# what is 'necessary for salvation'



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2010)

I should make very clear that I am not confused about cases where someone has enough knowledge to *reject* any fundamental doctrine of Christianity, such as Christ being God. I think if a person rejects such, they have enough knowledge to have made a response to the truth, and they demonstrate that they do not recognise the Shepherd's voice. However I am time and again confused as to what is 'necessary for salvation' when discussions come up about such doctrines, because I don't understand how the prerequisites can be consistently applied when the things we speak of as 'necessary for salvation' in adults are assent to things infants cannot understand.

For instance, in a situation where missionaries go into unreached territory and begin giving the gospel, and someone responds to this with joy -- at what point are they able to be regenerated? Their knowledge, because they have to wait on what is taught to them, is incomplete; but they are responding to the Word of God with acceptance as it is given to them. It seems like their hearts must have already been turned to God through this means of His grace, and they do know His voice -- just as a child recognises its mother's voice, but learns what her words mean as it grows? 

That sort of scenario may not happen often, but I hope it highlights my confusion as to our being able to quantify how much knowledge is 'necessary' to be saved -- it seems like that kind of quantification is inconsistent with the idea that we are changed, and respond to Christ, not merely mentally, but _wholly_? Because we respond completely, the amount of *data* that our responding faculties are working with does not seem like the prerequisite of saving grace. I don't understand how it can be the prerequisite, without changing the nature of salvation into a transaction of information that takes place on the surface of the mind, rather than a recreated will and heart? 

Please be assured I am not trying to advocate for anything unorthodox -- I'm trying to understand something I don't.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 14, 2010)

Heidi, the elect must repent and believe; they most certainly will do so. It is necessary that they do so. It is necessary that they repent and believe the gospel. That gospel may be extensive; it may be presented concisely. It will in any case contain the essentials of sin and atonement; it will also contain the identity of the Person of the Savior. These things must be believed and will most certainly be believed by those whom God has called, regenerated, and granted said faith.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> Heidi, the elect must repent and believe; they most certainly will do so. It is necessary that they do so. It is necessary that they repent and believe the gospel. That gospel may be extensive; it may be presented concisely. It will in any case contain the essentials of sin and atonement; it will also contain the identity of the Person of the Savior. These things must be believed and will most certainly be believed by those whom God has called, regenerated, and granted said faith.



I agree with this -- it is indeed necessary, and certain, that the elect will believe these things. But is it necessary that they should have a clear understanding of all of them _before_ their hearts can be changed? If so, how does one explain the salvation of infants?


----------



## Michael (Jan 14, 2010)

Great question Heidi. I'll take a stab at it. Salvation is the fruit of God's covenant promise. 'Clear understanding' is a result of this promise coming to fruition, but not a _preemptive_ necessity. The salvation of infants, so far as I can tell from Scripture, would be only within the boundaries of God's covenant people and would occur according to God's promise and not according to a child's intellectual capacity.


----------



## urcmember (Jan 14, 2010)

Heidi,

Hi, I should probably leave this for those who are smarter and more articulate than myself, but I will make an attempt so that perhaps others can correct my thinking.

With regards to this statement:


> but I hope it highlights my confusion as to our being able to quantify how much knowledge is 'necessary' to be saved



It doesn't seem to me that knowledge is necessary for salvation. That is it does not seem any knowledge or amount thereof is a "condition" for salvation (regeneration). Rather it seems to me knowledge/assent to certain doctrines is a test or verification of ones faith if you will . 

For instance it doesn't seem to me one bust believe in the doctrine of the Trinity or Justification by Faith Alone, etc... as a condition of being regenerated; rather interview by church elders concerning these matters is how the church tests the validity of ones claim to have true faith in Christ and having been regenerated. As to how much one must believe in order to have an approved profession of faith I believe it would be either the 3 Forms of Unity or the Westminster. In other words I think a potential member needs to be fully catechized prior to taking vows, and only when they assent to the historic Reformed faith be admitted into membership in a true visible church.

You might perhaps say they need to "know" their guilt, from the preaching of the word, prior to responding in faith, but that seems different than what you are talking about.

Hope this is correct and helps.


----------



## Andres (Jan 14, 2010)

a mere housewife said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Heidi, the elect must repent and believe; they most certainly will do so. It is necessary that they do so. It is necessary that they repent and believe the gospel. That gospel may be extensive; it may be presented concisely. It will in any case contain the essentials of sin and atonement; it will also contain the identity of the Person of the Savior. These things must be believed and will most certainly be believed by those whom God has called, regenerated, and granted said faith.
> ...



Heidi, I think perhaps you are asking two questions. First, you are asking what would a cognizant, capable person need to believe or accept in order to come to be saved. I think the Apostles Creed would be a good summary of what a person might need to understand to be saved. 



> I believe in God, the Father, almighty,
> creator of heaven and earth.
> 
> I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
> ...



As for the second part of your question, infants are saved because God, in His great mercy, chooses to save them. I do not ascribe to the teaching that all infants are saved, but my belief is that just like adults that are saved, God saves His elect only. Of course we will never know, but God certainly knows which infants are His elect. Those that are would choose Christ if God had seen fit to allow them to live to an older age.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 14, 2010)

WCF X I think has most of the answers:


> I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
> 
> II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
> 
> ...



Perhaps Scripture does not give us the data to delve into questions such as the mechanics of the salvation of infants and the mentally disabled. It is not necessary that we do so, beyond the affirmation made in paragraph 3: any question of what is "necessary for salvation" beyond the simple fact of God's saving activity need only apply to ordinary cases. Because what concerns us, who are alive and thinking about these matters, is how we can be saved, and for that it is clearly necessary that we have heard the word. I don't know that one can posit a temporal order in the illumination of the mind and the renewing of the will: I would suppose that they happen concurrently, that they are only distinguishable not divisible. So that it would be fair to say that until the mind is enlightened the will is not renewed, and until the will is renewed the mind is not enlightened. There is no opposition between the two, and the Confession can also speak of a "saving understanding". With regard to the Holy Spirit's illumination, and our confession, the facts of redemption are not merely acquired, they are applied.

Now the Confession also says that saving faith believes whatever is revealed in the word (XIV.2), but obviously one with saving faith will believe only what he has so far heard; this is light-years away from denying what he hasn't read yet. So in one sense, possession of saving faith is utterly incompatible with the denial that Paul had a girdle; but many people have entered into the possession of eternal life without ever having read the book of Acts. From a practical point of view, we can only look at confession and negation (because we can't enter someone's mind). And someone who will not make his own Peter's confession in Matthew 16 cannot be held to have an illumined mind.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2010)

py3ak said:


> . . . any question of what is "necessary for salvation" beyond the simple fact of God's saving activity need only apply to ordinary cases. Because what concerns us, who are alive and thinking about these matters, is how we can be saved, and for that it is clearly necessary that we have heard the word. I don't know that one can posit a temporal order in the illumination of the mind and the renewing of the will: I would suppose that they happen concurrently, that they are only distinguishable not divisible. So that it would be fair to say that until the mind is enlightened the will is not renewed, and until the will is renewed the mind is not enlightened. There is no opposition between the two, and the Confession can also speak of a "saving understanding". With regard to the Holy Spirit's illumination, and our confession, the facts of redemption are not merely acquired, they are applied.
> 
> Now the Confession also says that saving faith believes whatever is revealed in the word (XIV.2), but obviously one with saving faith will believe only what he has so far heard; this is light-years away from denying what he hasn't read yet. So in one sense, possession of saving faith is utterly incompatible with the denial that Paul had a girdle; but many people have entered into the possession of eternal life without ever having read the book of Acts. From a practical point of view, we can only look at confession and negation (because we can't enter someone's mind). And someone who will not make his own Peter's confession in Matthew 16 cannot be held to have an illumined mind.


 
That's very helpful.


----------



## Michael (Jan 14, 2010)

In a nutshell, there is but one _ultimate_ criterion for salvation and it is not defined by any watermark of human knowledge or understanding.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2010)

Thanks, Michael: that is not only true but good to be reminded of (I tend to begin worrying 'Have I understood _well enough_ then' etc., about the necessary doctrines) -- my confusion has been about how that gets 'worked out' into the way we speak about things that must be believed in order to be saved, esp as examined in light of those who are not mentally capable of confessing such things. I think I understand a bit better after reading through the replies -- I have been stating the question in the wrong way, not making the right distinctions, and making wrong ones.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 14, 2010)

I think we should also remember that regeneration comes before faith. Without regeneration, saving faith cannot occur. So the first domino of necessary things is being born of the Spirit which is a work started and finished in the working of the Godhead. Once you are regenerated, you are saved and all other things that we deem as necessary (i.e. faith, changed life, etc.) will occur automatically.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 14, 2010)

Heidi, this is why I think it's best to speak in terms of visible church communion: that is, to speak in terms of God's objective, visible standards rather than invisible and subjective ones. Simply put, we're not going to know who is or is not regenerate; but we *can* know who is and is not received into communion with the visible church which professes the fundamental articles of the faith. I think we have lost too much by thinking in terms of the almost universal paradigm which has subtlety insinuated itself in our minds of "me and my faith" -- which is wholly subjective -- instead of "our faith professed together ecclesiastically" -- which is objective.

So, to speak of the example of the missionary among the tribal people: We do not nor cannot know when or at what point a person is or can be regenerated. But at the same time, if we are following the pattern of command in Christ's commission at the close of Matthew, then it doesn't really matter: we make disciples of them, teaching them first the fundamentals of the faith, receiving a profession from them whereby they are received into the church, and continue to disciple them, continually exhorting them to presently cling to Christ as present in the gospel being taught. We know that regeneration will happen in God's good timing, and that our ministers must earnestly and faithfully preach the word, and that we must earnestly and faithfully endeavor to receive it, pressing to make our calling and election sure.

We recognize that there are, indeed, true churches which are walking in error of doctrine or practice, which yet nevertheless do profess the fundamentals of the faith or those things necessary to be believed unto salvation (usually distinguished into those theoretical [the matter contained in the Apostles' Creed] and those practical [the 10 Commandments, the Lord's prayer and the Sacraments]). Those theoretical fundamentals are those things which cannot be denied without "the faith" no longer existing. To those walking orderly in churches which profess this fundamental faith, we can and should have good hope for these people and their children; to those without, whatever subjective "hope" or desire we may have for them, we have no, true objective grounds for solid hope that they are currently partakers of Christ's inheritance. This does not mean we must know that they are not saved -- for instance, the thief on the cross demonstrates that such salvation is possible; nevertheless, had we not Christ's testimony that such should be with him in paradise, we should have had no reason to hope for the thief's salvation since he falls outside the visible church "outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

We should think in terms of "what is necessary for admission to and continuance in the church," and leave "God's part" to God, recognizing that there are disorderly churches which, professing the fundamentals, nevertheless are true churches though with admixture of error, maintaining good hope for all who are being discipled by the church in whatever stage thereof they might be.

I realize this was long and rambling, and probably only tangentially touches upon your actual question; nevertheless, I hope something useful may be found therein.

*Edit*
A lot of posts appeared while I was typing this. Sorry if there is duplication!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 14, 2010)

I also think grace is given to someone who may reject a major doctrine of the faith (the Trinity comes to mind. maybe they think of a oneness or modal Trinity) out of ignorance or lack of understanding vs. someone who has a PhD in Systematics and did a dissertation on the modality of the Trinity. I honestly do not believe the thief on the cross understood the hypostatic union, the Trinity, election, or a host of other pillars of faith. I believe he knew that Jesus was the Messiah and he needed Him to be his Savior. This expression of faith was enough.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 14, 2010)

In the late 1800s, the modernist Charles Augustus Briggs was a leading voice working for revision of the Westminster Standards. Briggs particularly used WCF 10.3 as a point of leverage, arguing that the Confession taught the damnation of non-elect infants dying in infancy. 

B.B. Warfield opposed the efforts to revise the Confession, and particularly opposed the arguments put forward by Briggs.

Part of his argument is summarized in this quote:


> It is important to observe (what is often over-looked) that we are reading now the chapter on “Effectual Calling,” and the subject under treatment is God’s elect,— how they are brought to actual participation in salvation. God’s elect, (say Sections 1 and 2,) and they only, are saved, by being effectually called “by His Word and Spirit.” God’s elect, (Section 3 goes on to say,) who die in infancy, or are otherwise incapable of being called by the Word, are nevertheless saved by the inward call of the Spirit. The point, then, is not how many infants are elect, but what becomes of God’s elect if they die in infancy?



That quote appears in the second of five articles that Warfield wrote in addressing this debate. All five articles are now online, and insofar as they may lend to this discussion, I'd like to provide links:

1. The Proposal to Revise the Westminster Confession
2. What Is the "Confession of Faith"? [the above quote is on page 36]
3. Does the Confession Need Revision?
4. The Presbyterian World and the Westminster Confession
5. Confessional Subscription and Revision
Table of Contents, including Prefatory Note


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2010)

Paul, that doesn't touch only 'tangentially' -- I think a large part of my confusion is that I haven't understood what the proper 'boundaries' are in which these things should be approached: I see how what you said about the visible and invisible / objective and subjective fits with other things I have been coming to understand about the way things are addressed in the Westminster standards, and yes, it is a paradigm shift from the way I have thought. Thank you.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 14, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I also think grace is given to someone who may reject a major doctrine of the faith (the Trinity comes to mind. maybe they think of a oneness or modal Trinity) out of ignorance or lack of understanding vs. someone who has a PhD in Systematics and did a dissertation on the modality of the Trinity. I honestly do not believe the thief on the cross understood the hypostatic union, the Trinity, election, or a host of other pillars of faith. I believe he knew that Jesus was the Messiah and he needed Him to be his Savior. This expression of faith was enough.


 
Poor prufrock, he has his work cut out for him tonight . I better keep my mouth shut.....

By the way I was looking at the A. creed and a non deity messianic could swear to the whole thing, it says nothing about His prior existence as God before the incarnation. So you guys can't make that a test of faith.

I believe in God, the Father, almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary,
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 14, 2010)

Why would Prufrock have work?


----------



## lynnie (Jan 14, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Why would Prufrock have work?



Bolivar...see this thread from today especially my comments on UPC and prufrocks response at the end about trinitarianism.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/does-one-need-believe-deity-Jesus-saved-57659/

I am not saying I am fully convinced, and I'd still say I agree with you, but I will also say Prufrock did a masterful job and one that will force me to do more thinking and study.

One thing I did want to ask before that got closed is if the Presbyterians allow exceptions on this such that Bolivar could be ordained in the PCA or OPC for example. I know more than one WTS MDiv that would agree with Bolivar ( but they are Reformed baptists and I don't know where they are at confessionally). Do you have to agree that trinitarian belief must accompany regeneration immediately or is that an allowed debate/exception? Thanks.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Jan 14, 2010)

The sole necessities for souls being saved, is supplied by Triune God, and does not reside within, nor is contingent upon any decisions, or actions of the blessed
beneficiaries of this Godly salvation, at all.

For the Father elects to save, according to eternal decree.

The Son has atoned for these elect alone, on the cross, imputing His righteousness to their account; justifying those the Father gave Him with nothing less than His blood.

The Holy Spirit that proceeds from both Father and Son, calls and efficaciously regenerates all those elect dead in sin, to new spiritual life, according to the resurrection powers that reside only in the Godhead.

All these elected, justified, called, and regenerated souls inherit salvation according to the promises of God, and all these will evidence this miracle
of grace, by exhibiting faith and repentance at some time, in their ordained lifetime. . .to the glory of God, alone.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 14, 2010)

Lynnie, 
Regarding the Apostle's Creed, it is unfortunately not quite that simple. The Reformed catholic tradition has understood the Creed not according to its bare words -- or whatever the words can be made to signify -- but according to its true and genuine sense. The Creed is designed and understood to be explicitly Trinitarian -- when one is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, they make answer thereunto by professing their faith in the same: this is the meaning in which the affirmation of faith in the God the Father, Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; and the Holy Ghost is understood. So while an Anti-Trinitarian might claim that they affirm the Creed, they are really deceiving themselves and others: for while they affirm the bare words thereof, they do not affirm the substance or the intended meaning thereof.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jan 14, 2010)

Here is a list of things found in 2Pet 1 that give an indication of some of the necessary items;


> 3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
> 
> 4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
> 
> ...



Even in Hebrews 6 there were described some "things that accompany salvation"


> 9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
> 
> 10For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
> 
> ...



Titus 2 is loaded with similar verses, and in chap 3 ,these two come to mind;


> 8This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.





> 14And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 15, 2010)

I was thinking about all this and trying to remember bible passages about people who have bad doctrine but get gradually sanctified. This scriture came to mind.....(Acts 18-19)

_24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. 27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: 
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. 

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 
7 And all the men were about twelve. 
8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. 
9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. _

Can't we say here- maybe a middle ground sort of position- that we have Apollos believeing the things of the Lord, and "disciples" who never even heard of the holy spirit. All they mainly knew was what John taught about repentance, and at least with the "disciples" they must not have understood the trinity at all, seeing as they never heard of the holy spirit.

So leaving aside the question of if they were saved/regenerated at that time, what we can see is that P&A and Paul didn't just say they are reprobate or unsaved. They made an assumption that the people were badly taught disciples and they explained the full truth to them. The people then believed what they heard and got baptized into a Christian baptism.

Some are hardened and won't accept truth, and Paul takes the disciples away from them.

Now I would say that here in this passage you can be "saved" and have really bad doctrine, not even grasping the trinity/holy spirit, but, the evidence that you do belong to the Lord is that when you do hear the truth you respond immediately.

The people I have known- who take years to come to sound doctrine- somebody like Prufrock and Wayne would say are not saved initially. Fair enough, I will not argue with the Reformers. 

But might there not be a category here of new believers, poorly taught, zealous and with some understanding, who when they hear the truth recieve it immediately and are not hardened? Can't we say that one can be regenerated but with faulty understanding such as Apollos and these disciples, and the evidence of being saved is that they will immediately agree with truth? I would assume the time period would be short, but nevertheless understanding is not immediate. And secondly they would be willing to leave their cult and join a true church of course, as Paul's disciples did.

Would that understanding be acceptable? I'd be interested in feedback. I don't see how we can say Apollos and the "disciples" had not been regenerated during the weeks/months before they heard the full truth. Do the great reformers not agree with my thinking here? Please clarify. Thanks!!


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 15, 2010)

> But might there not be a category here of new believers, poorly taught, zealous and with some understanding, who when they hear the truth recieve it immediately and are not hardened? Can't we say that one can be regenerated but with faulty understanding such as Apollos and these disciples, and the evidence of being saved is that they will immediately agree with truth? I would assume the time period would be short, but nevertheless understanding is not immediate. And secondly they would be willing to leave their cult and join a true church of course, as Paul's disciples did.



Lynnie, this was my question too: if I understand the replies correctly it is in a way irrelevant for us to judge or determine the moment of regeneration: what all of these tests properly apply to -- the proper realm of any of us being able to judge of these matters -- is confession in the visible church; and as those who are taught by the Spirit will receive these truths when they hear, and the church is commissioned to teach them, it doesn't matter that the church can't make judgements about people's hearts beforehand, and can only speak to the profession that Scripture requires us to make -- because the church will teach this profession, and those who are taught of the Spirit will receive it?

{edit: PS. I have been thinking this morning about something that was said I think on the other thread, that we can entertain hope for people (it was very good to read about your perseverance in helping people come to a confession of faith), but we can't empty faith of its objective content in order to do something we don't have warrant to do -- attempt to judge the state of the heart, rather than the confession? Again, that's my understanding of the replies I got to the similar question on this thread, though I'm sure I haven't processed them quite fully, and I'm not sure how well re-stated it is. I'm hoping someone will correct me if I still don't get it }


----------



## Augusta (Jan 15, 2010)

This is a very interesting topic and one I have often ruminated on. I am constantly analyzing loved ones for fruit and evidences of conversion because I want them to be converted. 

I have come to realize that I can look for that, but what I should do is pray for them and leave it in God's hands because it is he who opens our eyes. Even the apostles were totally clueless much of the time they followed Christ. It even says that God purposely hid the meaning of his words when he would say he had to die and rise again. It just wasn't in God's timing yet to reveal that to them. Even the on the road to Immaus they were just on the cusp of the scales falling from their eyes as they did with Paul. The 'blind and now I see' metaphor is powerful to describe what happens to a converted person.

We can look for fruit but we can't always know. My own experience of conversion is a case in point. I was religious all my life. I attended church regularly since I was a child. I was raised in a charismatic arminian church. I was not coverted until I was 26. I think that I was set apart and elect and that in certain ways God was guiding me toward that moment of conversion, but I wasn't actually quickened and my eyes opened until the day when I was 26 and I heard the gospel preached to me.

I don't think I would have denied the diety of Christ at that point even if I hadn't understood is fully previously. I was so changed that I soaked up truth the moment I heard it. The Holy Spirit bore witness to my spirit when I heard the TRUTH. 

I also believe that with infants we, because of their age, won't be able to see the fruit of conversion but that doesn't tie God's hands in any way. The thief on the cross didn't have any fruit either but he was saved. It can happen at any moment to someone, even on their deathbed. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. John 3:8


----------



## lynnie (Jan 15, 2010)

Thank you Heidi. I think you are right that it isn't up to me to try and say somebody is or isn't saved who misunderstands God and salvation, it is only up to me to pray for them and to share scripture if I have a good opportunity. But I do think this Acts scripture does allow that somebody could be regenerated who does not understand the trinity initially. We have a young oneness guy at my PCA who came out of it and got rebaptized as a trinitarian last year, and this friend of my son has openly broken with her family and declared herself a trinitarian against much UPC opposition. Both of them believe they knew and loved the Lord before their trinitarian conversion and I won't argue. Maybe God has special mercy on elect children who are under wrong parents?....interestingly this girl was about 20, and the guy is young.....it's almost like the minute they got to adulthood God opened their eyes.

You know what is comforting to me is that for years the most intense doctrinal relationship of mine has been a younger sister. With my 5 married siblings and a number of grown nieces and nephews and other people who know them, almost everybody at one time or another has gotten into doctrine with her and talked to me too. I spent years asking if it is Christianity to say that true faith means you can't go to doctors and you have two dead babies that might have lived with medical care ( one for certain). Is it true Christianity to say Paul confessed sickness and had unbelief? Do Christians say as she said, that after they went through intense deliverance of demons and ancestral curses they got rid of the inner sin nature and just had flesh left?

I have been rebuked and corrected repeatedly that I am so judemental, she loves the Lord, she is so in love with Jesus and gives bibles to people and witnesses to people, blah blah blah. I have gotten such flak for even implying she might not be a saved Christian who is just deceived.

Starting two years ago she got into open theology and told relatives that maybe God didn't know if Adam and Eve would eat the fruit. I need to read " Why I'm not a Calvinist" . I have asked if this is Christianity, to say that God had no foreknowledge of the garden, and I get flamed. You would think I crawled out of Westminster California  I am so intolerant, so critical, so judgeing, so narrow. "Of course she is born again and a true Christian, just some error there."

Anyway, I come to the Puritan Board and the tables are turned and I am on the other side saying you could be saved even with heretical doctrine, at least for a little while. Funny in a way...I do need to think about this for a while. But thanks for starting the thread and I think it is a very good and important question.

What I do wonder too is if people who have been orthodox for decades and then go into Federal vision are saved....not young sheep in the churches listening, but the teachers at the top. Are they saved and in a moment of grave error turning to works righteousness but God will rescue them back? I questioned the salvation of some FVs, and some who have left orthodoxy (where they had every appearance of regeneration for years) and joined the RCC. I got such loving and concerned "correction". I know a PCA elder's wife who talked to me about Tommy Howard (Elizabeth Elliot's brother) who became a RC and gave me the "Catholics can be saved" speech. Well yeah, they can be, but the ones I know came out after they get saved, they don't go from evangelical back into the great Mother of Rome.

I will say this.....based on my experience, this subject is not well understood at all in the PCA if there is a strict confessional position on it. So any of you guys who think I need my brain rewired can look at me as one example of what is out there, and maybe teach on this. Have fun!! And thanks again Heidi.

edit...traci, that was lovely. thanks.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 15, 2010)

Lynnie, I agree with you that it's a subject that could stand more clarity in reformed circles  

I knew that God had done something to my heart before I could make a profession of faith in Christ, or even had a strong desire to be 'saved'. I was determined to go to Hell before obeying God, and when in a split second, I was suddenly willing rather to obey Him  -- I knew that had not come out of myself: the peace of God in that time period was one of the deepest things I have known, and I spent the most memorably peaceful days of my life with complete assurance that God would do what was right with me, whether He saved me or not -- all was well with my soul, because God was righteous. The desire to be found in Christ was almost a torment when it came disrupting that. At what point was I united to Christ? When I finally focused on Him and asked for salvation? Or when I knew that something had happened in me that was not effected by my own ability to change myself? I don't know; but I had no confidence that I was a new creature until I could confess Christ, and it would have been unwise and damaging for anyone else to assume such, and assure me on that point before I came to profess faith in Him (and even though people noticed that something was different and remarked on it, no one attempted to do so: indeed I didn't speak to anyone about what was happening to me that entire time). I think that is the 'carry away' lesson of the discussion for me -- what Traci said too, if I understand: to leave to God what He is doing in the heart and have hope that He can do more than we know; but not to assure anyone that they are right with God while they do not confess the faith; or alter 'the faith' so that it includes denials of (or simply does not include) deity, Trinity, etc.

Again, if that's insufficient, or badly phrased, I hope someone will correct me.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 15, 2010)

_to leave to God what He is doing in the heart and have hope that He can do more than we know; but not to assure anyone that they are right with God while they do not confess the faith; or alter 'the faith' so that it includes denials of (or simply does not include) deity, Trinity, etc._

That seems nicely put to me. I personally just can't assume a young or new believer isn't truly saved even with bad doctrine, but I can see that I have no right to assume they are, if their faith expressed is heretical, no matter how zealous and in love with the Lord they appear. I hope my middle ground is an acceptable position. It seems to fit Acts 18-19.

You have a lot of insight for somebody who prefers mayo to miracle whip.......


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 15, 2010)

Lynnie, you are making regeneration and conversion both the same, instantaneous process. The former is, the later is life long. We must never cross into the heresy of doctrinal regeneration or doctrinal salvation. Yet the other ditch is a regeneration that really does not affect the objective truths a person consents to as true. I judge based on what is revealed and taught to a person. SO for instance, when the blind man was questioned by the pharisees,and his only response was, "I was blind and now I see", the Lord saw fit to bring him to that confession of truth and we hear nothing more. AS the Gospel has reached its full revelation from the Apostles and John, we are now given more truth to uphold. Apollos was certainly regenerate at this point in time, but not converted to the truth as proclaimed to him. You also seem to use the word 'saved' very loosely and directly related to a point in time. I am a 'spiritual birthday' phobiac, so when i see the word used in the context you use it, I think of some free will Billy Graham crusade where someone says a prayer and walks an aisle. So let's stop putting that word in the context you are using it and concentrate on the distinction between regeneration and conversion. 

A blood bought child of God, and Elect of God, will not worship a false Christ period. There is a deeper understanding when God sees fit to reveal truths to such person, but they will not fight and adamantly reject it for a long period of time. Why? Because it is God's hands.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 15, 2010)

a mere housewife said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Heidi, the elect must repent and believe; they most certainly will do so. It is necessary that they do so. It is necessary that they repent and believe the gospel. That gospel may be extensive; it may be presented concisely. It will in any case contain the essentials of sin and atonement; it will also contain the identity of the Person of the Savior. These things must be believed and will most certainly be believed by those whom God has called, regenerated, and granted said faith.
> ...


 

Their hearts are changed in order they believe and confess the truth Heidi. The playing field is level. Infants and adults alike. God does not have separate plans for each.


----------



## MW (Jan 15, 2010)

1. God's word, not His decree, is our rule of faith and life. The fact there are examples where the grace of God has counteracted the evil effects of a lack of understanding is no rule to the church as to what constitutes saving knowledge. The cases are numerous where false belief has led men astray and ultimately to destruction. We cannot assume that God will intervene to save a person from his false beliefs and must therefore insist that men believe the whole counsel of God for salvation.

2. Belief is organic. It develops and produces fruit according to its kind. If this were not the case it would not be possible to know teaching by its fruit. The fact that belief is organic means that we ought to judge beliefs on the basis of what would eventuate were they consistently maintained and acted upon.


----------

