# Soteriology confusion



## sotzo (Jul 19, 2006)

Hi All:

Been reading through Augustine and having one of those moments of difficulty (existentially as well as exegetically). 

It could be agreed that there is nothing more important than how one is made right with God. Augustine believed baptism as essential to salvation. The Reformers believed that baptism was not essential, but that the imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith was the vital key. The Roman Catholic church teaches infused righteousness is the answer and that we must persevere through our own effort.

I know the above may be subject to some tweaking as far as the specifics, but therein lies my question. When it comes to salvation, where eternal life and death is at stake, why would God leave such a doctrine open to interpretation? It is clear that the interpretation problems on justification happened off the bat as Galatians and even the first council at Jerusalem (perhaps to a lesser extent than Galatians) attests. 

Is the confusion a result of sinful man's turning of even a life-saving doctrine into confusion? But if that is the case, then how can we of the Reformed persuasion - sinful as well, know that we have not been the ones contorting the truth and have it wrong?

Thanks for any help here,
Joel


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 19, 2006)

Greetings Joel, and welcome to the board! I'll be coming back down to Memphis in late August to begin my third year at Rhodes College. I see you're a member of Independent Pres. - I've never been there myself, but have heard good things about it.

Regarding the reason confusion exists on so central a doctrine as soteriology, I would say you are certainly getting at the issue in mentioning fallen man's sinful nature to distort the precious truth of God into lifeless venom. We certainly know that blatant, explicit unbelievers understand and receive the Gospel as foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18), for it is veiled to them in their blind and corrupted minds and hearts (2 Cor. 4:3). Thus, if we really think through the full and logical implications and results of that, it becomes clear that anyone who does not understand and believe the biblical Gospel (and thus the Gospel at all), even if they claim to do so, actually despise and look down on the true Gospel as much as any _explicit_ unbeliever. Thus, the reason for all the misunderstanding and twisting of the essential aspects of the Gospel at its heart (by, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church, as you mentioned) is ultimately rooted in the same reason there is unbelief and spiritual blindness at all in the world.

As to how we can gain assurance that we correctly understand and receive the Gospel, the Spirit certainly bears witness to our hearts and minds so as to continually give us that assurance (Rom. 8:16; 9:1; Heb. 10:15; see also the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity sections on assurance). In those verses, what is being spoken of as being assured us by the Spirit is that we are saved - and since the Gospel is the only means of salvation, that witness is thus equally relevant to the question of whether we are properly understanding the Gospel.

While that _subjective_ aspect of our assurance of the Gospel's true clarity to our minds and hearts is a very key aspect of that assurance overall, there is of course also an _objective_ aspect of it as well, and the two are very much intertwined. That is because we understand that the _sole_ means by which the Spirit _speaks to us_ on such matters, as well as the _chief_ means by which He _bears witness to our hearts_ on them, is through the Word; and for an objective understanding of a proper understanding of the Gospel, there really is no substitute for serious and thorough exposure to the Word (Hos. 4:6) through both preaching and study. As such, if you are having struggles with justifying and defending to yourself the certainty of the correctness of our doctrine of justification, I would encourage you to seek out and read material on the subject that focuses on the topic from Scripture, and compares the Protestant interpretations of relevant Scripture with the Roman Catholic interpretation.

As one particular example, your mention of the difference on the necessity of baptism being necessary for salvation brings to mind the broader issue of all the general external signs associated with and pointing to the inward salvation which they signify. In particular, Romans 4:9-12 is nothing less than crystal clear on that issue: "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." While certain objections to our various beliefs can seem to have potential validity, and thus be truly worthy to discuss for the purpose of clarification, that need not be the case with all objections, and the mere _existence_ of such objections on the part of opposers does not in itself add even one shred of _legitimacy_ to those objections. That is especially relevant when there comes a point where cases of interpretation are simply nothing short of desperate attempts to dance around the clear meaning of the text, which comes out plainly in many such cases. Does that make sense?


----------



## sotzo (Jul 19, 2006)

> Greetings Joel, and welcome to the board! I'll be coming back down to Memphis in late August to begin my third year at Rhodes College. I see you're a member of Independent Pres. - I've never been there myself, but have heard good things about it.



Yes, IPC is great...new minister coming soon who is solid. Much need for the Church to be active in our city!



> Regarding the reason confusion exists on so central a doctrine as soteriology, I would say you are certainly getting at the issue in mentioning fallen man's sinful nature to distort the precious truth of God into lifeless venom. We certainly know that blatant, explicit unbelievers understand and receive the Gospel as foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18), for it is veiled to them in their blind and corrupted minds and hearts (2 Cor. 4:3). Thus, if we really think through the full and logical implications and results of that, it becomes clear that anyone who does not understand and believe the biblical Gospel (and thus the Gospel at all), even if they claim to do so, actually despise and look down on the true Gospel as much as any explicit unbeliever. Thus, the reason for all the misunderstanding and twisting of the essential aspects of the Gospel at its heart (by, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church, as you mentioned) is ultimately rooted in the same reason there is unbelief and spiritual blindness at all in the world.



But on that reasoning, if _we_ are sinners as well, what makes our interpretation better than other sinners? Again, Augustine's soteriology has baptism as essential. In our circles that would be called "Christ plus something" which we deem heretical. Was Augustine then outside of true Gospel? 

Obviously, the matter of individual salvation is known only by God and to a lesser extent the person saved so we can't know about Augustine or anyone else. I guess my point is, men learn about salvation via Scripture, but Scripture is interpreted by sinful men. Only those sinful men who have been saved can interpret Scripture aright since only they have the illumination of the Holy Spirit. But the illumination of the Holy Spirit is a subjective thing, claimed to be possessed by many including those who would say salvation is by the infusion of Jesus' righteousness not imputation. I know anyone can say anything they wish about the means salvation (Jehovah's witnesses, etc.), but I'm talking about believers who have valid contextual reasons for aruging contra-imputation. If you heard the the Mike Horton, Robert Godfrey, Patrick Madrid, Robert Sungenis, et al. debates one thing there were some moments where I thought, "I see where the text could lead one to that Roman Catholic interpretaton". 

In a matter of such incredible eternal gravity as salvation, it is just a difficult thing that there is debate on this topic. 



> As to how we can gain assurance that we correctly understand and receive the Gospel, the Spirit certainly bears witness to our hearts and minds so as to continually give us that assurance (Rom. 8:16; 9:1; Heb. 10:15; see also the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity sections on assurance). In those verses, what is being spoken of as being assured us by the Spirit is that we are saved - and since the Gospel is the only means of salvation, that witness is thus equally relevant to the question of whether we are properly understanding the Gospel.



But again, there are folks with other soteriological views who claim they have the Holy Spirit and whose lives bear fruit that Scripture attests is part of a true Christian walk. So, why the conflict in views between such individuals and us? 



> While that subjective aspect of our assurance of the Gospel's true clarity to our minds and hearts is a very key aspect of that assurance overall, there is of course also an objective aspect of it as well, and the two are very much intertwined. That is because we understand that the sole means by which the Spirit speaks to us on such matters, as well as the chief means by which He bears witness to our hearts on them, is through the Word; and for an objective understanding of a proper understanding of the Gospel, there really is no substitute for serious and thorough exposure to the Word (Hos. 4:6) through both preaching and study.



If serious and thorough exposure to the Word was only something Reformed folks had done, that would make sense to me, but surely Augustine was a student of the Word!



> As one particular example, your mention of the difference on the necessity of baptism being necessary for salvation brings to mind the broader issue of all the general external signs associated with and pointing to the inward salvation which they signify. In particular, Romans 4:9-12 is nothing less than crystal clear on that issue: "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised."



But along those same lines of crystal clarity, when writing against the Pelagians on the Lord's table, Augustine quoted John 6:53 ("Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you".) and then said, "What do we want more? What answer to this can be adduced, unless it be by that obstinancy which ever resists the constancy of manifest truth?" Augustine then goes on to build his case for paedo-communion. I know the counterpoints to Augustine on this, but again, why with such a crushingly brutal thing like eternal damnation is the topic debatable to this degree? If the Reformed soteriology is correct, then Augustine added to grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and therefore, accepted a bastardized, non-salvific Gospel. That is a tough thought to hold on to very long without thinking that either A) Augustine was apostate?!? or B) perhaps Augustine was right in his interpretation and I'm wrong!!



> While certain objections to our various beliefs can seem to have potential validity, and thus be truly worthy to discuss for the purpose of clarification, that need not be the case with all objections, and the mere existence of such objections on the part of opposers does not in itself add even one shred of legitimacy to those objections. That is especially relevant when there comes a point where cases of interpretation are simply nothing short of desperate attempts to dance around the clear meaning of the text, which comes out plainly in many such cases. Does that make sense?



Makes sense. Agreed on the fact that the mere presence of an objection doesn't constitute a _valid_ objection. It is just difficult for me as I struggle with assurance at times due to the presence of what appear to be sincere, valid counterpoints and the concomitant eternal ramification of these matters. 

Peace
Joel

[Edited on 7-20-2006 by sotzo]


----------



## turmeric (Jul 19, 2006)

I'm not trying to answer for Chris, he'll probably want to respond. I just want to say that many people take years to come to assurance. What is important to understand is that we are guilty of infinite offense against a holy God, we need a holy substitute like ourselves but without sin if we are going to be reconciled to Him, God has provided what we need in Jesus Christ. He lived the life we should have lived, He died the death we should have died. I know you know this stuff, you just have to ask; what could save me? Ritual? Covenant-keeping on my part? Good works? Or a substitute who kept the law for us and bore the penalty for us. It's the only thing that makes sense. My 2 cents worth.


----------



## sotzo (Jul 23, 2006)

> I'm not trying to answer for Chris, he'll probably want to respond. I just want to say that many people take years to come to assurance. What is important to understand is that we are guilty of infinite offense against a holy God, we need a holy substitute like ourselves but without sin if we are going to be reconciled to Him, God has provided what we need in Jesus Christ. He lived the life we should have lived, He died the death we should have died. I know you know this stuff, you just have to ask; what could save me? Ritual? Covenant-keeping on my part? Good works? Or a substitute who kept the law for us and bore the penalty for us. It's the only thing that makes sense. My 2 cents worth.



Thanks for that encouragement. I know what you mean on the issue of the extent of my offensive sin. No way that ritual, covenant keeping could ultimately be redeeming because I was guilty from birth. 

Some of this is my personality being sorted out by the Holy Spirit. I think alot about the fact that we are living every moment on the brink of eternity. When I am confronted with opposing viewpoints on soteriology it gets at me, especially when I see the apparent legitmacy of some of these views (ie, Augustine per above).

Peace
joel

[Edited on 7-23-2006 by sotzo]


----------



## sotzo (Jul 23, 2006)

> Do you believe in election?



Yes. 



> Does your question assume that there could be people who God chose to save but it's just to hard for them to figure things out?



No, not my assumption at all. Those whom God has chosen, God will save (I Cor.1:8-9) . It is the extreme gravity of eternity and my "subjective self" trying to reckon with objective truth that throws me into turmoil sometimes. Here is how I put it in my first post:

"...when writing against the Pelagians on the Lord's table, Augustine quoted John 6:53 ("Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you".) and then said, "What do we want more? What answer to this can be adduced, unless it be by that obstinancy which ever resists the constancy of manifest truth?" Augustine then goes on to build his case for paedo-communion. I know the counterpoints to Augustine on this, but again, why with such a crushingly brutal thing like eternal damnation is the topic debatable to this degree? If the Reformed soteriology is correct, then Augustine added to grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and therefore, accepted a bastardized, non-salvific Gospel. That is a tough thought to hold on to very long without thinking that either A) Augustine was apostate?!? or B) perhaps Augustine was right in his interpretation and I'm wrong!!"

So, in your view was Augustine saved? Have I set up a false dichotomy above? Perhaps I have and don't realize it...



> Will there be anyone's eternal destination in a place other than God desired because someone got the doctrine wrong?



No, but does that mean that there can be errors in one's soteriology and still be saved? In other words, when God elects does he use the means of correct doctrine of salvation as part of his redemptive plan or can one err and still be saved? If so, how far can one err?



> It is a result of our sin.
> 
> If we have it wrong then why worry? Just make sure you're good enough and you'll make it in. Yeah, you might need to sit in purgatory for a while, but wha'ts a few millennia comapred to eternity?



Well, getting it wrong would mean hell. I know your response may be "that's the point, if it is about anything other than free grace there is no way to know". But, even the first council in Jerusalem was dealing with the issue of what makes one right with God. My struggle is that I don't understand why God would allow there to be deliberation over the means by which one is saved. Augustine thought he would be grossly mishandling Scripture if he were to let John 6:53 be merely a metaphor...in Reformed circles, we would say that adding the Lord's table as a condition of salvation is heresy. Two points of view...two parties that believe they are holding to the Scriptures (not that one's belief that they are holding to the Scriptures means they are)...all involving the most serious question a human can ask. Even the word "serious" doesn't do justice when you are talking about eternity.



> We also need to check our teachings in light of scripture, so there's a circularity here. No one ever said theology was going to be easy. Sometimes we need to do the hard work of exegeting Scripture.



Absolutely. As long as my salvation is not contingent on figuring out how to reconcile opposing soterilogical views like those of Augustine and Reformed theology.



> One way we know we're right is because the other interpretations do not do justice to the text.



So, in your view, does Augustine (to give the same example) not do the text justice?



> Another way we know is the testimony of the Holy Spirit.



Yes. 



> But, because *men* twist the Scriptures to their destruction we should not make the fallacious inference that the *Scriptures* are unclear. I for one believe the Bible is very clear on slavation matters, and so does the confession I might add.



But I don't want to twist the Scriptures. I want to know them and I want to "think God's thoughts after him". When men reckon with the Scriptures out of reverence and fear and come away with different views on salvation, that is disturbing to me.

Hope I haven't thoroughly confused you!

Peace
Joel

[Edited on 7-24-2006 by sotzo]

[Edited on 7-24-2006 by sotzo]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 23, 2006)

Joel,

There can be a lot of confusion, unfortunately over baptism. Examine every thing in light of the Gospel, the Good News, Christ on the cross and His life for you.

If person X says baptism is necessary for salvation, then it is works. If person X says that baptism is a sign of my faith, then it is works. As usual the way is narrow. It´s as has well been said, not not receiving baptism that damns but the despising of it. Why? Because it´s a law or ordinance whereby we prove to God our faithfulness to Him and if we don´t work in some way through baptism we are damned? No! Because it IS the Gospel itself in a physical means and to reject it then is to reject the Gospel or grace or mercy. Baptism is SO very rich understood as Gospel.

There is a sense in which the Gospel goes out in general, that is the Gospel or Good News proclaimed. But how do I know the Gospel is specifically FOR ME as opposed to just in general? How can I have or hear a, "œYOUR sins are forgiven YOU" from the sweet lips of Christ Himself? That is crucial because it is not really the Gospel for you unless you HEAR the FOR ME. In other words by analogy if your country is at war with another country, say the US and China, and the US is loosing and over in Europe two other unrelated countries, say Germany and France are warring with each other and Germany is loosing "“ and Germany soldiers hear, "œFrance has surrendered.", and simultaneously you pick that message up on your short wave radio while you sit in a fox hole awaiting the over whelming enemies final victorious assault; what is that good news to you?

While the general message of the Gospel goes out, baptism is the one way in which the Gospel is TO YOU. When you are baptized it is a Gospel baptism, God literally has mandated that you be given His name, to do God´s mandate is the same as HIM DOING IT, not YOU or the Pastor DOING IT (this is missed by many), it does not depend upon you or the pastor or even the church but God who mandates it. To be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit IS to RECEIVE HIS NAME. And that is NO small thing. Baptism contains the Gospel and when it is placed upon YOUR body, then you have specifically received the Good News. The Good News IS FOR YOU, it is a "œYour sins are forgiven you", from the lips of Jesus and not just a general Gospel proclamation. You have received the very name of God and this name is the name of mercy. It is your adoption papers and God would have to cease being God to forsake His own name given to you. This is the great comfort and POWERFULL Gospel that both Rome and Credo believers do not avail themselves of and it is very sad, truly.

Thus, we see that to reject Baptism is to really reject the Gospel, Christ, the name of God and the very grace and mercy given. It is to throw off Christ. If baptism were merely a work or a "œsign of my inward reality" (another form of works), then to reject it would be rejecting works and of little consequence since works cannot save me. But to reject it as Gospel is altogether a different animal.

People seek assurance in so many fickled things, works, fruit, signs of regeneration, etc"¦ but few seek it objectively in Christ and trust in their baptism as Gospel. Paul seems to have NO problem whatsoever, especially in alleviating fears, in thrusting GOSPEL baptism out there. In fact he did so quite a bit. If I think baptism is works or a "œsign of my faith or inward reality" (bent inward the definition of sin), then sure, I should not trust it one wit. But if I KNOW that baptism is the Gospel of Christ in outward sign and seal, then I better trust in it!


Blessings,

Larry


----------



## sotzo (Aug 2, 2006)

Many thanks for your responses. I think this discussion proves the point: there has been confusion over soteriology in the church - that is what is so disturbing. 

Existentialism has had a tremendous impact on me. I have had "Luther-esque" experiences of terrible dread at one day facing the Father and "getting it wrong". Then I read Matt 7:23 and my head spins. Really a debilitating thing. Had it even happen after I've shared Christ with someone. That is why this issue hits home so much. I know that sin will forever affect our interpretation of Scripture, but how can we REALLY know we are "thinking God's thoughts after him" to know we are His? Especially when there seems to be division on this issue among believers who truly love Christ?


(Also, I don't want to minimize the Holy Spirit's role in communication assurance to us. However, I have really struggled with the above issue for a long while. Looking for that final resting place where my love of God and neighbor is no longer hindered by this plague.)

Again, many thanks and peace,

JB


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by sotzo_
> I want to know them and I want to "think God's thoughts after him".



Wow, good luck with all that.


----------



## sotzo (Aug 2, 2006)

Gabriel:

I think you may have misunderstood or I did not communicate well...I'm not saying I want to know the mind of God as He knows it...I'm saying I want to understand His mind to the God-glorifying extent that I have properly understood the way to Him.

peace
Joel


----------



## turmeric (Aug 2, 2006)

Cardinal Rule of Assurance;

*Never* look at yourself; what you think, whether you've got it right, whether you are believing correctly. *Always* look at Christ, who He is, what He has done for His elect, how He kept the Law perfectly for us,etc. Usually, assurance and joy will follow. Another


----------



## sotzo (Aug 2, 2006)

> Never look at yourself; what you think, whether you've got it right, whether you are believing correctly. Always look at Christ, who He is, what He has done for His elect, how He kept the Law perfectly for us,etc. Usually, assurance and joy will follow.



But doesn't sola fide mean just that - faith alone? And if that faith is accompanied by something else (works, meritorious effect of the sacraments), then can one be saved? If they can, then it seems sola fide is not a proper view from which to come away from the Scriptures. If it is, then it certainly matters whether one has it right because if they are trusting in anything else or in addition to Christ then they are lost.

peace
jb

[Edited on 8-3-2006 by sotzo]

[Edited on 8-3-2006 by sotzo]

[Edited on 8-3-2006 by sotzo]

[Edited on 8-3-2006 by sotzo]


----------



## turmeric (Aug 3, 2006)

Yes, it matters, I'm not saying you can believe any old thing; I'm saying to focus on Christ and His works, He is who we're supposed to be having faith in. Meditating on Him as He is revealed in Scripture stimulates proper faith.


----------



## sotzo (Aug 3, 2006)

> Yes, it matters, I'm not saying you can believe any old thing; I'm saying to focus on Christ and His works, He is who we're supposed to be having faith in. Meditating on Him as He is revealed in Scripture stimulates proper faith.



Augustine meditated on Christ and his works and came away believing baptism was necessary for salvation. We in the Reformed camp would say that errs after we have meditated on Christ in the Scripture. On that basis, what I'm looking for is either:

A) Augustine OR we had/have biblcal saving faith.
B) Augustine AND we had/have biblical saving faith even with these differences.
C) We cannot know who has biblical saving faith since that can only be determined by God. Therefore, no assurance is possible.

peace
Joel


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Aug 5, 2006)

This is a good thread.


----------

