Must salvation include correct doctrine?

[Eagle]

"...Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phillipians 2:12

"...but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." I Corinthians 3:15

Clearly, let me say again, salvation is distinct from being faithful and useful servants to God. If an individual follows a given "right" doctrine and later falters from it -- is perhaps an indication that they were never saved -- but it still has nothing to do with the doctrine -- if they are not saved it is merely because they never did put their trust and faith in Christ -- their relationship to any given doctrine has nothing to do with their salvation -- apart from the "doctrine" that Christ alone is the only means of salvation!

It is too simplistic to say that if truly saved then one will follow all truth. How then do we explain the above passages as well as the one from Revelation 18:4 when God says, "...Come out of her, my people..."?

Excellent point about Cornelius as well, Brother Kelly.

 

[Charles Meadows]

A person must have true faith that Jesus is the Christ and that He has died for sins.

I'd not agree entirely with the statement that one must not believe wrong doctrine. What defines wrong doctrine? We ALL believe some things wrongly. If one believes Christ has come in the flesh, has died for sins, and has risen from the dead bodily, and if he/she trusts Him as savior then he/she is saved!

Every point of doctrine has some small bearing on the perception of Christ's work. Things like eternal security, old earth/young earth, Calvinist/Arminian have major differences. If the Calvinist is right then the Arminian has some major miscpnceptions - and vice versa. Both cannot be right.

The Calvinist may tell the semi-Pelagian that he/she is not saved because he/she believes that his/her will is more powerful than Christ's power therefore he/she has not really trusted Christ - but this sort of thing is counterproductive. The truth remains that all one must do to be saved ask and believe!

 

[GODzThunder]

you cannot be saved unless you know a basic doctrine, you MUST know that you are a sinner and that sin = death to an eternal hell. You must know that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, died for our sins. You must know that only by placing your faith and trust in him can you be saved. That is doctrine

It has to be known to be saved.

Now here is a good question. The latter day saints witness to the lost the same way that the baptists do. They preach from a king james Bible the way most baptists do. ONLY after you learn about Jesus do they spoon feed you the book of mormon and the pearl of great price. You accept Jesus the very way most Christians do, through the Romans road.

Now, if they accept Christ according to the Bible BUT follow and believe in a Jesus that is not what the Bible says Jesus is (IE the JW's teach later that Jesus was the angel Michael) BUT you accepted him as savior just as the Bible says, can you truly be saved???

 

[GODzThunder]

oh and as for the question must salvation include the correct doctrine? Catholic doctrine says that you must simply believe and be joined to the Catholic Church. Mormons believe that you have to accept Joey Smith as a divine apostel. JW's teach that you must accept the teachings of the watchtower.

Yes, to be saved you have to do it the right way and believe the right thing.

 

[Charles Meadows]

One must believe that Christ is God, that He came and died for the forgiveness of sins, rose bodily, and will return to judge. This is what must be believed to be saved. Obviously one who believes Jesus was human only is NOT a Christian.

The problem is that we have many overzealous believers deciding that anyone who believes differently than they is not saved.

The Catholics and Mormons are interesting. I differentiate between them somewhat. Both have major doctrinal flaws - although I think those of the Mormons are much more serious. A devout catholic who places his/her faith in Mary and the sacraments (and not Christ) is not properly a Christian. The same for any orthodox Mormon. However a catholic, or even a Mormon who believes the fundamentals can claim salvation.

Moreso than with protestant denominations, catholicism has a strong cultural connection. Unfortunately many catholics are "cultural catholics" who are basically formal agnostics.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Where do you draw the line? How wrong or dangerous has the doctrine to be to exclude one from salvation?

If it's not the Biblical God or the Biblical Christ, then the person is not having faith in the true God and cannot be saved.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Charles Meadows:
The same for any orthodox Mormon. However a catholic, or even a Mormon who believes the fundamentals can claim salvation.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, Charles, but the Mormon God and Mormon Jesus are not the Biblical God and Jesus. I am not sure what you mean by an "orthodox Mormon." If you mean believing the Mormon doctrines, they are definitely not saved!

The Mormon God was once a man who had a father who was God who was once a man who had a father who was a God....and so on. The Mormon God is only one of many gods who rule other universes. The Mormon God has a body, and he has a wife and they are producing spirit children in heaven. These spirit children need bodies and that is why Mormons have a lot of children and do not use birth control.

The Mormon Jesus is one of these spirit children, just like you and me, except Jesus came first, so he is "our older brother." Satan is also another spirit child of God and his wife.

Salvation is being saved "after all we can do."

The Mormon God is a false god and the Mormon Jesus is a false Christ.

 

[Craigbythesea]

If it's not the Biblical God or the Biblical Christ

I have here in my home library hundreds of books about the person of the Father, the person of the Son, and the person of the Holy Spirit. Every one of them was written about the God of the Bible from a Christian perspective, but none of them agrees completely with the others as to exactly who was the person of the Father, the person of the Son, and the person of the Holy Spirit.

Who, exactly, is the Biblical God? Who, exactly, is the Biblical Christ? And how exactly “Biblical” does one have to be in his Theology or Christology to be saved? Baptist scholars specializing in Christology have a wide range of teachings regarding the person of Christ, and all most all of them are significantly different from teaching of Lutheran scholars specializing in Christology.

Some of us are going to be very surprised, and very embarrassed, when we walk through the “pearly gates.”

Hey, Joe! What are YOU doing hear??? Say, have you seen Sally? I can’t find her anywhere!!!

 

[Marcia]

Who, exactly, is the Biblical God? Who, exactly, is the Biblical Christ? And how exactly “Biblical” does one have to be in his Theology or Christology to be saved? Baptist scholars specializing in Christology have a wide range of teachings regarding the person of Christ, and all most all of them are significantly different from teaching of Lutheran scholars specializing in Christology.

Craig, you and I keep doing this "dance" from thread to thread. Disagreements on minor points are not the same as having a different Christ. So far, I have had no trouble recognizing a false Christ vs. the true Christ, or a false god vs. the Biblical God. It just isn't that hard.

Denial of Jesus' deity, denial of Jesus' humanity, denial of his bodily resurrection, and denial that the atonement was finished at the cross all constitute denials of Biblical doctrine. I don't know of any solid Christian teachings that differ on these points because these denials constitute heresies.

A God who has a body is contrary to the John 4 passage that God is spirit; many gods is contrary to the whole teaching of the Bible; modalism is a denial of the Trinity; God with a wife is a pretty clear unbiblical teaching; the Goddess is unbiblical; a God who is part of creation is pantheistic; -- I mean, it's not that hard.

You try to make disagreements among Christians sound like we can't draw the line on major doctrine on the nature of God and Christ based on the Bible in order to recognize false gods and false Christs.

 

[Craigbythesea]

You try to make disagreements among Christians sound like we can't draw the line on major doctrine on the nature of God and Christ based on the Bible in order to recognize false gods and false Christs.

You need to be a whole lot more careful and precise in your statements. We are not just talking about Bible trivia in this thread, we are talking about the doctrine of salvation and who is lost and who is saved. To you, things may all seem to be black and white, but after a number of years of study I have learned that the white very gradually changes to black, with an infinite number of shades in between, and drawing soteriological lines is not as easy as connecting the dots in a dot-to-dot puzzle.

 

[Matt Black]

IMO doctrine is important at least on a basic level; I think we have to be careful about ascribing too much importance to it as a prerequisite for salvation otherwise you exclude those who lack understanding, such as children or those with learning difficulties from the possibility of salvation.

I think a good analogy is this: suppose someone is describing an elephant to you. You and he may not know the elephant's DNA structure, the precise location of its habitat, or its Latin zoological name, but you and he (and indeed a child) will be able to agree that it is very big, has a trunk, is grey, has big ears, has tusks etc. That is an elephant. But suppose your companion insists that his 'elephant' has a long thin neck and legs, a brown patterned skin and eats leaves from trees and small funny ears, you would say "hang on a moment - that's not an elephant, that's a giraffe!" "No," your friend replies, "it's still an elephant".

The point of the analogy is that we don't need to know everything about Jesus and God to be saved, but there comes a point in wrong doctrine when the person and god being described cannot be the true Jesus and the true God, despite their being called Jesus and God...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
You need to be a whole lot more careful and precise in your statements. We are not just talking about Bible trivia in this thread, we are talking about the doctrine of salvation and who is lost and who is saved. To you, things may all seem to be black and white, but after a number of years of study I have learned that the white very gradually changes to black, with an infinite number of shades in between, and drawing soteriological lines is not as easy as connecting the dots in a dot-to-dot puzzle.

I believe that Marcia's statement is fairly accurate. Your problem is that you want a magical formula to somehow discern whoever is saved and whoever is not. No such thing exists. As a pastor of a church, I judge each person separately on the basis of their own testimony based on the Word of God. How has the Spirit of God worked in their life? How does their experience line up with the Word of God? God has made every individual unique and different. You can't just put a person into a mold and say if it fits he's saved, if it doesn't fit the mold he's not saved. That is not the case. We are all different.
The Word of God remains the same. People differ. There is no magical formula.

Two things to remember.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

You (or any of us) are not God. The Lord knows them that are his. How can we tell (in a general way) who is saved? We cannot. That is God's job. In general we know what the Bible teaches.
It teaches that those who hold to false teaching, reject. (Obiously then they are not Christians.)

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

It teaches that those who have not the doctrine of Christ (his deity), don't even invite in your house, nor even say good-by to. They are false teachers.

2 John 1:9-11 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Salvation is a simple message. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

But you must know who that Jesus is, and what he has done for you. You must know also why it is that you need to call on him (the fact that you are a sinner in need of a Saviour.)
DHK

 

[Russ Kelly]

Craig is correct-- this is a serious thread.

Dr.Bob is to be commended for staying true to his hermeneutic that God both predestines the justification AND sanctification of the beleiver. Therefore, if this is true, the belliever will be led towards truth in doctrine.

However, his is probably not the consensus hermeneutic in this thread.

Eph 4:11-16
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
13 UNTIL we all attain to the UNITY of the faith, and of the KNOWLEDGE OF THE SON OF GOD, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of DOCTRINE, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.NASU

QUESTION: Since we don't agree doctrinally, does that mean we all still need apostles and prophets? If we include 1 Cor 13:8-13, then we also still need tongues and special knowledge.

QUESTION: Is the KNOWLEDGE OF THE SON OF GOD (v13) the only doctrine in view here that should unite us in faith? Are these other doctrines tossing us about?

I have experienced wonderful communion with Catholics and Charismatics, but not with JWs and Mormons because we agree on who the Son of God is.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I have experienced wonderful communion with Catholics and Charismatics, but not with JWs and Mormons because we agree on who the Son of God is.

Our brother Russ has made a very important point here with which I am in total agreement. We are saved by grace through our personal faith in Jesus the Christ. Neither the JWs nor the Mormons believe in Jesus the Christ as revealed in the Bible, but in the Jesus of their own cult. True Roman Catholics and mainstream Pentecostals both believe in Jesus the Christ as revealed in the Bible. And true Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians who happen to be Charismatic also believe in Jesus the Christ as revealed in the Bible. And if a Baptist should receive one or more of the spiritual gifts, that does not make him an apostate, but a gifted Christian. And, judging from what I have personally witnessed, when Roman Catholics receive one or more of the spiritual gifts, and fellowship with other like Catholics, they become less “Roman Catholic” and more “Christian.”

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Russ Kelly:
I have experienced wonderful communion with Catholics and Charismatics, but not with JWs and Mormons because we agree on who the Son of God is.

I can't say that I agree.
I have had some good fellowship (albeit on a limited basis) with some Pentecostals that I have met in the past. But I have never had any fellowship with any Catholics. I grew up a Catholic, was one for 20 years. I never heard the gospel once in the Catholic Church. It is not preached there. It is a religion of works. Catholics do not believe that Christ died for their sins. If they did, they would not believe in going to purgatory where they themselves have to suffer for their own sins.
After I got saved, I began to study the Bible on my own, (before going to any church), and came face to face with the facts of the Word of God. Either the Bible was right or the Catholic Church was right. Both could not be right. I had to make a choice. Follow one or the other. So I left the Catholic, and eventually the Lord led me to a fundamental Baptist church where I was baptized.
DHK

 

[Eltrow]

When I got saved in 70's all I knew was I was saved. At one point I thought satan was going to rule for the 1000 years(bad doctrine) until I read through Rev. a couple of times and discovered the truth. And even now I am getting to know my Lord better and better every day.

 

[Michael52]

Trying to define the "correct" doctrine under which one may be saved seems a bit tricky. It is sort of like saying there is a certain "set" of sins one may be engaged in when saved is ok, but another "set" is not ok. Or, there are works which are necessary to "tip" the scales in our favor.

I was 12 when I was saved. Compared to what little doctrine I know now, I knew virtually nothing then. I still can't seem to muster up, on my own, more faith than I had then. Jesus saved me "in spite of myself." Praise the Lord!

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:6-8 (ESV)

 

[Craigbythesea]

Some years ago I had a lengthy conversation with the rector of the Roman Catholic Cathedral in a very large city. The issue that we discussed was the importance of reading the Bible on a regular basis and what can be done to stimulate our congregations to do so. This particular monsignor was very concerned that the members of his congregation neither read the Bible as much as they ought to, nor know it as well as they should.

I have never met a Baptist who was a convert from Roman Catholicism who knew the Bible before their conversion to the Baptist faith. But I have known some Catholics who knew the Bible very well, and they knew that they were saved by grace through faith, and not by works of the law. And they didn’t get that from any Baptists—they got it right from their Roman Catholic Bible.

One of the very finest exegetical commentaries on the Gospel According to John is the 2007 page commentary written by Father Raymond E. Brown. The late Father Brown was a Roman Catholic through and through, but also a Christian through and through. His love for God and His word was manifest in his writings and in his lectures and sermons, so much, in fact, that he was on several or more occasions the guest speaker in Baptist Churches. Unfortunately, however, Father Brown’s commentary on John is used more by Protestants than it is by Catholics.

Another very fine Roman Catholic scholar is Joseph A. Fitzmyer, the author of a most excellent 1642 page commentary on the Gospel According to Luke.

The problem with Roman Catholics is not what they know, but what they don’t know—because too many of them don’t read the Bible enough. Those that do, however, are sometimes wonderful Christians and excellent scholars.

 

[DHK]

If you have access to that commentary on John look up what it says on John 3:3-5. Catholics believe that being born again is to be baptized. That in itself is heresy. The entire religion is a religion of works. If you are good enough eventually you will get to heaven. Thus the need for going to confession every week, praying through the rosary, etc. The entire "sacrifice of the mass" is blasphemous.
There is no salvation by grace through faith in the Catholic Church. Try posting that salvation is by faith in the Other Religions forum and see what response you get. There used to be more Catholics down there, but they are all gone, except for one or two that don't post all that often. But they are adamantly opposed to the doctrine of salvation by faith.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Some years ago I had a lengthy conversation with the rector of the Roman Catholic Cathedral in a very large city. The issue that we discussed was the importance of reading the Bible on a regular basis and what can be done to stimulate our congregations to do so. This particular monsignor was very concerned that the members of his congregation neither read the Bible as much as they ought to, nor know it as well as they should.

I have never met a Baptist who was a convert from Roman Catholicism who knew the Bible before their conversion to the Baptist faith. But I have known some Catholics who knew the Bible very well, and they knew that they were saved by grace through faith, and not by works of the law. And they didn’t get that from any Baptists—they got it right from their Roman Catholic Bible.

One of the very finest exegetical commentaries on the Gospel According to John is the 2007 page commentary written by Father Raymond E. Brown. The late Father Brown was a Roman Catholic through and through, but also a Christian through and through. His love for God and His word was manifest in his writings and in his lectures and sermons, so much, in fact, that he was on several or more occasions the guest speaker in Baptist Churches. Unfortunately, however, Father Brown’s commentary on John is used more by Protestants than it is by Catholics.

The Catholics stand on the Bible is only superficial. Today they "allow" the people to read the Bible, but the interpretation belongs to the priest or the "magesterium" to be specific. The common lay person is not permitted to interpret the Bible on his own. Soul liberty is one of the Baptist Distinctives that Catholics bitterly oppose. They must believe only what the priest or bishop tells them to believe.

When I was young, my family didn't own a Bible. Bibles, and Bible reading and/or study was highly discouraged. It was the catechism that was taught, and still is. But then it was even more emphasized. The mass was almost entirely in Latin. I still have much of it memorized to this day.

If you go back further you still see the hatred of the Catholics toward the Word of God in history. William Tyndale made his translation of the Bible into English, which became the basis of KJV. It was a monumental work. Tyndale was eventually captured and imprisoned by the Catholics. Soon after that he was burned at the stake declared a heretick. But Tyndale had accomplished his goal in translating the Bible, and he had it printed. The Catholics intercepted as many copies of the Bible as they could and tried to burn them all. The last thing that they wanted was for the common person to have the Bible in their hands. They believed (as they still do to this day), that only the priest--the clergy--is entitled to interpret the Bible. Their belief is the same today; their tactics are different. (They don't burn people at the stake any more).
DHK