Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?

[OzSpen]

Someone is up early

Some of us live in different time zones of the world.

 

[chessman]

yes, he's telling Timothy to teach these things he has learned to be a good servant.

So we both agree with v6. So what are “these things” Timothy is to teach in order to be a good servant, which he just through mentioning in vs 1-5???

Here’s the list of “these things” from what I read in the passage:

1. That some people will depart from the faith in theses latter days.
And
2. That nothing (and I mean nothing) that has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer is to be rejected specifically because it (whatever has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer) is not supposed to be rejected.

The two examples Paul specifically mentioned of “these things” occuring (which we have wittiness happen in the history of the church) are:

1. Forbidding to marry
2. Abstaining from certain foods

Marriage (that is a Biblical marriage) has been sanctified by God for all humankind (whether the human is an overseer/priest/deacon or they are not). When we see marriage (Biblical sanctified marriage) forbidden in the church we have seen exampled before our very eyes a “departure from the faith”. The same can be seen with forbidding and rejecting meat. That’s simply a “departure from the fath”.

Agree or disagree with anything I’ve said above (and why, please)?

What I don’t see exampled in this passage is ‘loss of salvation’. For goodness sake, Paul just got through saying that nothing that’s been sanctified by the Word of God and prayer is to be rejected.

Recall me asking whether RC priests are saved??? We both agreed that some are and some are not. By them forbidding and/or rejecting marriage they have “departed from the faith” not departed from salvation!

They have simply deviated from the truth (they are mistaken about marriage).

The truth Paul taught Timothy is that nothing, and I mean no-thing (marriage, food, His sheep, etc.), that’s been sanctified by God and prayer is to be rejected.

Make sense?

 

[chessman]

Which question?

The one you didn’t answer when I asked you (twice). I’ll repost it again and what prompted my question, for your convenience below. Although it would have been so much easier and less time consuming to have answered it then. Please be direct with your answer and specific with justification for your answer:

I claimed (and need to correct my claim if either is false):

Red Herring fallacy is a fallacy used sometimes with a formal debate. We are not debating, we’re discussing the subject of known sin versus unknown sin.

You quoted it then claimed (and need to correct it if it’s false);

chessman,

This is a false observation,

So I asked you twice and you didn’t answer (post 391 and 397):

Which statement is false?

1. Red Herring fallacy is a fallacy used sometimes with a formal debate.
2. We are not debating, we’re discussing the subject of known sin versus unknown sin.

Which statement is false?

1. Red Herring fallacy is a fallacy used sometimes with a formal debate.
2. We are not debating, we’re discussing the subject of known sin versus unknown sin.

 

[JohnDB]

Okay since unknown sin is still a sin...

And since no one can hold a perfect theology...

Doesn't it make sense that teaching others wrongly is another sin perpetuating even to generations?

Which is why during the Old Covenant only the Levites and Rabbi could teach and preach...they were concerned about teaching others to sin. Your average person would only say "Know the Lord".

The whole divorce-remariage being adultery has been completely debunked but people still preach this saying that it's "good news". (Which always made me scratch my head in wonder)

Or Laurie White's insistence of only worshipping on Saturday and Saturday only. (When the whole Sabbath Commandment was all about the end of the first Covenant)

There's many more examples...but I don't want to point fingers here...

Just discussing and wondering how bad it is considered by God to teach others wrong doctrines....

 

[chessman]

like Peter, the first adherents to the faith were converts who were already married.

On this we agree!

And the first church were adherents to Peter’s model (evidenced below) and they understood (as I do) that God’s promise was to their “children”. [Umm, were do babies come from daddy???]

And having heard it, they were pierced in the heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Men, brothers, what should we do?” And Peter says to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized on-the-basis-of the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, and for your children, and for all the ones far-away— all-whom the Lord our God will call-to Himself ”. ​

...​

while praising God and having favor with the whole people. And the Lord was adding the ones being saved daily at-the-same- place.​

Acts 2:37-39,47 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 2:37-39,47&version=DLNT

 

[chessman]

Doesn't it make sense that teaching others wrongly is another sin perpetuating even to generations?

It makes sense to me, yes.

how bad it is considered by God to teach others wrong doctrines.

I’d say it depends on:
1. What the false doctrine is. Although they’re all important, a doctrine teaching that Jesus (who’s not the Son of God, Christ, the Son of Man but rather was a regular man born of a virgin mind you but we want really worry about how that all works out) never actually died on a cross or rose from the dead but deceived people into thinking He did, is pretty darn important. Musical instruments in worship services (or not), not so much.
2. Is the person teaching false doctrine intentionally (it’s their own will to lie) to deceive and lead away students or is he/she simply mistaken, deceived through the deception of demons, yet it’s actually contrary to their own conscience about the teaching.

Of course volumes of exegetical based teaching could be written on the subject. Or one could simply assume their own conclusion. WRT removal of salvation by God (which 1 Tim says precisely zilch about) it must be assumed. It ain’t the faith of God (the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit) to reject something that’s been sanctified by God and prayer. One of His children, for example.

But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”. And they cast lots, dividing His garments among themselves.​

Luke 23:34 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 23:34&version=DLNT

Disciplining them when/where appropriate, now that’s what a good father does, right?

 

[JLB]

Here’s the list of “these things” from what I read in the passage:

“These things” refer to his instructions about choosing leaders based on their integrity of character and doctrine, that he instructed Timothy about.


This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

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.

If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.
1 Timothy 3:1-4:6



I don’t believe “these things” would somehow exclude the detailed instructions listed above, since He plainly said to
“Instruct” the brethren in these things.




JLB

 

[Walpole]

On this we agree!

And the first church were adherents to Peter’s model (evidenced below) and they understood (as I do) that God’s promise was to their “children”. [Umm, were do babies come from daddy???]

And having heard it, they were pierced in the heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Men, brothers, what should we do?” And Peter says to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized on-the-basis-of the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, and for your children, and for all the ones far-away— all-whom the Lord our God will call-to Himself ”. ​

...​

while praising God and having favor with the whole people. And the Lord was adding the ones being saved daily at-the-same- place.​

Acts 2:37-39,47 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 2:37-39,47&version=DLNT

Glad we agree that there is no age restriction on who can enter the kingdom of God. Some Protestants do and therefore refuse baptism to them, contrary to St. Peter’s explicit teaching in which you quoted above.

If I see paedobaptism come under attack in these threads, it will be good to know I have an ally in you to help defend it.

 

[Walpole]

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

Yes, exactly!

 

[Walpole]

Brother,

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



JLB

Agreed!

 

[Walpole]

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

I love Protestant people, but reject their sacrificing of their children to Baal.

(Aren’t strawmen so much fun?)

 

[Walpole]

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.

Early Christianity and continuing through the ages is demonstrably Catholic. I can provide the names of Catholic bishops, writings, Councils, archaeological sites, tombs, saints, martyrs, liturgical prayers, Scriptures, psalters, etc. from each century, beginning with the first. The same cannot be said for Protestants. This is simple historical fact.

 

[Walpole]

Wal,

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

Oz

No, they were not denominations. The Montanists were a heretical sect and Tertullian adopted heretical beliefs lter in his life.

 

[JLB]

I love Protestant people, but reject their sacrificing of their children to Baal.

I agree, I also reject any form of idolatry.



JLB

 

[JLB]

Aren’t strawmen so much fun?)

No not really.

It’s just another form of lying.



JLB

 

[JLB]

I love Protestant people

Amen.


Please know I’m not Protestant.


You can still love me, though... because it’s part of your salvation.



JLB

 

[chessman]

I don’t believe “these things” would somehow exclude the detailed instructions listed above, since He plainly said to
“Instruct” the brethren in these things.

Why do you think, grammatically speaking, that a chapter break was made between chapter 3 and 4 by Stephen Langton in 1227?

Here’s my answer:

Because it beings recording what the Holy Spirit “explicitly” says versus what is stated to be a “mystery” in the previous chapter.

​

 

[chessman]

Glad we agree that there is no age restriction on who can enter the kingdom of God.

Of course there’s no age restriction on who can enter the kingdom. The church had no restriction on age for baptism, nor celibacy restrictions. It was just as the Text here explicitly says and demonstrates. All those who asked “what shall we do” and then repented (including the children that did these things) most certainly should be baptized.

Maybe you could start another thread on when the RC Church departed from this original church practice and began baptizing infants who have not yet repented or asked what they should do.

Some Protestants do and therefore refuse baptism to them, contrary to St. Peter’s explicit teaching in which you quoted above.

What Protestants do not baptize repentant children? Shame on them. They need to reform that practice.

If I see paedobaptism come under attack in these threads, it will be good to know I have an ally in you to help defend it.

Why switch subjects to that of baptizing unrepentant infants who are not even old enough to ask “what should we do” (as explicitly stated in this passage)? Deserves its own thread and Scriptural basis because it certainly ain’t this model of asking and repentance first.

 

[Walpole]

No not really.

It’s just another form of lying.



JLB

Yes, if posted with the intention to deceive others by spreading a known falsehood. However, I think most straw men are posted out of sheer ignorance.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9


He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 1 John 5:12


Yes, most certainly correct doctrine does has to do with our salvation.




JLB

Man made doctrines do not fully express salvation.
The Beatitudes in Matthew express the doctrine of Christ.
This is where we see salvation.