Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?

[JLB]

then why do they yet wait for his return?

Because the scriptures teach us He will return to gather His people at the resurrection and catching up of the living.



Do you believe the resurrection of the dead in Christ is past?



JLB

 

[WIP]

Very well could be! If you are not hearing Him then you must rely on yourself. On the other hand being a member part of the Body of Christ, I can hear the re-play.

Why do you say I am not a member of the Body of Christ?

 

[WIP]

Which was it, was he paying attention? This isn't a came of 'pass-it-on'. So, what are you going to do about it, how are you going to solve your problem of "knowing" for sure?

JosephT

Why do you think I have a problem with that? Just curious where this question and the one I quoted previously is coming from. You are asserting things that I have not said so I'm curious why that is.

Also, I never said that the teaching of the Holy Spirit was a game of "pass it on." Far from it. My analogy was to show that passing it along from one to another for generations or centuries could very easily result in something being lost. It is for this reason that I believe we must listen to the Holy Spirit first and foremost above any tradition or doctrine of man.

 

[ezrider]

My questioned to you has remained the same.

I wonder why you won’t answer it?


Please explain how worshiping the Lord God is the same as worshiping idols.


Maybe you could give an example of someone who worships the Lord God while also worships idols.



JLB

Sorry, I'm done with your games

 

[ezrider]

Ill try again.


I don’t worship idols (man made objects), I worship Jesus Christ, the Lord God?


Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Lord God?



JLB

Sorry, but I'm done with your games.

 

[ezrider]

I don’t picture any image of Jesus Christ in my mind while I worship Him.



Hopefully you will answer my question since I have answered two of yours now.


My questioned to you has remained the same.

I wonder why you won’t answer it?


Please explain how worshiping the Lord God is the same as worshiping idols.


Maybe you could give an example of someone who worships the Lord God while also worships idols.


JLB

Sorry, but I'm done with your games. Now please excuse me while I go kick some dust.

 

[blair032]

I don't think its exaggeration at all. If you start from their premise that "Catholicism is a false religion and all faith is built on "bible alone" then everything they postulate is built from those two axioms. In short the pillars of their faith are straw and stubble, not to mention being two legged, unstable.



The source does indeed matter. Were do you want to start, shall we start with the statement:

"Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that yes, Catholicism is a false religion" since it is their pillar of their faith.

First, Catholicism does not diverge from Sacred Scripture, rather it the Church that give both authenticity and credibility to Sacred Scripture. Christ did not come to write a book, there is no evidence, though we are free to assume, that Christ could write.

Second, Sacred Scripture is the product of the Church and Scripture cannot be rightly understood outside the confines of the teachings of the Church. Sacred Scripture written by the Apostles for the authority of the Church to teach a divine Word divinely.

Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church [CCC 113]​

Third, there are those who diverge from the Truth to support a god of their own making. Hence, they must always be in contention with Catholicism else, their subjective truth is revealed not to be reality. That is to say religions formed on this bases, such as Protestantism, reformism and Evangelicalism are all based on schism, a sin and a self delusional lie. Hence, they must find Catholicism to be false, else their schism is false. Reading Scripture in this way becomes unfruitful, the emotional juices might run deep but the pulp offer no nourishment to reason.

Fourth, it becomes evident to those who search truth that there is only on of such a thing, there cannot be a truth for the Baptist, another for the Methodist, Lutherans or any other "denomination" (a word derived from currency used to describe your faith). If it is true for the Baptist it must be true for the Methodist, Lutherans, and others, as well the Catholics. But, its not is it? In a comparison of any two only one can be true. If not then all are in error or only one is true and the others are false. Else, God is in error, which we know can't be true.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ---Against Heresies III,1 ​

​

​

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. ---Against Heresies III,2​

Since we find that Sacred Scripture is the product of the Church, not the Church the product of a Book we are forced to concede Her supremacy in matters of doctrine and faith. The Holy Spirit guides her and her alone. And the Holy Spirit guides those outside the Church to truths residing in her treasury of faith and truth.


JosephT

What I was referring to with regards to "source doesn't matter ..." was the matrial I laid out for the specific reasoning for the previous argument, not the overall mindset of "GotQuestions." So, let's stay on task if you would.

If the quotes you've offered above are indeed from "GotQuestions," then I was unaware of that. I must say tho, that some of the Catholic doctrine seem to be made up out of somewhere else than the bible. How can a mortal sin be considered just that one day, & the next day not even a sin at all? I refer back to the changes in the 60's & other times to reflect social norms rather than biblical standards. & other rules/sins that the Catholic doctrine made up that they deemed correct & from God, when they have no biblical basis?

So, maybe GotQ referenced the non biblical 'rules' when criticizing Catholicism. I have nothing against the Catholic denomination whatsoever. I even attend a Catholic church with my wife from time to time. I look at it as, anything that gets one closer to God is worth pursuing. If it's Catholicism, then great!

The Church may have compiled biblical text, but they had nothing to do with the actual writings it contains.

he Holy Spirit cannot be highjacked for one entity as you have above re the Church.

The bible that is used for your example of "Baptists, Methodists, & most Christian demoninations used the same bible, altho may have favorite translations. But still considered the same bible. You must remember that humans have made these denominations, including Catholicism. THEY have erred at times bc of pride, jealousy etc. But why get all upset with this, as many do, when living as Jesus told us to is what matters? & I'm fairly certain that the NT is the same for all Christians.

But to give ALL the credit to Catholicism for the bible is just ludicrous ...... but as I said, upset yourself with "I'm right, & everyone else is wrong," & miss Jesus' message re how to live if you wish to. Thing is, shouldn't we promote Jesus' teachings rather than arguing about who did what ....... when in the end, that doesn't mean a thing.

 

[GodsGrace]

For the dead believer, between death and resurrection is what I'm talking about. ZERO consciousness during this period.

For the unbeliever, zero consciousness ever again. No second chances. No unbeliever will ever be resurrected. No unbeliever will ever stand in a judgment, Ps 1:5

No hell. No separate part of man called a soul. Both 100% non-Biblical pagan beliefs.

I was on a phone last night and couldn't answer this properly.
I do want to say this:

You went to Psalms for a supporting verse.
Some Jews did not even believe in an after-life, such as the sadducees, for instance. Some believed in soul sleep...who was right?

What did Jesus say about this? He told the thief on the cross that THIS VERY DAY he would be with Him in paradise...After Jesus' death He did go to hades to free those that were waiting there in Abraham's Bossom; however it did happen that very day. The thief didn't have to wait for the general resurrection that will come at the end of the world, at which time real bodies will be restored to us, in this you are correct.

But we are conscious after death. In Luke 16 Jesus tells the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus...many theologians believe this is NOT a parable but a real story told by Jesus.
In this story Jesus clearly shows that those waiting there were fully conscious.

Could you read that please and explain how you understand this? It seems very clear to me.
Luke 16:19-31

The Rich Man and Lazarus

19“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20“And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22“Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23“In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24“And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25“But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26‘And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27“And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29“But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30“But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31“But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

[JohnDB]

Let's not try to force others to answer our questions.
If they won't answer, then there is not a discussion but a platform for someone to pontificate upon whatever subject strikes their fancy. And ignoring them for their lack of participation in honest discourse is called for. Nor is it acceptable to claim questions to be labeled as games.

It's only good manners gentleman. Please use them.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

It appears to me that you are more interested in maintaining your festivity in playing games. There is no discussion going on here and I suspect I could respond to your question a dozen times trying to clarify it for you, and you would only ask why do I keep changing my answer.


You say that you worship Jesus Christ. This I can not deny. But why then do you continue to dodge the question I asked of you? Are you incapable or just afraid?



Are you going to answer my question?

What's the questions?
I'll answer them.

 

[JosephT]

Hello JosephT and welcome.
I see you are well versed and show a level of maturity while discussing our faith. I appreciate that.

Without diverging, I'm sure you will agree that we are all part of the Catholic Church,

Catholics meaning universal and church meaning the Body of Christ

I do not I would agree. Christ deposited unity in the Church [Cf. John 17:21]. That unity subsists in the Church, thus without it "Church" no longer exists. To say the words "I believe" does not make a member part of the Body of Christ, unless that "I believe" is subsistence in the unity of the Body of Christ.

In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.[Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1] [CCC 817]​

Else, one is insisting on being part of the Body while residing outside the Body. Somehow that doesn't seem to work, especially if one is to drink of the same root.

Consequently I cannot hold to being a part of, while not part of. Yes, catholic means universal, but it doesn't mean universality.

JosephT

 

[JosephT]

JT,

John 8:6-11 (NIV) states:

6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. ​

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.​

​

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’​

​

11 ‘No one, sir,’ she said.​

‘Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin.’​

Did Jesus write or not?

Oz

I'm not arguing whether or not Christ could write. In fact, I thought I mentioned that it was quite acceptable to believe either way and it would be quite logical to believe that Christ could write - if I didn't allude to this then let me do so now. I think you're missing the point.

JosephT

 

[JosephT]

What I was referring to with regards to "source doesn't matter ..." was the matrial I laid out for the specific reasoning for the previous argument, not the overall mindset of "GotQuestions." So, let's stay on task if you would.

If the quotes you've offered above are indeed from "GotQuestions," then I was unaware of that. I must say tho, that some of the Catholic doctrine seem to be made up out of somewhere else than the bible. How can a mortal sin be considered just that one day, & the next day not even a sin at all? I refer back to the changes in the 60's & other times to reflect social norms rather than biblical standards. & other rules/sins that the Catholic doctrine made up that they deemed correct & from God, when they have no biblical basis?

I've only got a minute, so let me pass along the link: https://www.gotquestions.org/catholicism.html The quote is "Catholicism is a false religion." about the fourth or fifth line down

So, maybe GotQ referenced the non biblical 'rules' when criticizing Catholicism. I have nothing against the Catholic denomination whatsoever. I even attend a Catholic church with my wife from time to time. I look at it as, anything that gets one closer to God is worth pursuing. If it's Catholicism, then great!

I don't look at it that way. While it is true that other Christian religions get you closer to God, to be true it should also get you closer to His Church, the Catholic Church.

The Church may have compiled biblical text, but they had nothing to do with the actual writings it contains.

Then the books compiled came to you how? As the Apostles are the Church, how to you rationalize the Church "had nothing to do with the actual writings" Are you not reading the witnesses of Christ?

he Holy Spirit cannot be highjacked for one entity as you have above re the Church.

I'm quite sure the Holy Spirit cannot be highjacked. But, in order for God to remain true to himself, we find that the aid of Holy Spirit was given to the "Apostles" who are the Church.

The bible that is used for your example of "Baptists, Methodists, & most Christian demoninations used the same bible, altho may have favorite translations. But still considered the same bible. You must remember that humans have made these denominations, including Catholicism. THEY have erred at times bc of pride, jealousy etc. But why get all upset with this, as many do, when living as Jesus told us to is what matters? & I'm fairly certain that the NT is the same for all Christians.

You would be wrong on just about every point made here.

I do indeed have favorite translations, all of which are 'authorized'. There are others, that "lean" the translation to support one doctrines other than the Church, usually only so for the casual reader. But, how do you know which version is 'true' to the intent of the authors?

But to give ALL the credit to Catholicism for the bible is just ludicrous ...... but as I said, upset yourself with "I'm right, & everyone else is wrong," & miss Jesus' message re how to live if you wish to. Thing is, shouldn't we promote Jesus' teachings rather than arguing about who did what ....... when in the end, that doesn't mean a thing.

Catholics hold that the Scriptures are a part of the deposit of faith. I'm not arguing whether or not you are right or wrong. I contend for the Truth found, not in a book 'alone', rather together with Sacred Tradition and the Church. It is the Church of Jesus Christ that was commissioned to 'teach' and to Baptize. I was not commissioned, you were not commissioned, rather it is the Church that is given Christ's power to 'speak' for him [Cf. Luke 10:16].

Now, if you or I stumble upon a truth, it remains truth - so far, in my view, you've stumbled but have yet to fall on a cushion of truth. Had you done so, you would be or desire to be Catholic. Remember, the Holy Spirit will not give you one truth on any one matter and turn around and give me another. It's not difficult, one need only count as high as 'one' for unity.

JosephT

 

[ezra]

this thread is becoming a i am right you are wrong thread like a pencil with erasers on both ends no point

 

[JosephT]

Nothing mentioned here about Catholics hold that the deposit of faith is the Church, and that her, together with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the sole and infallible rule of faith.


He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? Matthew 15:3
JLB

The Deposit of faith belongs to the Church. It is both, together with equal weight, the Sacred Scripture, and the Sacred Traditions.

Apostolic Tradition is found in starts in the Gospel with Christ commissioning his disciples to “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature." [Mark 16:15]. Then again in Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus Christ gives the Apostles the commission both the authority (passed from Him to the Apostles) and the power to carry out that commission in the command, to “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” This tradition is bolstered by the Holy Spirit. Christ said, “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever." [John 14:16]. Furthermore, the command to teach and baptize is supported in the authority of the Apostles. " Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." [Matthew 18:18]. Not only are the Apostles and Christ’s disciples to bind and loose, but to speak for Jesus Christ. [Cf. Luke 10:16].

How was Christ’s command carried out? By word of mouth! The Apostles, disciples and their successors taught by word of mouth. [2 Thessalonians 2: 14]. But, they weren’t told of each individual’s feelings of what the Gospel meant; rather they were taught the ‘traditions’ of the Apostles. There was no book to rely on for about 100 years, and very few books that included the Gospel as we know it and fewer still the Gospel as we do know it today having four books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

"After the apostles had died, their authority passed rather naturally from their persons to their writings, because that was all the Church had left of them - that and a few tombs." [The Bible, the Church, and Authority Joseph T. Leinhard p38]​

Unless you are willing to believe there was ciaos in the teachings of Scripture as nature took each of the Apostles, then that authority once held by the Apostles was written in a book (27 of them and more) so that authority could reign eternal. Consequently, where we read “scripture” in Sacred Scripture today it could mean simply “writing” or it could mean the “Sacred Scripture” as acknowledged by the Church. It is important however to understand that it becomes the authority to pass on that tradition to the next generation. Sacred Scripture was given a special place because it was the authority of the Apostles passed on to their successors and the Church but it must be read and understood in the light of the Church. We St. Paul found it necessary to write Timothy not only to tell him of the profitability of the Old Testament but to suggest that the redoubt of faith is the Church as a “pillar and bulwark of truth” [Cf. 1 Timothy 3:15]. Which is why we hear St. Paul say to Timothy, Timothy, “depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates, et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae or Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. [1 Timothy 6:20]

Thus we find St. Paul keeping a tradition one generation old, depositing with Timothy the teachings of our faith, true to Christ and Apostles.

JosephT

 

[MarkT]

Some believe in eternal security, or OSAS.
Some believe in conditional security or OSNAS.

Can believing in incorrect doctrine cause one to lose their salvation?
Please think about this before answer a knee jerk NO....since we many times say that doctrine does not save us.
I've made this statement myself.

But...could a doctrine CAUSE us, in some way, to endanger our soul?
Hyper grace would be another concept....

What is your opinion?

If the doctrine isn't the word of God, then it doesn't have the power to save.

But if we hold onto the word, 'all that the Father gives me will come to me; and him that comes to me I will not cast out.' John 6:37 Then we have reason to rejoice. Our faith will save us because we have put our faith in the word of God.

 

[JLB]

The Deposit of faith belongs to the Church.

Yes the Church.

And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26


The Church is made up of Christians.


I don’t find any place in the Bible where followers of Christ are called Catholics.

Do you?


JLB

 

[JLB]

After the apostles had died, their authority passed rather naturally from their persons to their writings, because that was all the Church had left of them - that and a few tombs." [The Bible, the Church, and Authority Joseph T. Leinhard p38]

Do you have any scripture to validate this?



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Do you have any scripture to validate this?

JLB

Hi JLB,
There won't be any scripture because the N.T. had not been put together yet.

If we want to be intellectually honest, we do have to admit that if we go back each generation to the beginning of the church, the Catholic Church can claim this.

There have been two schisms: One at about the year 1,000 AD when some refused the authority of the Pope in Rome and thus we now have the Orthodox church. Now, it could be argued as to who left the original church since there really was no Pope back in the time of the Apostles as the Catholics claim. Peter was not the first Pope.

The second schism came at about 1,500 AD with Luther,,,his followers left the Catholic church - really they were banished by Rome because he insisted on his beliefs and would not adhere to Rome's doctrine.

As you know, I used to be Catholic and am now Protestant. I'm not here to protect either --- the truth is the truth.

And Catholic Church just means the universal church.
At the beginning it meant the universal church.

It's not even right to say the Roman Catholic Church...
It's the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite.

But I can't repeat this every time that's said....

What problem do you have with this?
I know you don't like some doctrine...neither do.

 

[GodsGrace]

If the doctrine isn't the word of God, then it doesn't have the power to save.

But if we hold onto the word, 'all that the Father gives me will come to me; and him that comes to me I will not cast out.' John 6:37 Then we have reason to rejoice. Our faith will save us because we have put our faith in the word of God.

So are you saying that it's our correct doctrine that saves us?
Or is it our belief in God that saves us?

If I love God and do my best to do His will (live a good life),
and I have some doctrine wrong...am I lost?