I wish I knew a simple way to tie together a few concerns that I see manifest in this thread.
I hope this comes together as being coherent.
I don't think there is an Arminian version of the Gospel and/or a Reformed version of it. There is a Gospel. If you believe that the Reformed testimony of what the Scriptures teach is not the Gospel then run as fast as you can from it.
There is a basic problem with asking a question like "What if they become a believer but then they die before they learn the real Truth about what they're supposed to believe." Isn't that quite like asking, what if they thought they believed the Gospel but then they die before they have a chance to learn what that Gospel is?
I think this thread would actually be much more straightforward for most people to be arguing for/against because they don't want to think that everybody in a Church that corrupts the Gospel is inexorably damned. I don't believe one needs to make that leap in order to make some conclusions about the nature of the Gospel.
I think what people understand by a trust in the "Truth" is a full orbed understanding of every Biblical Truth. Faith in Christ, however, is not a place where one begins with a less than saving faith and then builds up their knowledge to the point where they now have saving faith. A faith that is born from above rests upon Christ and His righteousness from the moment it is birthed in spiritual immaturity to the moment the person dies.
Further, as Paul makes clear in Galatians, the Gospel that a Church teaches dare not begin in the Spirit and finish by the deeds of the flesh. Beloved, that is precisely what any theology that denies that God calls a man to be saved and sanctified does. There may be better or worse forms of it but all of them are poisonous to the soul of the believer.
Next, it should be noted that it is not Reformed to speak in the abstract about the Covenant of Redemption (God's decree to redeem certain elect to Himself) without working in the "here and now" on the basis of the Covenant of Grace. One of the reasons God inspires the Gospel and institutes the Church is to bring the redemption of men and women to the present that we need not pointlessly speculate (indeed are forbidden to) about the identity of the elect.
That is to say that the actual faithful preaching of the Gospel has been ordained by God to the ends of calling men to Himself. He has also ordained Baptism and the Lord's Supper to confirm and strengthen the same to Himself.
I think then, fundamentally, we need to always step back from such questions and ask ourselves if what God reveals about such things is important or whether or not answering the hypothetical is warranted. Is it more important to affirm that, surely, Churches that neglect faithful preaching must have saved people? Does the Bible insist we must assume this? We need not claim they do not but that is different than insisting that they must.
Frankly, I've seen first hand over the years that this isn't just an "I like chocolate and you like vanilla" thing about the Gospel and God will sort it out. He gives me no authority to bind or loose as to who is really in His Kingdom and so I take baptized men and women on the basis that they have been joined to the Church. At the same time, however, I will absolutely insist that God's Gospel is heralded and that those things that confirm and strenghten in the faith be properly administered.
Pax.
I hope this comes together as being coherent.
I don't think there is an Arminian version of the Gospel and/or a Reformed version of it. There is a Gospel. If you believe that the Reformed testimony of what the Scriptures teach is not the Gospel then run as fast as you can from it.
There is a basic problem with asking a question like "What if they become a believer but then they die before they learn the real Truth about what they're supposed to believe." Isn't that quite like asking, what if they thought they believed the Gospel but then they die before they have a chance to learn what that Gospel is?
I think this thread would actually be much more straightforward for most people to be arguing for/against because they don't want to think that everybody in a Church that corrupts the Gospel is inexorably damned. I don't believe one needs to make that leap in order to make some conclusions about the nature of the Gospel.
I think what people understand by a trust in the "Truth" is a full orbed understanding of every Biblical Truth. Faith in Christ, however, is not a place where one begins with a less than saving faith and then builds up their knowledge to the point where they now have saving faith. A faith that is born from above rests upon Christ and His righteousness from the moment it is birthed in spiritual immaturity to the moment the person dies.
Further, as Paul makes clear in Galatians, the Gospel that a Church teaches dare not begin in the Spirit and finish by the deeds of the flesh. Beloved, that is precisely what any theology that denies that God calls a man to be saved and sanctified does. There may be better or worse forms of it but all of them are poisonous to the soul of the believer.
Next, it should be noted that it is not Reformed to speak in the abstract about the Covenant of Redemption (God's decree to redeem certain elect to Himself) without working in the "here and now" on the basis of the Covenant of Grace. One of the reasons God inspires the Gospel and institutes the Church is to bring the redemption of men and women to the present that we need not pointlessly speculate (indeed are forbidden to) about the identity of the elect.
That is to say that the actual faithful preaching of the Gospel has been ordained by God to the ends of calling men to Himself. He has also ordained Baptism and the Lord's Supper to confirm and strengthen the same to Himself.
I think then, fundamentally, we need to always step back from such questions and ask ourselves if what God reveals about such things is important or whether or not answering the hypothetical is warranted. Is it more important to affirm that, surely, Churches that neglect faithful preaching must have saved people? Does the Bible insist we must assume this? We need not claim they do not but that is different than insisting that they must.
Frankly, I've seen first hand over the years that this isn't just an "I like chocolate and you like vanilla" thing about the Gospel and God will sort it out. He gives me no authority to bind or loose as to who is really in His Kingdom and so I take baptized men and women on the basis that they have been joined to the Church. At the same time, however, I will absolutely insist that God's Gospel is heralded and that those things that confirm and strenghten in the faith be properly administered.
Pax.