Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?

[ezra]

Hi Ezra,
You make a very good point. I have seen those that do this...go beyond scripture, I mean.

So isn't it a good idea to show this to them...even though these persons like to hold tight to their idea of doing whatever they want AND still be saved. I mean, we should at the least be making an effort. I don't even see this in some persons. And the fact that they preach what they do might lead others astray.

the pulpit so often is loaded in junk issues balance between trying to feed the Church and preach to the lost ..until the church gets rights nothing else will be right.. i been thinking when was last time any one heard a message from 1 john 3
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

but we hear all the in between the great falling away etc .. when was last time anyone heard of the assurance of there salvation? check this out
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

let me not leave this out obedience .. i cant prove either way you can or you can not ..everyone cherry picks scriptures .. so when we sin it appears we have allowed the devil to use us... flip wilson use to say the devil made me do it... no we did it because we had a lust of the flesh..
the sinful man is still there the old story of the man who had 2 dogs which one wins the fight . the one he feeds the most...

feed our spirit man we get spiritually fat.. feed our old fleshy side we get sinfully fat.

we reap what we sow . which should we focus on holiness or sinfulness ? there is your answer

 

[chessman]

You only sin when you KNOW it's a sin.
For a sin to be a sin, you must have knowledge that it's a sin.

Who told you this? They don’t know their Bible:

“If a person when he sins violates one from all of Yahweh’s commands that should not be violated, but he did not know, then he is guilty and he shall bear his guilt.​

Leviticus 5:17 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Leviticus 5:17&version=LEB

Not only is transgression for even unknown sin in the example I gave, it’s always been this way.

Who can perceive his errors? Acquit me from hidden faults. Also, keep back your servant from arrogant sins; let them not rule over me. Then I shall be blameless, and I shall be innocent of great transgression.​

Psalm 19:12-13 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Psalm 19:12-13&version=LEB

But the good news is, The Psalms tells us to ask for forgiveness for even our unknown sins.

Adultery is a sin whether you know it or not, as previously posted.

 

[Walpole]

Wal,

It is not illogical or self-defeating.

Unless you have a verse stating which books are the inspired ones that the Bible will be comprised of, your entire assertion is illogical and self-refuting.

Because no such verse exists, declaring "Sound doctrine grounds its authority within the Bible; false doctrine grounds its authority outside the Bible. The Bible is God’s inerrant, infallible, sufficient, complete, and authoritative revelation of himself to humanity" is a contradiction of your own position, as you are relying on an outside authority to make such a declaration.

What does Acts 17:11 (NIV) state?

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.​

So all teaching, preaching, scholarship, forum posts, etc must be compared with Scripture to determine their truthfulness. That's Bible!

Incorrect on two accounts. First, the Scriptures the Bereans who have searched to confirm what St. Paul was teaching them (orally) was the Old Testament, not "the Bible." Most of the New Testament had not even been penned yet, let alone in circulation, when St. Luke wrote Acts.

Secondly, the Bereans were Greek-speaking Jews. As such, they used the Septuagint, which contains books you don't even have in your Bible.

The teaching I presented to you stated:

Sound doctrine grounds its authority within the Bible; false doctrine grounds its authority outside the Bible.​

Doesn't that statement (the first part) synchronise with Acts 17:11? Luke, under the God-breathed inspiration of the Holy Spirit, stated that to check out doctrine we go to the Scriptures.

No, it does not for the reasons stated above. If the Bereans were relying on Scripture alone, they would have rejected St. Paul's teaching. Rather, they used the Old Testament Scripture to confirm what St. Paul was teaching them was prophesied. Recall St. Paul was teaching them that Christ - the Son of God - suffered, died and rose from the dead. There is only one explicit Old Testament passage which identifies the subject of a prophesy being the actual Son of God these Greek-speaking Bereans could have seen this prophesied, and it is not in your Bible. (Wisdom 2:12-20)

I have moments ago submitted an article for publication in which I quoted these people:

​

(1) ‘There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1). The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events’ (N F Gier 1987).​

​

(2) No records exist that Quirinius was governor of Syria when Luke wrote his Gospel. John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar stated, ‘The journey to and from Nazareth for census and tax registration is a pure fiction, a creation of Luke’s own imagination’ (Crossan 1994:20).​

Where is their authority from?

Not sure where you submitted your publication, but in orthodox circles, Gier and Crossan do not carry much weight.

You claim:

Who gave you authority to state that? That statement is based on external authority to the Bible. Let's check!

What is the nature of God revealed in the Book of Hebrews? You are reading a different Book of Hebrews to the one I'm reading. Mine states:

16People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. (Heb 6:16-18 NIV).​

The God revealed in the Book of Hebrews cannot lie. So, He cannot make an error (inerrant); he cannot mislead (infallible), the sufficient one doesn't lie, and the inerrant God who cannot lie is the authoritative God who theopneustos (breathed out) the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16).

Seems to me as though you gave us your external opinion on the lack of authority of the Book of Hebrews here. To the contrary, it is from the God who cannot lie - as revealed in Hebrews.

Oz

To avoid circular reasoning, you need to show me where the author of Hebrews states his epistle is God’s inerrant, infallible, sufficient, complete, and authoritative revelation of himself to humanity. Otherwise, you are taking someone else's word for it and applying it to the epistle, thereby refuting your original premise.

 

[Walpole]

Esoterically?

Each believer in whom the Spirit of Christ dwells is responsible to obey what the Lord teaches them.



JLB

This is gnosticism. If each believer was actually taught by the Spirit of Christ Himself, then there would be no need for Bibles, lexicons, seminaries, books, teachers, etc.

 

[Walpole]

Maybe so.

Of course I never said “each believer has the authority to declar what I s right doctrine”.

LOL!!!!

But you know that already, don’t you.



JLB

Maybe there are two JLBs who post here...

...The Truth dwells within each of us who have believed.


The Spirit of Christ dwells in us and teaches us and leads and guides us into all truth.


He will ultimately determine who believed and taught, and practiced the truth




JLB

LOL!!!

 

[Walpole]

Walpole , you bring up some good points and questions in light of Paul’s instructions to Timothy here in this passage about these later days where many are indeed attempting to re-define (depart from) the Biblical teaching concerning “marriage” (or eating cereal foods for that matter). I’ll repost Paul’s two examples of what it is to “depart from the faith” and discuss its application to the church in these days, addressing your questions:

​

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying-attention-to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars having been seared as to their own conscience— forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created for a receiving with thanksgiving by the ones who are believers and know the truth. Because every creature of God is good. And nothing being received with thanksgiving is to be rejected, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.​

1 Timothy 4:1-5 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=1 Timothy 4:1-5&version=DLNT


Only if he is forbidding what God has sanctified as good would this be an example of “departing from the faith”. God has sanctified marriage (not forbidden it) as being a monogamous, whole body, and sacrificial union between one man and one woman for one lifetime as “good”. Any departure from God’s sanctification concerning marriage (or food or any other teaching to include salvation) is just what it says it is; a departure from the faith. In the case of marriage, if a priest is forbidden or forbidding other to marry (and by that I mean God sanctified marriage), he (or she) has departed from the faith. Period!

So if a priest refused to marry a brother and sister he would be departing from the faith?

I do not agree. Again, even civil law recognizes there are impediments to marriage.

No. My pastors have always insured (to the best of his ability anyway) they are requesting a God sanctified marriage. If he determines their request in not sanctified by God for whatever reason (two men, two women, unequally yoked, etc.) he will not marry them in my church.

No, because it is sanctified by God for a man to leave his father and mother (his family) to become married. It’s always been this way. If they are brother/sister, i.e. have the same parents, he’s not leaving his parents to marry her.

and said, ‘On account of this a man will leave his father and his mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?​

Matthew 19:5 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Matthew 19:5&version=LEB

The text says a man will leave his father and mother; it says nothing about leaving his sister.

No. It’s only a marriage if it’s a God sanctified marriage. Anything else is a departure from what God had made good.

Make sense?

Not really because many people (even Christians) believe their marriage is God sanctified, even those in multiple marriages.

Now, a question for you; Are priests forbidden to marry according to Biblical teaching?

No, priests are not forbidden to marry. Priesthood, like marriage, is not and cannot be forced upon anyone, otherwise it would invalidate it. Priesthood, like marriage, must be entered into freely.

 

[Walpole]

Wal,

Does this apply to your own different doctrines also?

Oz

I do not subscribe to this gnosticism being espoused by the other poster. Christianity is not a subjective religion, whereby each individual becomes his own determiner (and creator) of truth. This is actually contrary to the religion of the Logos, which is a religion of revelation; whereby man discovers truth and conforms his will to it.

 

[chessman]

The text says a man will leave his father and mother; it says nothing about leaving his sister.

Nor did I.

many people (even Christians) believe their marriage is God sanctified, even those in multiple marriages.

Many people (even Christians) are wrong.

No, priests are not forbidden to marry.

Do you not know that Roman Catholic Priests are forbidden to marry?

Priesthood, like marriage, is not and cannot be forced upon anyone, otherwise it would invalidate it.

Says who?

Priesthood, like marriage, must be entered into freely.

says who?

I do not agree.

Why?

 

[JLB]

Then simply read my previous answer. Or better yet, Paul’s complete sentence to Timothy (without assumption) as to what it means to “depart from the faith” in this passage.

What assumption are you referring to?

Here is the context of 1 Timothy 4:1 -

Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 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. These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 1 Timothy 3:8-4:4


“The faith” is used 3 times in the direct context.


the faith
the faith which is in Christ
the faith


It’s also used a total of 8 times in 1 Timothy.


Why would you think the term “the faith” somehow is defined in the verses following
1 Timothy 4:1?


There is no definition for the term “the faith” found in verses 2-4 of 1 Timothy 4.

What is found are things taught by those who have their conscience seared as with a hot iron, which Paul says are:

• forbidding to marry
• and commanding to abstain from foods

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

speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 1 Timothy 4:1-4


Please explain how the definition for the faith is found is these words, when the term the faith is used throughout the whole New Testament as faith in Christ.


JLB

 

[JLB]

This is gnosticism. If each believer was actually taught by the Spirit of Christ Himself, then there would be no need for Bibles, lexicons, seminaries, books, teachers, etc.

I guess the early Church believers and Apostles were all Gnostics.

LOL!!!

They didn’t even have a New Testament, much less lexicons, seminary’s and books!!!


That’s funny.


But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
1 John 2:27



JLB

 

[Walpole]

Nor did I.

Many people (even Christians) are wrong.
Do you not know that Roman Catholic Priests are forbidden to marry?


Says who?



says who?


Why?

Roman Catholic priests are not forbidden to marry. Rather, they freely choose to forgo marriage, as has been the tradition in the West from Apostolic times.

Says the Roman Catholic Church's canon law:

RE: Priesthood ---> Can. 1025: A person must possess due freedom in order to be ordained. It is absolutely forbidden to force anyone in any way or for any reason to receive orders or to deter one who is canonically suitable from receiving them.


RE: Marriage ---> Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.

 

[Walpole]

I guess the early Church believers and Apostles were all Gnostics.

LOL!!!

They didn’t even have a New Testament, much less lexicons, seminary’s and books!!!


That’s funny.


But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
1 John 2:27



JLB

LOL!!!

One of the early Church's first nemesis's were the Gnostics. St. Paul's epistles are full of warnings against falling prey to their beliefs, e.g. 1 Tim 4:1-4; Titus 3:9. The early Church certainly didn't have a New Testament, lexicons, seminaries or even wide access to books. Rather, they had the ultimate trump card which they used to defeat the Gnostics: The authority of the Church via Apostolic succession.

 

[OzSpen]

Did you just change the subject?
This must be some kind of fallacy that I'm not familiar with.

wondering,

It's called a red herring. Take a read HERE.



Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Unless you have a verse stating which books are the inspired ones that the Bible will be comprised of, your entire assertion is illogical and self-refuting.

Because no such verse exists, declaring "Sound doctrine grounds its authority within the Bible; false doctrine grounds its authority outside the Bible. The Bible is God’s inerrant, infallible, sufficient, complete, and authoritative revelation of himself to humanity" is a contradiction of your own position, as you are relying on an outside authority to make such a declaration.




Incorrect on two accounts. First, the Scriptures the Bereans who have searched to confirm what St. Paul was teaching them (orally) was the Old Testament, not "the Bible." Most of the New Testament had not even been penned yet, let alone in circulation, when St. Luke wrote Acts.

Secondly, the Bereans were Greek-speaking Jews. As such, they used the Septuagint, which contains books you don't even have in your Bible.




No, it does not for the reasons stated above. If the Bereans were relying on Scripture alone, they would have rejected St. Paul's teaching. Rather, they used the Old Testament Scripture to confirm what St. Paul was teaching them was prophesied. Recall St. Paul was teaching them that Christ - the Son of God - suffered, died and rose from the dead. There is only one explicit Old Testament passage which identifies the subject of a prophesy being the actual Son of God these Greek-speaking Bereans could have seen this prophesied, and it is not in your Bible. (Wisdom 2:12-20)




Not sure where you submitted your publication, but in orthodox circles, Gier and Crossan do not carry much weight.




To avoid circular reasoning, you need to show me where the author of Hebrews states his epistle is God’s inerrant, infallible, sufficient, complete, and authoritative revelation of himself to humanity. Otherwise, you are taking someone else's word for it and applying it to the epistle, thereby refuting your original premise.

Wal,

The Book of Hebrews says God cannot lie, so what he revealed in Hebrews is not lying, but telling the godly truth.

So, in your view, which books of the Bible are theopneustos = breathed out by God = inspired by God?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I do not subscribe to this gnosticism being espoused by the other poster. Christianity is not a subjective religion, whereby each individual becomes his own determiner (and creator) of truth. This is actually contrary to the religion of the Logos, which is a religion of revelation; whereby man discovers truth and conforms his will to it.

You didn't answer my question to you. I wasn't asking about the other person's view.

'Man discovers truth'?? From where? The Quran?

 

[chessman]

Roman Catholic priests are not forbidden to marry.

• Canons 6, 7, 11: Condemnation and repression of marriage and concubinage among priests, deacons, subdeacons, monks, and nuns.

Speaks for itself.

Can. 1025: A person must possess due freedom in order to be ordained.

This is about their freedom of choice to become an ordained priest (or not). It says nothing about the requirements (which are many but includes being unmarried) for qualifying.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage;

This is about the bride/groom (the parties), not the priest’s qualification.

 

[JLB]

LOL!!!

One of the early Church's first nemesis's were the Gnostics. St. Paul's epistles are full of warnings against falling prey to their beliefs, e.g. 1 Tim 4:1-4; Titus 3:9. The early Church certainly didn't have a New Testament, lexicons, seminaries or even wide access to books. Rather, they had the ultimate trump card which they used to defeat the Gnostics: The authority of the Church via Apostolic succession.

Sorry bro, by your own admission, those who are taught by the Spirit of Christ are Gnostics, because they don’t use lexicons, seminary’s and books.


What a shameful accusation against Christ and His people.



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

I do not subscribe to this gnosticism being espoused by the other poster. Christianity is not a subjective religion, whereby each individual becomes his own determiner (and creator) of truth. This is actually contrary to the religion of the Logos, which is a religion of revelation; whereby man discovers truth and conforms his will to it.

Could you please explain gnosticism in 25 words or less?
Thanks.

(I'd like to understand how you attribute it to some posters)

 

[GodsGrace]

• Canons 6, 7, 11: Condemnation and repression of marriage and concubinage among priests, deacons, subdeacons, monks, and nuns.

Speaks for itself.

This is about their freedom of choice to become an ordained priest (or not). It says nothing about the requirements (which are many but includes being unmarried) for qualifying.


This is about the bride/groom (the parties), not the priest’s qualification.

This is not an easy concept for some to understand...
A priest is not forbidden to marry...
He CHOOSES not to marry.

When a man considers becoming a priest, he already knows in advance that he will not be able to marry. The choice is between marriage and priesthood.

IF he chooses priesthood, it means he chooses not to marry.
So it's a CHOICE....

Once, a man is a priest, he can no longer marry...but he knew this going in...

(some priests are married, BTW)

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

It's called a red herring. Take a read HERE.

View attachment 6675

Oz

Read the article. Thanks. I've learned so much from you.
Yes. I knew something was going on.
I'll forget the name of it within two days,,,
but I'll know when it's happening!