Annihilationism a Gospel Issue

[No Name #5]

Does anyone have any advice on speaking to someone who doesn't actually believe in annihilationism, but *also* doesn't believe it's a Gospel issue? I want to convince a friend of mine that it is, but she continually fails to be persuaded by any of my arguments. (For instance, about just execution of the punishment of the wicked being instrinsic to the Gospel & annihilationism fundamentally not being just, etc.). The reason it's important is because her husband is a strident annihilationist & he fell away from the faith completely recently, now identifying as an Open Theist. I warned her about this beforehand and yet she still fails to see the necessary connection. (I brought up the Socinians and how they were also vehement annihilationists in addition to being Open Theism proponents, etc.) It's truly confounding to me that she still doesn't grasp this.

Thanks in advance, and I also would appreciate any and all prayers for my friend, her husband, the stability of their marriage, & their children.

 

[chuckd]

First thought is I don't see death as a bad thing if the person is annihilated. Since they won't experience it.

 

[beloved7]

The three main concerns in my humble opinion would be..

1) A twisted hermeneutic on the words of Christ, which opens the door to other heresies.

2) A nihilistic view of image bearers, rendering some as essentially animals.

3) Though probably the most critical of the three, a weakened knowledge of God’s grace. To deny eternal torment is to deny what the atonement truly saved us from.

 

[lynnie]

I am sorry.

I've been down your road with a friend, but they pulled out "John Stott is annihilationist" . I think Stott was wrong, but a man of that stature is hard to argue with. He was a Christian, so I don't see it as a gospel issue either if by gospel you mean essential for salvation. I agree with your concerns, but I would not press it any more. Open theism is so much worse and denies the very attribute of God's foreknowledge.

I will pray for your friend and her family. Keep in mind that if people don't love truth, God delivers them over to delusion. She may not want the truth.

 

[beloved7]

Annihilationism is more than error, it’s heretical.

 

[Taylor]

Annihilationism is more than error, it’s heretical.

In what sense do you use “heretical”? Do you mean those who hold the doctrine (even quite loosely, such as Stott did) are unregenerate?

 

[beloved7]

In what sense do you use “heretical”? Do you mean those who hold the doctrine (even quite loosely, such as Stott did) are unregenerate?

I’m referring to what is spoken of in Titus 3:10-11.

As for Stott specifically, I do not know what he professed enough to opine on him specifically, nor would it be wise for me to do so. I do however firmly believe that anyone who holds to that doctrine should be placed firmly in the mark and avoid category.

 

[Taylor]

I’m referring to what is spoken of in Titus 3:10-11.

As for Stott specifically, I do not know what he professed enough to opine on him specifically, nor would it be wise for me to do so. I do however firmly believe that anyone who holds to that doctrine should be placed firmly in the mark and avoid category.

With all respect, you didn't really answer my question. I know what Titus 3 says. What I want to know is what you mean by "heresy" when you use the term.

With regard to Stott, he affirmed annihilationism, he held the doctrine "with an open hand."

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I used to completely avoid Stott after I learned of his views on this. However, I was really surprised when I looked in one of his commentaries on an epistle of Paul, how astute he was in judgment and discernment. So, I will occasionally read him, gratefully, despite his egregious error on the topic being discussed.

 

[No Name #5]

Thank you so much, guys! I mentioned a lot of these things but neglected to mention others, so this was really helpful. I particularly love the point about limiting grace which beloved7 raised so incisively. If God’s justice is infinite in one respect (its effect) but finite in another (its duration), then His grace must necessarily be infinite in one respect (its effect) and finite in another (its duration). In short, this position would unavoidably destroy Heaven. Since God is infinite, the execution of His eternal attributes must be unending in ALL respects, otherwise you wind up anthropomorphizing the entire Gospel: inevitably leading to a human-centered understanding of God, and thus Open Theism. This clearly explains the various heresies of the Socinians, in addition to the fact that they utilized a Biblicist method of hermeneutics which unavoidably reduces the entirety of Scripture to a contingent and human-centered level of understanding, rather than one that stands in awe of God's Word and submits to it as it is perspicuously written in the canon. I'll post an update when I'm able. I pray the Lord uses our conversations as the means to make the Gospel even more manifest in her understanding & walk with our Lord and Savior.

 

[Jake]

I remember talking to a Reformed Baptist minister who had lived in the UK during graduate school and was a member of All Souls, after the retirement but before the death of John Stott. He said most of the folks in those circles of conservative Anglicanism were very gospel-centered and saturated, while if asked either held to or were open to annihilationism. I've found similar among many other conservative Anglicans. I'm unwilling to call the view heresy.

 

[Santiago DO]

those circles of conservative Anglicanism were very gospel-centered and saturated, while if asked either held to or were open to annihilationism. I've found similar among many other conservative Anglicans. I'm unwilling to call the view heresy.

So, if a doctrine is held by "conservative people" should we be softer in our judgment (according to the word of God)?

If you don't want to call it "heresy", at least is a theological error.

 

[beloved7]

So, if a doctrine is held by "conservative people" should we be softer in our judgment (according to the word of God)?

If you don't want to call it "heresy", at least is a theological error.

I held my tongue but was thinking the same; when examining a dangerous doctrine to take a softer stance on it because some of its adherents are solid in most other areas is a frightening precedence.

 

[Taylor]

So, if a doctrine is held by "conservative people" should we be softer in our judgment (according to the word of God)?

If you don't want to call it "heresy", at least is a theological error.

I held my tongue but was thinking the same; when examining a dangerous doctrine to take a softer stance on it because some of its adherents are solid in most other areas is a frightening precedence.

This is a straw man. Nobody is saying that because a doctrine is held by "conservative" people it ought to be assessed less stringently. That's silly. Rather, it is the fact that many who hold this doctrine are Christ-adoring, gospel-believing, Church-loving saints. Yes, annihilationism is certainly error, and it ought to be refuted everywhere it is encountered. However, to take doctrines which are nowhere discussed in the ecumenical creeds of the Church, and to say that unless someone believes in a certain way regarding them, they are going to hell—that is a "frightening precedence."

Men are saved by Jesus Christ, not their doctrine. This is why Arminians can be saved despite their free-will-ism; both Baptists and Presbyterians can be saved, though one is in error regarding the sacraments; and yes, even Roman Catholics can be saved. In each case, they are saved in spite of their error, because God is most merciful. Of course, there are exceptions to this; there are doctrines which "except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved." Annihilationism, I would assert, is not one of those exceptions, great error though it may be.

 

[retroGRAD3]

This is a straw man. Nobody is saying that because a doctrine is held by "conservative" people it ought to be assessed less stringently. That's silly. Rather, it is the fact that many who hold this doctrine are Christ-adoring, gospel-believing, Church-loving saints. Yes, annihilationism is certainly error, and it ought to be refuted everywhere it is encountered. However, to take doctrines which are nowhere discussed in the ecumenical creeds of the Church, and to say that unless someone believes in a certain way regarding them, they are going to hell—that is a "frightening precedence."

Men are saved by Jesus Christ, not their doctrine. This is why Arminians can be saved despite their free-will-ism; both Baptists and Presbyterians can be saved, though one is in error regarding the sacraments; and yes, even Roman Catholics can be saved. In each case, they are saved in spite of their error, because God is most merciful. Of course, there are exceptions to this; there are doctrines which "except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved." Annihilationism, I would assert, is not one of those exceptions, great error though it may be.

This does not seem to be a completely satisfying answer either though. You mention ecumenical creeds, do you mean only the ones of old and that no newer discussions among reformed or even in the wider evangelical body are to be considered? I would say annihilationism is condemned pretty clearly. It seems to be a direct contradiction to what Jesus taught as well. It is appears to be very clear in scripture whereas something like baptism can be argued both ways pretty effective using scripture. I won't make a judgment on Stott's final destination because that is God's work, but I do mark and avoid him as someone to learn from. This does not mean I think everything he said is bad (or that he isn't saved), but because there are so many other good theologians to read that are much more orthodox in their beliefs, why spend time on someone that fell into such serious error? Did he teach on any of the theological topics we like discussing better than the Puritans, Calvin, Spurgeon, Jones, etc.? I try to always go to the person that was the clearest on any given subject. Now, I don't disagree with reading someone you disagree with as a whole as you can learn the other side and gain some apologetical insight. However, for me personally, I am a slow reader, so the time I do spend reading, I want to make sure it's the "good stuff". That's my methodology in any case.

 

[beloved7]

This is a straw man. Nobody is saying that because a doctrine is held by "conservative" people it ought to be assessed less stringently. That's silly. Rather, it is the fact that many who hold this doctrine are Christ-adoring, gospel-believing, Church-loving saints. Yes, annihilationism is certainly error, and it ought to be refuted everywhere it is encountered. However, to take doctrines which are nowhere discussed in the ecumenical creeds of the Church, and to say that unless someone believes in a certain way regarding them, they are going to hell—that is a "frightening precedence."

Men are saved by Jesus Christ, not their doctrine. This is why Arminians can be saved despite their free-will-ism; both Baptists and Presbyterians can be saved, though one is in error regarding the sacraments; and yes, even Roman Catholics can be saved. In each case, they are saved in spite of their error, because God is most merciful. Of course, there are exceptions to this; there are doctrines which "except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved." Annihilationism, I would assert, is not one of those exceptions, great error though it may be.

Men being saved by Jesus Christ is a doctrine. To say that men are not saved in accordance to the doctrine they hold is absurd.

So far you’ve already tried to trap me into anathematizing someone, and now you’re calling me silly. Perhaps this is how disagreements are handled on message boards, but it’s not how I choose to speak to other men, particularly fellow believers. And people are lessening the severity of a doctrine due to the conservative men that hold it, hence the mention of Stott.

As far as the ecumenical councils are concerned, annihilationism did not pose a significant threat to the early church, and I assume that is why it wasn’t addressed. It’s more prevalent now, and goes directly against the explicit teaching of Christ, and I’d go so far as to say it teaches another Jesus; a Jesus that does not punish the sin of rebels as we see explicitly laid out in Scripture.

 

[Taylor]

Men being saved by Jesus Christ is a doctrine. To say that men are not saved in accordance to the doctrine they hold is absurd.

What I specifically said, and very deliberately, was that men are not saved by their doctrine, but by Jesus Christ. And this is patently true, but again, with a few notable exceptions. Since you seem to disagree with this, can you provide a list of doctrines one must hold to be saved? I will be interested to see what you include and exclude.

So far you’ve already tried to trap me into anathematizing someone, and now you’re calling me silly. Perhaps this is how disagreements are handled on message boards, but it’s not how I choose to speak to other men, particularly fellow believers.

It truly amazes me how easily people interpret a statement being called "silly" as a person being called silly. If you notice, I stated the straw man being made, and then I said that (a far demonstrative pronoun referring back to the statement just made) is silly, not you are silly. Please read more carefully and refrain from making false accusations.

And people are lessening the severity of a doctrine due to the conservative men that hold it, hence the mention of Stott.

Again, this is a straw man, one that I just addressed.

As far as the ecumenical councils are concerned, annihilationism did not pose a significant threat to the early church, and I assume that is why it wasn’t addressed. It’s more prevalent now, and goes directly against the explicit teaching of Christ, and I’d go so far as to say it teaches another Jesus; a Jesus that does not punish the sin of rebels as we see explicitly laid out in Scripture.

I agree with most of this. I am unsure how annihilationism "teaches another Jesus." As far as I know, Stott taught the same Jesus I believe in. And he also taught that Jesus would punish rebels for their sins. But how Jesus will punish them is where he departed. Again, annihilationism is indeed an error, but I am just not convinced that it amounts to Galatians 1 anathema, which is what is being asserted here.

This does not seem to be a completely satisfying answer either though. You mention ecumenical creeds, do you mean only the ones of old and that no newer discussions among reformed or even in the wider evangelical body are to be considered? I would say annihilationism is condemned pretty clearly. It seems to be a direct contradiction to what Jesus taught as well. It is appears to be very clear in scripture whereas something like baptism can be argued both ways pretty effective using scripture. I won't make a judgment on Stott's final destination because that is God's work, but I do mark and avoid him as someone to learn from. This does not mean I think everything he said is bad (or that he isn't saved), but because there are so many other good theologians to read that are much more orthodox in their beliefs, why spend time on someone that fell into such serious error? Did he teach on any of the theological topics we like discussing better than the Puritans, Calvin, Spurgeon, Jones, etc.? I try to always go to the person that was the clearest on any given subject. Now, I don't disagree with reading someone you disagree with as a whole as you can learn the other side and gain some apologetical insight. However, for me personally, I am a slow reader, so the time I do spend reading, I want to make sure it's the "good stuff". That's my methodology in any case.

I agree with everything you've said here. Again, the error of his annihilationism is not what I dispute. Annihilationism is error, period. What I am disputing is whether or not the mere affirmation of annihilationism warrants damnation. I am just not convinced that it does. And neither do you, it would seem, since you said, "I won't make a judgment on Stott's final destination because that is God's work, but I do mark and avoid him as someone to learn from."

 

[Jake]

So, if a doctrine is held by "conservative people" should we be softer in our judgment (according to the word of God)?

If you don't want to call it "heresy", at least is a theological error.

While The Cross of Christ by John Stott is not a perfect book (e.g., I don't agree with the comments about the sign of the cross toward the beginning) I will say that it gets the gospel of Christ right and is a book worthy of commendation. And it was written around the same time John Stott came out as a soft annihilationism (the earliest statement I found from Stott on the topic was 1987, and the book in question came out in 1986, with later editions he edited after that), though it is not addressed in the book.

I'm not willing to say the gospel is completely missed by Stott and similar men because of this error, which seems to be suggested in the OP. The view is contra-confessional, yes.

 

[beloved7]

What I specifically said, and very deliberately, was that men are not saved by their doctrine, but by Jesus Christ. And this is patently true, but again, with a few notable exceptions. Since you seem to disagree with this, can you provide a list of doctrines one must hold to be saved? I will be interested to see what you include and exclude.


It truly amazes me how easily people interpret a statement being called "silly" as a person being called silly. If you notice, I stated the straw man being made, and then I said that (a far demonstrative pronoun referring back to the statement just made) is silly, not you are silly. Please read more carefully and refrain from making false accusations.


Again, this is a straw man, one that I just addressed.


I agree with most of this. I am unsure how annihilationism "teaches another Jesus." As far as I know, Stott taught the same Jesus I believe in. And he also taught that Jesus would punish rebels for their sins. But how Jesus will punish them is where he departed. Again, annihilationism is indeed an error, but I am just not convinced that it amounts to Galatians 1 anathema, which is what is being asserted here.


I agree with everything you've said here. Again, the error of his annihilationism is not what I dispute. Annihilationism is error, period. What I am disputing is whether or not the mere affirmation of annihilationism warrants damnation. I am just not convinced that it does. And neither do you, it would seem, since you said, "I won't make a judgment on Stott's final destination because that is God's work, but I do mark and avoid him as someone to learn from."

I’m not taking homework assignments today, but I will tell you one thing that I would include, which you, according to your own words in a previous post in this thread, do exclude, and that is Roman Catholicism. The fact that you think some RCs are saved tells me all I really need to know. If someone is a true RC, by necessity they have rejected the Gospel.

As far as your repeated straw man comments, it seems that you rely to much on that rebuttal. When I stated the fact that people were lessening the severity of a doctrine because other conservative men held to it, that is exactly what happened. That is not a logical fallacy, it is the clear truth. This is basic reading comprehension, I would respectfully suggest reading things more thoroughly before opining.

As far as the disrespect, when you call my words silly, you are in fact calling me silly. I treat other men with respect and expect the same courtesy in return.

 

[Taylor]

If someone is a true RC, by necessity they have rejected the Gospel.

You apparently say you do not believe any Roman Catholic can be saved, yet you contradict that belief here. If you really believed no Roman Catholic could possibly be saved, in spite of the errors of their church, then you would have felt no need to insert the adjective "true" before "RC." But, as it stands, you contradict yourself.

...when you call my words silly, you are in fact calling me silly.

If that is what you believe, then I can understand why disagreements are so personally difficult for you. Even so, I did not even call your words silly. I said that the idea that just because a conservative holds to a false doctrine it therefore should undergo less scrutiny would be a silly idea. Fortunately, no one in this thread said or believes that, hence my calling it out as a straw man.

 

[beloved7]

You apparently say you do not believe any Roman Catholic can be saved, yet you contradict that belief here. If you really believed no Roman Catholic could possibly be saved, in spite of the errors of their church, then you would have felt no need to insert the adjective "true" before "RC." But, as it stands, you contradict yourself.


If that is what you believe, then I can understand why disagreements are so personally difficult for you. Even so, I did not even call your words silly. I said that the idea that just because a conservative holds to a false doctrine it therefore should undergo less scrutiny would be a silly idea. Fortunately, no one in this thread said or believes that, hence my calling it out as a straw man.

You quarrel for the sake of quarreling, like it’s a game. Gotcha games built around semantics are not my idea of productive time use. Disagreements are not difficult for me, as I have no problems establishing boundaries with disrespectful people.

It’s obvious why I made the distinction of “true RCs”, as most who identify as such do not practice nor do they even know what the church believes. They are not Roman Catholic. You call them Roman Catholic, I do not. Are some Jewish people saved too, how about some Muslims?

 

[Taylor]

You quarrel for the sake of quarreling, like it’s a game. Gotcha games built around semantics are not my idea of productive time use.

This has been nothing of the sort. I have only pointed out a straw man, a false accusation based upon a misreading of my very clear words, and a contradiction between two statements in your posts. I'm not sure how these are "gotcha games." If this is how you normally feel about serious, fine-tuned theological discussion, where distinctions are made and careful language is demanded, then I can again understand why disagreements end up being difficult for you. That's not a dig, just an observation.

It’s obvious why I made the distinction of “true RCs", as most who identify as such do not practice nor do they even know what the church believes.

Exactly my point.

 

[Santiago DO]

I said that the idea that just because a conservative holds to a false doctrine it therefore should undergo less scrutiny would be a silly idea. Fortunately, no one in this thread said or believes that, hence my calling it out as a straw man

I think we all want to be that "objective person-driven-by-Scripture" but we are still imperfect.

Don't you think that if we had two individuals with the same number of non-essential errors (one coming from a charismatic background and the other from a reformed tradition) would we have the tendency to defend the latter?

In my opinion, sometimes we focus so much of theological books and forget the Great Book and His Great Author where these works come from. Thus appears some weird errors in godly people.

 

[No Name #5]

I actually think saying "Roman Catholics are saved" would be committing the fallacy of hasty generalization, seeing as when we talk about advocates of belief systems, we're only intending to talk about people who *genuinely adopt* that standpoint. We never generalize based on people who don't even know what the view under discussion is, are confused about its tenents, were previously mistaught about the doctrine, contain a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to its truth, and so on. It would make categorically no sense to do so. In every other context we correctly use language this way, with the exception of these curious theological examples - which I suspect is revealing something deeper about the attitude transpiring in our hearts rather than the actual validity of the content of our words and our arguments.

So, if I were to say, "Zionists believe Israel is the Jews' rightful homeland", I wouldn't be referring to people who didn't know what Zionism was and who fundamentally had an incorrect apprehension of its beliefs. No one would. Everyone would understand that I was alluding to people who actually, truly believed in Zionism. The truth of the statement is contigent on the accuracy of the definition of the theological term being used. So, why the fallacy of special pleading here? And I speak as someone who formerly committed the hasty generalization fallacy this way, so I sympathize with it, but I was corrected and I amended my position when I realized I was demonstrably wrong - and that the true motive of my heart was to avoid controversy and making enemies, rather than witnessing to others and warning about the dangerous nature of advocating heresy.

 

[Taylor]

I actually think saying "Roman Catholics are saved" would be committing the fallacy of hasty generalization, seeing as when we talk about advocates of belief systems, we're only intending to talk about people who *genuinely adopt* that standpoint. We never generalize based on people who don't even know what the view under discussion is, are confused about its tenents, were previously mistaught about the doctrine, contain a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to its truth, and so on. It would make categorically no sense to do so. In every other context we correctly use language this way, with the exception of these curious theological examples - which I suspect is revealing something deeper about the attitude transpiring in our hearts rather than the actual validity of the content of our words and our arguments.

So, if I were to say, "Zionists believe Israel is the Jews' rightful homeland", I wouldn't be referring to people who didn't know what Zionism was and who fundamentally had an incorrect apprehension of its beliefs. No one would. Everyone would understand that I was alluding to people who actually, truly believed in Zionism. The truth of the statement is contigent on the accuracy of the definition of the theological term being used. So, why the fallacy of special pleading here? And I speak as someone who formerly committed the hasty generalization fallacy this way, so I sympathize with it, but I was corrected and I amended my position when I realized I was demonstrably wrong - and that the true motive of my heart was to avoid controversy and making enemies, rather than witnessing to others and warning about the dangerous nature of advocating heresy.

First, I never said, “Roman Catholics are saved.” I said that it is possible that a Roman Catholic could be saved, but it would be in spite of their doctrine.

Second, I don’t think your point holds water. In everyday speech, I refer to everyone who is a member of the RCC, even if they are ignorant of some of the particulars of the institution’s doctrine, as a Roman Catholic. Just like we have members of our church who are not fully aware of all the ins-and-outs of Presbyterian doctrine, yet they are no less Presbyterians.

 

[Taylor]

I realized I was demonstrably wrong - and that the true motive of my heart was to avoid controversy and making enemies, rather than witnessing to others and warning about the dangerous nature of advocating heresy.

This is a false dichotomy. It is possible to be honest about the possibility of a Roman Catholic being saved and still warn about the dangers of Papist heresy.

Also, my motive is not to avoid controversy. My saying what I’ve said has actually caused controversy here! Not causing offense might have been your motive, but it’s not mine.

 

[No Name #5]

First, I never said, “Roman Catholics are saved.” I said that it is possible that a Roman Catholic could be saved, but it would be in spite of their doctrine.

If they don't believe in Roman Catholic doctrine, then they're manifestly not a Roman Catholic. So, even saying it's *possible* is the fallacy of hasty generalization. We who are rational refer to actuality and probability, but by no means possibility.

Second, I don’t think your point holds water. In everyday speech, I refer to everyone who is a member of the RCC, even if they are ignorant of some of the particulars of the institution’s doctrine, as a Roman Catholic. Just like we have members of our church who are not fully aware of all the ins-and-outs of Presbyterian doctrine, yet they are no less Presbyterians.

Again, if they don't adhere to Presbyterian doctrine, they're not Presbyterians. Simply declaring it to be so doesn't make it any the more true, nor any the less of an inaccurate & incongruous use of language - seeing as how the vast majority of the human population uses it in a fashion out-of-step with you. This simply amounts to the bare assertion fallacy, brother.

 

[No Name #5]

This is a false dichotomy. It is possible to be honest about the possibility of a Roman Catholic being saved and still warn about the dangers of Papist heresy.

Shifting the definition of "Roman Catholic" to "people who don't know what it is but use the language (or whatever)" is simply the fallacy of equivocation. Roman Catholic means something objectively outside of how you subjectively use it.

Also, my motive is not to avoid controversy. My saying what I’ve said has actually caused controversy here! Not causing offense might have been your motive, but it’s not mine.

No, I said the motive might be to AVOID controversy, not cause it. And I actually don't think you have caused controversy, personally. Your view is common - in fact, like I said, I once promoted it myself. But my motive was to avoid causing a stir, personally, rather than being truthful and to sound the alarm of heresy.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I used to completely avoid Stott after I learned of his views on this. However, I was really surprised when I looked in one of his commentaries on an epistle of Paul, how astute he was in judgment and discernment. So, I will occasionally read him, gratefully, despite his egregious error on the topic being discussed.

One of my best friends received Stotts 'Basic Christianity' and he became a Christian while reading it. Stott hasn't been an influence in him otherwise as far as I can tell.
I do believe it is an issue the Gospel deals with. The wrath of God against sinners is the issue. I think Perg wrote a book on it. Where is Pergy?

 

[Taylor]

If they don't believe in Roman Catholic doctrine, then they're manifestly not a Roman Catholic.

Again, if they don't adhere to Presbyterian doctrine, they're not Presbyterians.

It depends on how you mean “do not believe” and “do not adhere to.” If you mean by this “repudiate,” then sure. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about those who perhaps might be ignorant, or perhaps questioning. Again, we have people who are members in my church who are on the fence about paedobaptism. They are still Presbyterians, being members of a Presbyterian church. I’m not sure what else you could reasonably call them. In the same way, there could be those in the RCC who genuinely trust in Christ, who have repented of their sins, and cling to the cross alone for salvation, and maybe not even be aware that their own communion repudiates the gospel. They are yet Roman Catholics by virtue of being members of that church. Martin Luther was saved while still a Roman Catholic. And even after he finally left and ceased being a Roman Catholic, he still maintained vestiges of their corrupt worship (idols, images, icons, etc.). He was saved in spite of it all, because God is gracious.

But, I do agree that a sincere, convinced, and convicted Roman Catholic will not be saved, because he hates the gospel. But that’s not the kind of person I’m talking about.

This simply amounts to the bare assertion fallacy, brother.

This appears to be projection on your part.

Shifting the definition of "Roman Catholic" to "people who don't know what it is but use the language (or whatever)" is simply the fallacy of equivocation.

Good thing that’s not how I defined a Roman Catholic.

But my motive was to avoid causing a stir, personally, rather than being truthful and to sound the alarm of heresy.

Again, projection. Do not assume just because your motives were bad that therefore mine must be. This is also just a blatant false dichotomy.