Salvation by Theology

[Pyreaux]

Online the popular LDS Youtubers have all been confronting "Do we worship Christ?" and a clip of Bruce R Mcconkie saying we don't, we worship the Father. Now we do instruct members to pray to the Father as Jesus instructed, whether or not you can do otherwise. We certainly bend the knee. So what if we didn't worship Jesus, just the Father, and are wrong. Assuming its biblically wrong to pray only to God the Father in the name of Jesus, what happens to us if we don't know we can pray to Jesus? Inspired by the first 10 mins of this Pro-LDS video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5d9FApAub8

The Double Standard of Salvation by Doctrinal Works of Righteousness

This video starts by explaining that when other Christians describe LDS state of salvation are often espousing a "Salvation by Theology". Correct Theology is a work you must preform to be saved. Shifting the “works” from moral deeds to intellectual assent; though salvation is not earned by good living but it is  earned by good definitions.

Protestants rejected Catholic authority precisely to avoid being told salvation hinged on both accepting their authority’s theology and ordinances. Yet, in practice, some Calvinist/Evangelical circles simply reinstall a different authority - their own doctrinal system - and get around it by calling it "biblical." They enjoy freedom from Rome, yet restrict fellowship or salvation status to anyone over disagreement on doctrines that aren't in the Bible that came from Rome (Trinity formulation, canon of scripture). If they truly believe “differences between denominations aren’t salvific,” but these differences are salvific is a sacred cow. Its a Reverse Papacy; rejecting Catholic Magisterium to setting up your own infallible council of pastors/authors. Judging hearts by their doctrinal vocabulary - assuming someone’s salvation status based on whether they can articulate a doctrine.

Sola Gnosis

I also thought is this is classically a heresy called "Gnosticism", which was not just the belief that a Gnosis (The Knowledge) exists, it was also a belief that Salvation came by Knowledge. As Basilides taught that "salvation comes through knowledge and not faith," relegating faith to mere natural assent. If we don't accept the Trinity because we don't know or comprehend the mystery of the Trinity its not just a mistake but a damning sin.

The Reformers officially had five solas: 1. Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone. 2. Sola Fide - Faith alone. 3. Sola Gratia - Grace alone. 4. Solus Christus - Christ alone. 5. Soli Deo Gloria - Glory to God alone

And I thought maybe an unstated 6. Sola Gnosis - True knowledge alone. A distortion of Sola Fide where the "works" of salvation are no longer moral deeds (like keeping the law) but intellectual correctness. Salvation is measured by your ability to recite, accept, or precisely define certain doctrines and  using the right vocabulary. The "good works" have simply moved from the muscles in your hands to the muscles of the brain or the tongue.

If you say, “I don’t think I believe in the Trinity” but describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one, equal and eternal - you actually believe all the same Biblical vocabulary words, but you still aren't using the right extra-Biblical vocabulary, or inversely the same words but different definitions, you can't be saved.

Then there is the gatekeeping salvation with insider epistemology: "The truly saved will just understand it this way" - implying your inability to see it their way proves you aren’t saved. When ironically, the Reformation was largely a protest against the idea that salvation depends on an elite class who holds the "correct" system, like the medieval scholasticism or the Church Authority. Yet, in some modern Calvinist and Evangelical circles, it’s functionally recreated - just swapped the Church Magisterium for their Doctrinal Statements.

If knowing the "right theology" becomes the determining factor for salvation, its, in essence, Gnostic. It transforms salvation into an elitist, knowledge-based club rather than the open grace of God accessed through faith as they sometimes claim. I think Calvinism and other Reformed theologies overlap with ancient Gnosticism. They might deny it, because technically the elect "just know" because the Holy Spirit told them - not because they were educated or learned secret knowledge from a hierophant, but it's God's sovereignly that enabled them to both know and believe. The Reformed tradition puts huge emphasis on right doctrine (orthodoxy) as evidence of election.

The Circular Reasoning

The truly saved will know the correct theology. If you don’t know the correct theology, you were never truly saved. Therefore, those who know the correct theology are the ones who are saved. It becomes self-reinforcing: you "know" because you’re saved, and you’re saved because you "know."

No room for: people in process, honest misunderstandings, or believers who simply never learned a certain doctrinal formula.

Ignorance =/= damnation

Reformer: Ignorance = proof you weren’t elect. LDS: "No one is damned in ignorance" - judgment is based on light received.

They might accuse us of being Gnostics because LDS possesses secret temple knowledge and rites. They are revealed through ordinances that are accessible to anyone willing and worthy, for exaltation. You must eventually receive the knowledge and ordinances, but in LDS teaching all will have the opportunity, regardless of when or where they lived. So, unlike Calvinism there’s no permanent exclusion for those who didn’t learn it. You can be saved (from death and hell, be resurrected, enter in a degree of glory) without accepting all LDS-specific truths; the “knowledge” is tied to exaltation, not basic salvation.

Conversation Starter Questions

If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved?

Can a person have saving faith in Christ if they misunderstand a mystery like the Trinity? If not, why is faith alone not enough, alone?

How much doctrinal error does it take for a Protestant to forfeit salvation? Who decided that threshold?

If the Holy Spirit reveals "true" theology, why does every one you know that is a Spirit-led believer not have an identical theology?

Is it possible for God to save someone who never heard of the Trinity, nor how to read, as long as they trust Christ?

How did Christians get saved before there were Creeds or a canon?

If rejecting Catholic authority was right, why must we rely on Catholic-defined doctrines as salvation tests?

Edited August 14, 2025 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

Some strains of (primarily) American Evangelism believe in salvation by sorcery. Say the correct prayer with intent and you are saved. Gnosticism on steroids.

The problem is that all forms of Christian salvation presuppose you know of Christ. That is a kind of gnosticism. The knowledge is given to a select few who must disseminate it.

Edited August 13, 2025 by The Nehor

[CV75]

RE: Conversation Starter Questions. Why does not the Bible have these answers?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

RE: Conversation Starter Questions. Why does not the Bible have these answers?

Maybe they hadn’t quite figured it out yet.

[Pyreaux]

I realize there might be few active posters that are likely to defend the Evangelical position that LDS aren't saved. I guess I'll try to Steel-man what an Evangelical may say, and I'll be the opposition.

If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in your Christian walk did you know enough to be truly saved?

Steel-man Answer: The moment you trust in the biblical Jesus and His finished work, you are saved. Correct theology matters because believing in a false Jesus (e.g., denying His deity) means you’re not actually trusting the real Savior.

Can a person have saving faith in Christ if they misunderstand a mystery like the Trinity?

Steel-man Answer: No. Some theological errors are serious enough to indicate you’re trusting in “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4). Denying the Trinity undermines the biblical identity of Christ, so it’s not a small detail - the nature of God is central to salvation.

How much doctrinal error does it take to forfeit salvation? Who decides that threshold?

Steel-man Answer: The threshold is defined by the Word - the "essentials" like the deity of Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1–4). Church tradition and historic creeds help identify those essentials.

If the Holy Spirit reveals truth, why doesn’t every Spirit-led believer have identical theology?

Steel-man Answer: The Spirit’s revelation is perfect, but humans are flawed interpreters. Sin, pride, and ignorance create differences, not the Spirit. Over time, genuine believers tend toward unity in the essentials.

Is it possible for God to save someone who never heard of the Trinity, as long as they trust Christ?

Steel-man Answer: Yes, if they are trusting in Christ as revealed in Scripture, even without the formal term “Trinity.” However, if their belief denies core truths of who Christ is, that’s a different matter.

 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

RE: Conversation Starter Questions. Why does not the Bible have these answers?

Steel-man Answer: The Bible is the complete and sufficient word of God. If an answer to a spiritual question is not found in Scripture, then the question is unnecessary for salvation, or God chose to withhold the answer for His own purposes. God gave exactly what was needed. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 “All Scripture is God-breathed… so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”.

1. “If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved?”

The thief on the cross (Luke 23:42–43) had minimal theological knowledge but had trust in the real Jesus and it saved him with no works. The “point” is the moment of faith in the real Christ. Correct theology matters because wrong beliefs can point you to the wrong Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4). LDS believe in a false parody of Jesus in a pro-Jesus fan fiction who can't save you mainly because he isn't real.

2. “Can a person have saving faith in Christ if they misunderstand a mystery like the Trinity? If not, why is faith alone not enough?”

Yes, a person can be saved without fully understanding the Trinity - if they are trusting in the biblical Christ, even with limited knowledge. The early disciples believed Jesus was Lord and trusted Him before they grasped all of His divine nature (John 14). However, persistent, willful rejection of the biblical God, such as denying Christ’s deity after clear exposure to the truth would be evidence that one’s "faith" is in a different god entirely. Faith alone saves, but the object of that faith must be the real Jesus.

3. "How much doctrinal error does it take for a Protestant to forfeit salvation? Who decided that threshold?"

Salvation is not “forfeited” by accident, but by rejecting the gospel itself (Gal. 1:6–9). There’s no arbitrary “error quota”; the dividing line is whether someone has trusted the biblical Jesus in the biblical gospel or not. The "threshold" is defined in Scripture. Paul draws it around “another gospel” (false Christ, false way of salvation).

4. “If the Holy Spirit reveals ‘true’ theology, why doesn’t every Spirit-led believer have identical theology?”

The Spirit leads into truth (John 16:13), but human believers are clouded by sin, bias, culture, and partial knowledge (1 Cor. 13:9).

5. “Is it possible for God to save someone who never heard of the Trinity?"

John 3:16 - belief in Christ results in eternal life. The Trinity is the reality behind who God is; the person doesn’t have to use the term or articulate it, but they must ultimately be trusting that God was revealed to us in Christ.

6. “How did Christians get saved before there were Creeds or a canon?”

They were saved the same way, by grace through faith in the real Christ (Eph. 2:8–9).

The apostles’ had oral teaching and letters that were sufficient. The gospel existed before the Nicene Creed; the creed simply codified what Christians already believed from Scripture.

7. “If rejecting Catholic authority was right, why must we rely on Catholic-defined doctrines as salvation tests?”

We don’t rely on “Catholic authority” but on biblical truth that predates the Roman Catholic Church. Doctrines like the Trinity are not “Catholic inventions” - they are drawn from Scripture, and the early church councils merely affirmed what the apostles taught. The authority is in the Word.

Edited August 14, 2025 by Pyreaux

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I realize there might be few active posters that are likely to defend the Evangelical position that LDS aren't saved. I guess I'll try to Steel-man what an Evangelical may say, and I'll be the opposition.

If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in your Christian walk did you know enough to be truly saved?

Steel-man Answer: The moment you trust in the biblical Jesus and His finished work, you are saved. Correct theology matters because believing in a false Jesus (e.g., denying His deity) means you’re not actually trusting the real Savior.

Can a person have saving faith in Christ if they misunderstand a mystery like the Trinity?

Steel-man Answer: No. Some theological errors are serious enough to indicate you’re trusting in “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4). Denying the Trinity undermines the biblical identity of Christ, so it’s not a small detail - the nature of God is central to salvation.

How much doctrinal error does it take to forfeit salvation? Who decides that threshold?

Steel-man Answer: The threshold is defined by the Word - the "essentials" like the deity of Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1–4). Church tradition and historic creeds help identify those essentials.

If the Holy Spirit reveals truth, why doesn’t every Spirit-led believer have identical theology?

Steel-man Answer: The Spirit’s revelation is perfect, but humans are flawed interpreters. Sin, pride, and ignorance create differences, not the Spirit. Over time, genuine believers tend toward unity in the essentials.

Is it possible for God to save someone who never heard of the Trinity, as long as they trust Christ?

Steel-man Answer: Yes, if they are trusting in Christ as revealed in Scripture, even without the formal term “Trinity.” However, if their belief denies core truths of who Christ is, that’s a different matter.

 

Steel-man Answer: The Bible is the complete and sufficient word of God. If an answer to a spiritual question is not found in Scripture, then the question is unnecessary for salvation, or God chose to withhold the answer for His own purposes. God gave exactly what was needed. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 “All Scripture is God-breathed… so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”.

1. “If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved?”

The thief on the cross (Luke 23:42–43) had minimal theological knowledge but had trust in the real Jesus and it saved him with no works. The “point” is the moment of faith in the real Christ. Correct theology matters because wrong beliefs can point you to the wrong Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4). LDS believe in a false parody of Jesus in a pro-Jesus fan fiction who can't save you mainly because he isn't real.

2. “Can a person have saving faith in Christ if they misunderstand a mystery like the Trinity? If not, why is faith alone not enough?”

Yes, a person can be saved without fully understanding the Trinity - if they are trusting in the biblical Christ, even with limited knowledge. The early disciples believed Jesus was Lord and trusted Him before they grasped all of His divine nature (John 14). However, persistent, willful rejection of the biblical God, such as denying Christ’s deity after clear exposure to the truth would be evidence that one’s "faith" is in a different god entirely. Faith alone saves, but the object of that faith must be the real Jesus.

3. "How much doctrinal error does it take for a Protestant to forfeit salvation? Who decided that threshold?"

Salvation is not “forfeited” by accident, but by rejecting the gospel itself (Gal. 1:6–9). There’s no arbitrary “error quota”; the dividing line is whether someone has trusted the biblical Jesus in the biblical gospel or not. The "threshold" is defined in Scripture. Paul draws it around “another gospel” (false Christ, false way of salvation).

4. “If the Holy Spirit reveals ‘true’ theology, why doesn’t every Spirit-led believer have identical theology?”

The Spirit leads into truth (John 16:13), but human believers are clouded by sin, bias, culture, and partial knowledge (1 Cor. 13:9).

5. “Is it possible for God to save someone who never heard of the Trinity?"

John 3:16 - belief in Christ results in eternal life. The Trinity is the reality behind who God is; the person doesn’t have to use the term or articulate it, but they must ultimately be trusting that God was revealed to us in Christ.

6. “How did Christians get saved before there were Creeds or a canon?”

They were saved the same way, by grace through faith in the real Christ (Eph. 2:8–9).

The apostles’ had oral teaching and letters that were sufficient. The gospel existed before the Nicene Creed; the creed simply codified what Christians already believed from Scripture.

7. “If rejecting Catholic authority was right, why must we rely on Catholic-defined doctrines as salvation tests?”

We don’t rely on “Catholic authority” but on biblical truth that predates the Roman Catholic Church. Doctrines like the Trinity are not “Catholic inventions” - they are drawn from Scripture, and the early church councils merely affirmed what the apostles taught. The authority is in the Word.

I see. So these answers depend on the denomination and their interpretation of the Bible, history and tradition as they understand and prefer to apply it.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I see. So these answers depend on the denomination and their interpretation of the Bible, history and tradition as they understand and prefer to apply it.

Platitude: "But don’t you believe God is sovereign?" Obviously my point of view is what matters here. And in my point of view, the churches I accept are exactly the way they are is clearly divine providence. You see, in my theological economy, every denomination I agree with has been perfectly shaped by God’s sovereign hand - and every denomination I don’t agree with… well, that’s just a deception of Satan. Convenient system, isn’t it?

Platitude: "Don’t you believe God has the power to preserve His Word?" Look at this here Bible I’m holding, right now, at this time, in this place, in this translation, in this leather-like binding, with the gold leaf pages that stick together because I don’t use them much - is exactly as God intended for me to have it or God via my dad would have given me another. Pure providence, my friend.

And yes, my point of view is in the Bible… somewhere. I know it’s there because I’ve been told it’s there - many, many times - by people I already agree with, via this platitude they told me, somewhat based on these verses. Not verbatim, but its right there. Check and mate.

[3DOP]

"If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved?"

When our Lord separates the sheep from the goats, of the goats He says that He never knew some who had thought they were serving Him, Why was that, it wasn't because of their lack of Christology, it was because they failed to clothe, feed, or help those who were in need. Jesus explains that He was identified with the least of them, and inasmuch as they didn't help their neighbours in need, they didn't help Him.

Even more interesting are some of the sheep. Some are as surprised as the goats who thought they were serving Him. They ask, "When did we clothe, feed, or visit you in prison?" Same answer, in the sense that Jesus identifies Himself with the least of our neighbours. "When you gave that cup of cold water, you did it to Me."

There is a lot of theology in explaining this way of division at the Judgment, about how and why Jesus answers both as He does. But without going any deeper, it seems obvious from this deep and mysterious passage, that we are not saved by theology! 

I am not among those non-Mormons who deny salvation to everyone who is separated from my Church or her doctrine. I would say it is a big help to belong to the true Church, with the true priestly Sacraments. But it is no guarantee. Also, my Church teaches that we cannot identify with certainty that any individual is suffering the loss of their salvation in Hell. That is another reason I am confident that I am on safe ground as a Catholic, denying that I will be saved if all I do is to merely continue to maintain orthodox theology through my Church. 

3DOP

[3DOP]

All of us who claim to follow Christ have to recognize Him in everyone. He is one of us! We don't have to be loving our neighbors excusively through prisons and finding someone in rags. If we don't love our affluent neighbors, we are in trouble. We have to love our enemies we are told. This Christ event needs to be experienced in our hearts in such a way that we feel a communion toward the one who checks us out at the cash register, or the fellow who cut us off at an intersection. I am not a universalist. When I say that all men are our brothers and sisters, I admit that there are living members of Christ's Body. These have been made alive through baptism (regeneration) and faith. I do not see that Christ is saying that every prisoner and poor person is saved, merely because He identifies with them. But those who keep the second most important commandment, to love their neighbor, can be saved two ways. Either in ignorance of the theology, but having a good heart towards all through Him they do not know through no fault of their own. Or in eager obedience to Him they love, desire to see Him they love in every person that crosses their path in one way or another in all times and places.

This is true religion, according to St. James, to visit the fatherless and widows. True religion can be practiced, without true theology. 

One more thing. I have been anti-communist all of my life. But this way of thinking makes me consider what I have in common with modern day Marxists (who identify with different political movements). It starts with social justice, seeking a better common good for all. Ultimately, I can never believe in a political utopia that does not crush the individual. Still, I try to see a way that I find unity with the communist because of the reality of the Man-Christ that Christians profess. To deny the use of political power, does not need to make me deny the good thing the communist wants. Truly Christian are those who promote this unity and love of the One who in a certain sense unites all humanity, as the only way to promote peace and unity among enemies, nations, and our obnoxious neighbors. The common good, a healthy society, depends on individuals living the reality of the One who was celebrated by the Angels near Bethlehem before shepherds who might have been theologically deficient. Heh.

3DOP

PS: I forget my youth. I called myself an atheist and denied that countries existed. No borders. More of an anarchist, but I haven't always been "anti-communist" as I say above. Still journeying. Where is Bukowski?

Rory

Edited August 15, 2025 by 3DOP

[CV75]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

All of us who claim to follow Christ have to recognize Him in everyone. He is one of us! We don't have to be loving our neighbors excusively through prisons and finding someone in rags. If we don't love our affluent neighbors, we are in trouble. We have to love our enemies we are told. This Christ event needs to be experienced in our hearts in such a way that we feel a communion toward the one who checks us out at the cash register, or the fellow who cut us off at an intersection. I am not a universalist. When I say that all men are our brothers and sisters, I admit that there are living members of Christ's Body. These have been made alive through baptism (regeneration) and faith. I do not see that Christ is saying that every prisoner and poor person is saved, merely because He identifies with them. But those who keep the second most important commandment, to love their neighbor, can be saved two ways. Either in ignorance of the theology, but having a good heart towards all through Him they do not know through no fault of their own. Or in eager obedience to Him they love, desire to see Him they love in every person that crosses their path in one way or another in all times and places.

This is true religion, according to St. James, to visit the fatherless and widows. True religion can be practiced, without true theology. 

One more thing. I have been anti-communist all of my life. But this way of thinking makes me consider what I have in common with modern day Marxists (who identify with different political movements). It starts with social justice, seeking a better common good for all. Ultimately, I can never believe in a political utopia that does not crush the individual. Still, I try to see a way that I find unity with the communist because of the reality of the Man-Christ that Christians profess. To deny the use of political power, does not need to make me deny the good thing the communist wants. Truly Christian are those who promote this unity and love of the One who in a certain sense unites all humanity, as the only way to promote peace and unity among enemies, nations, and our obnoxious neighbors. The common good, a healthy society, depends on individuals living the reality of the One who was celebrated by the Angels near Bethlehem before shepherds who might have been theologically deficient. Heh.

3DOP

PS: I forget my youth. I called myself an atheist and denied that countries existed. No borders. More of an anarchist, but I haven't always been "anti-communist" as I say above. Still journeying. Where is Bukowski?

Rory

Bukowski forgot his password and cannot get in -- I am trying to get the Administrators' attention to provide instructions on how he can get it back.

[manol]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

All of us who claim to follow Christ have to recognize Him in everyone. He is one of us! We don't have to be loving our neighbors excusively through prisons and finding someone in rags. If we don't love our affluent neighbors, we are in trouble. We have to love our enemies we are told.

Imo it is a privilege to "love our enemies".  Among other things, that means it's okay for us to let go of our grievances against anyone and anything.  And if we have the privilege of loving even our enemies, then presumably we have the privilege of loving everyone.  What might that be like?

 

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

This Christ event needs to be experienced in our hearts in such a way that we feel a communion toward the one who checks us out at the cash register, or the fellow who cut us off at an intersection.

Yes! 

One might even venture that this "event" is a "state of being", unlikely to become effortlessly permanent (at least not on this side of the veil), but which we can always return to if we so choose. 

 

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am not a universalist.

I understand that universalism is not part of LDS theology.  But let me toss out an idea:  IF there is progression between kingdoms, and IF there is a true perspective from which all things (past present and future) are continually manifest, THEN it is at least theoretically possible that all separations are temporary.   (And, arguably, from that true perspective, the separations which seem so obvious and self-evident to us here and now... are actually illusions.)

 

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

But those who keep the second most important commandment, to love their neighbor...

[tangent] Recall the phrase connecting the First and Second great commandments:  "And the second is like unto the first."  Imo that little phrase can (and probably does) have multiple meanings. [/tangent]

 

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

This is true religion, according to St. James, to visit the fatherless and widows. True religion can be practiced, without true theology.

Agreed.  A theology can help or hinder one's progression, or maybe even first the one and then the other as a person evolves, but ultimately it's not about which theology one subscribes to.  Imo. 

Edited August 15, 2025 by manol

[Devobah]

On 8/13/2025 at 2:49 PM, Pyreaux said:

If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved?

Can a person have saving faith in Christ if they misunderstand a mystery like the Trinity? If not, why is faith alone not enough, alone?

How much doctrinal error does it take for a Protestant to forfeit salvation? Who decided that threshold?

If the Holy Spirit reveals "true" theology, why does every one you know that is a Spirit-led believer not have an identical theology?

Is it possible for God to save someone who never heard of the Trinity, nor how to read, as long as they trust Christ?

How did Christians get saved before there were Creeds or a canon?

If rejecting Catholic authority was right, why must we rely on Catholic-defined doctrines as salvation tests?

1. If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved?

Some people will just go to church, listen, and apply the standards to their daily life. These people are assuming that belief in Jesus Christ is enough to save them and their house. Likely when people are out soul winning they lead with Jesus and don't really mention hard to understand things like the Trinity. I mentioned in another thread that it is enough for some people to believe that if they worship Jesus they are worshiping the Trinity which is the baseline for salvation according to the creeds. You have to worship the correct Jesus. TLDR: knowing that Jesus is your savior, died for your sins, and you believe on His name. That is enough. It's why people believe in death-bed repentance.

2. Can a person have saving faith in Christ if they misunderstand a mystery like the Trinity? If not, why is faith alone not enough, alone?

I think that if a person misunderstands things like the Trinity, unless they openly declare that they are a modalist or a partialist, God would be merciful to them. Leaving it up to a mystery gives a lot of wiggle room there.

3. How much doctrinal error does it take for a Protestant to forfeit salvation? Who decided that threshold?

So long as you continue to hold to the five Solas and the creeds there's very little that you can do. It's interesting that it depends on person to person to decide who is saved as a Christian or not. There are very strong feelings by those outside of Calvinism about Calvinism, and some even go as far as to say that Calvinists aren't saved. Others say that they are saved or misguided. Steven Anderson is a controversial KJV Onlyist NIFB preacher. Some say that his statements and actions ("it's impossible to r*** your wife" and his allowance of using corporal punishment on his wife and kids) not only cause him not only to be disqualified as a pastor, but also disqualified as a Christian. The standards change. Who decides? Some say the creeds and the solas, but as we've discussed many times on this board, that bar doesn't seem to be consistent. Catholics believe the creeds, but others disqualify them as Christian because of other practices and beliefs. How much? Everything and nothing at the same time it seems.

4. If the Holy Spirit reveals "true" theology, why does every one you know that is a Spirit-led believer not have an identical theology?

This is a question that I've asked myself. I recently found out there was a guy in my ward who used to be like this as well. He was an avid anti but once he allowed himself to step back and see that the disunity was, in fact, NOT there, he began to wonder as Joseph Smith did. I always find it interesting that Protestants are the ones who get the most worked up about there being  an apostasy. Apostasy from the truth is exactly what caused Martin Luther to nail his 95 theses to the door those hundreds of years ago. They've tried to resolve this saying that some things are "secondary issues" (though I think baptism having a salvic effect personally is not one of them).

5. Is it possible for God to save someone who never heard of the Trinity, nor how to read, as long as they trust Christ?

Romans 10:17 states that faith comes by hearing the word of God. So I would say that most believe that yes is the answer.

6. How did Christians get saved before there were Creeds or a canon?

See above. I always wonder if a sincere person who was more Arian in their understanding of the Trinity is saved in the Christian worldview.

7. If rejecting Catholic authority was right, why must we rely on Catholic-defined doctrines as salvation tests?

Being protestant is believing that the early church got the basics (the defining issues) right while getting subsequent wrong. If I remember correctly though there's things in the Early Church Fathers that don't line up with this line of thinking thought. Early Church Fathers seem to be united on things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, veneration of Mary, and so on. Protestants believe that the early Church was inspired to make the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed, but then they have to work their way around some of the other stuff. Gavin Ortulund has a video where he explains why he believes that the ECFs were not united on baptismal regeneration.

[InCognitus]

On 8/15/2025 at 11:49 AM, 3DOP said:

"If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved?"

When our Lord separates the sheep from the goats, of the goats He says that He never knew some who had thought they were serving Him, Why was that, it wasn't because of their lack of Christology, it was because they failed to clothe, feed, or help those who were in need. Jesus explains that He was identified with the least of them, and inasmuch as they didn't help their neighbours in need, they didn't help Him.

Even more interesting are some of the sheep. Some are as surprised as the goats who thought they were serving Him. They ask, "When did we clothe, feed, or visit you in prison?" Same answer, in the sense that Jesus identifies Himself with the least of our neighbours. "When you gave that cup of cold water, you did it to Me."

In other words, we are saved through orthopraxy and not orthodoxy. 

(The orthodontists and orthopedic surgeons of the world won't be happy to hear that).