Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?

[JohnDB]

John,,,Two things...

1. First of all, I agree with the above. Doctrine does NOT condemn us. This has been my point all along...

2. I'd like to start a thread on Church History. Where?
I tried classes but there no way to start a new thread...
Not that I want to teach it! I just didn't think the others fit...

Bible study forum.... probably the best fit.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes. That way we can keep this one on tract.



Thanks.


JLB

OK JLB...
Here it is.
I look forward to an interesting conversation with you and others that may wish to join in.

Bible Study
History of the Christian Church

• Thread starter wondering
• Start date 2 minutes ago

 

[GodsGrace]

JLB
Be back after dinner...

 

[stovebolts]

I do not I would agree. Christ deposited unity in the Church [Cf. John 17:21]. That unity subsists in the Church, thus without it "Church" no longer exists. To say the words "I believe" does not make a member part of the Body of Christ, unless that "I believe" is subsistence in the unity of the Body of Christ.

In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.[Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1] [CCC 817]​

Else, one is insisting on being part of the Body while residing outside the Body. Somehow that doesn't seem to work, especially if one is to drink of the same root.

Consequently I cannot hold to being a part of, while not part of. Yes, catholic means universal, but it doesn't mean universality.

JosephT

Yes, of course. But let us focus on harmony for the building up of the body. The term Catholic is not exclusive to Rome for it's meaning is much to broad.

I understand the word Catholic to mean all who are in Christ who follow in Christ's footsteps. This word is blind to nationality, social or economical stature

When we look at Paul's or Johns writing, we see the Church in different states and condition. You would agree that the Church in Corinth was considered as much a part of the Catholic Church as the Church in Rome or Laodicia.

 

[chessman]

Why would you try to explain away a foundational tenet of the Christian faith?

I haven’t. Why would you falsely accuse me of explaining away anything?

The term “the faith” refers to faith in Christ Jesus held by believers.

Not in 1 Tim 4:1-3 it doesn’t. It refers to “the faith” that Paul says it does.

For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1 Timothy 4:1

The truth is, that’s not 1 Timothy 4:1. You are mistaken. But don’t worry, your departure from the truth here will not de-save you.

 

[JosephT]

Do you have any scripture to validate this?
JLB

You're kind of stuck with the common sense of it, aren't you? Do you believe that 'Christianity' disappeared after Christ and the death of the Apostles? If not what happened between the crucifixion and 1520 A.D. when the Protestants came along and 're-discovered' truth (I should have said re-invented truth) - how was the word taught throughout the world without the Catholic Church?

JosephT

 

[WIP]

You're kind of stuck with the common sense of it, aren't you? Do you believe that 'Christianity' disappeared after Christ and the death of the Apostles? If not what happened between the crucifixion and 1520 A.D. when the Protestants came along and 're-discovered' truth (I should have said re-invented truth) - how was the word taught throughout the world without the Catholic Church?

JosephT

Gentlemen,
Please take this discussion to a new thread so we can stop hijacking this one.

Thank you.

 

[OzSpen]

If the RCC, or the Protestants, or what ever other denominations there are, believe themselves to be in fact part of the Body of Christ; then why do they yet wait for his return? And if Christ has not yet returned, then how can they declare for themselves that Christ is in? Can you explain this?

ez,

I'd appreciate some clarification of points in this post?

1. You asked, 'Why do they yet wait for his (Jesus') return?' Do you consider that those who wait for Jesus' return are not part of the Body of Christ?
2. Do you think Jesus has already returned?
3. 'if Christ has not yet returned, then how can they declare for themselves that Christ is in? Can you explain this?' I don't understand the meaning of 'that Christ is in'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not arguing whether or not Christ could write. In fact, I thought I mentioned that it was quite acceptable to believe either way and it would be quite logical to believe that Christ could write - if I didn't allude to this then let me do so now. I think you're missing the point.

JosephT

What's the point?

 

[JosephT]

Yes the Church.

And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26


The Church is made up of Christians.


I don’t find any place in the Bible where followers of Christ are called Catholics.

Do you?
JLB

You won't find the word "Catholic" (or in Greek "katholikos") meaning "universal" although many use universal as a synonym. Actually, "Catholic" is used in Scripture but to mean 'according to the whole' in the sense of fullness or wholeness. When Scriptures were being written there were many who were Gnostic, heretic, and the equivalent of cafeteria Catholics, they didn't teach the whole or complete truth of the Gospel. You'll find instead of 'katholikos' you will find 'kathaholos' to say the 'wholeness' of the word, that is according to the whole' or the 'fullness' of the word. see Romans 1:8 Acts 9:31.

Yes, "Catholic" is found in the bible. Is it found as the name of the Church. No. As we do today, St. Ignatius used the term 'Catholic Church' to designate the whole and true Body of Christ.

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.​

JosephT

 

[JLB]

I haven’t. Why would you falsely accuse me of explaining away anything?

Im not falsely accusing you of anything.

I’m plainly stating that you deny the term “the faith” in 1 Timothy 4:1, and it’s context 1 Timothy 3:13, refers to the faith in Christ Jesus.


Here is the scripture -

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 1 Timothy 4:1


Here is the context of 1 Timothy 4:1 -


For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 3:13



Do you believe the term the faith, in 1 Timothy 4:1’ refers to faith in Christ?


Yes or No.



JLB

 

[JLB]

You're kind of stuck with the common sense of it, aren't you? If not what happened between the crucifixion and 1520 A.D. when the Protestants came along and 're-discovered' truth (I should have said re-invented truth) - how was the word taught throughout the world without the Catholic Church?

JosephT

I’m not stuck with anything.

Do you believe that 'Christianity' disappeared after Christ and the death of the Apostles?

Absolutely not.


I do believe that Roman Catholicism has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity..


There may be some Catholic people who are born again, but that would be in spite of, rather than because of, Roman Catholicism.


Again, as I said before, I love Catholic people.

However the teachings of Roman Catholicism are Heresy.




JLB

 

[JLB]

Yes, "Catholic" is found in the bible. Is it found as the name of the Church.

The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism.


JLB

 

[JosephT]

I’m not stuck with anything.





Absolutely not.


I do believe that Roman Catholicism has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity..


There may be some Catholic people who are born again, but that would be in spite of, rather than because of, Roman Catholicism.


Again, as I said before, I love Catholic people.

However the teachings of Roman Catholicism are Heresy.

JLB

I'm glad you love us, but that still doesn't resolve anything here.

Didn't you say that the Church was comprised of Catholics in the following quote?

And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26

The Church is made up of Christians.

If that Church was the Church that ultimately settled in Rome, then isn't the Catholic Church the "Church" of Christianity? If not then you need to help with the history getting from Antioch to Wittenberg and explain how Christianity came to being then stopped for about 1500 years to reappear in Germany?

So, what happened? How do you explain the mystery of the missing Christians for about 1500 years? Are we to assume the clueless Roman Catholics carried Christianity for over 1500 years to turn it over to Calvin? Or, perhaps to turn it over to John Smyth in 1609?

How do you explain that Christ said to His Church, He would always be with them then disappear for such a long time?

JosephT

 

[ezrider]

I'm saying that the closer we get to God's light, the more we realize how much we need Him and how much we need to be forgiven.

This has not been my experience. As I grow in the Lord and in the knowledge of His Righteousness, it does not enlighten me any to any greater extent in the forgiveness that He has already granted unto me. As I grow in the Lord, I realize how much strenght I need to take the sins of others upon myself and walk in the true forgiveness of His nature.

 

[ezrider]

Isaiah 43:24-26
24“You have bought Me not sweet cane with money,
Nor have you filled Me with the fat of your sacrifices;
Rather you have burdened Me with your sins,
You have wearied Me with your iniquities.

25“I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake,
And I will not remember your sins.

26“Put Me in remembrance, let us argue our case together;
State your cause, that you may be proved right.

Oh. I agree. As Joseph Prince would say:
I will remember you're sins NO MORE!
But verse 24 does say that God is sick and tired of the sinning.

Actually, that is not what verse 24 is saying. In fact, it is quite the opposite. God is wearied, h He is sick and tired of the people bringing their sins before Him continually. For His own sake, for the sake of Mercy and not Wrath, He has blotted out your sins. He doesn't want to hear about them any more. If you sin against your brother, then seek forgiveness from your brother.

Verse 26 continues as He says he has already blotted them out and will remember them no more, so why do you keep bringing to me your sins and asking me to remember them? If you want to argue about it, then state your cause so you may be justified. This is akin to the lawyer answere and then seeking to justify himself when he asked of Jesus who is my neighbor (Luke 10:25-29).

 

[ezrider]

Isaiah 30:1
1“Woe to the rebellious children,” declares the LORD,
“Who execute a plan, but not Mine,
And make an alliance, but not of My Spirit,
In order to add sin to sin;

Not so good with the O.T. I'm sorry to say.
I guess you're talking about making an alliance but not with God's spirit. Well, who do you think we're making an alliance with if we've repented and gone the other way?
I'm not sure this is what you mean...

Isaiah 30:1
Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord,
that take counsel, but not of me;
and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit,
that they may add sin to sin:

They cover their sins in BLOOD to that they can add sin unto sin. They create new sins for themselves daily so that they may continue to cover themselves in blood and then justify themselves by it. Covering ones sins with blood does not make for a marriage and relationship with the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[JLB]

Didn't you say that the Church was comprised of Catholics in the following quote?

No.


Here’s my quote -

And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the churchand taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26

The Church is made up of Christians.

The Church is made up of Christians.




JLB

 

[JLB]

If that Church was the Church that ultimately settled in Rome, then isn't the Catholic Church the "Church" of Christianity?

“That church” was never settled in Rome.




JLB

 

[chessman]

Im not falsely accusing you of anything.

Yes you are. It is false that I am denying anything from this passage nor am I explaining any of it away. Nothing!

On the otherhand. This is not even a complete sentence:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 1 Timothy 4:1

Are you denying the rest of his sentence?

I’m plainly stating that you deny the term “the faith” in 1 Timothy 4:1, and it’s context 1 Timothy 3:13, refers to the faith in Christ Jesus.

You’re mistaken. I’ve never, not once, denied that those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 3:13

Do you believe the term the faith, in 1 Timothy 4:1’ refers to faith in Christ?

No. Because Paul didn’t say it refers to faith in Christ.