Is Sound Doctrine Essential for Salvation?

[Josheb]

In the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenant there is no requirement of faith as part of these covenants.

Scripture proves otherwise.

Faith is an implicit necessity in the first of the ten commandments, and fidelity of faith (faithfulness) is implicit in the second.

Exodus 20:3-4
You shall have no other gods before Me. "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

A person cannot have a God they do not believe exists. Faith is necessary. The psalmist explained how the law required faith and Israel was punished because they did not believe.

Psalm 78:5-8, 22
For He established a testimony in Jacob And appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our fathers That they should teach them to their children, that the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, that they may arise and tell them to their children, That they should put their confidence in God and not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments, and not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that did not prepare its heart And whose spirit was not faithful to God......... Therefore, the LORD heard and was full of wrath; and a fire was kindled against Jacob and anger also mounted against Israel, because they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation.

Moses did not make it into the promised land because he broke faith with God.

Deuteronomy 32:48-52
The LORD spoke to Moses that very same day, saying, "Go up to this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab opposite Jericho, and look at the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the sons of Israel for a possession. "Then die on the mountain where you ascend, and be gathered to your people, as Aaron your brother died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people, because you broke faith with Me in the midst of the sons of Israel at the waters of Meribah-kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin, because you did not treat Me as holy in the midst of the sons of Israel. "For you shall see the land at a distance, but you shall not go there, into the land which I am giving the sons of Israel."

In point of fact, faith is a law!

Romans 3:27
Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.

Which is contrasted in Paul's epistle with the "law of works." The fact is the righteous live by faith (Hab. 2:4).

Romans 3:27-31
Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

The Law is established by faith.

Furthermore, the new covenant entails the receipt of God's Spirit and the Spirit is received by faith.

Galatians 3:1-2
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

And Paul went on to expound on the necessity of faith in both old and new covenants.

Galatians 3:10-14
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” — so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Thinking one's own works of flesh saves no one, no matter how perfect that obedience, because perfection is impossible and trusting in one's own flesh is imperfection. It is the antithesis of faith in God.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The Abrahamic Covenant is described and found in Genesis 17.
This is where God speaks to Abraham and makes covenant with him and all the particulars mentioned as part of this covenant, such as land, blessings, and the only requirement God desired from Abraham was circumcision as per the words of this covenant.
There is no mention nor requirement of faith in this covenant nor is there any faith required in the Mosaic and New Covenants.

Merely posting Scripture from elsewhere to try to prove something not there is not being honest with the Scripture and the Abrahamic Covenant as described in Genesis 17. It's called adding to the bible. Cults and false 'churches' such as Mormons and JW's do the same thing and even come up with their own bible as result to uphold their doctrine. So, let's keep it biblical. Let's take Scripture as written.

Let me also add that Abraham had faith (trust) in God's command to leave his family to a place God would later show him but where the covenant is concerned there is no requirement of faith in any of the covenants (Mosaic, New) for the purpose of God. The covenant itself was THE FAITH and was the method of God's salvation of His Chosen people as they were "kept" until "faith should appear" in the Person of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Josheb]

The Abrahamic Covenant is described and found in Genesis 17.
This is where God speaks to Abraham and makes covenant with him and all the particulars mentioned as part of this covenant, such as land, blessings, and the only requirement God desired from Abraham was circumcision as per the words of this covenant.

Once again, you've got your facts wrong.

The first mention of a covenant with Abraham is in Genesis 15, not 17.

Genesis 15:12-18
Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him. God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. "But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions. "As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. "Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete." It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates...

And it could be argued the covenant began the day God called Abram and commanded him to leave Ur (Gen. 12). Ten years passed before Abram before Sarai gave Abram her maid Hagar. Abram was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. Abram was 100 years old when Isaac was born. That means nearly 25 years passed between Genesis 15:18 and Genesis 17:2. Abraham had been in a covenant with God for 25 years before Post 42 happened.


PART of the covenant is described in chapter 17.

And part of it had already been described in chapter 15.

 

[Josheb]

There is no mention nor requirement of faith in this covenant nor is there any faith required in the Mosaic and New Covenants.

Argument from silence.

Just because something is not mentioned does not mean it's not there. Take, for example, the matter of obedience. The words "obey," and "obedience" are nowhere found in chapter 17. Would you also argue there is no requirement of obedience in this covenant? Post 41 provides plenty of proof for understanding faith is always a part of both God's covenant and God's laws.

Merely posting Scripture from elsewhere to try to prove something not there is not being honest with the Scripture and the Abrahamic Covenant as described in Genesis 17.

Nice straw man. There is nothing "mere" in Post 41. What is Post 41 is a sampling of scripture from beginning to end showing how the law, the prophets, and the epistolary all speak of the necessity of faith. I could quote from just about every book of the Bible to should faith/belief a divine requirement. All of scripture agrees. The only one not agreeing is you. If the posts are any evidence (and they are) the reason this is not grasped is because scripture is used selectively. Genesis 17, for example, is isolated from all the other texts that speak of the covenant with Abraham. There are at least 11 books of the Bible that speak about the covenant with Abraham, and you have never once presented a survey of them all.

It's called adding to the bible.

LOL!!

Using scripture is adding to the scripture. That's hilarious. It's also absurd and foolish.

Cults and false 'churches' such as Mormons and JW's do the same thing and even come up with their own bible as result to uphold their doctrine. So, let's keep it biblical. Let's take Scripture as written.

Nice appeal to ridicule and a wonderful false equivalence (comparing Post 41 to cults ). That's four logical fallacies in one post (argumentum ex silentio, straw man, reductio ad ridiculum, and false equivalence. No you have FOUR resources you can use to avoid making irrational posts. Use them. You are now without excuse.

Let me also add that Abraham had faith (trust) in God's command to leave his family to a place God would later show him but where the covenant is concerned there is no requirement of faith in any of the covenants (Mosaic, New) for the purpose of God.

Sophistry. That argument says Abraham believed but that belief was not required.

The covenant itself was THE FAITH and was the method of God's salvation of His Chosen people as they were "kept" until "faith should appear" in the Person of the Holy Spirit.

Got scripture for that?

Because if you do not have a verse that actually, explicitly states, "The covenant was the faith," then you are contradicting yourself. You are denying faith wasn't a requirement because there's no mention of faith BUT there's no mention of faith because the covenant was the faith" .....and yet there is no verse stating the covenant is the faith. That argument contradicts itself.



Sadly, these posts (Posts 41, 43, and 44) are going to be ignored because there is a stronghold by which Post 42 is held to with unyielding allegiance no matter how much scripture is brought to bear on it, no matter how irrational the argument.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

We have people that think that all they have to do is be a part of Christian church or show up once a week to listen to the preacher and they are good, no matter what they teach. And its clear that without a proper understanding of doctrine and a knowledge of the Gospel in God’s Word, faith can be sidetracked or weakened. Just look at how the Jews thought that the Messiah was going to set up a kingdom to overthrow the Roman rule, and it was so ingrained that it took a while to clear it from even the disciples views. I have come across denominations which just about every one of its churchs has a different idea of what doctrine they get from the Bible depending on the preacher, and so what end up happening is you just keep shifting till you find one that fits your lifestyle, with no real change. Is that what Jesus put forth. We see the most basic elements at the start of Christs ministry...

Matthew 3:2
And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

So what is needed?

God requires perfection from us. Perfection equal to The Father’s. Does that mean we had better start being perfect from now on since we know this truth? The question isn’t whether the saved have repented of their sins, the question is who accomplished it?

 

[EarlyActs]

God requires perfection from us. Perfection equal to The Father’s. Does that mean we had better start being perfect from now on since we know this truth? The question isn’t whether the saved have repented of their sins, the question is who accomplished it?

What is the “it” of “…who accomplished it”?

Are you speaking of justification or transformation/sanctification?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

What is the “it” of “…who accomplished it”?

Are you speaking of justification or transformation/sanctification?

The "it" is the perfection of the Father.

 

[EarlyActs]

The "it" is the perfection of the Father.

OK, but to be clear, these are one question . I need to know how you mean on the other.

Hint: Matt 5-7 can be a tricky place to solve this!

 

[Mercy_Shown]

OK, but to be clear, these are one question . I need to know how you mean on the other.

Hint: Matt 5-7 can be a tricky place to solve this!

I do not understand your question.

 

[EarlyActs]

What is the “it” of “…who accomplished it”?

Are you speaking of justification or transformation/sanctification?

The "it" is the perfection of the Father.

The italic lines above are pasted from you post above. Can you now see two questions here? I need to know what you are saying relative to justification vs transformation. I need to know your answer to both questions to know what is going on.

Hint: for years, Luther thought the 'righteousness' of God was His anger at him.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

The "it" is the perfection of the Father.

The italic lines above are pasted from you post above. Can you now see two questions here? I need to know what you are saying relative to justification vs transformation. I need to know your answer to both questions to know what is going on.

Hint: for years, Luther thought the 'righteousness' of God was His anger at him.

I think the correct question would be what is imputation?

 

[EarlyActs]

I think the correct question would be what is imputation?

Compared to personal change, what do you say?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Compared to personal change, what do you say?

Personal change occurs after salvation and is a process of growth and walking with God.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Is Sound Doctrine Essential for Salvation?​

Nope since a NON-Christian is essentially BLIND to the "Kingdom of God, and incapable of really even understanding "Theology", then "Doctrine" is essentially worthless.

When one is Convicted of their SIN by the Holy Spirit, and surrenders / repents, calling on God for salvation, THEN as a Born Again Christian they can start "LEARNING OF HIM". And depending on what Denominational group they merge with, they'll get a mixture of truth and error in varying proportions in "New Converts Class".

 

[EarlyActs]

Personal change occurs after salvation and is a process of growth and walking with God.

I mean do you think imputation is a type of personal experience?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I mean do you think imputation is a type of personal experience?

No, it is something we must take on faith. It seems to me that since our sins can no longer be counted against us because of Christ righteousness the devil can only use them to drive the wedge of doubt and self-loathing between us and Christ. But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleans us from all unrighteousness. Sometimes you just have to believe this whether you feel it as an experience or not.

 

[EarlyActs]

No, it is something we must take on faith. It seems to me that since our sins can no longer be counted against us because of Christ righteousness the devil can only use them to drive the wedge of doubt and self-loathing between us and Christ. But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleans us from all unrighteousness. Sometimes you just have to believe this whether you feel it as an experience or not.

You are very close. It is a knowledge, though not an experience and not powered by nor known through experience. A person would gain it by immersion in good guided teaching about Rom 1–5, Gal 3-4, and 2Cor 3-5. It then affects all our experience.

And the term itself bears this out, to which you were closest—the past cannot be counted against us, which is what imputation means. There is a cluster of synonyms about it which a person must learn.