Can't learn about salvation by reading scripture alone?

[jphilapy]

And when I say “saved by reading scripture” I don’t mean that the scriptures are saving you. I mean that you get saved because when you read the scriptures you read the gospel, and when you read you can choose to believe or not to believe. According to Paul you are saved by believing in the message. This kind of language is used in the bible. For example Peter says the 8 in noah’s ark were saved by water, but we know they were not literally saved by water, they were saved by God who used the water to save them.

And Paul also says:
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Now we know that hope is not what saves us. It is God.

So I mean just like what Paul says, salvation through faith:

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

And then he goes on to say:

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

One does not have to just hear preaching to receive the Spirit, he can receive it by believing the message in scripture.

So that is what I mean. And about me clarifying myself in the beginning, I apologize, but this is the first time anyone I have ever talked to understood the words, saved by reading scripture, to mean that scripture saves you.

Jeff

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

And when I say “saved by reading scripture” I don’t mean that the scriptures are saving you. I mean that you get saved because when you read the scriptures you read the gospel, and when you read you can choose to believe or not to believe. According to Paul you are saved by believing in the message. This kind of language is used in the bible. For example Peter says the 8 in noah’s ark were saved by water, but we know they were not literally saved by water, they were saved by God who used the water to save them.

And Paul also says:
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Now we know that hope is not what saves us. It is God.

So I mean just like what Paul says, salvation through faith:

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

And then he goes on to say:

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

One does not have to just hear preaching to receive the Spirit, he can receive it by believing the message in scripture.

So that is what I mean.

Jeff

But in Paul’s day, the Gospels were not part of Scripture – in fact, they had probably not been written.

Paul was preaching a religion beyond the scripture of his age.

 

[jphilapy]

vern humphrey:

But in Paul’s day, the Gospels were not part of Scripture – in fact, they had probably not been written.

Paul was preaching a religion beyond the scripture of his age.

Hi Vern, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I kind of agree. I believe the complete gospel message is in the old testament scripture but it is in hidden form. Jesus had to come, and the apostles had to be apointed in order to make the message clear. However there is no reason for me to believe that the whole gospel is not contained in the new testament and the old together. For example the complete gospel is hidden in the old testament, but is revealed in the new.

Can you tell me what it is it that one must believe, in order to receive the Spirit, that is not taught in scripture? Or what part of the gospel is not contained in scripture?

BTW CM I saw your answer to this question already. just making it known so that I am not accused of ignoring you. Thanks.

Jeff

 

[Church_Militant]

jphilapy:

First CM you asked:
I am wondering if you ask this as a prelude to the discussion of the belief that the Bible alone is the deposit of faith?

Are you asking me if I am trying to start a debate on the topic so I can prove you folks wrong?
If that is your question, then no. I am trying to gain a better understanding of the catholic view of scripture.

Thanks everyone for your informative replies!

Jeff

Hi Jeff!
Was just wondering…it happens all the time here.
But doesn’t this whole discussion flow FROM that very idea?

Anyway…I figure that The Almighty can pretty well use anything to draw us to himself, and probably does even though we are often too lame brained (or hard hearted/headed) to catch on.

My point about reading scripture is that since the early church really had no copies of the Bible as we have it today that they obviously lived & evangelized w/o it and the Holy Spirit seems to have done the job as well (or better) than He does today. I would say that any literate person who had a Bible and no other human contact (The lost on a desert island scenario I guess) might come to a saving faith by simply reading the Bible.

The issue becomes WHAT IF he has no Bible…maybe cannot read at all and still has no human contact.? I’m not really sure where we are supposed to go with this my friend. More (name removed by moderator)ut?

Thanks for not ignorin’ me Jeff.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

Hi Vern, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I kind of agree. I believe the complete gospel message is in the old testament scripture but it is in hidden form. Jesus had to come, and the apostles had to be apointed in order to make the message clear. However there is no reason for me to believe that the whole gospel is not contained in the new testament and the old together. For example the complete gospel is hidden in the old testament, but is revealed in the new.

Can you tell me what it is it that one must believe, in order to receive the Spirit, that is not taught in scripture? Or what part of the gospel is not contained in scripture?

BTW CM I saw your answer to this question already. just making it known so that I am not accused of ignoring you. Thanks.

Jeff

The difference is between “The Messiah WILL come” and “The Messiah HAS come.”

Yes, there is correspondence between Old and New Testaments – but not so complete that Christ had no need to be incarnated!

Clearly Paul saw the scriptures as they existed in his day as preparatory to the coming of Christ – and the message he preached was the culmination of that message. To say otherwise is to minimize the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.

 

[mercygate]

To get a basic grip on the Church’s view of inspiration in Scripture, go to your Catechism of the Catholic Church and look at paragraphs 105-119.

Then put that section up against these two paragraphs:

1. It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith. Everywhere, it is the Church that first confesses the Lord: “Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you”, as we sing in the hymn “Te Deum”; with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: “I believe”, “We believe”. It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” And the answer is: “Faith.” “What does faith offer you?” “Eternal life.”

1. Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation.” Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

These two paragraphs, taken together with those on Scripture, give a kind of overview to the question you are addressing.

One short answer to your question is summed up in the history of the Church as the author and guardian of Scripture. Thus, whether or not a person might find the key to salvation by reading Scripture in supposed isolation, he would, in fact be reading “in the Church.” Did I say “key?”

 

[vern_humphrey]

mercygate:

To get a basic grip on the Church’s view of inspiration in Scripture, go to your Catechism of the Catholic Church and look at paragraphs 105-119.

Then put that section up against these two paragraphs:

These two paragraphs, taken together with those on Scripture, give a kind of overview to the question you are addressing.

One short answer to your question is summed up in the history of the Church as the author and guardian of Scripture. Thus, whether or not a person might find the key to salvation by reading Scripture in supposed isolation, he would, in fact be reading “in the Church.” Did I say “key?”

Or another way to look at it is to ask, “If reading scripture alone was enough, and if the whole of the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament” – why did Jesus come?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Shibboleth:

Even from a Protestant point of view we cannot earn our salvation. That would be ‘works salvation’ of which Protestants disagree with wholeheartedly.

We cannot learn to save our souls from reading the Bible. Nor as one person put it can we accept God’s Graces. Grace is a gift given of God, usually as an infant to most Christians. At best or worst we can reject it.

We do not save our Soul, our souls were saved 2000 years ago, we can only damn them at this point.

Grace if a gift from God ,that I would agree, but we as humans have the ability to accept or reject his graces. To imply otherwise would imply that God did not give us a free will and we are bound to accept his gifts AKA graces.If that were the case there would be no need for hell. Or maybe I misunderstood your point.Are you saying you can reject Gods gift of grace, but you can’t accept God’s grace?God Bless

 

[jphilapy]

Church Militant:

Hi Jeff!
Was just wondering…it happens all the time here.
But doesn’t this whole discussion flow FROM that very idea?
Thanks for not ignorin’ me Jeff.

Yes it comes from that idea. I just was letting you know that I wasn’t asking a loaded question for the purpose of starting a debate. Some people here have already expressed that it is tiring for them when people do that.

I am not locked into the idea that all information is contained in scripture. I am just wanting to explore all the different avenues.
Church Militant:

Anyway…I figure that The Almighty can pretty well use anything to draw us to himself, and probably does even though we are often too lame brained (or hard hearted/headed) to catch on.

My point about reading scripture is that since the early church really had no copies of the Bible as we have it today that they obviously lived & evangelized w/o it and the Holy Spirit seems to have done the job as well (or better) than He does today. I would say that any literate person who had a Bible and no other human contact (The lost on a desert island scenario I guess) might come to a saving faith by simply reading the Bible.

The issue becomes WHAT IF he has no Bible…maybe cannot read at all and still has no human contact.? I’m not really sure where we are supposed to go with this my friend. More (name removed by moderator)ut?

I have considered this question somewhat. I know people who believe the scriptures are not necessary at all, or who downplay scriptures and say the only thing needed is the Holy Spirit. They are partially right, but I think what the real picture is, that God does use the scriptures. It seems to me the answer to the question lies in your need, your situation, God’s all knowingness (new word?) and the available tools as well as God’s purpose in how he wants to do it. What I am getting at for instance is how I gave my life to Jesus. I gave my life to Jesus before I understood scripture. I would read it and it never made any sense to me and I had no idea what the gospel was. I gave my life to Jesus based on the fact that He was the author of scripture, and I knew that I could trust Him no matter what. So if I was going to undestand scripture then I needed to know the author. Anyway I was staying at my parents house because I coudn’t afford my own place due to the fact I had to pay court costs and attorney fees for getting arrested once again. And I went into my parents room alone and accepted Jesus as my Lord. Of course though many things had transpired way before that, that God used to draw me to him. For instance a few weeks earlier I prayed my first prayer to Him. I was standing in my front yard, and I just starting counting on my finge the things I loved. I said Lord I love drugs, alcahol, fornication, having a foul mouth and fighting. If I didn’t then I would not do it. But in order for me to love you I have to love your ways. I don’t love your ways. If you want me to love you then you will have to change my desires.

Let’s just put it this way, God was already changing my desires when I prayed that. By the time I gave my life to him I had not understood any thing I read in scripture. I couldn’t tell you what scripture required of me. And by that time I was already freed from most of the things I confessed to Him. The last thing I got freed from was smoking. That came several months after I gave my life to Him. I was smoking two packs a day. One day God spoke to me and asked me, “why do you continue smoking when I set you free”. I put down cigs. that day and have never taken up the habit since. But I did try smoking and drinking about a year later. In away I was delusional. Was my freedom real? So smoked and drank for about 2 or three hours. But the whole time I just didn’t enjoy it. Finally I repented to God and have not touched any drink or smoke since. I have been set free for 14 years.

Even then I got filled by His Spirit a year before I confessed.

But anyway I used to live life unto death, now I live death unto life

So I think that is kind of a good case study of how we can’t limit God.

Jeff

 

[Fiat]

Dear Jeff:

That was a powerful testimony. Thank you for sharing it with us! In my own conversion, I struggled with addictions, including cigarettes, so I understand how beautiful it is to allow Christ to release us from those chains.

Like you, I decided to commit my life to Christ and I fell madly in love with the Bible. I found so much comfort from the Gospels and especially the Psalms. As I grew in my faith, I found I had such a hunger not only for Scriptures, but also for Church History. I started reading the works of the early Fathers and gaining an understanding of what the early Church was like, and I knew that if I was to deepen my faith and continue growing in it, I needed to come into the Holy Catholic Church.

Of course, I still have a love for Scripture, but it is Jesus Christ in the Eucharist that most attracts me now! It is so beautiful knowing that each day I can truly encounter Him at mass and that I can receive Him not in just some symbolic or metaphoric sense, but truly in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Once I received the sacrament of Confession, Confirmation and First Communion, I had an overwhelming sense of “home.” My relationship with Christ strengthened so greatly that I no longer felt threatened by the idea of including the Blessed Mother in that relationship, along with all the other Saints.

May Jesus continue to guide you.

Your brother,
Fiat

 

[Shibboleth]

Lisa4Catholics:

Grace if a gift from God ,that I would agree, but we as humans have the ability to accept or reject his graces. To imply otherwise would imply that God did not give us a free will and we are bound to accept his gifts AKA graces.If that were the case there would be no need for hell. Or maybe I misunderstood your point.Are you saying you can reject Gods gift of grace, but you can’t accept God’s grace?God Bless

Yes I am, else we would be contributing to our salvation which is something that we do not and cannot due.

Let me ask you, does an infant that is Baptized choose to accept God’s Grace? No, the child does not, yet he recieeves it just the same and constantly has it held before him by God. Later in life that person can reject God’s Grace but God will constantly continue to hold it before the person so that when they cease rejecting his Grace it will be with them once more.

God’s grace is like breathing. When we are baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit we gain God’s grace. This is when we start to breath. We never consciously decide to start breathing or consciously accept breathing. At best we can reject breathing and we will stop, but the minute that we cease in the rejection breathing we will begin again without conscious effort or acceptance.

We do have free choice to not follow God’s will and path. We do this on a daily basis. But, when we do follow his path it is not our doing but his. Faith is an active and living thing; it is a gift of God’s grace. It is the faith that is alive in us that directs our actions towards God’s path that he has lain for us. We do not choose to have faith in the Gospel, how could we? Faith is a Gift of God’s Grace we cannot bring it upon ourselves. If we are in God’s Grace we will have faith in the Gospel.

Once again we cannot choose to accept God’s grace, we can only choose to reject it, else we can boast.

Eph 2:8 -9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

 

[Shibboleth]

On the basis of the Scriptures we first of all teach that human beings are born spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1) because of sin and for this reason do not possess the strength or ability to believe in Jesus Christ or come to Him, and thus be saved. As St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God,” and therefore he also concludes, "No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.’ Similarly, the apostle makes it clear that “Those controlled by the sinful nature [that is, unbelievers] cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). But the condition of spiritual death is not merely a passive condition, for Paul writes in the previous verse, “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” (Rom. 8:7). [emphases added]

As one of our Lutheran confessional writings rightly summarizes, “As little as a corpse can quicken itself to bodily, earthly life, so little can man who through sin is spiritually dead raise himself to spiritual life.”

Yet, the good news is that “God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions and sins” (Eph. 2:4-5). Our salvation through Christ and the faith by which we receive this salvation are in their entirety a gift of God’s grace–with no cooperation on our part (Eph. 2:8-9). As Paul puts it in 2 Cor. 3:5, **“Not that we are competent *in ourselves * to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God.” ** It is contrary to the Scriptures to say that we possess the power to accept Christ–which is a miracle that God alone performs through His living Word . [emphases added]

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Shibboleth:

On the basis of the Scriptures we first of all teach that human beings are born spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1) because of sin and for this reason do not possess the strength or ability to believe in Jesus Christ or come to Him, and thus be saved. As St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God,” and therefore he also concludes, "No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.’ Similarly, the apostle makes it clear that “Those controlled by the sinful nature [that is, unbelievers] cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). But the condition of spiritual death is not merely a passive condition, for Paul writes in the previous verse, “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” (Rom. 8:7). [emphases added]

As one of our Lutheran confessional writings rightly summarizes, “As little as a corpse can quicken itself to bodily, earthly life, so little can man who through sin is spiritually dead raise himself to spiritual life.”

Yet, the good news is that “God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions and sins” (Eph. 2:4-5). Our salvation through Christ and the faith by which we receive this salvation are in their entirety a gift of God’s grace–with no cooperation on our part (Eph. 2:8-9). As Paul puts it in 2 Cor. 3:5, **“Not that we are competent *in ourselves ***to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God.” It is contrary to the Scriptures to say that we possess the power to accept Christ–which is a miracle that God alone performs through His living Word . [emphases added]

That though makes an assumption that choosing to accept God’s grace is contributing to salvation,I contend that it is rather cooperating with salvation that came through Jesus.God Bless

 

[jphilapy]

CM thanks, and likewise thanks for sharing. I think it would be nice if some of the folks here shared how they gave their lives to Jesus. Like what transpired, how did God draw you and what did the scriptures have to do with it?

Shibboleth I agree with luthers take on true faith must produce fruit, and that this is automatic as in a tree will produce fruit and it doesn’t have to think about it. However scriptures says that we have to build faith. Your take seems to say that we just have to avoid hindering faith. For example you say ‘we can stop breathing’ but when we let our breath out then the breathing start up automatically. But if scripture says we build faith, then it would seem faith cannot be said to have the exact same characteristics as breathing.

So how does the idea of building faith have to do with what you are saying?

Jeff

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

jphilapy:

According to the adult catechism regarding salvation and scripture it is written:

“Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No, because certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood, and because the Bible does not have everything God taught.”

But the following verse of scripture seems to contradict this point.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

I don’t think “are able to make thee” indicates a lack of information on the scripture part. So it seems to me to be pretty absolute that one can learn how to save their soul from reading the bible.

How does the RC explain the passage in 2 tim?

Thanks,
Jeff

If they can’t, that damns an awful lot of people. IOW, people must be saved on terms we can understand - or they can’t be saved at all. God’s activity must not exceed our ideas of it.​

However: it is Catholic teaching that God is not limited by his own means of grace - the limitation is at our end, not His. One might as well suppose a blind man could not be warmed by the sun he cannot see.

The problem which results from limiting God to our knowledge of Him is, that apparently God is not to be allowed be stir at all, unless He gets permission from His worshippers; He ceases to be a “mighty God” and “a Saviour”. I think people confuse God’s readiness to be faithful to His promises to His Church, with a guarantee that He will not do anything without letting His Church know of it. God is a great God - and He redeems and saves, not as we will, but according to His Will. He grants grace according to the measure of His generosity - not according to the measure of ours.

Our Saviour is Christ, not the Bible - Christ, and not any lesser gift of God. God in Christ has given us the very best thing He has to give - Himself; in a form adapted to our weakness and creatureliness. So the limitations of our knowledge are not going to get in the way of God’s saving power. If our ignorance could hinder God, no one could be saved. Happily for us, God is greater than our hearts - and greater than our ideas of Him. ##

 

[RBushlow]

jphilapy:

How does the RC explain . . . .

Look Jeff, a lot of us Catholics are not ‘Roman’, some are Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Ambrosian and many other orders and are offended when you use perjorative terms like RC. The correct term is ‘The Catholic Church’. Please use the correct terminology in the future so that we can all concentrate on topic conversation. Thank you in advance.

.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

puzzleannie:

what is the “adult catechism” you are quoting from? If you are quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, please provide the relevant paragraph numbers and provide the entire passage. Thank you.

This is the apparent source for that quotation:​

http://www.thebiblespeaks.com/Articles/FalseTeachings/Denominationalism/Catholic.htm

This might conceivably be relevant - I should like to see this:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/comm/archives/2004/04-219.htm

As no one here needs to be told, sites critical of a religion are not the best sources for its books or teaching

 

[jphilapy]

RBushlow:

Look Jeff, a lot of us Catholics are not ‘Roman’, some are Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Ambrosian and many other orders and are offended when you use perjorative terms like RC. The correct term is ‘The Catholic Church’. Please use the correct terminology in the future so that we can all concentrate on topic conversation. Thank you in advance.

.

I apologize but I don’t know how I am supposed to distinguish between those who accept the primacy of rome and those who dont. Both the roman catholic and eastern call themselves catholics, however there is a distinct difference. How am I supposed to make that difference known? You accept the primacy right? I want people to know that I am not talking about eastern orthodox. Since a great deal of my post involve me brining up the eastern orthodox vs roman catholic, it is much easier for me to just make the distinction. Even many protestants consider themselves catholic. And often when I say RC I am letting people know that I want to know what the Roman Catholic church teaches, not the eastern orthodox, not the byzantine and not someones opinion. Although I don’t mind other opinions and takes, it is the roman catholic position, or the position of those who accept the primacy, that I want.

Jeff

 

[michaelp]

Shibboleth:

On the basis of the Scriptures we first of all teach that human beings are born spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1) because of sin and for this reason do not possess the strength or ability to believe in Jesus Christ or come to Him, and thus be saved. As St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God,” and therefore he also concludes, "No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.’ Similarly, the apostle makes it clear that “Those controlled by the sinful nature [that is, unbelievers] cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). But the condition of spiritual death is not merely a passive condition, for Paul writes in the previous verse, “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” (Rom. 8:7). [emphases added]

As one of our Lutheran confessional writings rightly summarizes, “As little as a corpse can quicken itself to bodily, earthly life, so little can man who through sin is spiritually dead raise himself to spiritual life.”

Yet, the good news is that “God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions and sins” (Eph. 2:4-5). Our salvation through Christ and the faith by which we receive this salvation are in their entirety a gift of God’s grace–with no cooperation on our part (Eph. 2:8-9). As Paul puts it in 2 Cor. 3:5, **“Not that we are competent *in ourselves ***to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God.” It is contrary to the Scriptures to say that we possess the power to accept Christ–which is a miracle that God alone performs through His living Word . [emphases added]

Great summary. Very well done theologically!! Thanks.

 

[Fidelis]

jphilapy:

I apologize but I don’t know how I am supposed to distinguish between those who accept the primacy of rome and those who dont. Both the roman catholic and eastern call themselves catholics, however there is a distinct difference. How am I supposed to make that difference known? You accept the primacy right? I want people to know that I am not talking about eastern orthodox. Since a great deal of my post involve me brining up the eastern orthodox vs roman catholic,** it is much easier for me** to just make the distinction. Even many protestants consider themselves catholic. And often when I say RC I am letting people know that I want to know what the Roman Catholic church teaches, not the eastern orthodox, not the byzantine and not someones opinion. Although I don’t mind other opinions and takes, it is the roman catholic position, or the position of those who accept the primacy, that I want.

Jeff

It isn’t easier for everyone else and, as you can see, many people consider it a perjorative. Believe me, when you say “Catholic” in this forum, we know what you mean. And when you say “Orthodox” we also know what you mean. If anyone is confused by these terms, they deserve to be.