Faith = body, Works = spirit. Why do Protestants not get it?

[WesleyF]

Here’s an excerpt from a conversation I had with a Protestant. His words are in italics.

*“As I’ve said earlier good works result from true saving faith” *

“Faith is like a body, and works are like the spirit in the body. This is the analogy which the Holy Spirit has given us in James 2:26. The spirit does not result from the body. So how can you say that good works result from true saving faith? Faith is a gift from God (1 Cor 12:9). Works are also a gift from God! God is at work in us, enabling us to both will and to work for his good pleasure (Phil 2:13). So faith and works are both God’s gifts. It’s the same as our earthly life. Our body is a gift from God, so is our spirit. Both are essential for survivial. It is the spirit that makes the body alive. No matter how good the body is (faith by itself), if it has no spirit (no works) it is dead. Both the body and the spirit come from God.”

“If they (works) were (necessary) then I should conclude the Bible is self contradictory because St. Paul had repeatedly iterated that it is grace alone through faith alone that saves us.”

"It is not self contradictory we understand Paul’s usage of faith correctly. Let me illustrate by an example.

Paul says that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). If anyone destroys this temple, God will destroy that person (1 Cor 3:17). What happens when we bury a dead Christian’s body? Are we not destroying God’s temple then? No. Why? Because, when Paul refers to “body” he is talking about a **living **body, not a dead one. In the same way, when Paul says we are saved by grace through faith, he is talking about a living faith, not a dead faith.

So there is no contradiction. Because James just explains the difference between a living faith and a dead one. A living faith, just like a living body, is one which has a spirit, i.e. works, as James explains. This is the only way to resolve the apparent contradiction between Eph 2:8 and James 2:24."

He didn’t respond to the above point about the analogy of the body and the spirit, but he quoted other verses like Titus 3:5 and the dialogue is still going on. What do you think of the above analogy? Does it not make it all clear? It seems very clear to me. Why would a protestant reject it?

 

[mikehullhull]

We are saved by faith through grace and faith without works is dead. Yes it certainly stands to reason that dead faith is not saving faith… I get it.
If I really have faith as though I saw the risen Christ himself I would want to be obedient and “produce fruit” and “bind treasure in heaven.”
The main reason I’m not a Roman Catholic is the belief that one must be saved by acts such as confession and water baptism( as if God’s grace is bound to these rituals) and not by true faith in Christ alone.
It almost violates my conscience to go to a confession box before a man to be absolved of sin and saved from hell, or to believe that the unbaptised of water will perish despite faith in God( as if God has no water and Christ’s blood cannot absolve sin in the hereafter).
Won’t we be judged based on how we judge others? Won’t we recieve mercy if we are merciful?
I believe we are not saved through the church but that we believers in Christ ARE the church in a spiritual sense and that we the church are saved by LIVING faith in God alone acting in charity to the least of His bretheren.

 

[Newbie2]

The main objection seems to stem from the lack of understanding of many Protestants of what we mean by our participation in our own salvation. For the most part, we agree that we are saved by Grace. Neither of us believes that our works earns us salvation. However, we see our assent to Christ’s invitation as a work, whereas most if not all Protestants do not.

 

[MDK]

…The main reason I’m not a Roman Catholic is the belief that one must be saved by acts such as confession and water baptism( as if God’s grace is bound to these rituals) and not by true faith in Christ alone…

Then, what you’re really saying is that you’re not Roman Catholic due to ignorance. It’s certainly not a sin to be ignorant, but it’s trouble to remain that way willfully.

We love our separated brethren, but it’s frustrating seeing them mischaracterize, then demonize what they don’t understand. This ignorance keeps them out of the only Church Jesus built and protects from error in teaching faith and morals.

These Sacraments are God’s Sacraments, and there is His Grace in them accordingly. The errant presuppositions of Sola Scriptura and Once Saved Always Saved (neither is taught in the Bible) ruins one’s ability to understand what Christ established. Baptism by water and the Spirit frees us from original sin, and is therefore Grace. God established Baptism as one of the Sacraments in His Church, as the first, the entrance into the Church. Without Baptism, you really are not a Christian. Next, God established confession to remit sins after Baptism. This is also a means of Grace. Christ is the High Priest, and these Sacraments are done by Him, with the Priest acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). Since Christ established these, it is faith in Christ to believe in them. Criticizing these is to criticize what Christ has established.

The common false dichotomy of either Jesus or the Church is born of prejudice and fear. The truth is that we have Christ and His Church. Christ is the Head of the Church which is His Mystical Body. How can you separate the Head from the Body and still have a functioning entity? Christ built His one true Church with Peter as Head Bishop, the Catholic Church. To be Catholic is to have faith in and obey the Will of God. The pessimists will prefer their own will, and errantly create a faith system allegedly on our Book, the Bible, when in reality their faith system is based on man’s often errant interpretations of our Catholic Book. One cannot seek the truth, and forever remain Protestant.

 

[mikehullhull]

I do presuppose faith alone in Christ is salvation and will result in acts of charity and repentance. I do not however presuppose that this denomination alone holds exemption from all error. History certainly demonstrates otherwise.
We all error and fall short of His glory and that is why we need Jesus. Peter confessed Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah when he was asked who Jesus was. Not even the other Holy Apostles made such a confession when confronted with that question. Peters confession of faith in who Christ is set him apart and made him the foundation of Christ’s church by his faith. Every subsequent confession is founded on that one.Peter was certainly not exempt from error thereafter. He denied Christ and was was rebuked by Paul for hypocrisy. However even though he was imperfect his faith in Jesus saved him and gave him primacy. I do presuppose Peter is in Heaven because Christ said so. He also said whoever believes in Him will not perish. I presuppose that is truth as well.
You are absolutley right. We are active participants in our salvation by recieving it and holding onto it through faith, but we have nothing to brag about except the cross of Christ.
Peter didnt die for our sins. Nor did any Pope or patriach. Nor did Luther or Calvin. I am most confused and saddened by denominations.Please pray for me. If I am not in His fold please pray that I will be one of the “others” He talked about. I love these conversations. I hold no contempt. Only interest.

 

[MDK]

I do presuppose faith alone in Christ is salvation and will result in acts of charity and repentance. I do not however presuppose that this denomination alone holds exemption from all error. History certainly demonstrates otherwise.

Unfortunately, faith alone is another of the false doctrines that does not serve its adherents anywhere near like the way its adherents serve it. Faith alone does not result in fruitful works of Christ, as the demons also have faith in Christ but not love for Him. Love must accompany faith. If charity is greater than faith, then why is faith alone the best relationship with Christ? If you’re looking to compare these two, wouldn’t the idea of love alone be better than faith alone?

You are correct in that no denomination alone “holds exemption from all error.” The first reason would be that this is not the claim I know from any denomination. The claim of Catholicism is that when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra (from the chair of Peter) signifying authoritative teaching, God protects the Pope from teaching error in faith and morals on matters binding on all the faithful. The second would be that Catholicism is not a denomination. It is the Church built by Christ for all of His New Covenant family.

We all error and fall short of His glory and that is why we need Jesus. Peter confessed Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah when he was asked who Jesus was. Not even the other Holy Apostles made such a confession when confronted with that question. Peters confession of faith in who Christ is set him apart and made him the foundation of Christ’s church by his faith. Every subsequent confession is founded on that one.Peter was certainly not exempt from error thereafter. He denied Christ and was was rebuked by Paul for hypocrisy. However even though he was imperfect his faith in Jesus saved him and gave him primacy. I do presuppose Peter is in Heaven because Christ said so. He also said whoever believes in Him will not perish. I presuppose that is truth as well.

Actually, he was still named Simon at the time when he was the only Apostle who did identify Jesus as the Christ, and Christ said it was God the Father who revealed this to Simon this. Christ then changes Simon’s name to Kepha (Peter), and said upon this Kepha (Peter), Christ will build His Church. The revelation of the Father is a pretty interesting beginning of being the head Bishop of the Church. The Father ensured that Peter had the correct teaching about Christ. The office of the Pope has never once taught error in matters of faith and morals binding on all the faithful… so the teachings on matters of faith and morals are intended for everyone including the Pope as well as you and I.

It’s ignorant of Catholicism to claim that the head Bishop (office of Peter) is protected from all error in his personal behaviors. He is not. He is not protected from any error of his personal behavior. The Pope goes to confession as well, just like all other faithful.

The charism of infallibility is a truthful description of the reality that through the Rock of the Church, God protects His Church from teaching error in faith and morals. The Church is His Bride which He protects, unlike the first Adam who did not protect his bride. This is how God ensures that those who seek Him in His Church will know His attributes, His teachings, and have His Sacraments.

Those who look to the word “believe” as only having faith that Jesus is Christ, will be sorely disappointed, as they are off the mark. This oversimplified definition cannot be true. Christ told us many things we had to also do, like eat His Body and drink His Blood. We must also forgive or else we are not forgiven, and if not forgiven, how can we get into Heaven? The correct understanding of “believing” in Christ is to have faith in, lovingly be committed to, and obey.

You are absolutley right. We are active participants in our salvation by recieving it and holding onto it through faith, but we have nothing to brag about except the cross of Christ.

I tell the truth, but you haven’t explained it correctly. We were saved by the grace of God, we are being saved by the grace of God, and we will be saved by the grace of God. We’re working out our salvation with fear and trembling. Correct that we have nothing to brag about as it’s not our works alone nor our faith alone that get us to Heaven. It is the grace of God by faith working in love.

Peter didnt die for our sins. Nor did any Pope or patriach. Nor did Luther or Calvin. I am most confused and saddened by denominations.Please pray for me. If I am not in His fold please pray that I will be one of the “others” He talked about. I love these conversations. I hold no contempt. Only interest.

I don’t know anyone who claims Peter or the subsequent Popes or any of the heretics like Luther and Calvin died for our sins. Do you know anyone who claims this?

The office of head Bishop was established by Christ, so faith in Christ is not only not threatened by the existence of the Pope, but is protected through the office of the Pope by the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Maranatha33]

The errant presuppositions of Sola Scriptura and Once Saved Always Saved (neither is taught in the Bible) ruins one’s ability to understand what Christ established.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (New International Version)

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Paul reminded Timothy that the Scriptures are “able to make thee wise unto salvation” In other words, if a doctrine is essential for salvation, we can learn it from the Bible. The written Word of God therefore must contain all doctrine that is truly fundamental. It is able to make us “adequate, equipped for every good work” . If there were necessary doctrines not revealed in Scripture, those promises would ring empty.

Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Matthew 5:18 (New International Version)

18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (Scripture) until everything is accomplished.

Paul wrote, “No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Christ Himself embodied or established every doctrine that is essential to genuine Christianity.

The psalmist wrote, “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul” (Psalm 19:7). That means Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration. We do not need to look beyond the written Word of God for any essential doctrines. There is nothing necessary beyond what is recorded in God’s Word.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture–and we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’[a] 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe** your own traditions!

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That–no more, no less–is what sola Scriptura means.**

 

[Maranatha33]

The errant presuppositions of Sola Scriptura and **Once Saved Always Saved **(neither is taught in the Bible) ruins one’s ability to understand what Christ established.

John O’Brien, a Catholic priest, has helped Roman Catholics to understand the importance of the Mass. He has written a book called The Faith of Millions, The Credentials of the Catholic Religion.
“The priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man,** not once but a thousand times.” **
(and verified by the Council of Trent.)

Hebrews 10:10-23
10”And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ***11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this (one, Jesus) priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. 15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." 17Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. 19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.”

---

Acts 1:5
”For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

This was accomplished at Pentecost. (For context, see Acts chapters 1 and 2.)
The Holy Spirit is indwelt in the believer as a seal, confirming one’s salvation, and adding a Paraclete (“Counselor”, “Helper”, or “Comforter”.) to us.

In Hebrews 10:15, (above) we are told that the Holy Spirit “testifies to us.”
Jesus says, in

Matthew 12:31

31"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

Blaspheming or denying the Holy Spirit, is the only sin which will not be forgiven. Receiving the Holy Spirit in Baptism makes blaspheming impossible. How can one deny God the Holy Spirit if He lives within that individual? Can a man evict the Holy Spirit, so that he will need to be saved again? Receiving the Holy Spirit is a gift from God, and can not be earned. And He gives us the faith, through grace, for this ultimate blessing.

Ephesians 2:7-9

7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 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. **

Romans 1:17

17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

One act of propitiation, One gift of Grace through faith from God. One acceptance of God’s gift through being “born again”. (of the Spirit.)

John 3:3,7

3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

 

[MDK]

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (New International Version)

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Paul reminded Timothy that the Scriptures are “able to make thee wise unto salvation” In other words, if a doctrine is essential for salvation, we can learn it from the Bible. The written Word of God therefore must contain all doctrine that is truly fundamental. It is able to make us “adequate, equipped for every good work” . If there were necessary doctrines not revealed in Scripture, those promises would ring empty.

Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Matthew 5:18 (New International Version)

18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (Scripture) until everything is accomplished.

Paul wrote, “No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Christ Himself embodied or established every doctrine that is essential to genuine Christianity…

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture–and we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6)…

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That–no more, no less–is what sola Scriptura means.

Close, but no cigar. You’ve assumed things that just aren’t there. First, none of these Churches you mention in your quote has any authority from God. None was started by God, but by men who are not also God.

For instance, take 2 Tim 3:15-17. It reads “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” Yes, thank God for the Scriptures. I believe what is taught here and everywhere in the Scriptures, as properly taught and understood. Scripture is indeed profitable. So, note that the inspired author never once wrote that Scripture is sufficient. Why? Because the Apostles didn’t believe that. Why? Because Christ never taught that.

To continue, you have other arguments which similarly fall short of what you want it to say. Note that Scriptures never teach Sola Scriptura. Scriptures are opposed to Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church authored Scriptures from first text to closed canon. The Catholic Church knows what is in the Scriptures, and what is not in the Scriptures. No doctrine of the Catholic Church is at odds with Scripture. These doctrines were formed by the same authority that made the Bible. For instance, Christ never told anyone to write, but to preach. The true Church is made of the Magisterium, Sacred Godly Tradition, and the Scriptures which all go together. To separate this is to do violence to what God has established.

Christ said to do a lot of things too, which require a ministerial priesthood, such as eating His Body and drinking His Blood. That Christ told the Apostles to bind and loose men’s sins is the work of a ministerial priesthood. Christ is the High Priest, and He created the ministerial priesthood to carry out His work on Earth. High Priest and ministerial priesthood also existed in the OT, as a precursor of things to come in the New Covenant.

Also, how is the Bible-only thing working out for people. According to Sola Scriptura and Right of Private interpretation, ten people could read the same exact Scripture text, and come away with 10 different interpretations, all of which could refute the other. Where do they go to appeal to find out which if any is right. With Sola Scriptura, there is no way to know. With God’s one Church, there is a way to know.

So, to say we only need a Bible is completely wrong. Sola Scriptura is a man made false tradition. It is not leading you into all truth.

 

[MDK]

John O’Brien, a Catholic priest, has helped Roman Catholics to understand the importance of the Mass. He has written a book called The Faith of Millions, The Credentials of the Catholic Religion.
“The priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man,** not once but a thousand times.” **
(and verified by the Council of Trent.)

You are correct in that resacrificing Christ is wrong, however, you are wrong if you accuse the Catholic Church of doing that.

Christ’s sacrifice was once for all time, a never ending Sacrifice. It was not “once and done.” Therefore, how can you redo something that never ends. Christ’s sacrifice is represented thousands of times, but He is never once resacrificed. The representation takes us back to Calvary with Him, and by His Sacrifice, we receive the merits of His Salvation to our lives in our time. It is a most beautiful thing and the incomparable gift of Himself.

What bothers me, is that false faith systems mislead those who may be sincere loving Christ. These unfortunately will never really know His true teachings, and His true Sacraments. Is there any justice in that, either for Christ or for you? For example only to consider and not intended as direct metaphor… what would happen if you took a photograph once and kept presenting it to others over and over again for them to experience this joy of seeing it over and over again? Would you be retaking the photo each time?

 

[Maranatha33]

Hi MDK!

I truly desire to have a civil, God honoring discussion. Please do not misunderstand my frankness for venom.

Close, but no cigar. You’ve assumed things that just aren’t there. First, none of these Churches you mention in your quote has any authority from God. None was started by God, but by men who are not also God.

ALL Christian churches that believe in Jesus as savior are started by God. Jesus is God. Belief in His sacrificial love is the basis of Christianity.

For instance, take 2 Tim 3:15-17. It reads “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” Yes, thank God for the Scriptures. I believe what is taught here and everywhere in the Scriptures, as properly taught and understood. Scripture is indeed profitable.

When someone references 2 Tim 3:15-17, they usually start of with verse 15.
2 Tim 3:15

15"and how from infancy you have known **the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

btw, Check the context of the rest of this chapter. It is always prudent to do so.

So, note that the inspired author never once wrote that Scripture is sufficient. Why? Because the Apostles didn’t believe that. Why? Because Christ never taught that.

They wrote Gospels and letters to “spread the word”.The process went something like this; Paul, especially, and the other apostles wrote their letters so that all could come to Jesus through the hearing of the words that they wrote about our Lord. The Gospels and Epistles were written, so that the word of God could spread faster. Many times, Paul wrote about his desire to be with the group he was writing too, but couldn’t see personally at that particular time. These letters were taken to the first believers of a particular village by messengers, like Timothy, Barnabus, Apolos, and many others. Then someone in that church would copy the delivered message, so that it could be passed around even more. These ( copied ) letters are today called MSS. (the printing press wasn’t invented until 1456 AD.) There are no original copies of ANY book from antiquity. The only way to determine the accuracy of historical books are by the copies handwritten and passed down. The more copies of the original manuscripts (MSS) the more we know that what is written is what was originally wrote. This is how literary experts determine truth and accuracy. Julius Caeser wrote “:the Gaelic wars” in 50 BC. Today we have 10 copies of his original writings. This is the average for historical literature. The second best documented historical book is Homer’s Illiad. There are 683 copies around today. Number one, as you might guess, is the Bible. We have 5,633 copies in the original greek context, and 24,633 if you count all translations. The canon was closed on the Bible upon the death of the last person who was part of the “eyewitness generation.” Presumably, the Apostle John. And this was around the year 105 AD. There are documented court cases of persons trying to add to the Scriptures in the year 150 AD, but they were accused and tried for Heresy, since the canon was already closed. The gnostic writings were not added to the Roman Catholic Bibles for another 150-200 years. Thus the vast majority of the believers from John’s death to the gnostic additions, only had Sola Scriptura. It had, and still has, to be sufficient, for Christianity to have spread like it has.

To continue, you have other arguments which similarly fall short of what you want it to say. Note that Scriptures never teach Sola Scriptura. Scriptures are opposed to Sola Scriptura.

.

Please produce one verse in the Bible that says that the Bible is just part of the instruction necessary?

The Catholic Church authored Scriptures from first text to closed canon.

That is true. I think you may not understand the Catholic Church, though. The word “Catholic” means universal. All Christians until Roman Catholicism were Catholic. In the third and fourth century, schisms started over differing interpretations and processes. Three of the leading issues were infant Baptism, gnostic writings and Constantine. Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, and the apparent majority of Christians became Roman Catholics, but certainly not all. (see the anabaptists for example.) and the split ensued.

The Catholic Church knows what is in the Scriptures, and what is not in the Scriptures. No doctrine of the Catholic Church is at odds with Scripture. These doctrines were formed by the same authority that made the Bible.

True, See above on Catholic.

For instance, Christ never told anyone to write, but to preach.

He never told anyone to breathe, either, at least that I know of. Use some logic here, please. Why were the Gospels written? And the Epistles. Which way would the Apostles more effectively preform the Great Commission? Thirteen men walking hundreds of miles to make a personal appearance, or 5,633 copies of the Apostles testimonies and teachings of the Lord being passed from village to village?

 

[MDK]

Hi MDK!..
He never told anyone to breathe, either, at least that I know of. Use some logic here, please. Why were the Gospels written? And the Epistles. Which way would the Apostles more effectively preform the Great Commission? Thirteen men walking hundreds of miles to make a personal appearance, or 5,633 copies of the Apostles testimonies and teachings of the Lord being passed from village to village?

Please don’t stoop to this, which distract but do not address the point. Were we discussing breathing for instance, or any bodily human functions? Everyone breathes, it’s built in. This is something we never have to be told. Knowledge of God’s publicly revealed truths are not encoded in our minds at birth. This is something we must learn, and we must do it as God prescribed. Really, it’s not me who needs a lesson in logic and perspective.

You assessment also lacks historical perspective, and so the logic assumed is also off here. It wasn’t just 13 people. Pretty soon, it was many more, as they ordained Bishops which numbered far more than 13. The Bishops ordained ministerial priests to help.

The Apostles who were preaching with the protection of the Holy Spirit, decided to write these teachings down. There was not one Scripture for about 20 years after the resurrection. How were these people saved during that time? The last Scripture was penned by the year 100, and this is the end of public revelation. This is part of the teachings that the Apostles handed down. Other parts of understanding are handed down as well via Sacred Tradition (Godly Tradition). Ordained Bishops and Priests could use these to read in Church, to continue the mission the Apostles handed on to them, so the Church would continue to teach correctly until the end of time.

There was no printing press in the year 100. So, there was not a proliferation of Scriptures. Besides, many were illiterate and could not read. In addition, the Bible itself was not put together until about 3 1/2 centuries after the Resurrection. At this time, the printing press was still not invented, and so copies are hard to come by, and very expensive, estimated at about $100,000 each in today’s dollars. Also at this time, many were illiterate, and could not read. However, the Bible was now complete with a closed canon, as there is no more public revelation. 1400 years after the resurrection, the printing press was invented. The first Book to be printed was the Bible, with all the NT and OT books. So, until the 15th century the Bible was not in wide circulation, and many were illiterate. Yet, how were these people who did not have ready access to a Bible and many who could not read, be saved?

Later, in a response to bad behaviors of individuals, Martin Luther decided to change doctrine that had been taught since Pentecost, rather than ask these people to just adhere to doctrine. Let’s not leave out that the doctrinal changes also suited his personal “quirks.” So, at the time in history when Bibles could be distributed more freely and cheaply, made available to many, Luther asked people to act as their own authority instead of the Bishops in the Church as had been the case since Pentecost, and still is. He had scruples, which was likely related sadly to his OCD, and so Once Saved, Always Saved fit in pretty well to get him out of this sickness induced endless loop. He threw out 7 books of the OT, which had been used by the early Church and was even in the first printed Bible, and which is still used to day. He created a split, which violates likely the last request from Christ before ascending, that we all be one as He and the Father are One. Luther is the father of moral relativism, where people read and decide for themselves what faith is, and what morals are… however, these are the province of God alone. If you don’t believe me, just look around at all the different interpretations of the exact same Scripture passage, all claiming to be correct, but only one that is in accordance with what the Apostles taught.

So, sadly, someone has convinced you of this. Sola Scriptura is itself unscriptural. Luther tried to marginlaize the Epistle of James in order to promote this. However, if all Scripture is inspired, then how can he do this legitimately? Sola Fide is unscriptural, as we must love and obey Christ, not just believe that He is the Messiah who died for us. OSAS is unscriptural, as we can lose our salvation by rejecting God, even though claiming to be “saved” before. Formal sufficiency of the Scriptures leading to Right of private interpretation is unscriptural because Peter told us that there are things hard to understand, which the ignorant twist to their own destruction.

God made a Church to teach and minister His Sacraments. This Church authored the Scriptures from first text until closed canon where the table of contents was definitively defined. The Church built by Christ subsists fully in this one Church, which has the Magisterium (made of the successors of the Apostles), Godly Tradition, and the Scriptures which she authored. This Church is authoritative due to the protection of the Holy Spirit, which this particular gift is given to no other church. God built this Church as necessary for Salvation, to teach the truth of Him, and minister His Sacraments.

Years later, people come in, deciding for themselves what Scriptures mean. They have taken our Scriptures out of the context which they were written, away from Sacred Tradition, away from the authority to teach established by God. It’s no wonder people don’t understand what they mean when they presuppose the man made tradition of sola scriptura, sola fide, OSAS, and right of private interpretation. No one can, as these are a recipe for disaster.

 

[MDK]

Hi MDK!

I truly desire to have a civil, God honoring discussion. Please do not misunderstand my frankness for venom.

Good. If we honor God, then we will obey Him, and do what He asked of us.

ALL Christian churches that believe in Jesus as savior are started by God. Jesus is God. Belief in His sacrificial love is the basis of Christianity.

No. This is in opposition to history and faith, and plain humble common sense.

Jesus is Mercy, and His Sacrifice is what allows us to be saved. However, Christ did start a Church. The Scriptures say it is one Church. The early believers were of this one Church. This one Church has a mission to spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth, thereby being universal in nature.

1500 years later, a dissatisfied man creates his own brand of religion, which had not been taught until that time. His name is even on the religion. He interpreted things differently from the Apostles and those the Apostles handed their mission to continue. This religion bears Luther’s name because it is due to his unique (at the time) interpretations of Scripture and his own doctrines. The Lutheran church also rejected the ministerial priesthood, and so rejected five of the seven Sacraments that had been ministered until that time, and which still are ministered in the Church built by Christ.

When someone references 2 Tim 3:15-17, they usually start of with verse 15.
2 Tim 3:15

15"and how from infancy you have known **the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you *wise for salvation ***through faith in Christ Jesus."

btw, Check the context of the rest of this chapter. It is always prudent to do so.

I understand the Scripture above, as well as the context. The Scriptures do make you wise, but not if you misinterpret their intended meanings. Even the least of those with common sense will see that we cannot distort their meanings and still have this wisdom which they were intended to convey.

Note also that this does not say that Scriptures are all you need. It does not say that Scripture alone is formally sufficient. They are materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. Many of the Scripture passages are hard to understand, as Peter tells us, and require other things to help understand them, like Sacred Tradition and perhaps Magisterium (made of those having an organic link to the Apostles by way of ordination).

Please produce one verse in the Bible that says that the Bible is just part of the instruction necessary?

2 Thessalonians 2:14 ”*Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the **traditions *which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

St. Paul said word of mouth was good enough. But, of course only if it was from one who had the truth, and did not distort Christ’s teachings. These traditions which Paul speaks of are Godly Traditions, and obviously not man made.

See, Paul did not believe in Scripture alone. Neither should we.
.

 

[MDK]

That is true. I think you may not understand the Catholic Church, though. The word “Catholic” means universal. All Christians until Roman Catholicism were Catholic. In the third and fourth century, schisms started over differing interpretations and processes. Three of the leading issues were infant Baptism, gnostic writings and Constantine. Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, and the apparent majority of Christians became Roman Catholics, but certainly not all. (see the anabaptists for example.) and the split ensued.

The word catholic is indeed made from the word meaning universal. The application you provided, is sadly made from erroneous understanding of history and faith, from those who think they know the Catholic Church better than we who are actually members of and who study and seek the truth of. It’s akin to the Muslims telling Christians that they love Christ more than we do.

However this descriptive word was applied to the specific one Church started by Christ as it existed at the time. This gave the Church a formal name, which described her mission from Christ to spread the good news to the ends of the earth. This one Church had as members Peter as head Bishop, John, James, Bartholomew, Mark, Luke, Matthew, Paul, and included all who wrote Scriptures and there were obviously others. There is a difference between something that is catholic or universal in nature, and the formal name of Catholic Church for God’s Church with her universal mission. To use your logic is like saying there is a general word “royal” so the Royal Palace can’t really be a something more specific.

So, you’re sadly missing things here, as you need to understand the nature of God’s Church. God made His Church with a “Prime Minister” position to watch over this pearl of great price when the King Jesus went to His Throne in Heaven. This is the same as in the OT, where the God appointed a Prime Minister to the People, who would be a father to these people. Pope, btw, is derived from the word for father. Where Peter is (the office of Peter), there is the Church. The office of Peter, which is the rock of the Church, was established by God to keep His one Church from teaching error and to validly minister His Seven Sacraments. Without this office of Peter, people come up with all kinds of strange and unusual interpretations of our Scriptures for instance, and are limited to two Sacraments, and often distort the Sacraments (a desecration) them as well. So, no matter who splits off from God’s one Church, they are now making their own religion, a man made religion, which God did not build. There have been heretics from the start, but it in no way implies that these views are acceptable to God. Sadly, you are promoting the same systems which distort God’s word, and damage His Sacraments. Please stop, and think. Then please look with an open mind, seeking what God has established. The Book of Revelation has so many correlations for instance to the Catholic mass. It bothers me that people have been lied to and thereby their lenses are fogged from seeing clearly. No one can seek the truth, and forever remain Protestant.

 

[MDK]

Hi MDK!..They wrote Gospels and letters to “spread the word”.The process went something like this; Paul, especially, and the other apostles wrote their letters so that all could come to Jesus through the hearing of the words that they wrote about our Lord. The Gospels and Epistles were written, so that the word of God could spread faster. Many times, Paul wrote about his desire to be with the group he was writing too, but couldn’t see personally at that particular time. These letters were taken to the first believers of a particular village by messengers, like Timothy, Barnabus, Apolos, and many others. Then someone in that church would copy the delivered message, so that it could be passed around even more. These ( copied ) letters are today called MSS. (the printing press wasn’t invented until 1456 AD.) There are no original copies of ANY book from antiquity. The only way to determine the accuracy of historical books are by the copies handwritten and passed down. The more copies of the original manuscripts (MSS) the more we know that what is written is what was originally wrote. This is how literary experts determine truth and accuracy. Julius Caeser wrote “:the Gaelic wars” in 50 BC. Today we have 10 copies of his original writings. This is the average for historical literature. The second best documented historical book is Homer’s Illiad. There are 683 copies around today. Number one, as you might guess, is the Bible. We have 5,633 copies in the original greek context, and 24,633 if you count all translations. The canon was closed on the Bible upon the death of the last person who was part of the “eyewitness generation.” Presumably, the Apostle John. And this was around the year 105 AD. There are documented court cases of persons trying to add to the Scriptures in the year 150 AD, but they were accused and tried for Heresy, since the canon was already closed. The gnostic writings were not added to the Roman Catholic Bibles for another 150-200 years. Thus the vast majority of the believers from John’s death to the gnostic additions, only had Sola Scriptura. It had, and still has, to be sufficient, for Christianity to have spread like it has.

Wow. If I was your history teacher, I’d have to give you a D-, bordering F. There is no mention of the authority structure which gave credence to these Scriptures and condemned others as false, a glaring omission which cannot be ignored for any serious discussion of God’s message. Please also seek the truth about Gnosticism, in which you should check out the Gnostic “gospels” which were written from the 2nd to 4th century. But critically, you should understand that the Catholic Church did not use any texts authored after Revelation, which the Church considers the end of public revelation. This kind of false accusation is normally preserved through man made tradition of prejudice against the Church, and not anything remotely like Godly Tradition.

If I was your Bible history teacher, I’d have to give you an F for blatant distortions. I agree that Gnosticism is bad, by why associate them with the very Church which condemned Gnosticism? There are synoptic Gospels, but never Gnostic. To say there are would be not only a distortion of history, but a violation of God’s eighth Commandment. Manicheeism and general Gnosticism were heresies condemned soundly by the Church. These appeared with no help from the Church, but their demise was very much due to the Catholic Church.

If I was your Theology teacher, I’d have to give you a D-, bordering F. The Scriptures were never meant to be interpreted by scholars who had no higher authority, even if well meaning. A qualified Scholar will defer to the authority established by Christ. Otherwise, these unqualified scholars are just fooling themselves, and unfortunately, taking others with them down this false path. Scriptures can certainly be studied by scholars and non scholars alike. However, these must defer to Sacred Tradition and the authority established by Christ to teach on matters of faith and morals, the Magisterium of God’s one Church with the office of Peter as visible head. Sola Scriptura was not only not feasible during that time, it was not taught by any of the Apostles, nor by their successors in union with the head Bishop.

 

[WesleyF]

How quickly this thread has deviated!!!

 

[Maranatha33]

Wow. If I was your history teacher, I’d have to give you a D-, bordering F. There is no mention of the authority structure which gave credence to these Scriptures and condemned others as false, a glaring omission which cannot be ignored for any serious discussion of God’s message. **Please also seek the truth about Gnosticism, in which you should check out the Gnostic “gospels” which were written from the 2nd to 4th century. But critically, you should understand that the Catholic Church did not use any texts authored after Revelation, **which the Church considers the end of public revelation. This kind of false accusation is normally preserved through man made tradition of prejudice against the Church, and not anything remotely like Godly Tradition.

If I was your Bible history teacher, I’d have to give you an F for blatant distortions. I agree that Gnosticism is bad, by why associate them with the very Church which condemned Gnosticism? There are synoptic Gospels, but never Gnostic. To say there are would be not only a distortion of history, but a violation of God’s eighth Commandment. Manicheeism and general Gnosticism were heresies condemned soundly by the Church. These appeared with no help from the Church, but their demise was very much due to the Catholic Church.

Though there are many documents that could be included among the** gnostic gospels, the term most commonly refers to the following:**

* Gospel of Thomas   The Gospel of Thomas is held by most to be the earliest of the **Gnostic gospels** to be composed, dating the text to the early-mid second century.

• Gospel of Truth
• Gospel of Philip
• Gospel of Mary

**If I was your Theology teacher, I’d have to give you a D-, bordering F. ** The Scriptures were never meant to be interpreted by scholars who had no higher authority, even if well meaning. **A qualified Scholar **will defer to the authority established by Christ. *Otherwise, these unqualified scholars are just fooling themselves, and unfortunately, taking others with them down this false path. Scriptures can certainly be studied by scholars and non scholars alike. However, these must defer to Sacred **Tradition ***

Mark 7:9,13

9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
13Thus you nullify the word of God by** your tradition** that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

MT 18
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

WesleyF,
I apologize for any contribution I made to the deviation. I will refrain from any futher contributions on this thread.

 

[MDK]

Mark 7:9,13

9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
13Thus you nullify the word of God by** your tradition** that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

So, what is the problem? I said Godly Tradition is to be recognized as God’s teaching. Then you refuted by saying man made tradition is not to be used instead of God’s teaching. I agree with both of these statements, don’t you?

The word “tradition” is used in scriptures more than just the two places above, and the context shows two different kinds of tradition in the Scriptures. The key is to understand the meanings of Scripture, and not simply go on the same word being used without discerning the meaning of the word used. There is Godly Tradition, as in St Paul’s epistle 2 Thessalonians 2:14 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions* which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.*” Then, there is man made tradition, which is being discussed above in your two quotes.

My supportive statement on Godly Tradition cannot be refuted using quotes that admonish one not to employ man made tradition above God’s teachings. To treat them as the same would be to confuse the two, and miss the meaning of Scriptures. This is an example of the unqualified scholar by interpreting on their own, but not deferring to God’s authority established to teach, as is discussed below.

MT 18
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Thanks for supporting me here as well. The inspired author asks where is the scholar now, the wise in worldly things? God has made the scholar’s “wisdom” to be foolishness. The wisdom of the world does not know God. These scholars are obviously unqualified to interpret God’s word. They do not defer to the authority of God.

You quoted what I had been discussing regarding a Bible Scholar, and in light of the supportive Scriptures you posted, I’ll reiterate what I said about scholars to further reinforce the point, “The Scriptures were never meant to be interpreted by scholars who had no higher authority, even if well meaning. A qualified Scholar will defer to the authority established by Christ. Otherwise, these unqualified scholars are just fooling themselves, and unfortunately, taking others with them down this false path. Scriptures can certainly be studied by scholars and non scholars alike. However, these must defer to Sacred Tradition and the authority established by Christ to teach on matters of faith and morals, the Magisterium of God’s one Church with the office of Peter as visible head.”

I’d like to give you credit here for providing support, but truth is that all Scripture is supportive of Catholicism. So, quote away! Just, please defer to the authority established by Christ to teach the meanings of Scriptures.

These two examples show why the Catholic Church is vitally important to our understanding of Scriptures.

 

[MDK]

Though there are many documents that could be included among the** gnostic gospels, the term most commonly refers to the following:**

* Gospel of Thomas   The Gospel of Thomas is held by most to be the earliest of the **Gnostic gospels** to be composed, dating the text to the early-mid second century.

• Gospel of Truth
• Gospel of Philip
• Gospel of Mary

Thanks. My statement of never being any Gnostic “gospels” (in the Catholic Bible as you had claimed) was in response to your quote “The gnostic writings were not added to the Roman Catholic Bibles for another 150-200 years.” So, do you agree that there were never Gnostic “gospels” in the Catholic Bible. There is nothing in the Catholic Bible that supports the heresy of Gnosticism. This is not unimportant, because the Church condemned Gnosticism. Even if we were to focus on the common sense argument alone, we have to ask, why would the Church adopt the heretical writings that she condemned?