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

[PRmerger]

You said you were finished talking to me.

Messing with you. I said I was finished messing with you.

Actually, I’m done messing with you, WCH. I know you didn’t really mean the above so I won’t bring it up again.

But I can see how you might have thought my term “messing” meant “talking”.

I just meant I was having some fun at your expense but wouldn’t do that anymore.

I will continue our dialogue.

 

[stephen_cerutti]

You don’t have to read the bible, you should want to read the bible, we don’t have to go to church, we should want to go to church in order to learn more about god so that we can become like him and worship him, that is one reason we are here.

 

[JMartyr73340]

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?

At best, the names of these doctrines are confusing. At worst, they are outright contradictions.

Suppose there was a sign outside a school which said, “Elementary Kids Only”, and right below that it said, “Junior High Kids Only”, and below that it said, “High School Kids Only”. I would seriously question the qualifications of the teachers at that school. Either they do not understand the meaning of the word “only” or they have some strange obsession with the word itself. The same is true for the “Solas”. The names themselves imply contradiction.

For some reason, the people who made these doctrines felt some irrational need to emphasize how they all work “alone". Why the obsession with this word? I personally think that each of these “alones” where originally meant to be a refutation of the Catholic Church. Sola Fide was saying, “All you need is faith, not the Pope or his Church.” . Sola Scriptura was saying “All you need is the Bible, not the Pope and his Church.”, etc, etc, That meaning may very well have changed over the centuries since the Reformaton.

**But in a way this contradicts the second major doctrine of Protestantism, 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.

As I pointed out, the names themselves are contradictions. Perhaps I have a poor understanding, but that poor understanding may be a result of confused/illogical doctrine. To say that doctrines with names such as “faith alone”, “the Bible alone”, “grace alone” all work “together” or “in concert” is itself rather confusing, if not a logical contradiction.

**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?

Well, quite frankly, I don’t see anything to be offended about, unless you define yourself by your theology. In any case, your entire reply is more offensive than anything I wrote. Your post has an extremely condescending and arrogant tone, the purpose of which is to demonstrate my “ignorance” of Protestant theology. Basically, it’s one gigantic ad hominem attack. The original question was never really answered, in my opinion.

Anyway, I take it your quarrel here is with my use of the word “ultimate”. I was wrong to use that word, so thank-you for pointing out that mistake, even though it had little to do with my overall argument. While it is true that the Church does not elevate itself “above” scripture, the Protestant themselves have somewhat demonstrated the need for scripture to take a somewhat “subordinate” role to the Church. Without an authentic interpreter, you can use the Bible to justify almost anything, such as denying your children blood transfusions (the Jehovah Witnesses), polygamy (the Mormon Cult in Utah), making false prediction about the end of the world (Harold Camping) , claiming you are Jesus Christ (David Koresh) and even rejecting the divinity of Christ (Islam/Mohammed).

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.

Then perhaps you should rename the doctrine. Alone means absolutely nothing else. And, for some Protestants (not all), that is exactly what Sola Fide means. But they do not see the contradiction of also insisting that people read the Bible.

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

I think my point is that many Protestants today see the Bible as a major guiding authority in their faith (just like Catholics see the Catholic Church as a major “guiding authority” is their faith), and that Sola Scriptura clearly played a role in the development of this idea.

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

Cool. I’m the first.

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

I hope so. So far, the names of the doctrines have proven misleading, and the doctrines themselves seem to be confused about what they are trying to say.

In any case, the basic question which my post was trying to address was never answered, at least not in this post. There are some Protestants who strongly adhere to the idea that belief in Christ alone saves you, not good works. There does not necessairly have to be any additional “sign” that confirms your saved status. Yet they passionately advocate the reading of the Bible, which is a good work. This is hypocritical, in my opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

At best, the names of these doctrines are confusing. At worst, they are outright contradictions.

Suppose there was a sign outside a school which said, “Elementary Kids Only”, and right below that it said, “Junior High Kids Only”, and below that it said, “High School Kids Only”. I would seriously question the qualifications of the teachers at that school. Either they do not understand the meaning of the word “only” or they have some strange obsession with the word itself. The same is true for the “Solas”. The names themselves imply contradiction.

Great metaphor! I hope you don’t mind if I borrow it for future apologia.

For some reason, the people who made these doctrines felt some irrational need to emphasize how they all work “alone". Why the obsession with this word? I personally think that each of these “alones” where originally meant to be a refutation of the Catholic Church. Sola Fide was saying, “All you need is faith, not the Pope or his Church.” . Sola Scriptura was saying “All you need is the Bible, not the Pope and his Church.”, etc, etc, That meaning may very well have changed over the centuries since the Reformaton.

As I pointed out, the names themselves are contradictions. Perhaps I have a poor understanding, but that poor understanding may be a result of confused/illogical doctrine. To say that doctrines with names such as “faith alone”, “the Bible alone”, “grace alone” all work “together” or “in concert” is itself rather confusing, if not a logical contradiction.

Well, quite frankly, I don’t see anything to be offended about, unless you define yourself by your theology. In any case, your entire reply is more offensive than anything I wrote. Your post has an extremely condescending and arrogant tone, the purpose of which is to demonstrate my “ignorance” of Protestant theology. Basically, it’s one gigantic ad hominem attack. The original question was never really answered, in my opinion.

Anyway, I take it your quarrel here is with my use of the word “ultimate”. I was wrong to use that word, so thank-you for pointing out that mistake, even though it had little to do with my overall argument. While it is true that the Church does not elevate itself “above” scripture, the Protestant themselves have somewhat demonstrated the need for scripture to take a somewhat “subordinate” role to the Church. Without an authentic interpreter, you can use the Bible to justify almost anything, such as denying your children blood transfusions (the Jehovah Witnesses), polygamy (the Mormon Cult in Utah), making false prediction about the end of the world (Harold Camping) , claiming you are Jesus Christ (David Koresh) and even rejecting the divinity of Christ (Islam/Mohammed).

Then perhaps you should rename the doctrine. Alone means absolutely nothing else. And, for some Protestants (not all), that is exactly what Sola Fide means. But they do not see the contradiction of also insisting that people read the Bible.

I think my point is that many Protestants today see the Bible as a major guiding authority in their faith (just like Catholics see the Catholic Church as a major “guiding authority” is their faith), and that Sola Scriptura clearly played a role in the development of this idea.

Cool. I’m the first.

I hope so. So far, the names of the doctrines have proven misleading, and the doctrines themselves seem to be confused about what they are trying to say.

In any case, the basic question which my post was trying to address was never answered, at least not in this post. There are some Protestants who strongly adhere to the idea that belief in Christ alone saves you, not good works. There does not necessairly have to be any additional “sign” that confirms your saved status. Yet they passionately advocate the reading of the Bible, which is a good work. This is hypocritical, in my opinion.

:tiphat::clapping::bowdown:

 

[TrueLight]

In any case, the basic question which my post was trying to address was never answered, at least not in this post. There are some Protestants who strongly adhere to the idea that belief in Christ alone saves you, not good works. There does not necessairly have to be any additional “sign” that confirms your saved status. Yet they passionately advocate the reading of the Bible, which is a good work. This is hypocritical, in my opinion.

Two things:

First of all, I never heard of all those latin terms before I came here. I wasn’t so much into theology as I was into doing God’s will.

Secondly, although a lot of Evangelicals believe that you are saved by Grace and not works, the emphasis is on ephesians 2.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

You would be hard pressed to find Evangelicals who didn’t believe that if you were a Christian, your works would reflect that. Meaning you would attend church, read your bible, abstain from drink (in some denominations), don’t go to clubs, abstain from premarital sex (in the more strict circles), don’t divorce etc. If you did a lot of those things, your salvation would be in doubt.

The admonition is “Be ye in the world, but not OF the world”.

An Evangelical would not believe in something like a plenary indulgence: " the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory." That would be considered works.

I found this partial list of plenary indulgences:

* Reading of Sacred Scripture
* Recitation of the Marian Rosary (Rosarii marialis recitatio)
* Exercise of the Way of the Cross
* Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament

That would be considered “works”.

But every Christian is expected to act like a Christian, be a light and live a life worthy of Christ, so there are works involved that occur as a result of the Christian loving Christ.

Hope I’ve made it a little more clear.

 

[PRmerger]

Two things:

First of all, I never heard of all those latin terms before I came here. I wasn’t so much into theology as I was into doing God’s will.

Secondly, although a lot of Evangelicals believe that you are saved by Grace and not works, the emphasis is on ephesians 2.

You would be hard pressed to find Evangelicals who didn’t believe that if you were a Christian, your works would reflect that. Meaning you would attend church, read your bible, abstain from drink (in some denominations), don’t go to clubs, abstain from premarital sex (in the more strict circles), don’t divorce etc. If you did a lot of those things, your salvation would be in doubt.

The admonition is “Be ye in the world, but not OF the world”.

An Evangelical would not believe in something like a plenary indulgence: " the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory." That would be considered works.

I found this partial list of plenary indulgences:

* Reading of Sacred Scripture
* Recitation of the Marian Rosary (Rosarii marialis recitatio)
* Exercise of the Way of the Cross
* Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament

That would be considered “works”.

But every Christian is expected to act like a Christian, be a light and live a life worthy of Christ, so there are works involved that occur as a result of the Christian loving Christ.

Hope I’ve made it a little more clear.

For clarity’s sake, the post that you responded to was attributed to me, but I did not write it.

 

[PRmerger]

I found this partial list of plenary indulgences:

** * Reading of Sacred Scripture**
* Recitation of the Marian Rosary (Rosarii marialis recitatio)
* Exercise of the Way of the Cross
* Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament

That would be considered “works”.

So do you see the irony now, True Light? Reading the Sacred Scripture is considered “works” by Evangelicals, yet they profess that one needs to be “reading the Sacred Scripture”.

So it seems that Evangelicals also perform works, yes?

 

[Hail_Linus]

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.

Actually, I did see Benny Hinn on TV once where he put the Bible on the floor and told the audience they do not need to read the Bible. He told them all they had to do was accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour since they are saved by faith alone.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, I did see Benny Hinn on TV once where he put the Bible on the floor and told the audience they do not need to read the Bible. He told them all they had to do was accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour since they are saved by faith alone.

Interesting. Do you think anyone bought this idea?

 

[Enfluerage]

Hi !

From my rather limited understanding, there are two (main) different intepretations of grace, faith, Christ:

1. The first intepretation is described by C.S. Lewis:

**The other set were accused of saying, ‘Faith is all that matters. Consequently, if you have faith, it doesn’t matter what you do. Sin away, my lad, and have a good time and Christ will see that it makes no difference in the end.’ The answer to that nonsense is that, if what you call your “faith” in Christ does not involve taking the slightest notice of what He says, then it is not Faith at all-not faith or trust in Him, but only intellectual acceptance of some theory about Him. **

Furthermore, see James 2, 1 John 4, Matthew 25, 1 Corinthians 13, John 15 …

1. The second intepretation is this:

By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works

(Excerpt from the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification)

or this:

For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

(Excerpt from the Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith, Pope Benedict XVI)

or this:

We have come to believe in God’s love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction. Saint John’s Gospel describes that event in these words: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should … have eternal life” (3:16). In acknowledging the centrality of love, Christian faith has retained the core of Israel’s faith, while at the same time giving it new depth and breadth. The pious Jew prayed daily the words of the Book of Deuteronomy which expressed the heart of his existence: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might” (6:4-5). Jesus united into a single precept this commandment of love for God and the commandment of love for neighbour found in the Book of Leviticus: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (19:18; cf. Mk 12:29-31). Since God has first loved us (cf. 1 Jn 4:10), love is now no longer a mere “command”; it is the response to the gift of love with which God draws near to us.

(Excerpt from Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI)

---

It shocked me tremendously to discover that the Catholic Church has always been teaching (2 above).

The Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love (approx 420 AD), Summa Theologica (1265-1273 AD) and the Council of Trent (1545-1563) teaches (2 above).

"St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine and the patristic understanding of faith and salvation, said that saving faith was faith “formed by charity.” In other words, saving faith involves at least the beginnings of the love of God. In this way, Catholics could speak of “justification by grace alone, through faith alone,” if the “alone” was meant to distinguish the gift of God (faith) from any purely human contribution apart from grace; but not if “alone” was meant to offset faith from grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-accomplished love of God or charity."

(Excerpt from Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation, Mark Brumley)

---

The Catholic Church teaches:

"In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68"
(Excerpt from the CCC - 104)

On the other hand, “private judgement” has several issues, highlighted by the following:

1. I hope no one rejects the Nicene Creed !

“The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.”
(Excerpt from the New Advent Encyclopedia)

“So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord.”
(Excerpt from the Athanasian Creed)

1. See:
   (1 Timothy 3:15)
   (1 Corinthians 11:2)
   (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
2. If the Nicene Creed at the Council of Constantinople, 381 AD was around the time of the Canon of the Bible … Wouldn’t it make sense that we use that Canon list ?

*“Bouyer says that both Protestants and Catholics have responsibilities here. Protestants must investigate their roots and consider whether the negative elements of the Reformation, such as extrinsic justification and the rejection of a definitive Church teaching authority and Tradition, are necessary to uphold the positive principles of sola gratia and the supremacy of Scripture. If not, then how is continued separation from the Catholic Church justified?” *

(Excerpt from Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation, Mark Brumley)

Take care !

“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him”

 

[TrueLight]

For clarity’s sake, the post that you responded to was attributed to me, but I did not write it.

Oops okay. So let it be written.

 

[TrueLight]

Actually, I did see Benny Hinn on TV once where he put the Bible on the floor and told the audience they do not need to read the Bible. He told them all they had to do was accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour since they are saved by faith alone.

Evangelicals have their own share of kooks – in fact, a large percentage of religious kooks belong to Evangelicals.

One can argue, that it is a result of schism from the true Church.

 

[TrueLight]

So do you see the irony now, True Light? Reading the Sacred Scripture is considered “works” by Evangelicals, yet they profess that one needs to be “reading the Sacred Scripture”.

So it seems that Evangelicals also perform works, yes?

I wasn’t clear. It is not that reading the Bible is considered works. Reading the bible is seen as something natural that you should want to do. Just like attending Church. There is no “obligation”.

What I’m referring to is the idea that you do this or that number of works and it gains you something. There is no formal, defined works that you are expected to do and if you don’t do it, you are in danger of hellfire.

In Catholism, you miss mass and you lose your salvation if you die with this unconfessed mortal sin on your soul. Although an Evangelical is expected to attend church, if you purposefully missed church one Sunday, your soul is not in jeopardy.

 

[TrueLight]

"St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine and the patristic understanding of faith and salvation, said that saving faith was faith “formed by charity.” In other words, saving faith involves at least the beginnings of the love of God. In this way, Catholics could speak of “justification by grace alone, through faith alone,” if the “alone” was meant to distinguish the gift of God (faith) from any purely human contribution apart from grace; but not if “alone” was meant to offset faith from grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-accomplished love of God or charity."

Thank you for that reference.

That has always been my understanding of faith “alone”.

 

[john_aurelius]

And, yet, this is from the NT?

Does this not contradict your post here?

Sorry to point this out but you do realise that this is an OT quote in the book of Romans? it comes from Joel 2:32.

The OT was the scripture for the earliest church, the first NT documents being Pauls letter to the Galatians along with the catholic epistle of James’both early 50s AD and Mark’s Gospel soonafter.

The first sermon, recorded in Acts 2. Given by Pope Peter himself on the day of Pentecost when filled by the Spirit he quotes from Joel and also from the Psalms of David. This was sufficient to save about 3000 souls.

Of course the only people qualified to proclaim the Christian message from the Hebrew Scriptures are Christians who have the revelation of the resurrected Jesus who explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaeus where he explained all that was contrained in the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry to point this out but you do realise that this is an OT quote in the book of Romans? it comes from Joel 2:32.

Could you please cite the verse in Romans?

WCH claims he was referring to Timothy, not Romans, which, incidentally is not at all what his original premise proclaimed, which is that the OT has all that is needed to bring one to salvation

[BIBLEDRB]2 Tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[WCH]

Could you please cite the verse in Romans?

Romans 10:13.

 

[PRmerger]

The first sermon, recorded in Acts 2. Given by Pope Peter himself on the day of Pentecost when filled by the Spirit he quotes from Joel and also from the Psalms of David. This was sufficient to save about 3000 souls.

This would be what happens in our Catholic Liturgy: reading from the OT, and then the NT proclamation of the Word, followed by the Gospel and homily.

Incidentally, these words proclaimed by St. Peter were not from the OT:

This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.

But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it.

And neither was this:

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

 

[WCH]

Could you please cite the verse in Romans?

Romans 10:13. Do you know the origin of that verse?

 

[PRmerger]

Romans 10:13. Do you know the origin of that verse?

The origin? As in who wrote it?

I suppose the answer is the Catholic author, St. Paul.