I was going to write a lengthy post about why Im posting this. Then I just deleted it and figured Ill let it speak for itself. I think the lesson can teach itself. I know it was a good reminder for me.
as well as this;
" We are not saved by faith in this-or-that-doctrine, but by faith in the Crucified One. We are saved as we individually believe the evangel [Death burial and ressurection of Christ] ; thus we are not saved by our technical knowledge of all that Christ is or has done, [or our own doctrinal beliefs] but by the simple truth that ‘Christ died for me.’ "
"Any teaching that makes the receiving of faith dependent upon some act or frame of mind is an attack on the evangel. Any teaching that equates some peripheral issue with the evangel, is an attack on the evangel. Any teaching that equates a particular canon of orthodoxy with the simple evangel, making the receiving of saving faith dependent on acceptance of that canon, is an attack on the evangel. "
"Should the nature of God be taught? Yes. Should the nature of man, and death, be taught? Of course. Should the fact that God is the Saviour of all mankind be taught? Absolutely (1 Tim.4:10-11). Should error in these areas be exposed? Surely. But these glorious truths are not the evangel that imparts eonian life. Knowing accurately the nature of God, will not save a person. "
“A very real danger exists in making one’s own understanding of the Scriptures the condition of saving faith.”