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

[JMartyr73340]

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.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I used to make the argument against saved by faith and once saved always saved with a pretty negative remark. I said that if I wanted to be part of a group of people that believed in nothing I’d become Baptist. Now, I’ve learned many of my Baptist family do have such beliefs, but it doesn’t match the explanations of other Baptists I’ve spoken with on the subject. So, I’ve discovered that what they mean is only partly true and that even Protestants have luke warm believers too, like we constantly seem to be reminded about by everyone, including Protestants and Catholics.

The word “alone” should never show up anywhere, because it was never part of sacred scritpure dealing with faith.

We are saved by faith.
We are saved by grace.
We are saved by works.

Go read Ephisians 2
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-”

Let me recite from memory what I recall from a bible class through ACU.

“For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith, and not by works, so that no man can boast, it is the gift of God…”

I think this is a problem with memorizing scripture. Over time we tend to think we remember correctly but have to maintain that memory by frequently reciting it correctly. So many people blindly accept what they think they remember and rarely or never question it.

Faith is important and of course it is our faith, but if we have faith, we know that it is by grace that we have been saved. And if we have faith that we have been saved by Christ then we would logically do good works. But even if we do good works, even through our faith in God, it is the Grace, free gift of God, that saves us.

 

[Edmundus1581]

…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?

I think your reasoning is very sound. You are correct that Protestants emphasise Faith Alone and Bible Alone, when they confront Catholicism, but then when they apply it, without reference to Catholicism, they start to make exceptions… such as the one you mention, that to be saved, on must read the Bible.

 

[William_Pitts]

If anyone believes that salvation is easy, that all one has to do is pray a little prayer they are sadly mistaken. Faith is not something you did years ago but it is something that must be done continuously.

We are told to take up our cross and follow Jesus. We have the examples of the Apostles. None of them had a cheap religion nor did any teach a cheap religion. None had an easy life. All except John was martyred.

When I was a Baptist we quoted John 3:16 often. Guess what. Even that verse says we have to constantly exercise faith in Christ.

From the KJV. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

The two verbs,“loved” and “gave” are aorist and can be translated as a simple past tense in English. Many authors hold that the aorist tends to be about the past because it is perfective, and perfectives tend to describe completed actions;

However, the verb translated “believeth” is a present tense and indicates a continuous action verb. The “-ith” ending on verbs in the KJV as well as the D-R was an attempt to indicate this kind of verb. Modern translations put an “s” on the end of verbs for the same reason. So what this means is that we could translate this with a helping verb, such as “is believing”. This would have been very obvious to the early Christians who spoke Koine Greek. But the reformers kind of lost that meaning somewhere in their theology.

I know this may sound complicated but it is very important.

 

[cooterhein]

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.

This summary is, at best, quite inaccurate. But I should probably leave the finer points of Sola Fide to the Lutherans that are on here with some regularity.

How you behave after you are saved is largely irrelevant, if I understand the doctrine correctly.

That doesn’t appear to be the case.

But if this is true, why do Protestants insist that people read the Bible after they are saved? What is the point?

Maybe so they can find out about Sola Gratia, Sola Gloria Dei, Solus Christus, and Sola Scriptura?

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.

That’s how you see it, but how did Luther see it? How do Lutherans now see it?

But in a way this contradicts the second major doctrine of Protestansim, Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone).

I don’t follow. The five Solas act in concert; each reinforces the other and they are best understood when taken as a whole. That was the original intent when they were put together, and that’s how they work. If you find that one contradicts the next, you probably have a poor or incomplete understanding of the Solas as a whole or of one or more of them in particular.

The purpose of Sola Scriptura was to establish the Bible as the new ultimate authority of the faith (instead of the Church).

That’s kind of offensive to everyone involved. This comment implies that the Church previously elevated itself above and beyond the authority of Scripture prior to the Reformation. Is that really what you think?

But you can’t have it both ways. You cannot simultaneously believe in one doctrine that rejects all authority

I don’t think Sola Fide rejects all authority- least of all the authority of Scripture. Or that of other authorities, either, albeit to a lesser extent.

and at the same time believe in another doctrine that establishes an authority.

The authority of Scripture? I don’t think the authority of Scripture was established at the time of the Reformation.

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

I don’t recall that anyone’s mentioned this line of reasoning before.

If you get more familiar with the doctrines of the Reformation, I think you’ll find that they make a certain amount of sense.

 

[Cat]

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.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Cat, for the most part I agree with you. But one statement you said only holds true for certain non-Catholic evangelicals. As a member of the Protestant version of the Church of Christ we believed that “baptism doth now save you”. We believed that only those who are baptized in the proper form are saved as long as they are believers, which rejects infant baptism. I bought into that because the scriptures are very vague about it dealing with children. That truly is the reason for the troubles. Once authority of the seat of Peter, as in the seat of Moses, was rejectected, the entire thing got thrown out the window. I’ll elaborate in my next paragraph as to why I believe it happened to begin with.

Bishops, priests and deacons are human beings subject to the effects of original sin. When they fall and scandalize the Church, particularly when they directly hurt people, people lose faith in them and their authority. Even Christ had to remind the Jews to obey what the teachers of the law and the Pharisees taught, not follow their example. He reminded them of what had become very obvious in their day. This is really why, with the evils of Satan, that we have so many divisions. At least that’s the way i see it.

BTW: I was a Protestant for about 33 years, though baptized Catholic, raised Protestant by my anti-Catholic mother. My non practicing Catholic father only started to return to his faith when I was almost 15 when I received my first communion after moving to live with him away from my mom. The division in my family over their beliefs kept me solo scriptura even as a Catholic. I never understood the problem with solo scriptura until I really began to dig deeper and deeper into it as an adult. I started really early studying the bible and had read it on my own more than the Catholic adults, as well as Protestants, by the time I was 18. Even more so when I was 28. But the following years was even more and eventually led me to understand problems with solo scriptura and a realization of Catholic teaching that I believe none of the Catholics or Bishops believed until about 4 years ago. Now I know much of Catholic teaching and learn more all the time. The stuff I’ve learned just this past year alone has explained some of the doubts of my understanding in the past. Unfortunately, the priests need to learn the same things I’ve learned in order to be able to teach it, if they would bother to teach beyond the pulpit. They used to teach more.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

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.

Also speaking as a former evangelical non-Catholic, I think this is very important. Reading the Bible, personal prayer, acts of charity–all these things are *supposed *to “prove” one’s status as a saved or born-again believer. And it becomes a very gray area when a person who has been “fruitful” in ministry suddenly falls. Was he really saved to begin with? Is the sin “bad enough” for him to question his original salvation? Who can decide that anyway? It’s a real quandary.

From a more personal angle, I led my early “Christian” life along the lines that the OP is pointing out. I was saved–that was the ultimate, impenetrable bottom line–and so various sins, while they might make me feel guilty, would never make me question my salvation. Confession (by myself, in quiet prayer) only happened when I felt REALLY bad. And later on there were the habitual sins…and those eventually sent me into a spiral of despair that was not truly resolved until I found the Catholic Church. The simplistic soteriology that was taught over and over to us as evangelicals was not equipped to deal with things like this, at least not for me.

Same thing with reading the Bible, as the OP states. I, as a lazy Christian, was going to end up in heaven right alongside the pious do-gooder, so why bother with the sacrifice and suffering of trying to become like Christ? None of us would have ever stated it this way (doesn’t sound very devout, after all), but it is the practical result for many.

The simple fact of the matter was that I bought into an oversimplified idea of salvation based on what I heard from the pulpit Sunday after Sunday and never bothered to investigate it until I started getting curious about what I believed and why (hence the conversion to Catholicism). But I think many people stop growing as Christians almost as soon as they’re converted. After all, what is the point of investigating anything when you have an absolute assurance of salvation?

 

[novusCatholic]

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

Great post, Cat.

We do need to understand that it is possible to find salvation as a non-Catholic Christian. Trully practicing, non-Catholic Christians are often more sincere and devout than many Catholics. They’re decision to accept Christ’s salvation was a deep and honest one, and they have developed a true relationship with Him. They have a strong faith and do seek to draw closer to Christ. Most are just not truly aware of the Church and all that it is. When they put a real effort into learning the history of Christianity, more often than not, it leads them to the Catholic Church.

 

[Kristin234]

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.

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. 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.

That is when the works start following. That is when your works will show that you are a Christian. 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. The works are to glorify God so that through your works others can come to know Christ.

If someone accepts Christ they will want to humble themselves. They will try to love their neighbor, they will minister to others, they will want to read their Bible, be charitable etc etc. We do all this because we want to be like Christ. Now, if someone says they accepted 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.

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.

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.

This is what I have learned from my Church and the school that I go to which is a Christian College. I know my view on this is different from others, but I just wanted to show that even though some people view it that way not everyone does. Thank you

 

[rotlex]

I was listening to Catholic radio the other day, and I heard what I thought was perhaps the best argument\statement I had ever heard from a protestant regarding saved by faith alone. I also spoke with a few co-workers, also protestant, who felt the same way.

In a nutshell, I was told\heard, that they do not really believe that simply believing in Christ, accepting him etc. is going to save you. HOWEVER, that if you TRULY believe in him, you will automatically perform good works. It’s just going to go hand in hand. No one is saying that you alone need to believe, and do nothing else, but rather that your belief, again, is going to cause you to DO good works, hence, you have faith and works.

I’m probably not saying that as eloquently as the caller or the guys at works, but it made a lot of sense to me. I think some time that Catholics and Protestants simply like to argue over just about anything.

 

[Inishfree]

When I became Catholic as an adult and of course of my own free will. I was told by the Priest who was giving me instruction. He said that Salvation is a gift but like any gift it can be thrown away. I read the bible because it is a book of faith and inspiration. It helps me to be a better person.

 

[rikkk1958]

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.

Yes, they always say this phrase to make you feel good. They have to understand that the Church is the Pillar and foundation of the truth because everything Jesus said we follow and obey. Not only that we have accepted Christ but we always take the Real Presence in the Eucharist as His Body and Blood so that we will have Life.

 

[Rightlydivide]

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?
.

We are told to study.

2 Timothy 2:15 (King James Version)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

As far as behavior

Romans 6:1-2
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

The belief one only has to read the Bible and have faith is totally unscriptural. One cannot read their way to Heaven.

 

[Lapey]

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.

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. 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.

That is when the works start following. That is when your works will show that you are a Christian. 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. The works are to glorify God so that through your works others can come to know Christ.

If someone accepts Christ they will want to humble themselves. They will try to love their neighbor, they will minister to others, they will want to read their Bible, be charitable etc etc. We do all this because we want to be like Christ. Now, if someone says they accepted 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.

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.

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.

This is what I have learned from my Church and the school that I go to which is a Christian College. I know my view on this is different from others, but I just wanted to show that even though some people view it that way not everyone does. Thank you

You may only be 20, but your family and pastor have taught you well. Good job…

 

[Cat]

Yes, they always say this phrase to make you feel good. They have to understand that the Church is the Pillar and foundation of the truth because everything Jesus said we follow and obey. Not only that we have accepted Christ but we always take the Real Presence in the Eucharist as His Body and Blood so that we will have Life.

You use the phrase, “they have to understand that the Church is…” etc.

This sounds a little confrontational to me. I’m sure it’s not meant that way, but it sounds lofty and a little pushy.

I agree with you, yes, Protestants must somehow arrive at a correct understanding of the Christ-given authority of the Catholic Church here on this earth.

The question is, “HOW can Protestants be brought to that understanding?”

I can understand why it’s frustrating to Catholics who do understand this, and simply can’t understand why Protestants don’t understand!

But saying, “They have to understand…” doesn’t get Protestants to a place where they will understand.

I think it would be good to really think hard about how we come across to Protestants. If you were to say to a Protestant, “You have to understand that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation…” etc., the first thing they would say to you is, “Show me in the Bible (the Protestant Bible) where it says that.”

Can we all do that? I can. It’s in there.

Once you’ve showed it to them in the Bible, then my suggestion is to back off. No more debating. And even though you’re dying to launch into an exposition of the great history of the Christian Church, don’t do it.

Instead, pray that the Holy Spirit will use the Word of God, just as He promised, to help the Protestant to arrive at a proper understanding. Evangelical Protestants stake everything on the Bible. If you can point out good Bible passages about any topic, they WILL meditate and pray about it, and the Holy Spirit WILL work in their lives.

The problem is, the Holy Spirit may not be on the same timetable that we’re on, and we get impatient when Protestants don’t believe right now! We just have to let the Holy Spirit do His job and not try to push Him along or make Him follow our timetable. Again, it’s frustrating, especially when the Protestant is a loved one or a good friend. We want so much to be unified, but we simply have to wait for God’s perfect timing.

 

[JonNC]

=JMartyr73340;7911759]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.

I would be careful of this definition simply because it sounds, to me, like works righteousness. 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.

How you behave after you are saved is largely irrelevant, if I understand the doctrine correctly.

This is patently untrue. 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.

But if this is true, why do Protestants insist that people read the Bible after they are saved? What is the point?

There would be no point, if infact this were the theology of sola fide. It is not.

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.

Clearly this is not the case, as the means of grace, word and sacrament, are found in His Church. Faith comes from hearing the word. The Holy Spirit comes to us by the sacrament of Baptism. Forgiveness of sins comes to us from confession/Absolution and the Sacrament of the Altar.

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.

Sola scriptura is the practice of holding all teachers and teaching accountable to the final norm, scripture. It neither excludes nor renders worthless these teachings, but only holds them accountable.

To that end, for example, the Lutheran confessions mark as the first section the Three ecumenical creeds. These are doctrines of the Church, not found explicitly in scripture, but certainly reflecting the truth of the faith as found there.

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

Does this help?

Jon

 

[PbloPicasso]

We are told to study.

2 Timothy 2:15 (King James Version)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

As far as behavior

Romans 6:1-2
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid.

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. Peter later says not to isolate yourself in study as well. Further, Timothy was an ordained bishop with authority passed on to him.

 

[pinay]

Sola Fide is really not as portrayed by the OP.

Sola Fide is salvation by Faith. If you don’t do as Christ asked of us - reading the scriptures, loving God, loving our neighbors as God loves us, it behooves somebody to ask of themselves - Do I really have faith then?

The perspective is that - Faith leads to good works. It is not the works that saves you, it is the faith that led to those good works that saves you. It is possible to do works without faith - just following blindly. But, it is not possible to have Faith without the fruits of that Faith.

Personally, I don’t believe in Sola Fide because I believe that one needs the sacraments - at least Baptism by priesthood authority - for salvation. This is the same for Catholics as well. 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?