Essential vs. Unessential

[Paula22466]

Thanks for the response, although I'm not sure I follow. If it's true that an essential doctrine is to believe salvation comes only through Christ's work and nothing else, but a roman catholic believes that doctrine is false (i.e. Christ's work + sacraments = salvation) how can they be saved?

[lish1936]

As we know, salvation is always based on the belief in the essentials and if one who does believe in the essentials also believes in false teachings, their faith in Christ will not be affected.

I hope this is not too simplistic.

As I understand it, an essential is like a car. You can focus on the color, the style of the dashboard, whether leather or vinyl interior, and push button windows - all of the non-essentials - but none of these things will get you where you need to go. As long as you have a car, you will get to your destination.

Blessings,

Lillian

[NetChaplain]

Thanks for the response, although I'm not sure I follow. If it's true that an essential doctrine is to believe salvation comes only through Christ's work and nothing else, but a roman catholic believes that doctrine is false (i.e. Christ's work + sacraments = salvation) how can they be saved?

What your saying is interesting and could be valid if one cannot truly believe in Christ's atonement at all ,if they believe there's additional requirement. You got me thinking on this one.

Looking at Lill's reply was also interesting, giving a view that since you have the car which is what will actually get you there, believing it also requires additionals may not matter, because whether you know it or not, it's only the car that will get you there.

At present I'm leaning towards it's Christ only or not at all. Gonna have to overnight this one and get back. Thanks to both of you for the stirring and looks like it's going to take teamwork here.

[NetChaplain]

Now I'm thinking, if you don't have it right (Christ only) you don't have it.

[lish1936]

What you're saying is interesting and could be valid if one cannot truly believe in Christ's atonement at all ,if they believe there's additional requirement. You got me thinking on this one.

I know little about the Catholic faith, and this may be tangential to the discussion, but I was just wondering. If the Priest wasn't involved in the equation, would the sacraments be considered as being different from what we believe as non-Catholics?

i.e. conversion, baptism, communion, marriage, confirmation/santification, annointing of the sick.


Blessings,

Lillian

[NetChaplain]

I think the crux-question would be, Can one have faith in Christ and in works for receiving and/or retaining salvation? I believe the answer lies within defining "faith in Christ."

Romans 10:9 could be the most applicable when addressing faith in Christ because the doctrines contained therein are universally related to all the Scriptural (not man's) articles of faith in Christ. I think it's also important to note that believing in Christ is synonymous with "receiving" Him, as in John 1:12; Rev 3:20).

"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." "Confessing" or acknowledging the Lord is the same intention as in Matthew 10:32, 33, which also incurs "denying" Him. Not as Peter's verbal denial which was not truly in his heart, evidenced by his remorse and eventual lifestyle; but the absence of an outward lifestyle in accordance with Scripture, "as the Holy Ghost teaches" (1 Cor 2:13). This complies with Titus 1:6 and James 2:17, 18, 22, 24, 26.

Can one accept these two articles as truth without being affected by believing in something untrue, which is not truly related to these articles?

I'm convinced that one can believe or disbelieve in any doctrine which is unrelated to faith in Christ (Rom 10:9 articles) without detracting credibility from their faith in Christ. It's through faith in Christ that saves (Eph 2:8); all else is only growth effected.

I believe John Gill's commentary presents a good explanation here: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,.... That is, if a man shall make a good, sincere and hearty confession to God, before the church and people of God, and before the world, that Christ is his Lord and Saviour, whom he desires to serve and to be saved by; and this as arising from a comfortable experience of the grace of God in his soul and from a true faith in Christ in his heart.

"And shall believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for this article of Christ's resurrection includes the several other articles of faith: it supposes His death, and that supposes His life and the obedience of it; and His life implies His being here on earth and that His coming down from heaven to do the will of His Father; and this is the rather mentioned, which is here ascribed to God the Father, though not to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, because that Christ is risen again for our justification, with which true faith is principally concerned.

"For such a faith is intended, not which lies in a mere assent to the truth of this, or any other article of the Christian religion; but which is concerned with Christ for righteousness, life, and glory; and with such a faith salvation is certainly and inseparably connected."

It also appears that due to the significance of this subject, this reply should be posted as a thread, which I will probably do after a good soaking in this thread.

[lish1936]

I'm convinced that one can believe or disbelieve in any doctrine which is unrelated to faith in Christ (Rom 10:9 articles) without detracting credibility from their faith in Christ. It's through faith in Christ that saves (Eph 2:8); all else is only growth effected.

If I apply your answer to my question about the sacraments, I can then conclude that a Catholic who continues to partake of the sacraments but also confesses faith in Christ as the only way to Salvation is also included among the Body of Christ.

Or should I conclude that maturity and spiritual growth bring new light, and the sacraments become inconsequential/unnecessary to him; only then can he become a "true" believer?

Which of the two conclusions is in sync with your answer and the essential vs. non-essential idea?

Lillian

[NetChaplain]

I'm convinced that one can believe or disbelieve in any doctrine which is unrelated to faith in Christ (Rom 10:9 articles) without detracting credibility from their faith in Christ. It's through faith in Christ that saves (Eph 2:8); all else is only growth effected.

If I apply your answer to my question about the sacraments, I can then conclude that a Catholic who continues to partake of the sacraments but also confesses faith in Christ as the only way to Salvation is also included among the Body of Christ.

Or should I conclude that maturity and spiritual growth bring new light, and the sacraments become inconsequential/unnecessary to him; only then can he become a "true" believer?

Which of the two conclusions is in sync with your answer and the essential vs. non-essential idea?

Lillian

Oh, that's just great Lill! This almost puts us back on the front burner on this one (jklol). There are always many Christians (which are those who have faith in Christ) who do not grow much beyond the born-again stage because of lacking knowledge and understanding of Scripture. These are those who are "in Christ" but are still "babes" (1 Cor 3:1) which has resulted in being "unskilled," or in other words, lacking knowledge/and or understanding of the scriptures (Heb 5:13).

Since they've learned enough Scripture to be established through "faith in Christ," there's nothing in the way of knowing or practicing false doctrines that can affect their salvation, unless it touches their faith in Christ per Romans 10:9, 10, which I do not believe is possible if they truly have it.

[NetChaplain]

What you're saying is interesting and could be valid if one cannot truly believe in Christ's atonement at all ,if they believe there's additional requirement. You got me thinking on this one.

I know little about the Catholic faith, and this may be tangential to the discussion, but I was just wondering. If the Priest wasn't involved in the equation, would the sacraments be considered as being different from what we believe as non-Catholics?

i.e. conversion, baptism, communion, marriage, confirmation/santification, annointing of the sick.
Blessings,
Lillian

Unless I'm not understanding you, I would say that all the Catholic doctrines, catechisms, sacraments, etc. are not different in significance than any false doctrine like legalism, covenantism, etc. which are works doctrines. Not sure what you mean by if a Priest wasn't part of the ritual. Let me know.

[lish1936]

I know little about the Catholic faith, and this may be tangential to the discussion, but I was just wondering. If the Priest wasn't involved in the equation, would the sacraments be considered as being different from what we believe as non-Catholics?

i.e. conversion, baptism, communion, marriage, confirmation/santification, annointing of the sick.
Blessings,
Lillian

Unless I'm not understanding you, I would say that all the Catholic doctrines, catechisms, sacraments, etc. are not different in significance than any false doctrine like legalism, covenantism, etc. which are works doctrines. Not sure what you mean by if a Priest wasn't part of the ritual. Let me know.

I guess I meant [:-)] if the Priest was not positioned as the "go-between," the sacraments represent everything that Christians believe; the need for conversion, baptism, the practice of communion, praying for the sick, etc.

I'm definitely showcasing my lack of knowlege as it relates to Catholicism.

Lillian

[NetChaplain]

I know little about the Catholic faith, and this may be tangential to the discussion, but I was just wondering. If the Priest wasn't involved in the equation, would the sacraments be considered as being different from what we believe as non-Catholics?

i.e. conversion, baptism, communion, marriage, confirmation/santification, annointing of the sick.
Blessings,
Lillian

Unless I'm not understanding you, I would say that all the Catholic doctrines, catechisms, sacraments, etc. are not different in significance than any false doctrine like legalism, covenantism, etc. which are works doctrines. Not sure what you mean by if a Priest wasn't part of the ritual. Let me know.

I guess I meant [:-)] if the Priest was not positioned as the "go-between," the sacraments represent everything that Christians believe; the need for conversion, baptism, the practice of communion, praying for the sick, etc.

I'm definitely showcasing my lack of knowlege as it relates to Catholicism.

Lillian

You and esp. Paula have shown me that I may have missed something concerning this issue and I appreciate you causing me to spend more time on this issue. I've also just posted another reply to Paula concerning this.

The focus is on whether or not it is believed that works ("baptism, the practice of communion, etc.") are required for receiving salvation, which is a problem if this is the case concerning it.

[NetChaplain]

I know little about the Catholic faith, and this may be tangential to the discussion, but I was just wondering. If the Priest wasn't involved in the equation, would the sacraments be considered as being different from what we believe as non-Catholics?

i.e. conversion, baptism, communion, marriage, confirmation/santification, annointing of the sick.
Blessings,
Lillian

Unless I'm not understanding you, I would say that all the Catholic doctrines, catechisms, sacraments, etc. are not different in significance than any false doctrine like legalism, covenantism, etc. which are works doctrines. Not sure what you mean by if a Priest wasn't part of the ritual. Let me know.

I guess I meant [:-)] if the Priest was not positioned as the "go-between," the sacraments represent everything that Christians believe; the need for conversion, baptism, the practice of communion, praying for the sick, etc.

I'm definitely showcasing my lack of knowlege as it relates to Catholicism.

Lillian

You and esp. Paula have shown me that I may have missed something concerning this issue and I appreciate you causing me to spend more time on this issue. I've also just posted another reply to Paula concerning this.

The focus is on whether or not it is believed that works ("baptism, the practice of communion, etc.") are required for receiving salvation, which is a problem if this is the case concerning it.

[lish1936]

The focus is on whether or not it is believed that works ("baptism, the practice of communion, etc.") are required for receiving salvation.

Okay, "required for receiving salvation" just opened my blinds, and I see the light.

Blessings,

Lillian

[NetChaplain]

The focus is on whether or not it is believed that works ("baptism, the practice of communion, etc.") are required for receiving salvation.

Okay, "required for receiving salvation" just opened my blinds, and I see the light. :D

Blessings,

Lillian

Thanks again Sis!