Differing Doctrines, Denominations, Bad Doctrines & Hell

[TaleSpin]

Hey,

I'm really confused about how false doctrines affect our denominations and ultimately our salvation. As a renewed Christian, I am still trying to discern which denomination (if any) I should congregate with. Obviously I want to be in the most correct denomination with the most accurate beliefs; but to varying degrees they all seem to have very good and sound biblical arguments for why they believe what they believe.

I need to know whether this is ultimately a matter of personal choice, or whether doctrine seriously affects my salvation to such an extent pulling this needle out of the haystack should be as nerve wracking as it seems. If this is more than just personal comfort or choice then it is a serious problem. Consider the following example: if the Episcopals are right and everybody is wrong, it will not matter that I am sincere in my belief in God. It will matter that despite my sincerity I, a (theoretical) Catholic followed a bad translation of the Bible, followed man made doctrines and laws and because I followed the wrong things I was naturally led astray.

However if it does not matter, then there is no reason that a Baptist should consider themselves any more saved than a Uniterian or a liberal Methodist - dramatically different beliefs.

In trying to narrow down what 'false doctrine' even means (and also including the very important question of whether our denominational differences are so great doctrinally that we could say some denominations may endanger our salvation) I have some of the following questions I'd like you to consider.

2 Peter 2:1 seems to warn us about bad/heretical doctrines. It differenciates between a false prophet (different religion) and a false teacher (within the religion) and says that just like a false prophet leads to destruction, a false teacher does as well. Supposedly these teachers can lead one away from the Lord and will bring swift destruction upon themselves. Does that then mean that they do not necessarily bring destruction upon those who follow their heresies to some extent (up to but not including denying the Lord)? And while many false teachers and prophets appear to get punished swiftly (Arius for example) What of those who seem to be such false teachers who are not immediately punished? Mohamed for example. He died wealthy and powerful. Was his lack of swift punishment meant to be taken as an endorsement?

Hebrews 13:9 also seems to warn about false doctrine, but again it does not identify what a 'false doctrine' is.

Galatians 1:6-9 warns that we can be led astray by 'the same gospel' only it comes from 'another' and it is distorted. Could that refer to bad doctrine and interpretation? Is there a limitation on this because in this specific circumstance it comes from 'another' who is not 'Him who called you by the grace of Christ' ? Who is that person... are they referring to a specific person, somebody filled with the spirit, or somebody who is part of an apostolic succession (as Catholics believe)?

The apostle in 2 Corinthians 11:3-5 says they are afraid that we may be led astray (which I can only assume means put on a path toward hell) by people preaching 'another Jesus' a 'different gospel' but also a 'different spirit.' What does a different spirit mean? Is he talking about somebody preaching a different Holy Spirit like in the same way somebody may preach a different Jesus, or does is this a prosaic way of saying a different interpretation or a different set of doctrines?

The closest thing I can come to regarding an answer is Colossians 2:8; which seems to say that bad doctrine is anything not biblical. Yet almost every denomination has solid biblical backup for their beliefs... the Catholics for example have a reasonable biblical argument for their system of priests and apostolic successions; just as reasonable as protestant arguments against calling anybody 'father' (a Catholic practice).

Finally, I'm curious about how reasonable God intends on being about all this. Am I going to hell (for example) for following (or not following) really esoteric concepts like confession to a priest, supersessionalism or prosperity gospel even though I believe in core concepts like salvation through Jesus, the Trinity and following the commandments? Or is God so liberal that I just have to be a 'really nice guy' even though I'm so far out there that even objectively I'm almost considered a different religion (like Uniterians)?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm searching pretty earnestly but I don't know if the possibility of making a mistake could result in hell even though I had the best of intentions. I also do not have guidance on how to avoid making such mistakes if that is the case.

So, biblicly speaking, how does doctrine affect my salvation and by what standard to I measure a denomination?

Regards

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm searching pretty earnestly but I don't know if the possibility of making a mistake could result in hell even though I had the best of intentions. I also do not have guidance on how to avoid making such mistakes if that is the case.

As the great Wise-Man said:

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Proverbs 14:12 Is-existing a way upright to faces of a man, and latter-of-her ways of Death.

Amos 8:10 And I turn celebrations of ye to mourning, and all of songs of ye to dirge, and I bring up on all of waists/loins sackcloth, and upon every of head, baldness.
And I place her as mourning of only-one, and latter-of-her as day bitter.

latter-of-her--- Used 6 times in OC. 5 times in Proverbs 1 time in Amos 8:10

 

[TaleSpin]

?

 

[Meshavrischika]

God meets us where we are and takes us where He wants us if we seek relationship with Him (which is the ultimate goal, not what group of people we worship with or in what style we do so)

 

[Willtor]

The questions, themselves, are kind of ironic in some ways. One strives for the truth, whatever it may be, but ultimately one may be honestly mistaken or (just as bad) not clever or intelligent enough to grasp something or simply may not have enough time to process a thing in one lifetime. If I'm not mistaken, the Eastern Orthodox say, "the Truth of truths cannot be known," meaning (basically) that God is incomprehensible. This is the same as many theologians who point out that all men are idolaters because our conceptions never approach the reality. In this sense, you should be comforted to know that no matter where you go or what you conclude, it won't be enough.

Along those lines, I'd say that any denomination or religion that tells you they have comprehended God is probably right out.

Fortunately, it is Jesus who saves us, not our conceptions. Even those of us in more dogmatically rigorous denominations must admit this or most of the people in our denominations (who don't have any clear conception on how one reasons from one doctrine to another) would be un-redeemable - even if the dogmas themselves didn't point this out to begin with.

Think of it this way: I was raised Baptist, but I'm in the process of joining the Anglican Church in large part because there are many Baptist things I can't reconcile with Scripture, tradition, or reason, and the Anglican Church seems to have a far more sound approach. If it were up to me, I would have you be an Anglo-Catholic. But if you become a Baptist because you are persuaded that they have a better handle on things, I'll still call you my brother. I won't say that the differences don't matter - because they do, and I _will_ try to persuade you to my way of thinking. Nevertheless, the judgment is God's. Maybe I'm mistaken, and my conceptions were less wrong when I was taught things as a Baptist.

Scripture points out instances when people of good faith disagreed. It wasn't that things didn't matter. But Paul didn't seem to think that Peter and Apollos were baptizing in bad faith (I Cor. 1:14-16). There is a common saying, "In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things charity." (sometimes attributed to St. Augustine, but probably not really his). Where are the boundaries between these things? It can't be a particular confession or creed (as I pointed out above), though these are useful for establishing bounds for what Churches ought to preach and to decide among Churches what they can hold in good faith. Any Church must do what it can to discern rightly and to act justly. But in the end, it's the judgment of God that matters, and I heavily question whether His judgments will be drawn on denominational lines (though some Churches may have less inadequate doctrine than others).

 

[Vasileios]

I can tell you that I believe that every belief matters, as faith is a movement of the heart, and we should be careful to direct our heart to Christ.

I also believe that all these beliefs must be reflected in praxis, how we live, they are interrelated. This is important, because head knowledge of doctrines might be beyond us, at some point there is simply no way we will fathom the eternal God. But living the Faith and living with the heart is available and feasible by all, from babies to old people, from Einstein to a child with Down Syndrome.

I believe the Church is visible and that it is the Orthodox Church, but that is something you will have to determine yourself. I do think that looking into Her should be a part of your inquiry, if you really feel beliefs are important. We Orthodox say, that all beliefs are important, because at some point, everybody is unique, and we do not know if something trivial might be another person's stumbling block.

Oh, and I think you can be certain that God will be not reasonable with any of us. He will be more loving and merciful than we would ever deserve.

May God give you what is beneficial for your soul.

 

[TimRout]

Hey,

I'm really confused about how false doctrines affect our denominations and ultimately our salvation. As a renewed Christian, I am still trying to discern which denomination (if any) I should congregate with. Obviously I want to be in the most correct denomination with the most accurate beliefs; but to varying degrees they all seem to have very good and sound biblical arguments for why they believe what they believe.

A most noble pursuit. Let's see if I can help.

I need to know whether this is ultimately a matter of personal choice, or whether doctrine seriously affects my salvation to such an extent pulling this needle out of the haystack should be as nerve wracking as it seems. If this is more than just personal comfort or choice then it is a serious problem.

Doctrine most certainly DOES affect a person's eternal destiny, so it's a good thing you're concerned about it. That said, not all doctrines are salvific; that is to say, not all theological beliefs influence whether or not a person goes to heaven. So when we examine various denominations and their differing theologies, it is important -- first and foremost -- to determine if they buy into the essential doctrines of biblical Christianity. Here are the "big five" that all born again Christians agree on:

1. The virgin birth
2. The divinity of Christ
3. The atonement (in Christ's blood)
4. The resurrection
5. The infallibility of the Bible

Of course, beyond these five "get-you-saved" doctrines, we find all sorts of beliefs about worship, baptism, church leadership, marriage, divorce, child rearing, work ethics, handling money, the moral/ethical validity of war, etc. These are important issues, to be sure, but they are unrelated to a person's eternal destiny.

So then, look for a church that firmly believes the core stuff. That's where we begin.

However if it does not matter, then there is no reason that a Baptist should consider themselves any more saved than a Uniterian or a liberal Methodist - dramatically different beliefs.

As mentioned above, there are five basic doctrines that are essential to biblical Christianity. However, there are other doctrines -- I like to call them "shield" doctrines -- that aren't necessary for salvation, but are important for keeping a Christian (or a church) on the right track. Chief among these shield doctrines is "Biblical Inerrancy".

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy stipulates that the 66 Books of the Bible were perfect when God initially inspired the human authors to write them. While we can debate the various (and obvious) boo boos in subsequent manuscripts copied from the originals, the "autographs" were without error.

I would STRONGLY advise you to find a church that espouses biblical inerrancy. And just to say it again...doctrine matters! Now to your questions....

2 Peter 2:1 seems to warn us about bad/heretical doctrines. It differenciates between a false prophet (different religion) and a false teacher (within the religion) and says that just like a false prophet leads to destruction, a false teacher does as well. Supposedly these teachers can lead one away from the Lord and will bring swift destruction upon themselves. Does that then mean that they do not necessarily bring destruction upon those who follow their heresies to some extent (up to but not including denying the Lord)? And while many false teachers and prophets appear to get punished swiftly (Arius for example) What of those who seem to be such false teachers who are not immediately punished? Mohamed for example. He died wealthy and powerful. Was his lack of swift punishment meant to be taken as an endorsement?

If people follow a false leader down the wrong path and deny the Lord (or fail to acknowledge Him in the first place), does God hold them accountable? YES! This is one reason the Scriptures warn us to watch out for false teachers.

If God doesn't destroy a false teacher/prophet immediately, does this imply His endorsement of that teacher/prophet? NO! Our perception of God's timing is invariably deficient. From God's perspective, Mohammed's life was pitifully brief and his death brought swift judgment.

Hebrews 13:9 also seems to warn about false doctrine, but again it does not identify what a 'false doctrine' is.

Sound doctrine is consistent with the Bible. False doctrine departs from, or even contradicts the Bible. Unfortunately, the Bible is often abused by those who are spiritually blind, careless, or even kookoo [2 Peter 3:16]. That's why it is so important to find a church that rightly handles the word of truth [2 Timothy 2:15].

Galatians 1:6-9 warns that we can be led astray by 'the same gospel' only it comes from 'another' and it is distorted. Could that refer to bad doctrine and interpretation? Is there a limitation on this because in this specific circumstance it comes from 'another' who is not 'Him who called you by the grace of Christ' ? Who is that person... are they referring to a specific person, somebody filled with the spirit, or somebody who is part of an apostolic succession (as Catholics believe)?

Ok, let's slow down for a moment and make sure I understand what you're asking. Firstly, I'm uncertain what translation you're using. Here's how the New International Version renders Galatians 1:6-9.

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently, some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

Does that help clear things up a bit?

There is but one gospel. Those who alter it are dead wrong. Those who abandon it for something entirely different are equally wrong. There is but one elemental, biblical gospel -- and here it is. God sent His unique Son [John 3:16], born of a virgin [Luke 1:34], to live a sinless life [2 Corinthians 5:21], and die a substitutionary, propitiative death in our place [Colossians 2:13-15]. Jesus rose again on the third day [Romans 1:4]. He was and is fully human [1 Timothy 2:5] and fully divine [Titus 2:13]. He is the risen Savior and is alive in heaven today, from whence He will one day return [Acts 1:11]. All who repent of their sins [Mark 1:15] and confess Christ as Lord believing that God raised Him from the dead [Romans 10:9], will be saved. Salvation is by grace, through faith, plus NOTHING [Ephesians 2:8-9].

Now don't have a fit; I marched you all over the New Testament on purpose. This one true gospel is reflected in every book of the NT, and is also reflected throughout the OT [Luke 24:27]. Just remember the basics: Jesus is the God/Man, born of a virgin, who shed His blood for our sins, came back to life and went up into heaven. The Bible is God's infallible Word and all born again Christians believe it.

The apostle in 2 Corinthians 11:3-5 says they are afraid that we may be led astray (which I can only assume means put on a path toward hell) by people preaching 'another Jesus' a 'different gospel' but also a 'different spirit.' What does a different spirit mean? Is he talking about somebody preaching a different Holy Spirit like in the same way somebody may preach a different Jesus, or does is this a prosaic way of saying a different interpretation or a different set of doctrines?

What does "a different spirit" mean? Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The true gospel flows from the mind and heart of God's Holy Spirit. As a fallen angel, Satan is a spirit being. The Corinthians were an especially problematic church. They were far more interested in the new, the flashy, and the sensational. As a consequence, they began to lend an ear to a particular group of false teachers who claimed to be "super-apostles". The NIV presents Paul's words this way: "But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those 'super-apostles'." False teachers preach a false gospel that is inspired by a false spirit -- namely, the spirit of Satan.

The closest thing I can come to regarding an answer is Colossians 2:8; which seems to say that bad doctrine is anything not biblical. Yet almost every denomination has solid biblical backup for their beliefs... the Catholics for example have a reasonable biblical argument for their system of priests and apostolic successions; just as reasonable as protestant arguments against calling anybody 'father' (a Catholic practice).

Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone [Ephesians 2:8-9]. The Roman Catholic Church does not believe this. Thus, they deny one of the essential elements of biblical Christianity. They are a false church and teach a false gospel.

The Roman Catholic Church rejects the Bible as their only and all sufficient standard for life and doctrine [2 Timothy 3:16], elevating Church Tradition to a ridiculously high place. This too places them beyond the realm of orthodoxy...and I could go on.

Again, look for denominations that hold to the basics, and don't worry so much about secondary doctrinal issues at this point. To give you an idea of what I mean, the following is a list of denominations -- just a sample, mind you -- that are all equally faithful to the essentials of the faith.

Conservative Presbyterians
Conservative Pentecostals
Conservative Methodists
Conservative Baptists
Christian & Missonary Alliance
Associated Gospel Churches
Brethren In Christ (Gospel Hall or Bible Chapel...your pick)
Conservative Anglicans
Conservative Lutherans
Evangelical Free Church

Each of these groups has its own particular theologies, to be sure, but within each denominational tradition you will find those who hold fast to the essentials.

Finally, I'm curious about how reasonable God intends on being about all this. Am I going to hell (for example) for following (or not following) really esoteric concepts like confession to a priest, supersessionalism or prosperity gospel even though I believe in core concepts like salvation through Jesus, the Trinity and following the commandments? Or is God so liberal that I just have to be a 'really nice guy' even though I'm so far out there that even objectively I'm almost considered a different religion (like Uniterians)?

There is but one thing that determines a person's eternal destiny. There is but one question that needs to be asked. Have you been born again? The Bible says "that if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord!' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED." [Romans 10:9]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm searching pretty earnestly but I don't know if the possibility of making a mistake could result in hell even though I had the best of intentions. I also do not have guidance on how to avoid making such mistakes if that is the case.

So, biblicly speaking, how does doctrine affect my salvation and by what standard to I measure a denomination?

Regards

I applaud your earnest search for truth and realize my answers are limited and altogether insufficient. Please do continue this conversation. Perhaps with a new set of questions I can better understand your needs and better assist your journey into truth.

Be blessed.

 

[ticker]

Differing Doctrines, Denominations, Bad Doctrines & Hell

...One Jesus.

 

[BigNorsk]

Skyhigh,

Your's is a really, really good question. You are asking something important. And let me tell you, when you really find the answer to such a question, it's just such a release, a joy, things fit.

There was a theologian. Francis Pieper, he was the President of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and he was also a Dogmatics (Systematics) professor at the seminary.

He wrote a 4 volume book "Christian Dogmatics" and he not only answered that question but his text is organized around that very thing.

The basic divisions are: Fundamental Doctrines which are further divided into primary and secondary. A fundamental doctrine is that which saves us. The secondary fundamentals are the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper because while they save us, they are not absolutely necessary for salvation.

Then there are the non-fundamental doctrines. Things which while taught by the bible are not a matter of salvation. For instance the doctrine of angels is never linked to salvation.

Then there is the Open Questions or Theological Problems. Things which are just not clear. Like say the baptism for the dead or such. The bible references it but doesn't tell us enough for us to actually know what it means.

And then there are of course the things that are not doctrine, the areas of freedom or adiaphora, but they aren't in a dogmatics book because they aren't doctrine.

John Theodore Mueller wrote a one volume work by the same name, Christian Dogmatics that condenses Pieper's work. It is spelled out that since we are using salvation as the criteria, then the article on justification is the foundaional fundamental doctrine. That we are saved by grace through faith in Christ's vicarious atonement is the foundation. Going into that are several assumptions, the fundamentals.

1. The doctrine of sin and it's consequences. If you do not believe you are a sinner in need of saving, how can you have faith in Christ saving you?

2. The person of Christ. No other name.

3. Christ's vicarious atonement. Not our works.

4. the doctrine of the Word of God. How are they to believe if they have not heard?

5. the resurrection. If there is no resurrection from the dead then Christ has died and all is in vain.

Those are the fundamentals.

Understanding lets us distinguish from Christian with whom we may or may not agree on other things from those not really Christian even though they may claim to be.

It's sure nice to go through a text and see it dominated by things in the order of importance. Not coincidentally, the end times come last in their books.

Marv

 

[jamiel]

Again, look for denominations that hold to the basics, and don't worry so much about secondary doctrinal issues at this point. To give you an idea of what I mean, the following is a list of denominations -- just a sample, mind you -- that are all equally faithful to the essentials of the faith.

Conservative Presbyterians
Conservative Pentecostals
Conservative Methodists
Conservative Baptists
Christian & Missonary Alliance
Associated Gospel Churches
Brethren In Christ (Gospel Hall or Bible Chapel...your pick)
Conservative Anglicans
Conservative Lutherans

Each of these groups has its own particular theologies, to be sure, but within each denominational tradition you will find those who hold fast to the essentials.

Wow, right there sure is a bias . . .

I'm none of those and I consider myself faithful to the essentials of the faith . . . Born again even, the whole works.

I'm also skeptical of the whole denomination debate-thing and the angst that might come out of that about making the right "choice".

We have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not a religion. But I understand about organized worship and participation.



God Bless.

 

[HighwayMan]

Yep. The whole thing makes little sense - except that every church wants its followers' money and devotion so as to "not go to hell". Most believe if you never accept Christ you go to hell, others that you must have heard about him to reject him, third that you need a ceremony to guarantee your salvation, and so on. At its very core it's pretty much "join us or die". And keep in mind that you are very privileged to be even getting to chose, most people are pretty much placed in one denomination and, wrong or wright, that's that.

That's why the only thing that makes sense to me is Universal Salvation for all. If anything is true, this must be it. But that's just my opinion and I can understand why many still prefer to stick to one church or the other.

 

[TimRout]

Wow, right there sure is a bias . . .

I'm none of those and I consider myself faithful to the essentials of the faith . . . Born again even, the whole works.

I'm also skeptical of the whole denomination debate-thing and the angst that might come out of that about making the right "choice".

We have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not a religion. But I understand about organized worship and participation.



God Bless.

 

[TaleSpin]

Good morning,

I am very blessed, it appears I have an excellent cross section of Christianity responding to my question, there are some very well considered answers from: mainstream reform protestantism, anglicanism, orthodoxy and protestant fundamentalist. There are a couple questions I have based on your answers, if you don't mind.

Willtor, I particularly liked your point that it is Christ, and not rigorous doctrine who ultimately brings about our salvation.

"Fortunately, it is Jesus who saves us, not our conceptions. Even those of us in more dogmatically rigorous denominations must admit this or most of the people in our denominations (who don't have any clear conception on how one reasons from one doctrine to another) would be un-redeemable - even if the dogmas themselves didn't point this out to begin with."

It personalizes our salvation. I think people who are more dogmatically minded tend to think of our salvation through Christ as an automatic and impersonal process that was over 2000 years ago. Christ lived, died on the Cross for our sins, established a Church and after that he sat back and relaxed and we have to file in line fill out the right paperwork and can enjoy the work that He has already done.

I think your response correctly acknowledges this idea of a personal relationship with God, through Christ, and the active (not passive) role He plays in our salvation. I believe that. I just do not know if I am justified biblically in believing it. I'm a little haunted by Christ's words 'it is accomplished' which may completely counter everything I just said because that could mean a more passive role in our salvation. Although He also said He would always be with us - that is active.

Vasileios,

I think you actually reiterated many of the points Willtor made, but you included a very sobering and rational reminder why doctrine matters even to the smallest degree. You noted that

"Oh, and I think you can be certain that God will be not reasonable with any of us. He will be more loving and merciful than we would ever deserve"

which I think shares a similar confidence that God plays a personal and active role in Salvation. If Salvation were a passive bureaucratic process (rather than relationship) there would not be room for mercy or other personal determinations.

Still, I think your argument that every belief matters is very strong, for the reason you identified

"I can tell you that I believe that every belief matters, as faith is a movement of the heart, and we should be careful to direct our heart to Christ."

And I think you make an excellent point that this ultimately must affect the way we live and practice.

TimRout,

I think you make an excellent point distinguishing which doctrines affect our salvation; and identifying the doctrines which are important for Salvation. I think one of your most interesting comments (in light of everybody elses') was your point about shield doctrines to keep us on track.

" However, there are other doctrines -- I like to call them "shield" doctrines -- that aren't necessary for salvation, but are important for keeping a Christian (or a church) on the right track."

I am not certain that I believe in the Catholic/Orthodox belief that the Church itself grants Salvation. I do, however believe it is the way to stay on track to Christ, who brings Salvation. So in a sense, your comment ties into Vasileios' point that doctrine matters because it helps us direct our hearts to Christ who is our Salvation.

BigNorsk,

Thanks to you as well. I think like TimRout you have an excellent point that there are 'essentials' relating to Salvation and that we need to identify these. Your point

Then there are the non-fundamental doctrines. Things which while taught by the bible are not a matter of salvation. For instance the doctrine of angels is never linked to salvation"

really clarified the issue for me.

I think you kind of begin the next big question for me regarding protestant Churches and apostolic Churches since you raise the question of whether we should consider things like baptism or communion to have the same salvic worth as essentials like belief in Christ. I tend to think that we do baptism and communion as a consequence of our belief in Christ; and that they have more of a symbolic meaning than that they result in salvation by themselves.

This gets me back to that question of whether God plays an active or passive role in our salvation. If baptism and communion are raised to the same platform as belief in Christ then I think God is playing more of a passive role in our salvation, allowing automatic proceses and doctrine to take care of bringing us to where we need to be. But if they are secondary issues that result from those primary fundamentals, then I think there is more emphasis on the relationship with God and it is more of an active thing.

So everybody,

I think you all clarified a lot for me. You all agree that doctrine matters to God. It's not a free-for-all. I don't think any of you went so far as to say some doctrines are more important than others; but I do think most of you agree that some doctrine is more relevant to salvation than other other doctrine (I think here Vasileios disagrees); though I think you all agree that all doctrine is still very important even that which is relevant to other things a good Christian should be concerned about (like how to be a good Christian in all aspects of their life).

I think that kind of flows into this idea that God is very merciful (which you all agree on). It makes sense because looking at what is necessary for Salvation, He is not asking very much at all.

Still, it sounds like you all warn that even though the above may be so, the best way to protect ourselves from sin is to try to incorporate as much Christ in our life as possible, which means trying to follow as much correct doctrine outside 'what is relevant for Salvation' as possible - even though with those things there is a little room for error and consequently for God's mercy.

That's reassuring, because it seems intuitive to me. The things that I think any reasonable person could gleen from the Bible (as Vasileios said the correct way is something even a baby could follow) are the things God absolutely requires for our salvation, and there is a little room for error and God mercy in the rest so it is nothing to get jaded about.

Thoughts? How much of what I am saying is biblicly justified? And what do you think about my question of whether God plays an active or passive role in our salvation?

Thanks and Regards

 

[TaleSpin]

Yep. The whole thing makes little sense - except that every church wants its followers' money and devotion so as to "not go to hell". Most believe if you never accept Christ you go to hell, others that you must have heard about him to reject him, third that you need a ceremony to guarantee your salvation, and so on. At its very core it's pretty much "join us or die". And keep in mind that you are very privileged to be even getting to chose, most people are pretty much placed in one denomination and, wrong or wright, that's that.

That's why the only thing that makes sense to me is Universal Salvation for all. If anything is true, this must be it. But that's just my opinion and I can understand why many still prefer to stick to one church or the other.

No offense but that's incredibly jaded and I think panders a little bit to the generally held notion that since God is merciful we should always be forgiven for anything on our own terms all the time unless we are 'bad people.'

I think I was floating in that direction until I read this from Colossians 2:8:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

I don't feel God pulling me toward Universal Reconciliation, Unitarianism or anything that generally messes with the idea He is the One Triune God of Abraham and Jesus is His only Son and that while He is tremendously merciful He is also tremendously jealous and will not tolerate people abandoning Him or His ways.

 

[HighwayMan]

No offense but that's incredibly jaded and I think panders a little bit to the generally held notion that since God is merciful we should always be forgiven for anything on our own terms all the time unless we are 'bad people.'

I think I was floating in that direction until I read this from Colossians 2:8:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

I don't feel God pulling me toward Universal Reconciliation, Unitarianism or anything that generally messes with the idea He is the One Triune God of Abraham and Jesus is His only Son and that while He is tremendously merciful He is also tremendously jealous and will not tolerate people abandoning Him or His ways.

None taken. But for me that is the only one I can possibly follow.

 

[TimRout]

Wow, right there sure is a bias . . .

I'm none of those and I consider myself faithful to the essentials of the faith . . . Born again even, the whole works.

Please note: I indicated CLEARLY that my list was merely a sample.

I'm also skeptical of the whole denomination debate-thing and the angst that might come out of that about making the right "choice".

We have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not a religion. But I understand about organized worship and participation.



God Bless.

Certainly one is free to choose a Bible believing independant/community/Christian-fellowship sort of church wherein to serve, but for most of us, associating with the body of Christ presupposes associating with some sort of denominational congregation. I feel for your frustration in this.

 

[simonthezealot]

Read about Jesus and the samaratin woman, your answer is in there...

The time was coming when no place would be THE place. Worship was to be in spirit and truth. Worship is a way of life because worship is in Spirit, in heart. You can worship anywhere you are. Just be sure it is being done according to the Word of God.


Remember Jesus speaking to the Samartin said something like, "23"But (A)an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father (B)in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers."
God saved you to be a worshiper. God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and truth.
A Christian is a worshiper.
Denoms...are pointless.

 

[christianmomof3]

Are you or were you in the military? There is a brother who meets with my church who used to be a pastor of a Christian denominational group. He spent many hours discussing differences in doctrine with pastors and members of other denominational groups. Then he was in the marines and was in combat. He was with pastors and members of various Christian denominations. But, their doctrinal differences no longer mattered. The only thing that mattered was that they shared the same Lord and savior.

I am sure that I have not done justice to his story the way he shares it. But, that is the gist of it. That was many years ago. He is no longer a member of a denominational group.

There certainly are false doctrines and winds of false teachings.
And some may affect our salvation.
But most are minor matters that are not matters of the faith and do not affect our salvation.

 

[CaDan]

Oh, in case nobody else has said so yet . . . .

Welcome to CF!

 

[Bible2]

SkyHigh posted in message #1:

2 Peter 2:1 seems to warn us about bad/heretical
doctrines.

2 Peter 2:1 ... damnable heresies ...

2 Peter 2:1 definitely warns us about heretical
doctrines, adding the key word "damnable", for a
heresy is a belief which will cause us to be damned:

Galatians 5:19 ...Now the works of the flesh are
manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication,
uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance,
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and
such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have
also told you in time past, that they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

So we cannot hold onto any heresy, just as we cannot
hold onto any sin, without losing our salvation.

The question then becomes, what counts as a heresy
as opposed to a false belief which won't result in
the loss of our salvation?

One way to approach an answer to this would be to
ask what are the beliefs and practices that result
in our salvation? Then we could define a heresy as
any belief which contradicts any of these saving
beliefs and practices.

Two key saving beliefs are the death of Jesus on the
cross for our sins and His rising from the dead on
the third day:

1 Corinthians 15:1 ... brethren, I declare unto you
the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye
have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory
what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in
vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I
also received, how that Christ died for our sins
according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the
third day according to the scriptures ...

This also requires that we believe that Jesus is the
Christ:

1 John 2:22 ...Who is a liar but he that denieth that
Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth
the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the
Father also.

This also requires that we believe that Jesus is the
Son of God:

John 3:36 ...He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son
shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on
him.

Christ dying for our sins also requires that we
believe that Christ is in the flesh:

1 John 4:3 ... every spirit that confesseth not that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and
this is that spirit of antichrist ...

So we could summarize a core of beliefs which are
required for salvation: Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
became flesh and died for our sins on the cross and
rose from the dead on the third day.

So any belief which contradicts any of this is
definitely a heresy and will result in the loss of our
salvation.

But still this core of beliefs is not complete, for
we must add the Divinity of Christ, for there's no way
that Jesus could have died for our sins unless He was
God, for during the suffering and death of His Passion
He had to suffer infinitely in our place, and die in
our place, and only an infinite, divine soul could
have suffered infinitely, and only the death of a soul
of infinite, divine worth could have paid for the
death of millions of souls.

Jesus had to suffer infinitely (not in duration but
in amount) because "the wages of sin is death"
(Romans 6:23), including "the second death", which
is eternal suffering:

Revelation 21:8 ... the fearful, and unbelieving, and
the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelation 14:10 ...The same shall drink of the wine
of the wrath of God, which is poured out without
mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall
be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence
of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for
ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night ...

Normal human souls are finite, and so can only suffer
finitely at any moment in time. Their suffering over
an infinite time will eventually result in an infinite
amount of suffering. Jesus' human soul, on the other
hand, because He is God (John 1:1,14), is also divine,
infinite, and so His soul experienced an infinite
amount of suffering during His Passion, and so the
suffering of His soul was able to satisfy the Father's
requirement of infinite suffering for sin:

Isaiah 53:11 ...He shall see of the travail of his
soul, and shall be satisfied ...

1 Peter 3:18 ...For Christ also hath once suffered
for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might
bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit ...

But still the core of saving beliefs (and their
related practices) is not complete, for we must add
the practices of water-immersion baptism and Holy
Spirit baptism:

John 3:5 ...Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 22:16 ...And now why tarriest thou? arise, and
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord.

Romans 6:4 ... we are buried with him by baptism into
death: that like as Christ was raised up from the
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection ...

Here the references to burial and planting means
that we must be completely immersed in, surrounded
by, the baptismal waters, in the likeness of Jesus'
body being placed completely within the tomb,
completely surrounded by it. Merely sprinkling some
water on someone doesn't bury them in the likeness
of Jesus' death, for Jesus wasn't buried by having
some dirt just sprinkled over Him.

After we have undergone water-immersion (burial)
baptism, we must then receive the laying on of hands
to receive the Holy Spirit from someone who actually
has the ability to impart the Holy Spirit:

Acts 19:2 ...Have ye received the Holy Ghost since
ye believed? ...
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the
Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues,
and prophesied.

Acts 8:14 ...Now when the apostles which were at
Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word
of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them,
that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they
received the Holy Ghost.

But still the core of saving beliefs and their
related practices is not complete, for we must add
the eating of Jesus' body and the drinking of His
blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist:

John 6:53 ...Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily,
I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the
last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is
drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Matthew 26:26 ...Jesus took bread, and blessed it,
and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and
said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it
to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which
is shed for many for the remission of sins.

SkyHigh posted in message #1:

2 Peter 2:1 seems to warn us about bad/heretical
doctrines. It differenciates between a false prophet
(different religion) and a false teacher (within the
religion) and says that just like a false prophet
leads to destruction, a false teacher does as well.

2 Peter 2:1 ...But there were false prophets also
among the people, even as there shall be false
teachers among you, who privily shall bring in
damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought
them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

This is, in its context, referring to the false
prophets among the people of Israel during the times
when the Old Testament was being written:

2 Peter 1:20 ...Knowing this first, that no prophecy
of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will
of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost.
2:1 But there were false prophets also among the
people ...

This doesn't require that the false prophets of
Israel were of a different religion, just as nothing
requires that false prophets in the Church are of a
different religion; they could still be of the
Christian religion and yet prophesy false things,
claiming that a prophecy they give in a church meeting
is from God when really it isn't. It's up to the other
prophets in that church congregation, and those with
the gift of the discernment of spirits, and those who
know true doctrine, to judge whether or not a prophecy
given in a church meeting is from God or not:

1 Corinthians 12:28 ... God hath set some in the
church, first apostles, secondarily prophets,
thirdly teachers ...

1 Corinthians 14:29 ...Let the prophets speak two or
three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth
by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may
learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to
the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of
peace, as in all churches of the saints.

1 Corinthians 12:6 ...And there are diversities of
operations, but it is the same God which worketh all
in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to
every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of
wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same
Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the
gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another
prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to
another divers kinds of tongues; to another the
interpretation of tongues ...

1 Timothy 4:16 ...Take heed unto thyself, and unto
the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this
thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear
thee.