Courtship/Marriage between Paedos and Credos

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mushroom

Puritan Board Doctor
I have many RB brothers and sisters that I dearly love, but I must confess that I tell my daughters to stay away from their sons. I'll not brook the thought of non-covenant children carrying my bloodline.
To me that's dangerous thinking. Ruth, Boaz, and Rahab tainted my Savior's blood, brother.
Ruth, Boaz, and Rahab were all believers, and would be welcome additions to any bloodline. I do not hold to any "genealogical" salvation, I only trust in the promises of my God.
 

raekwon

Puritan Board Junior
Interesting.

I wonder what I'd do if my daughter married a fellow paedobaptistic believer, but then they switched to credo down the line. :think:
 

staythecourse

Puritan Board Junior
Perhaps bloodline was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean genealogical lineage so much as those children that are a part of my family who by default are the objects of my affections. It would break my heart to know that my grandchildren were not being given the full extent of the benefits available to those born into the covenant. And they will be born into the covenant - I trust the promises of my God. That would apply to both biological and adopted children, and even a lot of covenant children I have been close to all their lives. There are kids I have known long enough to have been present at their baptisms, and thus to have covenanted with their parents to support their efforts in raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. If any of them were to be courted by a Reformed Baptist brother, I would think myself obligated to discourage it.

I don't presume to doubt the veracity of my RB brethren's faith, but I do obviously disagree with their view of the covenantal promises, or I wouldn't be a Presbyterian (duh!), and since that aspect of the faith is of utmost import in relation to children, I do want to protect mine from it.

1 Cor. 7 says I can refuse matrimony for my daughters, and gives no criteria for taking that decision. Some may disagree with that on the basis of what they think is "fair" or culturally acceptable, but they can take the proverbial flying leap in light of scripture. My position is that credo-baptism is not an acceptable theological construct for my children, or those of my daughters, to live under, and they will not. That discussion is closed.
Clears it up. Appreciate it.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Thank you all for your responses and input. I'm now engaged to the most wonderful woman in the world... who also happens to be a Reformed Baptist, but is intent upon submitting her judgment to mine, regarding our differences in baptism. :)
 

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
Sean, Congratulations! Is that your fiancee then in your avatar picture? She's very lovely.

Ruben doesn't mind if I remain a baptist in conviction or become a paedobaptist. Whatever we agree or disagree on --though it makes for good discussion, it doesn't change the fact that he leads. If 1 Cor sets forth a fact about children then that is not abrogated by whether or not they receive baptism at birth: it doesn't change election, etc. If a paedo girl can submit in conscience to a credobaptist (which submission is more important for her conscience than understanding and dictating all the theological terms of the marriage), then her own convictions are obviously not such as her father wants to force on her. In this case I'm not sure what the justification would be for making her marry another man, to whom she could not so readily and happily submit as the one she chose and honored and loved.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Sean,

Your fiancee is a beautiful young woman. You are very blessed.

It is also great to hear from you. Are you back safely now? I might have missed that news.
 

Neogillist

Puritan Board Freshman
As a credo, I have no problem courting or marrying a paedo....

The children will probably just have to be baptized twice :smug:
But to the paedo husband, and the Reformed Paedos everywhere, that would be considered as blasphemous and a denial of their children's baptism (i.e. the original).
It is true that it would be an abuse of the sacrament to perform a baptism twice (except if it had first be peformed by a cult like the Mormons or Oneness Pentecostal). On the other hand, we should not be so dogmatic on such secondary issues so as to avoid courting a credo or paedo. If we cannot learn to compromise a little on fine doctrinal points like that, we are going to seclude ourselves and become very isolated Christians. One could even perhaps have to remain single all his/her life. :duh:
 

Pilgrim72

Puritan Board Junior
If we cannot learn to compromise a little on fine doctrinal points like that, we are going to seclude ourselves and become very isolated Christians. One could even perhaps have to remain single all his/her life.
Ugh. It's hard enough just finding a Christian woman, let alone finding one that believes everything like you.

*sigh*

I'm learning to be content as a single man. :um:

Oh! And Congratulations Sean!!! :D
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Sean,

Your fiancee is a beautiful young woman. You are very blessed.

It is also great to hear from you. Are you back safely now? I might have missed that news.
Thank you, Rich (and everyone else!). And I'm quite aware that she's beautiful; thanks for mentioning it, though. ;)

I was just on mid-tour R&R (got to see 1600 of my brethren at the RP International Conference); I'm in Kuwait at the moment, on my way back to Iraq.
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
But as for my daughters.... love you guys, but if you're credo, stay far away. I have that right. -1 Cor. 7-
You have the right to deny your blessing, but not to deny your permission.

The denial of blessing can be made on issues of prudence, doctrine, or practicality (and a wise daughter would take such a denial with great weight).

While the denial of permission can only be made on specific Biblical criteria, namely the suitor's lack of faith or damnable doctrinal heresy. To deny a daughter permission to marry another believer is never excusable. That is the only qualification necessary to earn a father's permission, and if he recognizes the suitor's faith, giving permission is a moral duty.
I think that denial of permission can also fall on the grounds of ability to support a family. If my son has not proven he can support a family, then I would not give him permission to marry. If my daughter is going to marry a man who may be a believer, but he has not demonstrated that he can support her, then I would deny her permission to marry.

Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).

Therefore, I would allow my son to marry a CB woman, but I would not allow my daughter to marry a CB man. The matter in these cases is that of authority - the husband has authority over the wife. In the case of my son he can exercise his God-given right to baptize his children. In the case of my daughter it would be more difficult to contradict her husband on this matter - especially if they attend a Baptist church.

My :2cents:

-CH
 

smhbbag

Puritan Board Senior
I think that denial of permission can also fall on the grounds of ability to support a family. If my son has not proven he can support a family, then I would not give him permission to marry. If my daughter is going to marry a man who may be a believer, but he has not demonstrated that he can support her, then I would deny her permission to marry.
We must be very careful with this line of thinking, although there is some OT precedent for it with the bride price. In the West, especially, there is often a pseudo means-test that is entirely unbiblical. You are quite right that a husband must prove he is able to provide appropriately for his family. But, especially in America, that only takes one thing: a man who is willing to work hard doing anything necessary to provide.

What must he provide? I don't think we can go any further than requiring a roof, adequate food, clothing, and most importantly, the ability to feed his family the word of God.

To go to an extreme - let's say a good Christian man had a very poor education and little skills. He is a full-time short-order cook at Waffle House or something akin to that. Would you deny him permission to marry your daughter? Let's say he makes $15k per year. He lives in a cramped apartment, and has no prospects for moving up to a bigger place, or getting a better paying job.

If he comes to you with a budget showing that he could adequately feed and clothe your daughter and, say, 5 kids...still living on top of one another in the two-room apartment. I would say you cannot Biblically disqualify the man. You may wish more for you daughter, but if she and the kids will eat, have a roof, and be led by a good man, then there are no grounds for disapproval. That is, assuming she is willing to live that life to be with that man.

So, yes, there must be a sort of means-test, but really it is a character-test. If the man is willing to work hard, and shows he is dedicated to satisfying the earthly needs of a household, that is enough. It does not matter how low-quality the father believes the food, shelter, and clothes are.

For a father to deny a man permission based on ability to provide, that lack of ability must come from a lack of willingness to work hard. In this case, it is really a rejection based on character, not means. Poverty is no reason to reject a suitor. Laziness is.

Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).
That is why I used the adjective "damnable" to specify the only type of heresy on which you can deny a suitor.

Therefore, I would allow my son to marry a CB woman, but I would not allow my daughter to marry a CB man. The matter in these cases is that of authority - the husband has authority over the wife. In the case of my son he can exercise his God-given right to baptize his children. In the case of my daughter it would be more difficult to contradict her husband on this matter - especially if they attend a Baptist church.
It would not just be more difficult for her to contradict her husband; it would be sin for her to do so. She would be bound to attend the church he chooses, and baptize as he sees fit.

On this, the burden of proof is certainly on you. I do not see any justifiable, scriptural reason to deny a virtuous Christian man permission to marry a daughter. To do so would be to go well beyond what scripture requires - and a father is not free to exert that kind of authority. His permission is dictated by the suitor's profession of Christ, and his life's consistency with that.

As a Baptist, I believe the error of Paedobaptists is every bit as egregious as you believe mine is, and yet because of these principles I would still be able to honestly rejoice if, one day, a daughter of mine married a Reformed paedobaptist. Baptism is a sacrament, and paedobaptists grossly misuse and misunderstand, but that is not given as a scriptural limitation on marriage.

A daughter is free to say "I don't know if I could submit to him in good conscience and with joy." In that case, a daughter is much more free to find reasons why she doesn't want to marry a man than the father is to deny her the opportunity. The father's ability to veto is much more limited.

A woman is free to reject a proposal because she finds the man hideously ugly, or because she does not want to move to where he lives, or because his personality makes conversation like pulling teeth. And a woman is free to reject a man because she does not believe she could submit respectfully to his leadership in all things, because she questions his judgment in general things, or in theological matters. But, if he is in Christ and in good standing, that is her decision, and not one the father is free to deny her.

A wise father in such situations would counsel his daughter, warn her, and sober her judgment before she decides. But, if the suitor is a believer and has character consistent with his confession, then the father's veto power is entirely gone.
 
Last edited:

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
I think that denial of permission can also fall on the grounds of ability to support a family. If my son has not proven he can support a family, then I would not give him permission to marry. If my daughter is going to marry a man who may be a believer, but he has not demonstrated that he can support her, then I would deny her permission to marry.
We must be very careful with this line of thinking, although there is some OT precedent for it with the bride price. In the West, especially, there is often a pseudo means-test that is entirely unbiblical. You are quite right that a husband must prove he is able to provide appropriately for his family. But, especially in America, that only takes one thing: a man who is willing to work hard doing anything necessary to provide.

What must he provide? I don't think we can go any further than requiring a roof, adequate food, clothing, and most importantly, the ability to feed his family the word of God.

To go to an extreme - let's say a good Christian man had a very poor education and little skills. He is a full-time short-order cook at Waffle House or something akin to that. Would you deny him permission to marry your daughter? Let's say he makes $15k per year. He lives in a cramped apartment, and has no prospects for moving up to a bigger place, or getting a better paying job.

If he comes to you with a budget showing that he could adequately feed and clothe your daughter and, say, 5 kids...still living on top of one another in the two-room apartment. I would say you cannot Biblically disqualify the man. You may wish more for you daughter, but if she and the kids will eat, have a roof, and be led by a good man, then there are no grounds for disapproval. That is, assuming she is willing to live that life to be with that man.

So, yes, there must be a sort of means-test, but really it is a character-test. If the man is willing to work hard, and shows he is dedicated to satisfying the earthly needs of a household, that is enough. It does not matter how low-quality the father believes the food, shelter, and clothes are.

For a father to deny a man permission based on ability to provide, that lack of ability must come from a lack of willingness to work hard. In this case, it is really a rejection based on character, not means. Poverty is no reason to reject a suitor. Laziness is.

Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).
That is why I used the adjective "damnable" to specify the only type of heresy on which you can deny a suitor.

Therefore, I would allow my son to marry a CB woman, but I would not allow my daughter to marry a CB man. The matter in these cases is that of authority - the husband has authority over the wife. In the case of my son he can exercise his God-given right to baptize his children. In the case of my daughter it would be more difficult to contradict her husband on this matter - especially if they attend a Baptist church.
It would not just be more difficult for her to contradict her husband; it would be sin for her to do so. She would be bound to attend the church he chooses, and baptize as he sees fit.

On this, the burden of proof is certainly on you. I do not see any justifiable, scriptural reason to deny a virtuous Christian man permission to marry a daughter. To do so would be to go well beyond what scripture requires - and a father is not free to exert that kind of authority. His permission is dictated by the suitor's profession of Christ, and his life's consistency with that.

As a Baptist, I believe the error of Paedobaptists is every bit as egregious as you believe mine is, and yet because of these principles I would still be able to honestly rejoice if, one day, a daughter of mine married a Reformed paedobaptist. Baptism is a sacrament, and paedobaptists grossly misuse and misunderstand, but that is not given as a scriptural limitation on marriage.

A daughter is free to say "I don't know if I could submit to him in good conscience and with joy." In that case, a daughter is much more free to find reasons why she doesn't want to marry a man than the father is to deny her the opportunity. The father's ability to veto is much more limited.

A woman is free to reject a proposal because she finds the man hideously ugly, or because she does not want to move to where he lives, or because his personality makes conversation like pulling teeth. And a woman is free to reject a man because she does not believe she could submit respectfully to his leadership in all things, because she questions his judgment in general things, or in theological matters. But, if he is in Christ and in good standing, that is her decision, and not one the father is free to deny her.

A wise father in such situations would counsel his daughter, warn her, and sober her judgment before she decides. But, if the suitor is a believer and has character consistent with his confession, then the father's veto power is entirely gone.
Hi:

For the most part I agree with your post. Just a few points. You wrote:

It would not just be more difficult for her to contradict her husband; it would be sin for her to do so. She would be bound to attend the church he chooses, and baptize as he sees fit.
I do not believe that a wife should be slavishly obedient to her husband. If her husband, for example, requires her to do something that is contrary to the Word of God, then she is fully authorized to disobey such a requirement.

If he requires her not to baptize her children, then he is definately doing something that is contrary to the Word of God. The grey area here would be that she knew he was a CB before she married him, and, if they did not talk about this, and come to some agreement on it, then it would be more difficult for her to disobey.

Certainly, I believe that in a CB household where the husband is a CB that CB policies should rule - unless there was some arraingement made prior to the marriage. This is why I would not allow a daughter of mine to marry a CB. I also do not believe that the Sacrament should be "negotiated" - if a CB'er desires to marry a daughter of mine, then he will have to prove to me that he has embraced Paedo-baptism.

Next, you write:

As a Baptist, I believe the error of Paedobaptists is every bit as egregious as you believe mine is, and yet because of these principles I would still be able to honestly rejoice if, one day, a daughter of mine married a Reformed paedobaptist. Baptism is a sacrament, and paedobaptists grossly misuse and misunderstand, but that is not given as a scriptural limitation on marriage.
I was glad to read the parts I put in bold above. It shows that there is iron in your beliefs, that you are willing to die for them if necessary. Here, I say, is a CB who is worthy to dialogue with on the matter of Baptism. However, such a resolve is weakened by the sentence in italics above. If Credo-Baptism is the Truth of God's Word, then how can you rejoice to see your grandchildren baptized as infants? Your words indicate that you do not hold your Credo-Baptism with the full assurance of your other statements. Consequently, it appears that you are willing to admit that CB is not an expression of the Word of God, and could be wrong.

I personally believe that heresy is a "scriptural limitation" on marriage. That Credo-Baptism is a heresy as I pointed out in my previous post. Consequently, I have no problem denying a daughter of mine marriage to a Credo-Baptist.

I do not wish to get off the subject of this thread. If you wish to discuss CB vs PB, then I will be happy to dialogue with you. I believe that you especially are worthy enough to discuss this matter with in a truly civil fashion. If you are willing, then start a new thread detailing how Paedo-Baptists, "misuse and misunderstand" the Sacrament.

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
Folks, I really think these things can be worked out in marriage.

It's difficult enough to find a Christian with similar maturity let alone one who has thoroughly worked out his baptism doctrine (and considered the biblical case for the alternatives).

While I'm not discounting the doctrinal significance of this, there is so much more to marriage than this- I wouldn't make it definitive.
 

Ex Nihilo

Puritan Board Senior
Folks, I really think these things can be worked out in marriage.

It's difficult enough to find a Christian with similar maturity let alone one who has thoroughly worked out his baptism doctrine (and considered the biblical case for the alternatives).

While I'm not discounting the doctrinal significance of this, there is so much more to marriage than this- I wouldn't make it definitive.
So true! It is just so hard to find decent men, much less committed Christian men. I would certainly be thankful to find an intelligent, Reformed paedo, but I haven't categorically ruled out credos. I would have to consider it case by case -- though I suspect that in the vast majority of cases, I would decide against it. My dad is Baptist, so there would be no opposition there -- he would not object to anyone who was a Christian.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).
Rob, a church can be in error regarding the sacraments and still be regarded as a true church. As I recall, Turretin defended the proposition that the Lutheran churches were true churches (although they teach consubstantiation and baptismal regeneration). On such a supposition, wouldn't those baptized in Baptist churches have to be rebaptized upon joining a Reformed or Presbyterian church? How can an organization which is not a true church administer true sacraments? Our church's Synod of 1883, responding to a memorial from Nova Scotia (probably from William Sommerville) that those baptized by immersion be rebaptized upon entering our church, gave the following as the fourth point in its negative reply:
RPCNA Synod of 1883 said:
Because we cannot refuse to accept the validity of this ordinance, as administered by Baptists without unchurching the connection, or in other words refusing to acknowledge them as a part of the true church of Christ. This we do in relation to Rome by refusing to accept her baptism and ordination, but we think it would be utterly unjustifiable to place Baptist Churches in the same category.
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).
Rob, a church can be in error regarding the sacraments and still be regarded as a true church. As I recall, Turretin defended the proposition that the Lutheran churches were true churches (although they teach consubstantiation and baptismal regeneration). On such a supposition, wouldn't those baptized in Baptist churches have to be rebaptized upon joining a Reformed or Presbyterian church? How can an organization which is not a true church administer true sacraments? Our church's Synod of 1883, responding to a memorial from Nova Scotia (probably from William Sommerville) that those baptized by immersion be rebaptized upon entering our church, gave the following as the fourth point in its negative reply:
RPCNA Synod of 1883 said:
Because we cannot refuse to accept the validity of this ordinance, as administered by Baptists without unchurching the connection, or in other words refusing to acknowledge them as a part of the true church of Christ. This we do in relation to Rome by refusing to accept her baptism and ordination, but we think it would be utterly unjustifiable to place Baptist Churches in the same category.
Hi Sean:

Congratulations, again, on your engagement. :banana:

You have introduced an irrelevant thesis in this discussion. No self-respecting Paedobaptist would argue that a person who has not been baptized as an infant - if he/she/ professes faith as an adult - should not now be baptized.

Such a baptism is not only valid but Scriptural.

Also, the Esse and Bene Esse of a Church should also be debated on another thread. But, since you are the OP on this thread, if you like to discuss it here, then I will accommodate you.

The question that I infer from your OP is that whether or not a Paedo-baptist should marry a Credo-baptist?

I believe that the question should be discussed before marriage, because once you have children unnecessary tension and argumentation will arise. Clip this problem before it arises, and you will have more time to enjoy and prepare for your new born infant.

So, the point of contact on this thread is the matter of infant baptism. It is here where the Credo-Baptist turns heretical - not in the baptism of adults who come to faith in Jesus Christ and have never been baptized. The CB not only denies infant baptism, but is so convinced of his/her views that they divide and dissemble themselves from the Church on account of it.

If the PB/CB distinctions are a matter of adiaphora, then why the different denominations and churches?

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
CalvinandHodges said:
Hi Sean:

Congratulations, again, on your engagement. :banana:

You have introduced an irrelevant thesis in this discussion. No self-respecting Paedobaptist would argue that a person who has not been baptized as an infant - if he/she/ professes faith as an adult - should not now be baptized.

Such a baptism is not only valid but Scriptural.

Also, the Esse and Bene Esse of a Church should also be debated on another thread. But, since you are the OP on this thread, if you like to discuss it here, then I will accommodate you.

The question that I infer from your OP is that whether or not a Paedo-baptist should marry a Credo-baptist?

I believe that the question should be discussed before marriage, because once you have children unnecessary tension and argumentation will arise. Clip this problem before it arises, and you will have more time to enjoy and prepare for your new born infant.

So, the point of contact on this thread is the matter of infant baptism. It is here where the Credo-Baptist turns heretical - not in the baptism of adults who come to faith in Jesus Christ and have never been baptized. The CB not only denies infant baptism, but is so convinced of his/her views that they divide and dissemble themselves from the Church on account of it.

If the PB/CB distinctions are a matter of adiaphora, then why the different denominations and churches?

Grace and Peace,

-CH
Rob,

I did not introduce the point you say I introduced. You said:
CalvinandHodges said:
Baptism is a sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ, and is not something that can be negotiated. Consequently, I hold that Credo-Baptists teach an error on this matter, and, as they have separated themselves from the Church, they fulfill the literal definition of the word "heresy." However, a person can hold to a heresy and still be a Christian (for it is by Grace that one is saved).
You now say, in a similar fashion:
CalvinandHodges said:
The CB not only denies infant baptism, but is so convinced of his/her views that they divide and dissemble themselves from the Church on account of it.
I inferred from your former statement, and seem to be confirmed by your latter statement, that you do not regard Baptist churches as being "true churches," because not bearing the marks of a true church. I gave the quote from the 1883 Synod, not to speak of the baptizing of converts who have never previously been baptized, but to demonstrate that Synod's maintaining (which has never, to my knowledge, been retracted by a subsequent Synod) that Baptist churches are true churches.

You know that I don't regard such differences as light or inconsequential -- our own discussions on this subject in 2003 spring to mind. But I cannot view such differences as casting the Baptist churches out of the kingdom of Christ (especially if we in the Reformed churches will call the Lutheran churches true churches, with all their sacramental errors). If that were the case, I should be rebaptized. If this is (as you possibly indicated) a matter of the bene esse of the church, rather than of the esse, you didn't seem to be saying that in the previously quoted places. But, if that is the case, I will defer and say, "whoops, my bad." ;)
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Hi Sean:

Discussing the status of a Baptist church seems irrelevant to me on this issue because, as you are well aware, the Reformers considered the Roman Catholic Church a true Church, in regards to Esse, even though Rome holds to all kinds of heresies (Justification by Faith and Works, Transubstantiation, etc.)

So, a church can hold to a heresy, and still be considered a true church. Thank God for this, because none of us are perfect, and that we are saved by Grace Alone rather than our understanding of Biblical doctrine.

Consequently, Baptist churches are true churches insofar as esse is concerned. If we consider bene esse then they are not, and, I believe, that Calvin, the Westminster Assemby, and our own Synod will agree with me on that.

Again, the CB teaching that "Baptism is for Believers Only" is a partial truth, and, when they baptize professing Adults who have not been baptized as infants, they perform a true and Scriptural Baptism. Their error is that they neglect the baptizing of their children. Because they divide on this issue they are heretical on the matter.

Sorry for the mixup. I did not mention esse or bene esse prior because it did not occur to me that I was saying the Baptist churches were outside of the Kingdom of God.

Grace and Peace, brother,

Rob
 

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
as you are well aware, the Reformers considered the Roman Catholic Church a true Church, in regards to Esse, even though Rome holds to all kinds of heresies (Justification by Faith and Works, Transubstantiation, etc.)
I think I understand what you are saying here and realize you are in the midst of an exchange of ideas here on a very specific point.

For clarification for the benefit of those reading this post, we would say the Reformers did not, overall, believe the Roman church to be a "true church." This is because of the practice and official doctrinal falling away from the authority of the Scripture (sola Scriptura), the Gospel (justification by faith alone), and other doctrines (you allude to in your post). When the Gospel and authority of Scripture is lost, we do not have a "true church."

Some doctrines, the Roman church has gotten biblically right such as what you are speaking of here. Reformed theology shares those attributes in common with the church universal (e.g. Doctrine of the Trinity) but that does not make the Roman church a "true church."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top