ubermadchen
Puritanboard <strong>Outlaw</strong>
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. 
Are Roman Catholics Christians?
- Thread starter VilnaGaon
- Start date
- Status
puritan lad
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
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.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 judgment 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.
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.
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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...
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...
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 judgment 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.
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.
puritan lad
Puritan Board Freshman
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".
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 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
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.
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
ubermadchen
Puritanboard <strong>Outlaw</strong>
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 judgment 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.
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.
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.
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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 judgment 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.
puritan lad
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
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.
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.
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.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
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?
For instance, could this content perhaps be present in 'seed form' and grow up in us?
kvanlaan
Puritan Board Doctor
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!"
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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:
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.
VilnaGaon
Puritan Board Sophomore
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:
John Owen said:
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 through Scripture.
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.
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.
To me that is saying that one can be trusting that salavation is 100% of God, and 100% of me.
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.
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.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
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.
Last edited:
VilnaGaon
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.Jacob, are you Clarkian?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
