Saved by believing a doctrine?

[john_Mark]

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

The statement is something like this:

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

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

What is your reply to such a statement?

 

[AdamM]

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

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by AdamM]

 

[Average Joey]

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

The statement is something like this:

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

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

What is your reply to such a statement?

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

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

 

[john_Mark]

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

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

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

 

[Scott]

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

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

 

[tdowns]

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


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

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

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

Am I wrong in this?

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

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

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

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

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by tdowns007]

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by john_Mark

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

What is your reply to such a statement?

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

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

openairboy

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by openairboy]

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by tdowns007
It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.

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

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

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


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

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

 

[heartoflesh]

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by tdowns007
It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.

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

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

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

Am I wrong in this?

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

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

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

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

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



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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

Scott,

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by openairboy

Originally posted by john_Mark

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

What is your reply to such a statement?

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

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

openairboy

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by openairboy]

Is the gospel a doctrine?

Merriam-Webster online defines a doctrine this way:

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

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

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

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Is the gospel a doctrine?

Merriam-Webster online defines a doctrine this way:

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

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

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

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

openairboy

 

[AdamM]

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

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

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

Am I wrong in this?

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

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

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

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

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

 

[tdowns]

Show me State

Thanks for the reply Adam.

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

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

 

[AdamM]

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

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

 

[AdamM]

Thanks for the reply Adam.

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

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

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

 

[tdowns]

Barley Pop

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

 

[Augusta]

Originally posted by tdowns007
It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.

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

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

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

Am I wrong in this?

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

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

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Augusta

Originally posted by tdowns007
It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.

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

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

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

Am I wrong in this?

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

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

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

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

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by tdowns007]

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

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

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

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

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

Tracy,

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

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

 

[Scott]

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

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

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

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

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

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by tdowns007
It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.

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

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

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

Am I wrong in this?

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

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

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

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

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

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

Robin

 

[Robin]

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

What is your reply to such a statement?

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

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

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

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

Robin

 

[Augusta]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Augusta

Originally posted by tdowns007
It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.

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

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

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

Am I wrong in this?

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

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

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

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

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by tdowns007]

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

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

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

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

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

Tracy,

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

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

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

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



[Edited on 4-15-2005 by Augusta]

 

[Arch2k]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AdamM]

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

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by AdamM

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

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

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

Adam,

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

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

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

 

[Augusta]

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

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

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

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

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by tdowns007
It`s different with say Arminians and Calvinists though.Although they have majorly different doctrinal beliefs,they believe in Christ alone for salvation.At least this is officially the doctrine anyway.

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

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

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

Am I wrong in this?

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

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

Seems we should be consistent how we deal with both.

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

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by tdowns007]

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

Robin [/quote]

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

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

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