Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?

[JLB]

Indeed, and a faith apart from the faith of the Church is nothing but a subjective / relative one.

The faith in Christ is the faith of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.


Only those within Roman Catholicism who have faith in Christ are a part of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.


JLB

 

[chessman]

I asked: Is unknown sin, sin?

To who?

To God.

It was really just a rhetorical question, with the obvious answer being YES. Not sure how anyone could answer otherwise.

Is known sin, sin??? Yes!
Is unknown sin, sin??? Yes!

Is late-night sin, sin??? Yes!
Is Sunday morning sitting-in-the-pew sin, sin??? Yes
Some might ask...
Is unforgiven sin, sin??? Yes!
Is forgiven sin, sin??? Yes!

I suppose you could change the meaning of the second sin (mid-sentence) and come up with an alternate answer. But I think that’s one of those logical fallacy thingie’s (forget the name).

 

[chessman]

I always find it humorous when folks quote St. Paul's epistle to his young bishop St. Timothy to try and prove married clergy was a requirement.

Imagine then how humorous it is to us folks who quote Paul’s epistle to Timothy, taking him at his word in the process; “overseer must be irreproachable, the husband of one wife, ...” when we run across folk who claim that he meant they must be a ‘husband’ of zero wives else they are a ‘concession’ as an overseer. And insert celibacy. In an ironic kind of way, it’s hilarious. One wife really means zero wives, husbands deprive your wives bodily, now that’s funny doctrine (in a departure from the truth, kind of way)

St. Paul himself was celibate (cf 1 Cor 7:7-9)

1 Cor 7:7-9 doesn’t say Paul was celibate.

Paul just got through telling husbands and wives “not” to deprive each other bodily (a told Timothy overseers must be husbands). Now that’s a hoot too.

 

[ezra]

Now that’s a hoot too.

yup and this post is turning into a hoot ---------- no merit

 

[Walpole]

Imagine then how humorous it is to us folks who quote Paul’s epistle to Timothy, taking him at his word in the process; “overseer must be irreproachable, the husband of one wife, ...” when we run across folk who claim that he meant they must be a ‘husband’ of zero wives else they are a ‘concession’ as an overseer. And insert celibacy. In an ironic kind of way, it’s hilarious. One wife really means zero wives, husbands deprive your wives bodily, now that’s funny doctrine (in a departure from the truth, kind of way)

It is quite humorous when you take text completely out of its context and isolated from the tradition in which it was written.

Again, marriage itself is not a requirement for clerics. Rather, St. Paul is telling St. Timothy that those clergy who are married MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, i.e., they cannot be divorced and remarried, which is a state of adultery.

Trying to make this instruction mean marriage itself is a requirement for the clerical state is self-refuting, since St. Paul was celibate as was Timothy. The Apostle would be contradicting his own teaching, as well as instructing Timothy to violate the teaching as well.

1 Cor 7:7-9 doesn’t say Paul was celibate.

1 Cor 7:8 --> "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am"

Celibacy = the state of being unmarried

Paul just got through telling husbands and wives “not” to deprive each other bodily (a told Timothy overseers must be husbands). Now that’s a hoot too.

No, he told married overseers they must be the husband of ONE WIFE, i.e. not divorced and remarried (aka adulterers).

What's a hoot is that if marriage was a requirement for clerics, then St. Paul disqualified himself and violated his own teaching, as well as did Timothy.

 

[Walpole]

Which Apostles?

All of them.

 

[Walpole]

Nothing here about the Church being apostolic.

JLB

"...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone." (Eph 2:20)

Apostolic = of or relating to an Apostle

 

[Walpole]

This explains a lot.


Sheeesh.


JLB

Says who?


Each of us have the Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth.



JLB

Without a pedigree, you are just another man-made sect.

 

[Walpole]

More commentary?


Just read the scripture.


Paul is prophesying by the Spirit about a time in the future.


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.
1 Timothy 4:1-3

• forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods

The Holy Spirit is clearly warning about the doctrines that were to come from the Roman Catholic Church.


Forbidding priests to marry.



JLB

The Scripture is clear, but you refuse to accept it. (So much for the "Spirit of Christ" teaching you individually.)

Large portions of the New Testament were written to refute Gnosticism. 1 Tim 4:1-4 is but one example. The Gnostics forbade marriage because they rejected procreation. (Amazing how even the pagans believed procreation was the teleological end of marriage.)

The Catholic Church is the last man standing in defending marriage. Only the Catholic Church continues to defend Christian marriage as heterosexual, open to life, exclusive and permanent. No other Christian church / sect or denomination teaches or even believes this. Not only do Protestants not believe this, they actually reject this.

Marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism. (It is the only sacrament explicitly called a sacrament in the New Testament.)

 

[JLB]

"...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone." (Eph 2:20)

Apostolic = of or relating to an Apostle

and prophets...Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.

 

[JLB]

Without a pedigree, you are just another man-made sect.

Brother,

Without Christ dwelling in our heart by faith, we are lost.



JLB

 

[JLB]

The Scripture is clear, but you refuse to accept it. (So much for the "Spirit of Christ" teaching you individually.)

Large portions of the New Testament were written to refute Gnosticism. 1 Tim 4:1-4 is but one example. The Gnostics forbade marriage because they rejected procreation. (Amazing how even the pagans believed procreation was the teleological end of marriage.)

The Catholic Church is the last man standing in defending marriage. Only the Catholic Church continues to defend Christian marriage as heterosexual, open to life, exclusive and permanent. No other Christian church / sect or denomination teaches or even believes this. Not only do Protestants not believe this, they actually reject this.

Marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism. (It is the only sacrament explicitly called a sacrament in the New Testament.)

Sorry bro,


I reject the teachings of the Catholic Church as doctrines that will lead a person to depart from the faith.


The true faith in Christ.


They deny priest's the right to marry, and promote the worship of Mary, as well as Necromancy, communicating with the dead.


This will be my last post about the Catholic Church.


I love Catholic people, but reject the teachings of Catholicism as Heresy.




JLB

 

[WIP]

An example might be alcohol. I would not have a glass of wine in front of an alcoholic anymore than I would offer him a glass and cause him to sin we have a responsibility with our freedom in Christ

That might depend on the person. At least three of my closest friends are recovering alcoholics but all three of them would be uncomfortable if they knew I avoided alcohol in their presence. In their view, their struggle with alcohol is something they are working out for themselves and not my burden. In fact, one of my friends will drink NA beer.

 

[WIP]

Are you making my point?
"What about new Christians that don't know mucha bout the commandments of God?"
EXACTLY!
God is not going to hold them responsible.
And I WAS speaking about Christians.
Unbelievers do not have to adhere to any commandment...they can't get anymore lost than lost.
It's we Christians that must adhere to God's law.


What I'm saying C, is that God will not hold a person responsible for committing an unknown sin (to them).
Please understand this.


1. In the secular world ignorance is no excuse.
GOD is better than the secular world.

2. We are not held guilty by God unless we understand what we did.

James 4:17
If we know to do good and do not do it,,,,we sin.
If God reveals to us something to do and we do not do it...THEN it is sin.

How do you think Romans 1:18-20 fit in with this?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, NKJV

 

[WIP]

Lots of good stuff going on here.

Would everyone participating in this thread care to vote, in response to the thread title?


Believing in wrong doctrine: will I lose my salvation?

• Yes:
• No:
• Other:

If you vote, please list the scripture as to why.





JLB

The post you quoted from me was not in reference to the whole of Scripture but only that to which I was responding at that time. I believe a person can fall away from the faith and I believe this is precisely why so much of the NT and Jesus warns us to be aware of false teachings.

 

[WIP]

Yes, but it also includes the Orthodox Church, as they are the only two Churches with a pedigree dating back to Christ.

Actually, I don't believe this to be true for most Christian churches including Protestant can trace their history back to the same point. Just as the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox Catholic church split apart in the 11th century, Protestantism was another split from the Roman Catholic church that occurred in 16th century. This split was primarily due to what Martin Luther saw as heresies in the Church. For the record, my use of lower case and upper case C when I spell church is intentional.

 

[WIP]

Moderator request: Please avoid directing responses to the person. Address the topic of the discussion. No need to make it personal.

 

[Northman]

Someone is up early

 

[OzSpen]

Are you going to answer my question first?

Which question?

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, but it also includes the Orthodox Church, as they are the only two Churches with a pedigree dating back to Christ.

Wal,

So, you don't include the Montanists and Tertullian as a denomination of the early church?

Oz