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

[TrueLight]

I was evangelical Protestant for 47 years before converting to Catholicism.

Christians are people who love and follow Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person in the Trinity. Catholics and Protestants are Christians by virtue of their baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Bible is God’s love letter to us. We read the Bible because we want to learn about our Lover, the One Who died and rose for us. We want to hear and be encouraged by and admonished by His Words to us.

Just as a spouse wants to hear his/her spouse’s words, we want to hear Our Lord’s Words.

I disagree, based on my experience with evangelical Protestantism, with this statement in the OP: “How you behave after you are saved is largely irrelevant.”

Here’s the theology, in simple terms. Evangelical Protestants say that if you do not behave in a Christ-like way, and if you continue to practice sin, you are probably not really a Christian.

The key word is “practice”. Evangelical Protestants teach that we all sin, but it is the continued PRACTICE of sin, a refusal to repent or attempt to cast off the besetting sin, that is a sign that a person isn’t really commited to Jesus Christ.

Yes, addictive sins are quite troubling to evangelical Protestants. Most evangelicals struggle immensely with their faith when they become addicted to smoking, drinking, overeating, gambling, caffeine, television shows, the internet, or any other practices that many other Christians consider non-serious sins, or not even sinful. Many evangelical Protestants who are addicted actually give up on Christianity because they believe that since they can’t shuck the sin, they must not really be Christians, because surely the Holy Spirit has more power than their addiction.

This is one of the many reasons why so many evangelical Protestants abstain from alcohol–they know that it has addictive properties (since it is a drug), and they don’t wish to take a chance that they will get caught up in its power and become addicted, since addictions indicate a flawed commitment to Jesus Christ and a possibility that one is not truly saved.

You see, evangelical Protestants do not believe that it is baptism that makes someone a Christian. They believe that becoming a Christian is an individual act of the will. Someone DECIDES to follow Jesus–that makes them a Christian. But that decision should lead to a change of life, because the Holy Spirit is at work and will bring about good works and a rejection of sin. Those who do not manifest good works and who continue to sin were probably insincere in their commitment to Jesus, and therefore, were never really Christians to begin with.

This is very important for Catholics to know and understand about evangelical Protestants. A lot of times, Catholics wonder why evangelical Protestants don’t consider Catholics “Christians.” After all, they’re baptized, and in Catholic theology, that is what makes someone a Christian.

But that’s not a part of evangelical Protestant theology. Evangelical Protestants believe that baptism is only an outward manifestation of an inward commitment to Jesus Christ. It is the DECISION to follow Christ and commit your life to Him that makes someone a Christian.

Now Catholics DO make this decision and they DO follow Jesus Christ, right? Almost all the Catholics I have gotten to know can point to a specific date or time in their lives when they KNEW that they wanted to follow Jesus and be His disciple and friend. For some, it happened at their confirmation, but for many it happened at a retreat or conference or church mission, or after they read a really good Catholic book, or when they had their first child, or during a time of trial in their lives, or following a time of searching for truth.

Evangelical Protestants use the phrase, “Ask Jesus into your heart to be your Personal Savior.” Catholics DO that! They just don’t call it that, and they also recognize that we continually commit ourselves to Jesus, not just one time only. Our conversion is ongoing, not a one-time event.

So if I were talking to an evangelical Protestant who questioned my Christianity, I would tell them that on such and such a date or time, I made a deliberate decision to follow Jesus Christ and give my heart and my life to HIM. They will understand and accept that, and accept the Catholic as a real Christian. But they won’t accept just a baptism.

I hope this information is helpful to the OP and others who are dealing with evangelical Protestants.

I wish this could be a sticky.

No offense to the OP, but I am so tired of reading threads like this. It is as if, evangelical Protestants are simple fools who murmur “faith alone” like a mantra all day long long under their breaths and do whatever they want.

If one wants to evangelize Evangelicals, there must be a basic understanding of the belief and mindset.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Well, Steve, here is the correct quote, from a letter - not a doctrinal statement - to Melanchthon.

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

The context of this quote needs to be clear. Luther here is not granting license to sin! God forbid!! This is not a statement about sin. It is a statement about the greatness of the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. Luther uses hyperbole to demonstrate to Melanchthon this true fact.
Since it is not a doctrinal statement, and recognizing that the letter is written to a fellow theologian, Luther writes with the assumption that Melanchthon understands that, while we remain sinners, confession of sins, and and true intention to attempt to live a Godly life, are indeed necessary.
It must also be pointed out that Melanchthon was a gentle pious man. It would not have crossed his mind to commit fornication or murder a thousand times a day, even if it were possible to do so. What is more, the very notion of committing fornication a thousand times a, an obvious impossibility, is evidence of the hyperbole Luther uses here, to make his point.

To use the quote out of the context of its intent as an example of Luther’s view of sola fide is just inaccurate.

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.

And this is an excellent summary of what Luther says in his letter to Melanchthon.

Jon

 

[WCH]

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

The operative phrase being “sounds like.”

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

Everyone here isn’t going to be involved with this thread.

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

I’ll guarantee that as well.

Now, if you wish to recant or amend the above statement I believe that would give you much better leverage.

There’s nothing to rescind.

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.

I’ll sleep better knowing that.

 

[WCH]

Well, Steve, here is the correct quote, from a letter - not a doctrinal statement - to Melanchthon.

Indeed.

 

[WCH]

I wish this could be a sticky.

No offense to the OP, but I am so tired of reading threads like this. It is as if, evangelical Protestants are simple fools who murmur “faith alone” like a mantra all day long long under their breaths and do whatever they want.

If one wants to evangelize Evangelicals, there must be a basic understanding of the belief and mindset.

You should treat like the television then, and stay off the channel.

 

[TrueLight]

You should treat like the television then, and stay off the channel.

Sorry. I’m here to stay .

 

[WCH]

Sorry. I’m here to stay .

I’m sure you are, and I just meant with regard to specific threads, and subjects that upset you.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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?

I think that you are confusing the idea of once saved always saved (osas) with sola fide or faith (in Jesus) alone. Most Christians believe in sola fide or faith in Jesus as the only requirement of their justification before God, even those who believe in osas. Osas is believed by the baptists and maybe some others and is the idea that once you accept Jesus as your Lord and savior there is nothing that you can do that will recind that salvation. I find that it is unscriptural.

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.

Perhaps from your perspective it does, but I think that you have some things wrong here. First, there is no such thing as Protestantism, that is a religion that is called Protestantism. Protetants are many with slightly different takes.
Your appraisal " 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." is also somewhat askew. The purpose of sola fide is to show us that what we need in order to be saved is faith in Jesus Christ and what He did for us and this is contained, we learn about it in the bible, sola scriptura. So far from being contradictory to one another they compliment each other.

 

[guanophore]

Hello everyone! I have been reading these forums for a while now but this is my first time posting. This is kind of intimidating especially since I am only 20 and some of the people here are much older and have much more knowledge and experience than I do. Anyway, I go to a non denominational evangelical church. I decided to post on this specific topic because I was actually thinking about it when I woke up this morning.

Good for you!

I

have found that the common misconception, not only here but with a lot of my Catholic friends (and even some Protestants themselves), is that we believe that all we need to do is pray that we are sinners and accept Jesus Christ and that is it we will be in heaven for sure.

Yes. It is a common misperception everywhere.

The thing is, that little prayer isn’t enough. After you do that you need to let Christ work on your life. You have to be born again - you have to be a new person. You can’t live the same life that you were living.

I think that is the main issue,Kristin. There are some that believe ones salvation is a done deal, so no sins can separate a person from God.

The Apostles did teach that we are born again in baptism, and thus, we are to live according to the new creation that we are, not the old.

That is when the works start following. That is when your works will show that you are a Christian.

Good trees bear good fruit.

You aren’t doing the works to prove to God you have faith in him because God doesn’t need proof. He knows what is in you heart and if you are a faithful servant or not.

I wonder about this. Scripture says that it was what Abraham DID that God was able to say "now I know (your faith).

The works are to glorify God so that through your works others can come to know Christ.

I agree with this, but there are other reasons too. Obedience to God increases our holiness, and it perfects our faith. To the one who has, more will be given.

Christ cus they said a little prayer but go on living the life that they once lived, and do nothing that shows that they are a follower of Christ, then of course by their works it will show that they aren’t saved.

I agree with you, though we probably have different understandings of what “saved” means.

We do believe that even after you are saved you will still sin. We are human after all, but we strive to not sin. When we do sin we are supposed to have true repentance and we try to not do it again. If someone falls into a bad habit, they aren’t supposed to just sit there and let it take over their lives. They are supposed to be in a time of prayer, repentance, and counseling.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

The Bible is necessary because it tells us how to live our lives. Like I said, you can’t just say you are saved and not live the way Christ did, or not follow the commandments.

Wouldn’t that mean, then, that faith is not “alone”? It seems to me that saving faith is always accompanied by the fruit of the reborn. It is the nature of saving faith that it is faith that works. Saving faith produces the fruit of good works, therefore, saving faith is never “alone”.

 

[guanophore]

Sole fide only means that it is by grace through faith that we access justification. It is monergistic, and we cannot come to justification by our own actions or merits.

One of the reasons this make no sense to me is that justificaiton does not seem monergistic to me. While the Apostles did teach that we cannot be justified by our own actions or merits, that does not to me equate to any of the “solas”

Faith is not alone, because saving faith is always accompanied by the fruit it produces in the believer.

And although we are moved toward grace by God, and not ourselves, it is incumbent upon mankind to make a decision to embrace the grace that has moved us. If this were not true, then we would not be able to choose to reject salvation.

Luke 7:30
30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves…

 While we access justification by faith alone, faith itself can never be alone.  Similarly, justification cannot, des not exist without sanctification.  There must be a change of the heart, evidenced by obedience to the will of God, and that will of God includes the call to good works, as stated in many ways throughout scripture, including James.

I have never liked the implications of the formula “faith plus works”. I prefer “faith, working through love”.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;7921041]One of the reasons this make no sense to me is that justificaiton does not seem monergistic to me. While the Apostles did teach that we cannot be justified by our own actions or merits, that does not to me equate to any of the “solas”

This may be because we express Justification in different ways. When you say that “the Apostles did teach that we cannot be justified by our own actions or merits…”, this is essentially what sola fide is, a recognition of that fact.

Faith is not alone, because saving faith is always accompanied by the fruit it produces in the believer.

Luther says exactly this time and again.

And although we are moved toward grace by God, and not ourselves, it is incumbent upon mankind to make a decision to embrace the grace that has moved us. If this were not true, then we would not be able to choose to reject salvation.

I would not dispute this, so long as its understood that we need the Holy Spirit within us to continue to encourage that embrace of faith everyday. And this is why rejection of grace is so disasterous, because it is a flat rejection of the Holy Spirit. A flat, “NO!”

I have never liked the implications of the formula “faith plus works”. I prefer “faith, working through love”.

ISTM that the central area of agreement between us is the Galatians 5:6 definition of a ture faith: faith working through love.

I do not mean this in any way other than complimentary, but you have a knack of explaining the Catholic view in a way that often allows this Lutheran to nod in approval.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

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 )

Proof from scripture?

Acts 20:27
I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.

Why bother proclaiming all, of part will do fine?

Acts 18:24-26

24 Now a Jew named Apol’los, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aq’uila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.

Why educate believers, if portions of the Truth are sufficient?

Mark 4:34
privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Everything?!

 

[guanophore]

Hey, nice to meet you too!

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

This might be a dandy time to learn more about the faith into which you were baptized (assuming your comment about being “in your church” meant that you were baptized Catholic)

The “book binder” is the Catholic Church. The Bible is a Catholic book. The entire NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

As to question #2, yes, the the HS was working through the CC to write, protect, promulgate and canonize the Holy Scriptures.

What’s the context of that quote?

That we are saved by faith alone, and no deeds of our own can either earn our salvation, or keep us from it.

 

[guanophore]

Call on the name of the Lord (Rom 10:13).

Yes. Catholics will agree.

but…

Matt 7:21-23

21 "Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

According to this passage, neither faith alone, or doing good works in the name of the Lord will save.

 

[guanophore]

I do not mean this in any way other than complimentary, but you have a knack of explaining the Catholic view in a way that often allows this Lutheran to nod in approval.

Jon

:tiphat:

 

[Curious_Seed]

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.

Does this line of reasoning make sense?

No, by the way with which you have stacked the premises.

Let me ask:

Are only Catholics going to heaven?

What were the Luke 23:43 conditions for salvation, from the Luke 23:42 plea?

No Protestant Church doctrine holds that after accepting Christ, one may live a life of evil, with impunity.

Reading the Bible is not mandatory for salvation – Luke 23:42 is necessary for salvation – but, every Christian Church supports doing so.

Authority rests with Christ: He alone is to judge humanity.

 

[pinay]

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.

Here’s the complete quote from Luther just so we can put that quote in context. Because, Steve, you must know that your interpretation of that quote (as evidenced by the wording of your version of it) is not correct:

If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.

So, in that complete context you can see that Luther is using hyperbole (as he usually does in his most impassioned of letters) to emphasize his belief that Jesus Christ is the victor over sin. No sin can win over the Atonement of Christ. Therefore… if you study these two phrases:

“believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world”

“Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

Luther brings focus to repentance.

A perfect illustration of Luther’s letter is the criminal hung on the cross with Christ. A great sinner, no doubt. Brought by Christ to paradise by virtue of his strong faith.

And I can assure you, a Catholic priest 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.

I don’t think anybody has ever said that if one has faith then they won’t sin. If you’re referring to my example that states “if you have faith, you’re not going to murder somebody the next day” - all I meant to say on that is that if one has faith, one will not desire to commit sin. Of course, we are not perfect - as Luther stated, Life is not a dwelling place of righteousness - we sin. But, with our exercise of faith, we are brought back to repentance. If one commits sin and is not remorseful and broken-hearted, pleading with Christ to forgive them, and to help them that they might not sin no more… then one will have to question if he really does have faith.

And yes, Catholic priests preach this too.

 

[WCH]

Acts 20:27
I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.

Why bother proclaiming all, of part will do fine?

The question was put to PRmerger to demonstrate her inability to answer.

This might be a dandy time to learn more about the faith into which you were baptized (assuming your comment about being “in your church” meant that you were baptized Catholic)

Has it changed that much?

The “book binder” is the Catholic Church.

Actually the binder of the Bible I use is not mentioned by the publisher: the Lockman Foundation.

The Bible is a Catholic book.

I know. I use the 66 book canon set forth by the Reformers; all of them were members of the catholic church.

The entire NT was written by, for, and about Catholics.

Lookup anachronism.

There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

I know, I’m a member of the catholic church.

As to question #2, yes, the the HS was working through the CC to write, protect, promulgate and canonize the Holy Scriptures.

Amen the HS working through the cc.

That we are saved by faith alone, and no deeds of our own can either earn our salvation, or keep us from it.

Luther’s not talking about “faith alone,” but “grace.”

Yes. Catholics will agree.

(Edited)

 

[PRmerger]

Has it changed that much?

WCH, are you proposing that you were well catechized in the Catholic faith before you left?

Typically, most ex-Catholics have a dismal knowledge of Catholicism, but I suppose it’s possible that you are quite fluent in the faith; so I ask if you feel you know much about Catholicism?

 

[WCH]

WCH, are you proposing that you were well catechized in the Catholic faith before you left?

I still am. My catechism is “dogeared.”

Typically, most ex-Catholics have a dismal knowledge of Catholicism…

Well, they have enough to leave.

…but I suppose it’s possible that you are quite fluent in the faith; so I ask if you feel you know much about Catholicism?

I knew enough that I left.