Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?

[ezra]

How does your question relate to my statement to wondering that when a person changes the subject, he/she commits a red herring logical fallacy?

Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument. lol surely not

 

[WIP]

what a silly question ... if man AND wife decides to not have sex even after marriage .that has no bearing on the couple being married this is religion at its best

My questions are referencing back to Walpole's post here.

 

[chessman]

I knew mostly how you would reply to that though. Is that cheating?

Nah, God does it all the time. He foreknows all 100 of His sheep and even goes in gets the 1 out of 100 that wanders away and puts it on His shoulders for the return. Heck, they’re His sheep and He knows them.

 

[ezra]

My questions are referencing back to Walpole's post here.

even at that this post makes about as much sense as Washington d.c

 

[OzSpen]

Once a man IS a priest, is he forbidden to marry?

chessman,

wondering has told you: 'Not marrying is just another condition...like any other condition in being a priest'.

Now you ask a redundant Q: 'Once a man IS a priest, is he forbidden to marry?'

You have committed a Begging the Question Fallacy = circular reasoning = redundancy fallacy. This happens when the conclusion is a restatement of the premise (stated by wondering).

Oz

 

[JLB]

Right, thanks for admitting that your understanding is based on adding to what Paul actually said in the passage. In the very same sentence are Paul’s two excellent contextual examples of departing from “the faith”. Neither having anything to do with Christ.

Really?

So the term “the faith” has nothing to do with Christ.


Please explain.



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

No. Luke 12:48.

On phone...I'm limited.
What about James 4:17??

 

[OzSpen]

The Book of Hebrews also says, "The brethren from Italy send you their greetings." (Heb 13:24). So what?

Of course God cannot lie. You don't need the book of Hebrews to tell you that. To sin (lying) is to act imperfectly. Hence, if God sinned, He would fail to act perfectly and therefore would be limited in His power to do as He should. Thus, a God who sins is one who contradicts His own perfection and is therefore not God at all.

What the book of Hebrews DOES NOT say is that it is "God’s inerrant, infallible, sufficient, complete, and authoritative revelation of himself to humanity", which you claim, and thus you labeling it such violates your own rule as you have relied on an authority outside of the Bible to declare something as authoritative.

All the books the Church so declared.

Wal,

Where in the Book of Hebrew or any other NT book is the statement made that Scripture is inerrant? Do we give up on any kind of understanding of inerrancy and infallibility?

Where in the NT is the use of the word, Trinity, used? So, should we teach the trinitarian God?

Where is the word, 'Bible', found in the Bible? Should we quit referring to those 66 books as Bible?

Your post had a number of red herrings in it that do not relate to the topic being discussed. You changed the topics.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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?

 

[Walpole]

Wal,

Where in the Book of Hebrew or any other NT book is the statement made that Scripture is inerrant? Do we give up on any kind of understanding of inerrancy and infallibility?

Where in the NT is the use of the word, Trinity, used? So, should we teach the trinitarian God?

Where is the word, 'Bible', found in the Bible? Should we quit referring to those 66 books as Bible?

Your post had a number of red herrings in it that do not relate to the topic being discussed. You changed the topics.

Oz

You are destroying your own argument. I guess you forgot what it was you initially posited...


https://christianforums.net/Fellows...-lose-my-salvation.78357/page-11#post-1494854

 

[GodsGrace]

My questions are referencing back to Walpole's post here.

OK WIP let me step in....
Some churches, like the Catholic Church, for instance, believe that when two persons get married they do so with the knowledge and acceptance of the fact that they will welcome children into the world.

Im not familiar with Canon law, but I'd venture to say that not all priests will marry a couple that has foreknowledge of sterility. I know for sure that some priests will....
If anyone is familiar with Canon law, I'd like to know this.

 

[chessman]

You have committed a Begging the Question Fallacy = circular reasoning = redundancy fallacy.

I am so sorry. I beg your forgiveness for committing what you think is a logical fallacy.

BTW, “begging the question” is not performed when someone asks someone else a question (contrary to popular belief). It’s performed when some assumes the conclusion within their premises.

“Once a man IS a priest, is he forbidden to marry?” Is a legitimate question.

 

[GodsGrace]

Nah, God does it all the time. He foreknows all 100 of His sheep and even goes in gets the 1 out of 100 that wanders away and puts it on His shoulders for the return. Heck, they’re His sheep and He knows them.

Sure. But does He forcefully take that sheep back?
Revelation 3:20

 

[JLB]

I never claimed “faith in food” or “faith in marriage” was “the faith”. That’s just more error and assuming on your part.

Isn’t that what is mentioned in the following verses?

Those are your words, not mine.


The definition is found in the following verses

Maybe if you just answer the question we can all learn what you believe.


If the term “the faith” doesn’t refer to faith in Christ, then what does it refer to.




JLB

 

[Walpole]

So then do you also believe that marriage begins with sexual intercourse?

No, marriage begins with the free consent of a man and woman to give and accept each other through an indissoluble covenant.

Follow-up question. How do you explain the difference between a concubine or harlot or prostitute and a wife as they are described in the Bible?

Presuming this is not a joke, the difference between a concubine, harlot or prostitute and a wife is one is married and the others are not.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am so sorry. I beg your forgiveness for committing what you think is a logical fallacy.

BTW, “begging the question” is not performed when someone asks someone else a question (contrary to popular belief). It’s performed when some assumes the conclusion within their premises.

“Once a man IS a priest, is he forbidden to marry?” Is a legitimate question.

 

[OzSpen]

Hebrews 6:4-6
One interpretation holds that this passage is written not about Christians but about unbelievers who are convinced of the basic truths of the gospel but who have not placed their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. They are intellectually persuaded but spiritually uncommitted.

According to this interpretation, the phrase once enlightened (Hebrews 6:4) refers to some level of instruction in biblical truth. However, understanding the words of Scripture is not the same as being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. For example, John 1:9 describes Jesus, the “true Light,” giving light “to every man”; but this cannot mean the light of salvation, because not every man is saved. Through God’s sovereign power, every man has enough light to be held responsible. This light either leads to the complete acceptance of Jesus Christ or produces condemnation in those who reject such light. The people described in Hebrews 6:4–6 are of the latter group—unbelievers who have been exposed to God’s redemptive truth and perhaps have made a profession of faith, but who have not exercised genuine saving faith.

This interpretation also sees the phrase tasted the heavenly gift (Hebrews 6:4) as referring to a momentary experience, akin to Jesus’ “tasting” death (Hebrews 2:9). This brief experience with the heavenly gift is not seen as equivalent to salvation; rather, it is likened to the second and third soils in Jesus’ parable (Matthew 13:3–23), which describes people who receive the truth of the gospel but are not truly saved.

Finally, this interpretation sees the “falling away” (Hebrews 6:6) as a reference to those who have tasted the truth but, not having come all the way to faith, fall away from even the revelation they have been given. The tasting of truth is not enough to keep them from falling away from it. They must come all the way to Christ in complete repentance and faith; otherwise, they in effect re-crucify Christ and treat Him contemptuously. Those who sin against Christ in such a way have no hope of restoration or forgiveness because they reject Him with full knowledge and conscious experience. They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with His enemies. It is impossible to renew such to repentance.

The other interpretation holds that this passage is written about Christians, and that the phrases partakers of the Holy Ghost, enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly gift are all descriptions of true believers.

This second interpretation is based on an alternate translation, found in the KJV and a few others, in which Hebrews 6:6 begins with the phrase if they fall away, with the key word being if. According to this view, the writer of Hebrews is setting up a hypothetical statement: “IF a Christian were to fall away.” The point being made is that it would be impossible (IF a Christian falls away) to renew salvation. That’s because Christ died once for sin (Hebrews 9:28), and if His sacrifice is insufficient, then there’s no hope at all.

In this view, the passage presents an argument based on a false premise (that a true Christian can fall away) and follows it to its senseless conclusion (that Jesus would have to be sacrificed again and again). The absurdity of the conclusion points up the impossibility of the original assumption. This reasoning is called reductio ad absurdum, in which a premise is disproved by showing that it logically leads to an absurdity. The weakness of this view is that the Greek text does not contain a word equivalent to the English if.

Both of these interpretations support the security of the believer in Christ. The first interpretation, which has a stronger textual basis, presents unbelievers rejecting Christ and thereby losing their chance of salvation; the second, weaker interpretation presents the very idea of believers losing salvation as impossible. Many passages make it abundantly clear that salvation is everlasting (John 10:27–29; Romans 8:35, 38–39; Philippians 1:6; 1 Peter 1:4–5), and Hebrews 6:4–6 confirms that doctrine.

Hebrews 10:26

Hebrews 10:26-29 warns against the sin of apostasy. Apostasy is an intentional falling away or defection. Apostates are those who move toward Christ, right up to the edge of saving belief, who hear and understand the Gospel, and are on the verge of saving faith, but then reject what they have learned and turn away. These are people who are perhaps even aware of their sin and even make a profession of faith. But rather than going on to spiritual maturity, their interest in Christ begins to diminish, the things of the world have more attraction to them rather than less, and eventually they lose all desire for the things of God and they turn away. The Lord illustrated these types of people in the second and third soils of Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23. These are those who “receive with joy” the things of the Lord, but who are drawn away by the cares of the world or turned off by difficulties they encounter because of Christ.

“Willful sinning” in this passage carries the idea of consciously and deliberately rejecting Christ. To know God’s way, to hear it preached, to study it, to count oneself among the faithful, and then to turn away is to become apostate. Sinning willfully carries with it the idea of sinning continually and deliberately.

1 Timoth 1:18-20

Since the word 'faith' is interchangeable with the word "gospel," this is referring to those that reject the system of the gospel.
Shipwreck denote entire destruction of faith.
Ship wreck is made concerning faith when men and women lose their faith in the nobleness of human destiny, and in the importance and possibility of attaining it.
A man has made shipwreck concerning faith when he loses those elements of character which are the results of faith. “They that will be rich fall into temptation and snares; for the love of money is the root of all evil.”
Thing is, just like Paul's shipwreck, people can be shipwrecked, but not totally falling away from grace & their faith.
It can also be referring to those that have no true grace, & therefore be shipwrecked so as to be lost forever.

blair,

I do wish you would document your sources. When you don't acknowledge the source that you have copied and pasted it can appear to be plagiarism.

Did you obtain some of this material from: Does Hebrews 6:4-6 mean we can lose our salvation? - Got Questions? If so, please give Got Questions? credit.

I urge you not to copy and paste a large chunk (I don't have the time to reply to all of this), but to choose just one point so we can respond.

Oz

 

[Walpole]

No it doesn’t.



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

Ridiculous.

Just so I can be sure you are not guilty of a double-standard, can you give me the name of your church so that I may call and inquire if they will marry a man who is seeking to marry his sister. I want to see if they too forbid marriage.

Thank you.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry. A false Christian ..... meaning those that give the impression they are a true believer, but have not accepted Jesus as a Christian must. Ya know, like a Sunday church goer, but that's pretty much the totality of their faith.

blair,

I asked for 'exegetical support' from the text and not your opinion of what it means.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

OzSpen

​

There are Catholic priests that are married.
This happens because some Anglican priests convert to Catholicism.

Anglican priests can be married, so when they convert they're given a special dispensation.

And so, we have Roman Catholic priests that are married.

wondering,

That sounds reasonable and practical. Are there any new RC priests who are already married who enter the priesthood?

Oz