Salvation does not come from reading the bible

[dcdurel]

Jesus taught His apostles everything, (John 15:15)
Thus He said salvation comes from believing the Gospel that the leaders of His Church preached.
Mark 16:15-16
15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. **
** 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Corinthians 15
1 “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”

Now, there is not one book of the bible, nor one chapter of the bible that claims to be a summary of this Gospel the apostles preached. The four gospels only claim to be a narrative of the life of Jesus, not a summary of the preaching of the apostles.

Since salvation comes from believing the Gospel that the apostles preached, where do Protestants get the idea that salvation comes from believing the bible, which is salvation history?

We know what the apostles preached, by learning what the early Christians, who learned from them, believed. And they were all Catholic. Thus, the Gospel the apostles preached was the Catholic faith.

So while believing scripture is necessary, since it is part of the word of God, it does not claim to present the Gospel the apostles preached, by which we are saved.

So where does God say salvation comes from believing scripture, which is salvation history, instead of believing what was preached, the Catholic faith?

 

[allischalmers]

Romans 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ : for it is the POWER of God unto SALVATION to everyone that believes it

 

[clmowry]

Romans 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ : for it is the POWER of God unto SALVATION to everyone that believes it

So for you the Good News if you’ve read a book?

Chuck

 

[dcdurel]

Romans 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ : for it is the POWER of God unto SALVATION to everyone that believes it

But no where does St. Paul claim to write this Gospel. No where does the bible claim to present this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. Jesus taught the apostles everything, (john15:15) and He sent the Holy Spirit to teach them all things and so that they would not forget all He taught them. Then Jesus told them to proclaim this Gospel

The bible does not claim to present this Gospel anywhere. If fact the New Testament was written to Christians who already heard the Gospel. That is why they were Christians.
All the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John claim to do is present narratives of the life of Jesus. No where do they claim to present the Gospel that the apostles and St. Paul taught and preached, though they do have certain elements of that Gospel in the process of giving us the life of Jesus.

Thus, if salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, and the bible does NOT claim to present this Gospel anywhere, then where do Protestants get the idea that salvation comes from reading and believing the bible, instead of the Gospel?

 

[heisenburg]

Right… but the Gospel is NOT the bible… The Gospel is simply the Good news of Christ and the Lord’s Saving Grace…

It is entirely possible to have someone believe in Christ, and become completely obedient without ever opening the bible. I would strongly recommend that person read the bible as soon as they can, but the point is there are plenty of people that Come to his Table, but don’t read the good book.

It is a fallacy to equate the Gospel of Christ to mean the Bible…
The Bible describes what that Gospel is, but the bible itself is NOT that gospel, but merely a tool used to explain it

There is a good news (gospel) according to Mathew/Mark/Luke and John. But these are just aspects of the over all Good News of Christ Jesus

Further more, you have the problem of there being no bible until 390AD. Many people like to say “well even though it wasn’t official, it was still known what those inspired books were” However, this is historically VERY inaccurate. No one agreed on what books were valid, and what books were not. Some thought The proto-James was scripture, others thought Revelation was not.

If the bible is suppose to actually BE the gospel of Christ, then this would mean the Gospel of Christ was not known until almost 360 years later. Does this mean that no one prior to this knew the Gospel of Christ.

What about the fact the no one even started writing any of the letters or Gospels till easily 10 years after his death. Where they too ignorant of the good news?

In Christ

 

[rwoehmke]

Reading of Acts and Paul’s epistles should give one a feel for the bare bones teaching/proclamation of the “Good News” that formed the Early Church. The earliest Gospel found in our Bible was composed after the action described in Acts. That in no way takes away from the fact that the four Gospels include those early teachings and more. In fact one of the writers said that there was much more that Jesus taught that was not included in what he wrote ( I am thinking Luke"); what we as Catholics claim as the unwritten Tradition.

The argument that there was “no bible” till 360 A.D., while perhaps technically correct, is questionable because I believe that long before that, while there may not have been complete agreement as to what writings were included, the accepted books and more were in general circulation. They most certainly were used in teaching the Faith, with Origen’s comments coming about 100 years earlier than 360 AD.

Does one have to read the Bible to be saved? I hardly think so, but certainly to come to believe and be Baptized, one would have to hear at least a minimum of what is now in Scripture, proclaimed or taught. Further, outside of Jesus Christ himself, I doubt that any man has existed who completely understood all that the Scriptures have to teach.

 

[dcdurel]

I still have not seen any Protestant reply to what I stated, that
Salvation does not come from reading the bible.
Nor did Jesus say that salvation comes from believing scripture, even though believing scripture is necesssary since it is the word of God.

Jesus said that salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.

This same Gospel has been handed down by the successors the apostles appointed, the bishops of the Catholic Church.

This Gospel is simply the Catholic faith, centered on the teaching that Jesus came to free us from everything that oppresses us, especially sin and the devil.

 

[historyb]

I still have not seen any Protestant reply to what I stated, that
Salvation does not come from reading the bible.
Nor did Jesus say that salvation comes from believing scripture, even though believing scripture is necesssary since it is the word of God.

Jesus said that salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.

This same Gospel has been handed down by the successors the apostles appointed, the bishops of the Catholic Church.

This Gospel is simply the Catholic faith, centered on the teaching that Jesus came to free us from everything that oppresses us, especially sin and the devil.

And where do Protestant say that Salvation comes from reading the Bible? Can you document, backup and verify your outrageous claim? How dense do you suspect people are anyway. Of course Salvation doesn’t come from reading the Bible, Salvation comes from Christ.

 

[theAuthor]

Faith comes from hearing the word of God.

We are saved by Grace through Faith.

 

[Cat]

I was evangelical Protestant all of my life until three years ago.

I’ve never heard any Protestant preacher or teacher, or read any writings, that salvation comes from reading the Bible.

But the Bible says, “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17)

So a Protestant would say that “FAITH” comes by the Word of God.

I think that is a Catholic teaching. I just finished reading Imitation of Christ Book Four Chapter 11, “That the Body of Christ and the Holy Scriptures are Most Necessary to a Faithful Soul.”

This beautiful chapter teaches the importance of both the Holy Eucharist and the Sacred Scriptures to ensure that a Christian will journey to heaven. “Without these two, I could not well live, for the word of God is the light of my soul, and Thy Sacrament is the bread of life.”

The analogy is made between the Eucharist and the Word, and the Manna and the Pillar of Light/Fire in the Old Testament. I thought that was neat!

Even our Mass is two parts: Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist.

So I believe that it is correct to say that Catholics revere the Sacred Scripture as much, if not more so, than Protestants, because Catholics understand its proper place.

HOWEVER–I have heard quite a few evangelical Protestants teach that the Bible IS Jesus Christ. They use John 1 to prove this. They actually teach that the Bible is not just a Book, but a Person, Jesus, in Written Form. So perhaps these Protestants believe salvation comes from reading “Jesus.”

(It puzzles me to think that some Protestant Christians believe that Jesus is Truly Present in the form of the Bible, but they refuse to believe that Jesus is Truly Present in the form of Bread and Wine.)

 

[Calvinator]

So for you the Good News if you’ve read a book?

Chuck

It is interesting that many catholic e-pologists downplay the importance of the scriptures.

It seems the apostle John had a clear understanding of why he was writing his gospel.

John 20:30-31
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[Bishopite]

Faith comes from hearing the word of God.

We are saved by Grace through Faith.

Actually, we are saved by Jesus Christ; faith is how we respond to God’s grace.

 

[Bishopite]

It is interesting that many catholic e-pologists downplay the importance of the scriptures.

It seems the apostle John had a clear understanding of why he was writing his gospel.

John 20:30-31
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Interestingly John 20:30-31 starts off in verse 30 with the statement “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.”
In other words, all that Jesus did by example in His actions, how He taught the Apostles, how He gave emphasis on certain areas of the gospel, liturgy or worship,were not inscripturated (because all that He did couldn’t contain it all).

Then in verse 31 John says “these things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ.” In other words, the gospel message isn’t strictly found in the Bible alone, the gospel is also taught, shown by example and preached, organically just as a father or mother teaches their child through words, actions and example. A poor Christian parent, say in China or another anti-Christian country who can’t afford, let alone legally posess a Bible, tells their child about Jesus Christ and the gospel message and so that the child will believe without ever reading the inscripturated words. I think that’s the OP’s point as we don’t mean to downplay the Bible just show that the gosple message isn’t strictly given through inscripturated words.

Many Catholics “downplay the importance of the scriptures?”

I beg to differ. We don’t downplay the scriptures at all, we just see the reality that the entire authority of gospel message of Jesus Christ isn’t strictly found in the Bible alone.
The Apostles and their disciples preached and taught the gospel message but they didn’t rely on the Bible alone (certainly not as their only authority) because for nearly four hundred years the entirety of what we call the Bible today, wasn’t formed into the canon (in fact, the first codex–a book with a bound spine, wasn’t established until the second century), ergo the gospel message of Jesus Christ was preached and taught and learned by example and in the divine liturgy (worship). This method is still used today in Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The OP’s statement is a valid point, that salvation does not come from reading the bible (only). The gospel is ALL that God has revealed to us by divine revelation which lasted up to the death of the last Apostle; this is ironically, not found within the scriptures themselves.

 

[Bishopite]

Cat;2808376]I was evangelical Protestant all of my life until three years ago.

Welcome home.

I’ve never heard any Protestant preacher or teacher, or read any writings, that salvation comes from reading the Bible.

Well, in all fairness I’ve heard a number of stories where people have picked up a Bible in a hotel room, read it and from then on dedicated their lives to Christ Jesus, so it can happen, Whether the person first heard the gospel message preached and was shown by example could be inferred and that seems to be the most probable reason they knew to pick up and read the Bible.

But I know what you are saying as I was a Protestant for many of my adult years and I certainly DID hear emphasis on reading/studying the Bible (which was good) however I think you are correct that no reputable Protestant preacher would say that salvation comes alone from reading the Bible as one needs oral instruction as well on what the Bible “says and means” so as not to get them on the same track of what that particular denomination teaches.
And so that when they read the Bible themselves without any instruction, they don’t go down the street and join as a member of another Protestant Church with a contradicting theology.

So I believe that it is correct to say that Catholics revere the Sacred Scripture as much, if not more so, than Protestants, because Catholics understand its proper place.

I agree. Catholicism didn’t just recognize the Bible (the canon), it also transmitted and preserved and protected the Bible down through the ages so that we have it today; this is evidence that Catholicism shows great emphasis on the Bible because it sees it as it is, the word written of God.

 

[seek]

Faith is useless without love. By grace,
in Faith ,through Love------for God is Love. Active Love, not
warm fuzzy Love, not erotic Love—choosing to Love despite
how you feel.

 

[Calvinator]

Interestingly John 20:30-31 starts off in verse 30 with the statement “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.”
In other words, all that Jesus did by example in His actions, how He taught the Apostles, how He gave emphasis on certain areas of the gospel, liturgy or worship,were not inscripturated (because all that He did couldn’t contain it all).

Then in verse 31 John says “these things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ.” In other words, the gospel message isn’t strictly found in the Bible alone, the gospel is also taught, shown by example and preached, organically just as a father or mother teaches their child through words, actions and example. A poor Christian parent, say in China or another anti-Christian country who can’t afford, let alone legally posess a Bible, tells their child about Jesus Christ and the gospel message and so that the child will believe without ever reading the inscripturated words.

Okay…I don’t know anyone that believes that the scriptures must be read in order to be justified. Ani Lbi started a thread with a similar thesis a while back and it went nowhere because nobody believes such a thing.

As you know, I reject much of what you accept as apostolic tradition. Part of my reasoning is simply because quite a bit what your church teaches has no foundation in the early church. The assumption is the clearest example of this as there is no evidence for such a belief existing until several centuries after the apostles.

Many Catholics “downplay the importance of the scriptures?”

I beg to differ. We don’t downplay the scriptures at all, we just see the reality that the entire authority of gospel message of Jesus Christ isn’t strictly found in the Bible alone.

The Apostles and their disciples preached and taught the gospel message but they didn’t rely on the Bible alone (certainly not as their only authority) because for nearly four hundred years the entirety of what we call the Bible today, wasn’t formed into the canon (in fact, the first codex–a book with a bound spine, wasn’t established until the second century), ergo the gospel message of Jesus Christ was preached and taught and learned by example and in the divine liturgy (worship). This method is still used today in Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I realize what you guys believe and you stated it pretty well, but some of your fellow catholic posters go a bit to far. Do me a favor, from here on out, take the time to read how some of the catholic apologists on this forum treat scripture and see if you agree with it or not. I’ll send you a pm in a few weeks and see if you agree with me.

The OP’s statement is a valid point, that salvation does not come from reading the bible.

As I said earlier, I don’t know anyone that believes salvation comes from reading the bible.

Where we part company is on the issue of where the gospel is to be found and what exactly that gospel is.

 

[Bishopite]

**Calvinator;2813236]**Okay…I don’t know anyone that believes that the scriptures must be read in order to be justified. Ani Lbi started a thread with a similar thesis a while back and it went nowhere because nobody believes such a thing.

Right

As you know, I reject much of what you accept as apostolic tradition. Part of my reasoning is simply because quite a bit what your church teaches has no foundation in the early church. The assumption is the clearest example of this as there is no evidence for such a belief existing until several centuries after the apostles.

Welll, I know you don’t agree with the Catholic church, do you accept any Christian councils?
Councils say up to at least the 6th century?
I also see that you want to lead me into the assumption of Mary issue which is found in Tradition and based upon who Mary is in the Bible.
But again in all due deference, if you could you would provide evidence for the early church being Calvinistic in its theology, not just extracting the scriptural interpretation or theolgical novums not heard until the 16th century, but the evidence in the early Christian church post Apostolic period up to the 6th century.
Again, without coming off as rude, if I were doing a report on the evidence for Calvinism or Protestantism in the early church which would encompass a time-line, let’s say just up to the 6th century, I couldn’t find much evidence for it’s beliefs, save the Trinity and perhaps, that there were sacraments (2), and padeo baptism, hypostatic union, (yet, Calvinists disagree with the nature of Baptism, so that also doesn’t really get us to the solution either).
I have a good friend who is a Reformed Christian Protestant Pastor, a graduate of Westminster Seminary a devout Calvinist (Dutch Reformed). We had lunch a few days ago (we are friends, and I respect his beliefs, he respects mine, yet we both are firm in those beliefs respectfully. He has told me of the splits within the Reformed
churches as his had one just a few years ago. They didn’t even split for doctrinal reasons, it was over a person claiming his pastoral practices were to authoritarian. Point being there is no objective means by which his church is held together and his church is acting according to the nature of sola scriptura, which is split apart if we don’t agree.
Again, the ancient Christian church didn’t have those types of splits.
That some early church fathers speak of the authority of scripture, yes they do but NOT the Bible alone as the only authority. They also speak of sacred Tradition too and the authority of the Catholic Magisterium, the Pope, purgatory, communion of saints, sacraments (you accept two most likely?) baptismal regeneration, Apostolic succession, theosis, Marian doctrines.
And of course then there is the canon issue, being it wasn’t formed until the fourth century yet authoritatively recognized by the Catholic church (382 AD council of Rome) and therefore on that subject, there are Christian councils starting in Acts 15 and progressing into the early Christian church history.
Some of them, being you are a Calvinist, you may agree with (council of Orange 529, Chalcedon 451,Nicea 325 AD); these “councils” are made up of Catholic Bishops (not Calvinists, not Protestants, not Baptist’s) and yet all these councils proclaim doctrines, some dogma, and moreover, they rebutt the heretical beliefs, arianism, donatism, nestorianism, pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, monophysitism, collrydianism and even Helvidius who Jerome refuted.
I’m not saying this to try to be mean or a bully or in arrogance, no, not at all.
These are historical truths. Perhaps you see it otherwise, but these truths give substantive evidence for the Catholic faith.

I realize what you guys believe and you stated it pretty well, but some of your fellow catholic posters go a bit to far. Do me a favor, from here on out, take the time to read how some of the catholic apologists on this forum treat scripture and see if you agree with it or not. I’ll send you a pm in a few weeks and see if you agree with me.

Perhaps you could be more specific in what you mean by “catholic posters go a bit to far?” How?

As I said earlier, I don’t know anyone that believes salvation comes from reading the bible.

Actually, I would disagree and say that it is theoretically possible for a person to read the Bible and come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and that it I’m sure has happened. That person would definitely need instruction afterward (and baptism), but it is theoretically possible as all things are possible with God as He is sovereign.

Where we part company is on the issue of where the gospel is to be found and what exactly that gospel is.

True, but I think history provides the evidence of which church was the Christian church post Apostolic period and which others came much later in history.

 

[Calvinator]

Welll, I know you don’t agree with the Catholic church, do you accept any Christian councils? Councils say up to at least the 6th century?

Depends on what you mean by “accept”.

But again in all due deference, if you could you would provide evidence for the early church being Calvinistic in its theology, not just extracting the scriptural interpretation or theolgical novums not heard until the 16th century, but the evidence in the early Christian church post Apostolic period up to the 6th century. Again, without coming off as rude, if I were doing a report on the evidence for Calvinism or Protestantism in the early church which would encompass a time-line, let’s say just up to the 6th century, I couldn’t find much evidence for it’s beliefs,…

I never made the claim that the early church was Reformed in it’s theology.

However, you can search the early church of roughly the same time period and you won’t find a lot of evidence of the assumption, papal infallibility, etc. either.

He has told me of the splits within the Reformed churches as his had one just a few years ago. They didn’t even split for doctrinal reasons, it was over a person claiming his pastoral practices were to authoritarian.

I don’t have enough information to respond but let’s say half the church left and formed another Presbyterian church down the road because they didn’t like pastor X or elder Y. If that’s what happened they are still Presbyterian.

If they stayed in the reformed camp that really isn’t a split.

Point being there is no objective means by which his church is held together and his church is acting according to the nature of sola scriptura, which is split apart if we don’t agree.

Disunity is a troubling issue, no doubt about it. However, and this is going to sound terrible, I would rather have trouble with disunity than cling to a theology that is false and have unity.

Again, the ancient Christian church didn’t have those types of splits.

I will have to take your word on that.

That some early church fathers speak of the authority of scripture, yes they do but NOT the Bible alone as the only authority. They also speak of sacred Tradition too and the authority of the Catholic Magisterium…

Certainly some speak of sacraments, communion of saints etc. but it is equally true that when a father mentions the word “tradition” he does not necessarily mean what your church has defined as apostolic tradition.

And of course then there is the canon issue, being it wasn’t formed until the fourth century yet authoritatively recognized by the Catholic church (382 AD council of Rome)…

The canon was in dispute up until the council of Trent. In short the Jews somehow recognized scripture w/out an infallible magesterium.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

HOWEVER–I have heard quite a few evangelical Protestants teach that the Bible IS Jesus Christ.

Humor me with** 1 just 1 **quote that makes this outrageous claim! Or you should retract!

 

[ToBeGlorified]

Jesus taught His apostles everything, (John 15:15)
Thus He said salvation comes from believing the Gospel that the leaders of His Church preached.
Mark 16:15-16
15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. **
** 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Corinthians 15
1 “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”

Now, there is not one book of the bible, nor one chapter of the bible that claims to be a summary of this Gospel the apostles preached. The four gospels only claim to be a narrative of the life of Jesus, not a summary of the preaching of the apostles.

Since salvation comes from believing the Gospel that the apostles preached, where do Protestants get the idea that salvation comes from believing the bible, which is salvation history?

We know what the apostles preached, by learning what the early Christians, who learned from them, believed. And they were all Catholic. Thus, the Gospel the apostles preached was the Catholic faith.

So while believing scripture is necessary, since it is part of the word of God, it does not claim to present the Gospel the apostles preached, by which we are saved.

So where does God say salvation comes from believing scripture, which is salvation history, instead of believing what was preached, the Catholic faith?

There are a few scriptures that we can cite…

1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Hope this helps…