and just by basic deduction. If God was sovereign in saving you then you had nothing to do with it that is "irresistible grace" and that since this is all his work and not your own you can't screw it up, "perseverance of the saints." A little bible reading with your new mind of Christ led by the HS will help you to understand election. Its all God's work so simpleton or not you will get it, if it is God's working. It will not fail. 

You won't get however from the pulpit of an RCC or any Arminian church. I just don't see how you could logically if God's means are the seed of the true gospel spread through ministers of God.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 16, 2005)




----------



## Robin (Apr 17, 2005)

I know we, here know that we're not saved by mere knowledge of Christ; and/or the agreement that He is God, incarnate; crucified and risen from the dead. The demons know this full well and tremble.

There must also be trust - alone - in the Christ, for forgiveness of sins and salvation from God's wrath. It is trust in the first two points that constitute saving faith.

I wonder if we are taking on too much work when someone pulls the "doctrine card"? I mean, every person that can think, HAS a doctrine of some sort. Period. A better question is: what is that doctrine? and are they trusting upon it?

Isn't it OK to have the opposition bear the burden of proof of their claims?



R.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 17, 2005)

Is what they're doing called "special pleading"?


----------



## openairboy (Apr 17, 2005)

> If God was sovereign in saving you then you had nothing to do with it that is "irresistible grace" and that since this is all his work and not your own you can't screw it up, "perseverance of the saints."



Are you saying Luther was lost and/or denied the Gospel? He SCREWED UP "PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS" and "irresistible GRACE". Did he not have the mind of Christ? Was he not lead by the HS?

openairboy

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by openairboy]


----------

