# Are Roman Catholics Christians?



## VilnaGaon

Martin Luther stated that the doctrine on which a Church Stands or Falls is Justification by Faith Alone without the works of the Law. The Reformed Baptist, Robert Zins uses this statement of Luther to prove that Catholics are not Christians. If one reflects on Luther's statement, you can see that all the Fundamental Doctrines of the Faith such as Total Depravity, Divinity of the Lord Jesus, Substitutionary Work of the Lord Jesus on behalf of His Elect can be deduced or found in the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. The Roman Catholic (even the Orthodox) Churches openly and explicitly deny this most Vital Doctrine, therefore they are not Christians, because by inference they are also denying the other Doctrines of the Faith which hang on Justification by Faith alone. 
James White in his book on Justification says something similar. Mueller in his Christian Dogmatics(LCMS) backs up Luther on that statement. But Mueller unfortunately refuses to draw the logical conclusion that Roman Catholics are not Christians.
Any thoughts on this.


----------



## chbrooking

If a Roman Catholic is consistent with the teachings of his church, then he is not a Christian. But such consistency is not necessarily the case. Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.


----------



## ClayPot

Hi Jacob,

Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Roman Catholics may be Christian. It really depends on whether they truly follow Roman Catholic teachings. If they do, then the answer is no, they are not. But if the simply attend a Roman Catholic church but actually believe the gospel, then of course they are a Christian. A related question might be: how could a truly regenerate person attend the Roman Catholic church. The razor also cuts both ways: a Protestant isn't necessarily Christian either. It depends whether they believe the gospel and have repented of their sins and placed their faith in Christ.


----------



## jonmo

I don't have the theological training to answer your question. However, as an uneducated lay man, I get a bit nervous about definitive statements like this, wiping out an entire slate of the nominal Christian church from Christianity.

From my basic understanding, I think Roman Catholicism as a creed makes it very difficult for its adherents to genuinely grasp the Gospel (it ties in too much emphasis on works and tradition, for a start). However, the membership of that church is not as homogeneous as you might think and, based on conversations with many Roman Catholics over the year, I believe there are some who have a saving faith in Christ.

I now defer to those much better qualified to comment than I am.


----------



## Tripel

Some are, some aren't. 

The wonderful thing about salvation by grace is that it is not dependent on how good our theology is.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Berean

http://www.puritanboard.com/f16/catholics-christians-36161/

If one were a Christian, one would not stay in the church of Rome.


----------



## Tripel

Berean said:


> If one were a Christian, one would not stay in the church of Rome.



I don't think you can say that. That's like saying if one were a Christian, one would not stay in the church of Osteen. It's one thing to point out the errors in a church, but it's another to say that a "real" Christian wouldn't go there.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## VilnaGaon

chbrooking said:


> If a Roman Catholic is consistent with the teachings of his church, then he is not a Christian. But such consistency is not necessarily the case. Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.



But which Christ are they trusting in, ----the Christ presented to us in the Bible, or the Roman Catholic Christ of their church and tradition, their so called Magisterium. If all truth is propositional as I believe, this question is vital.


----------



## Knoxienne

Berean said:


> http://www.puritanboard.com/f16/catholics-christians-36161/
> 
> If one were a Christian, one would not stay in the church of Rome.



True - I would further say that one couldn't. The Holy Spirit is sovereign in salvation and would lead the person out of a heretical situation. Jesus Christ is the author and the finisher of our faith. He doesn't just save us and leave us alone to float around in heretical churches. 

Otherwise we should just start calling everybody in every religious (not necessarily Christian) group everywhere brothers and sisters in Christ. There's a reason we don't do that. We don't adhere to the universal fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## VilnaGaon

Berean said:


> http://www.puritanboard.com/f16/catholics-christians-36161/
> 
> If one were a Christian, one would not stay in the church of Rome.



I agree!!! In the same way as one who is a Christian, he would leave the Jewish Synagogue, Hindu Temple or Islamic Mosque.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## historyb

> *Are Roman Catholics Christians? *



Since the Reformation came out of there I would say yes, they are the ancestors in a since


----------



## Nomad

If a Roman Catholic actually understands and believes what Rome teaches with regard to justification, namely, that good works done in a state of grace are meritorious toward the gaining of eternal life, then _no._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jambo

I believe the official teaching of the RC is unbiblical and anti-Christian. It is a great counterfeit that deludes many people and especially those who are theologically weak or with a poor knowledge of scripture. It does not matter how good a counterfeit note is, it has no more value than a Monopoly note and is therefore worthless.

Having said that, I do believe there are some Christians within the RC church but they are not Christian because they followed the teaching of the church. Many feel they could perhaps reform the church, but it just doesn't happen and after a period of time they leave.


----------



## Tripel

Nomad said:


> If a Roman Catholic actually understands and believes what Rome teaches with regard to justification, namely, that good works done in a state of grace are meritorious toward the gaining of eternal life, then _no._



What about someone who believes that justification comes through the exercise of free will to accept Christ's offer of salvation? Can that person be saved?
Must someone know exactly how they are saved in order to be saved?


----------



## Nomad

Tripel said:


> Nomad said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Roman Catholic actually understands and believes what Rome teaches with regard to justification, namely, that good works done in a state of grace are meritorious toward the gaining of eternal life, then _no._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about someone who believes that justification comes through the exercise of free will to accept Christ's offer of salvation? Can that person be saved?
> Must someone know exactly how they are saved in order to be saved?
Click to expand...


There is a crucial difference between Arminians and Roman Catholics. Arminians as wrong as they are for worshipping at the alter of free will, do not deny sola fide. Again, Rome on the other hand, teaches that good works help to "merit" eternal life. A Roman Catholic who believes this denies the Gospel.


----------



## Confessor

By God's grace, many of my Catholic friends always refer to their Church's teachings thusly: "you have to take it with a grain of salt."


----------



## VilnaGaon

Tripel said:


> Nomad said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Roman Catholic actually understands and believes what Rome teaches with regard to justification, namely, that good works done in a state of grace are meritorious toward the gaining of eternal life, then _no._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about someone who believes that justification comes through the exercise of free will to accept Christ's offer of salvation? Can that person be saved?
> Must someone know exactly how they are saved in order to be saved?
Click to expand...


No consistent and TRUE arminian can ever be saved. All arminians I have met who demonstrated through their lives that that they were born again, inconsistently believed that Salvation is 100% of God, but yet a sinner has free will. These kind of arminians are as Martyn Lloyd Jones put it very well, right in their hearts but wrong in their heads. Sadly these kinds of arminians are a minority in Arminian Churches.


----------



## Nomad

Confessor said:


> By God's grace, many of my Catholic friends always refer to their Church's teachings thusly: "you have to take it with a grain of salt."



That reminds me of a recent converstion. I spoke to a woman on an Arminian/Roman Catholic message board a few months ago who was in the process of converting to Roman Catholicism. She continued to post like a Protestant, even saying that she believed in justification by faith alone. I told her that as a RC she could no longer believe that. She asked for proof! I showed her from Trent and the current Catholic Catechism. She never responded and is now officially a RC. From what I was able to gather, this woman is a Protestant who likes the "trappings" of Roman Catholicism.


----------



## Grimmson

At this point to answer the question I think it is important to make some distinctions. 1) to seperate out the theological system of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox with a more orthodox theological system and 2) the culture that Rome and the Eastern churches produce. One, in my option, can be saved and believe in the True Christ and the True Gospel while falling into these systems, but that is despite of these systems. Likewise it is true with our systems one may be lost but adhere to the points of doctrine. but still be lost. We need to be careful to remember that we are not saved based on our parents, our hertiage, or our theolgical system, but based on the grace of God through faith. I am not down playing the use of doctrine for I see it as a tool to dertermine who is in the faith and who is not. There are many roman Catholics today that do not agree with Rome on many points, and if we are to condem them for being a part of Rome, then also condem the church next door and those who attend there for haveing the same doctrine of salvation, I'm leaving out justification for now. We all know Rome goes with the times and they are extremely liberal, however this liberalism in a way could be a blessing for the return to true orthodox when the bad arguments are striped away like for example Limbo and possibly Purgatory soon. I have meet those who had faith in Christ alone and did not really know what Rome taught offical and heard a wide variety of things. I once got into an argument with a past Roman Catholic on the histoical position of Rome on reading their Bible, where this person who was Roman atholic was being told by the priest they should read their bible. So there are elments of possiblity that exists for real christians and Rome is not consistant with themselves, their main argument agaist denominations. We just need to teach the bible plainly and be paitent for those coming to a fuller knowlege of the faith.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

Isn't the main problem with the Roman church that instead of relying on Christ alone for salvation, they also rely on themselves? Don't Arminians do the same? They rely on themselves to choose salvation. Are they saved? 

Even as Reformed Christians, our hearts long to contribute just a little bit with our good works, despite what our theology teaches. 

Where do we draw the line? If you believe in your heart, and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord you will be saved. The question comes as to whether you are believing in the true Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible. I believe the Apostle's Creed is a good indicator of the "essentials of the faith."


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

Calvin said that Rome wasn't a true church but that didn't men there wasn't a true church among her.


----------



## Peairtach

Some of them are maybe true Christians _inspite_ of their church's teachings. If the Holy Spirit does a thorough work in them they'll want to come out. 

We are commanded to come out of apostate churches in which an antichrist/the Antichrist has been set up in:-

_And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Rev. 18:4)_

People may think that they are strong enough Christians but it is more likely they will be influenced for bad than that they will influence others for good. I've seen this in the Church of Scotland where the antichrist of Liberal Theology has been set up for decades.

All Roman Catholics are nominally Christians, because they partake of a perverted version of baptism and the Lord's Supper, but that just brings them under greater condemnation, as it does with nominal Liberal Christians or others. The inner reality of the covenant must be there for salvation as well as an outward bond.

The percentage of Christians (Romanist, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal) that are true Christians must be quite small (?) We need to be praying for God to do a great work on the Earth.


----------



## Arch2k

There is no good reason for us to regard any Roman Catholic as being a believer. Our judgment, however, is a different thing than speaking of the absolute standing they have with God. 

Is it theoretically possible that a Roman Catholic can be a Christian? First we must define "Roman Catholic". 

-If by RC we mean one that has ever set foot in a RC church, of course we must say that it is surely possible. 

-If by RC we mean a member of the RCC, then we must admit that it is at least possible. Many of our forefathers were 'born' in the RCC. However, they left, as is the duty of all who have eyes to see.

-If by RC, we mean that a person subscribes to the RC doctrines (in otherwords a TRUE RC), then we must say no. Their gospel is no gospel. It is no good news.



VilnaGaon said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nomad said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Roman Catholic actually understands and believes what Rome teaches with regard to justification, namely, that good works done in a state of grace are meritorious toward the gaining of eternal life, then _no._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about someone who believes that justification comes through the exercise of free will to accept Christ's offer of salvation? Can that person be saved?
> Must someone know exactly how they are saved in order to be saved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No consistent and TRUE arminian can ever be saved. All arminians I have met who demonstrated through their lives that that they were born again, inconsistently believed that Salvation is 100% of God, but yet a sinner has free will. These kind of arminians are as Martyn Lloyd Jones put it very well, right in their hearts but wrong in their heads. Sadly these kinds of arminians are a minority in Arminian Churches.
Click to expand...

 
I find it curious as to why Martyn Lloyd Jones would not have said that they were right in their heads and wrong in their hearts. But I would rather side with Jeremiah and say that I cannot know the human heart. 

But, if we were to judge their profession, we should come to the same conclusion as the RC, which is no gospel. While they may not deny sola fide explicitly, the doctrine that they earnestly contend for destroys it just the same. Remember, the RC's will say that one is justified by faith as well. Just because one adds "sola" to that statement, does not imply that they mean the same thing that we do.


----------



## dr_parsley

chbrooking said:


> Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.



I think that's a good way to look at it - does someone trust in Christ alone? Many Roman Catholics trust in their church above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use their church as an infallible aid. Many pentecostals/charismatics trust in what they perceive to be manifestations of the spirit, which amounts to trusting in their own interpretation of the phenomenons. But many pentecostals/charistmatics do trust in Christ alone. Many reformed trust in their interpretation of the bible above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use the bible as an infallible aid. And so it goes on; the Puritan view of assurance is clear - look for evidences in your life of the work of the spirit in the killing of sin and gospel duties done in grace. To decide on the assurance of another is even less clear - leave it up to our mutual Master.

What we *can* guess at, is that if someone holds doctrine X, then they will find it considerably difficult to be someone who has died with Christ and raised with Him; someone who has caught up in Christ and is growing up into Him their head. If it's difficult to be saved with doctrine X, then on the other hand it is not impossible unless the gospel includes "believing X is an unpardonable sin". For that to be true, X would have to be very extreme indeed.


----------



## VilnaGaon

VilnaGaon said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Roman Catholic is consistent with the teachings of his church, then he is not a Christian. But such consistency is not necessarily the case. Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But which Christ are they trusting in, ----the Christ presented to us in the Bible, or the Roman Catholic Christ of their church and tradition, their so called Magisterium. If all truth is propositional as I believe, this question is vital.
Click to expand...




dr_parsley said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's a good way to look at it - does someone trust in Christ alone? Many Roman Catholics trust in their church above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use their church as an infallible aid. Many pentecostals/charismatics trust in what they perceive to be manifestations of the spirit, which amounts to trusting in their own interpretation of the phenomenons. But many pentecostals/charistmatics do trust in Christ alone. Many reformed trust in their interpretation of the bible above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use the bible as an infallible aid. And so it goes on; the Puritan view of assurance is clear - look for evidences in your life of the work of the spirit in the killing of sin and gospel duties done in grace. To decide on the assurance of another is even less clear - leave it up to our mutual Master.
> 
> What we *can* guess at, is that if someone holds doctrine X, then they will find it considerably difficult to be someone who has died with Christ and raised with Him; someone who has caught up in Christ and is growing up into Him their head. If it's difficult to be saved with doctrine X, then on the other hand it is not impossible unless the gospel includes "believing X is an unpardonable sin". For that to be true, X would have to be very extreme indeed.
Click to expand...

Respectfully brother, the Christ we believe in is not some vague ,mystical, unknowable idea that the Roman church puts forth as their saviour. Our Jesus is the Jesus presented in the Bible only. We only cling to the propositional truths in Scripture Alone. Any other salvation and any other Jesus is just a fantasy.


----------



## ReformedChapin

I want all of those who say that if Rome is anti-christian or un-christian because they don't believe in the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone they should be consistant and pretty much conclude that all evangelicalism except for the reformed and lutheran are un-christian (or whatever you want to call it.) If you examine arminianism (evangelicalism) it's pretty much on the same path as rome, a works based religion even if both claim the grace of God.

I can't take that position, I know that both Rome and Arminians (again evangelicalism) push for the grace of God. No matter how incorrect they are with their theologies, they believe in grace even if they give man more freedom that they should.


----------



## dr_parsley

VilnaGaon said:


> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's a good way to look at it - does someone trust in Christ alone? Many Roman Catholics trust in their church above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use their church as an infallible aid. Many pentecostals/charismatics trust in what they perceive to be manifestations of the spirit, which amounts to trusting in their own interpretation of the phenomenons. But many pentecostals/charistmatics do trust in Christ alone. Many reformed trust in their interpretation of the bible above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use the bible as an infallible aid. And so it goes on; the Puritan view of assurance is clear - look for evidences in your life of the work of the spirit in the killing of sin and gospel duties done in grace. To decide on the assurance of another is even less clear - leave it up to our mutual Master.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Respectfully brother, the Christ we believe in is not some vague ,mystical, unknowable idea that the Roman church puts forth as their saviour. Our Jesus is the Jesus presented in the Bible only. We only cling to the propositional truths in Scripture Alone. Any other salvation and any other Jesus is just a fantasy.
Click to expand...


We are not saved by the propositional truths, we are saved by Christ. Someone can be saved while believing wrong propositions, but it makes it less likely. We believe in Christ himself, not in any representation of Him, whether that representation is made by the church or by scripture. Now scripture will always agree with the actual Christ, the church will not. But it is important to have the humility to realise that our interpretation of scripture may not agree with the real Christ and indeed CANNOT agree completely. I presume John Owen is still considered a reformed theologian? Well, before you answer me, read what he has to say, which I happened to read last night in "The Mortification of Sin" in the chapter on humility:



John Owen said:


> For the being of God; we are so far from a knowledge of it, so as to be able to instruct one another therein by words and expressions of it, as that to frame any conceptions in our mind, with such species and impressions of things as we receive the knowledge of all other things by, is to make an idol to ourselves, and so to worship a god of our own making, and not the God that made us. We may as well and as lawfully hew him out of wood or stone as form him a being in our minds, suited to our apprehensions.



Apart from those few things which God has taught us, I'm afraid Owen thinks Christ is, to take your words, "vague, mystical and unknowable" and to think otherwise is to set up an idol in our minds that may as well be hewn out of wood or stone. If we cling to the image we have formed of Him in our minds, and refuse Christ Himself (when we refuse other Christians on a point of debated interpretation) then we are on a dangerous course.

It seems to me the correct course is to assume *no-one* is a Christian unless there is some gospel evidences of it. Preach to them, warn them, build them up into Christ, but don't assume they are saved especially not simply because they adhere to a set of propositions. The question then about Roman Catholics is then answered, "Don't assume they're saved any more than any one else (including your reformed friends) and only begin to suspect it of either when there are clear gospel evidences".


----------



## rpavich

Richard,
Quote:
<blockquote>All Roman Catholics are nominally Christians, because they partake of a perverted version of baptism and the Lord's Supper, but that just brings them under greater condemnation, as it does with nominal Liberal Christians or others.</blockquote>


Brother; I found that statement disturbing.

Nominally Christians? I don't think that their is a catagory called *"nominal Christian"* is there? Isn't it an either / or proposition?


Could you possibly expand a little on what you meant?


----------



## Peairtach

I meant that just as there were Jews in the Old Covenant who were not of the true Israel, so there are "Christians" in the New Covenant i.e. who partake of baptism and the Lord's Supper who are not of the true invisible Church. These are wolves in sheep's clothing. Their putting themselves under the bond of the covenant without the spiritual reality will only lead to their further condemnation, as happened to the unbelieving Jews who were in the legal bond of the covenant without the reality of true faith. They are dead wood in the New Covenant Olive Tree which needs to be pruned out by church discipline and God's providence.

E.g.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. 

Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. 

Matt. 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 

This last passage indicates the significance of being a nominal Christian - a Christian in name only, without the inner reality of faith. Continuing in the legal bond of the Covenant has purely negative consequences for the individual, unless they repent and believe, but it does make a difference: a negative difference.


----------



## rpavich

Richard,
Boy...did I read that backwards! Sorry for the confusion.

I get a little touchy when I read things like that, thanks for clarifying.

god bless brother...


----------



## ubermadchen

Listen to their prayers; the same goes for the Arminian. They may proclaim free-will or merited justification but if they pray like a Calvinist then they just might be saved.


----------



## puritan lad

VilnaGaon said:


> No consistent and TRUE arminian can ever be saved. All arminians I have met who demonstrated through their lives that that they were born again, inconsistently believed that Salvation is 100% of God, but yet a sinner has free will. These kind of arminians are as Martyn Lloyd Jones put it very well, right in their hearts but wrong in their heads. Sadly these kinds of arminians are a minority in Arminian Churches.


I don't think that I can agree with that. Perhaps it's because I live in the "Bible Belt", but, from my own observation, these kinds of Arminians are a majority in Arminian Churches (In fact, there are actually very few consistent Arminian churches.) Most believe on some level that Christ actually paid for sins (true arminianism rejects that idea).

The trouble with this type (or any type) of Arminianism is that it leads to other greater errors.


----------



## Confessor

puritan lad said:


> VilnaGaon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No consistent and TRUE arminian can ever be saved. All arminians I have met who demonstrated through their lives that that they were born again, inconsistently believed that Salvation is 100% of God, but yet a sinner has free will. These kind of arminians are as Martyn Lloyd Jones put it very well, right in their hearts but wrong in their heads. Sadly these kinds of arminians are a minority in Arminian Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that I can agree with that. Perhaps it's because I live in the "Bible Belt", but, from my own observation, these kinds of Arminians are a majority in Arminian Churches (In fact, there are actually very few consistent Arminian churches.) Most believe on some level that Christ actually paid for sins (true arminianism rejects that idea).
> 
> The trouble with this type (or any type) of Arminianism is that it leads to other greater errors.
Click to expand...


 In my life, at least, I have noticed that most Arminians proclaim grace alone. God is kind even to those who deny His sovereignty in word.


----------



## Arch2k

ubermadchen said:


> Listen to their prayers; the same goes for the Arminian. They may proclaim free-will or merited justification but if they pray like a Calvinist then they just might be saved.


 
That line of argumentation proves far too much. Are you willing to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are saved because they pray like a Calvinist? One could then believe all manner of damnable heresies, but as long as they have prayer down, our judgment of them should be that they "just might be saved." I am not attacking you by any means, but this argument needs to be buried forever.



puritan lad said:


> I don't think that I can agree with that. Perhaps it's because I live in the "Bible Belt", but, from my own observation, these kinds of Arminians are a majority in Arminian Churches (In fact, there are actually very few consistent Arminian churches.) Most believe on some level that Christ actually paid for sins (true arminianism rejects that idea).
> 
> The trouble with this type (or any type) of Arminianism is that it leads to other greater errors.


 
It is my experience (and I was raised in a number of Arminian churches in the Bible belt) that most Arminian churches are consistent. They say they believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, but how they define those doctrines differs radically from how a Christian understands grace. By faith alone, they mean a faith that they stir up themselves, which does not differ in principle from salvation by works. They proclaim to believe in salvation by grace alone, but by grace alone, they mean 99% God, 1% ME. Almost every heresy that I can think of will say that "on some level" Christ died for their sins, so I see this as no defense to the Arminians.

This is not to say that all non-Calvinists I have met fall under these categories. I have met a few who are ignorant of either, and when presented with the Word of God, accept it with gladness, or even would like to search the scriptures to see if these things are so. These people are not to be confused with the present discussion.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Are Roman Catholics Christians?

Some are, some aren't. Just as some Anglicans are and some aren't. Just as some Presbyterians are and some aren't. Just as some Continental Reformed are and some aren't. Just as some Baptists are and some aren't. Just as some Lutherans are and some aren't. Etc, etc...


----------



## wallingj

Jeff_Bartel said:


> ubermadchen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to their prayers; the same goes for the Arminian. They may proclaim free-will or merited justification but if they pray like a Calvinist then they just might be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That line of argumentation proves far too much. Are you willing to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are saved because they pray like a Calvinist? One could then believe all manner of damnable heresies, but as long as they have prayer down, our judgment of them should be that they "just might be saved." I am not attacking you by any means, but this argument needs to be buried forever.
> 
> 
> 
> puritan lad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that I can agree with that. Perhaps it's because I live in the "Bible Belt", but, from my own observation, these kinds of Arminians are a majority in Arminian Churches (In fact, there are actually very few consistent Arminian churches.) Most believe on some level that Christ actually paid for sins (true arminianism rejects that idea).
> 
> The trouble with this type (or any type) of Arminianism is that it leads to other greater errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my experience (and I was raised in a number of Arminian churches in the Bible belt) that most Arminian churches are consistent. They say they believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, but how they define those doctrines differs radically from how a Christian understands grace. By faith alone, they mean a faith that they stir up themselves, which does not differ in principle from salvation by works. They proclaim to believe in salvation by grace alone, but by grace alone, they mean 99% God, 1% ME. Almost every heresy that I can think of will say that "on some level" Christ died for their sins, so I see this as no defense to the Arminians.
> 
> This is not to say that all non-Calvinists I have met fall under these categories. I have met a few who are ignorant of either, and when presented with the Word of God, accept it with gladness, or even would like to search the scriptures to see if these things are so. These people are not to be confused with the present discussion.
Click to expand...


Also growing up in the south, and having a step-dad who attended Arminian churches, and spouted Arminian doctrine, the funny thing he never believed it applied to himself. As an example, he would judge others saying they would or have lost their salvation, but when it came to him he was still saved because of what Christ did for him, even though his sins were as grevious as the one he judged. I recongnized this pattern among many of those he fellowshipped with. Somewhere down deep they knew the truth, but couldn't understand the truth. Just as a note I went to another church (SBC) that believed once in grace allways in grace.


----------



## puritan lad

Jeff_Bartel said:


> It is my experience (and I was raised in a number of Arminian churches in the Bible belt) that most Arminian churches are consistent. ...They proclaim to believe in salvation by grace alone, but by grace alone, they mean 99% God, 1% ME.



That's what I mean by not being consistent. But I hold that a person can believe what you just described and still be a Christian (I know, I use to be a saved Arminian).

Not defending their belief, but we need to be careful that we don't start teaching "justification by correct theology".


----------



## Arch2k

puritan lad said:


> That's what I mean by not being consistent. But I hold that a person can believe what you just described and still be a Christian (I know, I use to be a saved Arminian).


 
Since when is personal experience a basis for judging the validity a particular "gospel"? Rather, we should judge this by the word of God, and it clearly states that if one adds in the least your merit/works to the gospel of free grace, then one is anathema. As christians, we should judge our experience in light of God's word. If we start comparing personal experiences, then who is to be believed? I too was once Arminian, and yet I believe the Scriptures teach that it is a false gospel, therefore I count even that as dung as Paul did his former "gospel" of works.

Consider the following passages of scripture:



> Romans 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


 


> Romans 11:5-8 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (7) What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (8) (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.


 


puritan lad said:


> Not defending their belief, but we need to be careful that we don't start teaching "justification by correct theology".


 
If by "correct theology" you mean that one must earn a Masters in Theology before they come to Christ, then I agree with your statement. However, I take it that you mean the gospel where works and merit are absent is somehow too scholastic for many, if not most "christians." I find this objection unacceptable, for the gospel of free grace does not take a PHD, but rather the eyes to see, given by the Holy Spirit. The gospel has content, and this content must be believed in order to be saved. Other content is incompatible with the gospel, and shows that a person doesn't understand the content, and has not yet been given eyes to see.


----------



## Confessor

Jeff_Bartel said:


> The gospel has content, and this content must be believed in order to be saved. Other content is incompatible with the gospel, and shows that a person doesn't understand the content, and has not yet been given eyes to see.



I'm just curious, but are you Clarkian?


----------



## ubermadchen

Jeff_Bartel said:


> ubermadchen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to their prayers; the same goes for the Arminian. They may proclaim free-will or merited justification but if they pray like a Calvinist then they just might be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That line of argumentation proves far too much. Are you willing to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are saved because they pray like a Calvinist? One could then believe all manner of damnable heresies, but as long as they have prayer down, our judgment of them should be that they "just might be saved." I am not attacking you by any means, but this argument needs to be buried forever.
Click to expand...


I do believe that some of my Arminian friends are saved because while they may tell me that it is up to them to become Christians and not purely by grace alone, they still pray for God to open "so and so's" heart. They are not consistent with their Arminianism when the rubber meets the road. I haven't heard a JW pray so I don't know how to answer that. A believer isn't justified in how they pray but in Christ alone that he/she receives by faith. They may say differently out of ignorance but a believer certainly won't pray that way as the Spirit directs them in their prayers.


----------



## Arch2k

Confessor said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel has content, and this content must be believed in order to be saved. Other content is incompatible with the gospel, and shows that a person doesn't understand the content, and has not yet been given eyes to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just curious, but are you Clarkian?
Click to expand...

 
I have certain sympathies with Clark, but also serious criticisms. The comment above is not a Clarkian statement. I am trying to simply argue for the confessional view of the gospel.



> II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein;[5] and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are *accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone*for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9]
> 5. II Peter 1:20-21; John 4:42; I Thess. 2:13; I John 5:9-10; Acts 24:14
> 6. Psa. 119:10-11, 48, 97-98, 167-168; John 14:15
> 7. Ezra 9:4; Isa. 66:2; Heb. 4:1
> 8. Heb. 11:13; I Tim. 4:8
> 9. John 1:12; Acts 15:11, 16:31; Gal. 2:20; II Tim. 1:9-10


 
One cannot trust their salvation to Christ alone, and their own merits. It is clear that Roman Catholics trust in their works in lieu of Christ alone. It is also clear, that Arminians, trust in themselves, the quality of their faith, as the grounds, or at least partial grounds, by which they are saved. Therefore, they too reject salvation by Christ alone. This is a necessary conclusion of their doctrine.

As an aside, I think that the quote in my signature is most appropriate for this thread.


----------



## Confessor

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel has content, and this content must be believed in order to be saved. Other content is incompatible with the gospel, and shows that a person doesn't understand the content, and has not yet been given eyes to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just curious, but are you Clarkian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have certain sympathies with Clark, but also serious criticisms. The comment above is not a Clarkian statement. I am trying to simply argue for the confessional view of the gospel.
Click to expand...


I wasn't trying to imply that was a distinctively Clarkian statement. It just...I don't know..._sounded_ Clarkian.


----------



## Arch2k

ubermadchen said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ubermadchen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to their prayers; the same goes for the Arminian. They may proclaim free-will or merited justification but if they pray like a Calvinist then they just might be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That line of argumentation proves far too much. Are you willing to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are saved because they pray like a Calvinist? One could then believe all manner of damnable heresies, but as long as they have prayer down, our judgment of them should be that they "just might be saved." I am not attacking you by any means, but this argument needs to be buried forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe that some of my Arminian friends are saved because while they may tell me that it is up to them to become Christians and not purely by grace alone, they still pray for God to open "so and so's" heart. They are not consistent with their Arminianism when the rubber meets the road. I haven't heard a JW pray so I don't know how to answer that. A believer isn't justified in how they pray but in Christ alone that he/she receives by faith. They may say differently out of ignorance but a believer certainly won't pray that way as the Spirit directs them in their prayers.
Click to expand...

 
By the Arminians praying for "so and so's" heart, they merely recognize that salvation is not _purely_ up to man. They are not Pelagian, but semi-Pelagian, and therefore they are consistent with their doctrine of mixing works with grace. This is how the Arminian can speak of grace on the one hand, but works on the other. Some percentage is left to God (defined as grace in their minds) and some percentage left to me (not works as they would define it). This is the great heresy of Rome, and also of Arminius. The only thing differing between the two is the degree in which they attribute salvation to man, and to God. But no matter how you dice it, you cannot take their profession, and come to the conclusion that it is saving faith, wherein faith in Christ apart from works is required.


----------



## Confessor

Well, Arminians believe that God has done as much as He can do at the moment without being a "meanie" and "imposing Himself" on people's free wills. So when they pray for Him to save someone, they are indeed going against their principles.


----------



## puritan lad

Jeff_Bartel said:


> The gospel has content, and this content must be believed in order to be saved. Other content is incompatible with the gospel, and shows that a person doesn't understand the content, and has not yet been given eyes to see.


I would have to disagree. One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred. Just like anything else, part of making disciples is "teaching them". Learning correct theology, even the basic content of the gospel, is a part of sanctification, not justification. And like any other work of sanctification, it may not always be immediate.


----------



## a mere housewife

puritan lad said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel has content, and this content must be believed in order to be saved. Other content is incompatible with the gospel, and shows that a person doesn't understand the content, and has not yet been given eyes to see.
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to disagree. One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred. Just like anything else, part of making disciples is "teaching them". Learning correct theology, even the basic content of the gospel, is a part of sanctification, not justification. And like any other work of sanctification, it may not always be immediate.
Click to expand...


I sometimes think that the entirety of my saved life could be summed up as learning again and yet again that I am not saved by my own works. I think that practical Roman Catholicism is a natural religious expression of my old nature.

I believe that a Roman Catholic person may be saved in spite of his church for the same reason that I believe I may be saved in spite of my self; precisely because what I learn again and again is true: it is Christ who saves -- and I believe that his growth in grace like mine would be learning to more consciously and completely put his whole trust in Christ. 

I am often puzzled by statements made in these kinds of discussions by paedobaptists that would seem to exclude infants from salvation.


----------



## Arch2k

puritan lad said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel has content, and this content must be believed in order to be saved. Other content is incompatible with the gospel, and shows that a person doesn't understand the content, and has not yet been given eyes to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to disagree. One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred. Just like anything else, part of making disciples is "teaching them". Learning correct theology, even the basic content of the gospel, is a part of sanctification, not justification. And like any other work of sanctification, it may not always be immediate.
Click to expand...

 
There is no gospel whatsoever if you strip all content from it. The gospel is that we believe in *SOMETHING*, not nothing. To say that one can be completely ignorant of all content in the gospel, is to say that one can be ignorant of the gospel itself, and yet be a Christian. This in unconfessional, and VERY dangerous. 

You say, "One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred." Can a person be saved while trusting in Budah? Can a person strip the person of Christ completely from the gospel and yet would you leave a knowledge of Christ for sanctification? If your answer is no, then you have to admit that the gospel has content (i.e. Christ saves), and you refute your earlier statement.

Rather, our confessional standards, in our churches, and on this board include content in saving faith.

Let us recount some of these basic tenants that are NOT left up to sanctification, but a requirement for saving faith.



> Q72: What is justifying faith?
> A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] 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,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]
> 1. Heb. 10:39
> 2. II Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19
> 3. Rom. 10:14, 17
> 4. Acts 2:37; 4:12; 16:30; John 16:8-9; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1
> 5. Eph. 1:13
> 6. John 1:12; Acts 10:43; 16:31
> 7. Phil. 3:9; Acts 15:11


 
1. A sinner must be "*convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*"

2. A sinner must "*assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel*"

3 A sinner must "*receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.*"

All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.


----------



## a mere housewife

Jeff, can an infant do those things? Is there better statement (not as regards the confession, but as regards your argument from it) that does not militate against other parts of your confessional beliefs?

For instance, could this content perhaps be present in 'seed form' and grow up in us?


----------



## Arch2k

I think the following quote may be helpful to the present discussion:



> "Luther called justification by faith alone "the article upon which the church stands or falls" (_articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae_). This strong assertion of the central importance of justification was linked to Luther's identification of justification by faith alone (_sola fide_) with the gospel. The "good news" of the New Testament 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.
> 
> The issue of _how_ justification and salvation are receieved became the paramount point of debate. Luther's insistence on sola fide was based on the conviction that the "how" of justification is integral and essential to the gospel itself. He viewed justification by faith alone as necessary and essential to the gospel and to salavation."
> 
> R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone, p.18-19.


----------



## kvanlaan

I think many (if not most) of your average TR folks see it as another beast altogether. This past Sunday, our pastor was describing a man he knew, truly a 'new creation', and added emphasis to his story by finishing with "...and this man came from paganism! From Catholicism!"


----------



## Peairtach

MrMerlin777 said:


> Are Roman Catholics Christians?
> 
> Some are, some aren't. Just as some Anglicans are and some aren't. Just as some Presbyterians are and some aren't. Just as some Continental Reformed are and some aren't. Just as some Baptists are and some aren't. Just as some Lutherans are and some aren't. Etc, etc...



This is just nonsense. The Roman Catholic Church trumpets a false Gospel that is institutionalised into the very official teaching and ceremonialism of each Romanist congregation. The Roman Catholic Church isn't just another church; it's institutionally and constitutionally wicked and idolatrous.

Some Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Reformed congregations are evangelical; that cannot be said of any Romanist congregation.

If any Roman Catholic is supposed to be born again and yet holds to the official teaching of Rome of grace plus, faith plus and Christ plus, that person is either a stranger to Christ, or has their heart transformed and their mind totally confused and it is impossible for us to recognise them as children of God. God may know who they are; but we can only know them from their testimony and behaviour.

A healthy sign in a Roman Catholic that claims to be resting on Christ alone by faith alone through grace alone, is that they want to get out of the Church of Rome as quickly as possible. I know former Roman Catholics who were spoken to by the Holy Spirit after their conversion in these words of Scripture:-

_Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18:4) _

You cannot be a member of the Roman Catholic Church without taking part in her idolatry and giving at least tacit support to the Papacy and all its errors. Romanism is a syncretism of Paganism and Christianity in which Paganism has the upper hand. Calvin called it a chaos of errors.


----------



## Arch2k

a mere housewife said:


> Jeff, can an infant do those things? Is there better statement (not as regards the confession, but as regards your argument from it) that does not militate against other parts of your confessional beliefs?
> 
> For instance, could this content perhaps be present in 'seed form' and grow up in us?


 
I don't think that an infant can do those things _physically_. This is where the gospel may be present in them in seed form, if one wished to phrase it that way. Elect infants may have the spiritual capability to believe such things, but not the physical capability.

This is shown in the WCF:



> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, *are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit*,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
> 12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
> 13. John 3:8
> 14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12


 
With adults (with a few exceptions), we have the physical capability, but the unregenerate lack the spiritual capability (regeneration) to understand and believe such things.

Again, just for clarification, nobody is stating that one must be able to recite the Westminster in order to be saved. One however, must know of Christ, and trust him as the only means (and this excludes all works) of salvation.


----------



## VilnaGaon

dr_parsley said:


> VilnaGaon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's a good way to look at it - does someone trust in Christ alone? Many Roman Catholics trust in their church above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use their church as an infallible aid. Many pentecostals/charismatics trust in what they perceive to be manifestations of the spirit, which amounts to trusting in their own interpretation of the phenomenons. But many pentecostals/charistmatics do trust in Christ alone. Many reformed trust in their interpretation of the bible above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use the bible as an infallible aid. And so it goes on; the Puritan view of assurance is clear - look for evidences in your life of the work of the spirit in the killing of sin and gospel duties done in grace. To decide on the assurance of another is even less clear - leave it up to our mutual Master.
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully brother, the Christ we believe in is not some vague ,mystical, unknowable idea that the Roman church puts forth as their saviour. Our Jesus is the Jesus presented in the Bible only. We only cling to the propositional truths in Scripture Alone. Any other salvation and any other Jesus is just a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not saved by the propositional truths, we are saved by Christ. Someone can be saved while believing wrong propositions, but it makes it less likely. We believe in Christ himself, not in any representation of Him, whether that representation is made by the church or by scripture. Now scripture will always agree with the actual Christ, the church will not. But it is important to have the humility to realise that our interpretation of scripture may not agree with the real Christ and indeed CANNOT agree completely. I presume John Owen is still considered a reformed theologian? Well, before you answer me, read what he has to say, which I happened to read last night in "The Mortification of Sin" in the chapter on humility:
> 
> 
> 
> John Owen said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the being of God; we are so far from a knowledge of it, so as to be able to instruct one another therein by words and expressions of it, as that to frame any conceptions in our mind, with such species and impressions of things as we receive the knowledge of all other things by, is to make an idol to ourselves, and so to worship a god of our own making, and not the God that made us. We may as well and as lawfully hew him out of wood or stone as form him a being in our minds, suited to our apprehensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from those few things which God has taught us, I'm afraid Owen thinks Christ is, to take your words, "vague, mystical and unknowable" and to think otherwise is to set up an idol in our minds that may as well be hewn out of wood or stone. If we cling to the image we have formed of Him in our minds, and refuse Christ Himself (when we refuse other Christians on a point of debated interpretation) then we are on a dangerous course.
> 
> It seems to me the correct course is to assume *no-one* is a Christian unless there is some gospel evidences of it. Preach to them, warn them, build them up into Christ, but don't assume they are saved especially not simply because they adhere to a set of propositions. The question then about Roman Catholics is then answered, "Don't assume they're saved any more than any one else (including your reformed friends) and only begin to suspect it of either when there are clear gospel evidences".
Click to expand...

 
The Jesus we put our trust in is not some Jesus standing in a street corner or floating in the air or in some cookie that Catholics eat in their Mass. The only Jesus that we believe in is the Jesus presented in the Bible. The propositional truths regarding Jesus are explicitly set forth in Scripture to those who have eyes to see-----ie. the Elect. These Propositional truths concerning Jesus which we find in the Scriptures are the only way we can know Jesus. Any other knowledge of Jesus outside Scriptures whether visions, dreams or voices or in Papal decrees is only a fantasy or worse. Jesus being God is incomprehensible but knowable, but only through Scripture.


----------



## Confessor

Jacob, are _you_ Clarkian?


----------



## Arch2k

a mere housewife said:


> I believe that a Roman Catholic person may be saved in spite of his church for the same reason that I believe I may be saved in spite of my self; precisely because what I learn again and again is true: it is Christ who saves -- and I believe that his growth in grace like mine would be learning to more consciously and completely put his whole trust in Christ.


 
We may grow up to different degrees of faith in this life, yet it remains true saving faith. But let us never say that we are saved in spite of the gospel, for that would clearly contradict scripture.



> III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]
> 
> 10. Heb. 5:13-14; Rom. 4:19-20; 14:1-2; Matt. 6:30; 8:10
> 11. Luke 22:31-32; Eph. 6:16; I John 5:4-5
> 12. Heb. 6:11-12; 10:22; Col. 2:2
> 13. Heb. 12:2


 


a mere housewife said:


> I am often puzzled by statements made in these kinds of discussions by paedobaptists that would seem to exclude infants from salvation.


 
See post above. Nothing I stated excludes infants from salvation. Note how the WCF does not require saving faith for infants, but includes regeneration (which we are passive in) and salavation by Christ through the Spirit.

Either way, infants are the exception, and not the norm. The normal means of salvation include the gospel.


----------



## Confessor

Jeff,

Do you believe that someone can be wholly trusting in Christ's work and not their own (i.e. they have the Gospel content), yet they think that they chose to do so with their free will?


----------



## Arch2k

Confessor said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Do you believe that someone can be wholly trusting in Christ's work and not their own (i.e. they have the Gospel content), yet they think that they chose to do so with their free will?


 
To me that is saying that one can be trusting that salavation is 100% of God, and 100% of me. 



> "Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free will: and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, 'If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment: but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both: that he is 'Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men"
> *C.H. Spurgeon (Sermon entitled "Free Will-A Slave")*


----------



## Ravens

It's not simply Roman Catholicism that is involved in this question. At the end of the day, the same viewpoint that would consign Roman Catholics to gehenna would end up consigning (by most accounts) the vast majority of the early church fathers whose writings have come down to us, the Roman Catholic church throughout history, the Orthodox churches, etc. The only reason such a viewpoint might hold out hope for the Celtic church is because the Celtic church hasn't left as many writings for posterity. But I'm sure that a person of that bent could comb Patrick's confession, or the stories of Celtic saints, or maybe make inferences from the female monastics in Ireland, and conclude that they were, in fact, not Christian. The same viewpoint would, 50% of the time, and probably more if followed out consistently, consign Melanchthon, later Lutheranism, Baxter, Arminians, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, and Tolkien to gehenna. And that's not even counting all of the "in house" false sheep in the Reformed churches, which are also consigned to gehenna.

That is not a viewpoint that I want any part of. To think that the men who hammered out the canon, came up with the formulae which we still use to talk about the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union, the men who were formative in Christian theology, were not Christian... to think that the medieval church was not Christian in any sense, to think that Constantinople, which held back the progress of Islam for almost a thousand years and spread Christianity to Slavic and Russian lands, whose manuscript tradition many of us still use today, was not Christian... it just boggles my mind, and my soul recoils from it.

Clearly there are some motivated and passionate people in this thread who disagree. That being said, I have no desire to interact on this issue, because I don't have the time or energy, and I just don't want to deal with that mindset. Besides, this topic is rehashed on the Puritanboard every few years, and I posted something similar in the McMahon-Bushey-"Is the Arminian god worshippable (sp.?)" thread a few years ago that saw the banning of Pastorway (if I recall correctly). It's just like racial threads or exclusive psalmody threads, or Superbowl threads; they'll always return. So everyone else can return to the thread as usual, but I think it's a dangerous mindset.


----------



## a mere housewife

Jeff_Bartel said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff, can an infant do those things? Is there better statement (not as regards the confession, but as regards your argument from it) that does not militate against other parts of your confessional beliefs?
> 
> For instance, could this content perhaps be present in 'seed form' and grow up in us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that an infant can do those things _physically_. This is where the gospel may be present in them in seed form, if one wished to phrase it that way. Elect infants may have the spiritual capability to believe such things, but not the physical capability.
> 
> This is shown in the WCF:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, *are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit*,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
> 12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
> 13. John 3:8
> 14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With adults (with a few exceptions), we have the physical capability, but the unregenerate lack the spiritual capability (regeneration) to understand and believe such things.
> 
> Again, just for clarification, nobody is stating that one must be able to recite the Westminster in order to be saved. One however, must know of Christ, and trust him as the only means (and this excludes all works) of salvation.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Jeff. I agree (of course!) as to the content of saving faith. I am not sure that even where sinners are physically capable of believing these things, they are morally capable in this life of believing them without some degree of error: so I wonder if it wouldn't clarify further to say that this content of saving faith can exist with error, but the faith and the error are distinguishable things (even though by definition, the person imperfectly distinguishes them). They will one day be ultimately distinguished (and we grow to distinguish them more completely in this life as part of sanctification). But the presence of error and confusion does not invalidate the content of faith. Even though a person's faith is incomplete and weak -- contained in a vessel that contains a lot of other things -- because it is there, looking to and laying hold of a whole and perfect Christ, it is the instrument of justification for the whole error ridden person? 

I wish I could say what I am trying to more clearly. I think it's been said before in the thread, but it is because I believe in the vital truth of justification by faith alone, that I can believe that it is not adhering with perfect clarity to this doctrine that saves.


----------



## VilnaGaon

Confessor said:


> Jacob, are _you_ Clarkian?


I have read some Gordon Clark but not enough to classify me as as a Clarkian. I think Robert Reymond in his superb Systematic Theology presents Clarks ideas very intelligibly and that book has definitely had some influence on me.


----------



## Confessor

VilnaGaon said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, are _you_ Clarkian?
> 
> 
> 
> I have read some Gordon Clark but not enough to classify me as as a Clarkian. I think Robert Reymond in his superb Systematic Theology presents Clarks ideas very intelligibly and that book has definitely had some influence on me.
Click to expand...


Okay, thanks. I was just curious. When I hear stress on "propositional truth" I immediately think Clark.

Alright, my witch hunt is over.


----------



## Arch2k

Joshua, 

I respect your decision to not get involved in this thread. However, I believe a response is need to your objections. Does the WCF doctrine of Saving Faith mean that a large number of people are not christian? Absolutely. This should not make us happy, or joyous, but nonetheless, should not suprise us.



> Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:


 


> Luke 13:23-24 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, (24) Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.


 


> Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.


 
That being said, I don't think that means we need to condemn all of the church fathers, Anselm etc. etc. I don't think that Dort ever intended to condemn all of the Fathers when they condemned Arminius. All one need do is search right here on the PB for quotes by the fathers from DTK on justification, and various other gospel topics to realize that the gospel, though not perfect, was more prominent in their thought than many would like to admit.


----------



## Arch2k

a mere housewife said:


> Thanks, Jeff. I agree (of course!) as to the content of saving faith. I am not sure that even where sinners are physically capable of believing these things, they are morally capable in this life of believing them without some degree of error: so I wonder if it wouldn't clarify further to say that this content of saving faith can exist with error, but the faith and the error are distinguishable things (even though by definition, the person imperfectly distinguishes them). They will one day be ultimately distinguished (and we grow to distinguish them more completely in this life as part of sanctification). But the presence of error and confusion does not invalidate the content of faith. Even though a person's faith is incomplete and weak. contained in a vessel that contains a lot of other things -- because it is there, looking to and laying hold of a whole and perfect Christ, it is the instrument of justification for the whole error ridden person?
> 
> I wish I could say what I am trying to more clearly. I think it's been said before in the thread, but it is because I believe in the vital truth of justification by faith alone, that I can believe that it is not adhering with perfect clarity to this doctrine that saves.


 
Thank you Heidi!  I completely agree with you that a person's faith need not be perfect. In fact, the WCF states quite the opposite:



> III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]
> 10. Heb. 5:13-14; Rom. 4:19-20; 14:1-2; Matt. 6:30; 8:10
> 11. Luke 22:31-32; Eph. 6:16; I John 5:4-5
> 12. Heb. 6:11-12; 10:22; Col. 2:2
> 13. Heb. 12:2


 
What I am trying to argue for, is that while saving faith may not be perfect in this life, a person who possesses it, will not spend his whole life professing the opposite of it (i.e. salvation by works). In such a case, we must plead with such a person by all means to abadon such a path to hell, and present the gospel with clarity, that God, if he will, might have mercy on them.


----------



## VilnaGaon

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Joshua,
> 
> I respect your decision to not get involved in this thread. However, I believe a response is need to your objections. Does the WCF doctrine of Saving Faith mean that a large number of people are not christian? Absolutely. This should not make us happy, or joyous, but nonetheless, should not suprise us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 13:23-24 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, (24) Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That being said, I don't think that means we need to condemn all of the church fathers, Anselm etc. etc. I don't think that Dort ever intended to condemn all of the Fathers when they condemned Arminius. All one need do is search right here on the PB for quotes by the fathers from DTK on justification, and various other gospel topics to realize that the gospel, though not perfect, was more prominent in their thought than many would like to admit.
Click to expand...


Most of the Church Fathers believed in Justification by Faith alone. A collection of their statements on this doctrine is found in ""The Justification Reader"" by Thomas Oden. John Gill in his ""Cause of God and Truth"" also shows how the Five Points of Calvinism were believed by the Church Fathers. He shows this in series of quotes.


----------



## Arch2k

Thanks Jacob. I am aware of Gill's work, and while I am no expert on the fathers by any means, I have read that they were more "protestant" than many people today espouse.

It is clear in my understanding, many held fast to the true faith.

From the Council of Orange:



> *The Canons of the Council of Orange*
> *(529 AD)*
> 
> CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).


----------



## Peairtach

JDWiseman said:


> It's not simply Roman Catholicism that is involved in this question. At the end of the day, the same viewpoint that would consign Roman Catholics to gehenna would end up consigning (by most accounts) the vast majority of the early church fathers whose writings have come down to us, the Roman Catholic church throughout history, the Orthodox churches, etc. The only reason such a viewpoint might hold out hope for the Celtic church is because the Celtic church hasn't left as many writings for posterity. But I'm sure that a person of that bent could comb Patrick's confession, or the stories of Celtic saints, or maybe make inferences from the female monastics in Ireland, and conclude that they were, in fact, not Christian. The same viewpoint would, 50% of the time, and probably more if followed out consistently, consign Melanchthon, later Lutheranism, Baxter, Arminians, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, and Tolkien to gehenna. And that's not even counting all of the "in house" false sheep in the Reformed churches, which are also consigned to gehenna.
> 
> That is not a viewpoint that I want any part of. To think that the men who hammered out the canon, came up with the formulae which we still use to talk about the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union, the men who were formative in Christian theology, were not Christian... to think that the medieval church was not Christian in any sense, to think that Constantinople, which held back the progress of Islam for almost a thousand years and spread Christianity to Slavic and Russian lands, whose manuscript tradition many of us still use today, was not Christian... it just boggles my mind, and my soul recoils from it.
> 
> Clearly there are some motivated and passionate people in this thread who disagree. That being said, I have no desire to interact on this issue, because I don't have the time or energy, and I just don't want to deal with that mindset. Besides, this topic is rehashed on the Puritanboard every few years, and I posted something similar in the McMahon-Bushey-"Is the Arminian god worshippable (sp.?)" thread a few years ago that saw the banning of Pastorway (if I recall correctly). It's just like racial threads or exclusive psalmody threads, or Superbowl threads; they'll always return. So everyone else can return to the thread as usual, but I think it's a dangerous mindset.



I see where you're coming from. 

But whether the early church was as gross as full-blown Romanism, and whether now the Reformation has happened and people should know better and also have other places to go, is relevant here. If you were converted at the height of Medieval Romanism you would have no place else to go, even although you didn't believe all the nonsense that was being fed to you or accepted all the ceremonies and behaviour? The Reformation having happened and being notorious, we would expect better things of modern Roman Catholics who get saved/come to faith and also for the health of their own souls should persuade such to leave Rome if they have not done so already.

Some of the heroes of church history because of their erroneous doctrine and practice, we may wonder if they had the root of the matter in them, but we have to leave such with the Lord or ascribe to them the judgment of charity, while making our own calling and election sure.

How much poor teaching did our Lord Himself have to endure when He went to the synagogue from week to week in First Century Galilee?

The light of a candle and the voice of the bride and bridegroom may be faintly heard in the apostate church while she still survives - otherwise she would be no part of Christendom at all and her refugees would have to be rebaptised -but still we are commanded to leave:-

_And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived (Rev.18:23) _

_Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Rev. 18:4)_


----------



## jambo

It is not just the question about justification that seperates Catholicism from true faith but the whole system. The Pope not the scriptures are infallible; the central position held by Christ is usurped by Mary; his work is supplemented by mans work, including dead saints; the church is the mother of salvation etc.

One can talk about pre and post Vatican 2 but two things are quite clear. The first is that the RC has changed. The second is that the RC church has not changed one bit. Therein lies the confusion. People by and large are confused by the former. The RC has changed but it is a change in attitude and accommodation. But at the heart of the RC church the traditional teachings are still the very same. 

Go to a country where the RC church is in the majority and you will see a different variation of that church then when it is in the minority.


----------



## a mere housewife

Jeff:



> What I am trying to argue for, is that while saving faith may not be perfect in this life, a person who possesses it, will not spend his whole life professing the opposite of it (i.e. salvation by works). In such a case, we must plead with such a person by all means to abadon such a path to hell, and present the gospel with clarity, that God, if he will, might have mercy on them.


I would agree if what we are speaking of is a person who _consistently_ _rejects_ clear biblical teaching re: salvation by works. If what we are speaking of is a person who has not had clear teaching presented to them, or has not as yet been exposed enough to understand it, and is confused -- then I think it would be uncharitable to judge their profession, esp. if they show evidence in other ways of attachment to Christ.


----------



## Arch2k

a mere housewife said:


> Jeff:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am trying to argue for, is that while saving faith may not be perfect in this life, a person who possesses it, will not spend his whole life professing the opposite of it (i.e. salvation by works). In such a case, we must plead with such a person by all means to abadon such a path to hell, and present the gospel with clarity, that God, if he will, might have mercy on them.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree if what we are speaking of is a person who _consistently_ _rejects_ clear biblical teaching re: salvation by works. If what we are speaking of is a person who has not had clear teaching presented to them, or has not as yet been exposed enough to understand it, and is confused -- then I think it would be uncharitable to judge their profession, esp. if they show evidence in other ways of attachment to Christ.
Click to expand...

 
So what about the Roman Catholic who has never had the truth presented to them. What about the Jehovah's Witness? What about the poor countries that are destitute of the gospel? I understand your desire to be charitable in your judgements, and that is good as long as it is justified. But ignorance of the gospel itself is no grounds for this christian judgment.



> Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.


 


> Romans 10:1-3 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. (2) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. (3) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.


----------



## a mere housewife

Jeff, again, we are agreed as to the content of faith, and that it is present. Someone who has _no_ access to the means of grace is obviously not going to be able to have that content.

But we are not speaking of people who have no access to means of grace with RC's and Arminians.


----------



## Arch2k

Heidi,

Matthew Henry makes some excellent points in his commentary on Romans 10 that I think you might find interesting.



> 2. A good witness, as a reason of his good wish (Rom_10:2): I bear them record that they have a zeal of God. The unbelieving Jews were the most bitter enemies Paul had in the world, and yet Paul gives them as good a character as the truth would bear. We should say the best we can even of our worst enemies; this is blessing those that curse us. Charity teaches us to have the best opinion of persons, and to put the best construction upon words and actions, that they will bear. We should take notice of that which is commendable even in bad people. They have a zeal of God. Their opposition to the gospel is from a principle of respect to the law, which they know to have come from God. There is such a thing as a blind misguided zeal: such was that of the Jews, who, when they hated Christ's people and ministers, and cast them out, said, Let the Lord be glorified (Isa_66:5); nay, they killed them, and thought they did God good service, Joh_16:2.
> 
> ...
> 
> He here shows the fatal mistake that the unbelieving Jews were guilty of, which was their ruin. Their zeal was not according to knowledge.
> 
> ---
> 
> The nature of their unbelief. They have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God, that is, they have not yielded to gospel-terms, nor accepted the tender of justification by faith in Christ, which is made in the gospel. Unbelief is a non-submission to the righteousness of God, standing it out against the gospel proclamation of indemnity. Have not submitted. In true faith, there is need of a great deal of submission; therefore the first lesson Christ teaches is to deny ourselves.
> 
> ---
> 
> 2. The causes of their unbelief, and these are two: - (1.) Ignorance of God's righteousness. They did not understand, and believe, and consider, the strict justice of God, in hating and punishing sin, and demanding satisfaction, did not consider what need we have of a righteousness wherein to appear before him; if they had, they would never have stood out against the gospel offer, nor expected justification by their own works, as if they could satisfy God's justice. Or, being ignorant of God's way of justification, which he has now appointed and revealed by Jesus Christ. They did not know it, because they would not; they shut their eyes against the discoveries of it, and love darkness rather. (2.) A proud conceit of their own righteousness: Going about to establish their own - a righteousness of their own devising, and of their own working out, by the merit of their works, and by their observance of the ceremonial law. They thought they needed not to be beholden to the merit of Christ, and therefore depended upon their own performances as sufficient to make up a righteousness wherein to appear before God. They could not with Paul disclaim a dependence upon this (Phi_3:9), Not having my own righteousness. See an instance of this pride in the Pharisee, Luk_18:10, Luk_18:11. Compare Rom_10:14.


----------



## Arch2k

a mere housewife said:


> Jeff, faith looks to Christ: again, we are agreed as to the content of faith, and that it is present. Someone who has _no_ access to the means of grace is obviously not going to be able to have that content.


 
Heidi, faith looks to Christ _alone_. That is crucial to the content. That is what they are missing, either by ignorance, stubborness, whatever the case may be. But whatever it is, does not excuse them, for God is the giver of knowledge, and the Holy Spirit is who opens our eyes to the gospel.


----------



## a mere housewife

> Heidi, faith looks to Christ _alone_.


Faith does, but error of course, does not. I thought we were agreed that faith could exist where there was remaining error. I think until a person who has made a profession of faith consistently demonstrates an unwillingness (despite clear teaching) to part with error, it would be uncharitable to judge that there was no faith.

That is a great quote by Matthew Henry. And we are agreed as to the judgment of those who consistently oppose themselves to clear teaching of the gospel.


----------



## Confessor

Jeff,

Is it possible to hold to _sola fide_ while being unaware that the notion of free will entails meritoriousness to an extent?


----------



## Arch2k

a mere housewife said:


> Heidi, faith looks to Christ _alone_.
> 
> 
> 
> Faith does, but error of course, does not. I thought we were agreed that faith could exist where there was remaining error. I think until a person who has made a profession of faith consistently demonstrates an unwillingness (despite clear teaching) to part with error, it would be uncharitable to judge that there was no faith.
> 
> That is a great quote by Matthew Henry. And we are agreed as to the judgment of those who consistently oppose themselves to clear teaching of the gospel.
Click to expand...

 
Error is of different kinds, and some are destructive of the gospel, i.e. salvation by merit/works. Error in this regards is not compatible with saving faith, and in fact opposses it. Therefore those who expouse a doctrine of works do not possess saving faith. 

Matthew Henry is great, but make sure to note that he does not excuse their ignorance, even though they were ignorant of the truth. He equates unbelief with ignorance. We too, should not use ignorance as an excuse to judge people as christians under the guise of charity. Give them charity where it is due (i.e. zeal), but not where it opposses the gospel.


----------



## Nomad

Confessor said:


> Is it possible to hold to _sola fide_ while being unaware that the notion of free will entails meritoriousness to an extent?




When it comes to Arminians in general, this is the case. They proclaim sola fide and vehemently deny that the faith they believe they stir up in themselves amounts to a meritorious work. So, most Arminians do believe in justification by faith alone. The crucial difference between them and us is that they believe "faith" comes from themselves, whereas we understand that faith is a gift of God.


----------



## Arch2k

Confessor said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Is it possible to hold to _sola fide_ while being unaware that the notion of free will entails meritoriousness to an extent?


 
No. I might well ask you, "Is it possible to hold to _sola fide_ while being unaware that the notion of "keeping the whole law" entails meritoriousness to an extent?" Just because one does not realize the damnable implications of his belief, does not excuse the fact that the implications are there. Ignorance is no excuse.


----------



## Arch2k

Confessor & Heidi, 

Would either of you be able to show me any scriptural evidence for your assertions that ignorance excuses anyone, in any situation?


----------



## dudley

*If ever a system was antichrist it is the system of Roman Catholicism*

I am an ex Roman catholic and I am now a staunch Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian.

I experienced the salvation of the Bible, not the salvation of Romanism and as the result of that salvation I embrace and proclaim Protestantism. To that extent I renounce Roman Catholicism and her pope. I think more Protestants should. If ever a system was antichrist it is the system of Roman Catholicism, and it will prove to be such in the end.

"Renouncing the Pope and the teachings of the Catholic church is an anti-Catholic stance. That's what it means…to be against their teachings." I am anti Roman Catholicism as were all the reformers I renounce and protest all her false teachings as all Protestants should. We protest the heresies and proclaim the true Gospel of Christ. I am often criticized fro openly renouncing Roman Catholicism and her pope. 

Calvin passionately sought for the restoration of the Church Catholic of the Apostles and the Fathers, I wish more Presbyterians laid hold of this. That Reformed Protestantism is the restoration of and old religion not the innovation of a new religion. Our greatest fault is that we are not connected with the ancient faith as he was. 

I have come to believe that Roman Catholicism is not a true Christian faith. I am today a Reformed Protestant who left the Roman church and became a Presbyterian because I believe Presbyterianism and Reformed Protestantism is the restoration of the ancient faith of the true Christian church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles. I renounce the papist Roman teachings which continue to be apostasy and corrupt the Gospel and the truth of the scriptures. I am a staunch Protestant Presbyterian and a Calvinist because we Reformed Protestants are the restoration of and old religion not the innovation of a new religion as Roman Catholicism teaches. We are the heirs of the ancient and true faith. I renounce the pope and Roman Catholicism as did Calvin and all the reformers. I wish more Protestants would understand and accept this fact. I have found that more ex Roman Catholics like myself who have become Reformed Protestants do understand that fact better than many cradle Protestants.

In grace,
Dudley

May we all be Sons of the Reformation and continue to proclaim what it means to be Reformed Presbyterian Protestant Christians!


----------



## a mere housewife

Jeff, this is going to be my last post because I think we are probably talking past one another now. I know from experience that saving faith can exist with practical error about merit/works, because I am constantly learning that this is an error I have fallen into. Yet God gives me grace to understand more clearly, and to reject the false ideas I have had. 

I don't feel any need to assign exactly how much percentage of error can exist with saving faith. We agree on the content of faith and this, not certain low percentage of error, is the instrument of justification: we agree that the content can exist where there is error, and is distinguishable from it even when a person is confused. So, until a person who has made a profession of faith in Christ (requiring a certain amount of knowledge -- the Matthew Henry quote is not entirely applicable to this case) demonstrates a persistent unwillingness, on coming to clearer understanding, to reject remaining error, I see no reason to conclude that there can be no principle of faith in him. I know of no command in Scripture that I should judge such a person's faith. 

Perhaps some of the confusion results because you are assuming that people have more clarity about their error than I believe is generally the case with men with fallen minds.

Thanks for the discussion!

(edit: in case it has not been clear, I wanted to add that I have been thinking in terms of God's ability to save individuals despite bad teaching, rather than the mass tendency of bad teaching. By and large, the teaching of the RCC is to shut up the kingdom of heaven against men.)


----------



## historyb

Nomad said:


> So, most Arminians do believe in justification by faith alone. The crucial difference between them and us is that they believe "faith" comes from themselves, whereas we understand that faith is a gift of God.



I find this very curious, when I was in the Arminian camp I nor anyone I knew believed this. What we did believe that God imparted a measure of faith to all, we also viewed faith from God.

Sorry about going off topic


----------



## Arch2k

a mere housewife said:


> Jeff, this is going to be my last post because I think we are probably talking past one another now. I know from experience that saving faith can exist with practical error about merit/works, because I am constantly learning that this is an error I have fallen into. Yet God gives me grace to understand more clearly, and to reject the false ideas I have had.
> 
> I don't feel any need to assign exactly how much percentage of error can exist with saving faith. We agree on the content of faith and this, not certain low percentage of error, is the instrument of justification: we agree that the content can exist where there is error, and is distinguishable from it even when a person is confused. So, until a person who has made a profession of faith in Christ (requiring a certain amount of knowledge -- the Matthew Henry quote is not entirely applicable to this case) demonstrates a persistent unwillingness, on coming to clearer understanding, to reject remaining error, I see no reason to conclude that there can be no principle of faith in him. I know of no command in Scripture that I should judge such a person's faith.
> 
> Perhaps some of the confusion results because you are assuming that people have more clarity about their error than I believe is generally the case with men with fallen minds.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion!


 
Thank you too Heidi.

I will leave you with a couple of comments. First of all, know that your judgment of saving faith according to this post is not coming from scripture then, it is coming from experience, which is dangerous. Your reasoning appears to be thus:

I struggle believe in some sort of justification by works.
I am saved.
Therefore, Arminians who struggle with belief in justfication by works may be saved.

I would ask that you give the arguments scripture, and base your judgements on it.



a mere housewife said:


> I see no reason to conclude that there can be no principle of faith in him.


 
Is works compatible with saving faith? I have shown you from scripture, and the confession that such is not the case. You have brought opinion and experience. 



a mere housewife said:


> I know of no command in Scripture that I should judge such a person's faith.


 
First, I might submit that you have already made a judgment...in the affirmative. I am suggesting that you reverse the judgment you have already made. Did you not first suggest the "judgment of charity"? I am not suggesting that we can know their hearts, but we can know their gospel, and make an earthly judgment thereby.

There are many commands and implications in scripture to judge the gospel, and to know when we hear a false gospel.

But here is scripture:



> John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.


 


> Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.


 


> 1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.


 


> Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.


 


> Luke 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?


 
It has been a pleasure discussing this with you Heidi. Take care.


----------



## Nomad

historyb said:


> Nomad said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, most Arminians do believe in justification by faith alone. The crucial difference between them and us is that they believe "faith" comes from themselves, whereas we understand that faith is a gift of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this very curious, when I was in the Arminian camp I nor anyone I knew believed this. What we did believe that God imparted a measure of faith to all, we also viewed faith from God.
> 
> Sorry about going off topic
Click to expand...



Hey Doug,

Your group would certainly be the exception to the rule. I can't say I've ever met an Arminian who believed that faith is a gift of God. What denomination are we talking about here? Is there a confession or statement of faith I could look at?


----------



## historyb

That was when I was in a non-Reformed Baptist, an ABC Church and Assembly of God.


----------



## py3ak

I think Jeff's position was already well answered by this post.


----------



## Jeff Allen

I have a dear friend who is tired of shallow, man centered evangelicalism. His family is in the process of converting to Catholicism.

This upsets me greatly and I have told him he has lost his mind, but his mind is made up.

My wife (former RCC) says once he is completely in and sees how spiritually dead it is he might come to his senses.

I granted him that yes the RCC had beautifull stain glass windows but that's about it.


----------



## Nomad

py3ak said:


> I think Jeff's position was already well answered by this post.



Yes, indeed. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28

Jeff_Bartel said:


> puritan lad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel has content, and this content must be believed in order to be saved. Other content is incompatible with the gospel, and shows that a person doesn't understand the content, and has not yet been given eyes to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to disagree. One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred. Just like anything else, part of making disciples is "teaching them". Learning correct theology, even the basic content of the gospel, is a part of sanctification, not justification. And like any other work of sanctification, it may not always be immediate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no gospel whatsoever if you strip all content from it. The gospel is that we believe in *SOMETHING*, not nothing. To say that one can be completely ignorant of all content in the gospel, is to say that one can be ignorant of the gospel itself, and yet be a Christian. This in unconfessional, and VERY dangerous.
> 
> You say, "One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred." Can a person be saved while trusting in Budah? Can a person strip the person of Christ completely from the gospel and yet would you leave a knowledge of Christ for sanctification? If your answer is no, then you have to admit that the gospel has content (i.e. Christ saves), and you refute your earlier statement.
> 
> Rather, our confessional standards, in our churches, and on this board include content in saving faith.
> 
> Let us recount some of these basic tenants that are NOT left up to sanctification, but a requirement for saving faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q72: What is justifying faith?
> A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] 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,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]
> 1. Heb. 10:39
> 2. II Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19
> 3. Rom. 10:14, 17
> 4. Acts 2:37; 4:12; 16:30; John 16:8-9; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1
> 5. Eph. 1:13
> 6. John 1:12; Acts 10:43; 16:31
> 7. Phil. 3:9; Acts 15:11
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. A sinner must be "*convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*"
> 
> 2. A sinner must "*assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel*"
> 
> 3 A sinner must "*receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.*"
> 
> All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.
Click to expand...


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28

Jeff_Bartel said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff, can an infant do those things? Is there better statement (not as regards the confession, but as regards your argument from it) that does not militate against other parts of your confessional beliefs?
> 
> For instance, could this content perhaps be present in 'seed form' and grow up in us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that an infant can do those things _physically_. This is where the gospel may be present in them in seed form, if one wished to phrase it that way. Elect infants may have the spiritual capability to believe such things, but not the physical capability.
> 
> This is shown in the WCF:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, *are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit*,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
> 12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
> 13. John 3:8
> 14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With adults (with a few exceptions), we have the physical capability, but the unregenerate lack the spiritual capability (regeneration) to understand and believe such things.
> 
> Again, just for clarification, nobody is stating that one must be able to recite the Westminster in order to be saved. One however, must know of Christ, and trust him as the only means (and this excludes all works) of salvation.
Click to expand...


Again, it seems that we agree Jeff. My position on this subject is in agreement with Dort, WCF, etc. Further, my understanding can be summed up as in line with Southern Reformed Presbyterian John Girardeau's, he states as follows:



> "It will be asked, What is the bearing of the Calvinistic doctrine, touching the decree of election and reprobation, upon the case of infants dying in infancy? I reluctantly answer the question, because it has so often been made a theme for furious declamation rather than for sober inquiry. To those who are willing to argue and not to denounce, we are ready to give an answer. There have been very few Calvinists who have taken the ground that any infants dying in infancy are excluded from salvation, so few as to exercise no influence upon the Calvinistic system. The great majority are divided into two classes: those who affirm the salvation of all infants dying in infancy - and at the present day this is probably the more numerous class; and those who affirm the certain salvation of all infants dying in infancy, who are children of believing parents, and content themselves with maintaining, in reference to other infants dying in infancy, the strong probability of their salvation. The former class, consequently, affirm the election to salvation of all infants dying in infancy, the reprobation of none; the latter class affirm the certain election of all infants dying in infancy, who are children of believing parents, and maintain the probable election of others dying in infancy. No class affirm the certain or probable reprobation of any infants dying in infancy. The question, therefore, of the justice of their reprobation is groundless, since neither the certainty nor the probability of their reprobation is asserted by any class of Calvinists.
> 
> But does not the Westminster Confession say that only elect infants are saved? No, it does not. The qualifying term only is not used. These are the words: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." The framers of the Confession evidently meant to imply that, as no human beings can be saved except in consequence of election, no infants, dying in infancy, can be saved, except in consequence of election. If all infants dying in infancy be saved, then they are all elect... But the question whether all infants, dying in infancy, are elect, and therefore are saved, is one which the Confession did not undertake to decide. As it is not a matter concerning which the Scriptures speak definitely, it was wisely left where they put it.
> 
> If the ground be taken that justice requires the salvation of all infants dying in infancy, Calvinists unanimously deny. For the salvation of no sinner can be required by justice, and infants are sinners. If it be maintained, that all infants, dying in infancy, are saved through the mercy of God, applying to them the justifying blood of Christ and communicating the regenerating grace of the Spirit, speaking for myself, I do not deny. I think it probable and hope it may be so. But I am not prepared to go further, and dogmatically affirm what the Scriptures do not clearly reveal. The Word of God, and not human sentiment, is our rule of faith. When that speaks, let us speak; when it is silent, let us hold our peace."



That said, Augustus Toplady's understanding was that all who die in infancy were of God's elect. 

Toplady also wrote: Arminianism - The Road back to Rome. I believe Toplady stated very well the problems regarding the man-centred false gospel of Arminianism.

Lastly, it seems to me that your posts in this thread are affirming the historic Calvinist, Reformed and Confessional position on these matters.

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 05:56:04 EST-----



py3ak said:


> I think Jeff's position was already well answered by this post.



Where does Jeff's position go against Rich's post?

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 06:13:26 EST-----



Jeff_Bartel said:


> I think that the quote in my signature is most appropriate for this thread.



 Good signature quote, In my humble opinion.


----------



## puritan lad

Jeff_Bartel said:


> There is no gospel whatsoever if you strip all content from it. The gospel is that we believe in *SOMETHING*, not nothing. To say that one can be completely ignorant of all content in the gospel, is to say that one can be ignorant of the gospel itself, and yet be a Christian. This in unconfessional, and VERY dangerous.



No one is suggesting that one can be saved while "completely ignorant of all content in the gospel". What I said was that one can be saved by the sovereign grace of God and still be wrong about how it happened.



Jeff_Bartel said:


> You say, "One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred." Can a person be saved while trusting in Budah? Can a person strip the person of Christ completely from the gospel and yet would you leave a knowledge of Christ for sanctification? If your answer is no, then you have to admit that the gospel has content (i.e. Christ saves), and you refute your earlier statement.



Again, I don't know anyone who has made such a claim. If an Arminian trusts in Christ for his salvation, he is saved. I did not become "born again" when I become Reformed. It was a process.

Sorry Jeff, but this kind of irrelevant argument works both ways. Can one be saved and be a credo-baptist or a premillennialist? What gospel "content" would you suggest that we must get absolutely correct in all points before we can be saved? The "gospels" contain all sorts of doctrine. Can one be wrong on any of these doctrines and still have "eyes to see"?



Jeff_Bartel said:


> Rather, our confessional standards, in our churches, and on this board include content in saving faith.


I love confessional Christianity (and I see it as important). But are you suggesting that one must hold to one of the confessions Before the are justified? Which ones? Westminster or Baptist? One of them is wrong in some points (law of non-contradiction).



Jeff_Bartel said:


> Let us recount some of these basic tenants that are NOT left up to sanctification, but a requirement for saving faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q72: What is justifying faith?
> A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] 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,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]
> 1. Heb. 10:39
> 2. II Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19
> 3. Rom. 10:14, 17
> 4. Acts 2:37; 4:12; 16:30; John 16:8-9; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1
> 5. Eph. 1:13
> 6. John 1:12; Acts 10:43; 16:31
> 7. Phil. 3:9; Acts 15:11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A sinner must be "*convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*"
> 
> 2. A sinner must "*assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel*"
> 
> 3 A sinner must "*receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.*"
> 
> All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.
Click to expand...


Amen, And most modern "Arminians", to some degree, would with these statements, though inconsistently.


----------



## Confessor

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> Is it possible to hold to _sola fide_ while being unaware that the notion of free will entails meritoriousness to an extent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I might well ask you, "Is it possible to hold to _sola fide_ while being unaware that the notion of "keeping the whole law" entails meritoriousness to an extent?" Just because one does not realize the damnable implications of his belief, does not excuse the fact that the implications are there. Ignorance is no excuse.
Click to expand...


The two questions are not equivalent. First, _sola fide_ is the fact that faith alone in Christ justifies irrespective of the source of that faith, and therefore it certainly seems plausible to say that Arminians can truly believe in _sola fide_ while not understanding that free will is a denial of _sola gratia_.

Second, keeping the law is so obviously and unabashedly works-centered, whereas free will is much less so (Satan is deceptive). I have an Arminian friend who is absolutely on fire for Christ, and he has asked questions about Calvinism that shows that he simply does not understand the implications of free will. For example, he asked that if someone were in the desert and on the brink of death, and if someone else offered this person food and water, would it really be considered a "work" for him to accept the food and water? The truth is yes, it would, and we are too depraved to even accept anything from God of ourselves -- but nonetheless you can see a gaping difference between how perspicuously free will and law-keeping imply works-righteousness.

"All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved" -- not all who call and realize that this calling was initiated by God Himself.

That being said, I would add that many Arminians, if they are confronted by the clear and obvious truths of sovereign grace in the Bible and resist, are in a much more dangerous situation.



Jeff_Bartel said:


> Confessor & Heidi,
> 
> Would either of you be able to show me any scriptural evidence for your assertions that ignorance excuses anyone, in any situation?



You can call me Ben if you want. And I would say that ignorance doesn't _excuse_ us at any point, but it also is not capable of denying sovereign grace. I don't think that ignorance of doctrine to a certain extent would be fruit of unregeneracy.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28

puritan lad said:


> If an Arminian trusts in Christ for his salvation, he is saved. I did not become "born again" when I become Reformed. It was a process.



If someone holds to the Christ-centred Gospel, then they're not truly an "Arminian" in the first place, In my humble opinion. And I try not to label folks "Arminians" that may be Biblical Christians.


----------



## Nomad

I think there is basic difference between Catholics and Arminians regarding justification that needs to be kept in mind when answering the OP. Again, putting aside the logical implications of Arminianism, on which I would agree with my reformed bretheren, let's look at what each actually believes.

Arminians believe wholeheartedly that they contribute nothing to their justification. While they are dead wrong about the source of faith, they believe that it is faith alone that receives justification. They would be horrified that anyone would charge them with a faith + works scheme. I know this is true because I was raised in Arminian churches and I've watched many Arminians go at it with Roman Catholics over this very issue. 

Roman Catholics, on the other hand, embrace and acknowledge the idea that good works done in a state of grace are not only their good works, but that they are meritorious toward final justification and the gaining of eternal life. In other words, they do believe that they contribute something to their justification. 

in my opinion, the difference between Catholics and Arminians on this particular point is clear. Arminians embrace sola fide, albeit with an unfortunate twist on the source of faith. Roman Catholics willingly and knowingly repudiate it, even in light of overwhelming Biblical evidence. 

My point? While both hold a grave error, one is damnable and the other is not. I think there is a gigantic difference between gross error and damnable heresy. As it was said here in this thread already, if we're saved based on perfect theology then we're all in big trouble. I think a distinction needs to be made here.


----------



## a mere housewife

Having reread this thread, the confession on saving faith, Rich's (Semper Fidelis) post linked here, and quizzed my husband I think that it would have been better for me to have stayed closer to the confessional language of the content of saving faith as 'principal _acts_' (distinct from principal propositions). As an act, faith exists on a distinct and a more fundamental level than that of mental clarity. How much 'head knowledge' is necessary to receive and rest in the presence of a person? A baby rests in the arms of its mother because it knows her voice and the rhythm of her movements, and this knowledge is true knowledge of her, though lacking propositional form. As Jeff cited, the Westminster Confession goes on to say that these acts of saving faith can exist in varying degrees and are assaulted and weakened by many things, presumably by errors relevant to the acts, like subtle or less subtle ideas of merit. Since faith is a gift that God gives through appointed means, I would be far more willing to speak of the means of grace and the Word of God as necessary for saving faith than a certain degree of head knowledge; and of mental clarity regarding the gift as others here have spoken of it, as being a process of sanctification. 

Jeff, thank you for your courteous post and the post you made elsewhere about charity -- I did not personally think you were behaving uncharitably, and I only felt that the position you were arguing would be uncharitable to others who have professed Christ. I do argue from experience -- I know Whom I have believed  -- I don't believe knowledge in that regard to be invalid where it answers with assurance to the Word of God. In fact we are agreed in agreeing with the Confession, and the Scriptures you cited were not relevant to a person who is in the position of a disciple rather than a teacher. I believe Rich's arguments, linked to in Ruben's post, that a baptised professor is to be taught rather than judged, are more in keeping with Scripture (the Galatians were bewitched regarding false doctrines of works righteousness yet Paul still addresses them and teaches them as Christians). I truly don't mean to argue this further today (I was using the board as pain management yesterday and feel badly for thinking so unclearly) but I think it is a mis-statement to characterize my position as merely experiential, against one that is biblical and confessional.

I am sincerely grateful to understand this better and will be thinking about it more. I think it's important to be careful with this subject, because holding that we must bring to the table a certain degree of mental clarity about the proposition of justification by faith alone in order to be regenerated can be a subtle re-introduction of works righteousness, entailing a subtle denial of the doctrine of sola fide, and an attack on our faith.


----------



## puritan lad

Romans 8 Verse 28 said:


> puritan lad said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an Arminian trusts in Christ for his salvation, he is saved. I did not become "born again" when I become Reformed. It was a process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone holds to the Christ-centred Gospel, then they're not truly an "Arminian" in the first place, In my humble opinion. And I try not to label folks "Arminians" that may be Biblical Christians.
Click to expand...

Correct. This is why I suggest that there are very few pure Arminians today, (even though they may label themselves as Arminians out of ignorance).

The question is whether one can obtain saving faith and still be in error about how that faith was obtained. I would answer in the affirmative. The Galatian Church taught justification by works. Paul unapologetically refuted the error, but never once suggested that the Galatian Church was anything other than a true church. We need the grace to recognize that _"The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error"_ (WCF Chapter XXV:V.). 

I hold that Arminianism in any form is a gross error, and we should do all in our power to correct it. But the danger here is adding "Belief in Calvinism" to the Ordo Salutis, and teaching "Justification by Calvinism". I'm just not there.


----------



## dr_parsley

Jeff_Bartel said:


> 1. A sinner must be "*convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*"
> 
> 2. A sinner must "*assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel*"
> 
> 3 A sinner must "*receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.*"
> 
> All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.



I took some days to consult some highly educated and committed Roman Catholic friends and they happily confirmed to me that they are people who fit the above three points. They are convinced that only Christ can save them from their sin, they receive and rest upon Christ for any accounting of righteousness. On what point, in your opinion, should Roman Catholics fail to agree? I'm often amazed when I read implications like that, which seem to suggest that group X believe Y, when I'm all but completely sure that members of group X whom I know and respect and love certainly do not believe Y and I wonder what basis the accuser is using.

I have another friend, a Zulu guy who I have reason to believe knows the Lord. He's 26 but was an AIDS orphan and head of a child headed household, so his education is lacking, but he's managed to get a good job through hard work and right living. I can talk to him and he can tell me spiritual impressions about this church or that church and his intuition about this teaching or that, and he gets it right. But if I tried to discuss with him the various aspects of atonement and pin down exactly which theory he applies in his faith, he would think I was mad foreigner talking nonsense, as foreigners often do. The nuances are so far beyond his experience and concerns that he simply wouldn't be interested. You seem to be saying that such a person, if they can't recognise the correct theory of justification in all its nuances, cannot be a saved person. Someone saying that should think very carefully about what God might say to someone discouraging some of His people. To be honest, that terrifies me. Let's leave people's status of salvation to God and get on with useful things for building up in Christ those who might know him, or who might not yet, and let's do it with all love and compassion.

I've started reading again Watson's "Doctrine of Repentance" and he says in his introduction, "If I am not mistaken, practical points are more needful in this age than controversial and polemical". Oh how no less true today! And, it made me think about all these people using up their energies endlessly discussing the nuances of justification. I wonder what would happen if people generally devoted 95% of that energy on building up the church - would the correct nuance come out from the Spirit of Truth as we progress and grow up into Him who is our head; would it at least have a higher probability than either side ever winning the argument?


----------



## rbcbob

dr_parsley said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A sinner must be "*convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*"
> 
> 2. A sinner must "*assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel*"
> 
> 3 A sinner must "*receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.*"
> 
> All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took some days to consult some highly educated and *committed Roman Catholic* friends and they happily confirmed to me that they are people who fit the above three points. They are convinced that only Christ can save them from their sin, they receive and rest upon Christ for any accounting of righteousness. On what point, in your opinion, should Roman Catholics fail to agree? I'm often amazed when I read implications like that, which seem to suggest that group X believe Y, when I'm all but completely sure that members of group X whom I know and respect and love certainly do not believe Y and I wonder what basis the accuser is using.
> 
> I have another friend, a Zulu guy who I have reason to believe knows the Lord. He's 26 but was an AIDS orphan and head of a child headed household, so his education is lacking, but he's managed to get a good job through hard work and right living. I can talk to him and he can tell me spiritual impressions about this church or that church and his intuition about this teaching or that, and he gets it right. But if I tried to discuss with him the various aspects of atonement and pin down exactly which theory he applies in his faith, he would think I was mad foreigner talking nonsense, as foreigners often do. The nuances are so far beyond his experience and concerns that he simply wouldn't be interested. You seem to be saying that such a person, if they can't recognise the correct theory of justification in all its nuances, cannot be a saved person. Someone saying that should think very carefully about what God might say to someone discouraging some of His people. To be honest, that terrifies me. Let's leave people's status of salvation to God and get on with useful things for building up in Christ those who might know him, or who might not yet, and let's do it with all love and compassion.
> 
> I've started reading again Watson's "Doctrine of Repentance" and he says in his introduction, "If I am not mistaken, practical points are more needful in this age than controversial and polemical". Oh how no less true today! And, it made me think about all these people using up their energies endlessly discussing the nuances of justification. I wonder what would happen if people generally devoted 95% of that energy on building up the church - would the correct nuance come out from the Spirit of Truth as we progress and grow up into Him who is our head; would it at least have a higher probability than either side ever winning the argument?
Click to expand...



As a former Catholic and now Reformed Baptist, I ask if you think that devout, committed and intelligent Catholics (i.e. informed of Catholic doctrine) can have trusted on Christ ALONE for salvation, forsaking all others? Can a hybrid faith save them? See 2 Kings 2:24-41.


----------



## dr_parsley

rbcbob said:


> As a former Catholic and now Reformed Baptist, I ask if you think that devout, committed and intelligent Catholics (i.e. informed of Catholic doctrine) can have trusted on Christ ALONE for salvation, forsaking all others? Can a hybrid faith save them? See 2 Kings 2:24-41.



I don't know what you mean by a hybrid faith, but yes I think a Roman Catholic can disagree with their church's teachings and choose to remain a Roman Catholic. I can respect such a decision if they've made it because they love the Lord's bride so much that it puts their soul in agony to see the bride torn into pieces, if it hurts more than patiently bearing with some wrong doctrines and waiting for regime change. I consider myself less advanced than they because the division of God's church does not cause me as much pain as it does they and I love to cling to my prideful understanding of doctrine even if it means damaging the bride.

Just because I'm right doesn't make me "right".

Of course there are times when standing up for the truth for the sake of the bride is the right thing to do, but it must be clear that it is not always the right thing to do and we all draw a line somewhere. Your line and mine are in a similar place, but I will not say to someone else "You are not a Christian because you've drawn a different line" just as I will not say "You are a Christian because you agree with me". I will say, "I can see evidences X, Y and Z which indicate that you may be a Christian" or "You have many more evidences of unregeneracy than of sanctification - beware lest you be deceived".

Oh, I couldn't find your quote; it may help me understand your point if you could provide the one you meant.


----------



## A.J.

dr_parsley said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A sinner must be "*convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*"
> 
> 2. A sinner must "*assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel*"
> 
> 3 A sinner must "*receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.*"
> 
> All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took some days to consult some highly educated and committed Roman Catholic friends and they happily confirmed to me that they are people who fit the above three points. They are convinced that only Christ can save them from their sin, they receive and rest upon Christ for any accounting of righteousness. On what point, in your opinion, should Roman Catholics fail to agree? I'm often amazed when I read implications like that, which seem to suggest that group X believe Y, when I'm all but completely sure that members of group X whom I know and respect and love certainly do not believe Y and I wonder what basis the accuser is using.
Click to expand...


Jeff cites from one of the Reformed Confessions which accurately describe the nature of saving faith. We know from history that these documents were written by their authors with the views of Rome in mind. The Protestant view of justification which is explained in the Reformed Confessions is diametrically opposed to that Roman Catholic view. So I don't see how your conclusion regarding your Roman Catholic friends follows. You see, Protestants and Roman Catholics use the same terms. But they define these terms differently. The same applies whenever the word "gospel" is discussed. Do Protestants and your Roman Catholic friends agree on the same gospel? I don't think so.

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 09:41:44 EST-----

Here is what "committed" and consistent Roman Catholics actually believe.



> The Council of Trent - The Sixth Session: Justification Canons
> 
> CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
> 
> CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
> 
> CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.
> 
> CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.
> 
> CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of
> glory; let him be anathema.
> 
> CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.



Compare it with the historic Protestant view.



> The Westminister Confession
> 
> Chapter 11. Of Justification.
> 
> 1. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth;a not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,b they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.c
> 
> a. Rom 3:24; 8:30. • b. Jer 23:6; Rom 3:22, 24-25, 27-28; 4:5-8; 5:17-19; 1 Cor 1:30-31; 2 Cor 5:19, 21; Eph 1:7; Titus 3:5, 7. • c. Acts 10:44; 13:38-39; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:7-8; Phil 3:9.
> 
> 2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification;a yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.b
> 
> a. John 1:12; Rom 3:28; 5:1. • b. Gal 5:6; James 2:17, 22, 26.
> 
> 3. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf.a Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them,b and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead,c and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace;d that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.e
> 
> a. Isa 53:4-6, 10-12; Dan 9:24, 26; Rom 5:8-10, 19; 1 Tim 2:5-6; Heb 10:10, 14. • b. Rom 8:32. • c. Mat 3:17; 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 5:2. • d. Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7. • e. Rom 3:26; Eph 2:7.
> 
> 4. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,a and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:b nevertheless, they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.c
> 
> a. Rom 8:30; Gal 3:8; 1 Pet 1:2, 19-20. • b. Rom 4:25; Gal 4:4; 1 Tim 2:6. • c. Gal 2:16; Col 1:21-22; Titus 3:4-7.
> 
> 5. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;a and although they can never fall from the state of justification,b yet they may by their sins fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.c
> 
> a. Mat 6:12; 1 John 1:7, 9; 2:1-2. • b. Luke 22:32; John 10:28; Heb 10:14. • c. Psa 32:5; 51:7-12; 89:31-33; Mat 26:75; Luke 1:20; 1 Cor 11:30, 32.
> 
> 6. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.a
> 
> a. Rom 4:22-24; Gal 3:9, 13-14; Heb 13:8.



From these statements, it is clear that "committed" and consistent Roman Catholics cannot and do not "assent to the truth of the promise of the gospel."


----------



## John Weathersby

dr_parsley said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A sinner must be "*convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*"
> 
> 2. A sinner must "*assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel*"
> 
> 3 A sinner must "*receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.*"
> 
> All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took some days to consult some highly educated and committed Roman Catholic friends and they happily confirmed to me that they are people who fit the above three points. They are convinced that only Christ can save them from their sin, they receive and rest upon Christ for any accounting of righteousness. On what point, in your opinion, should Roman Catholics fail to agree? I'm often amazed when I read implications like that, which seem to suggest that group X believe Y, when I'm all but completely sure that members of group X whom I know and respect and love certainly do not believe Y and I wonder what basis the accuser is using.
> 
> I have another friend, a Zulu guy who I have reason to believe knows the Lord. He's 26 but was an AIDS orphan and head of a child headed household, so his education is lacking, but he's managed to get a good job through hard work and right living. I can talk to him and he can tell me spiritual impressions about this church or that church and his intuition about this teaching or that, and he gets it right. But if I tried to discuss with him the various aspects of atonement and pin down exactly which theory he applies in his faith, he would think I was mad foreigner talking nonsense, as foreigners often do. The nuances are so far beyond his experience and concerns that he simply wouldn't be interested. You seem to be saying that such a person, if they can't recognise the correct theory of justification in all its nuances, cannot be a saved person. Someone saying that should think very carefully about what God might say to someone discouraging some of His people. To be honest, that terrifies me. Let's leave people's status of salvation to God and get on with useful things for building up in Christ those who might know him, or who might not yet, and let's do it with all love and compassion.
> 
> I've started reading again Watson's "Doctrine of Repentance" and he says in his introduction, "If I am not mistaken, practical points are more needful in this age than controversial and polemical". Oh how no less true today! And, it made me think about all these people using up their energies endlessly discussing the nuances of justification. I wonder what would happen if people generally devoted 95% of that energy on building up the church - would the correct nuance come out from the Spirit of Truth as we progress and grow up into Him who is our head; would it at least have a higher probability than either side ever winning the argument?
Click to expand...


Dr. Parsley,

I see Mr. Martel’s post as illustrating the Gospel and stating in short, that one must be saved as presented in the Biblical Gospel of Christ. As this relates to the question of the ability of the Catholic to be saved; my position is that someone who is in the Catholic church can be saved, if they are saved under the pretences of the Gospel as presented in the 3 points provided by Mr. Bartel but ultimately by scripture (to avoid any potential for confusion there). However, under the teaching and authority of the Catholic Church, while affirming and holding to the Catholic Dogma one CANNOT be saved. Thus, when you said,


> Let's leave people's status of salvation to God and get on with useful things for building up in Christ those who might know him, or who might not yet, and let's do it with all love and compassion.


 I hope your desire would be to honor Christ and preach the gospel while contending for the faith as is illustrated in Jude 3, “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Certainly the ‘Beloved’ are saved, yet there is contention for the faith.
Affirming the salvation of Catholics without taking exception to the teachings of the Catholic church is not helpful to those lost under its false teaching. I state after Paul the Apostle, “I decided to know nothing among you expect Jesus Christ and him crucified”, similarly when the Catholic church teaches that Mary is Co-Redemptrix I understand this to be another gospel in contradiction with 2 Timothy 2:15, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”, and in direct contradiction to 1 cor 15:3/4 “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures". 
Acts 2:32 tells us what is of first importance, “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact” (Acts 2:32). “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”, no mention of Mary. This is a very large point of contention for me, yet only the beginning of the issues I take with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Constant elevation of tradition above scripture, which is sinful and adding to the cannon with the Apocrypha books, revelation 22:18, are a large source of concern for me. 


> I wonder what would happen if people generally devoted 95% of that energy on building up the church - would the correct nuance come out from the Spirit of Truth as we progress and grow up into Him who is our head; would it at least have a higher probability than either side ever winning the argument?


If we do not study to show our self approved, in scripture provided in the 66 books of the Cannon, we cannot discern if we have received a Spirit of Truth or a lying spirit, such as the Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness. We must contend for the faith, we must study scripture, and must not seek to please man by diluting His true Gospel!


----------



## reformedminister

I agree that the RCC is erroneous, however, there are many within it who do not hold to all of it's teachings and may have a saving faith in Christ. If this were not so, Christians ceased to exist for centuries. Luther became a Christian before he was excommunicated, this is how he embraced "justification by faith." I believe the Protestant Church (including all denominations) as a whole has just as much error as the RCC did in the days of Luther, only in different ways. My own mother recently converted to Catholicism because she could not stand the "praise bands" and "watered down" sermons that have become popular in many protestant churches I might add that her own church became "inclusive" and started promoting homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle" equally blessed by God.


----------



## VilnaGaon

reformedminister said:


> I agree that the RCC is erroneous, however, there are many within it who do not hold to all of it's teachings and may have a saving faith in Christ. If this were not so, Christians ceased to exist for centuries. Luther became a Christian before he was excommunicated, this is how he embraced "justification by faith." I believe the Protestant Church (including all denominations) as a whole has just as much error as the RCC did in the days of Luther, only in different ways. My own mother recently converted to Catholicism because she could not stand the "praise bands" and "watered down" sermons that have become popular in many protestant churches I might add that her own church became "inclusive" and started promoting homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle" equally blessed by God.



In my humble opinion we should make a distinction between the Catholic Church before the Council of Trent in the late 16th Century and the Roman Catholic Church after the Council of Trent in which all the heresies of the Papacy received full canonical authority. Luther belonged to the former and if one reads the 95 theses, one gets the definite impression that Luther had no intention then of leaving the Pre-Trent Catholic Church, just reforming it. The Council of Trent sealed the complete apostasy of the Roman Church. We see in the centuries following Trent more and more blasphemous doctrines like Papal infallibility and Mary's immaculate conception and assumption added to the Standards of the Roman church. I predict that the next heresy to be added will be to proclaim Mary as God. There is already a movement in the Catholic church to that end.
As far as Mainline Protestantism today is concerned, the Pre-Tridentine Catholic Church was probably more theologically orthodox than much of Contemporary ""Protestantism"" today.


----------



## reformedminister

VilnaGaon said:


> reformedminister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the RCC is erroneous, however, there are many within it who do not hold to all of it's teachings and may have a saving faith in Christ. If this were not so, Christians ceased to exist for centuries. Luther became a Christian before he was excommunicated, this is how he embraced "justification by faith." I believe the Protestant Church (including all denominations) as a whole has just as much error as the RCC did in the days of Luther, only in different ways. My own mother recently converted to Catholicism because she could not stand the "praise bands" and "watered down" sermons that have become popular in many protestant churches I might add that her own church became "inclusive" and started promoting homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle" equally blessed by God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion we should make a distinction between the Catholic Church before the Council of Trent in the late 16th Century and the Roman Catholic Church after the Council of Trent in which all the heresies of the Papacy received full canonical authority. Luther belonged to the former and if one reads the 95 theses, one gets the definite impression that Luther had no intention then of leaving the Pre-Trent Catholic Church, just reforming it. The Council of Trent sealed the complete apostasy of the Roman Church. We see in the centuries following Trent more and more blasphemous doctrines like Papal infallibility and Mary's immaculate conception and assumption added to the Standards of the Roman church. I predict that the next heresy to be added will be to proclaim Mary as God. There is already a movement in the Catholic church to that end.
> As far as Mainline Protestantism today is concerned, the Pre-Tridentine Catholic Church was probably more theologically orthodox than much of Contemporary ""Protestantism"" today.
Click to expand...


----------



## Philip

It really does depend on the Roman Catholic. I have known many who, by the grace of God, I have counted as brothers in Christ.

I would even venture to count Pope Benedict XVI as a brother after his endorsement of Luther's doctrine of _Sola Fide_ last November. And we can't forget the contributions of Catholics like Blaise Pascal, Francois Fenelon, and G. K. Chesterton in areas like apologetics, Christian living, and Christian philosophy.

I also have reason for thinking that even heretics may be saved, in some cases. Nestorius seems to have been more Christian in his actions than the orthodox Cyril of Alexandria. God uses heresy to further His church and prepare it for trial. I think that God has used Catholism to keep some from worse errors.


----------



## rbcbob

dr_parsley said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a former Catholic and now Reformed Baptist, I ask if you think that devout, committed and intelligent Catholics (i.e. informed of Catholic doctrine) can have trusted on Christ ALONE for salvation, forsaking all others? Can a hybrid faith save them? See 2 Kings 2:24-41.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you mean by a hybrid faith, but yes I think a Roman Catholic can disagree with their church's teachings and choose to remain a Roman Catholic. I can respect such a decision if they've made it because they love the Lord's bride so much that it puts their soul in agony to see the bride torn into pieces, if it hurts more than patiently bearing with some wrong doctrines and waiting for regime change. I consider myself less advanced than they because the division of God's church does not cause me as much pain as it does they and I love to cling to my prideful understanding of doctrine even if it means damaging the bride.
> 
> Just because I'm right doesn't make me "right".
> 
> Of course there are times when standing up for the truth for the sake of the bride is the right thing to do, but it must be clear that it is not always the right thing to do and we all draw a line somewhere. Your line and mine are in a similar place, but I will not say to someone else "You are not a Christian because you've drawn a different line" just as I will not say "You are a Christian because you agree with me". I will say, "I can see evidences X, Y and Z which indicate that you may be a Christian" or "You have many more evidences of unregeneracy than of sanctification - beware lest you be deceived".
> 
> Oh, I couldn't find your quote; it may help me understand your point if you could provide the one you meant.
Click to expand...


I apologize for mistyping the Scripture reference. Here is the passage:

2 Kings 17:24 Then the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria and dwelt in its cities. 25 And it was so, at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they did not fear the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which killed some of them. 26 So they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying, "The nations whom you have removed and placed in the cities of Samaria do not know the rituals of the God of the land; therefore He has sent lions among them, and indeed, they are killing them because they do not know the rituals of the God of the land." 27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, "Send there one of the priests whom you brought from there; let him go and dwell there, and let him teach them the rituals of the God of the land." 28 Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD. 29 However every nation continued to make gods of its own, and put them in the shrines on the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities where they dwelt. 30 The men of Babylon made Succoth Benoth, the men of Cuth made Nergal, the men of Hamath made Ashima, 31 and the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvites burned their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. 32 So they feared the LORD, and from every class they appointed for themselves priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places. 33 They feared the LORD, yet served their own gods -- according to the rituals of the nations from among whom they were carried away. 34 To this day they continue practicing the former rituals; they do not fear the LORD, nor do they follow their statutes or their ordinances, or the law and commandment which the LORD had commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel, 35 with whom the LORD had made a covenant and charged them, saying: "You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them; 36 "but the LORD, who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great power and an outstretched arm, Him you shall fear, Him you shall worship, and to Him you shall offer sacrifice. 37 "And the statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever; you shall not fear other gods. 38 "And the covenant that I have made with you, you shall not forget, nor shall you fear other gods. 39 "But the LORD your God you shall fear; and He will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies." 40 However they did not obey, but they followed their former rituals. 41 So these nations feared the LORD, yet served their carved images; also their children and their children's children have continued doing as their fathers did, even to this day.


----------



## Cranmer1959

Doctrinal beliefs determine who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. It's easy to see that Muslims and Mormons are not saved. So why is it so hard to say that those who reject the biblical teachings of Jesus and the Apostles on the subject of salvation and justification are not Christians?

If Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are all Christians, then the Gospel is just a matter of preference and theological relativism or reductionism is all that is necessary for salvation. But if the Protestant emphasis on the 5 solas of the Reformation are true, then simply adhering to the 3 ecumenical creeds mentioned in the 39 Articles of Religion or other Reformed confessions of faith are not enough. In fact, the 39 Articles and the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity spell out what seem to be necessary doctrine from the perspective of three different ecclesiastical communions within the Reformed camp. Admittedly, the Anglicans are in even worse shape than the two major Reformed confessional standards.

If justification is by faith alone and justification is also merited by doing good works, then Christianity is hopelessly ambiguous and relativistic. Both the Protestant view and the Roman Catholic view/Eastern Orthodox view cannot be correct. One or the other is false. Therefore, anyone who actually believes the doctrines taught by Rome is lost since Rome is teaching a false gospel of infused righteousness and merits, penances, purgatory, idolatrous veneration and prayers to the saints.

No, choose you this day whom you will serve. Will you stand for the doctrines of grace and the Gospel? Or will you stand for a false gospel? (Galatians 1:6-8).

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 09:46:49 EST-----

I might add that attending "mass" at a Catholic or Anglo-Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church is also idolatry since all three view the sacrament as the actual body and blood by either transubstantiantion or by real presence, which is pragmatically the same thing. The liturgy used in these churches is false.

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 10:02:50 EST-----



a mere housewife said:


> ****
> I am sincerely grateful to understand this better and will be thinking about it more. I think it's important to be careful with this subject, because holding that we must bring to the table a certain degree of mental clarity about the proposition of justification by faith alone in order to be regenerated can be a subtle re-introduction of works righteousness, entailing a subtle denial of the doctrine of sola fide, and an attack on our faith.



Right belief cannot be attributed to "works righteousness" since EVEN our believing or ability to believe the true Gospel IS a GIFT. There is absolutely no room for compromising the Gospel simply because we think God shouldn't damn someone who is reprobate. Remember many are blinded to the Gospel and God hardens the heart of the reprobate. In my opinion, if someone is indoctrinated with a false gospel and a false religion, whether it be Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism or Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy/Anglo-Catholicism, that person is reprobate. Show me someone praying to the saints and to Mary and I will show you an idolater.

I admit that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy believe the 3 ecumenical creeds. But the problem is they deny the Scriptural teaching on the doctrines of grace and they have institutionalized heresy to the point that the entire organization and every individual who believes its dogma is therefore under God's judgment unless and until they recant and return to the Gospel of grace.

God is sovereign in salvation. Some vessels are fitted for honor and others for justice and condemnation. But all show God's mercy or God's justice.

Even when I was a Pentecostal/Arminian I understood that justification is by faith alone and that Roman Catholics were lost. I over-emphasized my own contribution to sanctification and conversion but deep down I realized God was and is completely sovereign in my salvation and conversion.

The Gospel is so plain in Scripture that even a child can read the Old Testament account of the Gospel and be saved. (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

To God alone be all the glory,

Charlie

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 10:08:27 EST-----



Johnny DeFrange said:


> I have a dear friend who is tired of shallow, man centered evangelicalism. His family is in the process of converting to Catholicism.
> 
> This upsets me greatly and I have told him he has lost his mind, but his mind is made up.
> 
> My wife (former RCC) says once he is completely in and sees how spiritually dead it is he might come to his senses.
> 
> I granted him that yes the RCC had beautifull stain glass windows but that's about it.



Your friend is a shallow, man-centered evangelical who does not have a clue as to what the Gospel actually is. IF he did, he most certainly would not be committing apostasy by joining with the synagogue of satan.

Justification by infused righteousness and meriting forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is a false gospel no matter how you slice it. Your friend is lost unless God reveals to him the true Gospel. He has been given a spirit of strong delusion.

Charlie


----------



## Philip

Cranmer1959 said:


> If Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are all Christians, then the Gospel is just a matter of preference and theological relativism or reductionism is all that is necessary for salvation.



In other words, only those with correct theology can be saved. If so, then we're all sunk.

Honestly, the Catholic and Arminian understandings of justification are (to my mind) equivalent in practice, if not in word. If an Arminian can be saved, then so can a Roman Catholic.

As for the Mass, I would be careful. Their understanding is flawed, but the substance of the Lord's Supper is the same. If they venerate the bread, it is only because they really think it is Christ. Is this idolatry? No, they just don't understand it properly.

And I disagree with Luther that the Church stands or falls on _Sola Fide_. The Church stands or falls on _Sola Gratia_, which has been debated in the RCC since Aquinas and Scotus. If you look carefully at the Council of Trent, you will find that, in fact, one can be a four-point Calvinist and be considered Orthodox within the Catholic Church. The problem is that Catholic theology has long been dominated by the Jesuits (since the time of Pascal) and their belief in Molinism, which stands in opposition to the traditional Catholic teaching on grace (which is what the Reformers/Pascal taught) which was taught by Aquinas and the Thomists. Thomism (in this area) has been in the minority since the Reformation, but is still well within Catholicism.


----------



## dr_parsley

Cranmer1959 said:


> Doctrinal beliefs determine who is a Christian and who is not a Christian.



Oh no they don't. (We are playing "assertion" aren't we?)

Seriously, doctrinal beliefs are an indicator of whether someone knows God, is reconciled with God and has genuine fellowship with God. It is a strong indicator but not an infallible one.



Cranmer1959 said:


> It's easy to see that Muslims and Mormons are not saved. So why is it so hard to say that those who reject the biblical teachings of Jesus and the Apostles on the subject of salvation and justification are not Christians?


The more doctrinal variance from the truth, the lower the probability of regneracy. For a Muslim or a Hindu, it is (almost) vanishingly small. I'm guessing here, but I think a member of the American Presbyterian Church might think a member of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church has a relatively small amount of error. Why hasn't God corrected it? They must be unregenerate! Is that what they say? But the small difference in doctrine should suggest there is only a small indicator of unregeneracy.

Now error in doctrine is one small subset of a man's sin and it is the sin that indicates unregeneracy in their mind, will and affections, it indicates unrepentance and it indicates that the Spirit is not working in them. For each individual, if you're interested to consider whether or not they are saved (and that can be a big "if"), you have to consider those negative indicators and also positive ones, evidences of the Spirit working in them. And then you've got to make a judgment - there is no "rule", like saying holding to Arminianism is worth 10 points, repeated adultery 50 points, irritability with spouse 2 points, etc and then you add them up and if they get more than 20 points they're not saved. It doesn't work like that. No less is it true that if someone holds to your particular hated error of doctrine, then they can't be saved. Can't you see that it is creating a new gospel consisting of a doctrine? The gospel is described by a doctrine, but it is not itself a doctrine.

Given that, it concerns me greatly that people go beyond what is known from the Bible and assert that millions of professing Christians cannot possibly be in a state of salvation. Paul gives us examples of who will certainly not enter the kingdom of God - the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulturers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers. If a man has any evidence of greed in his life, he should be more worried about his own state than the state of his Roman Catholic neighbour because it is stated in black and white he is in a perilous state. Paul doesn't mention doctrinal errors in his list - I think he sees doctrinal error as leading to unrepentance of sin which damns, not the doctrinal error itself as damning.

This is not a crafty call to chip away at the desire for doctrinal accuracy! Keep it and be jealous of it and teach it to all and defend it with all energy, but it needs to be done in such a way that we don't condemn ourselves in the very process and it needs to be done in such a way that doesn't go beyond the biblical witness for how to handle differences in doctrine of different degrees.

One last piece of advice and then I'm out, because I feel too strongly about this and don't want to fall into sin - have you ever worked in a huge company? I once worked in a firm with 200,000 people and that firm did obnoxious things and said frustrating things while the individuals were quite different. The individuals were affected by the institutional character, but they had their own identities. Just look at any government to see how an institution can be obnoxious and hateful while the people in it are somehow "doing their best" and shouldn't be individually condemned merely because they belong to the organisation. The Roman Catholic church as an institution is terribly lost and sinful more than words can say, but that doesn't tell me a huge amount about the individuals in it; it gives me some information but it's one piece of information among many.


----------



## A.J.

P. F. Pugh said:


> In other words, only those with correct theology can be saved. If so, then we're all sunk.



Philip, I am not sure what exactly you are saying here. What do you mean by "correct theology"? Of course, no one starts his Christian life with perfect knowledge of everything about Christianity. But being a Christian does involve a correct theology, that is, an adequate understanding of the truth of the gospel. And this is where _consistent_ Roman Catholicism and _consistent_ Roman Catholics fail. 



P. F. Pugh said:


> Honestly, the Catholic and Arminian understandings of justification are (to my mind) equivalent in practice, if not in word. If an Arminian can be saved, then so can a Roman Catholic.



The Roman Catholic and Arminian understanding of justification are not equivalent. The Roman Catholic view is much more complicated. Rome's understanding of justification involves belief in the Mass, Penance, Purgatory, and many other heresies. These beliefs are rejected by Arminians. 



P. F. Pugh said:


> As for the Mass, I would be careful. Their understanding is flawed, but the substance of the Lord's Supper is the same. If they venerate the bread, it is only because they really think it is Christ. Is this idolatry? No, they just don't understand it properly.



The Mass is idolatrous. This is the clear teaching of historic Protestantism. Notice the strong language the Reformed Confessions use when discussing the nature of the Roman Catholic Mass. 



> *Westminster Confession of Faith *
> 
> Chapter 29: The Lord's Supper
> 
> 4. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone;a as likewise the denial of the cup to the people;b worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.c
> 
> a. 1 Cor 10:6. • b. Mark 4:23; 1 Cor 11:25-29. • c. Mat 15:9.
> 
> ....
> 
> 6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.a
> 
> a. Luke 24:6, 39; Acts 3:21 with 1 Cor 11:24-26.





> *Heidelberg Catechism*
> 
> Lord's Day 30
> 
> 80. What difference is there between the Lord’s Supper and the Popish Mass?
> 
> The Lord’s Supper testifies to us, that we have complete forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself has once accomplished on the cross;1 and that by the Holy Spirit we are grafted into Christ,2 who with His true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father,3 and is to be worshipped there4. But the Mass teaches, that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ He is still daily offered for them by the priests; and that Christ is bodily present under the form of bread and wine, and is therefore to be worshipped in them. Therefore, the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.
> 
> 1 Mt 26:28; Jn 19:30; Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10-18; 2 1 Cor 6:17, 10:16-17; 3 Jn 20:17; Acts 7:55-56; Heb 1:3, 8:1; 4 Jn 4:21-24; Php 3:20; Col 3:1; 1 Thes 1:10



The ignorance of many Roman Catholics on what the Mass really means is no excuse. Pagans worship creatures ignorantly thinking that they are gods. But their ignorance does not excuse them from their idolatry.



P. F. Pugh said:


> And I disagree with Luther that the Church stands or falls on _Sola Fide_. The Church stands or falls on _Sola Gratia_, which has been debated in the RCC since Aquinas and Scotus. If you look carefully at the Council of Trent, you will find that, in fact, one can be a four-point Calvinist and be considered Orthodox within the Catholic Church. The problem is that Catholic theology has long been dominated by the Jesuits (since the time of Pascal) and their belief in Molinism, which stands in opposition to the traditional Catholic teaching on grace (which is what the Reformers/Pascal taught) which was taught by Aquinas and the Thomists. Thomism (in this area) has been in the minority since the Reformation, but is still well within Catholicism.



*Official* Roman Catholic teaching rejects Calvinism as heretical. One reason is that Calvinism believes in _Sola Fide_ which is rejected by Rome in the Council of Trent. Even those who claim to be "four-pointers" hold to justification by faith alone. So it is wrong to speak of four-point Calvinism as being within the bounds of Roman Catholic orthodoxy. You are being inaccurate here. No _consistent_ Roman Catholic can hold even to a four-point Calvinism since he rejects the Protestant view of justification. Since you mentioned the Council of Trent, let me quote some of its strongest anathemas in its justification canons. 



> *The Council of Trent *
> 
> The Sixth Session: Justification Canons
> 
> CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
> 
> CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
> 
> CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.
> 
> CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.
> 
> CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
> 
> CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.



There is absolutely no hint from these statements that a four-point Calvinism is an orthodox option within Roman Catholicism.


----------



## cih1355

The Roman Catholic church proclaims a false gospel; it has a false view of how people are justified before God. If there is a true Christian in the Roman Catholic church, then he is not really a Roman Catholic.


----------



## SolaGratia

From the OP:

Papist are not Christians until they come to embrace God's salvation found only in Christ, the only redeemer of God's elect PERIOD.

Next question!


----------



## smhbbag

> As for the Mass, I would be careful. Their understanding is flawed, but the substance of the Lord's Supper is the same. If they venerate the bread, it is only because they really think it is Christ. Is this idolatry? No, they just don't understand it properly.



I'm at a loss for how falsely calling something Christ is not idolatry. 

If I venerated my shoe and called it Christ would I be an idolater?


----------



## dr_parsley

Out of interest, let me give some comment on these:



> *The Council of Trent *
> 
> The Sixth Session: Justification Canons
> 
> CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.



Are we justified without the grace given by the Holy Spirit? Surely not!



> CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.



"Well done good and faithful servant". It is a mystery to us, but this would make no sense if our deeds done in the Spirit as regenerate persons with healed wills, affections and understandings were not attributed, in His great mercy, to us. Does the exercise of grace with our (being healed) faculties cause an increase? Well yes, in some definition of 'cause'. "You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much." It is certainly my experience that when I am faithful over a little, the Lord gives me much. It also agrees with other Christians I see.

You have to be careful with Roman Catholics when talking about causes because they won't want to stop at your usual definition of the word. (and neither will I, come to that).



> CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.



Alright, this one is totally out of the ballpark! The most generous I can be is that this is like a political union demarkation - protecting the jobs of priests from Christ!



> CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.



This is right out and I can't be generous at all.



> CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.



This again can be interpreted with the same viewpoint as canon 24. Language about the partnership between God and his regenerate children, what part our wills play, is fraught with extreme difficulties of interpretation.



> CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.



i.e. anyone who criticises the organisation in public is bringing it into disrepute and should be sacked... a common thing among any group.

Anyway, being new here it seems unwise to step into the ring of hungry carnivores wearing a suit made of meat, but I thought I'd try to defend the Council of Trent a bit!  Anyway I think 4 out of 6 are potentially reconcilable given just the text itself. And if these are the worst 7, they don't seem so terrible. There are worse things going on all around. Just the other day I heard that a church here in the village that is highly rated(!) says 1) Members should give half their salary to the church and 2) If they can't sing in tongues on demand then they aren't Christians. (yes, that was "sing" in tongues). This quote from the Council of Trent seems mild in comparison!


----------



## Confessor

dr_parsley said:


> *The Council of Trent *
> 
> The Sixth Session: Justification Canons
> 
> CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we justified without the grace given by the Holy Spirit? Surely not!
Click to expand...


I am fairly certain that the grace from the Holy Ghost referred to in Canon XI is that of _infused righteousness_.


----------



## dr_parsley

Confessor said:


> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Council of Trent *
> 
> The Sixth Session: Justification Canons
> 
> CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we justified without the grace given by the Holy Spirit? Surely not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am fairly certain that the grace from the Holy Ghost referred to in Canon XI is that of _infused righteousness_.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that doesn't destroy the sanity of the text - does it even make sense when it means that? - but it would be interesting. Do you have a source or a rationale for that interpretation?


----------



## Confessor

dr_parsley said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we justified without the grace given by the Holy Spirit? Surely not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fairly certain that the grace from the Holy Ghost referred to in Canon XI is that of _infused righteousness_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that doesn't destroy the sanity of the text - does it even make sense when it means that? - but it would be interesting. Do you have a source or a rationale for that interpretation?
Click to expand...


Justification is a purely legal process involving the imputation of Christ's righteousness and God's change of favor towards sinners. Certainly we are regenerated by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and certainly that leads to faith which leads to justification, but it doesn't follow that justification itself involves grace imparted to us by the Holy Spirit. Seeing as Romanists merge justification and sanctification and think that justification itself involves infused grace, we can see where the Protestant and Catholic teachings differ.


----------



## Prufrock

Mr. Dean, it's just a fact -- what that canon in Trent is claiming is that justification is not by imputation of righteousness, but by the infusion of a habit or principle of charity; that righteousness is not forensic, but physical, and that grace is a substance physically infused into a believer.

To save you the trouble, it will be a fruitless task to attempt to reconcile Trent with biblical teaching; and we do not need to attempt to grant a favorable or charitable reading to its wording -- we know what they intend. Trent did not happen in a vacuum. Nor were its authors poor with wording -- they communicated explicitly and clearly what they meant.


----------



## dr_parsley

Confessor said:


> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fairly certain that the grace from the Holy Ghost referred to in Canon XI is that of _infused righteousness_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that doesn't destroy the sanity of the text - does it even make sense when it means that? - but it would be interesting. Do you have a source or a rationale for that interpretation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justification is a purely legal process involving the imputation of Christ's righteousness and God's change of favor towards sinners. Certainly we are regenerated by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and certainly that leads to faith which leads to justification, but it doesn't follow that justification itself involves grace imparted to us by the Holy Spirit. Seeing as Romanists merge justification and sanctification and think that justification itself involves infused grace, we can see where the Protestant and Catholic teachings differ.
Click to expand...


Strange - we could have missed out the last two posts without detriment to the exchange as your comments now applied to the original.

I feel like I've gone mad. You've said that the grace of the Holy Spirit => Regeneration => Faith => Justification, and you've said that Justification doesn't involve the grace of the Holy Spirit. We've moved into the territory of: which comes first, faith or regeneration? For sure the Reformed answer is that regeneration comes first and is by grace. So the explanation of Justification cannot exclude grace. No?

I took your post before last to indicate that taking "grace" to mean "infused righteousness", the canon implies that justification is a gradual process rather than an at-conversion verdict. Is there evidence to take "grace" to mean "infused righteousness" here? We're probably just multiplying words without genuine product. It hardly matters if one canon was wrong, we know that many were wrong. What I thought to indicate was that I couldn't understand why these 6 canons were taken as somehow earth-shattering, when they seem far from being so.

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 04:11:40 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> Mr. Dean, it's just a fact -- what that canon in Trent is claiming is that justification is not by imputation of righteousness, but by the infusion of a habit or principle of charity; that righteousness is not forensic, but physical, and that grace is a substance physically infused into a believer.



Thanks, but I have absolutely no idea what you might mean when you indicate that grace is a physical substance.


----------



## Confessor

dr_parsley said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that doesn't destroy the sanity of the text - does it even make sense when it means that? - but it would be interesting. Do you have a source or a rationale for that interpretation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justification is a purely legal process involving the imputation of Christ's righteousness and God's change of favor towards sinners. Certainly we are regenerated by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and certainly that leads to faith which leads to justification, but it doesn't follow that justification itself involves grace imparted to us by the Holy Spirit. Seeing as Romanists merge justification and sanctification and think that justification itself involves infused grace, we can see where the Protestant and Catholic teachings differ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange - we could have missed out the last two posts without detriment to the exchange as your comments now applied to the original.
> 
> I feel like I've gone mad. You've said that the grace of the Holy Spirit => Regeneration => Faith => Justification, and you've said that Justification doesn't involve the grace of the Holy Spirit. We've moved into the territory of: which comes first, faith or regeneration? For sure the Reformed answer is that regeneration comes first and is by grace. So the explanation of Justification cannot exclude grace. No?
> 
> I took your post before last to indicate that taking "grace" to mean "infused righteousness", the canon implies that justification is a gradual process rather than an at-conversion verdict. Is there evidence to take "grace" to mean "infused righteousness" here? We're probably just multiplying words without genuine product. It hardly matters if one canon was wrong, we know that many were wrong. What I thought to indicate was that I couldn't understand why these 6 canons were taken as somehow earth-shattering, when they seem far from being so.
Click to expand...


There are two things wrong with the Catholic teaching: that it involves increasing justification, and that it involves infused righteousness rather than imputed righteousness. The two errors are distinct.

Otherwise, the distinction I made should not make you fear for your sanity. That justification is built on faith which is built on regeneration which is built on grace, but does not itself involve infused grace, is still cogent. Looking at the _ordo salutis_ as a whole, it does involve grace; but looking at the specific component of the _ordo salutis_, it does not. The Catholics who wrote that canon were not trying to be ambiguous, and they were in fact opposing a specific (Protestant) doctrine. As Paul said, there really is not any charity to be given. They're not trying to gain approval of, but rather to anathemize, a Reformed audience.


----------



## John Weathersby

dr p said:


> Thanks, but I have absolutely no idea what you might mean when you indicate that grace is a physical substance.





Infusion of grace describes the fact which recognizes that in our condition of faleness, grace is not present in the human heart and life, but rather, it is foreign to the substance of the heart and must be physically infused onto/into us which is a working of the Holy Spirit. 

I believe that this is a principal that Edwards discusses, but I’ll leave that to the more knowledgeable about infused grace than I.


----------

