Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[topcare]

What's wrong with extra-Biblical? Our Lord used extra-Biblical references himself. Now ANTI-Bibilical things are a different matter.

But we don't limit God to written words. He speaks, for He is a living God.

Many evangelicals that I have observed in several places and even here seem to think God is dead and only talks through the Bible, they don't say outright God is dead but their ideas point in that direction. They would call God a liar if he spoke audibly to them instead of writing it down

 

[Souldier]

If you only want to state an opinion and then refuse to discuss it or anyone else's ideas--or the topic of the thread for that matter--this wouldn't seem to be the place for it, being that it IS a "forum."

lol. I am on topic.

 

[SpyderByte]

Many evangelicals that I have observed in several places and even here seem to think God is dead and only talks through the Bible, they don't say outright God is dead but their ideas point in that direction. They would call God a liar if he spoke audibly to them instead of writing it down

That is a 110% fabrication on your part. We do not believe He gives new revelation, not that He is dead or cannot speak. That is very offensive, I request you withdraw this statement immediately.

 

[Souldier]

If there are no dogmas which are not found in scripture then the scripture is all we need. Scripture itself is the authority. If there are no dogmas that the bible doesn't teach us then we are all in agreement with Sola Scripture.

If however there are things outside the scripture that we need to know then sola scripture is a fallacy. Which is it?

 

[fhansen]

If there are no dogmas which are not found in scripture then the scripture is all we need. Scripture itself is the authority. If there are no dogmas that the bible doesn't teach us then we are all in agreement with Sola Scripture.

If however there are things outside the scripture that we need to know then sola scripture is a fallacy. Which is it?

Fallacy, as this thread has shown. A further, related problem is that, even if the dogma can be supported by Scripture, it may be in sufficiently uncertain or unclear terms that people disagree on it anyway. Seems like God would've provided a way to cut through this confusion. Apostolic succession is just one more case in point. And, BTW, I'd submit that, if not for the apostles who succeeded the first ones, the Christian church probably would've fallen into oblivion centuries ago. The visible church including a governmental structure was an instrumental part of its ability to carry on the torch, even with the warts and all that human institutions inevitably evince.

 

[SpyderByte]

If there are no dogmas which are not found in scripture then the scripture is all we need. Scripture itself is the authority. If there are no dogmas that the bible doesn't teach us then we are all in agreement with Sola Scripture.

If however there are things outside the scripture that we need to know then sola scripture is a fallacy. Which is it?

Fallacy, as this thread has shown.

Hardly. The lack of your ability to prove your extra biblical dogmas, does not mean that sola scriptura, or the bible is insufficient. It only means you rely on extra biblical sources that cannot be proved or substantiated.

 

[fhansen]

Hardly. The lack of your ability to prove your extra biblical dogmas, does not mean that sola scriptura, or the bible is insufficient. It only means you rely on extra biblical sources that cannot be proved or substantiated.

Going by this thread quite a few cannot be substantiated by SCRIPTURE. It's just the obvious, inconvenient, honest truth, no more.

 

[Souldier]

Fallacy, as this thread has shown. A further, related problem is that, even if the dogma can be supported by Scripture, it may be in sufficiently uncertain or unclear terms that people disagree on it anyway. Seems like God would've provided a way to cut through this confusion. Apostolic succession is just one more case in point. And, BTW, I'd submit that, if not for the apostles who succeeded the first ones, the Christian church probably would've fallen into oblivion centuries ago. The visible church including a governmental structure was an instrumental part of its ability to carry on the torch, even with the warts and all that human institutions inevitably evince.

MoreCoffee has said that there are no dogmas which are not found in scripture. What are you saying? Are you saying that there are, or that there are not dogmas which are not found in scripture? Forgive me but talking to Catholics can seem frustrating. Either you believe there are dogmas or you dont. Either you believe in Sola scripture or you dont. What is the answer?

Seems like God would've provided a way to cut through this confusion.

I think God did provide a way. Its called simplicity and liberty. Its the way i have chosen. Now you see why i believe the way i do. Thank you GT for showing me the light.

 

[BobRyan]

Fallacy, as this thread has shown. A further, related problem is that, even if the dogma can be supported by Scripture, it may be in sufficiently uncertain or unclear terms that people disagree on it anyway. Seems like God would've provided a way to cut through this confusion. Apostolic succession is just one more case in point. And, BTW, I'd submit that, if not for the apostles who succeeded the first ones, the Christian church probably would've fallen into oblivion centuries ago. The visible church including a governmental structure was an instrumental part of its ability to carry on the torch, even with the warts and all that human institutions inevitably evince.

I do not deny some form of church structure in the first century and beyond. Acts 15 council in Jerusalem to settle the entire church debate over gentile vs Jews and what gentiles were required to do - to be saved, for example. The Church leadership meets, the Apostles are there - and James renders his decision after all the testimony from several sources.

However There is an elephant in your living room when it comes to the idea that doctrine cannot be known/described/defined/found without someone in the Catholic church telling you about it.

Let's all look at it.

outside of the Catholic church - the rest of us actually give Bible studies on doctrine to the unchurched and to groups opposed to Bible doctrine. So lets say for example that we have a Jehovah's Witness at the door and they want to have Bible studies, or a Hindu or an Atheist visiting with us - we study with them on the subject of "you name it"... and guess what?

We never say to them "Now this doctrine is not actually found in the Bible - rather we must go ask a Catholic priest, or Pope or .... what to think on this one because there just is not enough info on it from scripture".

The fastest growing Bible based churches in the land do not work that way. Rather they show "from scripture" what the doctrine is. Not a single appeal to "a Catholic resource will need to inform us what to think here - because we just don't have this doctrine in scripture".

Does not happen.

No not once.

But in your post - that is supposedly the ONLY way that doctrine could have been taught to one of the unchurched.

Proven in real life results.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[tadoflamb]

If there are no dogmas which are not found in scripture then the scripture is all we need. Scripture itself is the authority. If there are no dogmas that the bible doesn't teach us then we are all in agreement with Sola Scripture.

If however there are things outside the scripture that we need to know then sola scripture is a fallacy. Which is it?

What dogmas do all sola scripturists hold in common which are unique from the ones they received from the Catholic Church?

 

[Albion]

A further, related problem is that, even if the dogma can be supported by Scripture, it may be in sufficiently uncertain or unclear terms that people disagree on it anyway..

Exactly like your replacement for Sola Scriptura--Holy Tradition.

So why would I give up the word of God for the word of Men...when there is nothing to be gained by doing so in the clarity, reliability, sufficiency, or universal agreement areas???

 

[Albion]

What dogmas do all sola scripturists hold in common which are unique from the ones they received from the Catholic Church?

Did you pick up baptism from the Baptist churches?

Did you get Episcopal government from the Episcopal Church?

Then don't bait us by asking what Biblical doctrines we "received from the Catholic Church" and we'll get along just fine.

 

[SpyderByte]

Going by this thread quite a few cannot be substantiated by SCRIPTURE. It's just the obvious, inconvenient, honest truth, no more.

Only those believed by the rcc!

 

[BobRyan]

I think you can make the case for Mattias as an Apostle and for Paul - so that is 13 since Judas was a disciple but never an Apostle.

Come to think of it - that means you don't have Apostolic succession in the case of Judas -- who never made it to the level of Apostle. which means not one case of it in the NT.

Not one described in the NT, but they are known by historic records.

John writes at the end of the first century - not one word from him about anybody inheriting the apostleship and not one word from him about handing his apostleship to anyone else.

What century do you find "record" of John or Peter or James handing their Apostleship off to a successor?

What century do you find that the church voted an Apostolic successor.

Notice that Paul is not "voted as successor" even in his documented apostleship. Even though James the brother of John is dead by then and they "could" have appointed some new Apostle as the head of the church to take Jame's place.

They do not come up with new Apostles in that fashion - appointing them as successors.

The closest you have in the Bible is a successor for a failed disciple.

But never a successor to an Apostle.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Wouldn't Matthias be the immediate successor to Judas? Isn't that apostolic succession?

It would be if Judas were an Apostle.

But Judas was only a disciple. He never made it to Apostle status which only happened to those instructed by Christ after His resurrection.

Immediately after Christ's resurrection they are still called 'Disciples" and when they finish their training with Christ - the resurrected Christ - they are then called "Apostles" for the first time.

Christ tells them to wait in Jerusalem for the special Pentecost outpouring of the Holy Spirit -and from then on -- Apostles by God's own divine commission.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It doesn't say that Andronicus and Junia were Apostles. It says that they were prominent among the apostles.

Matthias would be one of the TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb and Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles. (Rom 11)

And it does not say that they take their Apostleship as "successor" to any prior Apostle.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[fhansen]

MoreCoffee has said that there are no dogmas which are not found in scripture. What are you saying? Are you saying that there are, or that there are not dogmas which are not found in scripture? Forgive me but talking to Catholics can seem frustrating. Either you believe there are dogmas or you dont. Either you believe in Sola scripture or you dont. What is the answer?




I think God did provide a way. Its called simplicity and liberty. Its the way i have chosen. Now you see why i believe the way i do. Thank you GT for showing me the light.

I already addressed this. All dogma can be supported by Scripture to one degree or another, in one manner or another; i.e. Scripture is "materially sufficient" for this purpose. But not necessarily convincingly, or clearly, which is why Sola Scriptura adherents sometimes disagree vehemently on relevant issues.

 

[fhansen]

Only those believed by the rcc!

Sure, if one wants to keep burying their head in the sand.

 

[fhansen]

Exactly like your replacement for Sola Scriptura--Holy Tradition.

So why would I give up the word of God for the word of Men...when there is nothing to be gained by doing so in the clarity, reliability, sufficiency, or universal agreement areas???

Because Church teaching is clear, reliable, sufficient, and universal. That's the reason God established her.

 

[fhansen]

I do not deny some form of church structure in the first century and beyond. Acts 15 council in Jerusalem to settle the entire church debate over gentile vs Jews and what gentiles were required to do - to be saved, for example. The Church leadership meets, the Apostles are there - and James renders his decision after all the testimony from several sources.

However There is an elephant in your living room when it comes to the idea that doctrine cannot be known/described/defined/found without someone in the Catholic church telling you about it.

Let's all look at it.

outside of the Catholic church - the rest of us actually give Bible studies on doctrine to the unchurched and to groups opposed to Bible doctrine. So lets say for example that we have a Jehovah's Witness at the door and they want to have Bible studies, or a Hindu or an Atheist visiting with us - we study with them on the subject of "you name it"... and guess what?

We never say to them "Now this doctrine is not actually found in the Bible - rather we must go ask a Catholic priest, or Pope or .... what to think on this one because there just is not enough info on it from scripture".

The fastest growing Bible based churches in the land do not work that way. Rather they show "from scripture" what the doctrine is. Not a single appeal to "a Catholic resource will need to inform us what to think here - because we just don't have this doctrine in scripture".

Does not happen.

No not once.

But in your post - that is supposedly the ONLY way that doctrine could have been taught to one of the unchurched.

Proven in real life results.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes, so what? JWs show from Scripture="reason from Scripture"- to prove their points!!!??? I'm sure you know that the SDA church sprang forth from the same shoot as them, in agreement at first, spinning off yet another new church again at some point, when disagreement arose, all driven by the great "unifier": Sola Scriptura