SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : What doctrines are essential for salvation and which aren't?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )
PosterThread
anonymity
Member



Joined: 2009/1/16
Posts: 393


 Re:

Specifically, what of the Trinity. Can one hold to a Oneness doctrine and be saved?

 2009/10/9 17:30Profile
jlosinski
Member



Joined: 2006/9/11
Posts: 294
North Pole, Alaska

 Re:

There is a wonderful doctrine in apologetics called the "slippery slope doctrine". That is to say, if one fundamental truth of our faith is denied it follows that others will inevitably follow. So, for example, oneness theology is basically a rehash of modalism. Any abberation in doctrine immediatly attacks the foundation of scripture and twists it. In doing so more truths from scripture have to be twisted as well.

Oneness doctrine denies the doctrine of the Trinity. They also deny that one is saved by faith alone and hold to baptismal regeneration. See how it works? One area of scripture is denied, and others are sure to follow. With that being said, if one continues to hold to that doctrine, they are not trusting in Christ alone, but rather in the moment of their baptism to save them. I do think that people can be saved out of that denomination, but a true Christian will not remain in it, the Holy Spirit would not allow it.

Same could be said for the denial of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (several emergent leaders). Once one denies that God punished Jesus on the cross for our sin, suddenly God isn't really [i]that mad [/i] at sin, man is not totally depraved, and He becomes made into a god that will reconcile everyone to Him (christian universalism), or accepts the works righteousness of other religions.

 2009/10/9 18:30Profile









 Re:

You quote C.S. Lewis in your signature. Yet you essentially call him a heretic in this post. What gives?

C.S. Lewis wasn't a Sabellian heretic. But he was a traditional Anglican. So I'm not sure he believed in your version of faith alone or non-baptismal regeneration.

 2009/10/9 19:10
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

In part, "doctrine" is the expressed teaching of the faith about realities of the relationship we have with the Lord. Thus, our belief that Jesus is Lord, and that God raised Him from the dead isn't merely the confession of some historic fact (though in part it is that). Rather, it is the confession of the truth of a relationship that we have entered into. Doctrines that confess something other than the reality of that expression show we are not in the relationship we ought to have with the Lord.

Thus, to deny those things that constitute the "core" of our faith shows that our relationship with the Lord is not likely real. Thus, while we can be charitable about differences of opinion over some doctrines, there are some that we simply cannot. Those which define our relationship with the Lord, are what I believe are "essential."


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/10/9 19:41Profile
jlosinski
Member



Joined: 2006/9/11
Posts: 294
North Pole, Alaska

 Re:

To continue on, we can see that faith in Jesus Christ is all that is necessary to be justified in Gods eyes. the thief on the cross has already been mentioned. However, most believers that are born again are not dying thieves, but rather living thieves.

If one is born again, the Holy Spirit will lead that saint in the paths of truth for as long as they are here on earth; they may have abberant perspectives or ingnorance of key doctrines at first, but if they persist in those doctrines for years, the slippery slope will emerge.

I can't help but think of Brian McLaren. He does not hold to the doctrine of penal substitutinary atonement, now if he was a newborn in Christ and was ignorant of this doctrine, it would not be faulted to him. But for him to have persisted in that denial (notice he denies it, not simply ignorant) and teach others to do so as well is a sign of falsehood, and as expected, his perspective on hell, sin, and how God relates to man is askew as well.

 2009/10/9 19:43Profile
jlosinski
Member



Joined: 2006/9/11
Posts: 294
North Pole, Alaska

 Re:

Orthodox,
Good point :-P. This could be a perfect example of what I pointed out in my previous posts. I grew up in a christian environment and always heard that CS Lewis and Chronicles of Narnia were the "bees knees", so to speak. As I've grown in my faith I've come to hold differing views than what Lewis would. Case in point, when I entered that signature I had only been saved for less than a year- definately a babe in Christ (and maybe still so). So, I've never gotten around to changing it but I can certainly see where you would be justified in calling me out on that one ;-)

In Christ
Joe

 2009/10/9 19:50Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:

jlosinski wrote:
To continue on, we can see that faith in Jesus Christ is all that is necessary to be justified in Gods eyes.

Jesus who?

My point is, there are many jesus' around. Many gosples with Jesus.

Some say that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer.
Some say that Jesus is also Micheal the Archangel.
Some say that Jesus is only in spirit...etc...

 2009/10/9 20:11Profile
anonymity
Member



Joined: 2009/1/16
Posts: 393


 Re:

I agree mostly with all of what you guys are saying.

My first intent in posting this was to further dig into my thoughts of how many I think are saved in abberant places and hearing from the brethren as often we function as one and need to hear relationally from each other.

Now, I can of feel a little more settled on my stances on that topic though I have been gleaning some new things.

The other thing now is I am asking whether or not you think one can be saved who does not hold strictly to Trinitarian thought on God.

Now I know there was response, but to say it lead to legalism is not seemingly reasonable. I was not asking about the Oneness Churches but about Oneness doctrine of the Trinity and I am not sure how that would lead to legalism.

I do see how one doctrine affects another however I do not see how this could affect others.

One of the reasons why I ask this question is because I do not hold to classic Trinitarian doctrine.

Before I was saved I had not concept and even for a while after being saved.

I later accepted the doctrine. Even though it seemed a little odd I received it by faith and what I believed the Bible and my elders said.

However, over the years of studying I decided to study the matter more thoroughly as I did not feel all that much of a peace about it.

I believe the Lord opened the Scriptures to me not based on personal bias or something, but on Scriptural fact.

The Lord I believe did the same with me on the doctrine of a post tribulational rapture though I was heavily indoctrinated with a pre trib position. I believe it is beyond the scope of subjective skepticism. I clearly believe that the Lord brought me to a point of death in my understanding of the Scriptures and then make it clear to me what they said of which my soul is beyond thankful.

What I do not believe is Biblical in Trinitarian thought about God is that He has 3 different and distinct personalities. I believe that the Father is Spirit, He has sent out His Spirit, and sent out His Word/Logos to take on the form of a man. As we have a word and spirit so also does God to a degree. Our word and spirit may function in different ways, but they all have the same personality.

I had a hard time with this because my family in which I got saved all held a different view. It was tragic and so I thought to be quiet over the matter as the same with post trib.

However, through some strong providences the Lord sent me to a fellowship that was bold in post trib doctrine though I did not know until a while of being there. So I did not go there because, but found out later.

The same with my view of the Oneness of God (which is not modalism ect). I believe I was strongly providentially sent to another fellowship and they also believe in Oneness.

I believe the Lord is encouraging me on a topic that can be so disheartening.

I believe that Rome and the Reformation and their creeds have not has total succession or reformation and so the Trinitarian view has heretically remained and been passed on to Evangelicalism today.

I think that to Muslims and other it paints God in a very bad picture and is one of the main hinderances to them coming to the faith.

I also shared with some close friends who are strong in the faith and when explained to them I had no rejection which was further encouragement.

You know it is funny I could not find any who had the same view as me. Though some were close like I think Albert Barnes. But, many of my friends were Calvinists and to find that from what I know my view was very similar to that of Servetus whom Calvin killed was indeed interesting. And I guess there are also other teachers with similar teachings?

I know that I was saved. I know saved brother who know I am saved. And, yet I continue in this undeerstanding. So, I guess I am wondering if you all think I am saved?

[edit] I also don't believe that the Son always was but that the Logos always was and when the Logos took on the form of man He took on the title of Son of God.

 2009/10/9 20:11Profile









 Re: What doctrines are essential for salvation and which aren't?

I believe it is possible to deny all the 5 points of Calvinism, as taught by Calvinism, and still be saved. I know many godly men, who know Jesus Christ, who do not believe in any of the 5 points of Calvinism.

You can be a Christian and believe in free will instead of total depravity, in conditional salvation instead of unconditional election, in unlimited atonement (yet limited salvation) instead of limited atonement, in resistible grace instead of irresistible grace, in conditional security instead of perseverance of the saints.

The attitude today that Calvinism = Christianity and that Christianity = Calvinism really seems like a cult to me and is no different than the Roman Church that says there is no salvation outside of itself.

 2009/10/9 20:14
anonymity
Member



Joined: 2009/1/16
Posts: 393


 Re:

Truefaithsave,

I have been thinking the same thing recently. That many who go back to Rome are doing so in a false way. But, that those going back to the Reformation institution are also stepping into a great deal of error similar to stepping into Rome. I think that Paul was a good picture of this. He became an Apostle out of nowhere. And, in the end he labored more then they all. He rebuked Peter and others and said that God is not a respecter of persons. I don't know if I am going to say that Paul was the 12 Apostles, but I might say he is the greatest as Jesus said that he who is least among you is greatest. Plus, even if we are to a degree to stick to succession there is no hard proof saying that the succession was given to Rome or other, but was most likely given to saints like the Anabaptists ect.

 2009/10/9 20:21Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy