[MeOnTheBeach]

You would be in error, but you would not necessarily belong to a false religion.

Thank you for your response.

But wouldn't being in error be the same as teaching false doctrine and thus being false in the eyes of God?

Gal 1:9 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

So teaching false doctrine is an offense against God. I can't imagine anyone that has been accursed by God getting into heaven.

Would you agree?

[Charles Henrickson]

You are pointing out the danger of doctrinal error in a heterodox church. That's why I included the sentence, "This is not to excuse or condone error, though." For a person in such a church may, by God's grace, be saved *in spite of* the errors, not because of them. But those errors are still dangerous.

In dogmatics we call this a "felicitous inconsistency." For example, a person's church may deny the efficacy of infant baptism and turn the Sacrament of Holy Baptism into Law (our obedience) instead of Gospel (God's gift). But in spite of that error, if the Word of God is preached in that church, and people cling to the cross of Christ as their only hope, they will be saved. That still does not excuse their error on baptism, which robs Christians of the comfort God has for them in that sacrament. And if that error would mislead people into thinking they are saved because of their "obedience" or their "giving their heart to Jesus" (decision theology), that could indeed endanger their salvation.

[JCBreckenridge]

Would not the teaching that some books are not canon count as ‘preaching any other gospel?’