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

[ddarko]

ddarko, I understand where you’re trying to blaze a trail of logic here. I do. But here’s the inherent difficulty…

If I’m reading the posts correctly, (and I may not be) 1voice himself indicated that personal experience was not first. The Bible was…

Yes, I sort of realize that he might have started off with the Bible.

But the point I want him to realize is that there is still no connection between the Bible being true or false and his miracles. It might be that God answered his prayers.

So take the case of a Muslim. He believes in the Koran and prays to God to heal his sickness. God heals him. Does that mean the Koran is true?

It is that specific jump that want to draw his attention to.

So I am not sure it is logical as in the above case with the Koran. For there are other factors involved like him praying to God.

So God might have simply rewarded him for his prayer but not because he had the right Theology.

Your point should be well taken, however…that the origins of the Bible (and Christianity for that matter) are the most important “next step”, as you say. … Bible as the final authority, based on what he learned outside the Church.

Actually the argument I am making to him applies even if he starts off with the Bible.

It would just mean that he needs to address that very initial assumption then. I think the reason why 1voice chose to bring his personal experience in is because many believe that there personal experience justifies their religion. But strictly logically speaking it doesn’t.

On the other hand, I think you should realize… You have told him many times that Christ instituted the Church and appointed men to lead it. All true. But this is in Scripture. Or, atleast you aren’t alluding to the fact that it is found elsewhere.

Actually I am not debating theology with him. This is why I am always trying to stay on the rational plane.

My point is not whether Christ instituted some divine Church. That would be Theology.

I am merely telling him to recognize the fact that historically (note, not theologically), if I was a pagan and I saw the resurrected Christ, I have to naturally turn to the Apostles.

That is a reasonable choice.

Then after the apostles, I turn to the ones they instituted and so forth.

In other words, I am not telling anything much different from what any professional body follows today.

Take the Engineering profession. New engineers are granted professional designation by those who became Engineers prior to them. That is reasonable.

Now if I were to get advice on, lets say building a sky scraper, I turn to a Civil Engineer that has been designated as a professional engineer by Engineers before him.

I do not turn to a lay person who just has a book on building Sky Scrapers.

So I think my use of the word Apostolic Succession might have suggested that I am aiming for a theological debate. My apologies. I am strictly keeping this on the plain of reason.

If you are going to appeal to the need for others to look beyond Scripture, you have to also not make references that have their origins within it. Does that make sense?

Actually that is not true. I would be happy to use the Book of Acts as a historical document with no theological significance.

We can just look at the Book of Acts and see how the early Church operated. Then one can see that one did not came to knowledge of Christ through personal prayer BUT through listening to the teaching of the Apostles.

Btw, this is the same methodology used to justify Papal Infallibility by the Catholic Church using Scripture (i.e. Historically).

Many misunderstand it as the Catholic church trying to justify infallibility using its own Scripture but what is happening here is a historical analysis. Not theological.

I am actually all for this historical approach. But I think one can do this analysis by simply using the book of Acts as mere historical material. Then the credibility of Irenaeus (since he was a Apostles (Bishop)) is also further increased.

I beg your pardon if I am misunderstanding your line of logic, but this is just what it seems to me. … **the Bible came first. **

No worries. I think you understood me quiet well. But I disagree with this conventional wisdom that the Bible came first.

But the misunderstanding is that you are thinking I am arguing from Theology. On the contrary, I use Scripture like the book of Acts merely as a historical document.

I am not trying to show 1voice theology here. So to lay out my complete argument for Catholicism, it is as follows

1. One knows God exists through reason and personal experience of him (1voice agrees)
2. One knows Christ rose from the dead (historicity and reason) and personal experience of him (1voice agrees)
3. The most reasonable thing is to then listen to the Apostles instituted by Christ (Reason and history)
4. The Apostles instituted new Apostles that had the same teaching authority as we can see with St. Paul and how he was treated and accepted in the Early Church (Historical truth)
5. The Apostles are the only ones with the teaching authority and that was decided by the Apostles and the entire body of faithful DO NOT have this power (Historical truth - Circumcision example, Decision on Gentile conversion etc in book of acts for an example)
6. Therefore one must listen to the teaching of Apostles and those Apostles instituted by them
7. The Catholic church has an unbroken line of Apostles dating back to the original
8. Thus the Catholic Church has teaching authority

Let me know if you feel something above is out of place. I would be happy to discuss criticism of it

God Bless

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, I sort of realize that he might have started off with the Bible.

1. Thus the Catholic Church has teaching authority

Let me know if you feel something above is out of place. I would be happy to discuss criticism of it

God Bless

I am merely telling him to recognize the fact that historically (note, not theologically), if I was a pagan and I saw the resurrected Christ, I have to naturally turn to the Apostles.

That is a reasonable choice.

Then after the apostles, I turn to the ones they instituted and so forth.

I understand your logic. I ask you to take a step back. Lets look in the Protestant world for a moment as it is varied. Is there or are there people or beliefs that define the progression in history of most Protestant groups? Lets take for instance Calvary Chapel. Are they defined in time by people or beliefs? Let’s look at the Methodists. John Wesley founded Methodism and for the most part the transmission of beliefs is not by people but by thought, in other words the notion in the Protestant world of successors handing down information is not necessarily part of the thought process. The Bible tends to skip from the past to the present without any other transmitting source except the ever present whatever Church you are in now at inception to your introduction of beliefs. Later there are sources to look at and books to read.

The paradigm that you are presenting this logic to is foreign to the person that holds the paradigm that you are experencing in opposition. They are two different worlds. :banghead::hypno::juggle:

 

[guanophore]

This is why they need to read the bible. This information was abstracted by attending too many Protestant functions out of courtesy.

Sounds like you have had a very rough time of it.

 

[guanophore]

You ignored my reference to the fact that the RCC has never had universal jurisdiction of the whole Church …

There is only One Church founded by Christ. He placed the authority for that Church in His Aposltes, and they to their successors, the bishops.

The CC is where the bishop is - there is Christ. It is not “Roman”.

The authority to feed and care for the whole flock was given only to Peter. He and His successors feed and care for One Flock.

 

[1voice]

lvoice, got a question for you. My brother got a brain tumor at the age of 39. He was healthy as a horse. Went to the Dr with a headache and learned he had a year to live.

I prayed, I prayed more then anyone could ever think. My Dad lived in Church, served mass every single day for the previous 20 years. He prayed the rosary everyday of his life, he helped others, did it all, read the bible every day etc.

We all prayed but God took my brother anyway. Were our prayers not enough, was our faith not strong enough. do you feel if I asked you at the time to pray for him that anything would have changed.

rinnie,
I am so sorry for your loss… I know that it is very hard. I am praying for a family member fighting cancer right now it has been very hard on the family… She is dearly loved and I covet your prayers … God is sovereign. His kingdom come … his will be done.

I dont know the answer to your question. I do know that God heals. I have seen it on a regular basis for many years. My Pastor had a heart attack last year … His son was one of the surgeons. When they opened up his chest they found advanced cancer of the lymph glands under both arm pits. He had no insurance … He said … Either God is going to heal me or He will take me home … I will not spend a fortune and make my wife destitute.
With no treatments whatsoever … they could find no trace of cancer within 6 months.
When I pray for healing I can feel the power go out … Kind of like when Jesus asked “Who touched me.” With me, it is often, not always, a sensation that can be felt.
also… I have prayed for people that felt the power and refused the healing. One man I knew had a brain tumor and he said stop praying … He told me … I can feel the healing power very strong… but I do not want to live. … I have been to heaven several times while I have been sick I have seen it and I want to go home. One time I was praying for a woman who had a terrible migraine … I felt that unforgiveness was blocking the flow so I talked with her … turns out her husband had a mistress and she refused to forgive … Gods power could do nothing for the pain at that point. Unforgiveness is a deal breaker every time.
I have also felt the healing power being blocked by confusion … when I prayed, I sensed that the person was confused and did not know how to receive and that confusion blocked the flow of healing power… dont ask me why … it just does … so I had to instruct them in how to receive … then the healing power flows right in… The gift of healing is in the word of God and it operates according to certain rules … I know for sure that fear will stop healing cold. I have experienced fear or doubt blocking out strong anointings for healing.
I dont know why God sometimes says no … but you are right … sometimes it happens … That hasnt stopped me from studying and using the gift … it has been a real blessing for many people over the years.

 

[ddarko]

I understand your logic. I ask you to take a step back. Lets look in the Protestant world for a moment as it is varied. Is there or are there people or beliefs that define the progression in history of most Protestant groups? Lets take for instance Calvary Chapel. Are they defined in time by people or beliefs? Let’s look at the Methodists. John Wesley founded Methodism and for the most part the transmission of beliefs is not by people but by thought, in other words the notion in the Protestant world of successors handing down information is not necessarily part of the thought process. The Bible tends to skip from the past to the present without any other transmitting source except the ever present whatever Church you are in now at inception to your introduction of beliefs. Later there are sources to look at and books to read.

The paradigm that you are presenting this logic to is foreign to the person that holds the paradigm that you are experencing in opposition. They are two different worlds. :banghead::hypno::juggle:

I have absolutely no clue what you are saying here.

The only thing I can guess is you are trying to say the Bible seems to originate from their own church depending on which church they are from. That is not a logical statement.

Christianity does not start with John Wesley. Once the person finds Christ, then they must make their way FROM Christ to John Wesley or the Koran or whatever book or person. They can’t just randomly start with a person at least once they are challenged like on this forum, they must go back and reanalyze.

That is my point.

If I say I had a personal experience with Jesus and then go and believe the works of William Shakespeare as divinely inspired, I have violated rules of logical inference in my choice.

So the reason for confusion today and so many religions is that people don’t want to use reason. They want to just BELIEVE in their religion because they think their personal experience confirms its validity.

1voice is just a case that happens to be a Bible believer as a result of his personal experience. If you move around the world a bit, you will get Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc.

All of them just ignored reason when they took a leap from their personal experience to confirmation of their faith.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

Let me know if you feel something above is out of place. I would be happy to discuss criticism of it

God Bless

It seems that you invalidate the authenticity of his expereinces. This, in turn, makes him defensive against what you are trying to show.

But even if this were not the case, the thing I see that is out of place is that he is not ready, willing, or able to hear your points. He feels completely satisfied with his truncated version of Christianity. Rinnie has made a good point. Would he believe if he did not see the miracles? Would his faith be so satisfying if God said “no”? This is what may need to happen in order for a chink to open for some of the light to get in.

 

[CopticChristian]

rinnie,
I am so sorry for your loss… I know that it is very hard. I am praying for a family member fighting cancer right now it has been very hard on the family… She is dearly loved and I covet your prayers … God is sovereign. His kingdom come … his will be done.

I dont know the answer to your question. I do know that God heals. I have seen it on a regular basis for many years. My Pastor had a heart attack last year … His son was one of the surgeons. When they opened up his chest they found advanced cancer of the lymph glands under both arm pits. He had no insurance … He said … Either God is going to heal me or He will take me home … I will not spend a fortune and make my wife destitute.
With no treatments whatsoever … they could find no trace of cancer within 6 months.
When I pray for healing I can feel the power go out … Kind of like when Jesus asked “Who touched me.” With me, it is often, not always, a sensation that can be felt.
also… I have prayed for people that felt the power and refused the healing. One man I knew had a brain tumor and he said stop praying … He told me … I can feel the healing power very strong… but I do not want to live. … I have been to heaven several times while I have been sick I have seen it and I want to go home. One time I was praying for a woman who had a terrible migraine … I felt that unforgiveness was blocking the flow so I talked with her … turns out her husband had a mistress and she refused to forgive … Gods power could do nothing for the pain at that point. Unforgiveness is a deal breaker every time.
I have also felt the healing power being blocked by confusion … when I prayed, I sensed that the person was confused and did not know how to receive and that confusion blocked the flow of healing power… dont ask me why … it just does … so I had to instruct them in how to receive … then the healing power flows right in… The gift of healing is in the word of God and it operates according to certain rules … I know for sure that fear will stop healing cold. I have experienced fear or doubt blocking out strong anointings for healing.
I dont know why God sometimes says no … but you are right … sometimes it happens … That hasnt stopped me from studying and using the gift … it has been a real blessing for many people over the years.

Just so that you are aware, generally speaking Cancers fall into 3 types. They follow the bell shape curve. There are 25% of all Cancers will not respond to any treatment and run their course. 25% of Cancers respond to treatment of some type and will get better and resolve. 50% of all Cancers vary in their response depending on treatment or no treatment. When you speak of healing of Cancer it would be difficult to know which part of the curve these tumors fall into.

On the other hand I am not going to discount the power of prayer. When I say that 50-75% respond in some way I am including prayer of any type. In my opinion Prayer is an adjunct to treatment.

 

[CopticChristian]

It seems that you invalidate the authenticity of his expereinces. This, in turn, makes him defensive against what you are trying to show.

But even if this were not the case, the thing I see that is out of place is that he is not ready, willing, or able to hear your points. He feels completely satisfied with his truncated version of Christianity. Rinnie has made a good point. Would he believe if he did not see the miracles? Would his faith be so satisfying if God said “no”? This is what may need to happen in order for a chink to open for some of the light to get in.

May the grace of God bear witness to this miracle in that I am in agreement with this statement. So few words, so much sense, and perhaps the message will be accepted and clearer than whatever I hoped to try to say. Amen:extrahappy:

 

[rinnie]

lvoice thankyou for your kind words. But you are missing my point. Let me put it another way .

This is the truth, My Husband had cancer 5 years before my brother, He is cured. Do you not see my point lvoice?

I believe in Gods healing and prayers more then anyone in the world. And so does my family.

My point is my brother said, his exact words God can heal me from this, and I could go out tommorow and get hit by a tobacco truck. If Its my time and God says its time, I am ready to go. I don’t want to die, but if its the will of God I am ready.

I KNOW God did what was best for my brother.

I know that although I had to see my Mother and Father break into 2 giving my brother up to God that it is how it HAD to be. I don’t know why, I just know it is what it is.

It in no way made my faith weaker it made my faith stronger. It showed me that my prayers WERE answered. God DID cure my brother, can you not see this?

God cured my brother the only way that it was to be. he cured him by taking him home. Our Love for GOd and our Love for my Brother showed us that sometimes if you trust and love someone sometimes even when you do not completely understand you must believe and accept that God knows what is the best better then us.

Just like the Blessed Mother had to suffer when she saw her Son crucified. Do you not think that she did not suffer also, but instead of asking God her will, she accepted the will of God even more then me and my parents and never asked GOD to do her will.

She trusted him so much that she put COMPLETE trust in God. She never showed one bit of doubt she just trusted our dear Lord that Much.

Are you getting my point here at all?

 

[1voice]

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.

Because … ’ They that are led by the Spirit of God … They are the sons /daughters of God… and … ‘Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’
and … Jesus said … ‘My words are Spirit and life’… and through them … ‘I make all things new’.
and … Paul said … ’ Be transformed, through the renewing of your mind, by the washing of the word of God.

Jesus also said … ‘Obey my words and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.’

 

[1voice]

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 purpose of Sola Scriptura as well as Sola Fide … was to clarify the fact that 'They that are led by the Spirit of God … they are the sons/daughters of God. The religious leaders had shown that man’s power corrupts … and absolute power had corrupted absolutely. It was a call to repentance.

The leadership of the Church had become ‘whited sepulchers’ … as Jesus described the religious leaders in Judea. … and as the Bible states clearly … When Satan comes in … like a flood, God raises up a standard against him … Jesus clearly said … I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

 

[CopticChristian]

The purpose of Sola Scriptura as well as Sola Fide … was to clarify the fact that 'They that are led by the Spirit of God … they are the sons/daughters of God. The religious leaders had shown that man’s power corrupts … and absolute power had corrupted absolutely. It was a call to repentance.

The leadership of the Church had become ‘whited sepulchers’ … as Jesus described the religious leaders in Judea. … and as the Bible states clearly … When Satan comes in … like a flood, God raises up a standard against him … Jesus clearly said … I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

The leadership of the Church had become ‘whited sepulchers’

What leaders? When?

 

[1voice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
The purpose of Sola Scriptura as well as Sola Fide … was to clarify the fact that 'They that are led by the Spirit of God … they are the sons/daughters of God. The religious leaders had shown that man’s power corrupts … and absolute power had corrupted absolutely. It was a call to repentance.

The leadership of the Church had become ‘whited sepulchers’ … as Jesus described the religious leaders in Judea. … and as the Bible states clearly … When Satan comes in … like a flood, God raises up a standard against him … Jesus clearly said … I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Quote:
The leadership of the Church had become ‘whited sepulchers’

What leaders? When?

Pope Leo X (et al) The Medici’s … etc…

 

[Nicea325]

The purpose of Sola Scriptura as well as Sola Fide … was to clarify the fact that 'They that are led by the Spirit of God … they are the sons/daughters of God.

I beg your pardon? They were led by the Spirit of God? When and where did God give mere men centuries later the authority to declare such beliefs? The Spirit of God teaches conflicting beliefs as well? The Spirit of God is responsible for thousands of different denominations,non-denominations,etc,etc? I am still waiting to read where Jesus and the 12 taught Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone?

The religious leaders had shown that man’s power corrupts … and absolute power had corrupted absolutely. It was a call to repentance.

Some…not all! However,that in no shape or from proves or supports Sola Scriptura or Faith Alone.

The leadership of the Church had become ‘whited sepulchers’ … as Jesus described the religious leaders in Judea. … and as the Bible states clearly … When Satan comes in … like a flood, God raises up a standard against him … Jesus clearly said … I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Again…some…not ALL! However,that does not prove God authorized mere men to go and open-up their own churches.

 

[1voice]

Quote:
The leadership of the Church had become ‘whited sepulchers’ … as Jesus described the religious leaders in Judea. … and as the Bible states clearly … When Satan comes in … like a flood, God raises up a standard against him … Jesus clearly said … I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Again…some…not ALL! However,that does not prove God authorized mere men to go and open-up their own churches.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is … there is liberty. “I will send the Holy Spirit … He will lead you.”

 

[SteveGC]

I agree with many things said here recently.

I agree with ddarko’s line of logic and the presentation of how human reason integrates into our search for truth.

I agree with Coptic, in that today’s non-Catholic communities (not all, but many or most) seem to deliberately withhold from their preaching, the rational historical tracing of Christianity from Christ to present day…presumably because it will lead them to Rome. And I also agree with Coptic that Christians that are entrenched in these communities are quite foreign to the reasonableness and necessity of making that leap backwards over a present-day reading of Scripture to the historical Church of Christ.

I agree with ddarko again that this failure to see this logic is illogical to him LOL.

And with guan who expresses solid truth - in that 1voice does not seem ready to embrace this logic.

 

[SteveGC]

Where the Spirit of the Lord is … there is liberty. “I will send the Holy Spirit … He will lead you.”

I bolded a very key word here, 1voice.

Can you tell me please…who precisely is “you” referring to in this passage? Please read it carefully and let me know if it is, in fact, all believers everywhere…or…someone else, or a specific group of people.

It is important for you to see who this “you” is.

 

[1voice]

I agree with many things said here recently.

I agree with ddarko’s line of logic and the presentation of how human reason integrates into our search for truth.

I agree with Coptic, in that today’s non-Catholic communities (not all, but many or most) seem to deliberately withhold from their preaching, the rational historical tracing of Christianity from Christ to present day…presumably because it will lead them to Rome. And I also agree with Coptic that Christians that are entrenched in these communities are quite foreign to the reasonableness and necessity of making that leap backwards over a present-day reading of Scripture to the historical Church of Christ.

I agree with ddarko again that this failure to see this logic is illogical to him LOL.

And with guan who expresses solid truth - in that 1voice does not seem ready to embrace this logic.

I have come to the conclusion that the claiming of complete jurisdiction of the truth … based on a spurious claim to physical lineage just doesnt hold up to inspection. … No offense.

John the Baptist knocked down that argument a long time ago…

 

[1voice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
Where the Spirit of the Lord is … there is liberty. “I will send the Holy Spirit … He will lead you.”

I bolded a very key word here, 1voice.

Can you tell me please…who precisely is “you” referring to in this passage? Please read it carefully and let me know if it is, in fact, all believers everywhere…or…someone else, or a specific group of people.

It is important for you to see who this “you” is.

… Come … all who labor and are heavy ladened … and I will give YOU rest.

Blessed are YOU that hunger and thirst for righteousness … YOU will be satisfied.

… In the last days … I will pour out of my Spirit … on ALL…
Where the Spirit of the Lord is … there is liberty.

My sheep know my voice.