Reformed theology draws a distinction between a saving profession of faith and a credible profession of faith. A credible profession of faith is what is required for church membership—at least in the case of adults.

The members of the true church are limited to the elect or regenerate.

However, we don’t know who is elect or regenerate. So the condition for membership in the visible church is a credible profession of faith, in contradistinction to a saving profession of faith.

Back in the 19C, this issue came up with reference to the validity, or lack thereof, of Catholic baptism.

In the course of that debate, Charles Hodge said the following:

This definition is one to which the principles laid down on this subject in Scripture necessarily lead. The Scriptures teach that the faith in Christ makes a man a Christian; the profession of that faith makes him a professing Christian. The true, or invisible church consists of true believers; the visible church, of a society of such professors, united for church purposes and separated from other societies by subjection to some one tribunal. These seem to be plain scriptural principles.

By essential doctrines we mean, as already stated, those which no man can be saved without believing. We shall not undertake the delicate task of giving a list of such doctrines, but content ourselves with remarking that the Scriptures adopt a twofold mode of statement on the subject. First, they give certain doctrines which, they declare, if any man believes he shall be saved. And secondly, they state certain doctrines which, if a man rejects, he shall be lost.

One reason why more particulars are found under the latter head than the former, no doubt is, that the rejection of a doctrine implies a knowledge of it. And the rejection of a doctrine when known may be fatal, when the knowledge of it, as a distinct proposition, may not be essential to salvation. These essential doctrines therefore may be learned both from the affirmative and negative statements of the Bible. For example, it is said, whosoever believes in Christ shall be saved; whosoever believes that Jesus is the Son of God is born of God; whosoever believes and confesses that Christ is Lord, does it by the Holy Ghost; on the other hand, it is fatal to deny God, for he that cometh unto God must believe that he is the rewarder of those that diligently seek him. He who denies the Son, the same hath not the Father; he who denies sin, or that he is a sinner, the truth is not in him; he who rejects the sacrifice of Christ, has only a fearful looking for of judgment; he who seeks justification from the law has fallen from grace, and Christ shall profit him nothing; he who denies the resurrection of Christ, makes our preaching and our faith vain; he who denies holiness, and the obligation of holiness, has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel; so he who says that the resurrection is past already, has made shipwreck of the faith. The denial of these doctrines is said to forfeit salvation; but it does not follow that they must all be clearly known and intelligently received in order to salvation. It is a historical fact, as far as such a fact can be historically known, that men have been saved who knew nothing of the gospel but that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. The Scriptures do not warrant us in fixing the minimum of divine truth by which the Spirit may save the soul. We do know, however, that if any man believes that Jesus is the Son of God, he is born of God; that no true worshipper of Christ ever perishes. Paul sends his Christian salutations to all in every place, theirs and ours, who shall call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, their Lord and ours.¹

Let’s compare and contrast his statement with a classic definition of saving faith:

By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein, and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. ²

Now let’s analyse and evaluate the import and the importance of these distinctions.

1. A credible profession of faith would be an apparently saving profession of faith.

Apparently in the sense that what appears to be a saving profession of faith might or might not be a truly saving profession of faith.

On the one hand, some people exercise saving faith, but are too inarticulate or immature to express themselves satisfactorily.

On the other hand, some apostates were able to offer a credible profession of faith back when they were nominal Christians, but, given their subsequent apostasy, their credible profession of faith fell fatally short of a saving profession of faith.

2. Put another way, a saving profession of faith assumes the reality of the subject’s salvation, whereas a credible profession of faith is limited to the phenomenology of faith.

There is no actual overlap between election and reprobation. And there is no possibility of transition from the one to the other.

Likewise, there is no actual overlap between regeneracy and unregeneracy, although there is the possibility of transition from one to the other, but with the following caveats:

i) All reprobates are unregenerate.

ii) Some of the elect are (for a time) unregenerate.

iii) Hence, some of the elect represent a subset of the unregenerate.

iv) However, the elect never represent a subset of the reprobate.

iv) Elect unregenerates will be regenerated in time.

v) Reprobate unregenerates will never be regenerated.

vi) One can go from unregeneracy to regeneracy, but not vice versa.

3. At the phenomenological level, there can be an overlap between elect and reprobate, regenerate and unregenerate.

i) Some nominal Christians or closet apostates act like the regenerate.

ii) Some elect backsliders act like reprobates or unregenerates.

iii) Likewise, an elect unregenerate who has not as of yet come to the faith may be indistinguishable from a reprobate.

4. This is why we are in no position to say how much doubt is too much doubt. God only knows.

5. There’s a sense in which an individual is saved, not so much by faith, but by regeneration. Regeneration creates a predisposition to exercise saving faith. When the regenerate mind is then presented with a suitable object of faith, this counter will trigger saving faith.

For example, elect infants who die in infancy are saved by regeneration rather than faith. At the same time, saving faith is the fruit of a regenerate root.

6. Hence, even elect infants who died in infancy do not, presumably, remain in their infantile state for all eternity. Rather, they will mature in mind and body. They will grow up. And they will grow into the faith.

7. Point being, God doesn’t regenerate an individual to leave him in a state of unbelief.

8. This goes to the question of how much an individual needs to believe in order to be saved, or how accurate his doctrinal knowledge must be.

I assume that, to some extent, this is person-variable.

For example, there’s a sense in which Jesus clearly held the religious establishment to a higher standard since the rabbis were in a position to know more than the laity.

In another sense, this is the same standard: You are responsible for what you actually know, and you are also responsible for what you are able to know.

Ignorance can be culpable if you were in a position to inform yourself.

9. Apropos (8), a credible profession of faith is not only inter-person-variable, depending on each person’s natural aptitude and educational opportunities, but is also intra-person-variable. As I said before, regeneration creates a predisposition to exercise faith.

Now, a convert may be very ignorant of theology. Yet, if he’s truly regenerate, he will also be receptive to sound spiritual instruction.

A newly-minted convert who has given a credible profession of faith consistent with the theological understanding of a novice may not be able to give a credible profession of faith if, subsequently, he should prove to be highly resistant to further instruction in the faith. His spiritual resistance would be symptomatic of a false convert.

10. There’s also an important distinction between what you don’t believe because you don’t know enough to believe it, and a false belief.

A heretic entertains certain false beliefs which negate true beliefs.

So, in order to be saved, there is what you must believe as well as what you must not believe.

And there’s a sense in which it’s somewhat easier to tell who isn’t saved than to say who is.

11. We should also distinguish between the preconditions of saving faith and the conditions of saving faith.

I cannot exercise saving faith unless I’m elect, regenerate, and redeemed. These are preconditions of saving faith.

They are not, however, conditions of saving faith. Put another way, they are not necessary objects of saving faith.

I cannot be saved without election, but I can be saved without believing in election.

12. This also intersects with the distinction between saving faith and the assurance of salvation. The assurance of salvation involves a self-reflective belief about my own state of grace.

i) On the one hand, saving faith does not require that self-reflective belief.³

ii) On the other hand, nominal Christians are often self-deluded about their state of grace—assuming they give it any thought.

13. Finally, there’s the question of how various theological traditions define Christian identity.

In high-church traditions like Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it is illicit to drive a wedge between individual Christian identity and the individual’s corporate identification with the institutional church.

14. Hence, in judging the question of whether a Catholic qua Catholic (to take one example) can offer a credible profession of faith, I’m judging the credibility of his profession less by the fine points of his own theological understanding than by the official profession of his church.

There’s something of a blank check quality to Catholic faith. There is an implicit faith among lay Catholics. I may not know everything the church happens to teach, but I believe in the authority of the church’s teaching office, and, while I may be quite ignorant of the church’s teaching in various respects, I would believe whatever I was taught.

So, in judging the faith of a Catholic on his own ecclesiastical grounds, I can ignore many of the distinctions I have just drawn. I can treat the Catholic layman as if he were the Pope.

15. If, however, I were to judge him on Protestant grounds, then I would distinguish between individual and institutional identity. To judge on a case-by-case basis, it might be possible for an individual Catholic to render a credible profession of faith—somewhat in spite of his Catholic identity.

And it’s certainly possible for an individual Catholic to exercise saving faith.

16. However, if I can put it somewhat crassly, the odds of being a heaven-bound Catholic are lower than the odds of being a heaven-bound evangelical.

I’m not saying that salvation is a matter of chance. Just that, percentage wise, more people will be saved where the gospel is more clearly proclaimed. You can’t have saving faith without a saving object of faith.

To illustrate my point, any of the following creeds could supply the basis for a credible profession of faith:

i) The Thirty-Nine Articles⁴
ii) The Formula of Concord⁵
iii) The Baptist Faith & Message⁶
iv) The C&MA statement of faith⁷
v) The JFJ statement of faith⁸
vi) The EFCA statement of faith⁹
vii) The Campus Crusade statement of faith¹⁰
vii) The AG statement of faith¹¹

17 .Let’s contrast this with Roman Catholicism: with respect to saving faith as well as a credible profession of faith, the problem with Catholicism is that it fosters divided commitments.

In Catholicism, I’m saved by my faith in the merit of Christ, plus my faith in the merit of the saints who intercede for me, plus my faith in my own congruent merit.

So a consistent Catholic does not and cannot trust in Christ alone for salvation.

18. Is that damning? I don’t have a uniform answer. It’s possible to be intellectually confused to some degree and still be saved. It’s possible to compartmentalize one’s faith to some degree and still be saved.

But, at a minimum, such an individual cannot render a credible profession of faith.

And there does come a point, known only to God, where faith is so diluted that it’s polytheistic.

1. http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/charles_hodge/is_the_church_of_rome_a_part_of_the_visible_church.htm ↩
2. WCF 14:2↩
3. Cf. P. Helm, Beginnings: Word and Spirit in Conversion (Banner of Truth 1996).↩
4. http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html↩
5. http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd.html↩
6. http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp↩
7. http://www.cmalliance.org/whoweare/doctrine.jsp↩
8. http://www.jewsforjesus.org/about/statementoffaith↩
9. http://www.efca.org/about/doctrine/↩
10. http://www.ccci.org/statement_of_faith.html↩
11. http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm↩