Featured False Gospel

This is one of the main differences between Romanism and even synergistic evangelicalism. The sinner brings nothing to the party except for his sin. There is no prevenient grace. There is no smoldering ember of moral ability. Romans 3:10-12; 8:7; Ephesians 2:1; and Colossians 2:13 make that clear. It is God the Holy Spirit that prevails upon the stone dead heart of man and regenerates it, making it capable of believing the Gospel. Romanism gets the gospel completely wrong, not seeing the need for conversion. Synergism errs by having the sinner cooperate with God in salvation. But here is the thing, while Synergism is in error, I am not prepared to label it as a false gospel. When I was a Synergist I maintained a sort of cognitive dissonance when it came to God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Even though the sinner had free will to make a choice for or against Christ, God was still sovereign. Of course, I believe differently now. When I look back on my time spent in Fundamentalism, I am thankful for that happy inconsistency in my theology. There are always degrees of error. I am not saying someone can stray so far towards full Pelagianism that they are completely outside of orthodox Christian doctrine. There is too much of that sort of error today.

 

The Apostle Paul wrote, "The wages of sin is death, . . ." Having written, ". . . While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . ." God gave Isaiah, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. . . . Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, . . ."
[Romans 6:23; Romans 5:8; Isaiah 53:6, 10.]

 

I am not sure if it would be possible for you to be more wrong.

From the Cathcism of the Catholic Church:
1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

Sounds like Catholicism is more like the Synergism you describe.

 

Does that conversion wrought by the Holy Spirit happen when the infant is sprinkled?

 

The devil is in the details. Romanism does not teach justification by faith alone. Ask the average rank-in-file Roman Catholic how they plan on getting to heaven and it is a litany of works-based effort. Canon 9 of the Council of Trent states, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema." Canon 12 states, "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema." I can go on, and on, and on - ad infinitum, ad nauseaum - from the pronouncements of Rome's own councils. So, no, Rome does not see the need for conversion on the basis of faith alone. To be fair, I should have added "on the basis of faith alone" to my prior post. The Council of Trent is one reason why most Protestants and Evangelicals consider Rome's gospel to a false gospel.

 

Romanism does not hold a patent on error when it comes to the Gospel. The OP asked which groups/denominations/individuals teach a false gospel. I believe Rome is one such group. We do not have to go back into the ancient church history to find others. Open Theology (a.k.a. Open Theism), as taught by the late Clark Pinnock, is an insidious falsehood that strips God of His will of decree and diminishes His sovereignty. The ancient heresy of Arianism is alive and well with the Jehovah's Witnesses, who rob Jesus Christ of His divinity. Mormonism and its polytheistic belief system have more in common with science fiction than sound theology, yet many people are lured into its clutches. Mary Baker Eddy's Chuch of Christ Scientist is nothing less than Gnosticism on steroids. There is plenty of error to go around. All of this error may seem confusing, but its collective fraudulence is revealed when compared against what the Bible clearly teaches. Reformation-era Christianity views the Bible as the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice. Romanism elevates tradition and decree to be on par with the Bible. Open Theology says the Bible is not God's final word. The Jehovah's Witnesses brazenly mistranslate the Bible. Mormonism adds to the Bible. Christian Science appeals to a special knowledge outside of the Bible. Every single false gospel perverts sola scriptura.

 

“Canon 9 of the Council of Trent states, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."

As taught by James.

“Canon 12 states, "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema."

As taught by James.

“To be fair, I should have added "on the basis of faith alone" to my prior post.”

So then the issue is that the Church doesn’t agree with your theology, and not that it denies the need for conversion and that conversion is a gift of grace?

 

Sure. I don’t know your exact perspective, (since we are on a Baptist forum and the way you asked the question in the way that you did I assume you are not in favor) but let’s not pretend this is a Catholic distinctive :
“Calvin also anticipates the objection, "how are infants, unendowed with knowledge of good or evil, regenerated?"(Inst.4, 16, 17). Calvin's reply is that "God's work, though beyond our understanding, is still not annulled"(Inst.4, 16, 17). Calvin is cognizant of the fact that if infants are born sinners, as Scripture affirms(Eph.2:3; Ps.51:5), either they remain hateful to God, or they must be justified. While Calvin agrees that the water itself does not necessarily save, he reminds us that John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother's womb(Luke 1:15), and for Calvin this is "something he could do in others"(Inst.4, 16, 17).

When others object to infant baptism on the grounds that baptism is given for the forgiveness of sins, Calvin suggests that this "abundantly supports our view"(Inst.4, 16, 22). Calvin argues that since we are born sinners, we need forgiveness and pardon "from the time in our mother's womb"(Inst.4, 16, 22). Since God does not withhold from children the hope of mercy(Matt.19:14), Calvin argues that "they must not be deprived of the sign"(Inst.4, 16, 22).” http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html

Luther also affirmed infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. Perhaps you consider them both heretics also? For those who don’t consider them heretics who deny the Gospel, I don’t see how one can acknowledge the historical truth that Calvin and Luther held this view and still claim that holding to infant baptism and conversion as a gift of grace simultaneously is contradictory.

 

This old favorite canard of Romanists does not get them very far. True. The Epistle of James troubled some theologians throughout history precisely because they thought it taught faith plus works. One of the chief critics of James was Martin Luther, although Luther saw much worth to the book. A good treatment on Luther and James was offered by James Swan and can be found in this article: Six Points on Luther's "Epistle of Straw"

As far as James advocating a faith-works synergistic justification, one only needs to understand the New Testament to see how James complements the whole. First, your statement "As taught by James" offers no convincing proof other than your weak attempt at a mic drop moment. James fits in quite nicely when one considers the Pauline view of justification and the point James was trying to make. Paul's writings emphasize faith apart from works, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9), but this does not mean Paul ignores the value of works. One verse later Paul writes, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). Paul is stating that justification is by faith, apart from works, but a faith that saves produces works. That is not a so-subtle difference. Consider some of the statements of the Apostle in Romans 4:

Romans 4:1-8 "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7“BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8“BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”

Paul leaves no ambiguity. Justification is by faith alone, apart from works. But we have seen in Ephesians 2:10 that Paul is not against works, he is just against works as a synergistic formula with faith in justification. So, how does the half-brother of our Lord's letter fit into Pauline justification? It is not difficult to reconcile if one keeps authorial intent in mind. James was writing to Jewish believers who were part of the Diaspora and who were enduring persecution (James 1:1, 12). James' letter was heavy on the practical. These persecuted Jewish believers were receiving instruction on how to live. James puts his instructions bluntly, "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself" (2:17). Instead of pitting two New Testament authors against themselves, let's allow the Apostle Peter to weigh-in. Peter writes in 1 Peter 1:3-9:

"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls."

Peter says that believers are "protected by the power of God through faith". Not one mention of works. However, similar to Paul, Peter writes, "so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ". What is the "proof of your faith"? Two things: the perseverance of faith in the face of persecution (faith's staying power) and works. Peter never joins faith and works together as part of a synergistic justification. Indeed, in his second letter, Peter is careful to put faith and works in their respective order:

2 Peter 2:5-11 5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; 11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

According to Peter, faith should produce the qualities of moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brother kindness et al. is James contradicting the other New Testament writers? Not at all. James' emphasis was on the need for a faith that produces works as a means to validate the bona fide nature of that faith. Paul made the same point in Ephesians 2:8-10, although both approached it differently.

No. It means I simply forgot to add "faith alone" to my previous post, when that was my intention. Also, my appeal is not to "the Church" vis-à-vis Rome, but to scripture. And it is not my theology, as though what I believe is of any consequence.

 

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Salvation is of Jesus Christ alone... You don't merit it, you don't earn it and you are certainly not worthy of it... It is not because you love God but because God who is love and died for you loved you first!... Anything less than that is a false gospel... Brother Glen

Jeremiah 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee.

 

I believe you did the same when we discussed salvation. You even gave Paul as the example, having heard the gospel, rejected the gospel and hunted down Christians to have them imprisoned and killed. You said it was all up to God not man.

 

Paul did no work to merit, nor did he have faith, did not hear the gospel, nor had internal regeneration.

"I believe you did the same when we discussed salvation."

The Calvinist claim is Hear the Gospel then God triggers a Regeneration. Salvation precedes Faith and Belief.


"You said it was all up to God not man."

Paul could reject. I believe you must cooperate.

 

How does this not contradict Canon 9 and Canon 12 (and James) as you described them?
Either the infant was JUSTIFIED 100% by Grace (since it was incapable of Good Works), or it is "anathema" to claim Justification without Good Works.

My objection is to the inconsistency and I care not one whit what Calvin or Luther or any man said, I am a fan of Sola Scriptura and I care about "What GOD says in His God-breathed Holy Word."

Do you really think that Matthew 19:14 (But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.") really means the same thing as "God does not withhold from children the hope of mercy (JUSTIFICATION)" and support the conclusion that "they must not be deprived of the sign"? The case for the Baptism of Children is not built on Matthew 19:14, it is built on admission to the New Covenant, biblical examples of baptism of "households" and the traditions of the Early Church Fathers. None of these demand WORKS from the baby to obtain God's Justification.

 

"According to Peter, faith should produce the qualities of moral excellence,"

"in your faith supply moral excellence"

In your Car supply Gasoline. Cars don't make Gasoline. Faith doesn't produce moral excellence.

That's why the greatest is LOVE. Remove Love and the rest go down like dominoes including faith.

1 Corinthians 13

2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.



James 2
26For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.


James says faith is body, and works is spirit.

Just pile up a bunch of dead bodies and see if that sparks a spirit.

Same way pile up all the faith you want, Love is the only spirit that can give it life.

GOD is Love. Faith does not produce God.

 

For those not arguing the Ordo Salutis:

The "Calvinist" claim is ... [John 6:44]

No man can come to me (Total Inability)
unless the Father (Unconditional Election)
who sent me draws him (Irresistible Grace)
And I will raise him up (Limited Atonement)
on the last day. (Perseverance of the Saints)​

 

This is not what you argued in the past. You claimed a person could reject Jesus Christ and still be saved based on their love of God (whatever that means to them) and love of others. You gave Paul as an example of this. This is the problem with Catholicism, when Catholics get into a conversation about salvation ( "what must I do to be saved" ) they end up all over the place, confusion is the norm among them. The Baptist view is precise, consistent and biblical, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved. What you see in this simple to the point statement is 1) Jesus is Lord 2) Jesus is Christ 3) believe this and you shall be saved. ALL other things a Christian DOES has no merit for salvation. The Christian DOES what the Lord says because they are saved, not to be saved or stay saved.
2Co 11:3
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

 

And the fact that you wrote a volume to explain away the plain meaning of scripture does not get you very far. I have heard it before and it is not convincing, just as any reply I make explaining the meaning of James in relation to Paul would not be convincing to you. You attempt to separate faith from works against the teaching of Christ and scripture.

This was not a mic drop moment but a concise reply that I knew you would understand. But since you want to call me out on my post let me respond to your “forgetfulness”. I spent five years in a Baptist Church where I heard countless half-truths, straw man arguments, and flat out lies told about the Catholic Church and the doctrines held. Many of these I knew immediately where not true. Others where debunked by a simple search of the cathecism. It made me reevaluate whether people saying such things could be trusted at all. Truth does not need to misrepresent untruth. So when you say you forgot to add “Faith alone” while asserting that the Catholic Church does not believe in the need for conversion (an easily verifiable falsehood) i do not believe that you are acting in good faith. There are several posters here who disagree with Catholic positions yet can make their case without misrepresenting what the Church actually teaches. I have a high amount of respect for them. Perhaps in the future you can argue against what is truely taught.

 

" I am a fan of Sola Scriptura and I care about "What GOD says in His God-breathed Holy Word." "

If you cared then you could cough up a verse that directly teaches that scripture is the final and only authority.

Folks don't baptize because scripture says so, scripture says so.

1 Corinthians 7

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.


Colosians 2

11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.


The line could have easily said:

In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands having been buried with him in Baptism.

Whats in the commas is details: that Baptism is the Circumcision of Christ.



Luke 2
21On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.


No body whining about a "believer's circumcision".

 

I have had many conversations with Catholics and I still do not know what they truly believe concerning salvation. They seem to be all over the place. One told me one had to use wine not grape juice in communion. Another told me one had to sell everything and live homeless. Another told me one could reject Jesus Christ and still be saved by loving God (whatever that means to them) and loving others. Do you have a clear Catholic answer? Is the "good Jew" or the "good Muslim" or the "good Buddhist" who hears the gospel of Jesus Christ and rejects it saved in their present state of rejecting?

 

Vincent1, I was raised as a Roman Catholic. I have a fairly good idea of what Romanism teaches. You probably do not read many of my posts, but I am on record as saying that most of my responses on this board or not just to the person I am answering. They are also to the majority of people who lurk and do not post. Those are the ones that often carefully weigh every word. I was one of those lurkers for many years in certain aspects of my theology, so I appreciate where they are in their journey. As far as you go, I am not that bothered by your opinion of my argumentation or whether or not you think I am responding in good faith, just as I am not impressed by your time attending a Baptist church and the conclusions you derived from the experience. You really cannot dismiss the pronouncements of Trent, which are still canon law. I am not the BB apologist, so I am going to let you have the last word without responding. There are others on this board more than capable of refuting Rome's errors.