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

[SeekGodsHelp]

Seekgodshelp.com*Links that have changed lives all over the world. Search and further your knowledge of God.

 

[ddarko]

Hmmm… let me see if I am understanding you correctly.

If anyone believes in Jesus Christ, they should logically be Catholic?

I mean to say that if anyone did their homework, then the only logical choice is Catholicism.

And by logic you mean: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity?

By logic I mean inference using logical axioms and historical facts.

Think about it, do you think one can discover which religion is TRUE by FAITH?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Reason can lead you in many ways and if reason was all that mattered then where would we be?

It is not necessarily reason. Was Paul converted or caused to see by reason? Did the scales fall from his eyes by reason? Does the Holy Spirit lead you into all truths by reason?

Actually, Paul was using Reason.

If I see someone, it is not irrational to believe they exist unless there is valid reason to think I am seeing things. In the case of Paul, there were enough witnesses of what happened to him.

Secondly, Paul didn’t go from his personal experience to just any religion. He went logically from the fact that Christ is real to the Apostles.

So yes, REASON is what gets you to the truth. Reason lead PAUL to the truth.

THEN, Paul had FAITH in the things described by that religion regarding things that cannot be proven by REASON.

For Paul to just go and randomly embrace any religion and believe in things that cannot be proven is dumb. That is what leads to heresy and so many different religions.

We plant seeds. That is all we can do. I can’t make a plant grow any faster that it is to grow by putting more water, more fertilizer, more sunlight, telling it to grow, it is a lilly in the field and the splendor of that creation, like 1voice is not at my command. Frustration is born of lack of patience. I have seen Guanophore state, perhaps, the time is not now, there is lack of readiness and to be frustrated is not planting seeds.

I am all for planting seeds. But the seeds have to be reasonable.

One cannot plant seeds that lead to inconclusive conclusions.

Reason on. Many can reason that God does not exist with reason. Many can reason that God exists.

???

I am yet to see REASON that God does not exist. When proofs for God’s existence are understood properly, one can see that it is REASONABLE that God exists.

Reason is not the basis of Faith. For by Faith you have been saved, the substance of those things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Reason is not mentioned. Faith, Hope and love abide and it is Charity that endures forever.

lol. Ok, the thing you have to understand is that what you said above is also a theological conclusion arrived at through REASON.

So first understand what the passage is saying.

One arrives at WHAT TO BELIEVE merely through REASON and God’s grace.

Then one has FAITH in those truths that they have discovered.

So salvation is not obtained for REASONING to the right religion. That is obviously TRUE. But on the other hand, one arrives at the RIGHT religion USING reason and grace.

Then one starts the journey to be saved.

Don’t confuse REASONING to discover “what/who to believe on how to be saved” with HOW one is saved.

God Bless

 

[SeekGodsHelp]

SeekGodsHelp.com*Links that have changed lives all over the world. Search and further your knowledge of God.

 

[ddarko]

Reason is based on evidence. “Faith is the evidence of things unseen”

Of course friend.

The point I was making is that we have FAITH in things UNSEEN. BUT, we arrive at the correct set of propositions that describe the UNSEEN by using REASON.

So for an example, what I mean is that if someone believes in a self-refuting religion that is stupid. It is obviously false and cannot be the correct set of propositions to have FAITH in.

“Faith comes by hearing.”

“If you hear … then obey”

“Those that hear … and obey … realize that it produces freedom” … Jesus.

That is the Gospel.

Yes. Don’t confuse the Gospel with WHAT IS NOT in the gospel and known by REASON.

Can you find the true Religion by FAITH? (the answer is no btw. its a meaningless thing to do).

So you find the true religion using REASON. Then you have FAITH in the proposition dealing with the UNSEEN in that religion.

Did that clarify the problem?

God Bless

 

[CopticChristian]

Actually, Paul was using Reason.

If I see someone, it is not irrational to believe they exist unless there is valid reason to think I am seeing things. In the case of Paul, there were enough witnesses of what happened to him.

Secondly, Paul didn’t go from his personal experience to just any religion. He went logically from the fact that Christ is real to the Apostles.

So yes, REASON is what gets you to the truth. Reason lead PAUL to the truth.

THEN, Paul had FAITH in the things described by that religion regarding things that cannot be proven by REASON.

For Paul to just go and randomly embrace any religion and believe in things that cannot be proven is dumb. That is what leads to heresy and so many different religions.

I am all for planting seeds. But the seeds have to be reasonable.

One cannot plant seeds that lead to inconclusive conclusions.

???

I am yet to see REASON that God does not exist. When proofs for God’s existence are understood properly, one can see that it is REASONABLE that God exists.

lol. Ok, the thing you have to understand is that what you said above is also a theological conclusion arrived at through REASON.

So first understand what the passage is saying.

One arrives at WHAT TO BELIEVE merely through REASON and God’s grace.

Then one has FAITH in those truths that they have discovered.

So salvation is not obtained for REASONING to the right religion. That is obviously TRUE. But on the other hand, one arrives at the RIGHT religion USING reason and grace.

Then one starts the journey to be saved.

Don’t confuse REASONING to discover “what/who to believe on how to be saved” with HOW one is saved.

God Bless

You are married to linear logic. Paul uses circular logic. Logic is not necessarily a direct line for if it was Paul would not have spent so much time explaining indirectly and using imagery. You could and I and others could learn from Paul. I find your haughtiness a hindrance to what it is you are trying to accomplish. You mean well and with Charity you could accomplish much.

 

[ddarko]

You are married to linear logic. Paul uses circular logic.

???

Circular Logic does not lead to any valid conclusion. In fact, it is a fallacious way of reasoning. So I am not sure what you are saying here.

And NO, Paul does not use circular logic.

Logic is not necessarily a direct line for if it was Paul would not have spent so much time explaining indirectly and using imagery.

I think you are confusing two things here. Paul is explaining MATTERS OF FAITH in Scripture. He is not out there explaining HOW to choose the right religion through REASON.

You could and I and others could learn from Paul. I find your haughtiness a hindrance to what it is you are trying to accomplish. You mean well and with Charity you could accomplish much.

I am not being haughty here. Please understand my position correctly before you attack it.

Right now you are confusing me as saying that we believe in divinely revealed truths because they are REASONABLE. That is NOT what I am saying. In fact, that would be heretical I think.

On the contrary, my position is that we find the true religion by REASON. Then we HAVE FAITH in what is claimed as divine revelation in that religion and don’t bother about whether the revelation is REASONABLE (other than whether it is self-refuting of course).

God Bless

 

[1voice]

Can you find the true Religion by FAITH? (the answer is no btw. its a meaningless thing to do).
God Bless

I respectfully agree to disagree with you my friend… Based on the fact that…

‘Unless you are born from above … you cannot see the kingdom of God.’

… Jesus

 

[CopticChristian]

???

Circular Logic does not lead to any valid conclusion. In fact, it is a fallacious way of reasoning. So I am not sure what you are saying here.

And NO, Paul does not use circular logic.

I think you are confusing two things here. Paul is explaining MATTERS OF FAITH in Scripture. He is not out there explaining HOW to choose the right religion through REASON.

I am not being haughty here. Please understand my position correctly before you attack it.

Right now you are confusing me as saying that we believe in divinely revealed truths because they are REASONABLE. That is NOT what I am saying. In fact, that would be heretical I think.

On the contrary, my position is that we find the true religion by REASON. Then we HAVE FAITH in what is claimed as divine revelation in that religion and don’t bother about whether the revelation is REASONABLE (other than whether it is self-refuting of course).

God Bless

Paul uses imagery. Paul draws on what is known and points to what is known in the past and applies it to the present. He does not ask questions and answer them as you do and mock. Has God abandoned his people he asks. By no means he says and explains in no direct way. If you believe it is direct then you will wonder as to why Protestants have mangled Paul to their own destruction. He is not linear and mocking as you are. I don’t believe you mean to be so. I believe that you would be better served by asking a question, letting it sit and see what you get. You would be more likely to be listened to if you did. Guanophore is direct at times and not at others. He has the mind of Paul and I believe that is the mind I want. It is because of this approach that I am reminded of what I hear in Paul, John Paul II and the Master himself Jesus. Read and see if you see the Master deal with problems as you do directly without causing wonder. We are all nothing more than students of the Master. I am the least of his pupils.

 

[1voice]

Of course friend.

The point I was making is that we have FAITH in things UNSEEN.

God Bless

That is not what the verse communicates…

‘Faith IS the evidence of things unseen.’

St Stephen was ‘full of faith’ … He spoke in his own defense using the same book and drawing from the exact same history as the people that stoned him to death … with Saul/Paul … totally approving. Stephen’s reservoir of faith made him see the same facts … from God’s perspective. Saul found Stephens perspective intolerable… until he became Paul. … and he could not even begin to see God’s logical perspective of the Jewish faith and its relationship to Christianity until he was ‘born from above’. No logic in the universe was going to change Saul’s mind… he was the best of the best, logical Pharisee (lawyer) doing God’s work… period… end of statement.

Faith comes first … then the correct logic can follow. Not vice versa.

Faith is actually having the peaceful certainty of God. ‘By faith … the worlds were made’. Faith is knowing for sure. Faith has no question in it. Faith is absolutely certain.

Human logic cannot lead to faith. Faith operates according to God’s logic which is completely different from human logic as Saul/Paul and Stephen illustrate… God’s logic is above mans logic. …‘My ways are above your ways as the heavens are above the earth’.

Unless a man is born of faith … he cant think with the right kind of logic. Man’s logic comes from a mind that is separated from truth and therefore by definition is fatally flawed.

 

[guanophore]

That is not what the verse communicates...

‘Faith IS the evidence of things unseen.’

St Stephen was ‘full of faith’ … He spoke in his own defense using the same book and drawing from the exact same history as the people that stoned him to death … with Saul/Paul … totally approving. Stephen’s reservoir of faith made him see the same facts … from God’s perspective. Saul found Stephens perspective intolerable… until he became Paul. … and he could not even begin to see God’s logical perspective of the Jewish faith and its relationship to Christianity until he was ‘born from above’. No logic in the universe was going to change Saul’s mind… he was the best of the best, logical Pharisee (lawyer) doing God’s work… period… end of statement.

Faith comes first … then the correct logic can follow. Not vice versa.

With all due respect, 1voice, though your faith seems quite strong, it is not evident that logic has followed.

And though I do agree with your premise that faith seeks understanding, one can also reason one’s way to God. This is possible because God has created the human mind to seek after Him and find Him. Once doing so, one must still make the leap of faith, but the two work together, except in cases like yours, where you throw reason to the side for fear it will take you away from your faith experience.

Human logic cannot lead to faith. Faith operates according to God’s logic which is completely different from human logic as Saul/Paul and Stephen illustrate… God’s logic is above mans logic. …‘My ways are above your ways as the heavens are above the earth’.

God has fashioned the human soul so as to be empty without HImself. For this reason, the mind yearns and longs for God.

Acts 17:24-27
24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 **that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. **

It is true that God’s way of reasoning is far above ours, but that does not mean we cannot find HIm through reason. You seem to have abrogated reason, so that you can cling to your faith experience. It seems that this works for you, and you are happy this way. Most of us, however, are not able to shut down our minds, and must find a way for our reason to enter into faith.

Unless a man is born of faith … he cant think with the right kind of logic. Man’s logic comes from a mind that is separated from truth and therefore by definition is fatally flawed.

This concept is incorrect because it is based upon the Calvanistic heresy of total depravity. On the contrary, our logic is designed by God to work in and through Him for His glory. Although our apprehension of the Truth is wounded by original sin, it is not so “fatally flawed” that it cannot comprehend God. This is made evident in the great discourse of Paul in Romans 2, where he shows that even Pagans, who have never heard of God, can live according to God’s design for them.

Rom 2:12-16
12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. **15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. **

What God desires of man is written into our very being, which is made in HIs image and likeness.

 

[ddarko]

I respectfully agree to disagree with you my friend… Based on the fact that…

‘Unless you are born from above … you cannot see the kingdom of God.’

… Jesus

Ok just think please about what you said above.

You don’t know that “unless you were born from above…” you are saved. Perhaps you are saved if you break the cycle of Karma (Budhism) or you are saved if you obey the Koran (Islam).

So FIRST, you need to figure out which on to believe in. That is done by God given reason.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Paul uses imagery. Paul draws on what is known and points to what is known in the past and applies it to the present. He does not ask questions and answer them as you do and mock.

WHAT exactly is your problem here?

FIRST, you make claims that Paul is using Circular Logic . Now you are telling me Paul doesn’t ask questions and mock. I already made it clear what Paul is dealing with. And for your information, he does ask questions at times.

Has God abandoned his people he asks. By no means he says and explains in no direct way. If you believe it is direct then you will wonder as to why Protestants have mangled Paul to their own destruction. He is not linear and mocking as you are. I don’t believe you mean to be so. I believe that you would be better served by asking a question, letting it sit and see what you get.

What else do you think I am doing?

Also please, stop MIXING theology with this. The question here is pertains to picking the right religion. You can’t pick the right religion USING Theology of a given religion. That is illogical.

So while I ask questions, I am not going to settle for a retarded answer.

You would be more likely to be listened to if you did. Guanophore is direct at times and not at others. He has the mind of Paul and I believe that is the mind I want. It is because of this approach that I am reminded of what I hear in Paul, John Paul II and the Master himself Jesus. Read and see if you see the Master deal with problems as you do directly without causing wonder. We are all nothing more than students of the Master. I am the least of his pupils.

Sure, but right now you are acting exactly like what you accuse me of.

You are TELLING me HOW TO DO my posting without just asking questions and “letting it sit”.

So please, I honestly don’t have time to argue with a fellow Catholic on my methodology. What I am saying is rational. If it is irrational, I am willing to entertain your claim and re-evaluate my position.

But don’t go around telling me to be like Paul when me and Paul aren’t even doing the same thing.

St. Paul was teaching the FAITH. I am here explaining to a person how he arrives at WHO or WHAT to believe regarding teaching in the first place. Do you understand?

I am sick and tired of people who believe in OTHER people simply because the speaker is attractive or seems kind, seems loving, seems like a nice guy etc. None of those things are merits to believe someone’s teaching authority on unseen matters.

So the right thing to do is to DO YOUR ANALYSIS USING REASON and then figure out who and what to believe regarding teaching.

The irony here is, you as a Catholic is trying the most irrational attempts at converting. You are trying to prove his position wrong USING your theology. That is an impossible thing to do and frankly stems from a misguided view that the Bible as a whole only has ONE possible interpretation that is logically consistent. On the contrary, it can have many possible interpretations.

God Bless

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

The scriptures say that faith comes from hearing God’s word.

Since both the church and the scriptures are vessels of conveying God’s word, obviously they are good to have if we want faith and salvation.

Are they indispensable? Who cares? Since they are obviously valuable towards imparting God’s word, and thereby imparting faith, only a fool would dispense with either the scriptures or the church…

This is more a question about Protestant theology than Catholic theology. As far as I understand, some Protestants believe that you are saved by “faith alone”. They call this doctrine “Sola Fide”. This means that if you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior, you will go to heaven. How you behave after you are saved is largely irrelevant, if I understand the doctrine correctly. But if this is true, why do Protestants insist that people read the Bible after they are saved? What is the point?

The way I see it, the original purpose of the Sola Fide doctrine (faith alone) was to emphasize that no external or man-made authority (like the Catholic Church) was necessary for salivation. But in a way this contradicts the second major doctrine of Protestansim, Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone). The purpose of Sola Scriptura was to establish the Bible as the new ultimate authority of the faith (instead of the Church). But you can’t have it both ways. You cannot simultaneously believe in one doctrine that rejects all authority and at the same time believe in another doctrine that establishes an authority.

Does this line of reasoning make sense? Sorry if somebody already mentioned this.

 

[CopticChristian]

WHAT exactly is your problem here?

FIRST, you make claims that Paul is using Circular Logic . Now you are telling me Paul doesn’t ask questions and mock. I already made it clear what Paul is dealing with. And for your information, he does ask questions at times.

What else do you think I am doing?

Also please, stop MIXING theology with this. The question here is pertains to picking the right religion. You can’t pick the right religion USING Theology of a given religion. That is illogical.

So while I ask questions, I am not going to settle for a retarded answer.

Sure, but right now you are acting exactly like what you accuse me of.

You are TELLING me HOW TO DO my posting without just asking questions and “letting it sit”.

So please, I honestly don’t have time to argue with a fellow Catholic on my methodology. What I am saying is rational. If it is irrational, I am willing to entertain your claim and re-evaluate my position.

But don’t go around telling me to be like Paul when me and Paul aren’t even doing the same thing.

St. Paul was teaching the FAITH. I am here explaining to a person how he arrives at WHO or WHAT to believe regarding teaching in the first place. Do you understand?

I am sick and tired of people who believe in OTHER people simply because the speaker is attractive or seems kind, seems loving, seems like a nice guy etc. None of those things are merits to believe someone’s teaching authority on unseen matters.

So the right thing to do is to DO YOUR ANALYSIS USING REASON and then figure out who and what to believe regarding teaching.

The irony here is, you as a Catholic is trying the most irrational attempts at converting. You are trying to prove his position wrong USING your theology. That is an impossible thing to do and frankly stems from a misguided view that the Bible as a whole only has ONE possible interpretation that is logically consistent. On the contrary, it can have many possible interpretations.

God Bless

My biggest problem with you is this. I have offended you. I have engaged in your discussion and offered what may be considerd advice you did not ask for. I have caused confusion. I believe that I will be more thoughtful in any of these responses and ask you to forgive my indescretion and leave it that.:imsorry:

 

[ddarko]

My biggest problem with you is this. I have offended you. I have engaged in your discussion and offered what may be considerd advice you did not ask for. I have caused confusion. I believe that I will be more thoughtful in any of these responses and ask you to forgive my indescretion and leave it that.:imsorry:

No worries. I was never actually angry with you.

I understand where you are coming from. It’s easy to confuse what I am saying as ‘we believe in divine revelation because the truths seem reasonable’ which is a gravely incorrect position for a Catholic to hold.

But that is not what I am saying. My concern is with grasping the right religion according to the evidence available using Reason. So in this case, given that Christ’s death and resurrection is historical, how does one find out the right religion is the question I am drawing the attention to.

After one finds out the right religion using available evidence, he/she must give full assent to the truths of that religion whether it looks reasonable or unreasonable (barring self refuting truths). Because of the gravity of the commitment made, it is essential that one makes sure they have the right faith according to the evidence before they give full assent.

This is why I said examples like going from a personal experience of Jesus (evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and answers prayers) to books of William Shakespeare as divinely inspired would be irrational. In the same way, there is no immediate way to conclude from evidence of Jesus’s existence that the Bible is divinely inspired. One has to figure out how that conclusion is arrived at. If one would do that, or simply follow the reason starting from the existence of Christ, one can discover the complete truth that one should have FAITH in. That is the truths from Tradition, Scripture and the Authority of the Church - The Catholic Church.

God Bless

 

[SteveGC]

ddarko’s line of reasoning has caused me to ponder possible linkages between an individual’s upbringing and their subsequent growth into an awareness of the reasonableness of their faith.

When does one begin to use reason to discern the authenticity of belief? Specifically, how does a cradle Catholic make this transition? Or, is Catholicism simply sufficiently and inherently reasonable as the true Church that a young adult Catholic need only exercise a modest amount of his reason to validate his path - and the Church Herself is inherently designed to lead him down this road to validation?

And, conversely, does a non-Catholic who was raised non-Catholic unwittingly shoulder significantly more demand to exercise his reason to discover the irrationality of not having a living, historically validated, authority of their faith? And are their communities fashioned in such a way as to cloud this line of reasoning (whether deliberately or not)?

Would be interesting to also explore the Muslim experience and the reasonableness of the historicity of Muhammad.

 

[CopticChristian]

ddarko’s line of reasoning has caused me to ponder possible linkages between an individual’s upbringing and their subsequent growth into an awareness of the reasonableness of their faith.

When does one begin to use reason to discern the authenticity of belief? Specifically, how does a cradle Catholic make this transition? Or, is Catholicism simply sufficiently and inherently reasonable as the true Church that a young adult Catholic need only exercise a modest amount of his reason to validate his path - and the Church Herself is inherently designed to lead him down this road to validation?

And, conversely, does a non-Catholic who was raised non-Catholic unwittingly shoulder significantly more demand to exercise his reason to discover the irrationality of not having a living, historically validated, authority of their faith? And are their communities fashioned in such a way as to cloud this line of reasoning (whether deliberately or not)?

Would be interesting to also explore the Muslim experience and the reasonableness of the historicity of Muhammad.

I do not believe that there will be one answer for this. This is a multifactorial proposition that in my opinion is not totally dependent on reason. I periodically have new understanding and cannot tell you when that process started and I pray it does not stop.

 

[1voice]

And what about the scripture that states stay true to all that you have been taught by either by word or written.

Romans 10:14
But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?

 

[rinnie]

It’s a mystery of faith.

Sacred Tradition? How can you say its a mystery of Faith? Its not a mystery, it is revealed to us every Sunday in Church. We are taught as the bible tells us the truth through the Pilar of ALL truth the Church.

Again if you could answer to me where are you taught Sacred Tradition?