Thread: Are Roman Catholics Christians?

If a Roman Catholic is consistent with the teachings of his church, then he is not a Christian. But such consistency is not necessarily the case. Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.

Hi Jacob,

Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Roman Catholics may be Christian. It really depends on whether they truly follow Roman Catholic teachings. If they do, then the answer is no, they are not. But if the simply attend a Roman Catholic church but actually believe the gospel, then of course they are a Christian. A related question might be: how could a truly regenerate person attend the Roman Catholic church. The razor also cuts both ways: a Protestant isn't necessarily Christian either. It depends whether they believe the gospel and have repented of their sins and placed their faith in Christ.

I don't have the theological training to answer your question. However, as an uneducated lay man, I get a bit nervous about definitive statements like this, wiping out an entire slate of the nominal Christian church from Christianity.

From my basic understanding, I think Roman Catholicism as a creed makes it very difficult for its adherents to genuinely grasp the Gospel (it ties in too much emphasis on works and tradition, for a start). However, the membership of that church is not as homogeneous as you might think and, based on conversations with many Roman Catholics over the year, I believe there are some who have a saving faith in Christ.

I now defer to those much better qualified to comment than I am.

Some are, some aren't.

The wonderful thing about salvation by grace is that it is not dependent on how good our theology is.

Are Catholics Christians?

If one were a Christian, one would not stay in the church of Rome.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

If a Roman Catholic is consistent with the teachings of his church, then he is not a Christian. But such consistency is not necessarily the case. Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.

Originally Posted by Berean

If one were a Christian, one would not stay in the church of Rome.

I don't think you can say that. That's like saying if one were a Christian, one would not stay in the church of Osteen. It's one thing to point out the errors in a church, but it's another to say that a "real" Christian wouldn't go there.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

If a Roman Catholic is consistent with the teachings of his church, then he is not a Christian. But such consistency is not necessarily the case. Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.

But which Christ are they trusting in, ----the Christ presented to us in the Bible, or the Roman Catholic Christ of their church and tradition, their so called Magisterium. If all truth is propositional as I believe, this question is vital.

Originally Posted by Berean

Are Catholics Christians?

If one were a Christian, one would not stay in the church of Rome.

True - I would further say that one couldn't. The Holy Spirit is sovereign in salvation and would lead the person out of a heretical situation. Jesus Christ is the author and the finisher of our faith. He doesn't just save us and leave us alone to float around in heretical churches.

Otherwise we should just start calling everybody in every religious (not necessarily Christian) group everywhere brothers and sisters in Christ. There's a reason we don't do that. We don't adhere to the universal fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.

Originally Posted by Berean

Are Catholics Christians?

If one were a Christian, one would not stay in the church of Rome.

I agree!!! In the same way as one who is a Christian, he would leave the Jewish Synagogue, Hindu Temple or Islamic Mosque.

Are Roman Catholics Christians?

Since the Reformation came out of there I would say yes, they are the ancestors in a since

If a Roman Catholic actually understands and believes what Rome teaches with regard to justification, namely, that good works done in a state of grace are meritorious toward the gaining of eternal life, then no.

I believe the official teaching of the RC is unbiblical and anti-Christian. It is a great counterfeit that deludes many people and especially those who are theologically weak or with a poor knowledge of scripture. It does not matter how good a counterfeit note is, it has no more value than a Monopoly note and is therefore worthless.

Having said that, I do believe there are some Christians within the RC church but they are not Christian because they followed the teaching of the church. Many feel they could perhaps reform the church, but it just doesn't happen and after a period of time they leave.

Originally Posted by Nomad

If a Roman Catholic actually understands and believes what Rome teaches with regard to justification, namely, that good works done in a state of grace are meritorious toward the gaining of eternal life, then no.

What about someone who believes that justification comes through the exercise of free will to accept Christ's offer of salvation? Can that person be saved?
Must someone know exactly how they are saved in order to be saved?

Originally Posted by Tripel

Originally Posted by Nomad

If a Roman Catholic actually understands and believes what Rome teaches with regard to justification, namely, that good works done in a state of grace are meritorious toward the gaining of eternal life, then no.

What about someone who believes that justification comes through the exercise of free will to accept Christ's offer of salvation? Can that person be saved?
Must someone know exactly how they are saved in order to be saved?

There is a crucial difference between Arminians and Roman Catholics. Arminians as wrong as they are for worshiping at the alter of free will, do not deny sola fide. Again, Rome on the other hand, teaches that good works help to "merit" eternal life. A Roman Catholic who believes this denies the Gospel.

By God's grace, many of my Catholic friends always refer to their Church's teachings thusly: "you have to take it with a grain of salt."

Originally Posted by Tripel

Originally Posted by Nomad

If a Roman Catholic actually understands and believes what Rome teaches with regard to justification, namely, that good works done in a state of grace are meritorious toward the gaining of eternal life, then no.

What about someone who believes that justification comes through the exercise of free will to accept Christ's offer of salvation? Can that person be saved?
Must someone know exactly how they are saved in order to be saved?

No consistent and TRUE arminian can ever be saved. All arminians I have met who demonstrated thru their lives that that they were born again, inconsistently believed that Salvation is 100% of God, but yet a sinner has free will. These kind of arminians are as Martyn Lloyd Jones put it very well, right in their hearts but wrong in their heads. Sadly these kinds of arminians are a minority in Arminian Churches.

Originally Posted by Confessor

By God's grace, many of my Catholic friends always refer to their Church's teachings thusly: "you have to take it with a grain of salt."

That reminds me of a recent converstion. I spoke to a woman on an Arminian/Roman Catholic message board a few months ago who was in the process of converting to Roman Catholicism. She continued to post like a Protestant, even saying that she believed in justification by faith alone. I told her that as a RC she could no longer believe that. She asked for proof! I showed her from Trent and the current Catholic Catechism. She never responded and is now officially a RC. From what I was able to gather, this woman is a Protestant who likes the "trappings" of Roman Catholicism.

At this point to answer the question I think it is important to make some distinctions. 1) to seperate out the theological system of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox with a more orthodox theological system and 2) the culture that Rome and the Eastern churches produce. One, in my option, can be saved and believe in the True Christ and the True Gospel while falling into these systems, but that is despite of these systems. Likewise it is true with our systems one may be lost but adhere to the points of doctrine. but still be lost. We need to be careful to remember that we are not saved based on our parents, our hertiage, or our theolgical system, but based on the grace of God through faith. I am not down playing the use of doctrine for I see it as a tool to dertermine who is in the faith and who is not. There are many roman Catholics today that do not agree with Rome on many points, and if we are to condem them for being a part of Rome, then also condem the church next door and those who attend there for haveing the same doctrine of salvation, I'm leaving out justification for now. We all know Rome goes with the times and they are extremely liberal, however this liberalism in a way could be a blessing for the return to true orthodox when the bad arguments are striped away like for example Limbo and possibly Purgatory soon. I have meet those who had faith in Christ alone and did not really know what Rome taught offical and heard a wide variety of things. I once got into an argument with a past Roman Catholic on the histoical position of Rome on reading their Bible, where this person who was Roman atholic was being told by the priest they should read their bible. So there are elments of possiblity that exists for real christians and Rome is not consistant with themselves, their main argument agaist denominations. We just need to teach the bible plainly and be paitent for those coming to a fuller knowlege of the faith.

Isn't the main problem with the Roman church that instead of relying on Christ alone for salvation, they also rely on themselves? Don't Arminians do the same? They rely on themselves to choose salvation. Are they saved?

Even as Reformed Christians, our hearts long to contribute just a little bit with our good works, despite what our theology teaches.

Where do we draw the line? If you believe in your heart, and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord you will be saved. The question comes as to whether you are believing in the true Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible. I believe the Apostle's Creed is a good indicator of the "essentials of the faith."

Calvin said that Rome wasn't a true church but that didn't men there wasn't a true church among her.

Some of them are maybe true Christians inspite of their church's teachings. If the Holy Spirit does a thorough work in them they'll want to come out.

We are commanded to come out of apostate churches in which an antichrist/the Antichrist has been set up in:-

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Rev. 18:4)

People may think that they are strong enough Christians but it is more likely they will be influenced for bad than that they will influence others for good. I've seen this in the Church of Scotland where the antichrist of Liberal Theology has been set up for decades.

All Roman Catholics are nominally Christians, because they partake of a perverted version of baptism and the Lord's Supper, but that just brings them under greater condemnation, as it does with nominal Liberal Christians or others. The inner reality of the covenant must be there for salvation as well as an outward bond.

The percentage of Christians (Romanist, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal) that are true Christians must be quite small (?) We need to be praying for God to do a great work on the Earth.

There is no good reason for us to regard any Roman Catholic as being a believer. Our judgement, however, is a different thing than speaking of the absolute standing they have with God.

Is it theoretically possible that a Roman Catholic can be a Christian? First we must define "Roman Catholic".

-If by RC we mean one that has ever set foot in a RC church, of course we must say that it is surely possible.

-If by RC we mean a member of the RCC, then we must admit that it is at least possible. Many of our forefathers were 'born' in the RCC. However, they left, as is the duty of all who have eyes to see.

-If by RC, we mean that a person subscribes to the RC doctrines (in otherwords a TRUE RC), then we must say no. Their gospel is no gospel. It is no good news.

Originally Posted by VilnaGaon

Originally Posted by Tripel

Originally Posted by Nomad

If a Roman Catholic actually understands and believes what Rome teaches with regard to justification, namely, that good works done in a state of grace are meritorious toward the gaining of eternal life, then no.

What about someone who believes that justification comes through the exercise of free will to accept Christ's offer of salvation? Can that person be saved?
Must someone know exactly how they are saved in order to be saved?

No consistent and TRUE arminian can ever be saved. All arminians I have met who demonstrated thru their lives that that they were born again, inconsistently believed that Salvation is 100% of God, but yet a sinner has free will. These kind of arminians are as Martyn Lloyd Jones put it very well, right in their hearts but wrong in their heads. Sadly these kinds of arminians are a minority in Arminian Churches.

I find it curious as to why Martyn Lloyd Jones would not have said that they were right in their heads and wrong in their hearts. But I would rather side with Jeremiah and say that I cannot know the human heart.

But, if we were to judge their profession, we should come to the same conclusion as the RC, which is no gospel. While they may not deny sola fide explicitly, the doctrine that they earnestly contend for destroys it just the same. Remember, the RC's will say that one is justified by faith as well. Just because one adds "sola" to that statement, does not imply that they mean the same thing that we do.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.

I think that's a good way to look at it - does someone trust in Christ alone? Many Roman Catholics trust in their church above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use their church as an infallible aid. Many pentecostals/charismatics trust in what they perceive to be manifestations of the spirit, which amounts to trusting in their own interpretation of the phenomenons. But many pentecostals/charistmatics do trust in Christ alone. Many reformed trust in their interpretation of the bible above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use the bible as an infallible aid. And so it goes on; the Puritan view of assurance is clear - look for evidences in your life of the work of the spirit in the killing of sin and gospel duties done in grace. To decide on the assurance of another is even less clear - leave it up to our mutual Master.

What we *can* guess at, is that if someone holds doctrine X, then they will find it considerably difficult to be someone who has died with Christ and raised with Him; someone who has caught up in Christ and is growing up into Him their head. If it's difficult to be saved with doctrine X, then on the other hand it is not impossible unless the gospel includes "believing X is an unpardonable sin". For that to be true, X would have to be very extreme indeed.

Originally Posted by VilnaGaon

Originally Posted by chbrooking

If a Roman Catholic is consistent with the teachings of his church, then he is not a Christian. But such consistency is not necessarily the case. Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.

But which Christ are they trusting in, ----the Christ presented to us in the Bible, or the Roman Catholic Christ of their church and tradition, their so called Magisterium. If all truth is propositional as I believe, this question is vital.

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.

I think that's a good way to look at it - does someone trust in Christ alone? Many Roman Catholics trust in their church above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use their church as an infallible aid. Many pentecostals/charismatics trust in what they perceive to be manifestations of the spirit, which amounts to trusting in their own interpretation of the phenomenons. But many pentecostals/charistmatics do trust in Christ alone. Many reformed trust in their interpretation of the bible above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use the bible as an infallible aid. And so it goes on; the Puritan view of assurance is clear - look for evidences in your life of the work of the spirit in the killing of sin and gospel duties done in grace. To decide on the assurance of another is even less clear - leave it up to our mutual Master.

What we *can* guess at, is that if someone holds doctrine X, then they will find it considerably difficult to be someone who has died with Christ and raised with Him; someone who has caught up in Christ and is growing up into Him their head. If it's difficult to be saved with doctrine X, then on the other hand it is not impossible unless the gospel includes "believing X is an unpardonable sin". For that to be true, X would have to be very extreme indeed.

Respectfully brother, the Christ we believe in is not some vague ,mystical, unknowable idea that the Roman church puts forth as their saviour. Our Jesus is the Jesus presented in the Bible only. We only cling to the propositional truths in Scripture Alone. Any other salvation and any other Jesus is just a fantasy.

I want all of those who say that if Rome is anti-christian or un-christian because they don't believe in the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone they should be consistant and pretty much conclude that all evangelicalism except for the reformed and lutheran are un-christian (or whatever you want to call it.) If you examine arminianism (evangelicalism) it's pretty much on the same path as rome, a works based religion even if both claim the grace of God.

I can't take that position, I know that both Rome and Arminians (again evangelicalism) push for the grace of God. No matter how incorrect they are with their theologies, they believe in grace even if they give man more freedom that they should.

Originally Posted by VilnaGaon

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Some (few) may be blissfully (graciously) ignorant, and actually trust in Christ alone in spite of RCC teaching.

I think that's a good way to look at it - does someone trust in Christ alone? Many Roman Catholics trust in their church above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use their church as an infallible aid. Many pentecostals/charismatics trust in what they perceive to be manifestations of the spirit, which amounts to trusting in their own interpretation of the phenomenons. But many pentecostals/charistmatics do trust in Christ alone. Many reformed trust in their interpretation of the bible above Christ, but many trust in Christ alone and use the bible as an infallible aid. And so it goes on; the Puritan view of assurance is clear - look for evidences in your life of the work of the spirit in the killing of sin and gospel duties done in grace. To decide on the assurance of another is even less clear - leave it up to our mutual Master.

Respectfully brother, the Christ we believe in is not some vague ,mystical, unknowable idea that the Roman church puts forth as their saviour. Our Jesus is the Jesus presented in the Bible only. We only cling to the propositional truths in Scripture Alone. Any other salvation and any other Jesus is just a fantasy.

We are not saved by the propositional truths, we are saved by Christ. Someone can be saved while believing wrong propositions, but it makes it less likely. We believe in Christ himself, not in any representation of Him, whether that representation is made by the church or by scripture. Now scripture will always agree with the actual Christ, the church will not. But it is important to have the humility to realise that our interpretation of scripture may not agree with the real Christ and indeed CANNOT agree completely. I presume John Owen is still considered a reformed theologian? Well, before you answer me, read what he has to say, which I happened to read last night in "The Mortification of Sin" in the chapter on humility:

Originally Posted by John Owen

For the being of God; we are so far from a knowledge of it, so as to be able to instruct one another therein by words and expressions of it, as that to frame any conceptions in our mind, with such species and impressions of things as we receive the knowledge of all other things by, is to make an idol to ourselves, and so to worship a god of our own making, and not the God that made us. We may as well and as lawfully hew him out of wood or stone as form him a being in our minds, suited to our apprehensions.

Apart from those few things which God has taught us, I'm afraid Owen thinks Christ is, to take your words, "vague, mystical and unknowable" and to think otherwise is to set up an idol in our minds that may as well be hewn out of wood or stone. If we cling to the image we have formed of Him in our minds, and refuse Christ Himself (when we refuse other Christians on a point of debated interpretation) then we are on a dangerous course.

It seems to me the correct course is to assume no-one is a Christian unless there is some gospel evidences of it. Preach to them, warn them, build them up into Christ, but don't assume they are saved especially not simply because they adhere to a set of propositions. The question then about Roman Catholics is then answered, "Don't assume they're saved any more than any one else (including your reformed friends) and only begin to suspect it of either when there are clear gospel evidences".

Richard,
Quote:
<blockquote>All Roman Catholics are nominally Christians, because they partake of a perverted version of baptism and the Lord's Supper, but that just brings them under greater condemnation, as it does with nominal Liberal Christians or others.</blockquote>


Brother; I found that statement disturbing.

Nominally Christians? I don't think that their is a catagory called "nominal Christian" is there? Isn't it an either / or proposition?


Could you possibly expand a little on what you meant?

I meant that just as there were Jews in the Old Covenant who were not of the true Israel, so there are "Christians" in the New Covenant i.e. who partake of baptism and the Lord's Supper who are not of the true invisible Church. These are wolves in sheep's clothing. Their putting themselves under the bond of the covenant without the spiritual reality will only lead to their further condemnation, as happened to the unbelieving Jews who were in the legal bond of the covenant without the reality of true faith. They are dead wood in the New Covenant Olive Tree which needs to be pruned out by church discipline and God's providence.

E.g.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.

Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Matt. 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

This last passage indicates the significance of being a nominal Christian - a Christian in name only, without the inner reality of faith. Continuing in the legal bond of the Covenant has purely negative consequences for the individual, unless they repent and believe, but it does make a difference: a negative difference.

Richard,
Boy...did I read that backwards! Sorry for the confusion.

I get a little touchy when I read things like that, thanks for clarifying.

god bless brother...

Listen to their prayers; the same goes for the Arminian. They may proclaim free-will or merited justification but if they pray like a Calvinist then they just might be saved.

Originally Posted by VilnaGaon

No consistent and TRUE arminian can ever be saved. All arminians I have met who demonstrated thru their lives that that they were born again, inconsistently believed that Salvation is 100% of God, but yet a sinner has free will. These kind of arminians are as Martyn Lloyd Jones put it very well, right in their hearts but wrong in their heads. Sadly these kinds of arminians are a minority in Arminian Churches.

I don't think that I can agree with that. Perhaps it's because I live in the "Bible Belt", but, from my own observation, these kinds of Arminians are a majority in Arminian Churches (In fact, there are actually very few consistent Arminian churches.) Most believe on some level that Christ actually paid for sins (true arminianism rejects that idea).

The trouble with this type (or any type) of Arminianism is that it leads to other greater errors.

Originally Posted by puritan lad

Originally Posted by VilnaGaon

No consistent and TRUE arminian can ever be saved. All arminians I have met who demonstrated thru their lives that that they were born again, inconsistently believed that Salvation is 100% of God, but yet a sinner has free will. These kind of arminians are as Martyn Lloyd Jones put it very well, right in their hearts but wrong in their heads. Sadly these kinds of arminians are a minority in Arminian Churches.

I don't think that I can agree with that. Perhaps it's because I live in the "Bible Belt", but, from my own observation, these kinds of Arminians are a majority in Arminian Churches (In fact, there are actually very few consistent Arminian churches.) Most believe on some level that Christ actually paid for sins (true arminianism rejects that idea).

The trouble with this type (or any type) of Arminianism is that it leads to other greater errors.

In my life, at least, I have noticed that most Arminians proclaim grace alone. God is kind even to those who deny His sovereignty in word.

Originally Posted by ubermadchen

Listen to their prayers; the same goes for the Arminian. They may proclaim free-will or merited justification but if they pray like a Calvinist then they just might be saved.

That line of argumentation proves far too much. Are you willing to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are saved because they pray like a Calvinist? One could then believe all manner of damnable heresies, but as long as they have prayer down, our judgement of them should be that they "just might be saved." I am not attacking you by any means, but this argument needs to be buried forever.

Originally Posted by puritan lad

I don't think that I can agree with that. Perhaps it's because I live in the "Bible Belt", but, from my own observation, these kinds of Arminians are a majority in Arminian Churches (In fact, there are actually very few consistent Arminian churches.) Most believe on some level that Christ actually paid for sins (true arminianism rejects that idea).

The trouble with this type (or any type) of Arminianism is that it leads to other greater errors.

It is my experience (and I was raised in a number of Arminian churches in the Bible belt) that most Arminian churches are consistent. They say they believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, but how they define those doctrines differs radically from how a Christian understands grace. By faith alone, they mean a faith that they stir up themselves, which does not differ in principle from salvation by works. They proclaim to believe in salvation by grace alone, but by grace alone, they mean 99% God, 1% ME. Almost every heresy that I can think of will say that "on some level" Christ died for their sins, so I see this as no defense to the Arminians.

This is not to say that all non-Calvinists I have met fall under these categories. I have met a few who are ignorant of either, and when presented with the Word of God, accept it with gladness, or even would like to search the scriptures to see if these things are so. These people are not to be confused with the present discussion.

Are Roman Catholics Christians?

Some are, some aren't. Just as some Anglicans are and some aren't. Just as some Presbyterians are and some aren't. Just as some Continental Reformed are and some aren't. Just as some Baptists are and some aren't. Just as some Lutherans are and some aren't. Etc, etc...

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally Posted by ubermadchen

Listen to their prayers; the same goes for the Arminian. They may proclaim free-will or merited justification but if they pray like a Calvinist then they just might be saved.

That line of argumentation proves far too much. Are you willing to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are saved because they pray like a Calvinist? One could then believe all manner of damnable heresies, but as long as they have prayer down, our judgement of them should be that they "just might be saved." I am not attacking you by any means, but this argument needs to be buried forever.

Originally Posted by puritan lad

I don't think that I can agree with that. Perhaps it's because I live in the "Bible Belt", but, from my own observation, these kinds of Arminians are a majority in Arminian Churches (In fact, there are actually very few consistent Arminian churches.) Most believe on some level that Christ actually paid for sins (true arminianism rejects that idea).

The trouble with this type (or any type) of Arminianism is that it leads to other greater errors.

It is my experience (and I was raised in a number of Arminian churches in the Bible belt) that most Arminian churches are consistent. They say they believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, but how they define those doctrines differs radically from how a Christian understands grace. By faith alone, they mean a faith that they stir up themselves, which does not differ in principle from salvation by works. They proclaim to believe in salvation by grace alone, but by grace alone, they mean 99% God, 1% ME. Almost every heresy that I can think of will say that "on some level" Christ died for their sins, so I see this as no defense to the Arminians.

This is not to say that all non-Calvinists I have met fall under these categories. I have met a few who are ignorant of either, and when presented with the Word of God, accept it with gladness, or even would like to search the scriptures to see if these things are so. These people are not to be confused with the present discussion.

Also growing up in the south, and having a step-dad who attended Arminian churches, and spouted Arminian doctrine, the funny thing he never believed it applied to himself. As an example, he would judge others saying they would or have lost their salvation, but when it came to him he was still saved because of what Christ did for him, even though his sins were as grevious as the one he judged. I recongnized this pattern among many of those he fellowshipped with. Somewhere down deep they knew the truth, but couldn't understand the truth. Just as a note I went to another church (SBC) that believed once in grace allways in grace.

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

It is my experience (and I was raised in a number of Arminian churches in the Bible belt) that most Arminian churches are consistent. ...They proclaim to believe in salvation by grace alone, but by grace alone, they mean 99% God, 1% ME.

That's what I mean by not being consistent. But I hold that a person can believe what you just described and still be a Christian (I know, I use to be a saved Arminian).

Not defending their belief, but we need to be careful that we don't start teaching "justification by correct theology".

Originally Posted by puritan lad

That's what I mean by not being consistent. But I hold that a person can believe what you just described and still be a Christian (I know, I use to be a saved Arminian).

Since when is personal experience a basis for judging the validity a particular "gospel"? Rather, we should judge this by the word of God, and it clearly states that if one adds in the least your merit/works to the gospel of free grace, then one is anathema. As christians, we should judge our experience in light of God's word. If we start comparing personal experiences, then who is to be believed? I too was once Arminian, and yet I believe the Scriptures teach that it is a false gospel, therefore I count even that as dung as Paul did his former "gospel" of works.

Consider the following passages of scripture:

Romans 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 11:5-8 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (7) What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (8) (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.

Originally Posted by puritan lad

Not defending their belief, but we need to be careful that we don't start teaching "justification by correct theology".

If by "correct theology" you mean that one must earn a Masters in Theology before they come to Christ, then I agree with your statement. However, I take it that you mean the gospel where works and merit are absent is somehow too scholastic for many, if not most "christians." I find this objection unacceptable, for the gospel of free grace does not take a PHD, but rather the eyes to see, given by the Holy Spirit. The gospel has content, and this content must be believed in order to be saved. Other content is incompatible with the gospel, and shows that a person doesn't understand the content, and has not yet been given eyes to see.