Must salvation include correct doctrine?

Before somebody picks up an ax and comes after me with it, please also me to state that I do not believe in baptismal regeneration or the Roman Catholic view that baptism is the instrument by which we are saved. I believe in the traditional Baptist beliefs regarding water baptism. However, although I disagree with the views of some other denominations, I respect their beliefs and their position in the body of Christ.

 

These two positions stated by you are contradictory. Either you are ignorant of Baptist beliefs, or ignorant of Catholic beliefs, or are ignorant of the beliefs of both, or are inclusivist, meaning that you are a flat out universalist--which you have denied. Yet the evidence is there, Craig. You are a universalist. All roads lead to Rome, or in this case, Heaven. It doesn't matter to you if one is SDA, Catholic, Mormon, J.W., we will all get to Heaven through one of those roads. That is the precise thinking of the Hindus. Are they on one of those roads also?
DHK

 

Some Baptists like to argue that Catholics are not saved because they believe that baptism is a sacrament, and that baptism saves people. I don’t agree with this teaching, but America’s favorite Bible commentator, Matthew Henry, did:

1 Pet. 3:21
Noah's salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of all good Christians in the church by baptism; that temporal salvation by the ark was a type, the antitype whereunto is the eternal salvation of believers by baptism, to prevent mistakes about which the apostle,
I. Declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but it is that baptism wherein there is a faithful answer or restipulation of a resolved good conscience, engaging to believe in, and be entirely devoted to, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing at the same time the flesh, the world, and the devil. The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us. Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.
II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. the sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Act_2:38; Act_22:16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God. - Obj. Infants cannot make such an answer, and therefore ought not to be baptized. - Answer, the true circumcision was that of the heart and of the spirit (Rom_2:29), which children were no more capable of then than our infants are capable of making this answer now; yet they were allowed circumcision at eight days old. The infants of the Christian church therefore may be admitted to the ordinance with as much reason as the infants of the Jewish, unless they are barred from it by some express prohibition of Christ.
(The emphasis using bold type is mine; all of the words of the exact words of Matthew Henry)

Question: Did Matthew Henry’s doctrines cause him to be denied salvation?

 

Since I have repeatedly been personally attacked on this message board and accused of being such things as a Seventh-day Adventist and a Universalist, I find it necessary to post what I believe in the form of a statement of faith. Therefore, here it is:

The Word of God – I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original writings, complete as the revelation of God's will for salvation, and the supreme and final authority in all matters to which they speak.

The Trinity – I believe in one God, Creator and Sustainer of all things, eternally divine existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; I believe that these are equal in every distinct perfection and they execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of creation, providence, and redemption.

God the Father – I believe in God the Father: an infinite, personal Spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power, and love. I believe that He concerns Himself mercifully in the affairs of humanity, that He hears and answers prayer, and that He saves from sin and death all who come to Him through Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ – I believe that Jesus Christ is God's eternal Son, who has precisely the same nature, attributes, and perfections as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. I believe further that He is not only true God, but true man, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. I also believe in His sinless life, His substitutionary atonement, His bodily resurrection from the dead, His ascension into heaven, His priestly intercession on behalf of His people, and His personal, visible, premillennial return from heaven.

Holy Spirit – I believe in the Holy Spirit, His personality and His work in regeneration, sanctification, and preservation. His ministry is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, to implement Christ's work of redeeming the lost, and to empower the believer for godly living and service.

Man – I believe God originally created persons, male and female, in the image of God and free from sin. I further believe all people are sinners by nature and choice and are spiritually dead. I also believe that those who repent of sin and trust Jesus Christ as Savior are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Salvation – I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I further believe that this salvation is based upon the sovereign grace of God, was purchased by Jesus Christ on the cross, and is received by faith, apart from any human merit, works, or ritual. I further believe salvation results in righteous living, good works, and proper social concern.

The Church – I believe that the Church is the spiritual body of which Christ is the head. I believe that the true Church is composed of all persons who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. I believe that this body expresses itself in local assemblies whose members have been immersed upon a credible confession of faith and have associated themselves for worship, for instruction, for evangelism, and for service. I believe the ordinances of the local church are believer's baptism by immersion and the Lord's Supper. I also believe in the interdependence of local churches and the mutual submission of believers to each other in love.

Separation of Church and State – I believe that each local church is self-governing in function and must be free from interference by any ecclesiastical or political authority. I further believe that every human being is directly responsible to God in matters of faith and life and that each one should be free to worship God according to the dictates of conscience.

Christian Conduct – I believe that the supreme task of believers is to glorify God in their life and that their conduct should be blameless before the world. I further believe that they should be faithful stewards of their possessions and that they should seek to realize for themselves the full stature of maturity in Christ.

The Last Things – I believe in the bodily resurrection of the saved and lost, the eternal existence of all people either in heaven or hell, in divine judgment, rewards, and punishments.

 

This is your statement of faith. I agree with it.
The Catholic Church has never believed this point, does not now believe this point, and opposes all that does believe this point.

Therefore:
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.

We are to avoid them. They are not brothers and sisters in Christ. They have a completely different concept of salvation. Their concept of salvation is one of works; not "of grace through faith."
DHK

 

DHK
The subject of this thread is "Must salvation include correct doctrine?"

Your and Charles are bitter towards the RC Church and I am similarly bitter towards the SDA church for deceiving me.

Having said that,I had accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior before becoming an SDA. When I joined that church many years later at the age of 28, I did not relinquish anything Baptists teach about what one must do to be saved. And I am sure that God did not erase my name from His book of life. I joned that church becasuse of Baptist doctrinal error and it took ten years before I got out of it.

The presence of Baptist doctrinal error which forced me into the hands of a false cult did NOT causse me to fall from grace!

Tell me, which Baptist church has total doctinal truth. I WANT TO JOIN IT.

A lot of Roman Catholics sincerely believe in Jesu Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. My Bible class at work has several who among my best students and contributors. Even though I think they are wrong on a lot of other doctrines, who am I to say that they are not fellow beleivers? John 16:9.

Do you think that we should deny salvation to Baptists who hold what you consider to be incorrect doctrine??
1. snake handlers; 2. charismatics; 3. KJV only; 4. dispensationalists; 5. amillennialists; 6. suit and tie only if you want to worship; 7. tithing if you want to be a church leader; 8. some liberal Baptists deny inerrancy; 9. some liberal Baptists accept abortion;

We asked Craig "Where do you draw the lilne?" I ask you the same thing? How many "wrong" doctrines can Baptists hold and still be saved?

My asnser is "as long as they do not deny the deity of Jesus Christ and do not believe that works are necessary for justification by faith."
Baptists who deny this are just as lost as are Catholics who deny this.

 

Russ Kelly said:

Me too !! Me too !!

 

oh ours does, didn't you know that we are the only true Church in this world and everyone else is just a cult j/k

 

Doctrinal errors in Baptist churches are no excuse to run off and join the nearest Seventh-day Adventist or Roman Catholic Church. And no one in an affluent, English speaking country where Bibles are plentiful has any excuse for believing a false doctrine. “My pastor made me do it” is no more of an excuse than the words of Adam:

“ The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”

 

Me too !! Me too !! </font>[/QUOTE]Here are Baptist distinctives that Baptists have historically held to throughout the ages:

1. The Bibe (verbal and plenary inspired) is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

2. The local church consists of regenerated and baptized (immersed) believers.

3. The autonomy of the local local church.

4. The priesthood of the believer.

5. Soul Liberty

6. Baptism by immersion and the Lord's Table are the only two ordinances of the local church.

7. Separation of church and state.

8. Separation eccesiatically and ethically.


These distinctives are those which set Baptists apart from, not only the religions of the world, but also the other Protestants and evanlegicals.
In addition to these distinctives Baptists also believe the fundamentals of the faith which were set down in a conference some years ago, which almost every Protestant denomination believe in:

Things such as:
the virgin birth, salvation by grace through faith, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the death, burial,and resurrection of Christ, the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Word of God, the trinity, the Second Coming, and perhaps some others that I can't remember.

Issues like the KJVO/MV are matters of Soul liberty.
Likewise Calvinism/Arminianism, Premill/Postmill, and a host of other controversial topics discussed on this board which have no effect on our salvation, the deity of Christ, or the essential fundamental doctrines agreed on by most Protestants.

We allow too many doctrines to divide us such as the KJVO debate. It ought to be a matter of soul liberty unless it comes to an extreme position such as Ruckman has, and then I would separate from him, yet still count him as a brother.

In the Catholic Church, they deny the way of Salvation itself--the very fundamentals of our faith. They deny the authority of the Word of the Word of God. They have another authority, "Oral Tradition." Not only do they go against the distinctives of a Baptist, more importantly they deny some of the most important fundamentals of the faith which all evangelicals agree on. They therefore fall into the category of either a false religion or a cult. You cannot serve two masters. You cannot believe in two opposing theologies at the same time. The Catholic says that you get to Heaven only through the Catholic Church and its teaching. The Bible says in John 14:6
Jesus said unto them: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father, but by me."
Jesus did not say, "no one comes unto me but by the Catholic Church.
DHK

 

Some years ago I had a lengthy theological conversation with the rector of a large Roman Catholic cathedral. During the conversation, I asked him what he believed regarding infant Baptism. His reply was, “I believe that the Catholic Church has a theological problem with that.” He went on to tell me that when members of his congregation come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as adults, and ask him to baptize them, he does so even though they were baptized earlier, most of them as babies. I asked him if his bishop knew that he did so, and he told me that his bishop knew about it and had reservations about it, but did not hinder him from doing so.

As I posted earlier in this thread, the Roman Catholic Church is not a unified body with one set of beliefs, but a very diverse body. Many of them are outspoken dissenters; many others simply practice their faith as they see fit. And this is not only true of the laity, but even more true of those at the highest levels in the Church.

It was not long ago that most scientists were Christians, but “evangelical” Christians labeled them first as liberals and then as unbelievers, and we witnessed the exodus of most of our scientists first to the liberal churches, and then out of the Church all together. Pejorative labels hurt people, and they hurt the body of Christ. Love draws people in; hate drives people away. Pejorative name calling is not an expression of love; it is an expression of hate—the very antithesis of Christianity. Those who have an attitude of hate rather than love have every reason to examine themselves, whether they themselves are in the faith.

One of the most important attributes of love is giving each other the benefit of the doubt, even if the doubt is substantial. We are not appointed as judges, but as loving servants, meekly and humbly reaching out to each other in love.

 

Not long ago I had a very lengthy conversation with the executive director of a “ministry” to Roman Catholics. This executive director had himself been a Catholic priest for a number of years, became disenchanted with it, and became an I.F. Baptist. His “ministry” is so typified by hate that he finds in necessary to live in seclusion way out in the country where one has to drive through a maze of badly-rutted dirt roads to reach the iron bars that surround his home and ministry headquarters.

During our very lengthy conversation in the privacy of his library of his 20,000 volumes of Catholic literature, he told me about his experiences as a Roman Catholic. He freely acknowledged the abundant love that some of the nuns had shown him, and I asked him where he believed that love came from. After thinking for a moment, he replied that he supposed that it came from God. At that very moment his countenance changed and it was very apparent that he had just then had a very significant spiritual insight. I then asked him if he did not suppose that it was possible that those nuns through whom the love of God was extended to him were indeed saved people. His answer was that he supposed that they were saved. This man became very quiet for a moment and then our conversation was interrupted by a member of his staff telling us that dinner had been served.

As we walked out of his library and on our way to the dining room, he handed a visitor some tracts on which were printed some of the most hateful anti-Catholic literature that I have ever seen. For just a moment, the Holy Spirit had convicted this man that being a Catholic was not synonymous with being unsaved, but his hatred for the Roman Catholic Church was so strong that the moment was very brief.

 

If the pope, the Magesterium, and those in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that are higher up knew about this, the bishop would be disciplined and his church either taken away, our disfellowshiped. Either way, I am sure that if a struggle occurred the assets would be claimed by the Catholic Church. This bishop does not hold to the Catechism, and in fact, flaunts it in many ways.

Have you considered Baptist History? Why were the Anabaptists called "Anabaptists?" "Ana" meaning "re" and baptism put together = re-baptism, or baptized again. When a person (usually a Catholic) got saved, they were baptized. To the Catholic this was a re-baptism because they had already been baptized as an infant. Of course, Biblically infant baptism is no baptism at all. The only baptism that counts is immersion after one has put their faith in Christ. These people were put to death by the Catholic Church once they were "rebaptized." Thousands of Anabaptists were drowned, burnt at the stake, cruelly tortured, and put to death by various means all for what? Because they were saved and baptized--baptized a second time. This second baptism is one of the most grievous heresies of the Catholic Church (that is, that the Catholic Church considers a heresy). It has never changed its stance on it. The only thing that has changed in the past few years is the consequence of this so-called heresy. It can no longer enforce the penalty of death and torture for a second baptism because of the laws of our country, but it doesn't look at the heresy any less favorably. The Catechism has not changed. The Catholic Church has not changed. Its doctrines has not changed.

What happened to Luther when he challenged the doctrines of the Catholic Church? What was the reformation all about? Why were these men called "Protestants?" They protested against these ungodly anti-biblical doctrines of the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church did not believe in salvation. Surely you know how Luther got saved. He got saved, while a priest, but entirely apart from the Catholic Church's help. It was by reading the Book of Romans, and the conviction of the Holy Spirit that came upon him, while he came to an understanding of what justification really meant. It was not what the Catholic Church had taught him.

Any Catholic Church apologist will tell you that "we are unified all over this world, having one body of doctrine, one catechism, one church--the most unified church in the world."
Your experience was not the norm. The church would face disciplinary action of higher authorities found out about it.
DHK

 

There are many unsaved people that show "love," even more so than many Christians. It is a kind of "philanthropic" love. A good example is Mother Theresa. How many Baptists measure up to the works and dedication that she had? Not many. Yet Mother Theresa said: "If you are a Christian, be a good Christian; If you are a Muslim, be a good Muslim; If you are a Hindu be a good Hindu." If that was her theology, her thinking, then I don't believe Mother Theresa went to Heaven. I believe she was an unsaved person who had a heart for doing good. There are many such people today. I know of many Muslims who will go out of their way to do good, and show love to others, but that doesn't make them Christians.

On the other hand, the hatred that you perceive from ex-Catholics is often directed at the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and perhaps the organization itself which spread the lies and advertise it. We do not hate the people, just the doctrines, the teachings of the Church. There is a big difference there. "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Jesus called the same Pharisees, "You are of your father the devil, the lusts of your father you will do..." (John 8:44)
Jesus used some strong language there. But again, I emphasize that it is the doctrine that we hate, not the people.
DHK

 

She also said "Be all and only for Jesus, and let Him use you without him having to consult you first."

She also said "Christ is my Saviour, in whom I trust."

She also said "Christ has paid the price of my transgressions."

She also said "Christ lives in my heart".

Aside from the first statement (which I think is a pretty thing for us to remember), the others aren't typically remarkable, and as such, she isn't remembered for professing Christ as her savior to those who question her salvation.

Again, I'm not defeding doctrinal errors, but it's easy to get soundbytes or quotes to support a position that had nothing to do with the context. We should be careful to refrain from such things.

 

Mother Theresa is damned to hell because DHK says so. The facts are totally irrelevant (except for the very few facts that could be loosely interpreted to agree with opinions). :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

 

I don't measure things by the works that they do; but by the theology that they believe in, and how that compares to the Word of God.
The Bible is my final authority all matters of faith and practice. That is why I am a Baptist.
It is not because of what I say, it is because of what the Bible says, and because of what I hear that she testifies concerning God.
DHK

 

DHK,

"If the pope, the Magesterium, and those in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that are higher up knew about this, the bishop would be disciplined and his church either taken away, our disfellowshiped."

I do not think that would be John Paul's response.

 

Craig,
You have responded to an illustration, and not to the response itself, thus going off on a red herring. The point is that no matter how good a person may appear before man or God, their good works or "love" will not get them to Heaven. Only trusting Christ can get a person to Heaven. Many Muslims have shown great love, evidenced by their many good deeds, which most of us never hear about. Will they go to Heaven? No. Love and good works do not save: whether one be Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, Buddhist, or otherwise. Only faith in Christ saves. That is the only point I was making.
DHK