tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post8120372130193312503..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: He was gladPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87438923867218977772010-06-29T18:12:30.401-07:002010-06-29T18:12:30.401-07:00I'm a bit baffled here. I can think of several...I'm a bit baffled here. I can think of several things a Reformed Christian might disagree with Aquinas about, but Aristotelianism? I would have thought that was where he was more often right. Or are you relying on Francis Schaeffer's completely off-base understanding of Aristotelianism and how Aquinas was influenced by it?Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46351553337560893012010-06-18T12:41:07.216-07:002010-06-18T12:41:07.216-07:00Then that would be even more condemning. That par...Then that would be even more condemning. That particular quote is a little hard to follow without context. Sorry for misreading. Do you recall where you encountered it so I could look into it more (not for purposes of this forum but my own benefit)? <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />I would still stand by my earlier statement: if such statements (along w/ practices) characterize a person, whether Church Father or present day pastor or attendee at a church, I would be skeptical about that person's salvation. If that person were in close proximity to me, I'd urge him or her to study the Scripture (obviously in the latter two cases).Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08840632758102359846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58456784736023175012010-06-18T12:25:53.807-07:002010-06-18T12:25:53.807-07:00I think you guys aren't reading Augistine very...I think you guys aren't reading Augistine very closely: he's saying that the mass is offered <i>as a sacrifice</i> on behalf of the dead.<br /><br />This isn't about prayers: this is about what is the sacrifice which saves.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38615005300395272572010-06-18T11:57:05.616-07:002010-06-18T11:57:05.616-07:00Dan,
Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I guess i...Dan,<br /><br />Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I guess in light of that, I would say that it seems the reformed perspective puts more weight (and more specifics) on a person's "orthodoxy" and less weight on the "orthopraxy" than I tend to think is warranted from the total of the scriptures on this subject, but I guess that's to be expected given the camp's distinctives. <br /><br />I agree with you that belief in grace and showing grace are complimentary realities and standards (of course!), but the sheer number of times the "walk/fruit" criterion appears in various forms on this topic, especially including Jesus' own statements, makes it hard for me to see it as less than the central mark of discipleship to Christ we are given. But, the point of this post is that such disagreements are inevitable, even intra-faith, and I'm down with that. <br /><br />At any rate, peace to you and yours.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45513390165098140292010-06-18T10:59:03.626-07:002010-06-18T10:59:03.626-07:00Gettingfree:
There are various ways of looking at...Gettingfree:<br /><br />There are various ways of looking at assurance of salvation. For example, Paul often emphasizes the question of faith and repentance (cf. Romans 8:8-10). John emphasizes love for one another. James talks in similar terms. But I would see the Pauline and the Johannine/Jamesine (a word?) perspectives as complementary, not contradictory.<br /><br />Actions (love for the brethren, doing good to the household of faith, and so on) naturally follow from real trust in Christ alone. But apart from that trust in Christ alone, they may be flawed attempts at working my way to God. <br /><br />IOW, I can show love (to some degree) to my wife or children, even if I'm an unbeliever (Matthew 7:11). So love alone is not enough to make a call either way. At least not typical human love (cf. John 13:35).<br /><br />What you do is critical, but what you believe is also essential. Belief is demonstrated both by actions and words, which flow out from what we think deep within (Luke 6:45). Since we don't know everything (or even most things), we have to focus primarily on what we see (actions) or what others seem to believe (words). <br /><br />Ultimately, since God regenerates us and creates our faith in Him and sustains our salvation (cf. Romans 3:9-18, Ephesians 2:1-10, John 10:25-30, etc), we don't have to believe or act 100% correct all the time. But a life characterized by both incorrect belief and/or by unbiblical action leaves two possibilities, in my mind.<br /><br />1) That person isn't a Christian and needs converted, or 2) That person is a Christian but is untaught or needing to repent of major sin (cf. the Corinthian epistles). This ties into questions of church discipline, which has as its goal restoration, but sometimes involves treating a potential Christian as an unbeliever as a means to provoke repentance.<br /><br />As I said earlier, you're either a Christian or you aren't, but assuming you are a Christian, there is a progression to spiritual maturity, which can ebb and flow but in true believers does trend toward Christlikeness.<br /><br />Sorry it's so long, hope it clarifies where I'm coming from. Back to Frank's original point, we need to "love people where they are, and point them to where they need to be." But we need to try to figure out first whether the love needs to be witnessing, or whether it needs to be edifying a fellow believer.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08840632758102359846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58733799006259647392010-06-18T10:43:11.275-07:002010-06-18T10:43:11.275-07:00Frank,
Regarding your question to me:
For my sak...Frank,<br /><br />Regarding your question to me:<br /><br /><i>For my sake, tell me whether Augustine's statement I cited is "error" or "heresy" -- and on what basis you choose to call it that.</i><br /><br />Were I to judge solely on the basis of that statement, it sounds very similar. Graham said "Salvation even without knowing the name of Jesus." Augustine apparently said, "Salvation by prayers of current saints for dead loved ones."<br /><br />The question is "How are people saved?" My answer is "By the substitutionary atonement of Christ." Teaching that prayers for the dead have some effect, or teaching you can have faith without <i>any</i> knowledge of the one saving you, both seem to be deviations from the gospel.<br /><br />My assessment would be "Their salvation is doubtful." With the implied caveat of "As best I can tell from my limited human finite perspective, not seeing motives, separated by significant distance (and time, in one case)." I think that's essentially what I said earlier; if not, please feel free to point it out to me.<br /><br />CR may have a point about judging someone based on a single quote. We have much more information on present day church leaders vs. Augustine or anyone else before the Reformation. Both of what they said/preached as well as descriptions of character.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08840632758102359846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82981207938332823162010-06-18T10:03:54.430-07:002010-06-18T10:03:54.430-07:00FWIW, I'm referring to our love/mercy as a gen...FWIW, I'm referring to our love/mercy as a general pattern or way of life. Again, since no one trusts God completely all the time, no one reflects his character perfectly in love and mercy all the time---just to clarify.<br /><br />CR,<br /><br />I think Billy Graham's actions over the course of his life show how important he really thought it was that people heard about Jesus Christ. I doubt if anyone's actions in this thread demonstrate more faith on that very point. So, no, I don't think Jesus is on the fence about Billy Graham because he said what was quoted here. His life speaks volumes.<br /><br />And on the same criterion I'm arguing is biblical here, many, many Catholics have saving faith, which is likely why Graham worked with Catholics. Even if he didn't share the particulars of their faith, he saw that they trusted Christ and loved others because of it, and was glad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79448419164883964102010-06-18T09:50:57.570-07:002010-06-18T09:50:57.570-07:00What Augustine did is not the same thing as Graham...What Augustine did is not the same thing as Graham did. Augustine's prayer for the dead is filled with doubt and hesitation. Naturally, he would have doubts because the Spirit of God would be convicting him of that nonsense. See his His book, De Cura pro Mortals Agenda. He can hardly be considered dogmatic on that issue. I think the death of his mother affected him greatly. But, he doesn't even come close to the more modern proponents of purgatory. <br /><br />Even so, as I said, I would not base what I said merely on quotes of what people said. Like I said, if all we had was Graham's statement with Schuller that in of and itself perhaps would not be enough to convict him. But his practice of inviting Catholics to his crusades speaks volumes.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24397046237142830362010-06-18T09:46:14.713-07:002010-06-18T09:46:14.713-07:00Dan,
It sounds like there is a fair consensus, fr...Dan,<br /><br />It sounds like there is a fair consensus, from the reformed perspective, that the question of someone's Christianity comes down to whether someone trusts "Christ alone."<br /><br />If so, it's probably important to discuss whether anyone always bets everything they are and have on Christ alone and how that's determined. It seems to me that we all put our trust (and hope and affection) on different things from time to time to various degrees. God's invitation to us to trust Christ is comprehensive, not isolated to our justification or forgivness alone, and none of us does that all the time with all things. <br /><br />So the issue of whether these men (or any others) "trust Christ alone" needs the qualifier that none of us does, no matter the camp; at least not in the way that God clearly invites and commands us to do. <br /><br />But significantly, the scriptures address the issue repeatedly of "saving faith" not by telling us it's the kind that professes trust perfectly (or professes perfect trust in Christ), but by telling us that saving faith in Christ and the grace he gives is the kind of trust that is big enough to steer the ship, resulting above all in showing others the kind of undeserved love/grace we claim to have received, the kind of agape that is the core of God's own character. In that way, our actions (more truly than our doctrinal confessions) reveal the strength of our faith as well as the central character of the One we say we trust. People who trust grace, who trust Christ, will be gracious to others in his name.<br /> <br />This is not doctrinal minimalism, on the contrary, I'm trying to answer the question of identifying fellow believers in the way the NT strongly urges us to do in multiple passages. And I don't see professing TULIP as the oft repeated criterion in the scriptures for identifying who really trusts Christ; rather it's love, showing mercy, that seems central along with a minimum of confessions (particularly Jesus' incarnation, lordship and resurrection) that explain this other-worldly behavior.<br /><br />Is that congruent with the reformed view? If not, what is the explanation for the passages from Jesus, James, John & Paul that point strongly and often to that kind of evaluation for this issue? And, if so, isn't the point of Frank's post reflective of that view?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81484939223531016592010-06-18T09:15:00.373-07:002010-06-18T09:15:00.373-07:00CR --
As I said in the original post, I disavow e...CR --<br /><br />As I said in the original post, I disavow entirely the broad ecumenism Billy Graham has practiced since early in his career. It's the same shoddy theological broadness behind ECT and behind Colson's ecumenism.<br /><br />I have personally been called "anti-catholic" for my public reasoning in this matter on many occasions.<br /><br />The fact that Billy Graham is wrong in that matter -- and indeed, on the matter of what faith is and who actually has it -- has to be put on the scales next to Augustine's promulgations about the Eciucharist.<br /><br />Here's my thought: to be consistent, you have to say both Augustine and Graham are not Christians -- given that they both make clearly-grave errors in their theology.<br /><br />Are you willing to disavow Augustine as a Christian?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87595128855435251612010-06-18T09:06:53.969-07:002010-06-18T09:06:53.969-07:00Dan:
For my sake, tell me whether Augustine's...Dan:<br /><br />For my sake, tell me whether Augustine's statement I cited is "error" or "heresy" -- and on what basis you choose to call it that.<br /><br />I'm asking becuase I think I agree with you in most of the statements you have made in this last comment, but I think you're being inconsistent at best thinking this through.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60676315458676899192010-06-18T09:05:56.841-07:002010-06-18T09:05:56.841-07:00Gettingfree,
Yes, obviously John asks those quest...Gettingfree,<br /><br />Yes, obviously John asks those questions because he is asking how can we know if people are in the faith. There were a lot of people who gave a false profession. Similarly, Jesus gave His parables to show it is not the mere profession that saves you.<br /><br />But here is the thing, and I'll begin to show my cards here. And I don't think Frank goes far enough. What Graham said is not merely "not the gospel." It isn't merely indefensible. It isn't merely Graham at his worst. It is a direct affront and attack of the gospel of Jesus Christ. <br /><br />If we are to look <b>entirely</b> to Jesus and what He has done on our behalf, how could have Graham said, people, if they've never heard of Jesus and if they have lived a life that was a apart from the surrounding community, they can be saved. <b>How</b> can I put my trust, <b>how</b> can I look to someone that I have not heard, seen or know?<br /><br />We've seen in our own midst, by some comments, how difficult it is even with the aide of the Spirit, to continually ad infinitum put our trust in Jesus even what we know now. We've read the comments. People wondering if God loves us. I mean, Satan, and our conscience is continually accusing us, and we must continually preach the gospel to us or we go astray and here was Billy Graham saying people can be saved even if they've never heard of Jesus. I think it's hard enough because we're wired in a way not to trust in God to believe and here was Billy Graham saying it's possible to be saved without even having heard Jesus. <br /><br />Now, I'd like to believe maybe Graham said what he said because his mind was deteriorating and his Parkinson disease was beginning to onset. That he wasn't of full mind body and spirit. The problem though is he has invited Roman Catholic priests and I believe Mormons to his crusades to minister to people that respond to the altar call. So, if you were a Catholic and you came up and answered the call and you saw a priest, you would go to him.<br /><br />Martyn Lloyd-Jones was invited by Graham to go to one of his crusades when Graham was in the UK. Lloyd-Jones gave him one condition, that he would disinvite Catholic priests. Graham refused to do that. <br /><br />I use to be like you and Frank and defend Graham as a Christian but it wasn't until I realized how important the gospel is that I stopped doing that. I don't know whether Graham is a Christian or not. I'll leave that up to God.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86707282733674160082010-06-18T06:59:15.069-07:002010-06-18T06:59:15.069-07:00Frank: I appreciate your clarification. Aside fro...Frank: I appreciate your clarification. Aside from their status before God (which is settled, for most of them), the contributions of these men have been significant.<br /><br />However, going back to both your first post last week, as well as Ortlund's, the question is "other Christian groups," right? <br /><br />In light of that boundary, the trend in our day towards, for lack of a better description, doctrinal minimalism, is frightening. The discussion quickly turned to "Roman Catholics are Christians too" and/or "Saying Roman Catholics are Christians too is OK." Which I cannot biblically accept.<br /><br />Overlooking serious error is not charity; confidence in what Scripture says is not arrogance.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br /><i>Men of good faith can be seriously and terribly wrong</i><br /><br />I think Ryken had a good clarification in his <i>Communion of the Saints</i>. There is a difference between error and heresy. From my perspective, the one describes a Christian who is untaught/wrongly taught; the second describes a non-Christian who needs conversion.<br /><br />Greater and lesser contributions may serve as one distinction; evidence of biblical faith is a far more important distinction to consider.<br /><br />There are people like Lot, who looks like a pagan in Genesis 19 yet is called 'that righteous man' in 2 Peter 2:5-7. But Lot should not be the pattern; experience/exceptions ought not shape our doctrine. I know Matthew 5:48-type perfection is not possible in this life. I just hope and pray that all of us keep striving toward that goal, both in doctrinal accuracy and personal holiness (Philippians 3:14). <br /><br />Also, I know the Holy Spirit must change people, and we need patience as He does so. We also need at the same time a bold and unyielding commitment to the Word of God to draw our boundaries for Christian brotherhood and fellowship.<br /><br />So we don't know for sure about many men in the past; for that matter, we don't know ultimately for anyone beyond ourselves, though we can have confidence based on what we observe. <br /><br />We must be certain for ourselves that we are currently trusting in Christ alone for salvation. We ought to encourage those around us to do the same. The difference is heaven or hell, which in the end is far more important than whether we all get along here on earth. Furthermore, right doctrine will produce true unity. <br />There can be no true unity between those who trust in Christ alone, and those who trust in Christ + ____, whatever their denomination or sect. But for those who trust in Christ alone, we can show charity as we seek to know God better and grow in Christlikeness.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08840632758102359846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76345216918155114812010-06-18T06:11:18.661-07:002010-06-18T06:11:18.661-07:00There are some red herrings in the mix -- and I ha...There are some red herrings in the mix -- and I have put some of them there, so no blame on anyone but me.<br /><br />Here's one: Billy Graham vs. Aquinas or Augustine. Has Billy Graham's contribution to the life of the historic church really been anything like either Aquinas or Augustine? Really? Influential in the last century, to be sure -- but I find it hard to believe that he has done anything which has impacted the long-term history of the church and its life along the lines of the <i>Summa Theologica</i> or <i>City of God</i>.<br /><br />So one good distinction to make in my list is between the greater and the lesser men of historical note.<br /><br />In that, we've seen Billy Graham's low point. Here's Augustines (IMHO):<br /><br /><b>For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.</b><br /><br />Augustine wrote this. It goes much farther to replace <i>Christ</i> than Graham's words do. Yet only the most obscure and idiosyncratic would say that Augustine was not Christian.<br /><br />Consider it seriously. My point here is that men of good faith can be seriously and terribly wrong. On a daily basis, the people you run into all over the place may only be accidentally and vaguely wrong. Equating that with the grounds for excommunication seems to be enthusiastic, to say the least.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47179431557726138472010-06-18T04:09:01.528-07:002010-06-18T04:09:01.528-07:00CR,
I think your questions are good, but I also h...CR,<br /><br />I think your questions are good, but I also have to admit that when John asks the same "how can we know if a person is in Christ" question several times in relatively short succession in I John, he asks a different set of questions than the ones you pose. I'd actually prefer he didn't, but what am I to do? Or when Jesus poses the issue on more than one occasion, he also tends strongly towards the criterion of fruit. And, as I said, even Paul says some of the same things (and of course James' opinion on this is also pretty clear--he'll show you his faith by what he does). That's a strong set of precedent to me that I can't just blow off. <br /><br />Again, I think your desire that everyone understand the mechanism of justification by grace through faith is good, but I think we need to be open to the idea, based on the overwhelming number of NT arguments on this point, that if someone lives a life of agape towards others in Christ's name, they very likely do so because of their awareness and gratitude that God loved them first; i.e., that they live grace because they know they've received grace first, and that from Christ.<br /><br />That's what's relatively obvious to someone like me about the men on Frank's list: both how the NT asks and answers the "how do we know if someone's in Christ?" question and how these men seem to pass that test pretty well, which was, I think, Frank's point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28546847696252422352010-06-17T23:00:28.697-07:002010-06-17T23:00:28.697-07:00Yes, what Sir Aaron said, "some." Thank...Yes, what Sir Aaron said, "some." Thanks Sir Aaron.<br /><br /><b>gettingfree</b>: Here's how we can discover we are Christian: have we stopped altogether to look to ourselves and are we only looking entirely to Jesus and what He has done on our behalf for our salvation? <br /><br />Do we realize we can do nothing to make ourselves Christians? Have we stopped trying to do anything to make ourselves Christian and accept that salvation is a gift of God given to the ungodly? <br /><br />Do we believe right now at this moment that we are a Christian entirely from what Christ has done on our behalf. <br /><br />Or, e.g., does the newly professed converted believe when he goes home after professing faith and repentance does he believe that he needs to stop drinking, clubbing or cussing and immediately start reading his Bible 2 hours a day and pray four hours day in order to be more acceptable to God. If he does then he doesn't understand the gospel. Because God only justifies the ungodly. (Sanctification makes him godly).CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14048047688604138362010-06-17T19:55:52.761-07:002010-06-17T19:55:52.761-07:00Excellent, thank you Frank!Excellent, thank you Frank!Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02742105802768625523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13357297972307905662010-06-17T18:22:47.828-07:002010-06-17T18:22:47.828-07:00Dan,
I think the test for whether a given person ...Dan,<br /><br />I think the test for whether a given person is a Christian is whether they acknowledge that he is (not was) Lord and generally act like it (i.e., do they generally have the fruit of his Spirit).<br /><br />How much error about Christ is too much, to the point the person isn't trusting/serving the One revealed in the NT? I don't know. But I have a very hard time believing that any of the men Frank mentioned have such distorted views of Christ that they were/are really worshipping and serving someone else. Again, the fruit of their life says a lot about the person they most trust.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85766276453993806002010-06-17T12:53:36.853-07:002010-06-17T12:53:36.853-07:00Gettingfree: What would you say makes someone a Ch...Gettingfree: What would you say makes someone a Christian? How much can you "have wrong" and still be a Christian? I realize only God ultimately knows, but there are some pretty clear minimums laid out in the Bible.<br /><br />Sbrogden: <br /><i>I think we should be careful to critique doctrine, not people.</i><br /><br />Doctrine is the basis by which we must judge people, right? See Matthew 7:15-23 and 2 John 7-11 re: false teachers. Jesus and John both said to "watch out" for specific people, therefore, we must critique people. <br /><br />Obviously the tenacity and tone of your approach should vary between a confused unbeliever and a dedicated false teacher. And it's different when the person in your church vs. far away (in time or geography).Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08840632758102359846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27812377704667977232010-06-17T12:26:44.179-07:002010-06-17T12:26:44.179-07:00I think we should be careful to critique doctrine,...I think we should be careful to critique doctrine, not people. Most Arminians do not fully hold to all 5 points - which constitute heresy. Most Calvinists do not fully hold to all 5 points - which does not constitute apostasy. <br /><br />I have close friends who claim to be Arminian but, upon close questioning, are not. I know no Calvinist who does not have some Arminian blood in him.<br /><br />Most people are closer to Arminianism when they are regenerated, as that's what they're taught. By the grace of God they should be taught about the doctrines of grace, by which they were saved.<br /><br />If not for Christ, nobody would be saved. And in the mean time, let's discuss grace with people who claim Christ but boast in their works - until each one of them understands grace or turns deliberately to his works, as did the rich young ruler in Luke 18.Stuart Brogdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05293983517209519257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7443181230387917742010-06-17T12:22:34.493-07:002010-06-17T12:22:34.493-07:00Sorry about that, I missed the "some"--b...Sorry about that, I missed the "some"--but I'm still amazed! And of course, there are several comments here, not just that one, that honestly blow me away, namely the ones that are convinced (some half-way, some wholly) that the bulk of the people on that list aren't Christians at all! I say again, Wow.<br /><br />I'm sure we could find some bad things to say about anyone, these men included, but to say that "the best" we could say about even a couple of them is that they had very very weak faith is still shocking to me given that list. I'm all for saying, "I think Wesley (or Aquinas, or anyone!) had this wrong." But I have to tell myself that the more condemning comments here aren't representative of the reformed camp as a whole just to keep the right, hopeful attitude about what it means to be "reformed" and I'm guessing I'm not the only one, but I could be wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4293257850969683882010-06-17T10:53:58.455-07:002010-06-17T10:53:58.455-07:00Not sure about CR, but personally I'd see seve...Not sure about CR, but personally I'd see several categories here. 1) Jerome and Aquinas (Roman Catholic theologians), who may well have been trusting in Christ + works for salvation. 2) Graham and other ecumenical types who deny the Gospel by saying "other ways to God are OK/let's work with the Roman Catholics in evangelism". 3) Calvin, Wesley, Sunday, others who have differing theological convictions on non-gospel issues. <br /><br />Calvin was a paedobaptist; Wesley believed in perfectionism/overemphasized man's will in salvation; Sunday sometimes focused more on moral reformation than conversion. Still, all three men seem to have gotten the core of the gospel right. Aquinas and others...I don't know, but if they subscribed to the teachings of their church, they were not Christians in the biblical sense. (Trusting Christ alone for salvation). And those who commit to ecumenism downplay the key differences between Protestantism and Catholicism: the Bible vs. the Pope/tradition as final authority, Christ alone vs. Christ + my good works for justification, etc.<br /><br />The problem is in lumping all these examples together, Frank and others have given the impression that the differences are only a matter of preference vs. essential. <br /><br />Categories 1 and 2 (see above), to me, must be treated as either not Christian brothers or questionably so. Category 3, yes, by all means let's show grace to them as Frank urged in his article. Not by trying to start churches together but by admitting, yes, they are Christians, even if we have significant disagreements.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08840632758102359846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40941837348699275802010-06-17T10:51:59.430-07:002010-06-17T10:51:59.430-07:00gettingfree:
It would be helpful if you actually...gettingfree: <br /><br />It would be helpful if you actually read the quote before making attacks. CR said "some of the men mentioned." From that you somehow glomb Calvin and Wesley into the same camp as Billy Graham. Maybe you should have asked CR as to whom he was referring before making such a pronuncement of judgment yourself.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37173619892395085402010-06-17T10:41:04.996-07:002010-06-17T10:41:04.996-07:00"the best you could say about them if you wan..."the best you could say about them if you wanted to be very nice is that they had very very weak faith."<br /><br />Wow! Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Wesley, Billy Graham, etc. . . . the BEST you could say about them is that they had very very weak faith!? Wow. Wow!!<br /><br />You guys that are saying this kind of stuff in the name of reformed theology aren't doing your camp (let alone the name of Christ generally) any favors.<br /><br />I'm genuinely amazed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50935088859224684422010-06-17T10:26:11.072-07:002010-06-17T10:26:11.072-07:00There is a distinction made in the Bible between a...There is a distinction made in the Bible between a false teacher and people who just have false beliefs.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.com