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

[kylemccloughan]

Every Christian on the face of the earth is subject, kyle. You may not recognize that fact, but it changes nothing. It only makes you a rebellious subject of the successor of Peter.

Proof from Scripture please.

Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, and put him in charge of feeding and caring for the flock. Jesus did not say “the borders of the flock you are to feed and care for lie within these boundaries”. He has One Flock, and he placed one person in the position of responsibility over their care and feeding. The earlyl church did nothing without Peter, and after him, his successors.

Let’s get an Orthodox opinion on that.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t agree. Roman Catholic is a proper name. The word catholic means universal and it is not a proper name, it is an adjective to describe what Jesus’ Church is. One Holy catholic and apostolic. If other Protestants use RC to show insult, I surely don’t. Roman Catholic is a proper name.

It is used that way now because the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church took the insult to herself and embraced this cross. The Catholic nature of the Church has not changed since Acts 9:31 was written (the first known evidence of the is adjective) until today. All the writers of Scripture were Catholic. All the councils that debated the canon were Catholic. All the Bibles were Catholic until the Reformation.

Your strawman that the Churches that are now considered Eastern Orthodox were not previously Catholic holds no merit. Your erroneous notion that the 22 non-Latin Rites of the Church in union with the sucessor of Peter are not just as Catholic as the Latin also has no merit.

 

[kylemccloughan]

It is used that way now because the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church took the insult to herself and embraced this cross. The Catholic nature of the Church has not changed since Acts 9:31 was written (the first known evidence of the is adjective) until today. All the writers of Scripture were Catholic. All the councils that debated the canon were Catholic. All the Bibles were Catholic until the Reformation.

Your strawman that the Churches that are now considered Eastern Orthodox were not previously Catholic holds no merit. Your erroneous notion that the 22 non-Latin Rites of the Church in union with the sucessor of Peter are not just as Catholic as the Latin also has no merit.

All I can say is that I respectfully disagree with you. The Catholic church has changed so much over the centuries that it resembles very little of what it once was. This was the very reason for the Reformation. Sticking your head in the sand and covering your ears accomplishes nothing. Pretending that real Biblical truth is somehow metamorphisized by Catholic teaching doesn’t bode well for the evidence that you are trying to convince others of either. Let’s hear what Orthodox Christians have to say about Roman supremacy prior to 1054ad. Let’s hear what they have to say regarding the councils who compiled the canon. You’ll hear much objection to what you have to say on the matter.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Edmundus1581
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.

I’m not aware of this, on two fronts. 1) Lutherans, at least have the same doctrine documents - the Book of Concord - whether or not Catholics are present. 2) While I think it is proper and appropriate to read scripture, I’m not aware of any doctrine which requires it unto salvation.

I see this also. They say it is faith alone not by works. But then they say yes you must do works, but your works won’t help save you, but you must do works:hypno: Then it turns into the regular wheels on the bus go round and round.

Perhaps this will help.

We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. - Luther

IOW, Justification is accessed by Grace alone through faith alone, but the faith of which we speak must be a faith that works through love. An active, saving faith cannot be without works.

And we Lutherans say this even when Catholics aren’t around.

Jon

 

[patricius79]

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.

that may be a good argument, especially in light of the fact that Protestant recieved the the N.T. Canon from the Catholic Church, its only historic source (the Canon isn’t in Scripture)

and, “yes”, the N.T. was written by men (as well as God the Holy Spirit)

in addition, I think it makes no sense to say we are not saved by human works in any sense, and then to say that we are saved through reading Scripture or hearing the Scriptures preached by men

those are both works

 

[PRmerger]

All I can say is that I respectfully disagree with you. The Catholic church has changed so much over the centuries that it resembles very little of what it once was. This was the very reason for the Reformation. Sticking your head in the sand and covering your ears accomplishes nothing. Pretending that real Biblical truth is somehow metamorphisized by Catholic teaching doesn’t bode well for the evidence that you are trying to convince others of either. Let’s hear what Orthodox Christians have to say about Roman supremacy prior to 1054ad. Let’s hear what they have to say regarding the councils who compiled the canon. You’ll hear much objection to what you have to say on the matter.

kyle, I have asked you now twice to provide an example of a church from the 5th century that was not “subject to the primacy of Rome.” Where was this church? Who were they “subject” to? (post #95 and post #99).

Could you please answer, to offer evidence of your statement here:

Originally Posted by kylemccloughan
The were not subject to the primacy of Rome.

(And please provide reference(s) for your answer. Thanks.)

 

[kylemccloughan]

kyle, I have asked you now twice to provide an example of a church from the 5th century that was not “subject to the primacy of Rome.” Where was this church? Who were they “subject” to? (post #95 and post #99).

Could you please answer, to offer evidence of your statement here:

(And please provide reference(s) for your answer. Thanks.)

I never said there were other churches.

 

[kylemccloughan]

It’s precisely the same thing as saying that i am subject to the Roman Pontiff right here and now and I say that I absolutely am not. We would disagree on that as well.

 

[pablope]

No, it is in Scripture. That is why it is believed by all Christians.

Okay…then show me were the word “Trinity” is in the Bible?

How was it declared or discerned? And why do Christians believe in it now?

 

[kylemccloughan]

Okay…then show me were the word “Trinity” is in the Bible?

How was it declared or discerned? And why do Christians believe in it now?

This is a failed way to argue Biblical facts. Roman Catholic is nowhere to be found in Scripture either. Pope is not either. Does that mean to a Catholic that those things are not Scriptural too??

 

[PRmerger]

I never said there were other churches.

'kay. Then to whom were you referring when you used the word “they” in this post here:

Originally Posted by kylemccloughan
The were not subject to the primacy of Rome.

Who were “they”? And where did they meet to worship? And who was their leader?

And please provide references. Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

This is a failed way to argue Biblical facts. Roman Catholic is nowhere to be found in Scripture either. Pope is not either. Does that mean to a Catholic that those things are not Scriptural too??

Ah, but kyle, it is not our paradigm that all must be found in Scripture.

It is *your *paradigm, remember?

It’s a little like your insisting that English be the only language spoken in Canada. We Canadians* speak both English and French. I tell you that you just used the word “adieu!” and therefore you are contradicting your dictum that only English be spoken…

And then you respond, “Well, you just used the words Frere and Mere!”

Well, yes. But then I don’t believe that only English should be spoken.

*NB: I am not Canadian. This is simply rhetorical.

 

[Christalone]

Who says we are saved by faith alone? That is a dogmatic accusation made against non catholics, as I see it. All one has to do is read God’s Word.

 

[PRmerger]

Who says we are saved by faith alone? That is a dogmatic accusation made against non catholics, as I see it. All one has to do is read God’s Word.

Well, even a cursory search on the internet found thousands of hits of Protestants who do indeed say they are saved by faith alone.

To wit:

vimeo.com/2199948

“As Christians, we believe we are saved by faith alone.”

“As Christians, we believe we are saved by faith alone. But we often live as though God accepts and loves us based on our actions.”

 

[pablope]

This is a failed way to argue Biblical facts. Roman Catholic is nowhere to be found in Scripture either. Pope is not either. Does that mean to a Catholic that those things are not Scriptural too??

Let me see…I stated the HS is part of Sacred Tradition…then you said “No, it is in Scripture. That is why it is believed by all Christians”…then I asked you to “Okay…then show me were the word “Trinity” is in the Bible? How was it declared or discerned? And why do Christians believe in it now?”

First…let me say…Anglican is not found in Scripture either, isn’t it? So if you are saying the CC is not true since it is not found in scripture, then what does that make of the Anglicans? Like it or not, your roots are from the CC, so if the CC is not true, how does it make Anglicanism true?

You are the one who made the assertion…and I asked you to prove it…then you respond…“This is a failed way to argue Biblical facts”…so why is it a failed way to argue biblical facts? Well, for one thing, you are the one asserting, and was asked to prove it.

So I get it you cannot prove it…so you resort to an evasion…I think this is called an ad hominem response.

Understandable…you do not want to do it, since doing so would acknowlegde the CC’s role in hammering out the Trinity…here is an excerpt from a pope, which you do not even want to acknowledge as a leader(in some of your posts)…from AD259…

[SIGN]Pope St. Dionysius in 259 AD wrote a public letter to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria in which he condemned the errors of Sabellius and the tritheist Marcion. The significance of this document lies in the fact that it paved the way for the Church’s later teaching, notably in the famous councils that dealt with the person of Christ. The popes led the way in defending the revealed mystery of the Trinity and in explaining its meaning, long before ecumenical councils entered the controversy. Even a few sentences from the pope’s letter will show the intransigence of the Church and her sureness of mind about the Trinity:

Sabellius’ blasphemy is that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son. These men somehow teach there are three gods since they divine the sacred unity into three different hypostases completely separate from one another.
The teaching of the foolish Marcion who divides and separates the one God into three principles is a teaching from the devil, not the teaching of those who truly follow Christ and who are content with the teachings of the Savior.

At the Council of Nicea (325 AD), the Second Person was declared to be consubstantial with the Father, where the term homo-ousios became the consecrated word for expressing perfect numerical identity of nature between the Father and His Son who became incarnate.[/SIGN]

Source: therealpresence.org/archives/Trinity/Trinity_001.htm

And this was even before the Bible was canonized!

 

[Christalone]

We are not saved by faith alone. We are saved by God’s grace thru our faith! Nothing more nothing less!

 

[kylemccloughan]

Let me see…I stated the HS is part of Sacred Tradition…then you said “No, it is in Scripture. That is why it is believed by all Christians”…then I asked you to “Okay…then show me were the word “Trinity” is in the Bible? How was it declared or discerned? And why do Christians believe in it now?”

This is kind of ridiculous. the trinity is in Scripture. It is all over Scripture. Can you say that the whole context of Scripture doesn’t in any way give us the Trinity?? I thought so.

First…let me say…Anglican is not found in Scripture either, isn’t it? So if you are saying the CC is not true since it is not found in scripture, then what does that make of the Anglicans? Like it or not, your roots are from the CC, so if the CC is not true, how does it make Anglicanism true?

 

[pablope]

If it is in Scripture, then why are there Protestant denominations that do not believe in the Trinity, do not believe Jesus is God or the son of God but something else?

You know about the Trinity and the biblicaj support because the early catholic popes defended the doctrine, and decreed it, even before the Bible was canonized. You learned it from somebody who believed in it…it was passed on to you…but the roots of the belief are from the early bishops of the CC who hammered it out.

Again, this is nuts. I never said what you are accusing me of. I asked that being Scripture doesn’t specifically spell out Roman Catholic or pope, does it mean that CATHOLICS should regard these as unbiblical?? That is what I said

You are missing the point…we do not…but you certainly do. You are the one who is saying they are not since they are not found directly in the Bible.

And yet, you are contradicting yourself for believing in the Trinity, yet the word Trinity is not found in Scripture.

But again, it was Scripture that tells us how Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God.

Let me repeat the question above…if it is Scripture, why are there protestant denominations that do not believe in the Trinity? Why are there different beliefs?

This is just one…how about the different beliefs in the Eucharist, the need for baptism, predestination, OSAS…these are all extracted from the Bible…how come there is confusion in protestantism?

Not the Council of Nicea. Do you deny that?? I would like for you to answer that. The purpose of the Council of Nicea was to combat heresy, not to define the Trinity.

It is one of the vehicles, combating heresy…that we today know of the Trinity. It was affirmed by the early councils.

Yet, in your anti catholic bias, you even did not cite, or ignored the first part of the article I posted…which I am reposting here…

Pope St. Dionysius in 259 AD wrote a public letter to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria in which he condemned the errors of Sabellius and the tritheist Marcion. The significance of this document lies in the fact that it paved the way for the Church’s later teaching, notably in the famous councils that dealt with the person of Christ. **The popes led the way in defending the revealed mystery of the Trinity and in explaining its meaning, long before ecumenical councils entered the controversy. Even a few sentences from the pope’s letter will show the intransigence of the Church and her sureness of mind about the **

Trinity:

It was the popes of the CC, that led the way in defining the doctrine. The popes which you even do not believe in, in which you rebel against, and cite as being unbiblical. Yet you believe in the Trinity. Unwittingly though, you acknowledge their authority but your pride and anti-catholic prejudice blinds you.

 

[JonNC]

Hi pablope,
Hope you don’t mind my response here, to a couple of points.

=pablope;8125904If it is in Scripture, then why are there Protestant denominations that do not believe in the Trinity, do not believe Jesus is God or the son of God but something else?

I would contend, with due respect to those who self-identify as Christian but do not believe in the Trinity, I think it is difficult to identify them as Protestant, as they are not trinitarian Christian.

You know about the Trinity and the biblicaj support because the early catholic popes defended the doctrine, and decreed it, even before the Bible was canonized. You learned it from somebody who believed in it…it was passed on to you…but the roots of the belief are from the early bishops of the CC who hammered it out.

More than the popes, the entire Church Catholic, with all the patriarchates, of whom one is the Bishop of Rome, in Council together.

Let me repeat the question above…if it is Scripture, why are there protestant denominations that do not believe in the Trinity? Why are there different beliefs?

This is just one…how about the different beliefs in the Eucharist, the need for baptism, predestination, OSAS…these are all extracted from the Bible…how come there is confusion in protestantism?

This is one of the problems with the term, Protestant. Its use implies a monolith in organization and origin. I am not confused at all about these items. My confessions speak quite clearly about them.
It is true, however, that my response probably doesn’t answer the root question; why are there different beliefs? The great councils of the early Church were called because there were different beliefs. There were different beliefs amongst the patriarchs - who led those great councils - that led to the Great Schism. Some of these differences still exist, and more have developed. So, I guess my answer to why are there different beliefs has nothing to do with sola scriptura, as the history of different beliefs predates the Reformation. Human sin is the cause of these differences, of which we are all guilty.

Thanks for indulging me, my friend.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
At the Council of Nicea (325 AD), the Second Person was declared to be consubstantial with the Father, where the term homo-ousios became the consecrated word for expressing perfect numerical identity of nature between the Father and His Son who became incarnate.[/sign]

But again, it was Scripture that tells us how Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God. Not the Council of Nicea. Do you deny that?? I would like for you to answer that. The purpose of the Council of Nicea was to combat heresy, not to define the Trinity.

Scripture & Tradition,not Scripture-only. Nicea was called to combat the Arian heresy and led to the declaration and definition of the Trinity. The Arians were basing their argument from Scripture-only and could not find the term homo-ousios. However, the church argued from the entirety of Scripture & Tradition and not use specific verses as the Arians did as an attempt to debunk Christ divinity.

BTW: It is the Church which gave us the complexity and distinction of the three persons of the Trinitarian doctrine,not Scripture-only.