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

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMartyr73340
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct. It wrought, then, by Tradition and scripture?
By “it”, do you mean “disagreement” or “chaos and confusion”?

(I thought you already acknowledged that there was no chaos and confusion between the 2 different understandings of the IC in the east and west.)
Listen to what some others say regarding how they practice SS, and it doesn’t too terribly much resemble what we Lutherans do. If they are in chaos, that is their choice and doing, but I would suspect that they would say that their communions are not in confusion either.
I agree, with caveats. If they are in chaos, it is their choice, and because they have been given “permission”, so to speak, to promote this chaos and confusion by SS,
Not sure I understand.
Comparing the eastern/western disagreement on the IC to the chaos of Christendom on the multitude of issues is, well, underwhelming. 🙂
PR, you speaking as if a method of hermeunetics has some will of its own. The fact is, regardless of SS or no SS, it is people, sinful humans, who have these varying beliefs.
'Tis true, this. But, as I stated earlier, it is SS that gives you permission to deviate from that which was delivered, once for all, to the saints.
I would heartily agree, that the devil himself revels in our disunity. Pray for unity.
Indeed. :sad_yes: I am praying even now.
 
=PRmerger;8131886] By “it”, do you mean “disagreement” or “chaos and confusion”?
Which ever you wish to call it.
(I thought you already acknowledged that there was no chaos and confusion between the 2 different understandings of the IC in the east and west.)
And yet, it can be argued that the schism of east and west led directly to the use of sola scriptura, since there wasn’t agreement enough using Tradition and scripture to hold the Church together, leading to councils and doctrines not held in the undivided Church of the 1st Millennium.
Comparing the eastern/western disagreement on the IC to the chaos of Christendom on the multitude of issues is, well, underwhelming. 🙂
Differences, nontheless.
'Tis true, this. But, as I stated earlier, it is SS that gives you permission to deviate from that which was delivered, once for all, to the saints.
As Lutherans, we accept the 7 councils. These were delivered, and we do not deviate from them. Since then, who has deviated? Has Rome deviated with doctrines and dogmas not approved by truly ecumenical councils, or found in scripture? Was the IC such a deviation? Was the Filioque, that even we Lutherans generally use?

Speaking now just for me, I find it impossible to determine who, of the ancient Church deviated. But I can say, again speaking only for me, that if we are guilty of deviation without the benefit of an ecumenical council, then we are not alone in Christendom.

Jon
 
'kay. So if someone calls on the name of the Lord, “Jesus! You are my savior!” and repents of all of his past sins, keeps in memory those verses above…

But he then says, "I don’t have a bible. Don’t need one, don’t want one."

Is he saved?
No. He is a liar.
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
But whoso keepth his (God’s) word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby we know that we are in him.
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk, even as he walked.
1st John 2:3-6
 
and of course, it depends on the meaning of sola fide. If one defines sola fide in the way I often see it, a false caricature that portrays an intellectual assent, which allows the claimant to live anyway he wants, to ignore the commands of Christ to help our fellowman, to resist the means of grace in word and sacrament amnd therefore not grow in grace, then yes, jmartyr’s question cannot be answered.

But I contend the question itself implies a strawman argument, referring to the false caricature of sola fide, as outlined above.

If the faith in question is a saving faith, it is a biblical faith, one that works through love. A faith that does not work is a false faith, a dead faith, and not a saving faith. So, when a Lutheran speaks of being justified by grace alone through faith alone, it is known that sactification must be there. “There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.”
So, how can faith be real if there is no renewal of life, or new obedience? Have can it be a true faith if one does not do the good works which He has prepared for us to do? We know that faith comes from hearing. How then can faith be maintained if we do not participate in word and sacrament?

So, the answer to the OP is that faith alone includes these things, including participating in the word. Faith is supported and nurished by the Holy SPirit. How? By word and sacrament. The OP’s question presents a false choice, based on a wrong understanding of sola fide.

It sounds selfish to me, too. While He is my “personal” Savior, in that He died on the cross and rose again for me and all of mindkind, it is also true that, as a believer, I am part of the Communion of Saints, certainly not part of some isolated oone-on-one relationship. Supercatholic, I encourage you stay Catholic, because Christ saves His sheep in the Catholic Church, too. And btw, I really like the DRB.

Jon
I think my post was slightly misunderstood. I was debunking non-catholic positions with quotation marks and CAPS. You can rest most assuredly I will always stay Catholic. As Peter said to Jesus “To whom shall we go?” For me to be anything but Catholic would be for me to be nothing.
 
I think my post was slightly misunderstood. I was debunking non-catholic positions with quotation marks and CAPS. You can rest most assuredly I will always stay Catholic. As Peter said to Jesus “To whom shall we go?” For me to be anything but Catholic would be for me to be nothing.
I understood the debunking, and I here shared my effort to debunk it with you. Please do not misunderstand that paragraph as sarcasm, as I was quite serious and honest.

Jon
 
(Jut noting that I have not read the thread. Saw it “pop” up with it’s last post on the home page)

Why I read the Bible has more to do with getting to know Our Lord and wanting to be an authentic disciple.

The “saving by faith alone” is lower on my list.

I want to have an intimate, breathing relationship with Christ. A healthy relationship.

A person can be married, but if they dont put time and effort into their marriage, it can be a weak if not sick marriage.

I want a healthy living vibrant intimate relationship with Christ. Reading Sacred Scripture helps in that area.

St Jerome “Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ”
 
Which ever you wish to call it.
The distinction is, I think, not minor. “Differences” vs “chaos and confusion”

Permit me an analogy to marriage:

differences = disagreements between whether to have spinach or lettuce salad for dinner. But both husband and wife agree that vegetables must be served at dinner. And, in the end, one says, “Amen!” and agrees with the other. (See post # 805 :))

chaos and confusion = divorce and “re-marriage” a thousand times over, leading to children in therapy, uncertain about what their foundation is, having multiple marriages and “re-marriage” on their own…:eek:

Now, as all analogies do, this will fail. I am simply pointing out that there is great import in how one labels the differences between east and west on the IC.
And yet, it can be argued that the schism of east and west led directly to the use of sola scriptura,
Directly? Can you provide evidence for this Jon?

My understanding was that it was abuses by the Catholic clergy that was the catalyst, no?
Differences, nontheless.
Yes, like lettuce vs spinach salad. 🤷
 
As Lutherans, we accept the 7 councils. These were delivered, and we do not deviate from them. Since then, who has deviated?
Sadly, I must say that you have. When you use Scripture as your final authority, rather than the Church (which gave you these Scriptures) you deviate from that which was delivered, once for all, to the saints.
Has Rome deviated with doctrines and dogmas not approved by truly ecumenical councils, or found in scripture? Was the IC such a deviation? Was the Filioque, that even we Lutherans generally use?
I am understanding you to be rhetorical here?
Speaking now just for me, I find it impossible to determine who, of the ancient Church deviated.
And that is why the Holy Spirit has called you to be in dialogue on a Catholic forum. 🙂
But I can say, again speaking only for me, that if we are guilty of deviation without the benefit of an ecumenical council, then we are not alone in Christendom.
Truly, you are not alone in Christendom in this deviation. :sad_yes:
 
So must one continually hear the Word? And if he does stop hearing, does he lose his salvation?
LOL!

“Be transformed … by the renewing of your mind … by the washing of the word.”

… Paul the Apostle.
 
'kay. So one can *think *he’s saved, but not be really saved?Or are you saying he knows he’s not saved, but is simply professing that which he knows to be untrue.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
 
LOL!

“Be transformed … by the renewing of your mind … by the washing of the word.”

… Paul the Apostle.
Not sure what this means.

Can you answer yes or no, please?

Can someone lose his salvation if he stops hearing the Word? Yes or no?

If he never ever opens a bible, is he still saved? Yes or no?
 
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Not sure what this means, either, in response to my question.

Can a man think he’s saved but really is not saved? Yes or no?
 
Not sure what this means.

Can you answer yes or no, please?

Can someone lose his salvation if he stops hearing the Word? Yes or no?

If he never ever opens a bible, is he still saved? Yes or no?
It can be turned into a word game very easily… and usually is… but from my understanding people dont lose their salvation because they stop hearing… they lose it when they stop doing.
I guess the quick and dirty answer is ‘yes’ IMHO …

God always honors true sincerity and a repentant heart. He knows the difference.

“If he never ever opens a bible, is he still saved? Yes or no?”

God is not incapable of dealing with that scenario.

I have read and heard of people in closed/ controlled Muslim societies that have a burning desire to really know what the truth is … there are multiple stories of people like this having personal encounters with Jesus. They never read the Bible… it is outlawed … But God’s word is written in their heart (as it states in the book of Romans) … and they pull the truth right out of heaven. Truth calls to truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top