Thread: Are Roman Catholics Christians?

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.

I do believe that some of my Arminian friends are saved because while they may tell me that it is up to them to become Christians and not purely by grace alone, they still pray for God to open "so and so's" heart. They are not consistent with their Arminianism when the rubber meets the road. I haven't heard a JW pray so I don't know how to answer that. A believer isn't justified in how they pray but in Christ alone that he/she receives by faith. They may say differently out of ignorance but a believer certainly won't pray that way as the Spirit directs them in their prayers.

Originally Posted by Confessor

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

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.

I'm just curious, but are you Clarkian?

I have certain sympathies with Clark, but also serious criticisms. The comment above is not a Clarkian statement. I am trying to simply argue for the confessional view of the gospel.

II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein;[5] and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alonefor justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9]
5. II Peter 1:20-21; John 4:42; I Thess. 2:13; I John 5:9-10; Acts 24:14
6. Psa. 119:10-11, 48, 97-98, 167-168; John 14:15
7. Ezra 9:4; Isa. 66:2; Heb. 4:1
8. Heb. 11:13; I Tim. 4:8
9. John 1:12; Acts 15:11, 16:31; Gal. 2:20; II Tim. 1:9-10

One cannot trust their salvation to Christ alone, and their own merits. It is clear that Roman Catholics trust in their works in lieu of Christ alone. It is also clear, that Arminians, trust in themselves, the quality of their faith, as the grounds, or at least partial grounds, by which they are saved. Therefore, they too reject salvation by Christ alone. This is a necessary conclusion of their doctrine.

As an aside, I think that the quote in my signature is most appropriate for this thread.

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally Posted by Confessor

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

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.

I'm just curious, but are you Clarkian?

I have certain sympathies with Clark, but also serious criticisms. The comment above is not a Clarkian statement. I am trying to simply argue for the confessional view of the gospel.

I wasn't trying to imply that was a distinctively Clarkian statement. It just...I don't know...sounded Clarkian.

Originally Posted by ubermadchen

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.

I do believe that some of my Arminian friends are saved because while they may tell me that it is up to them to become Christians and not purely by grace alone, they still pray for God to open "so and so's" heart. They are not consistent with their Arminianism when the rubber meets the road. I haven't heard a JW pray so I don't know how to answer that. A believer isn't justified in how they pray but in Christ alone that he/she receives by faith. They may say differently out of ignorance but a believer certainly won't pray that way as the Spirit directs them in their prayers.

By the Arminians praying for "so and so's" heart, they merely recognize that salvation is not purely up to man. They are not Pelagian, but semi-Pelagian, and therefore they are consistent with their doctrine of mixing works with grace. This is how the Arminian can speak of grace on the one hand, but works on the other. Some percentage is left to God (defined as grace in their minds) and some percentage left to me (not works as they would define it). This is the great heresy of Rome, and also of Arminius. The only thing differing between the two is the degree in which they attribute salvation to man, and to God. But no matter how you dice it, you cannot take their profession, and come to the conclusion that it is saving faith, wherein faith in Christ apart from works is required.

Well, Arminians believe that God has done as much as He can do at the moment without being a "meanie" and "imposing Himself" on people's free wills. So when they pray for Him to save someone, they are indeed going against their principles.

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

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.

I would have to disagree. One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred. Just like anything else, part of making disciples is "teaching them". Learning correct theology, even the basic content of the gospel, is a part of sanctification, not justification. And like any other work of sanctification, it may not always be immediate.

Originally Posted by puritan lad

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

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.

I would have to disagree. One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred. Just like anything else, part of making disciples is "teaching them". Learning correct theology, even the basic content of the gospel, is a part of sanctification, not justification. And like any other work of sanctification, it may not always be immediate.

I sometimes think that the entirety of my saved life could be summed up as learning again and yet again that I am not saved by my own works. I think that practical Roman Catholicism is a natural religious expression of my old nature.

I believe that a Roman Catholic person may be saved in spite of his church for the same reason that I believe I may be saved in spite of my self; precisely because what I learn again and again is true: it is Christ who saves -- and I believe that his growth in grace like mine would be learning to more consciously and completely put his whole trust in Christ.

I am often puzzled by statements made in these kinds of discussions by paedobaptists that would seem to exclude infants from salvation.

Originally Posted by puritan lad

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

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.

I would have to disagree. One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred. Just like anything else, part of making disciples is "teaching them". Learning correct theology, even the basic content of the gospel, is a part of sanctification, not justification. And like any other work of sanctification, it may not always be immediate.

There is no gospel whatsoever if you strip all content from it. The gospel is that we believe in SOMETHING, not nothing. To say that one can be completely ignorant of all content in the gospel, is to say that one can be ignorant of the gospel itself, and yet be a Christian. This in unconfessional, and VERY dangerous.

You say, "One can still be saved by the sovereign grace of God, and yet be wrong about how that salvation occurred." Can a person be saved while trusting in Budah? Can a person strip the person of Christ completely from the gospel and yet would you leave a knowledge of Christ for sanctification? If your answer is no, then you have to admit that the gospel has content (i.e. Christ saves), and you refute your earlier statement.

Rather, our confessional standards, in our churches, and on this board include content in saving faith.

Let us recount some of these basic tenants that are NOT left up to sanctification, but a requirement for saving faith.

Q72: What is justifying faith?
A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] 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,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]
1. Heb. 10:39
2. II Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19
3. Rom. 10:14, 17
4. Acts 2:37; 4:12; 16:30; John 16:8-9; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1
5. Eph. 1:13
6. John 1:12; Acts 10:43; 16:31
7. Phil. 3:9; Acts 15:11

1. A sinner must be "convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition"

2. A sinner must "assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel"

3 A sinner must "receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation."

All three are doctrines of the gospel, without which, saving faith does not occur. In other words, content.

Jeff, can an infant do those things? Is there better statement (not as regards the confession, but as regards your argument from it) that does not militate against other parts of your confessional beliefs?

For instance, could this content perhaps be present in 'seed form' and grow up in us?

I think the following quote may be helpful to the present discussion:

"Luther called justification by faith alone "the article upon which the church stands or falls" (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae). This strong assertion of the central importance of justification was linked to Luther's identification of justification by faith alone (sola fide) with the gospel. The "good news" of the New Testament 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.

The issue of how justification and salvation are receieved became the paramount point of debate. Luther's insistence on sola fide was based on the conviction that the "how" of justification is integral and essential to the gospel itself. He viewed justification by faith alone as necessary and essential to the gospel and to salavation."

R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone, p.18-19.

I think many (if not most) of your average TR folks see it as another beast altogether. This past Sunday, our pastor was describing a man he knew, truly a 'new creation', and added emphasis to his story by finishing with "...and this man came from paganism! From Catholicism!"

Originally Posted by MrMerlin777

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...

This is just nonsense. The Roman Catholic Church trumpets a false Gospel that is institutionalised into the very official teaching and ceremonialism of each Romanist congregation. The Roman Catholic Church isn't just another church; it's institutionally and constitutionally wicked and idolatrous.

Some Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Reformed congregations are evangelical; that cannot be said of any Romanist congregation.

If any Roman Catholic is supposed to be born again and yet holds to the official teaching of Rome of grace plus, faith plus and Christ plus, that person is either a stranger to Christ, or has their heart transformed and their mind totally confused and it is impossible for us to recognise them as children of God. God may know who they are; but we can only know them from their testimony and behaviour.

A healthy sign in a Roman Catholic that claims to be resting on Christ alone by faith alone through grace alone, is that they want to get out of the Church of Rome as quickly as possible. I know former Roman Catholics who were spoken to by the Holy Spirit after their conversion in these words of Scripture:-

Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18:4)

You cannot be a member of the Roman Catholic Church without taking part in her idolatry and giving at least tacit support to the Papacy and all its errors. Romanism is a syncretism of Paganism and Christianity in which Paganism has the upper hand. Calvin called it a chaos of errors.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Jeff, can an infant do those things? Is there better statement (not as regards the confession, but as regards your argument from it) that does not militate against other parts of your confessional beliefs?

For instance, could this content perhaps be present in 'seed form' and grow up in us?

I don't think that an infant can do those things physically. This is where the gospel may be present in them in seed form, if one wished to phrase it that way. Elect infants may have the spiritual capability to believe such things, but not the physical capability.

This is shown in the WCF:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12

With adults (with a few exceptions), we have the physical capability, but the unregenerate lack the spiritual capability (regeneration) to understand and believe such things.

Again, just for clarification, nobody is stating that one must be able to recite the Westminster in order to be saved. One however, must know of Christ, and trust him as the only means (and this excludes all works) of salvation.

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

Originally Posted by VilnaGaon

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

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".

The Jesus we put our trust in is not some Jesus standing in a street corner or floating in the air or in some cookie that Catholics eat in their Mass. The only Jesus that we believe in is the Jesus presented in the Bible. The propositional truths regarding Jesus are explicitly set forth in Scripture to those who have eyes to see-----ie. the Elect. These Propositional truths concerning Jesus which we find in the Scriptures are the only way we can know Jesus. Any other knowledge of Jesus outside Scriptures whether visions, dreams or voices or in Papal decrees is only a fantasy or worse. Jesus being God is incomprehensible but knowable, but only thru Scripture.

Jacob, are you Clarkian?

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

I believe that a Roman Catholic person may be saved in spite of his church for the same reason that I believe I may be saved in spite of my self; precisely because what I learn again and again is true: it is Christ who saves -- and I believe that his growth in grace like mine would be learning to more consciously and completely put his whole trust in Christ.

We may grow up to different degrees of faith in this life, yet it remains true saving faith. But let us never say that we are saved in spite of the gospel, for that would clearly contradict scripture.

III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]

10. Heb. 5:13-14; Rom. 4:19-20; 14:1-2; Matt. 6:30; 8:10
11. Luke 22:31-32; Eph. 6:16; I John 5:4-5
12. Heb. 6:11-12; 10:22; Col. 2:2
13. Heb. 12:2

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

I am often puzzled by statements made in these kinds of discussions by paedobaptists that would seem to exclude infants from salvation.

See post above. Nothing I stated excludes infants from salvation. Note how the WCF does not require saving faith for infants, but includes regeneration (which we are passive in) and salavation by Christ through the Spirit.

Either way, infants are the exception, and not the norm. The normal means of salvation include the gospel.

Jeff,

Do you believe that someone can be wholly trusting in Christ's work and not their own (i.e. they have the Gospel content), yet they think that they chose to do so with their free will?

Originally Posted by Confessor

Jeff,

Do you believe that someone can be wholly trusting in Christ's work and not their own (i.e. they have the Gospel content), yet they think that they chose to do so with their free will?

To me that is saying that one can be trusting that salavation is 100% of God, and 100% of me.

"Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free will: and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, 'If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment: but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both: that he is 'Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men"
C.H. Spurgeon (Sermon entitled "Free Will-A Slave")

It's not simply Roman Catholicism that is involved in this question. At the end of the day, the same viewpoint that would consign Roman Catholics to gehenna would end up consigning (by most accounts) the vast majority of the early church fathers whose writings have come down to us, the Roman Catholic church throughout history, the Orthodox churches, etc. The only reason such a viewpoint might hold out hope for the Celtic church is because the Celtic church hasn't left as many writings for posterity. But I'm sure that a person of that bent could comb Patrick's confession, or the stories of Celtic saints, or maybe make inferences from the female monastics in Ireland, and conclude that they were, in fact, not Christian. The same viewpoint would, 50% of the time, and probably more if followed out consistently, consign Melanchthon, later Lutheranism, Baxter, Arminians, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, and Tolkien to gehenna. And that's not even counting all of the "in house" false sheep in the Reformed churches, which are also consigned to gehenna.

That is not a viewpoint that I want any part of. To think that the men who hammered out the canon, came up with the formulae which we still use to talk about the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union, the men who were formative in Christian theology, were not Christian... to think that the medieval church was not Christian in any sense, to think that Constantinople, which held back the progress of Islam for almost a thousand years and spread Christianity to Slavic and Russian lands, whose manuscript tradition many of us still use today, was not Christian... it just boggles my mind, and my soul recoils from it.

Clearly there are some motivated and passionate people in this thread who disagree. That being said, I have no desire to interact on this issue, because I don't have the time or energy, and I just don't want to deal with that mindset. Besides, this topic is rehashed on the Puritanboard every few years, and I posted something similar in the McMahon-Bushey-"Is the Arminian god worshippable (sp.?)" thread a few years ago that saw the banning of Pastorway (if I recall correctly). It's just like racial threads or exclusive psalmody threads, or Superbowl threads; they'll always return. So everyone else can return to the thread as usual, but I think it's a dangerous mindset.

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Jeff, can an infant do those things? Is there better statement (not as regards the confession, but as regards your argument from it) that does not militate against other parts of your confessional beliefs?

For instance, could this content perhaps be present in 'seed form' and grow up in us?

I don't think that an infant can do those things physically. This is where the gospel may be present in them in seed form, if one wished to phrase it that way. Elect infants may have the spiritual capability to believe such things, but not the physical capability.

This is shown in the WCF:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12

With adults (with a few exceptions), we have the physical capability, but the unregenerate lack the spiritual capability (regeneration) to understand and believe such things.

Again, just for clarification, nobody is stating that one must be able to recite the Westminster in order to be saved. One however, must know of Christ, and trust him as the only means (and this excludes all works) of salvation.

Thanks, Jeff. I agree (of course!) as to the content of saving faith. I am not sure that even where sinners are physically capable of believing these things, they are morally capable in this life of believing them without some degree of error: so I wonder if it wouldn't clarify further to say that this content of saving faith can exist with error, but the faith and the error are distinguishable things (even though by definition, the person imperfectly distinguishes them). They will one day be ultimately distinguished (and we grow to distinguish them more completely in this life as part of sanctification). But the presence of error and confusion does not invalidate the content of faith. Even though a person's faith is incomplete and weak -- contained in a vessel that contains a lot of other things -- because it is there, looking to and laying hold of a whole and perfect Christ, it is the instrument of justification for the whole error ridden person?

I wish I could say what I am trying to more clearly. I think it's been said before in the thread, but it is because I believe in the vital truth of justification by faith alone, that I can believe that it is not adhering with perfect clarity to this doctrine that saves.

Originally Posted by Confessor

Jacob, are you Clarkian?

I have read some Gordon Clark but not enough to classify me as as a Clarkian. I think Robert Reymond in his superb Systematic Theology presents Clarks ideas very intelligibly and that book has definitely had some influence on me.

Originally Posted by VilnaGaon

Originally Posted by Confessor

Jacob, are you Clarkian?

I have read some Gordon Clark but not enough to classify me as as a Clarkian. I think Robert Reymond in his superb Systematic Theology presents Clarks ideas very intelligibly and that book has definitely had some influence on me.

Okay, thanks. I was just curious. When I hear stress on "propositional truth" I immediately think Clark.

Alright, my witch hunt is over.

Joshua,

I respect your decision to not get involved in this thread. However, I believe a response is need to your objections. Does the WCF doctrine of Saving Faith mean that a large number of people are not christian? Absolutely. This should not make us happy, or joyous, but nonetheless, should not suprise us.

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Luke 13:23-24 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, (24) Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

That being said, I don't think that means we need to condemn all of the church fathers, Anselm etc. etc. I don't think that Dort ever intended to condemn all of the Fathers when they condemned Arminius. All one need do is search right here on the PB for quotes by the fathers from DTK on justification, and various other gospel topics to realize that the gospel, though not perfect, was more prominent in their thought than many would like to admit.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Thanks, Jeff. I agree (of course!) as to the content of saving faith. I am not sure that even where sinners are physically capable of believing these things, they are morally capable in this life of believing them without some degree of error: so I wonder if it wouldn't clarify further to say that this content of saving faith can exist with error, but the faith and the error are distinguishable things (even though by definition, the person imperfectly distinguishes them). They will one day be ultimately distinguished (and we grow to distinguish them more completely in this life as part of sanctification). But the presence of error and confusion does not invalidate the content of faith. Even though a person's faith is incomplete and weak. contained in a vessel that contains a lot of other things -- because it is there, looking to and laying hold of a whole and perfect Christ, it is the instrument of justification for the whole error ridden person?

I wish I could say what I am trying to more clearly. I think it's been said before in the thread, but it is because I believe in the vital truth of justification by faith alone, that I can believe that it is not adhering with perfect clarity to this doctrine that saves.

Thank you Heidi! I completely agree with you that a person's faith need not be perfect. In fact, the WCF states quite the opposite:

III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]
10. Heb. 5:13-14; Rom. 4:19-20; 14:1-2; Matt. 6:30; 8:10
11. Luke 22:31-32; Eph. 6:16; I John 5:4-5
12. Heb. 6:11-12; 10:22; Col. 2:2
13. Heb. 12:2

What I am trying to argue for, is that while saving faith may not be perfect in this life, a person who possesses it, will not spend his whole life professing the opposite of it (i.e. salvation by works). In such a case, we must plead with such a person by all means to abadon such a path to hell, and present the gospel with clarity, that God, if he will, might have mercy on them.

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

Joshua,

I respect your decision to not get involved in this thread. However, I believe a response is need to your objections. Does the WCF doctrine of Saving Faith mean that a large number of people are not christian? Absolutely. This should not make us happy, or joyous, but nonetheless, should not suprise us.

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Luke 13:23-24 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, (24) Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

That being said, I don't think that means we need to condemn all of the church fathers, Anselm etc. etc. I don't think that Dort ever intended to condemn all of the Fathers when they condemned Arminius. All one need do is search right here on the PB for quotes by the fathers from DTK on justification, and various other gospel topics to realize that the gospel, though not perfect, was more prominent in their thought than many would like to admit.

Most of the Church Fathers believed in Justification by Faith alone. A collection of their statements on this doctrine is found in ""The Justification Reader"" by Thomas Oden. John Gill in his ""Cause of God and Truth"" also shows how the Five Points of Calvinism were believed by the Church Fathers. He shows this in series of quotes.

Thanks Jacob. I am aware of Gill's work, and while I am no expert on the fathers by any means, I have read that they were more "protestant" than many people today espouse.

It is clear in my understanding, many held fast to the true faith.

From the Council of Orange:

The Canons of the Council of Orange
(529 AD)

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

Originally Posted by JDWiseman

It's not simply Roman Catholicism that is involved in this question. At the end of the day, the same viewpoint that would consign Roman Catholics to gehenna would end up consigning (by most accounts) the vast majority of the early church fathers whose writings have come down to us, the Roman Catholic church throughout history, the Orthodox churches, etc. The only reason such a viewpoint might hold out hope for the Celtic church is because the Celtic church hasn't left as many writings for posterity. But I'm sure that a person of that bent could comb Patrick's confession, or the stories of Celtic saints, or maybe make inferences from the female monastics in Ireland, and conclude that they were, in fact, not Christian. The same viewpoint would, 50% of the time, and probably more if followed out consistently, consign Melanchthon, later Lutheranism, Baxter, Arminians, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, and Tolkien to gehenna. And that's not even counting all of the "in house" false sheep in the Reformed churches, which are also consigned to gehenna.

That is not a viewpoint that I want any part of. To think that the men who hammered out the canon, came up with the formulae which we still use to talk about the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union, the men who were formative in Christian theology, were not Christian... to think that the medieval church was not Christian in any sense, to think that Constantinople, which held back the progress of Islam for almost a thousand years and spread Christianity to Slavic and Russian lands, whose manuscript tradition many of us still use today, was not Christian... it just boggles my mind, and my soul recoils from it.

Clearly there are some motivated and passionate people in this thread who disagree. That being said, I have no desire to interact on this issue, because I don't have the time or energy, and I just don't want to deal with that mindset. Besides, this topic is rehashed on the Puritanboard every few years, and I posted something similar in the McMahon-Bushey-"Is the Arminian god worshippable (sp.?)" thread a few years ago that saw the banning of Pastorway (if I recall correctly). It's just like racial threads or exclusive psalmody threads, or Superbowl threads; they'll always return. So everyone else can return to the thread as usual, but I think it's a dangerous mindset.

I see where you're coming from.

But whether the early church was as gross as full-blown Romanism, and whether now the Reformation has happened and people should know better and also have other places to go, is relevant here. If you were converted at the height of Medieval Romanism you would have no place else to go, even although you didn't believe all the nonsense that was being fed to you or accepted all the ceremonies and behaviour? The Reformation having happened and being notorious, we would expect better things of modern Roman Catholics who get saved/come to faith and also for the health of their own souls should persuade such to leave Rome if they have not done so already.

Some of the heroes of church history because of their erroneous doctrine and practice, we may wonder if they had the root of the matter in them, but we have to leave such with the Lord or ascribe to them the judgement of charity, while making our own calling and election sure.

How much poor teaching did our Lord Himself have to endure when He went to the synagogue from week to week in First Century Galilee?

The light of a candle and the voice of the bride and bridegroom may be faintly heard in the apostate church while she still survives - otherwise she would be no part of Christendom at all and her refugees would have to be rebaptised -but still we are commanded to leave:-

And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived (Rev.18:23)

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)

It is not just the question about justification that seperates Catholicism from true faith but the whole system. The Pope not the scriptures are infallible; the central position held by Christ is usurped by Mary; his work is supplemented by mans work, including dead saints; the church is the mother of salvation etc.

One can talk about pre and post Vatican 2 but two things are quite clear. The first is that the RC has changed. The second is that the RC church has not changed one bit. Therein lies the confusion. People by and large are confused by the former. The RC has changed but it is a change in attitude and accommodation. But at the heart of the RC church the traditional teachings are still the very same.

Go to a country where the RC church is in the majority and you will see a different variation of that church then when it is in the minority.

Jeff:

What I am trying to argue for, is that while saving faith may not be perfect in this life, a person who possesses it, will not spend his whole life professing the opposite of it (i.e. salvation by works). In such a case, we must plead with such a person by all means to abadon such a path to hell, and present the gospel with clarity, that God, if he will, might have mercy on them.

I would agree if what we are speaking of is a person who consistently rejects clear biblical teaching re: salvation by works. If what we are speaking of is a person who has not had clear teaching presented to them, or has not as yet been exposed enough to understand it, and is confused -- then I think it would be uncharitable to judge their profession, esp. if they show evidence in other ways of attachment to Christ.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Jeff:

What I am trying to argue for, is that while saving faith may not be perfect in this life, a person who possesses it, will not spend his whole life professing the opposite of it (i.e. salvation by works). In such a case, we must plead with such a person by all means to abadon such a path to hell, and present the gospel with clarity, that God, if he will, might have mercy on them.

I would agree if what we are speaking of is a person who consistently rejects clear biblical teaching re: salvation by works. If what we are speaking of is a person who has not had clear teaching presented to them, or has not as yet been exposed enough to understand it, and is confused -- then I think it would be uncharitable to judge their profession, esp. if they show evidence in other ways of attachment to Christ.

So what about the Roman Catholic who has never had the truth presented to them. What about the Jehovah's Witness? What about the poor countries that are destitute of the gospel? I understand your desire to be charitable in your judgements, and that is good as long as it is justified. But ignorance of the gospel itself is no grounds for this christian judgement.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Romans 10:1-3 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. (2) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. (3) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Jeff, again, we are agreed as to the content of faith, and that it is present. Someone who has no access to the means of grace is obviously not going to be able to have that content.

But we are not speaking of people who have no access to means of grace with RC's and Arminians.

Heidi,

Matthew Henry makes some excellent points in his commentary on Romans 10 that I think you might find interesting.

2. A good witness, as a reason of his good wish (Rom_10:2): I bear them record that they have a zeal of God. The unbelieving Jews were the most bitter enemies Paul had in the world, and yet Paul gives them as good a character as the truth would bear. We should say the best we can even of our worst enemies; this is blessing those that curse us. Charity teaches us to have the best opinion of persons, and to put the best construction upon words and actions, that they will bear. We should take notice of that which is commendable even in bad people. They have a zeal of God. Their opposition to the gospel is from a principle of respect to the law, which they know to have come from God. There is such a thing as a blind misguided zeal: such was that of the Jews, who, when they hated Christ's people and ministers, and cast them out, said, Let the Lord be glorified (Isa_66:5); nay, they killed them, and thought they did God good service, Joh_16:2.

...

He here shows the fatal mistake that the unbelieving Jews were guilty of, which was their ruin. Their zeal was not according to knowledge.

---

The nature of their unbelief. They have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God, that is, they have not yielded to gospel-terms, nor accepted the tender of justification by faith in Christ, which is made in the gospel. Unbelief is a non-submission to the righteousness of God, standing it out against the gospel proclamation of indemnity. Have not submitted. In true faith, there is need of a great deal of submission; therefore the first lesson Christ teaches is to deny ourselves.

---

2. The causes of their unbelief, and these are two: - (1.) Ignorance of God's righteousness. They did not understand, and believe, and consider, the strict justice of God, in hating and punishing sin, and demanding satisfaction, did not consider what need we have of a righteousness wherein to appear before him; if they had, they would never have stood out against the gospel offer, nor expected justification by their own works, as if they could satisfy God's justice. Or, being ignorant of God's way of justification, which he has now appointed and revealed by Jesus Christ. They did not know it, because they would not; they shut their eyes against the discoveries of it, and love darkness rather. (2.) A proud conceit of their own righteousness: Going about to establish their own - a righteousness of their own devising, and of their own working out, by the merit of their works, and by their observance of the ceremonial law. They thought they needed not to be beholden to the merit of Christ, and therefore depended upon their own performances as sufficient to make up a righteousness wherein to appear before God. They could not with Paul disclaim a dependence upon this (Phi_3:9), Not having my own righteousness. See an instance of this pride in the Pharisee, Luk_18:10, Luk_18:11. Compare Rom_10:14.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Jeff, faith looks to Christ: again, we are agreed as to the content of faith, and that it is present. Someone who has no access to the means of grace is obviously not going to be able to have that content.

Heidi, faith looks to Christ alone. That is crucial to the content. That is what they are missing, either by ignorance, stubborness, whatever the case may be. But whatever it is, does not excuse them, for God is the giver of knowledge, and the Holy Spirit is who opens our eyes to the gospel.

Heidi, faith looks to Christ alone.

Faith does, but error of course, does not. I thought we were agreed that faith could exist where there was remaining error. I think until a person who has made a profession of faith consistently demonstrates an unwillingness (despite clear teaching) to part with error, it would be uncharitable to judge that there was no faith.

That is a great quote by Matthew Henry. And we are agreed as to the judgement of those who consistently oppose themselves to clear teaching of the gospel.

Jeff,

Is it possible to hold to sola fide while being unaware that the notion of free will entails meritoriousness to an extent?

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Heidi, faith looks to Christ alone.

Faith does, but error of course, does not. I thought we were agreed that faith could exist where there was remaining error. I think until a person who has made a profession of faith consistently demonstrates an unwillingness (despite clear teaching) to part with error, it would be uncharitable to judge that there was no faith.

That is a great quote by Matthew Henry. And we are agreed as to the judgement of those who consistently oppose themselves to clear teaching of the gospel.

Error is of different kinds, and some are destructive of the gospel, i.e. salvation by merit/works. Error in this regards is not compatible with saving faith, and in fact opposses it. Therefore those who expouse a doctrine of works do not possess saving faith.

Matthew Henry is great, but make sure to note that he does not excuse their ignorance, even though they were ignorant of the truth. He equates unbelief with ignorance. We too, should not use ignorance as an excuse to judge people as christians under the guise of charity. Give them charity where it is due (i.e. zeal), but not where it opposses the gospel.

Originally Posted by Confessor

Is it possible to hold to sola fide while being unaware that the notion of free will entails meritoriousness to an extent?

When it comes to Arminians in general, this is the case. They proclaim sola fide and vehemently deny that the faith they believe they stir up in themselves amounts to a meritorious work. So, most Arminians do believe in justification by faith alone. The crucial difference between them and us is that they believe "faith" comes from themselves, whereas we understand that faith is a gift of God.

Originally Posted by Confessor

Jeff,

Is it possible to hold to sola fide while being unaware that the notion of free will entails meritoriousness to an extent?

No. I might well ask you, "Is it possible to hold to sola fide while being unaware that the notion of "keeping the whole law" entails meritoriousness to an extent?" Just because one does not realize the damnable implications of his belief, does not excuse the fact that the implications are there. Ignorance is no excuse.

Confessor & Heidi,

Would either of you be able to show me any scriptural evidence for your assertions that ignorance excuses anyone, in any situation?

I am an ex Roman catholic and I am now a staunch Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian.

I experienced the salvation of the Bible, not the salvation of Romanism and as the result of that salvation I embrace and proclaim Protestantism. To that extent I renounce Roman Catholicism and her pope. I think more Protestants should. If ever a system was antichrist it is the system of Roman Catholicism, and it will prove to be such in the end.

"Renouncing the Pope and the teachings of the Catholic church is an anti-Catholic stance. That's what it means…to be against their teachings." I am anti Roman Catholicism as were all the reformers I renounce and protest all her false teachings as all Protestants should. We protest the heresies and proclaim the true Gospel of Christ. I am often criticized fro openly renouncing Roman Catholicism and her pope.

Calvin passionately sought for the restoration of the Church Catholic of the Apostles and the Fathers, I wish more Presbyterians laid hold of this. That Reformed Protestantism is the restoration of and old religion not the innovation of a new religion. Our greatest fault is that we are not connected with the ancient faith as he was.

I have come to believe that Roman Catholicism is not a true Christian faith. I am today a Reformed Protestant who left the Roman church and became a Presbyterian because I believe Presbyterianism and Reformed Protestantism is the restoration of the ancient faith of the true Christian church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles. I renounce the papist Roman teachings which continue to be apostasy and corrupt the Gospel and the truth of the scriptures. I am a staunch Protestant Presbyterian and a Calvinist because we Reformed Protestants are the restoration of and old religion not the innovation of a new religion as Roman Catholicism teaches. We are the heirs of the ancient and true faith. I renounce the pope and Roman Catholicism as did Calvin and all the reformers. I wish more Protestants would understand and accept this fact. I have found that more ex Roman Catholics like myself who have become Reformed Protestants do understand that fact better than many cradle Protestants.

In grace,
Dudley

May we all be Sons of the Reformation and continue to proclaim what it means to be Reformed Presbyterian Protestant Christians!