Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?

[Walpole]

How so since I’ve not mentioned any impediments? Are you sure it’s me that conflating two different words?

If you are married, and you wanted to marry another, are you forbidden to do so or do you have an impediment (you are presently married to someone) preventing you from doing so?

“Exception”:

a person or thing that is excluded from a general statement or does not follow a rule.​

There is a rule in the Roman Catholic Church that forbides priests from being married. That’s my point.

There are rules governing how the Church administers her sacraments, including marriage and orders (priesthood). A man freely chooses to become a priest. He is not forced or forbidden to enter into any vocation, be it marriage or orders. However, there exists impediments to entering into marriage, and one such impediment is holy orders (except in the Eastern Church and a few exceptions in the West).

Forced marriages occur every day. Not that it has anything to do with the topic.

Not in Roman Catholicism. A forced marriage is an invalid one.

I know. I gave you a canon (issued in 1139) that condemned marriage among Roman Catholic priests.

Are you sure you are not conflating whether a man freely chooses to follow this canon (or not) with there being a canon???

Again, you are conflating an impediment with a forbidding. Let me try and better explain...

The Church does not forbid anyone to marry. She does, however, recognize there are impediments, which means one is not capable of entering into marriage. In the Latin rite of the Church (presumably what you are calling "Roman" Catholicism), a few examples of impediments to marriage are:

- A person is already married
- Age
- A person has made a religious vow
- A person has received holy orders
- Consanguinity
- A person is physically unable to consummate the marriage

This does not mean the Church forbids people from marrying. After all, the Church teaches marriage is a Sacrament. (It's the only sacrament explicitly called a sacrament in the New Testament.) An impediment means a person is not free to enter into marriage.

If you asked your pastor to marry you and your daughter, would he / she be obliged to perform it? Or does your church "forbid" marriage?

 

[GodsGrace]

“the faith”

What faith?
Faith in WHAT?

 

[WIP]

chessman,

I'm somewhat confused by your answer that your pastors won't marry 2 unbelievers. I find that unreasonable for 4 reasons:

1. Marriage is a creation ordinance (Gen 2:24 NIV). It is desired for all people (except for those with the gift of celibacy), not just believers.
2. Verses like Prov 18:22 (NLT) indicate "The man who finds a wife finds a treasure, and he receives favor from the Lord". It doesn't here speak of the believing man and a believing wife.
3. Where else in Scripture do we find God favouring or having mercy on unbelievers? According to John 3:16 (NIV), God loves the world, not a portion of the world.
4. Matt 5:45 (NLT), Jesus states, 'In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike'.

See: Would I Officiate a Wedding for Two Unbelievers? Yes

That's why throughout many years of ministry I've married unbelievers, on the condition I do marriage counselling with them prior to the wedding ceremony.

Oz

What I don't understand is why two unbelievers would seek out a clergy person to marry them. Why not just seek a secular marriage?

 

[GodsGrace]

What I don't understand is why two unbelievers would seek out a clergy person to marry them. Why not just seek a secular marriage?

Oh my.
I've been asking this for years and years.
I think they just want to have a beautiful wedding and invite everyone into a church setting and be "accepted" socially.

 

[GodsGrace]

If you are married, and you wanted to marry another, are you forbidden to do so or do you have an impediment (you are presently married to someone) preventing you from doing so?




There are rules governing how the Church administers her sacraments, including marriage and orders (priesthood). A man freely chooses to become a priest. He is not forced or forbidden to enter into any vocation, be it marriage or orders. However, there exists impediments to entering into marriage, and one such impediment is holy orders (except in the Eastern Church and a few exceptions in the West).




Not in Roman Catholicism. A forced marriage is an invalid one.




Again, you are conflating an impediment with a forbidding. Let me try and better explain...

The Church does not forbid anyone to marry. She does, however, recognize there are impediments, which means one is not capable of entering into marriage. In the Latin rite of the Church (presumably what you are calling "Roman" Catholicism), a few examples of impediments to marriage are:

- A person is already married
- Age
- A person has made a religious vow
- A person has received holy orders
- Consanguinity
- A person is physically unable to consummate the marriage

This does not mean the Church forbids people from marrying. After all, the Church teaches marriage is a Sacrament. (It's the only sacrament explicitly called a sacrament in the New Testament.) An impediment means a person is not free to enter into marriage.

If you asked your pastor to marry you and your daughter, would he / she be obliged to perform it? Or does your church "forbid" marriage?

Great post.
Let's see if it helps...

The only way I could be forbidden something is to have NO CHOICE. Seems simple enough...

 

[WIP]

a few examples of impediments to marriage are:

- A person is physically unable to consummate the marriage

Is this Biblcal?

 

[Walpole]

Where does the Church receive its doctrine?

From Christ via the Apostles. Hence it is Apostolic.

Of course not, no one here has ever implied such nonsense.

When you are advocating a faith apart from the faith of the Church, you are advocating this.

If Christ dwells in us, why would He not teach us, or speak to us?

He teaches us by the means He left us: The Church.

For the Church is charged with teaching and sanctifying. (cf. Mt. 28:18-20) Hence, the Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

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

It helps if you quote the passage in context, as the Apostle is referring not to some infused knowledge, but rather Apostolic teaching they received and which he is passing on...

"I am writing to you...I write to you...Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us eternal life. I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him." (1 John 2:12-14, 24-27)

However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. John 16:13

Jesus is speaking to the Apostles in this verse.

Here is one of the promises of the New Covenant.


No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Jeremiah 31:34

Yes, of course.

Can you give us some biblical reasons why Jesus Christ the Teacher, who dwells in believers, would not teach us?JLB

False premise...

Jesus does teach us the truth. He does this via the means He left: The Church

 

[chessman]

One can be married and become a priest (in the East and in some cases in the West),

The ‘cases’ in the West are exceptions to the condemnation of the canon I posted. Again, the canon condemns marriage among RC priests.

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

You (not me) are the one calling condemnation in a RC canon an ‘impediment’.

one cannot be a priest and THEN get married.

Right. It’s forbidden. That’s my point.

 

[Walpole]

Is this Biblcal?

"the two shall become one flesh"

 

[Walpole]

The ‘cases’ in the West are exceptions to the condemnation of the canon I posted. Again, the canon condemns marriage among RC priests.

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

You (not me) are the one calling condemnation in a RC canon an ‘impediment’.



Right. It’s forbidden. That’s my point.

Post the canons you are referencing above. They appear to be a control-v paste job commentary, rather than the actual words from the canons. Please post the actual canons along with the citation so I can discuss.

Thanks.

 

[ezra]

What I don't understand is why two unbelievers would seek out a clergy person to marry them. Why not just seek a secular marriage?

young couples i always talk to first explain marriage what it takes to make a marriage work.. what better chance to plant seeds . my self i had rather do a funeral at least they stay dead

 

[chessman]

And where did you learn what you're stating?

From the Bible. OT and NT, I’ve posted verses from both that directly contradicts your original claim. So does this one:

Romans 5:12
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given,

Bingo!
Was sin in the world before the law was given? It’s a yes or no question, BTW.

If I don't know the law, God will not impute that sin to me.

This is a different claim than the one we were discussing.

Come now, the ones saying “Today or tomorrow we will travel to such-and-such city and do a year there, and we will do-business and make-a-gain”—​

James 4:13 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=James 4:13&version=DLNT

Is someone who boasts the above claim sinning, whether they know it’s a sin or not? Again, it’s a yes or no question taken directly from James 4 which you referenced.

 

[chessman]

Post the canons you are referencing above. They appear to be a control-v paste job commentary, rather than the actual words from the canons.

It was taken from here:

https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6881

But here are the actual canons (which decree the same):

6. We also decree that those in the orders of subdeacon and above who have taken wives or concubines are to be deprived of their position and ecclesiastical benefice. For since they ought to be in fact and in name temples of God, vessels of the Lord and sanctuaries of the holy Spirit, it is unbecoming that they give themselves up to marriage and impurity.​

7. Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour.​

​

8. We decree that the selfsame thing is to apply also to women religious if, God forbid, they attempt to marry.​

​

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum10.htm​

 

[Walpole]

It was taken from here:

https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6881

But here are the actual canons (which decree the same):

6. We also decree that those in the orders of subdeacon and above who have taken wives or concubines are to be deprived of their position and ecclesiastical benefice. For since they ought to be in fact and in name temples of God, vessels of the Lord and sanctuaries of the holy Spirit, it is unbecoming that they give themselves up to marriage and impurity.​

7. Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour.​

​

8. We decree that the selfsame thing is to apply also to women religious if, God forbid, they attempt to marry.​

​

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum10.htm​

That completely changes the narrative, as there is no forbidding. Rather, the canons support what I previously posted, which I will repeat here...

It is a historical fact there is no tradition in the Church (either in the West or the East) where priests get married. The Apostles were married PRIOR to being called to the office of Apostle. This establishes the tradition: One can be married and become a priest (in the East and in some cases in the West), but one cannot be a priest and THEN get married.

This is what the canons you posted clearly state, specifically that clerics do not take wives.

Once again, all vocations are entered into freely. Impediments, however, mean a person is not free to enter into a particular vocation.

 

[chessman]

That completely changes the narrative

No it doesn’t.

We also decree that those in the orders of subdeacon and above who have taken wives or concubines are to be deprived of their position

The 1139 canon ruled that married priests were to be deprived of their position.

there is no forbidding.

Ridiculous.

 

[JLB]

“the faith”

Yes that’s the question.

“The faith”, what does this term refer to if not faith in Christ?


IOW if you were asked the biblical definition for this term to be stated in the SOF glossary of biblical terms, what would your definition be.


Example from the Strongs -

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
   1. relating to God
      1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
   2. relating to Christ
      1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
   3. the religious beliefs of Christians
   4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
   1. the character of one who can be relied on

JLB

 

[chessman]

What I don't understand is why two unbelievers would seek out a clergy person to marry them. Why not just seek a secular marriage?

I can think of circumstances. Let’s say a pastor’s niece (who’s an unbeliver marrying another unbeliever) wants her favorite uncle to marry them. He agrees to perform a ceremony.

I attended my first ‘Godless’ marriage back a few months ago. The officiating person (not exactly sure who/what his capacity was) statered out; “We gather here today before nature to join ... blah, blah blah”

It was about all I could do, not to laugh (but I held my peace for their sake anyway).

 

[JLB]

From Christ via the Apostles. Hence it is Apostolic.

I see.


What about today?

Since the the Apostles of Christ are not with us today, how does Christ teach us from within, based on the scriptures I listed.



JLB

 

[JLB]

When you are advocating a faith apart from the faith of the Church, you are advocating this.

Faith comes by hearing God speak to us.

Whether directly or through those He sends to preach the Gospel.


When Christ speaks to us, we then have faith.



JLB

 

[chessman]

“The faith”, what does this term refer to if not faith in Christ?

I have answered this question numerous times. And you still didn’t answer mine (like you said you would), BTW. It means “the faith”, just like it says.