Greetings Joel, and welcome to the board! I'll be coming back down to Memphis in late August to begin my third year at Rhodes College. I see you're a member of Independent Pres. - I've never been there myself, but have heard good things about it.
Yes, IPC is great...new minister coming soon who is solid. Much need for the Church to be active in our city!
Regarding the reason confusion exists on so central a doctrine as soteriology, I would say you are certainly getting at the issue in mentioning fallen man's sinful nature to distort the precious truth of God into lifeless venom. We certainly know that blatant, explicit unbelievers understand and receive the Gospel as foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18), for it is veiled to them in their blind and corrupted minds and hearts (2 Cor. 4:3). Thus, if we really think through the full and logical implications and results of that, it becomes clear that anyone who does not understand and believe the biblical Gospel (and thus the Gospel at all), even if they claim to do so, actually despise and look down on the true Gospel as much as any explicit unbeliever. Thus, the reason for all the misunderstanding and twisting of the essential aspects of the Gospel at its heart (by, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church, as you mentioned) is ultimately rooted in the same reason there is unbelief and spiritual blindness at all in the world.
But on that reasoning, if
we are sinners as well, what makes our interpretation better than other sinners? Again, Augustine's soteriology has baptism as essential. In our circles that would be called "Christ plus something" which we deem heretical. Was Augustine then outside of true Gospel?
Obviously, the matter of individual salvation is known only by God and to a lesser extent the person saved so we can't know about Augustine or anyone else. I guess my point is, men learn about salvation via Scripture, but Scripture is interpreted by sinful men. Only those sinful men who have been saved can interpret Scripture aright since only they have the illumination of the Holy Spirit. But the illumination of the Holy Spirit is a subjective thing, claimed to be possessed by many including those who would say salvation is by the infusion of Jesus' righteousness not imputation. I know anyone can say anything they wish about the means salvation (Jehovah's witnesses, etc.), but I'm talking about believers who have valid contextual reasons for aruging contra-imputation. If you heard the the Mike Horton, Robert Godfrey, Patrick Madrid, Robert Sungenis, et al. debates one thing there were some moments where I thought, "I see where the text could lead one to that Roman Catholic interpretaton".
In a matter of such incredible eternal gravity as salvation, it is just a difficult thing that there is debate on this topic.
As to how we can gain assurance that we correctly understand and receive the Gospel, the Spirit certainly bears witness to our hearts and minds so as to continually give us that assurance (Rom. 8:16; 9:1; Heb. 10:15; see also the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity sections on assurance). In those verses, what is being spoken of as being assured us by the Spirit is that we are saved - and since the Gospel is the only means of salvation, that witness is thus equally relevant to the question of whether we are properly understanding the Gospel.
But again, there are folks with other soteriological views who claim they have the Holy Spirit and whose lives bear fruit that Scripture attests is part of a true Christian walk. So, why the conflict in views between such individuals and us?
While that subjective aspect of our assurance of the Gospel's true clarity to our minds and hearts is a very key aspect of that assurance overall, there is of course also an objective aspect of it as well, and the two are very much intertwined. That is because we understand that the sole means by which the Spirit speaks to us on such matters, as well as the chief means by which He bears witness to our hearts on them, is through the Word; and for an objective understanding of a proper understanding of the Gospel, there really is no substitute for serious and thorough exposure to the Word (Hos. 4:6) through both preaching and study.
If serious and thorough exposure to the Word was only something Reformed folks had done, that would make sense to me, but surely Augustine was a student of the Word!
As one particular example, your mention of the difference on the necessity of baptism being necessary for salvation brings to mind the broader issue of all the general external signs associated with and pointing to the inward salvation which they signify. In particular, Romans 4:9-12 is nothing less than crystal clear on that issue: "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised."
But along those same lines of crystal clarity, when writing against the Pelagians on the Lord's table, Augustine quoted John 6:53 ("Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you".) and then said, "What do we want more? What answer to this can be adduced, unless it be by that obstinancy which ever resists the constancy of manifest truth?" Augustine then goes on to build his case for paedo-communion. I know the counterpoints to Augustine on this, but again, why with such a crushingly brutal thing like eternal damnation is the topic debatable to this degree? If the Reformed soteriology is correct, then Augustine added to grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and therefore, accepted a bastardized, non-salvific Gospel. That is a tough thought to hold on to very long without thinking that either A) Augustine was apostate?!? or B) perhaps Augustine was right in his interpretation and I'm wrong!!
While certain objections to our various beliefs can seem to have potential validity, and thus be truly worthy to discuss for the purpose of clarification, that need not be the case with all objections, and the mere existence of such objections on the part of opposers does not in itself add even one shred of legitimacy to those objections. That is especially relevant when there comes a point where cases of interpretation are simply nothing short of desperate attempts to dance around the clear meaning of the text, which comes out plainly in many such cases. Does that make sense?
Makes sense. Agreed on the fact that the mere presence of an objection doesn't constitute a
valid objection. It is just difficult for me as I struggle with assurance at times due to the presence of what appear to be sincere, valid counterpoints and the concomitant eternal ramification of these matters.
Peace
Joel
[Edited on 7-20-2006 by sotzo]
