If I am saved by faith alone, why do I need to read the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMartyr73340
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
After many years of believing bible only, along with my convert friends, we’ve been beat up with the holy scriptures so much and have seen the misapplication of it that we love listening to the priest more now. We followed yearly bible readings on our own. Our sermons lasted for 45 minutes. Then we had bible classes basically 3 times per week. I can say that reading the bible brought me to my Catholic faith. What I’ve found interesting is that most Catholics do not even know their own faith, which is sad to me. I always hear people say very strange things that when followed up turn out to be incorrect. I check, because some of them are so disturbing that I’d no longer believe in the faith if it taught such heresy and contradiction to the teachings I’ve read in the Catechism and history.
 
you bought a car, did you read the manual,
you joined a football club, you did read who was playing on your team?
you opened a bank, you do know their fees…?

get the idea,
it might be free to get into heaven,
but do you know what Jesus says about anything,
do you want to live to please him?
Perhaps you want someone to HELP you? do you know who the Holy Spirit is
and what He does, better get a bible and read up on Him.

What about the end of the world? are you going to guess it’s in 2012 or whenever,
its in the Bible. The answers are all there.

Sure you don’t have to read it,
you can jump in your car and do a hundred in a fifty zone,
sooner or later you’ll get pulled up,
and don’t think God is on vacation in Andromeda or some other galaxy,
He’ s got his eyes firmly on you,
otherwise why save you if he isn’t going to get you ready to spend eternity with Him?
 
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

A man designs a supersonic jet, learns to fly it, then writes a manual. Only the manual is actually written by an apprentice that writes down the steps of learning to fly the jet, to take care of the jet. Given the fact that an experienced pilot that happens to be trained by the man who built the jet, which would you actually prefer - the experienced pilot or the manual?

Jeopardy song playing in the background… (I just hear it)

I have a choice:
Manual?
Pilot?

You have an engineer that graduated from a college. He studied civil engineering. He learned all sorts of formulas and stuff. There is a man that’s been building bridges for 40 years. He has a basic education with some college, lets say. Who do you believe will be the real lead on the job? Drawing from real world experience, I know that the man with 40 years experience will be constantly utilized for his expertise. That’s the way the real world works. All of the nuances any subject contains could never be included in a manual.

If you used your own advice you’d know that Peter advised against isolating oneself from the Church.

“no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation” (2 Pt. 1:20)

“some difficult passages, the meaning of which the ignorant and untrained distort, as they do also in the case of the other Scriptures, to their own ruin” (2 Pt. 3: 16)

And I’m just getting started.

I nearly died laughing out loud in the middle of the night doing my homework when I read this post. No offense intended, but you sound just like the people in my family heritage. had you read the bible in more detail you would have already known that this view of scripture is futile to believe. Scripture would not exist without the traditions and teachings passed down by Christ through the apostles. The same was true for the Jews.
you bought a car, did you read the manual,
you joined a football club, you did read who was playing on your team?
you opened a bank, you do know their fees…?

get the idea,
it might be free to get into heaven,
but do you know what Jesus says about anything,
do you want to live to please him?
Perhaps you want someone to HELP you? do you know who the Holy Spirit is
and what He does, better get a bible and read up on Him.

What about the end of the world? are you going to guess it’s in 2012 or whenever,
its in the Bible. The answers are all there.

Sure you don’t have to read it,
you can jump in your car and do a hundred in a fifty zone,
sooner or later you’ll get pulled up,
and don’t think God is on vacation in Andromeda or some other galaxy,
He’ s got his eyes firmly on you,
otherwise why save you if he isn’t going to get you ready to spend eternity with Him?
 
True, but when you read that particular passage in context, the author is speaking about the old testament, not the new. Just thought I’d point that out.
Right. The OT has all that is needed to bring one to salvation. Don’t you believe that?
 
Right. The OT has all that is needed to bring one to salvation. Don’t you believe that?
I apologize. I was thinking about a different passage and got a bit arogrant there for a second. Sorry about that. However, what I was referring to about a different passage still stands.

I’m lacking a lot of sleep lately being in a graduate class crammed into 2 weeks. I’m exhausted and half out of my mind. I have one more class like this and will never try it again.
 
Right. The OT has all that is needed to bring one to salvation. Don’t you believe that?
Since the NT centers on Christ and there was no salvation prior to His coming, no the OT is not all that it is needed. Christ is needed. The prophecies concerning Jesus are clearly contained in the OT, but they were hidden. We see them now in the light of Christ. The New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.
 
Since the NT centers on Christ and there was no salvation prior to His coming…
Really? There was no salvation? Well why do think God took up Enoch, and God took Elijah up to heaven? Not to save them/him? And what about all of the OT references to God as “savior?”
…no the OT is not all that it is needed.
Paul says the OT scriptures have the ability “to give you the wisdom which leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus;” that’s the verse under consideration; don’t you agree with Paul?
Christ is needed.
The context of my posts is 2 Tim 3:15, in which the ability of the OT scriptures to bring one to salvation is the subject.
The prophecies concerning Jesus are clearly contained in the OT, but they were hidden.
“Clearly contained…but they were hidden?” Forgive me, but that makes no sense.
We see them now in the light of Christ. The New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.
What does that have to do with Paul’s statement concerning the OT and its ability to give one the wisdom which leads to salvation through faith in Christ (2 Tim 3:15)?
 
This is what separates Sola Fide from those who do not believe in it - not the quite common misunderstanding that “As long as you have Faith, you can murder somebody tomorrow, you’re going to be saved”. If you have faith, you won’t murder somebody tomorrow. That’s for sure. So that part is completely the same between Catholics and Lutherans and the like.

Did that make sense?
Are you sure? Here is a little quote from Martin Luther:

’I can commit adultery a thousand times in one day and and still be assured of my salvation."

I can assure you that no Catholic clergy has preached that.

There is also a problem with believing that if one has faith then they won’t sin. Witness the number of televangelists that have gone down in flames. Everyone certainly believed that they had faith. One may not murder another but how far is too far? An affair? Just thinking about it? Taking a little too much time off work while being paid for it? Tasting a grape in a grocery store? People of faith sin, in many and varied ways. That is why Paul, a man of great faith, still worked out his salvation in fear and trembling.
 
Really? There was no salvation? Well why do think God took up Enoch, and God took Elijah up to heaven? Not to save them/him? And what about all of the OT references to God as “savior?”
Yes, pick the exceptions. You are absolutely right and so I’m sure you have no problem with the assumption of Mary, body and soul, into heaven and the Catholic doctrine of the “communion of saints”.

There is a reason that Christ descended before His resurrection. It was to rescue those souls who had been waiting for the doors of heaven to be opened. They were not damned, they were in prison waiting for the Savior. Until then they could not enter. Yes, God made several exceptions as you have pointed out.

As for the references to God as savior, yes, the entire story of salvation history centers on waiting for the Messiah. But their idea of what they would be saved from was a little different than what God had planned for them. It is why they did not recognize the Messiah when He came. After the fall of Adam and Eve, there was no salvation until Christ’s sacrifice was offered.
Paul says the OT scriptures have the ability “to give you the wisdom which leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus;” that’s the verse under consideration; don’t you agree with Paul?
Yes, but without Christ, who IS the Gospel, there is no salvation. The Old Testament is only part of the story. It is completed in Christ and therefore it is incomplete without Christ.
“Clearly contained…but they were hidden?” Forgive me, but that makes no sense.

What does that have to do with Paul’s statement concerning the OT and its ability to give one the wisdom which leads to salvation through faith in Christ (2 Tim 3:15)?
The OT only makes sense in light of the NT. The prophesies contained in the OT are now clear. The typology that exists throughout the Old Testament concerning Christ becomes evident only when read in the context of the New Testament. So yes, everything in the OT points to Christ, but that was hidden until Christ came. So yes, it makes plenty of sense. Sorry I wasn’t clearer.

No one has said that the OT does not contain wisdom and yes this wisdom should lead one to Christ, but that doesn’t mean that it is sufficient. You can lead a horse to water, providing there is water to which he can be led. It is Christ that is necessary and He is not revealed until the NT, therefore the NT is necessary.
 
Because it isn’t in Scripture; therefore, I’m able to answer your question in the negative.
You proposed that one need not believe that God is love in order to be saved.

How do you know this?

Because it’s not in Scripture? Okay.

Then what* is *needed to believe in order to be saved? Please cite the Scripture. Chapter and verse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top