Thomas Helwys
New Member
Thanks. I would too.
On that basis, would you say then that the RCC has the essentials of the faith? What about SDA?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Essentials of the faith
- Thread starter Thomas Helwys
- Start date
Thanks. I would too.
On that basis, would you say then that the RCC has the essentials of the faith? What about SDA?
Thanks. I would too.
On that basis, would you say then that the RCC has the essentials of the faith? What about SDA?
I would not say they possess the essentials of the faith. Both groups would agree with some orthodox christology, but if you take their theology as a whole you are left with a decidedly non-Christian faith. Both groups you mentioned teach a works based soteriology.
Thomas Helwys
New Member
I would not say they possess the essentials of the faith. Both groups would agree with some orthodox christology, but if you take their theology as a whole you are left with a decidedly non-Christian faith. Both groups you mentioned teach a works based soteriology.
Well, see, that is what I am trying to get at here. What are the essentials to be called "Christian"? If it is not the elements defined in the Apostles Creed, what is it?
I would say the same thing about TULIP Calvinism that you just said about the RCC, except the works based thing. And yet if they accept the essentials mentioned in the Apostles Creed, are they not professing the Christian faith?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, see, that is what I am trying to get at here. What are the essentials to be called "Christian"? If it is not the elements defined in the Apostles Creed, what is it?
I would say the same thing about TULIP Calvinism that you just said about the RCC, except the works based thing. And yet if they accept the essentials mentioned in the Apostles Creed, are they not professing the Christian faith?
Let us say, for arguments sake, that the Apostles creed contained all the essentials needed to be in the Christian faith. If the the Apostles Creed was a zero sum game, so be it. But it is not. What the early church confessed in the Apostles Creed the Roman Catholic Church corrupted. I do not think it is necessary to list all their errors, do you?
I would not say they possess the essentials of the faith. Both groups would agree with some orthodox christology, but if you take their theology as a whole you are left with a decidedly non-Christian faith. Both groups you mentioned teach a works based soteriology.
To be seen as being a "real chrsitian church", MUST adhere to saved by Grace alone, thru faith alone, and submit to Bible ONLY authority for faith/practice, both of those churches do neither!
Thomas Helwys
New Member
Let us say, for arguments sake, that the Apostles creed contained all the essentials needed to be in the Christian faith. If the the Apostles Creed was a zero sum game, so be it. But it is not. What the early church confessed in the Apostles Creed the Roman Catholic Church corrupted. I do not think it is necessary to list all their errors, do you?
Certainly not. But I see on here all the time, and I have been guilty of it, about some church teaching a false gospel. I was wondering what it actually took for that charge to be justified. Without meaning to step on any toes, I consider TULIP to be just as false as some RC teachings. So, when can we say that a denomination is not a true Christian one?
Certainly not. But I see on here all the time, and I have been guilty of it, about some church teaching a false gospel. I was wondering what it actually took for that charge to be justified. Without meaning to step on any toes, I consider TULIP to be just as false as some RC teachings. So, when can we say that a denomination is not a true Christian one?
again, arguing for either cal/arm would be "in church" debate, as both would still be teaching saved by grace , thru faith alone, and both adhere to just the scriptures...
Those 2 tests would seperate the chaff from the wheat!
Certainly not. But I see on here all the time, and I have been guilty of it, about some church teaching a false gospel. I was wondering what it actually took for that charge to be justified. Without meaning to step on any toes, I consider TULIP to be just as false as some RC teachings. So, when can we say that a denomination is not a true Christian one?
There is a difference between a false teaching and a false gospel. I believe synergism propagates a false teaching in its understanding of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. That false teaching does not necessarily result in a false gospel. Many synergists believe salvation is still by grace through faith in Christ alone. I am thankful for that happy inconsistency. Monergism preaches the same gospel. It differs over God's primacy in election. It creates heated debates between both camps, and broken fellowship, but it does not add works to the gospel. If you believe it does, then with all due respect, that is a problem you will have to work out.
Romanism adds works to faith. That is not just a false teaching, it is a false gospel that lacks the power to save.
There is a difference between a false teaching and a false gospel. I believe synergism propagates a false teaching in its understanding of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. That false teaching does not necessarily result in a false gospel. Many synergists believe salvation is still by grace through faith in Christ alone. I am thankful for that happy inconsistency. Monergism preaches the same gospel. It differs over God's primacy in election. It creates heated debates between both camps, and broken fellowship, but it does not add works to the gospel. If you believe it does, then with all due respect, that is a problem you will have to work out.
Romanism adds works to faith. That is not just a false teaching, it is a false gospel that lacks the power to save.
yes, for BOTH calvinists/Arminianists still affirm saved by grace alone, thru faith alone, just differing on HOW that process is actually accomplish, while Roman catholics who adhere stauchly to their teaching on it are in a fasle/different gospel!
Thomas Helwys
New Member
There is a difference between a false teaching and a false gospel. I believe synergism propagates a false teaching in its understanding of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. That false teaching does not necessarily result in a false gospel. Many synergists believe salvation is still by grace through faith in Christ alone. I am thankful for that happy inconsistency. Monergism preaches the same gospel. It differs over God's primacy in election. It creates heated debates between both camps, and broken fellowship, but it does not add works to the gospel. If you believe it does, then with all due respect, that is a problem you will have to work out.
Romanism adds works to faith. That is not just a false teaching, it is a false gospel that lacks the power to save.
That is the charge that Protestants make against Roman Catholics. The RCs on here deny it, and from some of their explanations I have read, they are apparently saying they do not believe works save.
That is the charge that Protestants make against Roman Catholics. The RCs on here deny it, and from some of their explanations I have read, they are apparently saying they do not believe works save.
Did you expect they would state otherwise?
Thomas Helwys
New Member
Did you expect they would state otherwise?
What I get from reading their explanations is that they feel that works are part of the sanctification process. I don't see any of them saying that works can save.
What I get from reading their explanations is that they feel that works are part of the sanctification process. I don't see any of them saying that works can save.
Great! Then let them abandon Petrine succession, baptismal regeneration, and embrace the five solas (sarcasm used for effect). Seriously, do not go by what individual Romanists tell you. The Vatican has its official teaching.
Thomas Helwys
New Member
Great! Then let them abandon Petrine succession, baptismal regeneration, and embrace the five solas (sarcasm used for effect). Seriously, do not go by what individual Romanists tell you. The Vatican has its official teaching.
So, you would see Petrine succession and baptismal regeneration as part of a works-based salvation system? What about water baptism itself? Couldn't some charge that with being a work?
I explicitly disavow baptismal regeneration, but I don't see it as a "work", just a wrong doctrine.
So, you would see Petrine succession and baptismal regeneration as part of a works-based salvation system? What about water baptism itself? Couldn't some charge that with being a work?
I explicitly disavow baptismal regeneration, but I don't see it as a "work", just a wrong doctrine.
Water baptism is a sign only of the thing signified. Baptismal regeneration requires more than Sola Fide. Ergo, works. Petrine succession (the papacy) continues the authority of the apostles and allows for the Pope's ex cathedra.
I believe that there is more in the atonement than most of us realize! But what I have learned from scriptures is that it is our faith in the complete work that Christ accomplished! His birth..sinless life...death...resurrection..and coming again!So, you are saying that a true Christian can only believe one view of the atonement?