Saved by believing a doctrine?

[The Lamb]

Because this issue is constantly discussed, I must throw in my hat. There is NO such thing as Doctrinal Regeneration. Or Doctrinal Salvation. There is abosolutely no hint of this in the WRIT.

Doctrine is a fruit of Salvation. In fact, Read this from HErman Hoeksma, who is considered as Hyper.

taken from the January 2, 1919 issue of the Banner:

"You know, a Calvinist (excuse the term; I am not any too fond of it myself. Never do I use it if I can help it. I don´t think I have used it a half dozen times from the pulpit, which is not very frequent in three years and a half), I say a Calvinist is after all a distinctive Christian. Not all Christians are Calvinists. Mark, I say: "˜not all Christians are Calvinists.´ They may be Christians all right. Sure! Dear children of God, with whom I love to shake hands. I don´t believe that there is a Calvinist that denies this. I don´t think that there is a Calvinist who maintains that the Calvinists are the only Christians. And those who love to waste paper (and that in this time when paper is so valuable!) by fighting against Calvinists who maintain that they are the only Christians on earth, are fighting a shadow, a product of their own imagination. No, but I claim that a Calvinist is a Christian of a distinctive type, with distinctive principles and views, in distinction, namely, from other Christians. Never let any method of reasoning lead you to the belief that all Christians are Calvinists, for then things will be getting so dark, that you lose all power to distinguish. The Methodist is a good sincere Christian, all right. Of course he is! A dear brother. But he is not a Calvinist. The same is true of the Anabaptist, the Lutheran, etc. All together they constitute the church of Jesus Christ on earth, as long as they confess that Jesus is the Christ. But within that large circle there are different shades and forms of faith, and the Calvinist also maintains his own distinctive world and life view in their midst. Now, what I mean to say is that to maintain your distinctive character as a Calvinistic Christian, you must not merely be able to discern clearly what distinguishes you from the rest, but you must have the courage of your conviction such as can be the fruit only of the faith in the Word of God. Only the conviction that our form of faith is the purest expression of Scripture (again, mark, I do not say: the only form or expression) can give us the courage to refuse amalgamation. And therefore, it is necessary, that we are conscious of the relation between our Reformed Faith and the Word of God."


May by Gods grace, anyone who believes that Heavan will consist of only those who profess our doctrnes be crushed and humbled at the feet of Our Gracious Savior.


Joseph

 

[tdowns]

Joseph

Joseph, I agree with you, and the article.

The point is in dealing with false doctrines consistently.

When I refer to Arminians, I'm using the term loosely to describe your varied synergistic doctrines out there.

My perception, is that there is an emotional charge of negativity to the attacking of Rome from the Evangelical/Reformed church, and an emotional charge of positivity and leniency toward the Arminian churches. We should be consistent in dealing with both.

I think it is debatable that Rome is so much worse than the random Arminian Church. It is bad, I'm not saying it isn't, but I've seen the flock of local non-denom' or Calvary Chapel churches just as messed up theologically as any Catholic I've talked to.
At least in Rome, they have defined their doctrines, and some are solid. If you ever listen to some very prominent Pastors within the Calvary Chapel movement, you'll hear questionable descriptions of trinity, I've heard very problematic statements about resurrected bodies, and forget about eschatology...bottom line, there is more than bad theology in terms of only salvation.
At least in Rome you know what they believe, and as far as Trinity, attributes of God, etc...they get it right. But with many churches in America, they don't just get Salvation wrong, they get many other things wrong as well. At least with Rome you can look to their catechism and point to the error, with many American churches, they just give their lip service to Saved by Faith alone, and it becomes more difficult.

Also,-- I should have used the " " option--but someone above stated that with Rome you have to continue to work, but with Arminian, it's only that first act of faith.

From my understanding, this is not true. I've heard many times Calvary Chapel believers state, that if at any point they die while sinning, they would go to hell. Well that is putting their salvation in their own hands for longer than the first act of faith.

Once again, I believe many are saved despite false doctrines, because, God saves despite our depravity, but it is important to be consistent in dealing with false doctrines, no matter what church is teaching them.

 

[wsw201]

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.

Good point.

Was the Synof of Dort wrong in condemning Arminianism as heresy and removing Arminian preachers from their pulpits if the doctrine was not really that bad?

In my humble opinion, modern day Arminianism is really Finneyism which is Pelagianism (to be generous you could say its Semi-Pelagianism) and is a heresy.

 

[Arch2k]

God will not share his glory with anyone!

 

[Augusta]

I don't like that calvinists are given a title of a particular christian. In my mind calvinism is just shorthand for biblical doctrine. All he did was reinterate what the apostle Paul had already said. He just organized it under neat little titles. Gotta go. Will be back later.

 

[The Lamb]

Wayne and Jeff. THis still begs the question on what has to be believed in order to be saved.

Scripture is clear on some points, but not all we have lined up

Are their different standards for people with intellect vs dummies? I am a dummy, I do nto know greek, nor hebrew. Can I still be saved?

Christ found me before I knew what limited atonement was. Did He save me, or reveal the gospel to me first?

Show me one instance where Christ interacted with a person, went through the WCF, TULIP, etc etc. gave them a test, then saved them.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by The Lamb
Wayne and Jeff. THis still begs the question on what has to be believed in order to be saved.

Scripture is clear on some points, but not all we have lined up

Are their different standards for people with intellect vs dummies? I am a dummy, I do nto know greek, nor hebrew. Can I still be saved?

Christ found me before I knew what limited atonement was. Did He save me, or reveal the gospel to me first?

Show me one instance where Christ interacted with a person, went through the WCF, TULIP, etc etc. gave them a test, then saved them.

Joe,

Dummies can be saved-I am proof of that!

Humor aside, "what must be believed in order to be saved?" To state this question more clearly...What is the content of saving faith? What kind of faith does God grant his chosen?

Saving faith is belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is his person, his work done 2000 years ago, and how that work is appropriated to his people. I think we all agree on that.

Paul summerized the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:

1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

He is clearer, and more specific in Romans 3:

Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

I think that this argument comes down to the question of what the gospel is NOT. Paul emphasises this several places.

The gospel includes belief in Christ alone for salvation. It is that simple. The question is, do Catholics/Arminians believe this? My answer is no. They include some of their own righteousness with Christ's righteousness. They include some of their own obedience, with Christ's obedience. The Catholics include ALOT of thier own, while the Arminians include (with some branches anyway) their ONE obedience of faith. This is not the gospel. It is not a question of smartness, intellectual brilliance. Belief in this gospel is a gift from God, and is a simple for a child to believe, but deep enough for theo-geeks (like myself) to dable in forever.

 

[openairboy]

I think, as the discussion is being fleshed out, we are seeing why (agree or disagree) people make the claim, "We are saved by a person and not a doctrine." For example, I came to Jesus Christ for the foregiveness of sins. I was utterly convinced that he alone was risen from the dead and he alone could pardon me of my guilt. It wasn't for about 2 or 3 years that I understood anything about "imputation" or "the righteousness of God". I am still utterly convinced that it was Christ and not my comprehension of these things that saved me. I knew Him. Others can chalk it up to whatever they want, but I was 'Arminian' by default. I would've 'spoke' like a Calvinist ("God saved me!" God being the actor of salvation), but wouldn't defended the universality of the atonement ("God so loved the world', which Luther would have as well) and the 'ability' of man to 'fall away' (which Luther would have as well). I believe I was saved. Some can Protest this point if they want, but I knew whom I believed for my salvation.

I am amazed that what Paul passed on as first importance is not what most of us would deem "first importance". We would run with a systematic theology exam and not the acts of God in history, especially the death, buriel and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For most, this is merely the propositions that need to be assented to to get to the real issue, which is more sinner centered actually than most Reformers claim, and that is an individuals standing before God. As I read through Acts I don't find the, "On a scale of 1 to 10..." or "Why should I let you into my heaven?" No, I find the simple proclamation of that Jesus Christ is Lord. He is granting repentance. He granted me repentance in the simplicity of 1 Peter 5:7. I wanted to die and I "heard" the voice of Christ, "Caste your anxiety on to me because I care." WOW! Here is One that cares. In the infancy of my faith I said, "You say you care. Well, here you go." He took my anxiety. Yes, I knew he died; yes, I knew he rose from the dead. Otherwise it would've been absurd to caste my anxieties to a dead man. I, however, knew nothing of imputation and WORKS wasn't even a category that I was thinking about. I just knew I was wretched and it caused great grief.

The fact that the early Church's baptism formula was the Apostle's Creed, shows the importance of doctrine, but would we think that a person who 'assented' to such would be saved? The boys at Trinity Foundation find errors in the Creed and it insufficient. You can as well. You can shout 'sola scriptura', but I will take the catholic Church over our 'sola' any day.

On the popular reading of Galatians, would some you say that Peter was lost? Was he a proto-Pelagian? Was he adding something to Jesus? Did he fall away? If he would've died adding circumcision, would he have been justified?

Yes, the Gospel needs to be defined, which I believe is marked out the Apostles Creed and Confession that 'Jesus Christ is Lord', and believed, but 'doctrine' doesn't regenerate. So, the issue, I think, has come full circle. Does a 'doctrine' save? Or a person? Were the Israelites 'saved' out of Egypt, because they understood 'the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ, and how that is imputed to our account'?

This post doesn't negate sound doctrine, but I hope that we understand where the infancy of our faith came from, where we are going, and how we have developed. After all, Luther, that great trumpeter of the solas, held to baptismal regeneration, apostacy, and a host of other things that many around here would pawn off as Arminian, heresy, and a host of other things.

In the end, Jesus Christ alone will have saved me and you.

openairboy

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by openairboy]

 

[Augusta]

Originally posted by openairboy
I think, as the discussion is being fleshed out, we are seeing why (agree or disagree) people make the claim, "We are saved by a person and not a doctrine." For example, I came to Jesus Christ for the foregiveness of sins. I was utterly convinced that he alone was risen from the dead and he alone could pardon me of my guilt. It wasn't for about 2 or 3 years that I understood anything about "imputation" or "the righteousness of God". I am still utterly convinced that it was Christ and not my comprehension of these things that saved me. I knew Him. Others can chalk it up to whatever they want, but I was 'Arminian' by default. I would've 'spoke' like a Calvinist ("God saved me!" God being the actor of salvation), but wouldn't defended the universality of the atonement ("God so loved the world', which Luther would have as well) and the 'ability' of man to 'fall away' (which Luther would have as well). I believe I was saved. Some can Protest this point if they want, but I knew whom I believed for my salvation.

You sound like you understood that you were saved by Christ alone. I was always taught that I accepted Christ and that it had to be my love for him that made me choose him because he wants us to come to him of our own free will not by force. I heard the statement, I am not kidding, "God is a gentleman, he will not force you to do anything." I was taught a false gospel.

If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16, 1 Cor. 1:18, 1 Cor 1:23-24, 1 Cor 2:2-5, 2 Tim 1:8-10) then is the power going to accompany a false gospel? Will a false gospel have the power of God behind it? I say no.

When I heard Sproul tell me that it was God who pulled me out of the mire and not myself. That it was Christ in his mercy who did all for me and then applied it to me without my help because I was indeed helpless, then I had a change of mind. I had a new mind. I had the mind of Christ.

When we are born again, made new, circumsized in the heart, given a heart of flesh, this forensic work, happens when the seed of the gospel falls on fertile ground. Now we know that it is hearing ears (or fertile ground) that will hear the gospel which is the "power" of salvation. Now perhaps I was fertile ground waiting around all those years to hear the true gospel and it was once I heard it that I was pulled out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Everything was different after that. Before when I read the bible it was cryptic to me. After that I had the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16) I was taught "by the spirit" things which before were "foolishness" that I could not understand (1 Cor 2:13-16.)

This is why I believe yes you can be saved anywhere you are if you hear the true gospel but if you get a warped gospel it is NOT the power of God for your salvation. You don't have to be able to recite the tulip you just have to understand 1. the depth of your sin, 2. that nothing you did gave you salvation it was God helping you, 3. that the righteousness and forgiveness that you RECEIVE is not your own. All of that is basically the tulip but our come to understand the last three when you are given the mind of Christ, and just by basic deduction. If God was sovereign in saving you then you had nothing to do with it that is "irresistible grace" and that since this is all his work and not your own you can't screw it up, "perseverance of the saints." A little bible reading with your new mind of Christ led by the HS will help you to understand election. Its all God's work so simpleton or not you will get it, if it is God's working. It will not fail.

You won't get however from the pulpit of an RCC or any Arminian church. I just don't see how you could logically if God's means are the seed of the true gospel spread through ministers of God.

 

[Arch2k]

 

[Robin]

I know we, here know that we're not saved by mere knowledge of Christ; and/or the agreement that He is God, incarnate; crucified and risen from the dead. The demons know this full well and tremble.

There must also be trust - alone - in the Christ, for forgiveness of sins and salvation from God's wrath. It is trust in the first two points that constitute saving faith.

I wonder if we are taking on too much work when someone pulls the "doctrine card"? I mean, every person that can think, HAS a doctrine of some sort. Period. A better question is: what is that doctrine? and are they trusting upon it?

Isn't it OK to have the opposition bear the burden of proof of their claims?



R.

 

[turmeric]

Is what they're doing called "special pleading"?

 

[openairboy]

If God was sovereign in saving you then you had nothing to do with it that is "irresistible grace" and that since this is all his work and not your own you can't screw it up, "perseverance of the saints."

Are you saying Luther was lost and/or denied the Gospel? He SCREWED UP "PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS" and "irresistible GRACE". Did he not have the mind of Christ? Was he not lead by the HS?

openairboy

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by openairboy]