The difference between the Lutheran and Reformed Christian is a good example of what I meant in a previous post in this thread when I said "as Reformed believers, we want to say that Christ alone saves and we believe that those trusting in something else cannot be saved". WCF XIV states "The principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification and eternal life by virtue of the covenant of grace." If this is true, then the Lutheran trusting in baptismal regeneration cannot be saved. This seems to be too drastic a position to take, yet the WCF seems to be saying that.

This goes back to my OP, because clearly on the one hand the WCF is narrowly defining saving faith, yet it does not leave much room for my own wavering to trust Christ alone (ie, "I believe, help my unbelief!" nor does it leave much room for those whose confessions of faith include clear statements of the vital role of the sacraments in bringing salvation to the Christian (as Spiced Parrot articulated and as the RC church articulates).

Perhaps the answer is in the next line of the WCF in the same chapter, to wit:

"This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong..."

Would that statement be the qualifier that allows us as Reformed believers to disagree with other believers on issues such as baptismal regeneration, yet firmly believe they are saved? Perhaps I am not interpreting that part of the WCF correctly.

__________________
Joel Batts
Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) - Memphis, TN

I believe that many would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand. - CS Lewis

Well, to be fair, I would not say that the Lutherans are trusting in their baptism for salvation. They are trusting in Christ. I simply believe that kind of language gives a false sense of what lays hold of Christ. The act of baptism, by its administration alone, does not unite to Christ. It does, however, serve as a certain and sure declaration of a Promise: as surely as this water is washes your flesh so will your sins be washed away if you believe upon Christ. Thus, truly, we can look to our baptism for strength but not because it alone unites to Christ but because, in it, a promise was made by God through His minister that God saves those who trust in Him.

Now, after what I wrote and what you read from the Confession I am baffled that you would say that the WCF "...does not leave much room for my own wavering to trust Christ alone..." when you follow with the clause that "..."This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong...." That is exactly what we've been saying is that your faith does not have to be perfect or strong in order to lay hold of Christ for salvation. The clause is not intended to be inclusive of other expressions of what faith signifies but is meant to answer your own concerns about how your faith seems to wax and wane.

A faith that lays truly lays hold of Christ, weak or strong, is a saving faith.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Yeah, I admit to not being clear in how I explained myself in the previous post.

I understand the WCF is teaching (as you, Dr. Clark and others have well-marshalled and greatly helped me here) that faith is binary and, whether weak or strong, is saving faith becuase its object is Christ. My questioning is now shifting to perhaps a more ecumenical line of thinking...that is to say, if laying hold of Christ in faith is the conditio sine qua non of justification, then can we rest in the fact that divergent views on the way in which the sacraments benefit us or imputation vs. infusion does not separate us from the body of Christ at large? IOW, that we can say a theology outside of our circles (for example in the RC church) may be heterodox, but that people in those in such heterodoxy can still lay hold of Christ "salvifically"?

What I am trying to reckon with is the idea that in the simple "laying hold of Christ" (as you've put it) we can rest knowing the eternal "weightiness" of justification does not hang in the balance of sorting out how the sacraments work, etc. Not that these matters are not of great importance, but that they are, in a true sense, ancillary to the GREAT matter of how one is made right with God.

You are correct in that the above syllogism presupposes some sort of "baptismal regeneration". What that term means though seems to vary depending on who is using it.

If by Baptismal Regeneration you mean that Christ has a promise connected with BAptism and what he promises is true than - yes. Of course, even Luther's Small Catechism points out that the person receiving the baptism must still BELIEVE the promise. That's a distinction from the ex opre operato view.

For what its worth - if you read the Calvin's institutes on Baptism I think you'll find a great deal of commonality between him and this position. In fact, as I've read some modern scholars (i.e. Horton) on Baptismal efficacy I haven't been able to find much of a distinction between his view and the lutheran view. I suspect that most would agree that he is "reformed" so maybe there is not as much of a separation here as some suppose.

Point being - the Calvinian and Lutheran views of baptism lead to a very different perspective on assurance than other paradigms. Even the FV folks miss this distinction with their talk of baptismal regeneration because they turn right around and peek again at the works.

Of course - if one believes that Baptism places one in the Covenant of Grace, and that somehow later that person because of their faith is indeed one of the elect, than they should still be able to look to their Baptism for assurance.

Well - mostly food for thought.
__________________
Chad Hamilton
Peace With Christ (LCMS)
Fort Collins, Colorado

__________________
Chad Hamilton
Peace With Christ (LCMS)
Fort Collins, Colorado

By the way - it is my understanding that the Reformed hold the sacraments (in this case Baptism) along with the Preaching of the Word as "Means of Grace". Am I mistaken?

If so doesn't that indeed make Baptism an instrument by which God can give the believer faith? In the same manner that it can be given in the preaching of the Word? After all, isn't Baptism just a "visual word" so to speak.

This is my understanding of Calvin - and frankly many current scholars in the continental reformed tradition. Am I missing something?

Yes Word and Sacrament are means of grace with one distinction; the Word is a means to salvation, the sacraments are not.

Chapter 14 of the WCF on Saving Faith notes the following:

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

Hope this helps.

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Not sure if you caught when I wrote this:
The main distinction I was making was between whether we see baptism as instrumental to our justification or remember to keep straight that faith, wheter weak or strong, lays hold of Christ. That need not be a torturous process. I think the Lutheran view, in fact, can get too esoteric if it just says: "look to your baptism" and does not explain to the person that the reason one looks to their baptism is that a promise of salvation was made to those who trust in Christ. The confidence the Reformed have maintains the extra nos assurance that the work of Christ is perfect without using language that might confuse the believer about what unites the believer to His savior.

To extend a bit on what Wayne shared. This was sort of an epiphany for me several months ago:

Thank you for the clarification on the reformed position. I'm still sorting through most of what I read. I think it would be helpful if you can tell me if the following statements are either reflective of the continental reformed tradition or not. In the interest of full disclosure, as a lutheran I would agree with all of these. If you'll play along I'll follow up with the author of each of these posts (and citations if needed to view in context).

1) "Christ uses these sacraments, not only to represent and seal, but also actually to apply, the benefits of his redemption to believers." [emphasis added]

2) "It is, therefore, astonishing that so many who go by the name "Reformed" in our day seem to deny, at least in the practical treatment of these Sacraments, the efficacy of these means of grace. ...the gnosticism (spirit against matter emphasis) of our age seems to pervade evangelical thinking and this has not been without its effect in our own churches. The hidden assumption appears to be that God works immediately and directly, without means, in bringing us to faith and keeping us there. Spirit is set against matter; in this case, the material elements of human preaching, water, bread and wine. The Anabaptistic, pietistic, and then revivalistic strains of evangelicalism eventually triumphed over the Reformation's evangelical stance and to the extent that Reformed churches today follow these general evangelical trends, they lose their Reformed identity." [emphasis added]

3) "Calvin says that Christ's Sacraments are instituted so that "believers, poor and deprived of all goods, should bring nothing to it but begging" (Institutes 4.14.26). The Sacrament's "force and truth" do not depend on "the condition or choice of him who receives it. For what God has ordained remains firm and keeps its own nature, however men may vary" (ibid). So for Calvin, as for Luther, "sacramenta conferunt gratiam" (Sacraments confer grace)."

4) "And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls"

5) "The sacraments become effectual means of salvation,not by any power in themselves or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered; only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ by whom they are instituted"

6) In many conservative Reformed and Presbyterian circles, it is as if the prescribed forms for Baptism and the Supper were too high in their sacramental theology, so the minister feels compelled to counter its strong "means of grace" emphasis. In this way, the Sacraments die the death of a thousand qualifications. The same is true when we read the biblical passages referring to Baptism as "the washing of regeneration" or to the Supper as "the communion of the body and blood of Christ." Why must we apologize for these passages and attempt to explain them away? Our confessions do not do this. Our liturgical forms (if we still use them) do not do this, but we feel compelled to diminish them these days. "

7) "We hear quasi-gnostic sentiments even in Reformed circles these days, such as the "real baptism" that is spiritual, as opposed to "merely being sprinkled with water," or the "real communion" with Christ in moments of private devotion. How can we truly affirm the union of earthly and heavenly realities in the Incarnation? Or how can we regard the Word of God as a means of salvation if it is but ink and paper or human speech? A subtle Docetism (the ancient gnostic heresy that denied Christ's true humanity) lurks behind our reticence to see these common earthly elements as signs that are linked to the things they signify. Surely the Sacraments can remind us of grace, help us to appreciate grace, and exhort us to walk in grace, but do they actually give us the grace promised in the Gospel? The Reformed and Presbyterian confessions answer "yes" without hesitation: A Sacrament not only consists of the signs (water, bread and wine), but of the things signified (new birth, forgiveness, life everlasting)."

8) "Even if a person had already confessed before his baptism that salvation is in Christ, and even if he were already incorporated into Christ, he makes the real transition only through baptism." He is quite right when he says, "The Reformed stand with Rome, Luther, and Calvin against Zwingli in their adherence to a divine working of grace in the sacrament."

9) "Lastly, our faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings...Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from the fact that we are put on Christ in baptism [Gal. 3:26-27]."

10) "But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life..'To be assured, Paul, that your sins are forgiven, be baptized. For the Lord promises forgiveness of sins in baptism: receive it and be secure. Yet it is not my intention to weaken the force of baptism by not joining reality and truth to the sign, in so far as God works through outward means."

11) "Therefore, there is no doubt that all pious folk throughout life, whenever they are troubled by a consciousness of their faults, may venture to remind themselves of their baptism, that from it they may be confirmed in assurance of that sole and perpetual cleansing which we have in Christ's blood"

12) "My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name? Yes, my father. How is this known to you? Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." "How did you come into this communion of the church? Through baptism. What is this baptism? It is the washing of regeneration and cleansing from sin."

Well, that's enough for now - I'm anxious to know if those on this board would consider these statements to be consistent with the reformed/presbyterian confessions. Certainly, any of these statements would be welcome in Lutheran circles.

I really don't want to quibble on whether Baptism is effective (I am lutheran after all) but I mostly just want to understand the reformed position. Frankly - I'm getting mixed messages. One moment it "is" a means of grace and the next moment it isn't. How can something be both "x" and "non x"?

Well thanks for indulging me.

Chad,

I won't play this game. Statements taken out of context can be made to say things that, in context, they didn't say.

Check out these resources:

Westminster Seminary California Bookstore
Westminster Seminary California clark
The Confessional Presbyterian » R. Scott Clark: Baptism and the Benefits of Christ (CPJ 2)

rsc

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog
Office Hours Podcast

I think that states is pretty well.

I'm a bit annoyed Chad that you'll read what I wrote and then say that "sometimes people will say it's a means of grace and sometimes they will say it is not."

They are a means of grace but they're not magic. I have no interest in interacting with a dozen different sentences that can be used as a launchpad to go in 100 different ways.

After that pulling together of a bunch of quotes it seems to me that you have an agenda coming in to this thread to begin with that I don't particularly appreciate. You're just a curious questioner but you pull out a dozen snippets to challenge the Reformed understanding?

I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to offend - I was sincerely curious. Those quotes were not intending to drive an agenda and I didn't think any of them were taken out of context. For what its worth those quotes range from AA Hodge, to Calvin, to Michael Horton. I think you'll also notice a quote from the Larger Catechism as well as from the Scots Confession. I even quoted Calvin's catechism for small children. None of those things are easy to take out of context.

My point is this - I've studied a great deal of reformed and lutheran theology. Unfortunately, I've rarely had the opportunity to discuss the theology with a broader spectrum of those claiming loyalty to particularly the reformed confessions. I understand what many "say" is reformed theology but my problem is that when I read large tracts of Calvin, Horton, Hodge, etc. I don't see many distinctions between there views and Lutheran theology.

Of course, reformed/presbyterian is not a monolith. My impression is that most reformed/presbyterian take a more Zwinglian view of the sacraments, particularly Baptism.

What I'm hoping - or seeking - is to see if those on this board would say they agree or disagree with Calvin/Hodge/Horton, etc. I suspect that if any of those three say something different than someone else's view of the confessions that they will disagree.

So here it is - it seems to me there is a subset of those who are confess the three forms of unity who tend to interpret it with a more Lutheran bent. I think others, particularly those more apt to subscribe to the Westminster standards are more Zwinglian.

Personally - I would like to try and find ways to seek commonality between the Reformed and Lutheran. I think the above quotes start building a bridge to get there.

Of course - since this isn't a total hijack of the original post. The quote above from Calvin I think buttresses my argument that even he would agree that one can look to his Baptism (as suggested in my initial syllogism) for assurance. I think that is something very different from looking to our works or to the spirit with in us. The White Horse Inn most recently had full program that makes that very point.

Well - again, sorry to offend. I really thought the quotes would be useful and am disappointed I was not given the benefit of the doubt.

{MOD ON}

Chad, you need to think long and hard before you start challenging the Reformed Confessions. This is a Reformed Board.

FYI, there is not a dimes worth of difference between the Westminster Standards and the 3FU. I would suggest you get a copy of each and compare.

{MOD OFF}

More specifically - when I read the term "Means of Grace" I take that to be defined as a the "means" by which God gives his grace. If it is not the "means" by which God gives his Grace than it isn't a "Means of Grace". Now if there is another definition out there please let me know.

Also - I am a sincere questioner as I indicated above...and I wasn't trying to challenge the reformed understanding which is why all the above quotes were from as solid a reformed folks as I think you get. If I want to get into polemics I'm smart enough to know that going to a "reformed" board is not the place to do it.

Frankly, I prefer to go straight to the horses mouth - I find some LUtherans to have a chip on their shoulder against the reformed (and often vice versa) so I was hoping that engaging in this discussion I could find out more about how those here view the doctrine of assurance.

Actually - I was quite surprised that there was resistance to my initial post. I thought this was commonly accepted in reformed circles. I wonder if it would have been taken different had it not been posted by Lutheran. Again, by posting those quotes I was hoping to get people to look at the content of my comments and not the label on the signature line.

----
Chad Hamilton
Peace With Christ (LCMS)
Fort Collins, Colorado

With due respect,

There is a lot that Lutherans and Reformed folk have in common and there are things that seriously divide us (otherwise Lutherans would be Calvinists). Just as in Lutheranism, the Reformed Faith is defined by what these respective Churches profess. For Lutherans it is the Book of Concord, for the Reformed its the Westminster Standards or the 3FU. Men such as Hodge, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, etc. were some of the greatest teachers God has graced his church with but they are not the church. It is the church that establishes what the church professes, not any particular theologian.

A memorialist view of the sacraments is common in the broad evangelical church but for the confessionally reformed this is not the view as defined by our confessions. As I noted in my previous post, yes the sacraments are a means of grace but not for salvation but for the bolstering up of ones faith. Yes we can look back to our baptism and look to improve upon it, but is it a means of assurance? not really. Simon Magus was also baptized.

As Chapter 18 of the WCF notes:

This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

Oh right - of course - I fully understand this and expect the position of this board to be confessional.

My question is whether or not some of the above quotes are contrary to the Reformed confessions. I'm not questioning the validity of the Reformed confessions themselves. For example, I would expect that many would see Calvin's support of Private Confession and Absolution to be contrary to the reformed confessions.

As for the similarity between the Westminster STandards and the 3FU - I'm quite familiar with both. I guess I see greater distinctions between what the Westminister Divines drafted and what Ursinus wrote in the Heidelberg Catechism. Then again, they had different backgrounds and were operating in different political environments.

Chad,

two things.

1. The quote below belongs to Rich, not me.

2. I'm sorry that, being new to the discussion, you received some pointed replies. I've been at this (arguing with and about the Federal Vision) since 1999 and the FV boys play this game frequently: take some quotations out of context and say, "See, you disagree with Calvin!" or whatever.

That's why you weren't given the benefit of the doubt.

I've been asked before about the relations between Lutherans and Reformed and why am I "soft" on the Lutherans but so critical of the FV, especially when the FV has such a "Lutheran" view of baptismal union with Christ/baptismal regeneration?

Yes, there are real similarities between the Lutherans and the Reformed, particularly on justification. If you'll read the pamphlet I linked above, you'll see that I deal with the relations between the Lutherans and the Reformed on baptism. There are similarities and genuine differences.

Lutheran orthodoxy abandoned Luther on certain key issues. LO was much clearer on baptism than Luther, so that where Reformed folk could agree with L's small catechism on baptism that agreement was impossible with the Book of Concord.

The Lutherans do have a view of baptism that is similar to the FV, but there are real differences. The Lutheran view of baptism comes in the context of an unequivocal doctrine of depravity and grace (e.g., the LCMS view is quite "Calvinist" in certain respects) and an unequivocal doctrine of justification and clear distinction between law and gospel. All of which is missing from the FV.

Yes, in the Reformed view, the Lutherans go off the rails when they teach that we can resist grace. The Lutherans were wrong to support Arminius. Their view is just rationalist, which is ironic. They think they can save God from being the author of evil by their doctrine of reprobation. Seems to me that Lutherans ought to rejoice in the paradox of divine sovereignty, including reprobation, and our stout denial that God is not morally liable for sin and evil. How can that be? Ask God. That's more Luther that the Lutherans!

Is baptism efficacious? Yes, for the elect. This is the part that some Lutherans and all Federal Visionists ignore. I have a forthcoming essay on Calvin's doctrine of predestination (in a handbook on the Institutes) that works through some of these issues.

Yes, many modern Reformed folk have been more Zwinglian than Calvinist. No question about that, but denying baptismal regeneration does not make one Zwinglian.

I can't repeat all the material from the sources linked about, but the effect of your post is to ask us to re-hash 8-9 years of discussion all over again.

Here are some additional resources:

Westminster Seminary California clark

Westminster Seminary California clark

Westminster Seminary California clark

rsc

Dr. Clark,

That is a helpful, interesting and thought provoking reply. I appreciate your time.

Rather than comment in detail further here I will dig into the resources that you recommend and then post later with further questions.

I do think it is important to note that I disagree with your assertion that there is a great deal of difference between the Small Catechism and the Book of Concord. After all the Small Catechism is just as binding for a confessing Lutheran as the Formula of Concord (both are part of the Book of Concord). I don't see much distinction between the two (or other confessional documents such as the Augsburg confession that Calvin signed) , but then again, I think that depends upon how one defines certain terms in each.

I also don't think its fair to label confessing lutherans as ARminian any more than when Lutherans labeled all the reformed as Zwinglian or enthusiasts. As I'm digging through these issues, I'm finding that while some terminology might be different there is a greater degree of commonality on some of these issues once one abandon's certain theological terms (such as resisting grace).

For what it is worth, our opinion of the FV proponents is the same.

Also - I didn't mean to mis-attribute that quote - I must have clicked the wrong button somehow.

Thanks again

Pressed for time right now Chad and was sick this AM. I apologize if I was brutally direct but the posting was a bit "bait and switch" for me. I thought I was interacting with someone who was relatively ignorant of some Reformed positions with some questions and then you pulled out a litany of quotes that would have taken days to research and sift throught and my suspicions arose. I probably could have expressed my concerns in a less frank manner but I went into Admin mode. The sign on the door of this place clearly states what we believe and I was making sure you had read the sign.

More later...

Blessings!

Rich

Dr. Clark,

I couldn't figure out what you were talking about here. What quote?

I fixed the messed up quote box... no good deed goes unpunished

mea culpa, mea culpa, please don' trow me in der brai' patch (whoops, wrong rabbit)

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Oh, I get it now. I hadn't even looked at who the quote was attributed to.

Hey Rich...would love to get your final thoughts on my question in post 43 above.

Thanks for reminding me of this, I almost forgot about it.

I don't know Joel. I don't like to go around guessing how people are really apprehending things. I think the favorite past time of many Evangelicals these days is to note that there are probably saved Mormons or saved Roman Catholics or saved "X" out there no matter what the Church teaches. I kind of understand the reason because there might be a tendency (that has been manifested on this board) to have an overweening pride in our comprehension of the truth and consign everyone else to outer darkness.

How one views a lot of things says a great deal about how they view the faith that rests in Christ alone. One of the podcasts that I really look forward too every Sunday is the White Horse Inn because those guys really drive home the nature of the Gospel. If you don't subscribe to it then please do so. Go back and listen to the whole year. You'll be greatly edified by it.

In fact, whenever I teach about Saving Faith I always contrast it with the Roman Catholic view that sees justification as a measure of one's sanctification. You don't even have to listen back very far (just a few weeks back) when Mike interviews Robert Sungenis (an RC) about Justification to get a good idea.

I should be a lot more patient on this stuff because I've been reforming for about 10 years now and it's just over the past couple of years that many different ideas have really come into focus for me.

People can say they are saved by Christ's righteousness but then their lives reflect that they really don't believe that. Maybe that's the kind of doubt that the father of the epileptic had but, I fear, for many of them it's really double-minded unbelief. The problem is that this kind of double-mindedness is institutionalized in the Roman Catholic system as a matter of faith and practice and it is extremely common in "Evangelical" circles.

In fact, as Mike Horton and others have pointed out, many Evangelicals are actually more Pelagian these days than Roman Catholics are.

I was in a Church over the holidays that saddened me. The "Gospel" was basically this: God wants to help us raise G-rated kids in an X-rated world, Sin is not realizing our potential so we need to have God around to help us get back on track. The idea that God is there to kind of add just a little bit extra octane boost to our already put-together lives is extremely common.

We don't need "additional Grace" to help us get to the level of acceptance, we either drink the living Water or we perish. We don't need extra cash to fill up our accounts, we're DESTITUTE BEGGARS with nothing in our hands crying out to the Master to pay our incalculable debt!

The Sacraments then either reinforce that idea or they reveal that we don't really believe the Gospel. If we're walking down the aisle during the Mass to have Christ sacrificed anew to infuse us with more Grace to overcome the grace we lost when we didn't do our part then we've just demonstrated that we don't believe the Gospel. If we're going to the Priest to have the second plank of justification held out because our mortal sins have just killed the saving grace within then we don't believe the Gospel. If we think that there are some sins that only wound the grace within us and others that kill it then we don't believe the Gospel. Finally, if we are walking an aisle on Sunday to re-dedicate our lives to Christ because "...this time I'm really serious about being sold out to Christ..." then, with tears in my eyes, I have to say that such people have not yet believed the Gospel!

This faith thing isn't hard but, in the flesh, it's the hardest thing in the world to really believe. It's why we need a clear Gospel message constantly and we need Sacraments that reinforce the same object. Otherwise, we just goon it all up.

Ken -- See this this thread:

Works of Thomas Boston Online

__________________
Andrew