A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholic Fidelity.Com ^ | Dave Armstrong

[GonzoII]

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

By Dave Armstrong

1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also

"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions

Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem

In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition

Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.

The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura

To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding

If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:

"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).

"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

 

[boatbums]

When you put that in context Jesus is telling them He is the One sent by God, their Messiah, not God.

John 8:24 This is why I told you that you would die in your sins. If you don’t believe that I Am, you will die in your sins.”

Actually, no, in context Jesus is saying he is I AM and the Jewish leaders knew he was using the personal name of God that he told to Moses. Why else do you think they were so outraged at him and saying he was claiming to be God? There had been many people before Jesus and after him that claimed to be the Jewish Messiah so just another guy saying he was would not have sparked such a response. The Jews under the foot of the Romans would have been overjoyed to have him be the real one as they saw a conquering hero that would free them and restore their homeland and kingdom. What they had failed to realize was that the Messiah would come first as a suffering servant to be the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". They wanted the last before the first.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

Wrong again. It was in verse 58 when He told them He existed before Abraham. That is what got their panties in a wad.

Jesus needed a way to have Himself executed while still being without sin. This was the way He chose or God chose for Him. He could make that truthful claim and their hearts were to hard to understand it.

It all work out in the end didn't? BVB 

[Bobsvainbabblings]

Then you are no different than the Muslims.

Funny you say I am no different than a Muslim. Do you know that the Doctrine of the Trinity was used by Mohammad to claim  Christians were poly theists to create Islam? They have 3 gods. Four if you count Mary.

He claimed his god was the only true mono theistic god. Here are a few verses

 

Verse 4:171

People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a 'Trinity'—stop, that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. (Qur'an 4:171, M. A. S. Abdel-Haleem translation)

[edit] Verses 5:72–75

Those who say, 'God is the Messiah, son of Mary,' have defied God. The Messiah himself said, 'Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' If anyone associates others with God, God will forbid him from the Garden, and Hell will be his home. No one will help such evildoers.

Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. Why do they not turn to God and ask his forgiveness, when God is most forgiving, most merciful? The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are. (Qur'an 5:72 onwards, M. A. S. Abdel-Haleem translation)

[edit] Verse 5:116

When God says, 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, "Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God"?' he will say, 'May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say—if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen (Qur'an 5:116, M. A. S. Abdel-Haleem

Christians are told to judge things by their fruits. I would say this is a fruit the world would be a lot better off without.

Do you agree?  BVB

Then you are no different than the Muslims.

[Cronos]

John 5:19 --> this indicates unity of purpose. It doesn't support your non-trinitarian position or my trinitarian position

John 5:26 --> God does not have "life" in the human sense, so "as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath he GIVEN to the SON" must indicate something different than the life that God gave Adam.

John 5:27 -> God gives it to Christ who is God, the One God. Yes, it's confusing I agree.

John 6:37, John 8:28, John 10:27 --> same theme about giving. I do not see this as corroborating or disagreeing with the concept of the Trinity.

John 14:28 does NOT show dual nature -- you can say it shows subordination, but not duality.

It's good to quote from 1 Cor, because in 1 Cor 16 we readFor in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him -- now this is not possible as Jesus was born just 33 years before.

1 Cor 15 says Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Now who else can be the very image of the invisible God but God Himself?

Even the Gospel of John chapter 5 that you quote starts with [17] But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work. [18] Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God

John 1:1 says In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. and as you point out John 14 says Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

Note -- if you take the point that the Father is in Jesus, how can Jesus too be in the Father unless both are One? Also, the quote "the words" differs from "in the Beginning was The Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

To your "riddle" Why is the term ‘God the Father’ found in scripture, but the term ‘God the Holy Ghost’(Spirit) not; and why is Jesus Christ never referred to as ‘God the Son’, but ‘the Son of God’? --> a very good question yet answerable. In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!"). This is not something tossed out lightly.

Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13).

This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).

Remember that post the Resurrection, Christ was not just a spirit -- Jesus appeared to the apostles and said, "‘See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; feel me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have.’ Then he said, ‘Do you have something there to eat?’ And they handed him a piece of broiled fish; and he took it and ate it before their eyes" (Luke 24:39-43). Here Jesus himself points out that he is more than just a spirit—he has a body, too.

Also, about the Holy Spirit we have John 14:26: "But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I have told you." How can an impersonal force teach anyone anything? Does the wind teach? Do gravity or electromagnetism teach? Of course not. This verse makes sense only if "the holy spirit" is really "the Holy Spirit," a divine person.

So, the short-winded answer to your question is the we DO have the phrase as in "go and baptise the nations in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy SPirit" -- God the Father, God the SOn and GOd the Holy SPirit -- a triune God.

[Cronos]

Actually, neither -- God through Paul said it correctly THAT a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). as I said it

1. leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.
2. since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.
3. Paul himself was single -- and a Church leader (undoubtedly). Did he berate himself?

the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife.

As I proved from above, the interpretation of MUST have one wife holds itself to be incorrect as:
1. Paul himself was single
2. Taking the wrong interpretation it means that widowers must resign
3. Taking the entire verse, if any leader has unruly children he must resign

God's standard set through Paul is that the leader should not be a polygamist and should be able to control his household -- there is no "you gotta be married"

[Cronos]

quite frankly, your post 404 didn't have any question (no question mark except for If Jesus was God, why didn't He correct him?

Because Son of God has a definite meaning to a 1st century monotheist living in the Greek world. The only "sons of gods" were demi-gods like Heracles etc. Yet the Jews did not believe this was possible. No one could be "son of God" without being God Himself.

[Cronos]

as I said above -- scripture holds true. As Paul said "Of one wife"... The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who has more than one wife (e.g. a polygamist).

Otherwise St. Paul rules himself out and rules out all widowers and those who have or get unruly children. I'm sorry but the interpretation of yours is incorrect.

[Cronos]

Bkaycee -- note that the Catholic Church teaches salvation by grace coming from God through faith in Christ.

Salvation is NOT by Faith and Works.

Salvation as taught by the Church comes from Christ's sacrifice.

[Cronos]

If someone denies the divinity of Christ, he is not a Christian.

Thank you. But seriously and not aiming to attack you in any way, don't you see how this is the ultimate end for everyone just picking up a bible and reading out of context and jumping to a conclusion?

We all agree that the Bible is complex, it is the Word of God, so not fully comprehensible to our puny individual minds. It is so easy to fall into the trap of denying the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ by quoting scripture.

Take Zuriel (apologies for not linking you Z, but this is just taking you as an example) or the others -- they provide a lot of quotes from scripture and based on their self-study of scripture (sola scriptura), they have arrived at their conclusions that deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.

If one agrees to sola scriptura, then their point of view is a valid POV.

[Cronos]

Bob I believe He is the Son of God. That is what I have been saying all along. Glad you agree with me.

The problem I have is when you make Him God the Son

Thank you for clarifying that position. Would it be incorrect to say that both you and Zuriel have the same position on this?

1. That you both disagree with the idea of the Trinity?

2. That you both think that Jesus is not God (you say He is Son of God, not God the Son)

Now the question comes -- do you believe that He was just a man who got "possessed" by the Spirit of God or was He a spirit or was He an angel or some other king of supernatural creature higher than a human?

[Cronos]

let me explain, bb, baycee -- the way I see it is that sola i.e. ONLY scripture is used by many to explain their position on Christian beliefs because they read a passage or excerpt and base their theology on their own individual interpretation of scripture.

Sola s means "I can read it on my own and come to my own conclusion" -- do you disagree with that simplistic statement (I admit it is over-simplifying the position)?

He provides adequate scripture to prove his position based on his own interpretation.

I believe it is wrong, but if one reads the Bible as an individual, one can easily make the same conclusions he does and THAT is what in my humble opinion, I see as the failure of Sola scriptura.

To read the Bible as a community through the ages we see the truth of the divinity of Christ, but only as a community, a Church (to which the two of you belong of course) -- a community that learns and prays together to the One Lord God, so that we may learn His ways.

[Cronos]

Thank you -- it's actually nice to have a discussion --> I disagree strongly with Zuriel and Bob and also with boat, bk and ampu, but we can actually debate it out.

Most non-trinitarians get shovelled off in most threads, but I feel that they have a valid question that must be answered and this thread is giving us a forum to actively discuss the trinity in a civilised way.

[Cronos]

As Christians, we should try to lead a life as much like Jesus as we can. If he is God, that would be impossible unless we were a god as well.

This is how I see it, bob -- Jesus Christ is God AND Man. He is the perfect Man who is formed in the image of God. God is good, all-good. To imitate Jesus is to try to be good as good as He is. We will fail because we are not ALL-good, but we can try. That does not make us god by being good (or trying to be), but brings us closer to God's original idea of us.

I believe He is a pre sin nature man empowered by the Spirit of God as He claims all through His earthly ministry. If that is the case, it would be possible for a believer born again into God's family to allowed that same Spirit to guide their life as did the Christians all thru Acts. -- intersting take, and I respect your beliefs on that -- I disagree :) but I respect your sincere belief.

Note that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, he is not the equivalent in the sense of being an equal of Peter.

[Cronos]

Firstly -- thank you for clarifying your beliefs. As with bob, I respect your sincere belief and firmly believe that you have the right to not only believe but also discuss and tell us about your faith, but I disagree with you.

If you say that The man Christ Jesus had never been separated from the Father until he said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?. --

1. but this does not square with "In the beginning was the Word" -- if Jesus was there in the beginning, this was before He was born, so indicating that Jesus existed in the beginning, yet opening a time-paradox, correct?
2. You then do believe that Christ was "re-possessed" post-Resurrection?
3. If you except the 3 days then do you believe that during that time, when Christ descended to Sheol, God was not with him? Interesting point.

[Cronos]

I think Bob's beliefs are quite different from Moslems. While both he and Moslems do not believe that Christ is God and both deny the Trinity, yet Moslems believe that the message of Christ was distorted. I don't think Bob believes that. Moslems also think that Mohammed was the perfect man, not Christ and that they should copy Mohammed --I KNOW Bob does not believe that.

I disagree with his point of view, but saying he is no different than Moslems is factually wrong and is also terribly insulting!

[Cronos]

Good point -- Isaiah clearly does state that I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. and a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me that He alone is the Savior. If Christ was not the Savior AND God then he would be lying.

[goat granny]

I find your stated belief quite clear and I also have thought God (father spirit) left Jesus on the cross and that is when he cried out "Why have you forsaken me". But I wondered of a different reason why the father had to leave him...With the father's spirit in him, he could not die and would have hung there forever. For God the Father (spirit) cannot die and Jesus had to as the Holy Sacrifice. Just one of many things I wonder about when it comes to scripture...

Don't know if this is clear or not, somethings are hard to put in words..

[sr4402]

1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?

Yes.

Is this a standard belief for your Protestant group?

Yes

To the first, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Jesus Christ was a man filled with the spirit of God, not God Himself -- is that correct?

Not correct. God is composed of three persons who always act in complete unity: God the Father, God the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit.

The Lord Jesus Christ was not just "a man filled with the spirit of God", He was God Himself - Immanuel - God with us.

This question was answered in the Apostles Creed which both Catholics and Protestants hold true.

[Cronos]

thank you — I prefer the Nicene Creed as it is far better defined. The Athanasian Creed is the best but quite detailed.

[bkaycee]

Salvation is NOT by Faith and Works.

Salvation as taught by the Church comes from Christ's sacrifice.

Rome teaches that Christ made salvation possible via "grace". It teaches good works done, in grace are salvific, and given merit leading to ones own justification, where the soul IS finally pleasing to God in its own right.