The Gospel of John is the only book needed for salvation...

[AwGusTeen]

While talking with a fellow Protestant Christian on Facebook recently, I was presented with the idea that The Gospel of John is the only book needed for salvation. I was taken aback by such a premise in that:

1. I’ve never heard this from a Protestant before
2. The premise seems logically flawed so it must be some new theology going around in certain circles.

Here was the message…

The reason I ask you about verses from the Gospel of John is because it is so unique. Maybe you have already observed this, but it is the only book in the Bible which states as its express purpose -----in the text — that it is to evangelize unbelievers. In the text its says “…but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life through His name.”

This verse tells me that John intends for his audience to read what he wrote so that they may believe and thus have eternal life.

If this is John’s intent, then his book has what is needed for someone to be saved (the gospel). On the other hand, if a complete gospel message is not contained within the pages of John’s book, as he claims it to be, then the Bible is not really the Truth after all.
.

I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts on this as I’m not sure how to respond.

Pax!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Gospel of John was and is considered to be a magnificent expression of Christian theology (which is why the East calls the author “John the Theologian”) and contains specific confessions of Christ’s Divinity.

Celtic Christians used to read the Gospel of John each week, three chapters a day. It was the Gospel that was most readily memorized by the monks of northern Africa (the novitiate there consisted in memorizing the psalms and the Gospel of John).

And in the Christian East, Chapters 13-17 of the Gospel of John constitute a separate “book” so to speak, called the “Testament of Christ.” Eastern Christians would often read a portion of the Testament of Christ daily (in fact, if you divide the verses of those chapters by seven, they come out to exactly 22 verses a day and this is how I have divided up the Testament for daily reading).

However, it was the Church that canonized that Gospel, just as it did the other 26 Books. So we cannot separate the Gospel of John from the rest of the Bible, from Tradition or from the teaching office of the Church.

It would be a mistake to assume we may correctly interpret the Gospel of John. The Arian heretics who believed that Christ “was more than man but less than God” also read the Gospel of John and were utterly convinced that that Gospel “proved” their theology. That involved a good deal of mental gymnastics, but they still held onto their semi-Arian conclusions.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have written a different Gospel of John based on their own interpretation of the original Greek (although none of their possible interpreters - they never give their names - ever had a degree in Greek). No mental gymnastics for them!

Alex

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
I personaly think that the Gospel of John is the most beutifull gospel,but even so,we do need the whole Bible,and whit that I mean both O.T and N.T. The Old Testament is needed for us to understand what happens in the New Testament. But if we realy narrows down the whole thing,all we need is faith,and Joh.14:1-31,but thats a that is only teory,we need the Bible,and I strongly advice all to every day read atleast one chapter from the Bible.

 

[Julian0404]

And don’t forget John 21:25 wherein it declares that there were so many other things that JESUS said and did, so that how can John be the sole book?

 

[Scoobyshme]

Well, the thing with Protestantism is that every man, woman, and child has the perceived authority to be their own Pope, and interpret the Bible any way they want, with no final authority to assure their interpretation is correct.

 

[BluesPicker]

I read a book of the 4 Gospels presented in order… I think it may have been the Parallel Bible. This weaves the Gospels together and really gives a complete picture of them.

BluesPicker

 

[ERose]

While talking with a fellow Protestant Christian on Facebook recently, I was presented with the idea that The Gospel of John is the only book needed for salvation. I was taken aback by such a premise in that:

1. I’ve never heard this from a Protestant before
2. The premise seems logically flawed so it must be some new theology going around in certain circles.

Here was the message…

I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts on this as I’m not sure how to respond.

Pax!

Quite honestly the only thing that many of the fundamental/evangelical Christians need in their mind for salvation is John 3:16. Everything past that point in their mind is nice teaching but not necessary for salvation. I think that it is so sad that the devil has invaded the theology of these branches of Christianity and got them to believe that baptism nor the Eucharist are not necessary, that all someone has to do is profess belief in Jesus, ask Him to become their “personal” Lord and Savior, and they can walk away, do anything they want, and at the end of the day they are saved. Don’t have to worry about sin because Christians don’t truly sin. Quite honestly it is depressing to see so many Christians believe that “devil’s” doctrine. Thankfully many of these Christians feel compelled to do the right thing. To follow the commandments, ask God for forgiveness, get baptized because it seems the right thing to do, etc.

One thing I am starting to see on other forums is that many Christians are starting to challenge the legitimacy of many books in the Bible. Particulary the letter of James. I wonder why?

 

[Scoobyshme]

I would also point out, from a theological standpoint, that any part of the Bible contains all of the Bible. Now, that’s a statement that could probably be misinterpreted by some, but there is a sense in which it is true. The Word of God is not a “thing” or a “book.” It is a Person, Jesus. Holy Tradition (a.k.a., Oral Tradition), which came first, is one of the two main modes of transmission of the Word of God to us… The Bible, which is a sort of subset of Holy Tradition, came second and is the second mode of transmission of the Word of God to us. But Jesus is the Word of God, and He cannot be separated into parts or pieces. He is a united whole.

 

[JHow]

Ironic, though, that John 6 provides some of the best verses for understanding the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, which teaching is likely rejected by the “John-Only” Christians.

 

[JM3]

While talking with a fellow Protestant Christian on Facebook recently, I was presented with the idea that The Gospel of John is the only book needed for salvation. I was taken aback by such a premise in that:

1. I’ve never heard this from a Protestant before
2. The premise seems logically flawed so it must be some new theology going around in certain circles.

Here was the message…
Quote:
The reason I ask you about verses from the Gospel of John is because it is so unique. Maybe you have already observed this, but it is the only book in the Bible which states as its express purpose -----in the text — that it is to evangelize unbelievers. In the text its says “…but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life through His name.”

This verse tells me that John intends for his audience to read what he wrote so that they may believe and thus have eternal life.

If this is John’s intent, then his book has what is needed for someone to be saved (the gospel). On the other hand, if a complete gospel message is not contained within the pages of John’s book, as he claims it to be, then the Bible is not really the Truth after all.
.
I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts on this as I’m not sure how to respond.

Pax!

Maybe, someday, a protestant will not take a passage of the Bible out of context.

In John 20:30 it says ‘Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;’

“then his book has what is needed for someone to be saved (the gospel).”

Yet there are many different ‘protestant’ churches with different views on what the gospel actually says and means, so this assumption would seem to be in error.

" if a complete gospel message is not contained within the pages of John’s book, as he claims it to be, then the Bible is not really the Truth after all."

Where does John claim that his gospel contains the ‘complete gospel message’?

Who would dare to judge to whole bible based on an opinion of only one of it’s books?

 

[SonCatcher]

This presupposes that one could be saved by reading a book (I assume he does not mean that the book, itself, saves).

The Gospel is not transmitted in text but by proclamation.

 

[Della]

AwGusTeen:

Default The Gospel of John is the only book needed for salvation…
While talking with a fellow Protestant Christian on Facebook recently, I was presented with the idea that The Gospel of John is the only book needed for salvation. I was taken aback by such a premise in that:

1. I’ve never heard this from a Protestant before

I remember when I was in the Assemblies of God how “fad” theologies came and went like this one. The one that was popular at that time was that the only book necessary for Christian life and salvation was Galatians. This is the sort of thing one gets when there is no teaching authority and every man is his own.

1. The premise seems logically flawed so it must be some new theology going around in certain circles.

Flawed premises are nothing new, as cited by others in this thread, although this is a new flawed premise, that’s for sure.

Here was the message…

The reason I ask you about verses from the Gospel of John is because it is so unique. Maybe you have already observed this, but it is the only book in the Bible which states as its express purpose -----in the text — that it is to evangelize unbelievers. In the text its says “…but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life through His name.”

This verse tells me that John intends for his audience to read what he wrote so that they may believe and thus have eternal life.

If this is John’s intent, then his book has what is needed for someone to be saved (the gospel). On the other hand, if a complete gospel message is not contained within the pages of John’s book, as he claims it to be, then the Bible is not really the Truth after all.
.
I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts on this as I’m not sure how to respond.

Pax!

What disturbs me most isn’t his claims about the Gospel of John, even though they’re a real stretch and just plain odd. It’s his claim that if the “complete gospel is not contained within the pages of John’s book…then the Bible is not really the Truth at all”. I fear for this person’s soul. If he can talk himself out of believing in St. John’s Gospel, he will lose his faith altogether. Considering how easy it is for any of us to deceive ourselves, this is the point I’d want to make clear to him. It’s why we Catholics don’t rely on our own human understanding, but rather trust Jesus’ own better choice to establish a Church endowed with the charism of infallibility to decide matters of faith and morals.

It also shows this person has zero understanding of what the Bible is, how the canon was derived (and for what purpose), and what it’s limits are. I suggest for his reading (and everyone interested): Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church.

 

[HCC]

Hmmm…that’s interesting because the Gospel message is broader than “the Book of John,” which is why there are 4 Gospels. Even the early Church needed the Apostles to expound on what Our Lord had taught them, how to organize this emerging Church, how to worship, understand the new revelations…

 

[rev_kevin]

Quite honestly the only thing that many of the fundamental/evangelical Christians need in their mind for salvation is John 3:16. Everything past that point in their mind is nice teaching but not necessary for salvation. I think that it is so sad that the devil has invaded the theology of these branches of Christianity and got them to believe that baptism nor the Eucharist are not necessary, that all someone has to do is profess belief in Jesus, ask Him to become their “personal” Lord and Savior, and they can walk away, do anything they want, and at the end of the day they are saved. Don’t have to worry about sin because Christians don’t truly sin. Quite honestly it is depressing to see so many Christians believe that “devil’s” doctrine. Thankfully many of these Christians feel compelled to do the right thing. To follow the commandments, ask God for forgiveness, get baptized because it seems the right thing to do, etc.

One thing I am starting to see on other forums is that many Christians are starting to challenge the legitimacy of many books in the Bible. Particulary the letter of James. I wonder why?

This is the first I have heard about John 3:16 being the only thing we think is needed for salvation. It goes farther than that. If you continue on with 17-21 it goes in a little deeper into what we believe.
Now for baptism, where does it say that it is necessary for salvation? I don’t see where Jesus said you must be baptized inorder to be saved. Jesus didn’t need to be saved but he was baptized. John didn’t say you must be baptized inorder to be saved. He said “repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is near.” (John 3:2-3) Then he goes on in John 3:11 and says “I baptize you with water for repentance.”
Where does it say it is necessary for salvation?

Then the Eucharist, once again I see nowhere where it states that it is necessary for salvation.

Then I see you used “Personal” savior. For some reason this “personal” thing gets under some Catholics skin, why?

We can do anything we want at the end of the day because we are saved. I have never heard of this. Of course we can’t do anything we want. we still must go by the commandments of Christ, we are still responsible for our sins, we can loose our salvation.
I am saved because Christ is in my life and once he is in my life he will always be there. We may give up on Christ but Christ will never give up on us. Once saved always saved, once you accept Christ he will always be with you no matter what.

We don’t have to worry about sin because Christians don’t truly sin is a new one for me. I have never heard of this. See “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” We are all sinners, every single one of us. We worry about sin because sin takes us away from Christ.

Call it the “devils doctrine” all you want, I know better. See it don’t fit in your belief so it automatically is from the devil.

 

[Della]

rev kevin:

Now for baptism, where does it say that it is necessary for salvation? I don’t see where Jesus said you must be baptized inorder to be saved. Jesus didn’t need to be saved but he was baptized. John didn’t say you must be baptized inorder to be saved. He said “repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is near.” (John 3:2-3) Then he goes on in John 3:11 and says “I baptize you with water for repentance.”
Where does it say it is necessary for salvation?

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved…

Baptism was considered an essential part of being washed of sin and a unifying doctrine of the early Church. To say that baptism is unnecessary is saying too much and is not in accord with the mind of the Church in biblical times or now.

As to OSAS being devilish, if one takes it to mean that Christians cannot/do not sin, then such belief truly is that. There are Christians who hold to that idea, sad to say. It’s a pitfall for some who do believe it because such a notion does give them license to do whatever they please. Of course, only those looking for a way around God would think that way–as if such a thing were even possible.

The Gospel of John certainly doesn’t teach that sort of OSAS. And we Catholics absolutely believe that while God is always faithful in his promises it is we humans who are not and can fall into sin–just as you stated.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is the first I have heard about John 3:16 being the only thing we think is needed for salvation. It goes farther than that. If you continue on with 17-21 it goes in a little deeper into what we believe.
Now for baptism, where does it say that it is necessary for salvation? I don’t see where Jesus said you must be baptized inorder to be saved. Jesus didn’t need to be saved but he was baptized. John didn’t say you must be baptized inorder to be saved. He said “repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is near.” (John 3:2-3) Then he goes on in John 3:11 and says “I baptize you with water for repentance.”
Where does it say it is necessary for salvation?

Then the Eucharist, once again I see nowhere where it states that it is necessary for salvation.

Then I see you used “Personal” savior. For some reason this “personal” thing gets under some Catholics skin, why?

We can do anything we want at the end of the day because we are saved. I have never heard of this. Of course we can’t do anything we want. we still must go by the commandments of Christ, we are still responsible for our sins, we can loose our salvation.
I am saved because Christ is in my life and once he is in my life he will always be there. We may give up on Christ but Christ will never give up on us. Once saved always saved, once you accept Christ he will always be with you no matter what.

We don’t have to worry about sin because Christians don’t truly sin is a new one for me. I have never heard of this. See “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” We are all sinners, every single one of us. We worry about sin because sin takes us away from Christ.

Call it the “devils doctrine” all you want, I know better. See it don’t fit in your belief so it automatically is from the devil.

Because you enterpret is not necessary for salvation you think you should dissobey Jesus commandment? Jesus said, go and baptize. obviously it is necessary.

how do you enterpret that repentance is not necessary for salvation?

 

[Petergee]

Neither the gospel according to St John nor any other book is “needed” for salvation. Jesus saves all who are saved. Reading/hearing the Gospel according to St John is only one of many, many tools which He uses to save all those who are willing to be saved.

 

[agent_grey]

No book is neaded for salvation. That is idolatry which within the human conscience is a sin in and of itself. The teaching that a book is necesarry for salvation is a flat out denial that the word was made flesh.

 

[rev_kevin]

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved…

Baptism was considered an essential part of being washed of sin and a unifying doctrine of the early Church. To say that baptism is unnecessary is saying too much and is not in accord with the mind of the Church in biblical times or now.

As to OSAS being devilish, if one takes it to mean that Christians cannot/do not sin, then such belief truly is that. There are Christians who hold to that idea, sad to say. It’s a pitfall for some who do believe it because such a notion does give them license to do whatever they please. Of course, only those looking for a way around God would think that way–as if such a thing were even possible.

The Gospel of John certainly doesn’t teach that sort of OSAS. And we Catholics absolutely believe that while God is always faithful in his promises it is we humans who are not and can fall into sin–just as you stated.

1 Peter 3. If you go on to read it also says this water “symoblizes” the baptism that now saves you also–not a removal of dirt from the body but the “pledge” of a good cpnscience toward God. The not removal of dirt from the body is it does not remove sin (dirt) from the body. Now it don’t say baptism is necessary for salvation.

Mark 16:16 goes on to say but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Here it don’t say whoever is does not believe and not baptized will be condemned. Once again it don’t say it is necessary for salvation.

Yes there are some Christians that believe they can not sin which is a sad mistake on their part. All Christians sin, each and every one sins.

 

[rev_kevin]

Because you enterpret is not necessary for salvation you think you should dissobey Jesus commandment? Jesus said, go and baptize. obviously it is necessary.

how do you enterpret that repentance is not necessary for salvation?

I believe you misunderstood what I was talking about when John said “repent for the Kingdom of heaven is near.” I was talking about the “baptism” part not the “repentance.” part. I never said that “repentance” is not necessary for salvation.

Not disobeying Jesus’ command at all, I do go and baptize but he did not say baptism is necessary for salvation.

Jesus was put to death with 2 other people. Chances are neither of the 2 were baptized.
(You’ll probably say, how do I know they weren’t. I don’t thats why I said “Chances are.”)Now Jesus said to one of them, “from this day you will be with me in paradise.” No baptism here yet he was saved because he believed who Jesus said he was.
Jesus always said, “he who believes in me will not parish but have everlasting life.” Jesus didn’t say “he who believes in me and is baptized will not parish but have everlasting life.”

You have not shown me it is necessary for salvation.