[OBW]

I occasionally go back and read through some of the more lengthy threads to see how the discussions progressed. Sometimes I find a comment or even side discussion that does not get much if any discussion. Or that is never brought to a reasonable conclusion. I was reading through a thread from back in early 2017 titled “Lee’s Trinity” and came upon the following in a reply:

. . . if you don’t know you are saved, then you are not saved. If you think Muslims are saved, then you are not saved. A truly saved person knows they are saved. A truly saved person knows that Muslims cannot be saved. If you don’t know that you are saved, then no correct understanding of the Trinity doctrine can save you.

Of these statements, only the last one is even partly correct. Correct understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity does not save you, nor does understanding it incorrectly deny you salvation. However, not knowing that you are saved is never a criteria for being saved. If that was true, then centuries of people would not have been saved at all because there was no teaching pointing them to the certainty of their salvation. Martin Luther saw this and set out to correct it. Not to get them saved, but to help them understand that they were saved.

You will find discourses by Paul in which he corrects various miss-assumptions by those in the places he writes to. Some think you need more to really be saved. Paul doesn’t say that they are unsaved because of that incorrect thought. He only refers to the foolishness of thinking it.

This reminded me of a survey that an outfit called Ligonier does every couple of years on the state of Christianity. Ligonier was founded by RC Sproul who was the pastor for many years at a church in Florida with one of the most comprehensive (and Calvinist) statements of faith of any church I have ever seen. The most recent questionnaires (2014, 2016, 2018) include, among others, variations on the following three statements to which the respondent answers their level of agreement or disagreement:

1. Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.
2. Salvation always begins with God changing a person so that he or she will turn to Him in faith.
3. A person obtains peace with God by first taking the initiative to seek God and then God responds with grace.

On the first question, while it is true that the only requirement for salvation is trust (belief) in Christ, the qualifier “alone” is not found, and to the extent that it applies, there is nothing that says that this faith must be entirely singular to be effective. Reading this statement as written would seem to insist that someone who trusts in Christ for their salvation would be presumed to be unsaved if they had any inkling that something additional that they do or believe is involved in the process — including the belief that it was their own belief that brought that salvation (see the second question). It is true that faith is the only thing that saves, but other things done, undertaken, or even believed are never stated as disqualifiers simply because they are not required. I will concede tat if any additional belief or action evidences that they are trusting in something that is called Christ but is not, then that is entirely different. But the only requirement was that upon hearing and understanding the gospel, a person believed in Christ as the one who could/would save them. So we are not talking about teaching Buddha but inserting “Christ” in the place of “Buddha.” That “Christ” is clearly not the Christ in which we believe. But simply thinking that you also need to be circumcised did not negate your salvation. It only demonstrated that you remained (voluntarily) under bondage to the law.

And adding to this argument, Paul spent a bit of time arguing against the Judaizers, eventually going to Jerusalem to take the issue up with the other apostles. But at no point was it suggested that it was unsaved persons who were pushing adherence to the law. Instead, it was insiders — believers — whether on their own or as intended emissaries from the church in Jerusalem. Otherwise, the church would have had no reason to even take up the issue. And still later, we hear of “how many” there were in Jerusalem who were believers yet still zealous for the law. No one suggested that they were unsaved, or that there was a two-tiered system whereby Gentiles didn’t have to obey the Jewish laws (or were even forbidden to do so because that violated some “Christ alone” edict) and Jews had to, or were at least permitted to.

The second question is classic Calvinism in which even being saved is predestined and God (the Holy Spirit) must cause you to seek and believe before you can seek or believe. In other words, not even a will to do so. Just absolute determinism. Paul argued that nature pointed to God and caused everyone to have some notion of God. If we want to call this the influence of the Holy Spirit, that is fine. But that obviously didn’t turn everyone into a believer, so it is not what the Calvinists are talking about.

(The survey includes self-identified demographics, including whether the respondent is Evangelical. At the end of this post, I have included the criteria by which they would determine whether a person is Evangelical. While the entire write-up on the questionnaire probably specifies, it is not clear whether the identification as Evangelical is based on the self-designation of the respondent or the determination of the surveyors based on answers to the survey. I suspect it is the former. But despite the fact that many groups that are not Calvinist are correctly included as Evangelical, the questionnaire is written from a strictly Calvinist perspective, and refers to answers that are more Arminian in character as heretical.)

The third question is read by the surveyors as indicating that anyone who responds other than “strongly disagree” means some amount of belief in an action of the “penitent” in receiving salvation, and therefore is heretical. I at least somewhat agree with the Arminian position on this one. I do not believe that my initiative to seek God saves me, but that I cannot receive salvation if I do not believe, therefore I must do something. Still, no matter what I do — whether simply believe or even undertake some additional task (something I do not believe) — it is only the saving work of Christ that saves me, therefore I am not relying on myself in any way for salvation. Christ alone undertook the only activity that causes salvation. But to receive it, I must be one of those “whosoever will may come.” The gift is there for the taking, and I must take it. But the taking does not save me. What Christ did saves me. But the Calvinist position is that I cannot even seek after God if He does not actively move me to do so, thereby negating my ability to take any initiative to even seek to find God. Therefore “whosoever believes in me” becomes “whosoever I cause to believe in me.”

This is a core difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. Both believe that only the work of Christ actually saves. Yet when you listen to the Calvinist talk about it, they assert that the Arminian is claiming that their actions are part of what saves them. But it is not true. The Arminian does not pretend that believing saves them, rather that it is the step required to take the gift of the sacrifice that only Christ can, and has, made for our redemption. Christ saves us, but we must accept it as the gift that it is.

But even if the Calvinists are right about the Arminians, what is the requirement for salvation? Belief in Christ for the forgiveness of sins? Are there actually any other stipulations? I know that Paul stated that works do not save you. But did he ever state that if you think works save you that your belief in Christ is made null and void? He told the Galatian believers that adding in old Jewish ritual laws caused them to live under the law rather than under grace. But was that because the grace of God was removed (or never granted) or because they were ignoring the grace they had received and were instead acting as if the law was necessary? Paul didn’t say they were unsaved. He wrote a letter to them and he didn’t write his letters to unbelievers.

So . . . .

• Does confessing your sins to a priest or calling him “Father” negate your salvation?
• Does doing good works refuse salvation to those who believe in Christ?
• Is knowing that a mediator other than Christ is not necessary to pray to God for you a stipulation for salvation?

I look back at the origins of the Protestant reformation and (ignoring the issues surrounding abuses of the clergy, like indulgences) find Luther as trying to help the RCC faithful realize that they were saved, not trying to help them become saved. He was much more generous with those who came and did the liturgy each week, praying, repenting, and partaking of the Lord’s table. Yes, the kind of penance undertaken after their confession may have been a kind of “work” that was not effective for salvation, or even for the forgiveness of the week’s sin, but did it deny them status as believers in Christ?

. . . .

Definition of Evangelical in Ligonier survey:

Evangelicals were defined as people who strongly agreed with the following four statements:

• The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.
• It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.
• Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.
• Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.

My take:

#1: Sort of true. Christ is the Word and the highest authority. The Bible is the written word which reveals God/Christ, but requires interpretation, insight, inspiration, etc., and therefore cannot simply be the highest because multiple conclusions can be (and often are) reached from its pages.

#2: There are gifts given to the church and not all have the same gift/calling. We are all called to be ready if asked, but to engage in what a writer called the “wretched urgency” of personal evangelism is not a gift/calling of every believer. There is no support for a general charge to everyone.

#3: Absolutely correct. The only thing that saves is Jesus' death on the cross.

#4: There's that “alone” criteria again. I do not believe that any lack of complete and correct understanding, or belief that our faith is required as a step to receive it denies salvation. That is part of what that “alone” is refusing and I disagree.

And despite writing for so long, I probably still didn't say something quite right.