Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?

[GodsGrace]

Thank you



Maybe outside the Church it may be viewed this way but in the Church doctrine are necessary for the faithful and are comprised of dogma implicitly or explicitly revealed to the Church by God. Doctrine relies on the authority of the Church to be believed. This was given to only one authority, the Church (His disciples) through Christ "he that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." [Luke 10:16]. It's a simple concept that has been around for 2,000 or so years.


Yes a doctrine "should" be accepted - certainly there is lee-way but for understanding, never doubt.



OSAS is not in Scripture. It cannot be proven within the confines of its doctrine of Scripture Alone. Hence, in the inference that different Churches teach different doctrine is false because of OSAS. Logically, if all read from the same BOOK then all should agree on its content. Obviously you and I don't yet you read the book given you by the Catholic Church.



So, you are saying that the Holy Spirit tells you one thing and me another, to whom is He lying?



We know that God and Truth are convertible; St. Thomas says, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ [Summa Theologica Prima Q, 15 a5] Consequently we can say that there is an absolute infallible truth. If we hold that Truth is absolute then there can be only ONE absolute TRUTH.

Consequently, we cannot simply hold what ‘feels’ good, or what supports our life style, as truth. There can be no commonality in the various Christian faiths; in any two competing faiths, one must be is True and the other must be false or both must be wrong. The reason should be obvious; truth resides in God, and what resides in God has definitive meaning. Since the Sacred Scriptures are inspired by God then for each individual there can be only One Truth, One Word and only One meaning. It’s an obscenity to believe Sacred Scripture can have ‘different meaning for different folks’. The Holy Spirit inspires men to One True faith.

​

O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, and weighed down by earthly thoughts, many disingenuous and various; behold and see, if thou canst, that God is truth. For it is written that "God is light;" not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [reality]. St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 8,2​

​

Therefore, to have a ‘Standard’ of competing faiths with which to measure the same Truth, the same Revelation, is self-contradictory. Pope Benedict XVI spoke directly to this issue in Truth and Tolerance, and specifically to the multiplicity of 'faith':​

​

​

The dominant impression of most people today is that all religions, with a varied multiplicity of forms and manifestations, in the end are and mean one and the same thing; which is something everyone can see, except for them. The man of today will for the most part scarcely respond with an abrupt No to a particular religion's claim to be true; he will simply relativize that claim by saying "There are many religions." And behind his response will probably be the opinion, in some form or another, that beneath varying forms they are in essence all the same; each person has his own. [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, Christian Belief and World Religions, p 22]​

​

A society of like religions is tolerance expressed as 'orthopraxy' (correct action), In architecture this would be akin to a structure where function follows the form [the true art is where form follows function]. The outcome of acts looks toward our desired outcome instead of the 'good'. We experience self-serving acts in our technocratic socialist societies that replace a redemptive utopia found in Christ with the science of socialism. Ideologies of socialism replace faith with an enlightenment [hint, think French revolution which was a blood bath visited on Catholics], hope with progress, and charity with entitlements. God becomes an uber-Santa Claus, a good dude with a long white beard who finds pleasure in answering our prayers. Herein lies one of the sins of secularism, and naturalism, God simply becomes irrelevant.​

​

Thus it is no surprise to hear the Pope say,​

​

​

"The notion that all religions are ultimately equivalent appears as a commandment of tolerance and respect for others; if that is so, then one must respect the decision of another person who decides to change religions, but it is not permissible to call this conversion: that would assign a higher status to the Christian faith and thus contradict the idea of equality. But the Christian certainly does believe that in Christ the living God calls us in a unique way, which demands obedience and conversion. This presupposes that the question of truth plays a part in the relations between religions and that truth is a gift for everyone and alienates no one."[Ibid]​

​

My experience is that some believe they have absolute sovereignty and independence of God and His authority; one religion is as good as another, i.e. relativism. Looking inward for authority, each rationalist holds the necessary individual authority to establish basic cosmic truths. This seems to transform into complete independence from any social morality not otherwise originating from the interior. This degradation continues with the implied right to judge moral and civil law. The argument extended is to say that God’s laws are relative; “what’s true for you, may not be true for me”. Polls and consensus becomes the important indicator for right and wrong; rather than God’s immutable truth. In the extreme relativism requires absolute freedom of thought in matters of morality and religion.​

​

Morality requires a standard or a guide for our actions that is subordinated to an ultimate purpose. In the case of the most basic fundamental rules, all actions are subject to an omnipotent ruler (God). Reasoning in the light of His ultimate purpose is moral order, to govern in the light of His fundamental moral rules produces law and order-or social stability.​

​

Catholic find God and Truth are convertible, leading us to one and only one outcome, as we observe in God:​

​

God exists (see Summa Theologica Prima Q,2,3). Truth exists.​

​

God is Immutable (see Summa Theologica Prima Q,9, 1). Truth is immutable.​

​

God is Eternal. “Now God is His own uniform being; and hence as He is His own essence, so He is His own eternity.” (see Summa Theologica Prima Q,10 2). Truth is eternal.​

​

God is Spiritual (see Summa Theologica Prima Q,3,3 & 6). “…it follows that there is no accident in God.” Truth is spiritual.​

​

God is not contained in space, time or matter. (See Summa Theologica Prima Q,3,1). Truth is not constrained by time, location, or the matter.​

​

God’s law (Divine law) is superior to man’s law. (see Summa Theologica Prima Secundae Partis Q,91,4) Truth is superior to man’s law.​

​

We can unequivocally conclude; God=Truth and such Truth is absolute and Divine.​

​

As there is but one and only one faith that can be representative of God’s absolute truth – the one faith that He formed - it can be shown that there is one and only one truth of the meaningof that truth in Sacred Scripture and it resides only in apostolic tradition as it came from this Tradition through Christ. Sacred Scripture born out of God’s will, witnessed and validated through the lives of Holy men, and penned by the Tradition of the very same Church Christ commemorated, the Catholic Church which was made divine to teach a divine Word of God divinely​

​

TRUTH EXISTS in her.​

​

Consider my question about to whom the Holy Spirit lies - to whom is He reality?​

​

JosephT​

Part 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

Part 2 of 2

Hi JT,
I happen to like Aquinas myself...what a thinker!
However, you shouldn't really use him as support because I don't really know everything he taught and believed, and neither will anyone else on any forum...unless they either have a PhD after their name in church fathers, OR they like him as much as you do.

It's difficult to answer to what A says...and since he was a student of the bible, maybe we could use the bible?

Here is what doctrine is:

Catholic theology is the understanding of Catholic doctrine or teachings, and results from the studies of theologians. It is based on canonical scripture, and sacred tradition, as interpreted authoritatively by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Here is what dogma is:

In the Catholic Church, a dogma is a definitive article of faith (de fide) that has been solemnly promulgated by the college of bishops at an ecumenical council or by the pope when speaking in a statement ex cathedra, in which the magisterium of the Church presents a particular doctrine as necessary for the belief of all Catholic faithful.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_in_the_Catholic_Church

I believe you're the one I explained this to previously but you seem not to have accepted it. There is a difference between a doctrine and a dogma. You MUST believe a dogma to be part of the CC...or at least do your best to.

You say these doctrine and dogma are revealed to the church by God. God INSPIRED these beliefs. God doesn't dictate to us what He wants us to know. The Holy Spirit helps theologians to know what God wishes to teach...the problem is that they are human and sometimes do not understand correctly. I could go into specific doctrine that would encompass both the Catholic and Protestant teachings, but I don't feel led to do this. I'll only say that we could all do our best, but I'll bet every church gets something or other wrong.

I agree that OSAS is not in scripture. I agree that the bible was given to us by the Catholic Church. I agree that there is only one absolute truth....but that truth is God Himself. Doctrine cannot be absolute truth if it can be understood in different ways. Take 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 for instance. I can show you how it's not speaking about purgatory...but you won't accept it. So right here we're dealing with a subject that is not absolute.

As to all religions being equal: Benedict, whom I very much respected, said the above --- that they are not all the same.
But Francis says they are all to be respected. How do we possibly respect Islam?? Another disagreement between men.

However, yes, there is only one absolute truth in God.
All civil persons believe in the 10 commandments, and in the Natural Law which is contained in the 10 Commandments.
No relativity in faith or religion....Truth is absolute.

The CC believes in contains all truth. I do wonder which truth it believes other churches do not have. I believe all churches have the truth...but some have incorrect doctrine; including the CC.

 

[GodsGrace]

Like I said before, I already understood what you said. Did you take the time to think upon that which I said? As I walk with the Lord he does not make me more aware of sin. He makes me more aware of His Righteousness. This is why you will see me speaking of a wedding garment and not about dressing ourselves in armor suitable for warfare.




You are like them, just as I am like them under the law of sin.

Now if you would indulge me, would you please respond to each of the following scriptures with how you think we become more aware of sin?


Romans 7:8-9
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Does our awareness of sin come from our walk of Faith in the Lord? Or does it come from our knowledge of the Law?


Isaiah 30:1
Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord,
that take counsel, but not of me;
and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit,
that they may add sin to sin:

Where does the idea of smoking, as you used as an example earlier, become a sin. What covering might they be covering themselves with that they may add sin to sin? Blood?


Isaiah 43:24-26
Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money,
neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices:
but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins,
thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.
I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake,
and will not remember thy sins.
Put me in remembrance: let us plead together:
declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.

If the Lord has been wearied with your iniquities and has blotted out your sins, then why would you become more aware of sin in your walk with God if God has already blotted them out for his own sake?

I will thank you in advance for taking the time to think upon these scriptures intently and then sharing with us what they mean to you. I look forward toward your comment on each of these passages.

Yes EZ. I always understand what you say. You're saying not to obsess with the negative which is sin. You're saying to walk in the light,,,think about good things....think about God and His love and not give the glory to the evil one.

I agree!

I'm saying that the closer we get to God's light, the more we realize how much we need Him and how much we need to be forgiven. We become more aware of sin in a GOOD way...so that we could cut more and more out of our lives as we grow in our faith. It could take a month and it could take years, but this does happen.

I like the example of smoking because it is not a sin in and of itself. But it could BECOME a sin for us if God tells us it is.
So is it negative if we hear from God that we should not be smoking? No! It's good. It's good for us. In fact, He may tell each one of us something a little different as to the "smaller" stuff that is not part of the 10 commandments.
I'm not under the LAW,,,I'm under GRACE. I'm sure we don't need to get into this...

Now to your verses:

Romans 7:8-9
7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”
8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

Well, looks like we have to talk about the Law after all.
So we leave sin and come to grace. We still struggle against sin...

In the O.T. Israel promised God she would not sin against His commandments. But they did not uphold this promise because it's very difficult to live under the law....trying hard to remember each and every sin and not do it. But, verse 7 says the law is necessary or we wouldn't know we were sinning...so the law is good, to give us a moral code or compass. If there was no law against coveting...how would we know that coveting is a sin?

Verses 8 and 9 Apart from the law there is no sin. If I don't know something is sin, to me it is not sin. Once it is proclaimed as sin...we DWELL ON IT (You're point) and it becomes temptation and sin...and it is now sin to us.
Before Paul was alive apart from sin,,,but now with the commandment he became dead because sin was alive in him.

So... thinking about sin makes us sin.
In my case, knowing sin has helped me in not sinning.
We DO know about sin...it has been proclaimed by God...we cannot go back and make believe it doesn't exist.

Isaiah 30:1
1“Woe to the rebellious children,” declares the LORD,
“Who execute a plan, but not Mine,
And make an alliance, but not of My Spirit,
In order to add sin to sin;

Not so good with the O.T. I'm sorry to say.
I guess you're talking about making an alliance but not with God's spirit. Well, who do you think we're making an alliance with if we've repented and gone the other way?
I'm not sure this is what you mean...


Isaiah 43:24-26
24“You have bought Me not sweet cane with money,
Nor have you filled Me with the fat of your sacrifices;
Rather you have burdened Me with your sins,
You have wearied Me with your iniquities.

25“I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake,
And I will not remember your sins.

26“Put Me in remembrance, let us argue our case together;
State your cause, that you may be proved right.

Oh. I agree. As Joseph Prince would say:
I will remember you're sins NO MORE!
But verse 24 does say that God is sick and tired of the sinning.

As to your last question...
Yes, God blots out our sins,,,past sins.
But let's at least try to commit as few as possible of future sins.

If I feel I'm becoming angry with someone, let's say, isn't it good to know that God doesn't like anger and just stop before it gets too bad??

 

[JLB]

What problem do you have with this?

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.


I don’t find any place in scripture where the Lord told His disciples to gather in Rome as a centralized seat of religious government.


The teachings of Catholicism...

I will stop there.






JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

This



It is neither your faith in marriage being sanctified by God nor your faith in certain foods being sanctified by God that saves you, nor de-saves you. Yet that’s exactly what he’s talking about here that some people will fall away from. Frankly, it couldn’t be more clear what he means by falling away from the faith here. And it’s not salvation or even faith in Christ. You said it yourself, the demons cause some to fall away from the TRUTH (even capitalized it). The truth is, God has sanctified marriage (even for the Apostles and bishops) and God has sanctified all food. But departure from that true doctrine doesn’t de-save you.

C, I can't remember if you believe in eternal salvation. If you do, it would explain why you have to believe the above the way you do...because you cannot believe in falling away from the faith. Believing in a false doctrine makes one have to change every doctrine...

What we believe about marriage or foods does not make us lose our salvation...but is this what Paul is telling James?
It seems to me Paul is speaking about apostacy from the faith as he does in many other letters....
See, for instance, 2 Timothy 3:1-9

If your goal is simply to copy/paste ‘the SAVING FAITH that is found in Jesus’ into the passage in 1 Tim 4:1/6, then just say so. And we can just agree to disagree. If you want to exegete the passage in 1 Tim 4:1-6 then hang with me and answer my questions and I’ll answer yours.

I don't know what you mean by "copy and paste".
I only copy and paste some verses...
Otherwise I paste in blue and give the source.
I'm willing to discuss this up to a point...as you know, I don't go on forever. I do disagree with you and believe Paul is speaking about abandoning the actual faith...NOT the doctrine of marriage or eating of foods. I DO understand you point...I just don't agree with it.

Correct, in addition to forbidding certain foods, because that’s exactly what Paul is saying here.

nice claim but where’s your reasoning... let’s look at what you said:


who said anything about being saved or not saved by either forbidding marriage (which is departing from the true faith about marriage) or permitting marriage (which is the true faith about marraige)??? Not Paul and not me. The idea of salvation (or de-salvation) coming about only by being 100% accurate in all your doctrines/rules IS your OP’s question, right? Do you already know this answer?

If nothing else from my reply is considered or considered convincing, consider this as compared to what you just said to me

Now the Spirit explicitly says ...​

By teaching these things to the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, trained in the words of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed faithfully.​

1 Timothy 4:1,6 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=1 Timothy 4:1,6&version=LEB

If the Holy Spirit “explicitly says” those words to Paul (and He did), I want to get the ... accurately detailed. The ... words are “these things” I asked you to specifically comment on. They ARE “these things”. If you don’t desire to speak in detail about these words then I’ll simply and graciously bow out.

Paul is saying that Timothy was trained in the WORDS of the faith. IOW, in the doctrine of the faith.
Can we agree on this? Is marriage a doctrine?
Is eating certain foods (or not) a doctrine?
OR
Is it the ACTUAL faith???

I say it's doctrine and has nothing to do with actual faith.
A priest is NOT married and cannot get married...that is the doctrine of the CC....but he's still saved !
The fact that he cannot get married if he wants to be a priest has NOTHING to do with his salvation. Right?

You’re not gonna like this ... but ... (just kidding) the word details matter here too actually he said “true child”, not just a child.

lol, !!
Yes,,,you're right, I DON'T like it.
Paul is my child.
Paul is my true child.
What's the difference???
What's a TRUE child???

Here, I’ll post it and comment on 1 Tim 1:2 (although we were supposed to be working backwards through 1 Tim 4:1-6 and either agreeing or disagreeing (with evidence) on what “these things” are specifically from that passage.

to Timothy, my true child in the faith. Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.​

1 Timothy 1:2 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=1 Timothy 1:2&version=LEB

To answer your question specifically, he’s writing these detailed words that followed (there’s that stuff I cling to, too much again) to Timothy as doctirnal instructions (rules) so that he can get them right. 100% right, not just s passing grade. So yes (to answer your question) it’s about RULES. Though I’m not quite sure why you shouted rules, but whatever.

Chessman, please remember that I don't shout,,,I emphasize.

Looks like you agree that Paul is speaking about rules, I called it doctrine -- These things are doctrinal teachings or rules.

Paul’s very precise in his language so that Timothy isn’t lead astray by other people’s doctrine (rules) such as doctrines (rules) about marriage and eating meats. These being either sanctified by God as good rules or not. Didn’t we agree that the marriage or meats question doesn’t decide one’s salvation status one why or the other. I’m pretty sure we did but I could go back and check if you don’t agree.

I agree.

What translation are you quoting?
And what are “these things” from 1 Tim 4:1-6 if you don’t agree with my list?

I agree with your list.
I use the nasb.
Very rarely, for clarity, I could use the NIV. Very rarely.
Why does it matter??

When Paul speaks about saving faith in Christ, he says so. Then it becomes OBVIOUS. (Oh my, did I just shout at you??? Just kidding. AGAIN)


Yes there are sound doctrines and unsound doctrines found in the “words of the faith”. Words are important!

I’ll wait for you to either agree or disagree with evidence why on my list of “these things” from the context of 1 Tim 4:1-6.

​

When Paul mentions faith, he's always speaking about saving faith...just off-hand I can't think of one time he meant something different...can you?

 

[GodsGrace]

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.


I don’t find any place in scripture where the Lord told His disciples to gather in Rome as a centralized seat of religious government.


The teachings of Catholicism...

I will stop there.


JLB

The disciples were first called Christian. OK.
And it was the church and the Church. OK.
But what happened right after the Apostles died?
Others carried on for them...these were the Apostolic Fathers....and after them came the Early Church Fathers,,,this went on till the Council of Nicea in 325 AD after Constantine declared Chrisitianity the religion of the Roman Empire and everything began to go awry because the church got mixed up with the state.

One of the ECF declared the church to be the UNIVERSAL church. Catholic, at that time, meant universal. Even some protestants call themselves part of the CC even today,,,but meaning the universal Church and church.

For church history we can't really use the bible because it wasn't put together till the 5th century....

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon,[11] and he used the word "canonized" (Greek: κανονιζόμενα kanonizomena) in regard to them.[12][page needed] The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393). A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[13] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[14][15][16] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianumis correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[11] or, if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[17] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[18] In c. 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. Christian scholars assert that, when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[14][19][20]

Thus, some claim that, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon,[21]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon


The word Catholic:

The earliest evidence of the use of that term is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 108 to Christians in Smyrna. Exhorting Christians to remain closely united with their bishop, he wrote: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."[12][13]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_(term)

 

[JohnDB]

Getting away from discussing Catholic Doctrines....

Let's take a look at Jacob in Genesis.
When working for Laban, (as well as his wife's behavior) he kept practicing pagan witchcraft type procedures (mandrakes, bark stripping to induce fertility) and God blessed them anyway.

These were completely pagan rituals. But God chose to bless Jacob anyway.

Here is a classic and clear story about someone doing wrong but God gave what they were wishing for.

Such as Saul going to the witch of Endor to speak with Samuel. (Absolutely nonsensical in practice) And yet "it worked".

God apparently has little regards for those holding to "perfect theology" when He wishes to and will bless who He wishes to when He wishes.

 

[GodsGrace]

Getting away from discussing Catholic Doctrines....

Let's take a look at Jacob in Genesis.
When working for Laban, (as well as his wife's behavior) he kept practicing pagan witchcraft type procedures (mandrakes, bark stripping to induce fertility) and God blessed them anyway.

These were completely pagan rituals. But God chose to bless Jacob anyway.

Here is a classic and clear story about someone doing wrong but God gave what they were wishing for.

Such as Saul going to the witch of Endor to speak with Samuel. (Absolutely nonsensical in practice) And yet "it worked".

God apparently has little regards for those holding to "perfect theology" when He wishes to and will bless who He wishes to when He wishes.

I don't think we're discussing actual Catholic doctrine here...
but the history of the church.
Which should really be the same for everyone...

God hears everyone or no one would be saved.
And He could work His will however He wishes to.
So, yes, to all you posted.
And a good post it is...I forget so much...

 

[MarkT]

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?

I'm saying his word saves. Jesus gave us the doctrine of salvation, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

Regarding incorrect doctrine. Yes, incorrect doctrine will have an effect just as correct doctrine will have an effect. If it's incorrect, why are you holding it? Of course you're not going to hold it if you think it's incorrect. ie. predestination. It really depends on who you are.

 

[JLB]

Others carried on for them...these were the Apostolic Fathers....and after them came the Early Church Fathers,

Amen.


You have studied the early Church Fathers more than I.


Does the Didache mention Christians being called Catholic, or Rome being the seat of Apostolic authority?





JLB

 

[WIP]

I think it would be good to steer this discussion back on topic. If you all want to continue with the Church history study, which I have been finding to be interesting, I recommend starting a new thread to talk about it.

To help everyone refresh their memory the topic as introduced is this....

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?

 

[chessman]

What we believe about marriage or foods does not make us lose our salvation

Correct. Thus this passage is NOT a de-salvation passage!

Departing from the faith we have in “these things” (marriage and food) does not de-save us.

but is this what Paul is telling James?

No, he’s giving instructions to Timothy, not James.

It seems to me Paul is speaking about apostacy from the faith as he does in many other letters.

There’s precisely zero evidence for this assumption. You could be as wrong in your assumption here as you were about who Paul was telling “these things” to.

I'm willing to discuss this up to a point.

Okay. I think we’re about complete anyway. Since we both agree that what someone believes about marriage or certain foods (the “these things “ in the passage Paul tells Timothy some will depart from in later days) doesn’t de-save them, then we’re complete with my point. Unless you’d like to discuss what are some other things God has created and sanctified as good and is therefore not to be rejected, that is.

I do disagree with you and believe Paul is speaking about abandoning the actual faith...NOT the doctrine of marriage or eating of foods.

I understood. But why???

I DO understand you point...I just don't agree with it.

Paul is saying that Timothy was trained in the WORDS of the faith. IOW, in the doctrine of the faith.
Can we agree on this?

Of course. That’s what it says. Some words of the faith were about doctrine associated with marriage being sanctified by God as good and some words were about all foods being sanctified by God as good. Just because some people have departed from the faith that “these things” are not to be rejected, doesn’t mean these people have lost their salvation. It simply and explicitly means they’ve departed from the faith that everything God has sanctified is not to be rejected.

Is marriage a doctrine?

Rules about marriage are.

Is eating certain foods (or not) a doctrine?

Rules about eating certain foods (or not) is doctrine, yes.

I say it's doctrine and has nothing to do with actual faith.

Correct, which is/was my point.

A priest is NOT married and cannot get married...that is the doctrine of the CC....but he's still saved !

Correct. If an unmarried priest gets married, he’s departed from the RCC doctrine that forbids it.

The fact that he cannot get married if he wants to be a priest has NOTHING to do with his salvation. Right?

Correct. Thus 1 Tim 4:1-3 has NOTHING to do with his salvation, right? 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is all one sentence talking about this very THING (rejecting God sanctified marriage). It’s got NOTHING to do with his SALVATION.

What's the difference???
What's a TRUE child???

Just what it says. Timothy was a child who’d been taught the truth about marriage (that it’s been sanctified by God as good as is NOT to be rejected) by him or anyone else. Timothy was being instructed to pass the truth about marriage on, yet he was also being told that some people in later times would reject the truth about marriage/food (depart from the faith and reject it).

I agree with your list.

Then we’re done because to depart from “these things” doesn’t de-save you. Else Paul would have said so and I would believe him.

I use the nasb.
Very rarely, for clarity, I could use the NIV. Very rarely.
Why does it matter??

For a couple of reasons:

1. You put; "The faith found in Christ" in quotes from 1Tim 1:14. That’s not what it says in the NASB or any other translation that I am aware of.

And the grace of our Lord overflowed, along with the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.​

1 Timothy 1:14 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=1 Timothy 1:14&version=DLNT

2. [see my next reply to you as it’s a bit long but addresses on of your previous points (a good one, BTW]

When Paul mentions faith, he's always speaking about saving faith...just off-hand I can't think of one time he meant something different...can you?

Absolutely. 1 Tim 4:1-3

If someone departs from the faith God sanctified marriage as good, they’ve NOT departed from saving faith.

If someone departs from the faith God sanctified all food as good, they’ve NOT departed from saving faith.

 

[chessman]

I use the nasb.
Very rarely, for clarity, I could use the NIV. Very rarely.
Why does it matter??

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying-attention-to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons​

1 Timothy 4:1 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=1 Timothy 4:1&version=DLNT

wondering

But: conjunction

1. used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

The translaters of the NASB recognized that Paul was introducing “something contrasting” with what he’d just said in chapter 3. To copy the phrase “faith in Christ” from 1Tim 3:13 and paste into 1 Tim 4:1 is a contrast from Paul’s actual letter.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm saying his word saves. Jesus gave us the doctrine of salvation, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

Regarding incorrect doctrine. Yes, incorrect doctrine will have an effect just as correct doctrine will have an effect. If it's incorrect, why are you holding it? Of course you're not going to hold it if you think it's incorrect. ie. predestination. It really depends on who you are.

I believe it's Jesus Himself that saves us through faith in Him and belief in Him. Belief means that we trust Him enough to follow in His ways.

I do agree that incorrect doctrine will have an effect on our lives although it will not bring to loss of salvation.

Some incorrect doctrine, however, could cause others to lose THEIR salvation...for instance OSAS can cause some persons to lose their salvation by believing that they cannot and then living lives of sin.

(I'm not saying that everyone that believes in OSAS lives lives of sin).

 

[GodsGrace]

Amen.


You have studied the early Church Fathers more than I.


Does the Didache mention Christians being called Catholic, or Rome being the seat of Apostolic authority?





JLB

The Didache, which is a really good document to study, is dated between 90 and 120 AD, with most theologians placing it at just about 90 AD. It's believed that it was written while John was still alive. Also, I forgot to mention before that Ignatius of Antioch, who first used the word Catholic, was taught by John. I find this incredible!

I don't remember if the Didache uses the word "catholic" but I will post it.

At the time of the Didache Rome was NOT the seat of authority. I would like to explain this.

Maybe I'll start a thread on church history, WIP is right, it deserves a thread of its own.

The Didache:

The Didache (/ˈdɪdəkeɪ, -ki/; Greek: Διδαχή,, translit. translit. Didakhé, lit., lit. 'Teaching'),[1] also known asThe Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise, dated by most modern scholars to the first century.[2] The first line of this treatise is "The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the twelve apostles".[a]

The source won't come through...it's from wikipedia,,,the didache.


THE DIDACHE:
(PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT IT'S FROM CARM...I CHOSE IT BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS IT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE...)

https://carm.org/didache

 

[JosephT]

Part 2 of 2

Hi JT,
I happen to like Aquinas myself...what a thinker!
However, you shouldn't really use him as support because I don't really know everything he taught and believed, and neither will anyone else on any forum...unless they either have a PhD after their name in church fathers, OR they like him as much as you do.

It's difficult to answer to what A says...and since he was a student of the bible, maybe we could use the bible?

Here is what doctrine is:

Catholic theology is the understanding of Catholic doctrine or teachings, and results from the studies of theologians. It is based on canonical scripture, and sacred tradition, as interpreted authoritatively by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Here is what dogma is:

In the Catholic Church, a dogma is a definitive article of faith (de fide) that has been solemnly promulgated by the college of bishops at an ecumenical council or by the pope when speaking in a statement ex cathedra, in which the magisterium of the Church presents a particular doctrine as necessary for the belief of all Catholic faithful.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_in_the_Catholic_Church

I believe you're the one I explained this to previously but you seem not to have accepted it. There is a difference between a doctrine and a dogma. You MUST believe a dogma to be part of the CC...or at least do your best to.

You say these doctrine and dogma are revealed to the church by God. God INSPIRED these beliefs. God doesn't dictate to us what He wants us to know. The Holy Spirit helps theologians to know what God wishes to teach...the problem is that they are human and sometimes do not understand correctly. I could go into specific doctrine that would encompass both the Catholic and Protestant teachings, but I don't feel led to do this. I'll only say that we could all do our best, but I'll bet every church gets something or other wrong.

I did indeed explain it in post #626. I said, "Church doctrine are necessary for the faithful and are comprised of dogma [which is] implicitly or explicitly revealed to the Church by God."

If God is not with us, then where is He and when is He with us and not? God tells us, primarily to the Church eternally [Cf. John 14:16], what we need to know. Those who don't know Jesus Christ receive prevenient grace to begin their Journey of faith, otherwise He walks with you daily even hourly.

I agree that OSAS is not in scripture. I agree that the bible was given to us by the Catholic Church. I agree that there is only one absolute truth....but that truth is God Himself.

Wonderful.

Doctrine cannot be absolute truth if it can be understood in different ways. Take 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 for instance. I can show you how it's not speaking about purgatory...but you won't accept it. So right here we're dealing with a subject that is not absolute.

I have no doubt you can show me how the verse is not speaking of purgatory, but your expose wouldn't necessarily be correct because it comes from private interpretations of Scripture. However, from a divinely instituted authority I can say there is such a thing as purgatory, without citing any more than doctrine.

I can show reason based on nearly 24 bible verses why purgatory is true doctrinal belief. In addition, I can show how the understanding in purgatory is theologically connected from this age to the age of the Apostles. All of which you must counter using scripture alone.Doctrine and the dogma it content is indeed absolute truth, else you would be suggesting that God Himself is deceptive, telling different truths to different people on the same subject matter.

As to all religions being equal: Benedict, whom I very much respected, said the above --- that they are not all the same.
But Francis says they are all to be respected. How do we possibly respect Islam?? Another disagreement between men.

To ascent to doctrinal faith and to give "respect" are two different things.

However, yes, there is only one absolute truth in God.

All civil persons believe in the 10 commandments, and in the Natural Law which is contained in the 10 Commandments.
No relativity in faith or religion....Truth is absolute.[/QUOTE]

Divine Law contains the 10 commandments along with others, natural law may or may not accept the 10 commandments, and positive law is to be "respected".

The CC believes in contains all truth.

There are qualifications to your all encompassing statement; she is the depository of all revealed truth. I didn't say, at least to the best of my recollection, that the Catholic Church was the depository of ALL truth.

I do wonder which truth it believes other churches do not have.

Many; that is the simple answer.

I believe all churches have the truth...but some have incorrect doctrine; including the CC.

I didn't imply that truth couldn't be found in other places. Truth exists wherever we find it. But, the totality of the 'revealed' truth rests in the Catholic Church.

JosephT

 

[JLB]

Maybe I'll start a thread on church history, @WIP is right, it deserves a thread of its own.

Yes. That way we can keep this one on tract.



Thanks.


JLB

 

[JohnDB]

But is a belief in purgatory required for salvation?

Will a belief in purgatory make a person lose their salvation?

IOW...
What doctrines are necessary for Salvation?
Namaan that dealt with Elisha and Gehazi obviously had very little knowledge of anything...but received peace from God and salvation from leprosy.

The Samaritan woman knew a bunch of twisted doctrines and had "less than stellar" behavior but Jesus chose her to be the first in his Samaritan Campaign.

Again we see Stephen in Acts...a Hellenistic Jew. (Meaning he was Jewish in name only but definitely not practice) and he was honored into Heaven by Jesus standing to receive him.

But Annanias and Sapphirah were condemned for lying to God.

So the line of acceptance must not be anything we can quantify except heart condition. "God opposses the proud but gives grace to the humble"

 

[JLB]

Departing from the faith we have in “these things” (marriage and food) does not de-save us.

The term “the faith” refers to faith in Christ Jesus held by believers.

The context clearly defines this term.


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.
1 Timothy 4:1



The faith certainly does not refer to faith in marriage or food or anything else, except the only faith that saves; faith in Christ.


Why would you try to explain away a foundational tenet of the Christian faith?


What possible good could come from diluting the term “the faith” to mean something other than what it means throughout the entire book of 1 Timothy, as well as the whole New Testament?




JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

But is a belief in purgatory required for salvation?

Will a belief in purgatory make a person lose their salvation?

IOW...
What doctrines are necessary for Salvation?
Namaan that dealt with Elisha and Gehazi obviously had very little knowledge of anything...but received peace from God and salvation from leprosy.

The Samaritan woman knew a bunch of twisted doctrines and had "less than stellar" behavior but Jesus chose her to be the first in his Samaritan Campaign.

Again we see Stephen in Acts...a Hellenistic Jew. (Meaning he was Jewish in name only but definitely not practice) and he was honored into Heaven by Jesus standing to receive him.

But Annanias and Sapphirah were condemned for lying to God.

So the line of acceptance must not be anything we can quantify except heart condition. "God opposses the proud but gives grace to the humble"

John,,,Two things...

1. First of all, I agree with the above. Doctrine does NOT condemn us. This has been my point all along...

2. I'd like to start a thread on Church History. Where?
I tried classes but there no way to start a new thread...
Not that I want to teach it! I just didn't think the others fit...