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

[PRmerger]

Gen 15:1-6 answers your question, and you wrongly stated what Christ said in Mt 7:21 and 22.

I stand corrected.

Have you never been taught you shouldn’t do that? Or is that type of behavior acceptable in your Church?

Yipes! No, that “type of behavior” is most definitely not “acceptable in” my Church! But then, you already knew that, didn’t you?

 

[WCH]

I’m not mad at all. I just don’t really see the point.

OK. Goodbye.

 

[WCH]

Um, WCH? I don’t believe I asked a question in this post. Note the lack of this symbol below: [SIGN1]?[/SIGN1]

OK.

 

[WCH]

I stand corrected.

OK.

Yipes! No, that “type of behavior” is most definitely not “acceptable in” my Church!

Then why are you acting in that way?

But then, you already knew that, didn’t you?

Not by your behavior, no.

 

[PRmerger]

OK.

Then why are you acting in that way?

Not by your behavior, no.

I will pay my penance and present the verse correctly.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 7:21-22[/BIBLEDRB]

At any rate, the point still stands: even those who call on the name of the Lord may not be saved.

One must take God’s revelation,* in its entirety,* in order to determine what we must do to be saved.

In short, we must “strive to enter”. (This citation found in the NT, not the Old, BTW )

 

[WCH]

One must take God’s revelation,* in its entirety,* in order to determine what we must do to be saved.

Proof from scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

Proof from scripture?

Catholics don’t subscribe to that paradigm that we must prove everything from Scripture.

That, friend, is a man-made tradition that is actually never once professed in the Bible. Not in a single verse. (Not even in the Old Testament. )

 

[WCH]

Catholics don’t subscribe to that paradigm that we must prove everything from Scripture.

Hey, you don’t have to tell me that.

I remember when I was in your Church how much of the stuff I was told I was required to believe in order to be saved wasn’t to be found anywhere in those testaments, old, or new (which NT isn’t giving you a bit of help right now regarding my question; is it? )

 

[Edward_H]

Hey, you don’t have to tell me that.

I remember when I was in your Church how much of the stuff I was told I was required to believe in order to be saved wasn’t to be found anywhere in those testaments, old, or new (which NT isn’t giving you a bit of help right now regarding my question; is it? )

Apparently your time wasn’t well spent. You missed the sum and substance of the Catholic Church. Maybe not enough effort.

Who, for instance, stapled/assembled your Bible? Who concluded what books were inspired and which ones weren’t?

Pesky questions for a Protestant.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Hey, you don’t have to tell me that.

I remember when I was in your Church how much of the stuff I was told I was required to believe in order to be saved wasn’t to be found anywhere in those testaments, old, or new (which NT isn’t giving you a bit of help right now regarding my question; is it? )

Then it’s safe to describe you as a fallen away Catholic that was not catechized like many of us here. So far you’ve managed to skip over the meet of real discussion and derail the OP.

Reading scripture is good for the soul. It brings us closer to our Lord and Savior. I’ve heard the term love letters used to describe scripture. The Lord speaks to us through the scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey, you don’t have to tell me that.

I remember when I was in your Church how much of the stuff I was told I was required to believe in order to be saved wasn’t to be found anywhere in those testaments, old, or new (which NT isn’t giving you a bit of help right now regarding my question; is it? )

Yes. The Church in the past has done an abysmal job in catechizing her flock.

However, I doubt that the things you were told weren’t found anywhere in the Bible.

[SIGN]All is in Scripture. All is in Tradition.[/SIGN]

However, the Bible was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. The Scriptures reflect the faith of the Church, but are not the source of it.

 

[WCH]

Apparently your time wasn’t well spent. You missed the sum and substance of the Catholic Church. Maybe not enough effort.

Who, for instance, stapled/assembled your Bible? Who concluded what books were inspired and which ones weren’t?

Pesky questions for a Protestant.

Hey, nice to meet you too!

The answer to question one is the book binder, and to question two God.

 

[WCH]

Then it’s safe to describe you as a fallen away Catholic that was not catechized like many of us here.

Actually, I’m a believer, a born-again believer.

So far you’ve managed to skip over the meet of real discussion and derail the OP.

I’ve done no such thing.

Reading scripture is good for the soul. It brings us closer to our Lord and Savior. I’ve heard the term love letters used to describe scripture. The Lord speaks to us through the scriptures.

Un-huh.

 

[WCH]

And yet, curiously, the NT keeps being proferred. :ehh:

Your request didn’t specify a response from either testament, but only asked for a citation from Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

and to question two God.

Well, yes–in the same way that you could answer your child’s question, “Where do babies come from?” with “God”. But the truth is that God used people–parents in this case–to create babies.

And in the case of the Bible, God used people–Catholic people in this case–to create the Bible. They were men-- Catholic men, Catholic priests, Catholic bishops and Catholic popes–who wrote and compiled and discerned which of the over 400 early Christian texts were theonpneustos.

You would not know what was inspired were it not for these Catholic men.

 

[WCH]

Yes. The Church in the past has done an abysmal job in catechizing her flock.

I suppose she too is subject to the whims of the “Peter Principle.”

However, the Bible was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. The Scriptures reflect the faith of the Church, but are not the source of it.

OK.

 

[WCH]

Well, yes–in the same way that you could answer your child’s question, “Where do babies come from?” with “God”. But the truth is that God used people–parents in this case–to create babies.

And in the case of the Bible, God used people–Catholic people in this case–to create the Bible. They were men-- Catholic men, Catholic priests, Catholic bishops and Catholic popes–who wrote and compiled and discerned which of the over 400 early Christian texts were theonpneustos.

You would not know what was inspired were it not for these Catholic men.

The Church could not have “created” what already existed. But, what it could do is recognize it, and order it.

 

[PRmerger]

Your request didn’t specify a response from either testament, but only asked for a citation from Scripture.

It really sounds like you’re trying to rescind your original premise?

Right. The OT has all that is needed to bring one to salvation. Don’t you believe that?

Everyone here, WCH, is going to call you on the above paradigm, each and every time you quote the NT.

And I guarantee you, that in your apologia, you will not be able to provide substantive dialogue without quoting from the NT.

Now, if you wish to recant or amend the above statement I believe that would give you much better leverage. I know that I for one would not judge you for making that error and in fact would hold you in greater esteem for humbly admitting you misspoke.

 

[PRmerger]

The Church could not have “created” what already existed. But, what it could do is recognize it, and order it.

The Bible did not always exist, WCH.

 

[PRmerger]

I suppose she too is subject to the whims of the “Peter Principle.”

Of that, I have no doubt.

There is incompetency, corruption and sin in the Church, starting from our very first pope and Magisterium. :sad_yes: