I have been doing a little research lately with the aim of figuring out my (all about me) status in the world of Roman Catholicism. The more I read, the more it seems that the rationale for a Protestant converting to Rome is that he gets something akin to what my mother wanted me to have when she commended eating my vegetables or dressing appropriately for cold weather. It is not a life and death matter whether or not I am in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome. I am a separated brother and my baptism in the name of the Trinity should get me through — to what I am not sure since I know I have committed mortal sins and have not received forgiveness through the proper channels. But since Vatican II expanded (I mean developed) the earlier teaching on no salvation outside the church, my status seems to be one where salvation is possible even if I have not communed with Christ through the ministry of the one, holy, apostolic church. In other words, the reason for converting seems to be a matter of wisdom, or desiring a fuller expression of Christianity. Rome offers richer fare than Protestants’ fast food piety. But whether my soul is in danger is not altogether clear.
I refer to a discussion that took place a year or so ago over at my favorite arch-Roman Catholic site, Called to Communion. Tom Brown interacted with a piece by David VanDrunen about alleged changes in Rome’s views on salvation. The sticking point for logocentric Protestants seems to be the disparity between the Council of Florence and the Second Vatican Council. According to the former (1442):
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
But according to the delegates to Rome during the 1960s:
For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.
VanDrunen calls this a “watershed” but Brown regards it as a development:
We see from Trent and St. Augustine a clear belief that the washing of regeneration is necessary for salvation, and a belief that extraordinary non-sacramental means of obtaining the fruits of Baptism are possible. To the teachings of Trent and St. Augustine, many more examples could be added. These teachings mean that very early on, Catholic doctrine qualified extra Ecclesiam in a way that left open the possibility of salvation for those not materially united to the Church. This proves false VanDrunen’s claim that the Catholic Church has recently “changed” its “older” teaching that “people could enjoy eternal life and escape everlasting damnation only by being received into its membership.”
In fact, over the centuries the Church carefully has developed a nuanced doctrine of salvation for those not materially united to her. This process has been so cautious because of the weighty concern of calling all sinners to the ordinary means of grace through formal union with the Church, on the one hand, and the similarly weighty concern of avoiding the appearance of delimiting God’s ability to extend grace and salvation through extraordinary means, on the other. It is this process which has led the Church to its reflection on salvation for those who are invincibly ignorant, the subject of VanDrunen’s article. As the Catholic Catechism teaches, “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Worthy of comment here is what this seems to mean for the doctrine of original sin. It appears that Brown’s view weakens the devastating effects and consequences of sin. He seems to think that Rome teaches that anyone can be saved, even without a baptism that would remove the guilt of sin (according to Rome). So I’m not sure how this really helps the case he is making. Whenever Rome started to teach that it was possible for salvation outside the church, and even if Vatican II is a development of earlier teachings, a view which makes salvation possible apart from Christ is one in need of serious reform. In other words, how seriously does Brown think Rome takes sin?
Either way, it is a curious defense for another reason. Conservative Protestants objected to Protestant liberalism for denying that belief in Christ was essential for salvation. Back when Re-Thinking Missions came out, and when missions boards of the various Protestant churches countenanced the idea that Christians could cooperate with non-Christian religions in the enterprise of religion, conservatives were rightly opposed and believed the proverbial straw had broken the mainline churches’ witness. Rome’s own flirtation with an expansive view of salvation seems to move in a direction comparable to the old liberal Protestant project. The irony is that some Protestants are attracted to Rome because of its conservatism as opposed to the wishy-washiness and diversity of Protestantism. That quest for a Roman Catholic conservatism would be a lot more plausible if it included the old view articulated by the Council of Florence.
Postscript: in one of the comments in this thread, even a younger Jason Stellman was not buying development over change:
From where I sit as a non-Catholic, what this looks like is an example of a true change being euphemized as a development. When the early position is “No one can gain eternal life unless he is joined to the Catholic Church,” and the later position is, “Some people can gain eternal life even if not joined to the Catholic Church,” well, that sounds like a change rather than a development.
To me, anyway….
Old Life 
Well, you invincibly ignoramus cradle protestants may have no worry, but us apostates have no such out. Outside of the CTC group, RC’s don’t bother to try to reconcile 860 page catechisms and sometimes 12 years of supposed training in the ways of Rome(that doesn’t include the canon law PHD’s) so that they know it all much less try to reconcile thomistic metaphysics with scripture or tradition. We just go to Mass and let the Church believe the doctrine for us, while we participate in the sacraments. The underlying ethic, outside of sacramentalism, was always do your best and God knows your trying and it’ll work out. This is why I want to know where these anglo-catholics end up 10 years down the road, and I don’t mean the CTC types or Jason seeking to earn their living in the RC theology field. I mean those prots turned RC who work outside academia or the publishing world and actually have to devote their prime hours and days of life to a vocation not directly tied to putting all the theological pieces together. They end up as sacramentalist pelagians. ‘I believe what the church believes.’
LikeLike
“The irony is that some Protestants are attracted to Rome because of its conservatism as opposed to the wishy-washiness and diversity of Protestantism.”
Most are attracted to Rome because they want a man in a black-and-white shirt with a whistle defining for them what the truth is (instead of the alleged 30,000 Protestant denominations). As long as they can point to the one referee they can always explain away these contradictions that you rightly point out. To not be able to do so would mean that the referee is not the referee, and then where would they be?
LikeLike
Here’s another rather amazing claim by the prot-catholics; they haven’t so much turned in their protestant beliefs as much as they’ve ‘completed’ them. IOW, they now have a better and more true covenant theology. Or as they would say; ‘you get to bring with you and keep all the better parts of your covenant theology’ while finishing off all the rough ‘forced’ edges. In the meantime cradle catholics are waiting for them ‘to get over themselves’ and que up in line, cuz they’ve been their longer and put in more time.’
LikeLike
Sean: We just go to Mass and let the Church believe the doctrine for us, while we participate in the sacraments.
RS: First, I know that you were not speaking for yourself in the statement above. Second, to people like me (pietists, semi-revivalists), that sounds just like what many assert as true confessionalism. You are told what to believe in the confession and go to church and take the sacraments. I am not asserting that you (Sean) believe that, but just making a point. By the way, in another discussion regarding communion, some have said that as long as a person belonged to a church and took communion at that church then the person should be allowed admittance to the Table. Again, that sounds a lot like your statement above.
LikeLike
Richard,
That assumes too much for me. First off as RC’s we by and large didn’t read the scriptures. Mass isn’t structured around the preaching of the Gospel much less the scriptures. Rome, despite how the prots turned catholic want to portray it, is NOT a word-based religious expression. I don’t think you can compare the ‘religious culture and practice’ of confessional protestantism with Rome’s sacramental ritualism. Confessional protestantism just doesn’t have enough ‘other’ things that qualify as religious expresssion(only 2 sacraments and only one that is ongoing) that one can just ignore doctrinal and confessional truth propositions and pull off the religious piety one can pull off in Rome.
LikeLike
So… has Stellman “changed,” or merely “developed” from what he said then to what he says now?
… sadly amused.
LikeLike
Jack,
I don’t even think it’s a question, he sees himself as ‘developed’. He argues that RC is covenant theology come to full expression.
Richard,
I’ll grant that anyone can fake the motions, but the wheat and tares growing up alongside each other has already been acknowledged by our savior, and only He is in the business of making distinction.
LikeLike
sean, amen. Your comment highlights my point. 😉 which is that for Jason it’s a sliding scale or a selective application of argument.
LikeLike
Sean: Richard,I’ll grant that anyone can fake the motions, but the wheat and tares growing up alongside each other has already been acknowledged by our savior, and only He is in the business of making distinction.
RS: The wheat and tares is speaking of the world and not the Church. As Heb 13:17 points out, the leaders of the church will give account for the souls of the people in the church. If they go on letting them drink to themselves damnation or simply enough to kill them, that does not appear to be watching out for them too well.
Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.
LikeLike
Richard: “Second, to people like me (pietists, semi-revivalists), that sounds just like what many assert as true confessionalism. You are told what to believe in the confession and go to church and take the sacraments.”
Erik: I think a good Reformed minister will spend quite a bit of time with a potential member actually going through the Confessions and the Bible teaching the potential member and making sure they agree with the Confessions. I know my minister does. We require members to be in substantial agreement with the Confessions to join, however (although they don’t technically have to subscribe). I think it’s a higher standard than Presbyyterins have for membership. We have a Baptist who married in who hasn’t been convinced on Baptism so I think he & his wife will be joining a PCA church where you can apparently be a Baptist. No applause, McMark & Richard…
LikeLike
Richard – How is Jesus “speaking of the world” when he says he is talking about the “Kingdom of Heaven”? If he was talking about the world I think the disciples would have replied, “Duh, Jesus. No kidding.”
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
—Matthew 13:24-30
LikeLike
If the unbelievers who have passed through your churches were not “tares”, what were they?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – How is Jesus “speaking of the world” when he says he is talking about the “Kingdom of Heaven”? If he was talking about the world I think the disciples would have replied, “Duh, Jesus. No kidding.”
RS: Well, keep reading and get the whole context. When the disciples came to Him and specifically asked Him to explain the parable of the tares of the field, He said (v. 38) that the field is the world. The good seed stood for the sons of the kingdom and the tares were the sons of the evil one. We have some good New Covenant teaching here. All the sons of the kingdom are in the Church and all the sons of evil are the world in this parable. But, since it is a parable, we shouldn’t make each little point apply in a theological manner. Sure is tempting though.
36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,
38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.
40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.
41 “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard: “Second, to people like me (pietists, semi-revivalists), that sounds just like what many assert as true confessionalism. You are told what to believe in the confession and go to church and take the sacraments.”
Erik: I think a good Reformed minister will spend quite a bit of time with a potential member actually going through the Confessions and the Bible teaching the potential member and making sure they agree with the Confessions. I know my minister does. We require members to be in substantial agreement with the Confessions to join, however (although they don’t technically have to subscribe).
RS: So as long as they are in intellectual agreement with the historical facts of the Confessions they can join. The devil believes in the historical facts. By the way, I am not trying to be nasty but just making a point.
Erik Charter: I think it’s a higher standard than Presbyyterins have for membership. We have a Baptist who married in who hasn’t been convinced on Baptism so I think he & his wife will be joining a PCA church where you can apparently be a Baptist. No applause, McMark & Richard…
RS: Sounds like a good man at least in one sense. But PCA? Is he charismatic as well?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: If the unbelievers who have passed through your churches were not “tares”, what were they?
RS: They were of the world and not part of the covenant.
LikeLike
Richard,
That’s just poor. You’re better than that, and it’s irrelevant in the end, because He restrains His servants from making distinction and exercising ultimate judgement for sake of His own. God acknowledges the limitation of mere men to make distinction and prefers the toleration of the false for the sake of preventing even the loss of ONE true sheep, or wheat in this case, which perfectly reflects God’s particular love in even leaving the flock in the open field to pursue the one lost sheep. Your pursuit of a more ‘pure’ or ‘true’ confession, despite it’s intention, is not only contrary to Jesus’ direction, but actually interposes man’s judgement and ‘divination’ in place of God’s, which we are forbidden to do and assumes a more trustworthy judgement in men than God would grant.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, That’s just poor. You’re better than that, and it’s irrelevant in the end, because He restrains His servants from making distinction and exercising ultimate judgement for sake of His own. God acknowledges the limitation of mere men to make distinction and prefers the toleration of the false for the sake of preventing even the loss of ONE true sheep, or wheat in this case, which perfectly reflects God’s particular love in even leaving the flock in the open field to pursue the one lost sheep. Your pursuit of a more ‘pure’ or ‘true’ confession, despite it’s intention, is not only contrary to Jesus’ direction, but actually interposes man’s judgement and ‘divination’ in place of God’s, which we are forbidden to do and assumes a more trustworthy judgement in men than God would grant.
RS: Maybe I am poor, but it sure seems to be from Scripture. Remember that a person must confess with the mouth and believe in the heart to be a converted person. The whole book of I John was written for people to know if they had eternal life or not. If what you say is true, that is, a person just needs to make a confession and then have a Confession, then the book of I John appears to have been written for naught. Jesus knew the hearts of others perfectly and did not need the evidence that we should have. However, Jesus did tell people ways they could know too. He also warned us about simply taking a profession.
John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
LikeLike
“What is it to do the works of the father?” (they asked Jesus)
“This is what it is..believe in the one whom the Father has sent.”
LikeLike
Steve Martin: “What is it to do the works of the father?” (they asked Jesus)
“This is what it is..believe in the one whom the Father has sent.”
RS:
Luke 6:46 “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
LikeLike
Richard, we’ve danced this jig before. It’s one thing for a person to examine one’s self, which is still susceptible to self-deception, and certainly God by His spirit has license to do the same and He does it perfectly. Yet our limitations are creaturely, and apart from open sin and rebellion, in which case someone should be brought under discipline, you exceed the bounds of your office to subject someone to a ‘criteria’ that has not resulted in or is not in the process of resulting in discipline. Imperfect confessions, even false ones, are to be tolerated in light of the alternative of abusive shepherding by inescapable creaturely limitations of the shepherds this side of Glory. The tares and the wheat come up together and we aren’t to pull up the tares for the SAKE OF the wheat.
LikeLike
This debate regarding Matthew 13 is reminiscent of Augustine and the Donatists, with Augustine maintaining, correctly as I read the passage, that the “world” includes the church and thus there is no place for the kind of rigorism that the Donatists were demanding, believing that some sins are irremittable in this life. A simple, credible profession of faith as evidenced in church membership marks one out as a member of the visible church. Membership in the invisible church is not for us to discern.
LikeLike
Richard – What has your experience as a minister been with your rigorous standards for membership vs. (1) Non-Reformed, Non-Edwardsian Baptist churches in your area (of which there are a ton), and (2) Non-Baptist, Non-Edwardsian Reformed churches in your area (of which there are some — mostly smaller churches). Do people join your churches, stay, and grow or do they burn out? I don’t have an agenda in asking the question as the answer won’t prove anything one way or another.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, we’ve danced this jig before.
RS: Yes, but you were out of step, stepped on my toes, and then stumbled at the worst possible times. Analogies.
Sean: It’s one thing for a person to examine one’s self, which is still susceptible to self-deception, and certainly God by His spirit has license to do the same and He does it perfectly. Yet our limitations are creaturely, and apart from open sin and rebellion, in which case someone should be brought under discipline, you exceed the bounds of your office to subject someone to a ‘criteria’ that has not resulted in or is not in the process of resulting in discipline.
RS: But elders will answer to God for the souls of the people and for the church they are under shepherds of. Since Scripture is quite clear that a profession is nothing more than a profession, surely elders should use the book of I John to help the people since it was written so that people could know whether they have eternal life or not.
Sean: Imperfect confessions, even false ones, are to be tolerated in light of the alternative of abusive shepherding by inescapable creaturely limitations of the shepherds this side of Glory. The tares and the wheat come up together and we aren’t to pull up the tares for the SAKE OF the wheat.
RS: But we should point out to the tares that they are tares for the sake of the glory of God and the good of the tares. Paul wrote on multiple occasions for people not to be deceived, so surely it is good to point these dangers out and help people in this.
LikeLike
David C. Noe: This debate regarding Matthew 13 is reminiscent of Augustine and the Donatists, with Augustine maintaining, correctly as I read the passage, that the “world” includes the church and thus there is no place for the kind of rigorism that the Donatists were demanding, believing that some sins are irremittable in this life.
RS: The text says that the field is the world. It then says that the good seed is the sons of the kingdom and that the tares are the sons of the evil one.
David Noe: A simple, credible profession of faith as evidenced in church membership marks one out as a member of the visible church. Membership in the invisible church is not for us to discern.
RS: So as long as a person says that s/he believes (which is what most think of as a simple profession of faith) one is allowed to be a member of a church. In fact, if your statement is a reflection of what you really believe, then you are saying that it is a credible profession of faith if one is a member of a visible church. I am not sure how one can hold that position in light of the fact that Paul gives several warnings about people not being deceived and Jesus constantly told people that words were not enough. Jesus did not tell Nicodemus that he needed to make a credible profession of faith evidenced by joining a church, but He told him that he must be born from above. There are evidences of the new birth which I would think that those who would answer to God for the souls of others would want to avail themselves of rather than just be satisifed with the words or church membership of others.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – What has your experience as a minister been with your rigorous standards for membership vs.
RS: I don’t view the standards of the Bible as necessarily rigorous, but simply is a person born from above.
Erik Charter: (1) Non-Reformed, Non-Edwardsian Baptist churches in your area (of which there are a ton),
RS: I am not sure you have me pegged, but that is not the real point. You know my name, but you stated that I was part of a particular Baptist organization and I am not. However, Non-Reformed (that is, those who are more than in name only) churches simply persuade a person to make a decision and then pronounce them Christians and members. But Scripture says that a person is not born from above based on the will of any human flesh, but instead by the will of God.
Erik Charter: and (2) Non-Baptist, Non-Edwardsian Reformed churches in your area (of which there are some — mostly smaller churches). Do people join your churches, stay, and grow or do they burn out? I don’t have an agenda in asking the question as the answer won’t prove anything one way or another.
RS: In terms of being a pastor, I am not one at the moment because of family issues (sovereign hand of God). Remember, believing what the Bible says does not mean that one can see those carried out in the local church apart from leadership that agrees with it. In terms of burn out, people who live by grace do not burn out. It is when people live in the flesh with perhaps a theological concept in the brain about grace that they burn out.
LikeLike
Richard – “I am not sure you have me pegged”
Erik – All I know is that you are a square peg in a world of round holes, but I am too so I don’t hold that against you, brother. Tell me what you are doing for a living sometime (privately if you wish).
LikeLike
Richard,
Setting aside from the fact that you have two left feet and no rhythym, you’re free to teach accurately and preach accurately from the scriptures according to confessional standards and grant counsel and direction according to word of God. Your not free to make your piety, which you seem to often pull from your own prayer closet and try to fasten to others consciences, the standard by which you may examine others and qualify them for participation at the table. It’s not dissimilar to the ‘worship leader’ feeeeeeeeling it on sunday morning and doing extended riffs on his 3 chord guitar while crying during the offertory song he wrote just last week, and then passing judgement on others lack of outward passion, while ignoring the fact that he just left the piano accompaniment in utter tatters and the rest of the congregation in various stages of confusion and embarrassment.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, Setting aside from the fact that you have two left feet and no rhythym, you’re free to teach accurately and preach accurately from the scriptures according to confessional standards and grant counsel and direction according to word of God. Your not free to make your piety, which you seem to often pull from your own prayer closet and try to fasten to others consciences, the standard by which you may examine others and qualify them for participation at the table.
RS: Interesting, and here I thought it was according to Scripture and right close to the WCF. When one points out Scripture, their consciences are to be bound by Scripture. My argument is that a person must be converted to be qualified for participlation at the table. Your position is that they simply have to make a profession of faith. I will take my position any day since Scripture after Scripture can be shown about the weakness of words and the deception of the hearts of people.
Sean: It’s not dissimilar to the ‘worship leader’ feeeeeeeeling it on sunday morning and doing extended riffs on his 3 chord guitar while crying during the offertory song he wrote just last week, and then passing judgement on others lack of outward passion, while ignoring the fact that he just left the piano accompaniment in utter tatters and the rest of the congregation in various stages of confusion and embarrassment.
RS: Well, it is actually a lot different. My position is that I John was written so that people could know that they have eternal life. By the way, that is what John said he wrote it for. My position is that of Jesus who said that men must be born from above. My position is that the grace that changes hearts is also the grace that changes lives so that men will no longer live for themselves but for the glory of God. It is my position that many will call Jesus Lord but are not believers. My position is that there is a narrow gate and a narrow way to life and there are few that will find it.
LikeLike
Richard,
Your position is that you can divine what scripture says only God can divine. The WCF denies, in the name of liberty, what you say an officer must investigate and then render judgement upon. Trying people against the movements of the spirit outlined in the conversion narratives of the first great awakening and then justifying it as application of 1 John is not a confessional standard, but a doctrinal hobby horse which you ride. As proof, of the self-aggrandizement you associate with your position is assuming an judgement that scripture ascribes ONLY to God Himself; ‘That many will cry Lord, Lord didn’t we…………… It’s enough to declare that such a scenario will take place. 1 John nor the gospel narratives give warrant or ability for the undershepherds to take upon themselves the responsibility or the ability to discern such a situation.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, Your position is that you can divine what scripture says only God can divine.
RS: Of course I would deny that and simply say “take up and read.”
Sean: The WCF denies, in the name of liberty, what you say an officer must investigate and then render judgement upon.
RS: You might want to read The Sum of Saving Knowledge to get at what the Assembly thought of saving faith. Then read The Form of Church Government, under the heading: Of Congregational Assemblies, that is, the Meeting of the Ruling Officers of a particular Congregation, for the Government thereof. I will quote from the latter below.
“The ruling elders of a particular congregation have power, authoritatively, to call before them any member of the congregation, as they shall see just occasion.
To enquire into the knowledge and spiritual estate of the several members of the congregation.
To admonish and rebuke.
Authoritative suspension from the Lord’s table, of a person not yet cast out of the church, is agreeable to Scripture:
First, Because the ordinance itself must not be profaned
…
The ruling officers of a particular congregation have power authoritatively to suspend from the Lord’s table a person not yet cast out of the church;
First, Because those who have authority to judge of, and admit, such as are fit to receive the sacrament, have authority to keep back such as shall be found unworthy.
Sean: Trying people against the movements of the spirit outlined in the conversion narratives of the first great awakening and then justifying it as application of 1 John is not a confessional standard, but a doctrinal hobby horse which you ride.
RS: The use of Scripture to help determine the conversion of people is not just a doctrinal hobby horse, but is what Scripture itself gives us. Instead of relying on Church membership and the Sacraments for assurance of salvation, as unbelievers can do those in hordes, the book of I John gives us signs of the work of the Holy Spirit in the soul.
Sean: As proof, of the self-aggrandizement you associate with your position is assuming an judgement that scripture ascribes ONLY to God Himself; ‘That many will cry Lord, Lord didn’t we…………… It’s enough to declare that such a scenario will take place.
RS: That was simply used as proof that many people will have a proper profession and perhaps decent theology (Christ is truly Lord) and yet perish. What is a proper profession in words but a profession that Christ is Lord?
Sean: 1 John nor the gospel narratives give warrant or ability for the undershepherds to take upon themselves the responsibility or the ability to discern such a situation.
RS: So undershepherds are not to try to discern the spiritual status of the people in the church? But again, read the parts from the Form of Church Government listed above. I think you will find that Westminster disagrees with you.
LikeLike
Richard,
This isn’t about anyone’s profession of faith, or legitimate fencing of the table, or even the application of discipline. This is about your desire to use the SELF-examination verses in 1 John or even 1 Peter to go meddling into the sincerity of OTHERS religious affections and judgement of the sincerity of their consecration. Outside of a profession otherwise or gross sin which triggers disciplinary action, you don’t get to insert yourself into the role of Holy Spirit or by proxy of Jesus Christ as the Lord over another’s conscience. I understand you want to defend such investigatory interest as love for a brother or CYA in anticipation of judgment as an elder, and then justify such after the fact through proof-texting. But, If I were under your eldership I wouldn’t submit to your unlicensed psycho-spiritual analysis.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, This isn’t about anyone’s profession of faith, or legitimate fencing of the table, or even the application of discipline. This is about your desire to use the SELF-examination verses in 1 John or even 1 Peter to go meddling into the sincerity of OTHERS religious affections and judgement of the sincerity of their consecration. Outside of a profession otherwise or gross sin which triggers disciplinary action, you don’t get to insert yourself into the role of Holy Spirit or by proxy of Jesus Christ as the Lord over another’s conscience.
RS: Then read The Form of Church Government, under the heading: Of Congregational Assemblies, that is, the Meeting of the Ruling Officers of a particular Congregation, for the Government thereof. I will quote from the latter below.
“The ruling elders of a particular congregation have power, authoritatively, to call before them any member of the congregation, as they shall see just occasion.
To enquire into the knowledge and spiritual estate of the several members of the congregation.
To admonish and rebuke.
Authoritative suspension from the Lord’s table, of a person not yet cast out of the church, is agreeable to Scripture:
First, Because the ordinance itself must not be profaned
…
The ruling officers of a particular congregation have power authoritatively to suspend from the Lord’s table a person not yet cast out of the church;
First, Because those who have authority to judge of, and admit, such as are fit to receive the sacrament, have authority to keep back such as shall be found unworthy.
RS: Sean, read carefully the parts above that I set out. Even if you disagree, at least my position is in line with Westminster.
Sean: I understand you want to defend such investigatory interest as love for a brother or CYA in anticipation of judgment as an elder, and then justify such after the fact through proof-texting. But, If I were under your eldership I wouldn’t submit to your unlicensed psycho-spiritual analysis.
RS: There is a huge difference between psycho-analysis (evolutionary dogma) and using the Bible to help people in their spiritual analysis. I would remind you that the letter of I John was written to a group of believers, most likely to a church or churches. It also uses plural pronouns throughout the book. It is written to a people who were called to come and share in the joy and fellowship of God with John and others. I would see it as highly unlikely that this book was written so that each person could just himself apart from others.
But even if you want to assert that this book is for the individual, there is no mention of being confident that you are a believer because of church membership and the Sacraments.
I John 3: 24 :The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.”
1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit
1 John 4:17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.
LikeLike
As an elder there is a difference between shepherding and prying/probing/being nosy/being manipulative, etc. One of the limitations of eldership is that people have to willingly come under you. Not too many are willing to come under an overbearing elder. Even Edwards was eventually given the boot by his congregation. The best approach is to be available and to respond to obvious public sin, but not to be overbearing and prying. The Holy Spirit can do his work without our actvism as ministers and elders. We’re Reformed men who believe in monergism. We’re not Arminians who say it depends on us.
LikeLike
Richard,
“……as they shall see just occasion” So, you have a ‘trigger’ i.e. gross sin, contrary profession etc. or again ‘found unworthy’- gross sin, contrary profession etc. Nobody is denying discipline. My push back against you is your confessed preference for conversion narratives and ferreting out religious affections to judge worthiness and claiming this is no more than application of 1 John. The VERY same canon, says, let the tares grow up with the wheat and DON’T pull up the tares lest you pull up the wheat as well. I would no more submit to you or anyone else for that ‘couch session’ than I would an empath or medium reading my thoughts or future through tarot cards or rolling the bones. Again, elders don’t get to play Holy Spirit or supplant Jesus Christ as Lord of my conscience.
I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
(1 John 2:21-23 ESV)
By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God;
(1 John 3:19-21 ESV)
Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
(1 John 3:24 ESV)
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
(1 John 4:1-3 ESV)
By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
(1 John 4:13-15 ESV)
Richard,
1 John has a lot to say about the value of our confession, and what it counts for and attests to. It has a lot to say about the internal testimony of the spirit. It doesn’t say spit about someone else coming in and doing the spirit’s internal work or about someone else either condemning or assuring my conscience but INSTEAD my own heart by the testimony of the Holy spirit grants me confidence before God. Your semi-revivalistic piety consistently outstrips and undoes biblical piety and testimony.
LikeLike
David Noe wrote: “A simple, credible profession of faith as evidenced in church membership marks one out as a member of the visible church. Membership in the invisible church is not for us to discern.’
GW: Good point. What seems to get lost in this debate is the term “credible” in “credible profession of faith.” A “credible” profession of faith is one that is believable, apparently sincere and genuine, one that is uncontradicted by doctrine or life. An unrepentant adulterer who makes an orthodox profession has not made a “credible” profession of faith because his lifestyle contradicts his profession. Likewise, a morally upright person who embraces heresy (for example, denies the Trinity or the atonement or embraces pelagianism) may make a profession of faith using orthodox terms, but such a profession of faith is not “credible” or believable due to the heresy embraced. In a responsible membership interview the elders of the church will ask some probing questions and will seek to discern (as far as humanly possible) whether the profession of faith is “credible” (uncontradicted by doctrine or life). But beyond that we cannot (must not!) go, lest we presume to play the role of the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, “……as they shall see just occasion” So, you have a ‘trigger’ i.e. gross sin, contrary profession etc. or again ‘found unworthy’- gross sin, contrary profession etc. Nobody is denying discipline. My push back against you is your confessed preference for conversion narratives and ferreting out religious affections to judge worthiness and claiming this is no more than application of 1 John.
RS: The book was written so that people could discern between having eternal life and not having eternal life. I would hope that men who were elders would have vastly more spiritual discernment and spiritual understanding than most. I guess I thought that according to 2K the Church dealt with spiritual issues. The most spiritual issue is the heart.
SEan: The VERY same canon, says, let the tares grow up with the wheat and DON’T pull up the tares lest you pull up the wheat as well. I would no more submit to you or anyone else for that ‘couch session’ than I would an empath or medium reading my thoughts or future through tarot cards or rolling the bones.
RS: Despite the fact that elders are to be workers together with you for your joy and will give account to God for your soul. Perhaps your real problem is that you don’t like submission. Another possibility is that you are not aware that the devil is looking to devour your soul and that Christianity is about a real church where people are interested in true love which includes looking after the welfare of the souls of others as well as their own. Perhaps you go around in a comfortable situation not aware that you are in a spiritual war and that you are being attacked hour after hour and minute after minute.
Sean: Again, elders don’t get to play Holy Spirit or supplant Jesus Christ as Lord of my conscience.
RS: But they are to help people with their spiritual state and should be more discerning into spiritual things and the state of the heart. We are like mules and have blinders on, but what that means is that others need to be helping us see the things we cannot see.
Sean: 1 John has a lot to say about the value of our confession, and what it counts for and attests to. It has a lot to say about the internal testimony of the spirit. It doesn’t say spit about someone else coming in and doing the spirit’s internal work or about someone else either condemning or assuring my conscience but INSTEAD my own heart by the testimony of the Holy spirit grants me confidence before God. Your semi-revivalistic piety consistently outstrips and undoes biblical piety and testimony.
RS: But once again, read all the plural pronouns in the book of I John. It is not that just elders are to be helping people with their soul, but all the people are to be speaking of spiritual things instead of all the things of the world. A person that deals with his or her own heart knows how deceptive it is and should want to discuss these things with others. Christianity is not an individual sport, but instead one is to be an actual part of a local church where people deal with each other’s souls. Indeed that sounds less than the American individualist, but it is more biblical.
Eph 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
LikeLike
Richard, it is curious the way you invoke the deceptiveness of the human heart. You do so so assuredly. Have you ever considered that your heart might be deceiving you about the Spirit, the word, and Edwards? In other words, I’d caution you about bringing up a deceitful heart unless you’re going to be skeptical about yourself as well.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart wrote: “Richard, it is curious the way you invoke the deceptiveness of the human heart. You do so so assuredly. Have you ever considered that your heart might be deceiving you about the Spirit, the word, and Edwards? In other words, I’d caution you about bringing up a deceitful heart unless you’re going to be skeptical about yourself as well.”
GW: Reminds me of what our Lord said in Matt. 7:3-5 – “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (ESV) I’m not saying our brother Richard is the “hypocrite” described in this passage, but our Lord’s teaching here should caution all of us from prying overmuch into the souls of others and being too eager to make over-confident judgments about the spiritual state of other professed believers. If we do we just might discover we have a telephone pole sticking out of our face.
LikeLike
Richard,
I give you specific texts from 1john refuting your basis for divination done in the name of pastoral care and you give me; ‘remember all the plural pronouns’. And then jump to Ephesians as if my position might put me at odds with God’s gifting of the body?! Seeing as I’m a member in good standing and an office holder, I’ll take your response as a white flag, cuz your obviously not talking to me.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, I give you specific texts from 1john refuting your basis for divination done in the name of pastoral care and you give me; ‘remember all the plural pronouns’
RS: I fail to see where they refute what I gave, though with all the internal acts of God in the soul I would think that they refute the externalism you seem to be advocationg. By the way, you did not deal with the verses I gave you. If what you call “divination” is just the opposite of externalism, then I accept the charge. However, it is not divination to bow to the Word of God and see that it judges the motives and intents of the heart as well.
Sean: And then jump to Ephesians as if my position might put me at odds with God’s gifting of the body?! Seeing as I’m a member in good standing and an office holder, I’ll take your response as a white flag, cuz your obviously not talking to me.
RS: Indeed I was talking to you and so does Ephesians. Read quite carefully verses 14-16.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: As an elder there is a difference between shepherding and prying/probing/being nosy/being manipulative, etc.
RS: Which is a far different thing than realizing that the elders are to shepherd the soul and not just the external actions.
Erik Charter: One of the limitations of eldership is that people have to willingly come under you. Not too many are willing to come under an overbearing elder.
RS: Sure, but loving God and His people in helping the sheep examine their hearts is not overbearing.
Erik Charter: Even Edwards was eventually given the boot by his congregation.
RS: Indeed, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The people that followed Jesus for a while then turned and cried out for him to be crucified.
Erik Charter: The best approach is to be available and to respond to obvious public sin, but not to be overbearing and prying.
RS: So leave the people alone in the wickedness and darkness of their hearts as long as they don’t do something in public? This is just the prescription for the brand of externalism which ushers people into hell and being damned by/in the church.
Erik Charter: The Holy Spirit can do his work without our actvism as ministers and elders.
RS: Does the Holy Spirit do His work of regeneration without preaching? Sure He can (work of ability), but that is not the normal way He works.
Erik Charter: We’re Reformed men who believe in monergism.
RS: Maybe, maybe not.
Erik Charter: We’re not Arminians who say it depends on us.
RS: Unless a person is ruthless with his own heart he does depend on self what saying that it does not.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, it is curious the way you invoke the deceptiveness of the human heart.
RS: There is no need to think of it is curious since there are so many warnings about it in Scripture.
D.G. Hart: You do so so assuredly.
RS: That is because I am assured that Scripture is correct when it teaches this so often.
D.G. Hart: Have you ever considered that your heart might be deceiving you about the Spirit, the word, and Edwards?
RS: But of course, but I usually settle on the fact that misguided historians are wrong about Edwards and so deceiving others about him.
D.G. Hart: In other words, I’d caution you about bringing up a deceitful heart unless you’re going to be skeptical about yourself as well.
RS: But I am. That is why the Word of God is so vital.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour quoting D.G. Hart: “Richard, it is curious the way you invoke the deceptiveness of the human heart. You do so so assuredly. Have you ever considered that your heart might be deceiving you about the Spirit, the word, and Edwards? In other words, I’d caution you about bringing up a deceitful heart unless you’re going to be skeptical about yourself as well.”
GW: Reminds me of what our Lord said in Matt. 7:3-5 – “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (ESV) I’m not saying our brother Richard is the “hypocrite” described in this passage, but our Lord’s teaching here should caution all of us from prying overmuch into the souls of others and being too eager to make over-confident judgments about the spiritual state of other professed believers. If we do we just might discover we have a telephone pole sticking out of our face.
RS: But unless we get to the heart we have not faithfully dealt with Scripture, the souls of others, or our own souls. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus went after the externalism of the Pharisees and how the interpreted the commandments and went to the heart with the application. All men are Pharisees to one degree or another and must have the Word applied to the heart. We can flee from helping others see their own hearts or we can know that to truly help the souls of others we must go to the depths of the heart.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: As an elder there is a difference between shepherding and prying/probing/being nosy/being manipulative, etc. One of the limitations of eldership is that people have to willingly come under you. Not too many are willing to come under an overbearing elder. Even Edwards was eventually given the boot by his congregation. The best approach is to be available and to respond to obvious public sin, but not to be overbearing and prying. The Holy Spirit can do his work without our actvism as ministers and elders. We’re Reformed men who believe in monergism. We’re not Arminians who say it depends on us.
RS: Monergism is indeed the truth, but so is striving to enter in. Why should anyone strive rather than just seek to enter? Because many will just seek to enter and will not be able. Jesus gave that teaching when asked if there were just few who “are being saved.” The striving cannot be limited to the external things while leaving the heart untouched. Heb 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Does the word of God pierce and judge as Heb 4:12 says for no reason other than to inform us of it? If the word exposes sin in the heart, should we just ignore it or begin to ask how we are to deal with it?
Luke 13:23 And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them,
24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
25 “Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’
26 “Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’;
27 and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’
LikeLike
Richard Smith wrote: “But unless we get to the heart we have not faithfully dealt with Scripture, the souls of others, or our own souls. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus went after the externalism of the Pharisees and how the interpreted the commandments and went to the heart with the application. All men are Pharisees to one degree or another and must have the Word applied to the heart. We can flee from helping others see their own hearts or we can know that to truly help the souls of others we must go to the depths of the heart.”
GW: Agreed that we have to seek to “get to the heart” insofar as humanly possible (that’s why faithful confessionalist elders do typically ask probing questions during membership interviews — not only about the candidate’s mere intellectual assent to sound doctrine, but also about their repentance, faith, obedience, love for Christ, intention to walk in holiness, etc.; contrary to your ongoing misconceptions about us and our confessionalism, which you erroneously seem to think is only concerned about intellectual assent and not matters of the heart). But even the apostles were not always able to infallibly judge the genuineness of faith amongst professed believers, as the case of Simon the Magician clearly illustrates. In response to the preaching ministry of Peter and John, Luke tells us “Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip.” (Acts 8:13, ESV) Luke describes Simon according to Simon’s own profession of faith (Luke says “Simon himself believed”), and that his profession of faith was initially accepted by the apostles as credible (= “believable”) is proven by his reception by baptism into the visible church, even though subsequent events demonstrated that Simon’s profession of faith turned out to be spurious and false (Peter later rebukes Simon for trying to purchase the gift of the Holy Spirit with money, and charges, “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” – Acts 8:23, ESV).
Richard, do you think that the apostles had neglected to “get to the heart” of Simon’s soul by admitting him to baptism upon his profession of faith? Do you think that maybe they didn’t probe deeply enough or “go to the depths of (his) heart” in their membership interview with Simon? Based upon the way Luke describes Simon (Luke says he “believed”; i.e., Luke describes him according to his own objective profession of faith, spurious though it turned out to be), and based upon the context of the passage, it seems clear that Simon was initially accepted into the church based simply upon his credible (believable) profession of faith. We confessionalists think that it is better to follow the example of the apostles (accepting members upon a credible profession of faith, and disciplining those whose profession later proves, like Simon’s, to be suspect or spurious), than to follow the path of hyper-introspective revivalist divinationism.
LikeLike
Forget it Geoff. Richard’s self-appointed ministry is to shake the foundations of guys like you. No matter how much “getting to the heart” you advocate it will not be enough to make him happy. Ask him for his list of potential member questions. He posted it once but it was shot down by everyone so he has not trotted it out again. As MM said – “that is not an interview, it is a gauntlet”. Richard ignores what Jesus said about his yoke being easy and his burden light. He wants a difficult yoke and heavy burden and it can never be difficult or heavy enough to satisfy him. Antinomianism is one danger Reformed people face, what Richard is peddling is another.
LikeLike
Reformed Theology = a simple gospel
Theonomy, Neocalvinism, Edwardsianism, Roman Catholicism = complicating a simple gospel
If those of us who hear what Hart is saying should have one theme, this is it. We are defending a simple gospel and Christian liberty against those who want to take it away from people.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Forget it Geoff. Richard’s self-appointed ministry is to shake the foundations of guys like you.
RS: For a man that denies we can know anything about others, you sure seem to know my heart well enough to judge it.
Erik Charter: No matter how much “getting to the heart” you advocate it will not be enough to make him happy. Ask him for his list of potential member questions. He posted it once but it was shot down by everyone so he has not trotted it out again.
RS: That was not a list of potential member questions that I have. I simply gave some as an example of some that might be asked. The list was not even shot down by all on this board much less everyone in the world. Erik, broaden your reading some.
Erik Charter: As MM said – “that is not an interview, it is a gauntlet”. Richard ignores what Jesus said about his yoke being easy and his burden light.
RS: Now you are bearing false witness. Perhaps I need to contact your elders and ask them to speak with you about the ninth commandment.
Erik Yoke: He wants a difficult yoke and heavy burden and it can never be difficult or heavy enough to satisfy him. Antinomianism is one danger Reformed people face, what Richard is peddling is another.
RS: Erik, you really need to read the Scritpures as well. What you are saying may play well to some here, but the few that post here are not the ones you will answer to on the last day. Until you understand a free and sovereign grace in something of its fullness you will not find the balance between the verses below and an easy yoke.
Luke 13:24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
Matthew 11:12 “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.
LikeLike
GW: Agreed that we have to seek to “get to the heart” insofar as humanly possible (that’s why faithful confessionalist elders do typically ask probing questions during membership interviews — not only about the candidate’s mere intellectual assent to sound doctrine, but also about their repentance, faith, obedience, love for Christ, intention to walk in holiness, etc.; contrary to your ongoing misconceptions about us and our confessionalism, which you erroneously seem to think is only concerned about intellectual assent and not matters of the heart).
RS: When some on here say that they only ask people if they are members of a church then my thinking on that aspect is not erroneous. I don’t think that all those in the grouping of confessionalism are the same, so if you “hear” me saying that then I am either sending out a false sound or you are hearing me incorrectly. If you are asking about a candidates repentance, love for Christ, and their intention to walk in holiness in a probing way (and I am sure gently with true concern fo the person’s spiritual welfare), then that is the type of thing I am speaking of. Indeed we can only get to the heart as far as humanly possible, but we are to go down that road to some degree. A profession of faith is just that, a profession. A membership in a church is easily obtained and one can even get them online these days. Of course that is true of ordination papers as well.
GW: But even the apostles were not always able to infallibly judge the genuineness of faith amongst professed believers, as the case of Simon the Magician clearly illustrates. In response to the preaching ministry of Peter and John, Luke tells us “Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip.” (Acts 8:13, ESV) Luke describes Simon according to Simon’s own profession of faith (Luke says “Simon himself believed”), and that his profession of faith was initially accepted by the apostles as credible (= “believable”) is proven by his reception by baptism into the visible church, even though subsequent events demonstrated that Simon’s profession of faith turned out to be spurious and false (Peter later rebukes Simon for trying to purchase the gift of the Holy Spirit with money, and charges, “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” – Acts 8:23, ESV).
RS: Just a point, and a minor one, Philip was the one preaching and the one that baptized Simon rather than one of the apostles. But as you point out, he was wrong. I would not argue that all that the apostles baptized were truly converted either. No one is infallible in this, but if we asked the questions like you set out above then the souls of others would be better off. It amazes me that Paul can write that those who don’t love the Lord Jesus be anathema and there are elders who don’t ask people about that issue. My argument is not that we are perfect and can read hearts perfectly, but that we should try to deal with the people in a spiritual manner with their souls.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Reformed Theology = a simple gospel
RS: That is simply incorrect, though one can define “simple” in differing ways.
Erik Charter: Theonomy, Neocalvinism, Edwardsianism, Roman Catholicism = complicating a simple gospel
RS: Nonsense. While I think you are mostly wrong regarding the first three, Roman Catholicism is not a complicating of any Gospel at all. It is simply a false gospel.
Erik Charter: If those of us who hear what Hart is saying should have one theme, this is it. We are defending a simple gospel and Christian liberty against those who want to take it away from people.
RS: But you are not defending a simple gospel or any gospel so far. The topics are on other subjects. You are not defending Christian liberty, as far as I can tell, but more of a libertine type of liberty. You are not free to fulfill the desires of your heart unless those desires are desires for Christ.
LikeLike
Just to point out another example of new doctrine clearly contradicting the old is the doctrine on abortion. The Catholic Church until the 19th century consistently rejected the notion that sex creates a human soul (the intellectual soul), which used to the heresy of traducianism. Today is this more or less Catholic doctrine, that at conception the fetus is fully human, possess a human soul. While abortion / contraception since ancient times was seen as a sexual sin, it was never seen as murder because at the time of conception there was nothing human left to murder.
People have asked why pro-choice Catholic politicians are not brought to a heresy trial. IMHO this is why. Because if they are brought up, and do decide to present the defense there is a heck of a lot of evidence that Catholic doctrine as it exists today is something that in the middle ages was explicitly rejected as heresy.
LikeLike