Believing right doctrine will no more save you, than doing good works will save you. - Charles Spurgeon
I often wonder if many of the posters that get so caught up in arguing their particular theological bent are aware of this truth.
Reidhead's sermon Ten Sheckels And A Shirt does a great job of exposing this oft embraced error.
The following is as true as your quote from Spurgeon:
Believing wrong doctrine will no more save you, than doing evil works will save you.
So none misunderstand Charles Spurgeon by the one-sentence quote in the original post, I will quote Charles Spurgeon at length to expound upon the subject to give clarity:
"In the first place, every deviation from truth is a sin. It is not simply a sin for me to do a wrong act, but it is a sin for me to believe a wrong doctrine. Lately some pastors have absolved us all from obeying God in our judgments; they have told us point blank, many of them, in their drawing-rooms, and some of them in the pulpit, that we shall never be asked in the day of judgment what we believed. We have been told that for our acts we shall be responsible, but for our faith we will not be responsible, or something very much like it; they have told us plainly, that the God who made us, although he has authority over our hands, our feet, our eyes and our lips, hath but little authority over our judgments; they have told us, that if we make ever such blunders in divinity, they are no sins, so long as we can live right lives.
But is that true? No; the whole man is bound to serve God; and if God gives me a judgment, I am bound to employ that judgment in his service; and if that judgment receive an untruth, it has received stolen goods, and I have sinned as much as if I put forth my hand to take my neighbor's goods. There may be degrees in the sin. If it be a sin of ignorance, it is nevertheless a sin; but it is not so heinous as a sin of negligence, which I fear it is with many.
If a certain doctrine is true, I am committing a sin before Almighty God, if I do not receive it; and if it be not true, then I sin in embracing what is not scriptural. Error in doctrine is as much a sin as error in practice.
Remember, too, that error in doctrine is not only a sin, but a sin which has a great tendency to increase. When a man once in his life believes a wrong thing, it is incredible how quickly he believes another wrong thing. Once open the door to a false doctrine - Satan says it is but a little one - yes, but he only puts the little one in like the small end of the wedge, and he means to drive in a larger one; and he will say it is only a little more, and a little more, and a little more.
The most damnable heretics who ever perverted the faith of God erred by littles and littles; those who have gone the widest from truth have only gone so by degrees. Take care, Christians, if you commit one error, you cannot tell how many more you will commit.
"Hold fast the form of sound words," (that is what the apostle Paul commanded Timothy) because error in doctrine almost inevitably leads to error in practice. When a man believes wrongly, he will soon act wrongly. Faith has a great influence on our conduct. As a man's faith, so is he. If you begin to hold to erroneous doctrines, they soon have an effect on your practice. Keep fast to the bulwarks of your fathers' faith. If you do not, the enemy will make sad havoc with you. "Hold fast the form of sound words which was delivered unto you."
Charles Spurgeon
Hi Solomon,
I think that Ten Sheikels and a shirt has doctrinal problems in itself,
Staff
When someone finds a Preacher or even a Sermon which is 100% free of any doctrinal errors let me know.
For those whom are of the Calvinist Camps, whom believe absolute right doctrine is essential.
I would encourage you to compare what Spurgeon wrote on Baptism with that of what Calvin or any other of the reformers wrote about the topic.
The reformers where not baptist and neither where they friends of the baptist.
The real issue of doctrines has little to do with their form or their acceptance. The difference lies in the heart and what a man is able to believe. Though I don’t doubt that Spurgeon intended his comments to be taken in a general context, by themselves they can be made to seem as though he is saying that doctrines of truth are a matter of opinion or else not issues of life. Show me the man who can declare by the Holy Spirit that Christ is Lord and I will show you the man who belongs to Christ. Whether anyone can vocalise a form of words is irrelevant. It is a matter of whether a man can speak in the power of the Holy Spirit that which is true out of the working of God.
So then what will we say to the man who says "Christ is Lord" but behaves as though Christ were none of his? We will say “you know not Christ”.
proudpapa said,
"The reformers where not baptist and neither where they friends of the baptist."
Please do not post such ignorant statements as these on this forum or any other. To do so is misleading at the least and dishonest and malicious at worst.
Anyone could very easily find numerous men of the past who'd be considered reformers who were also baptist.
John Bunyan, said: “I will not let water baptism be the rule, the door, the bolt, the bar, or the wall of division between the righteous and the righteous, between Christian and fellow Christian.”
Similarly, a paedobaptist, John Owen (1650) commented:
“Though they (believer baptists) may differ from us in some things of less moment, we are obliged not only to forbear but also to communion with them. For who shall refuse those whom Christ hath received. This and no other is the rule of our evangelical love. To require more is an unwarrantable imposition on their consciences.”
To be perfectly clear I want to say this:
I do not believe perfect doctrine is essential. I am well aware that some things that I believed after I was born again are different/out and out opposed to what I believe now.
I could spend and eternity of eternities learning about the Lord, His character, what He does, how He does it, etc. I could spend an equally long time learning and being awed by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Learning the truth is an ongoign process.
And I am also well aware that a person can be right about doctrinal points and be lost.
However, I will not submit to the following ideas:
1) Doctrine is unimportant or only marginally important.
The bible says several times that truth is important or that doctrine is important and that it does indeed matter.
2) A Christian should not pursue right doctrine (also known as TRUTH) because all that really matters is that they are saved.
This is a very narrow view of eternal life. Eternal life and the truth may not be fully realized until we are resurrected, but that doesn't mean that we should toss doctrine to the wind.
3) A person can have a perfect working theology and still be lost.
If their theology was right, then they would know they needed the Lord and that it is only through Christ can we have hope of salvation and they would be driven to repentence and faith.
4) That all we need is Jesus and to love Him and one another.
That certainly is the most important thing, to love the Lord and love others. That doesn't mean everything else is unimportant, especially the pursuit of Truth.
5) That if doctrinal differences of relative importance arise among believers, that they should respect one another's opinions and not argue about them.
I agree with this one, but it is missing something of vital importance--going to the throne of God and seeking Him to lead us into truth. It can be done. It should be done. It must be for the sake of the church. Only this way will ever have a chance at really separating the truly unimportant things from those things that are really important. If we claim to be brothers and we disagree on an issue, we should hit our knees and seek the Lord.
6) Doctrine is divisive.
Absolutely not! True doctrine is not divisive amongst the children of God. Pride, hard-heartedness, false teachings, and false converts mixed with believers are divisive. Let me adapt a saying that you commonly hear: Doctrine doesn't divide people. People divide people.
As far as importance goes, anything that doesn't help produce a sincere faith, love for the bretheren or a clear conscious is not worth arguing over or even discussing.
There are other things that I might could put on here, but that is enough for now, I think.
PP wrote : "The reformers where not baptist and neither where they friends of the baptist."
savannah wrote ///Please do not post such ignorant statements as these on this forum or any other. To do so is misleading at the least and dishonest and malicious at worst.///
When I Use the phrase "The reformers" I was implying the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century, I was specifically speaking of Calvin, Luther, and Zwingly.
If I am incorrect of their views toward those whom believed in Believers Baptism, than I am willing to accept correction.
John Calvin wrote "Therefore, whoever wants to make the grace of God less toward us and our children than it was toward the Jewish people inflicts a great injustice on Jesus Christ and blasphemes Him." (quote from John Calvin Treatises against Anabaptist and Against the Libertines p.51)
The context for this quote is Baptism.
So if we teach believers Baptism (Baptist) and reject pedobaptism, What is Calvin saying of us ?
You do not call your friends blasphemers.
So I conclude that it is an accurate conclusion to say that John Calvin was not a baptist nor a friend to the baptist. ( I am open to correction on this conclusion)
"The Conflict Between Felix Manz and Ulrich Zwingli In 1525 Zwingli and Manz split over the issue of infant baptism. Felix felt it was a compromise with the papists (the Roman Catholics). The city council sided with Ulrich Zwingli. Felix Manz and his friends (among them Conrad Grebel and Georg Blaurock) were ordered to recant and have their infants baptized. Not only did Manz and friends refuse, but they immediately held a meeting and conducted adult baptisms, a crime the Zurich city council made punishable by drowning within two months. Felix Manz would prove the first victim of the wrath of the city"
http://www.christian-history.org/felix-manz-martyrdom.html#sthash.ZcBYAHy4.dpbs
The Pilgrim Church by Broadbent p.184 speaking of Zwinglis Zurich Council p.186 "...and any person baptizing or being baptized was ordered to be punished by drowning (1526)."
I would conclude that the reality that Ulrich Zwingli was in support of Felix Manz being put to death by drowning, because he conducted adult baptisms and rejected pedobaptism, is sufficiant evidence that Ulrich Zwingli was not a Baptist nor friends of Baptist.( I am open to correction on this conclusion)
Martin Luther "The Anabaptist set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound...to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders... Also when it is case of onlyupholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin. and unnecessary seperation, then... we conclude that... the stubborn sectarians must be put to death. (will the theologians please set down, David Bercot p.101)
I am not aware of any evidence that The three Leading Reformers of the sixteenth century, Zwingly, Calvin and Luther where baptist nor friends of the baptist. nor do I find that they considered the issue a non essential doctrinal issue. ( I am open to correction on this conclusion)
The sixteenth century reformers (Calvin, Luther, and Zwingly)where not baptist and neither where they friends of the baptist.
This discussion is locked.
