Faith saves?

[JOE_OBERR]

Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the gospel to all creation & that those who would believe & be baptized would be saved. He didn’t say that everyone’s personal guesswork on bible verses is the way to figure out christian doctrine & practice, including the relation of faith & salvation. Which is why he didn’t commission the apostles to go out, write, publish, & distribute the bible so every man, woman & child could make his own guesses on bible verses in order to determine truth. If the bible were the source of teachings then the first nine generations or so of Christians would have been out of luck as the bible wasn’t codified till 392 or so.

And since nowhere does the bible claim to have a detailed exposition of the gospel as preached by Sts Paul, Peter, John etc, it is futile to attempt to determine by scriptural exegesis what this gospel is that was preached. The bible is not a catechism, it is a narrative of salvation history and is also a witness to and attests to church teachings, but not the source. The word of God is more than just what is written, it is part of Divine Revelation, not the whole.

If one wants to determine truth on faith & salvation, one has to go to the church, the pillar & foundation of truth, and its teachings, not the bible as it is not clear on anything, even the divinity of Christ (the 8 million worldwide Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny Christ’s divinity testify to that). Church teachings will clarify the definition of faith, what salvation is, what we are saved from and how to obtain this salvation.

One works off of a false premise if s/he thinks the gospel as preached by the apostles, and what follows from it on various points, can be derived by scriptural exegesis. That is not what the apostles taught and they learned from Jesus himself.

Joe

 

[Zahmir]

Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the gospel to all creation & that those who would believe & be baptized would be saved. He didn’t say that everyone’s personal guesswork on bible verses is the way to figure out christian doctrine & practice, including the relation of faith & salvation. Which is why he didn’t commission the apostles to go out, write, publish, & distribute the bible so every man, woman & child could make his own guesses on bible verses in order to determine truth. If the bible were the source of teachings then the first nine generations or so of Christians would have been out of luck as the bible wasn’t codified till 392 or so.

And since nowhere does the bible claim to have a detailed exposition of the gospel as preached by Sts Paul, Peter, John etc, it is futile to attempt to determine by scriptural exegesis what this gospel is that was preached. The bible is not a catechism, it is a narrative of salvation history and is also a witness to and attests to church teachings, but not the source. The word of God is more than just what is written, it is part of Divine Revelation, not the whole.

If one wants to determine truth on faith & salvation, one has to go to the church, the pillar & foundation of truth, and its teachings, not the bible as it is not clear on anything, even the divinity of Christ (the 8 million worldwide Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny Christ’s divinity testify to that). Church teachings will clarify the definition of faith, what salvation is, what we are saved from and how to obtain this salvation.

One works off of a false premise if s/he thinks the gospel as preached by the apostles, and what follows from it on various points, can be derived by scriptural exegesis. That is not what the apostles taught and they learned from Jesus himself.

Joe

What are you saying? The bible isn’t a source of truth? the people above were wrong?

 

[JLM316]

Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the gospel to all creation & that those who would believe & be baptized would be saved. He didn’t say that everyone’s personal guesswork on bible verses is the way to figure out christian doctrine & practice, including the relation of faith & salvation. Which is why he didn’t commission the apostles to go out, write, publish, & distribute the bible so every man, woman & child could make his own guesses on bible verses in order to determine truth. If the bible were the source of teachings then the first nine generations or so of Christians would have been out of luck as the bible wasn’t codified till 392 or so.

And since nowhere does the bible claim to have a detailed exposition of the gospel as preached by Sts Paul, Peter, John etc, it is futile to attempt to determine by scriptural exegesis what this gospel is that was preached. The bible is not a catechism, it is a narrative of salvation history and is also a witness to and attests to church teachings, but not the source. The word of God is more than just what is written, it is part of Divine Revelation, not the whole.

If one wants to determine truth on faith & salvation, one has to go to the church, the pillar & foundation of truth, and its teachings, not the bible as it is not clear on anything, even the divinity of Christ (the 8 million worldwide Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny Christ’s divinity testify to that). Church teachings will clarify the definition of faith, what salvation is, what we are saved from and how to obtain this salvation.

One works off of a false premise if s/he thinks the gospel as preached by the apostles, and what follows from it on various points, can be derived by scriptural exegesis. That is not what the apostles taught and they learned from Jesus himself.

Joe

this post seems to telling us not to read and learn from the Bible. I could not disagree more. What I quoted above is is not in conflict with what the church teaches and is in fact what is directly contained in the Gospel and letters of St. John as He heard those words and teaching from Christ Himself. The church in 392 gathered the oral accounts into the canon but did not write those accounts in 392. the Apostle John wrote those words in the first century as He heard them from Christ.

As for whether it is appropriate for catholics to read and learn from the Bible directly: I refer the previous poster to the Catechism of the catholic church which I keep next to my Bible by the side of my bed:

CCC 133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

so the very authority of the church forcefully exhorts all of us to learn by reading the scriptures. it is directly from the magisterium that we exhorted to read the Bible.

I also refer to

CCC 131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.” Hence “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.”

and

CCC 132 “Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.”

yes its true, who am I to interpet? I am not a priest or a theologian. so the poster has a point there, so whatever is posted here by me or anyone take for what it is worth. read the bible yourself in faith, pray over it, compare it to the CCC and even ask your priest - but still we are supposed to read it, quote it, and learn from it through each other. the CCC directs all of us to do that in sections 131-133 so that we will grow in our faith.

 

[Blinky]

I actually agree with Joe.

Many people think they can save themselves by dissecting the bible and personally interpreting every word. They neglect the Church and the Sacraments and put their faith in themselves.

 

[dcdurel]

this post seems to telling us not to read and learn from the Bible. I could not disagree more. What I quoted above is is not in conflict with what the church teaches and is in fact what is directly contained in the Gospel and letters of St. John as He heard those words and teaching from Christ Himself. The church in 392 gathered the oral accounts into the canon but did not write those accounts in 392. the Apostle John wrote those words in the first century as He heard them from Christ.

NO, the post said that we cannot LEARN the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached from reading or studing the bible, because the bible does NOT claim to be a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.
In other words, there is no book of the bible, there is no chapter of the bible that claims to be a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.
Yet, Jesus said we must believe the Gospel the apostles taught and preached to be saved. (Mark 16:16)
Why? Because Jesus revealed everything only to His apostles directly and through the Holy Spirit.
Mr 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
Thus, when we get into a discussion about doctrine, we should first learn Church teachings, because Church teachings come from the apostles, who learned directly from the Gospel that Jesus taught and preached. Church teachings do not come from guesswork on bible verses. The Church learned everything from the apostles, and later some of this was written in the bible, in the form of salvation history. Once we know the teachings the apostles handed down in the Church, then we can use the bible as a witness to these teachings. We can seldom use the bible as proof of the teachings, because the bible is rarely clear on any teaching. If it was, then all protestant denominations could agree on some doctrine. But they don't.

 

[dcdurel]

As for whether it is appropriate for catholics to read and learn from the Bible directly: I refer the previous poster to the Catechism of the catholic church which I keep next to my Bible by the side of my bed:
CCC 133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

I agree that the Church says we can learn about Jesus Christ from reading the scriptures. But, the Church does not say we can learn the Gospel He taught by reading the Scriptures. In fact, in the Catechism, the Church says that no one can proclaim the Gospel to himself.
Thus, we learn about Jesus, how He acted, how He taught, some of what He taught, what He did, by reading the Scriptures. But, salvation comes from believing the Gospel that He sent His apostles to teach and preach. And the whole and living Gospel is found ONLY in what
that apostles handed down to the Church. Church catechisms are simply a summary of this Gospel the apostles taught and preached.

I also refer to

CCC 131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.” Hence “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.”

Again, scripture serves the Church as her support and vigor. Scripture does not teach the Gospel by itself. Scripture is NOT the source of the Gospel that apostles preached and taught. And the Church says the Gospel is “the source of all saving truth and moral discipline”, because Jesus is the fullness of revelation and He taught ‘EVERYTHING’ only to His apostles.

and

CCC 132 “Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.”

Again, scripture only nourishes Christian instruction. Scripture does not instruct by itself. Jesus founded a Church to instruct the faithful

yes its true, who am I to interpet? I am not a priest or a theologian. so the poster has a point there, so whatever is posted here by me or anyone take for what it is worth. read the bible yourself in faith, pray over it, compare it to the CCC and even ask your priest - but still we are supposed to read it, quote it, and learn from it through each other. the CCC directs all of us to do that in sections 131-133 so that we will grow in our faith.

We can learn salvation history from the bible. We can learn about the person of Jesus from the bible. “Not to know scripture is not to know Christ”.
But, we cannot learn even the basic teachings of the Gospel He taught the apostles from the bible because it does not claim to have everything Jesus taught the apostles. The four Gospels are narratives of the life of Jesus. They do not claim to be the whole gospel the apostles taught and preached. Only the apostles were taught everything.

 

[dcdurel]

The futility of trying to learn the basics from the bible is illustrated by this very post. How does faith save? No one has answered this clearly yet. NIckB correctly said:
By Believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)?
By Repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)?
By Baptism (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)?
By the work of the Spirit (Johnn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)?
By declaring with our mouths (Luke 12:8; Rom 10:9)?
By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)?
By Works (Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:21, 24-25)?
By Grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)?
By His blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)?
By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)?
By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)?

Thus, it is all these, and more. It is only through the Church that we can learn how all these interrelate.

And even more basic is what does SALVATION mean?
Protestants always fall back on salvation by faith alone, in order to discuss their false idea of justification, and in doing so they miss the primary meaning of salvation.
And in this country, Catholics miss the primary meaning of salvation, because we are too concerned with the justificational aspects of it because we are always answering the Protestant errors. Thus, we always think salvation is ONLY concerned with going to heaven, and thus miss the primary meaning.

The Church teaches the primary meaning of salvation:

                                       As the kernel and center of His Good News, Christ proclaims salvation, this great gift of God which is liberation from everything that oppresses man but which is above all liberation from sin and the Evil One, in the joy of knowing God and being known by Him, of seeing Him, and of being given over to Him.

Evangelium nuntiandi
Pope Paul VI

Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to man’s will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act.
Veritatis splendor
Pope John Paul II

The subject of proclamation is Christ who was crucified, died and is risen: through him is accomplished our full and authentic liberation from evil, sin and death; through him God bestows “new life” that is divine and eternal. This is the “Good News” which changes man and his history, and which all peoples have a right to hear.
Mission of the Redeemer
Pope John Paul II

 

[dcdurel]

More of Church teachings on the primary meaning of savlation:

1. Christ Jesus, although He was rich, became poor in order to make us rich by means of His poverty.(95) St. Paul is speaking here of the mystery of the Incarnation of the eternal Son, who came to take on mortal human nature in order to save man from the misery into which sin had plunged him.
   Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation
   Authorized by Pope John Paul II

Before the Redemption, mankind was enslaved by sin, inclined to dominate rather than serve, living for self and not for others. But by the mystery of his Cross and Resurrection, we have been given the freedom and grace to live no longer for ourselves but for him. What a wonderful gift from Christ, our Saviour!
It was precisely for this reason that Christ died for all of us, to liberate us from the bond of selfishness from which by ourselves we could never escape, to make us free, and to enable us to live for him. This is the gift which Christ won for all of us: clergy, religious, laity.
**Address of Pope John Paul II **
to Clergy, Religious People and Laity
Cathedral of Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea)
Tuesday, 8 May 1984

To the question, “why mission?” we reply with the Church’s faith and experience that true liberation consists in opening oneself to the love of Christ. In him, and only in him, are we set free from all alienation and doubt, from slavery to the power of sin and death. Christ is truly “our peace” (Eph 2:14); “the love of Christ impels us” (2 Cor 5:14), giving meaning and joy to our life.
**Mission of the Redeemer **
Pope John Paul II

It is in the saving Cross of Jesus, in the gift of the Holy Spirit, in the Sacraments which flow forth from the pierced side of the Redeemer (cf. Jn 19:34), that believers find the grace and the strength always to keep God’s holy law, even amid the gravest of hardships.
Veritatis splendor
Pope John Paul II

Evangelization is the proclamation of salvation, which is a gift of God. Through the Word of God and the sacraments, man is freed in the first place from the power of sin and the power of the Evil One which oppress him; and he is brought into a communion of love with God. Following her Lord who “came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tm. 1:15), the Church desires the salvation of all people.
Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation
**Authorized by Pope John Paul II

**
Thus we see that the primary meaning of salvation is to be freed from the misery of sin. Jesus merited this grace to free us by His passion, death and resurrection. We receive this grace through first through the sacraments, baptism, etc. , and through prayer and obedience. But, the Church teaches (therefore Jesus teaches) that the pimary place we receive the grace to be freed from the misery of ours sins is in the sacrament of the Eucharist, the source and summit of the Christian life. That is why daily mass, Holy communion, and Eucharistic adoration is so important. Without this grace we are bound by our sins and can’t escape. Jesus came to free us from our sins. When Martin Luther and Calvin left the Church and the Mass, they no longer had this grace. So they became bound by their sins. They therefore concluded, from their own experience, that all men are like this and thus all men have no free will. They never realized that it was from the Mass that they at one point could obey God. They never realized that it was because they no longer had the grace of salvation that they became bound by their sins. That is why both Luther and Calvin denied that we have free will.

 

[Zahmir]

The futility of trying to learn the basics from the bible is illustrated by this very post. How does faith save? No one has answered this clearly yet. NIckB correctly said:
By Believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)?
By Repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)?
By Baptism (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)?
By the work of the Spirit (Johnn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)?
By declaring with our mouths (Luke 12:8; Rom 10:9)?
By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)?
By Works (Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:21, 24-25)?
By Grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)?
By His blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)?
By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)?
By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)?

Thus, it is all these, and more. It is only through the Church that we can learn how all these interrelate.

And even more basic is what does SALVATION mean?
Protestants always fall back on salvation by faith alone, in order to discuss their false idea of justification, and in doing so they miss the primary meaning of salvation.
And in this country, Catholics miss the primary meaning of salvation, because we are too concerned with the justificational aspects of it because we are always answering the Protestant errors. Thus, we always think salvation is ONLY concerned with going to heaven, and thus miss the primary meaning.

The Church teaches the primary meaning of salvation:

                                       As the kernel and center of His Good News, Christ proclaims salvation, this great gift of God which is liberation from everything that oppresses man but which is above all liberation from sin and the Evil One, in the joy of knowing God and being known by Him, of seeing Him, and of being given over to Him.

Evangelium nuntiandi
Pope Paul VI

Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to man’s will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act.
Veritatis splendor
Pope John Paul II

The subject of proclamation is Christ who was crucified, died and is risen: through him is accomplished our full and authentic liberation from evil, sin and death; through him God bestows “new life” that is divine and eternal. This is the “Good News” which changes man and his history, and which all peoples have a right to hear.
Mission of the Redeemer
Pope John Paul II

first of all… you didn’t answer the question with your papal quotes. Second of all, i still don’t understand what you’re saying. Is the bible just a guide? I would agree with you, I think, that we need the Apostolic Tradition to interpret the bible correctly. It would be very bad if every man interpreted the bible as he saw fit (Protestantism).

Also, I would like to note that the Apostles did not actually pass down everything they knew to the succeeding popes. It’s not like the newly-elected popes suddenly know everything there is to know.

So… I don’t get what you’re saying, basically.

 

[dcdurel]

first of all… you didn’t answer the question with your papal quotes. Second of all, i still don’t understand what you’re saying. Is the bible just a guide? I would agree with you, I think, that we need the Apostolic Tradition to interpret the bible correctly. It would be very bad if every man interpreted the bible as he saw fit (Protestantism).

Also, I would like to note that the Apostles did not actually pass down everything they knew to the succeeding popes. It’s not like the newly-elected popes suddenly know everything there is to know.

So… I don’t get what you’re saying, basically.

We cannot learn the Gospel the apostles taught and preached by reading the bible, because the bible does NOT claim to have a summary of this Gospel the apostles taught and preached. No chapter, no book of the bible claims to be a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.

We learn this Gospel, which is the entire Catholic faith, first from Church. And yes, the Popes and bishops do preserve this entire Gospel that apostles handed down. They did not suddenly become Catholic after all. They did begin as priests, then bishops, then the Pope, and the faith was the majority part of their daily life. There is no generation that “lost” the Gospel, then found it in scripture. The Catechism, and Catholic scholars are very clear about this.

Now, some history.
Why were the Church fathers all Catholic? Because they learned from the apostles. What did they learn? They learned the Gospel the apostles proclaimed. Therefore, the Gospel the apostles proclaimed is the entire Catholic faith.

Once we learn the Gospel, (the entire Catholic faith), then we can use the bible to “illuminate” teachings and as a “witness to teachings” In other words, if we know the teachings first, then we can see how these teachings were lived and expressed in the bible. Thus, the bible will re-inforce what we have learned from the Church.

For example. Since all men know the natural law to some extent, then all men, even athiests, pagans, Muslims, etc. can read the bible and understand Jesus when He talkes about morality. They can understand how Jesus clears up basic moral teachings.

But, if we do not KNOW a teaching already, then the bible does no good. For example. Those Protestants, who have never heard the correct teaching on the Eucharist, will not understand what Jesus is talking about when they read those verses referring to the Eucharist.
But, those Catholics who have been taught correctly about the Eucharist will understand Jesus much better when they read those verses about the Eucharist. And those verses will “nourish” the teaching they already knew.
In the same way, Protestants who have never heard the Catholic teachings on confession, and read the verses in the bible that refer to the sacrament, will have no idea what Jesus is talking about. But, Catholics will understand, and the bible will nourish that teaching.

 

[dcdurel]

In the same way Protestants who have been taught salvation by faith alone, will not understand Jesus when He says if we wish to enter into life, “keep the commandments”. Since they have been taught that keeping the commandments has nothing to do with whether they go to heaven or hell, they have no idea what Jesus is talking about. Catholics, who have been taught the correct teaching, that the apostles handed down, will understand Jesus and these bible verses will “nourish” their faith.

We could go on and on. The point is that we can learn the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, ONLY through the Church. We cannot learn the teachings of this Gospel only by reading the bible. Jesus said in Mark 16:16, that salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles preached and taught.
He did not say that salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles wrote.

Thus, the apostles taught and preached the Gospel first, by explaining the creed, the sacraments, the commandments and prayer. After the people learned the Gospel, the Catholic faith, then they wrote scripture to give a detailed account of salvation history. The Gospels are narratives of the life of Jesus. From the Gospels we can learn about Jesus and how He acted. But, we cannot learn the basic doctrines He taught unless we knew them already. But, the bible does help us understand and remember teachings IF we already know them. Some people will claim that they learned some teaching from the bible. BUT how do they know their interpretion was correct, until they confirm it with Church teachings?
Thus, we must learn doctrine from the Church, before these doctrines can be nourished by the bible.
I gave the primary meaning of salvation as an example. The bible says that Jesus came to save us from our sins.
What does that mean? What does salvation mean? Protestants can’t agree and thus they have no idea of the primary meaning. The bible does not clearly define the meaning of salvation. Even Catholics cannot know the primary meaning of salvation, even by studing the Catechism. We must be taught. Since most Catholics have not been taught clearly the primary meaning of salvation, I gave the teachings of the Popes on the primary meaning of salvation, so we could learn.

Now, that we know the primary meaning, we can better understand the central point of the Gospel:

So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
John 8:36

 "and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness."

**Romans 6:18 **

 "Our old self was crucified with him so that...we might no longer be enslaved to sin"

Romans 6:6

“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become
slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.”
Romans 6:22

 "Christ came into the world to save sinners"

**1Tim 1:15
**
Unless we know exactly what the Church teaches, then we can never fully understand these verses. I quoted the Popes, because the Catechisms are not clear. The Catechisms are not clear, because Catechisms are for those who already know the primary initial proclamation of the Gospel.

The Popes have been teaching this, in their encyclicals because they realize we have lost the basic meaning of salvation. So, they are trying to re-evanglize the Catholic world again, first, and then Catholics are supposed to do the same for all men.

 

[JLM316]

In the same way Protestants who have been taught salvation by faith alone, will not understand Jesus when He says if we wish to enter into life, “keep the commandments”. Since they have been taught that keeping the commandments has nothing to do with whether they go to heaven or hell, they have no idea what Jesus is talking about. Catholics, who have been taught the correct teaching, that the apostles handed down, will understand Jesus and these bible verses will “nourish” their faith.

We could go on and on. The point is that we can learn the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, ONLY through the Church. We cannot learn the teachings of this Gospel only by reading the bible. Jesus said in Mark 16:16, that salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles preached and taught.
He did not say that salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles wrote.

Thus, the apostles taught and preached the Gospel first, by explaining the creed, the sacraments, the commandments and prayer. After the people learned the Gospel, the Catholic faith, then they wrote scripture to give a detailed account of salvation history. The Gospels are narratives of the life of Jesus. From the Gospels we can learn about Jesus and how He acted. But, we cannot learn the basic doctrines He taught unless we knew them already. But, the bible does help us understand and remember teachings IF we already know them. Some people will claim that they learned some teaching from the bible. BUT how do they know their interpretion was correct, until they confirm it with Church teachings?
Thus, we must learn doctrine from the Church, before these doctrines can be nourished by the bible.
I gave the primary meaning of salvation as an example. The bible says that Jesus came to save us from our sins.
What does that mean? What does salvation mean? Protestants can’t agree and thus they have no idea of the primary meaning. The bible does not clearly define the meaning of salvation. Even Catholics cannot know the primary meaning of salvation, even by studing the Catechism. We must be taught. Since most Catholics have not been taught clearly the primary meaning of salvation, I gave the teachings of the Popes on the primary meaning of salvation, so we could learn.

Now, that we know the primary meaning, we can better understand the central point of the Gospel:

So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
John 8:36

 "and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness."

**Romans 6:18 **

 "Our old self was crucified with him so that...we might no longer be enslaved to sin"

Romans 6:6

“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become
slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.”
Romans 6:22

 "Christ came into the world to save sinners"

**1Tim 1:15
**
Unless we know exactly what the Church teaches, then we can never fully understand these verses. I quoted the Popes, because the Catechisms are not clear. The Catechisms are not clear, because Catechisms are for those who already know the primary initial proclamation of the Gospel.

The Popes have been teaching this, in their encyclicals because they realize we have lost the basic meaning of salvation. So, they are trying to re-evanglize the Catholic world again, first, and then Catholics are supposed to do the same for all men.

I never said the bible replaces church teaching. you unfairly twisted and misinterpreted what I was trying to say - which is one of the reasons protestants and catholics are divided - we keep shouting at each other without listening to each other. I am done and won’t post further here. its pointless. I am also quite discouraged. it seems easier to shout down someone than to try to find agreement by understanding what the other person is trying to say.read my post for further details. I mean really read it - not hone in on key words which create debatable items.

 

[heisenburg]

After reading both of your arguments its quite interesting to see that you guys actually agree…

Both are agruing (effectivly) that though scripture is extremly important, it is not the ONLY rule of thumb to go by. Arguement can be ended for the two of you actually with one passage (though probably wont satisfy our protestant brothers)

1 Timothy 3:15

The bastian of truth is the…

Church

What suprises me about the whole thing is that both of you are Catholic. and both are arguing the same thing…

Peace to each of you in christ…

 

[NickB]

The Bible says hearing but reading the Word would have the same effect.

The Baptist
allischalmers

How, about a def person?

How about a def and blind person?

How about a mentally challaged person?

How about someone who can neither read or write?

How about an Athiest?

 

[Liberian]

Zahmir,

Sex analogous to the Eucharist? I would say that a family dinner is more analogous to the Eucharist, while sex is more analogous to the relationship between Christ and the Church in Heaven. (The latter forms a basis for a LOT of Christian family morality, by the way, on issues ranging from polygamy through divorce to artificial birth control.)

• Liberian

 

[Zahmir]

Zahmir,

Sex analogous to the Eucharist? I would say that a family dinner is more analogous to the Eucharist, while sex is more analogous to the relationship between Christ and the Church in Heaven. (The latter forms a basis for a LOT of Christian family morality, by the way, on issues ranging from polygamy through divorce to artificial birth control.)

• Liberian

WEll, you do have a point there, and I agree with you. What I mean to suggest is that the Body of Christ and the Church as the Bride of Christ are not so much eschatological terms as they are real, active, and dynamic terms describing a present reality. Yes, certainly, one aspect is eschatological, but another is simply the here and now. We ARE the Body of Christ.

 

[Damo73]

sola fide

1. From the nature of faith itself, because faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 1:29). It is one of the fruits of the Spirit, and therefore cannot be meritorious (Galatians 5:22). Justifying faith terminates on Christ and in Christ, in his blood and sacrifice, and in the promises of God. It involves trust and dependence, not on one’s self, but objectively on Christ. Faith denies it own justifying value, and affirms the sole merit of that on which it trusts (Romans 3:25-26; 4:20-22; Galatians 3:26; Ephesians 1:12-13; 1 John 5:10).
2. The believer is justified without the deeds of the law, Romans 3:28; and God justifies the ungodly in Christ, Romans 4:50.
3. Justification is asserted to rest altogether upon a different foundation from works: It is in the name of Christ, 1 Corinthians 6:11; by his blood, Romans 5:9; freely, by his grace, by faith, Romans 3:24-28.
4. Instead of our being justified by good works, such works are rendered possible to us only in that new relationship to God into which we are introduced by justification (Ephesians 2;8-10; Romans. chapters 6 and 7).

Believers are accounted right with God through their simple trust in Christ alone. Christ alone is the object of justifying faith.