Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas? (2)

[Souldier]

Of course. I even left it for over 25 years. Like Mark Twain who left home when he was 16 only to find out that, upon returning at 21, his parents had learned quite a lot while he was gone.

Anyway, Scriptural interpretation is very often personal opinion while the practices of the oldest churches that we know of are just a matter of historical fact.

Its a fact that they moved away from what the apostles teach us.

 

[fhansen]

I could count many steps which RC has taken that are far away from what the apostles teach us. However that would not help anyone because you have already heard it all and i see no reason to walk in the flesh. I know where my heart is and so does the Lord. Im content with Him being my judge.

OK, you might be surprised, though, in looking closer, that the CC and others aren't as far away from your position as you think, even within the variations of interpretation. Sacraments, for example, are thoroughly spiritual even as their form is physical. (The Eucharist is the recognition that we must partake of God, and partake of Him worthily, BTW-the theology is built into these simple physical acts which have served the faith of often simple and illiterate peoples for centuries and continues to now). But that's for another thread I suppose. Theology isn't bad. We all do it; we're doing it in this thread. It means to define the nature and will of God. The Church has a huge, rich wealth of this thought, pondering God's revelation, as well as direct grace-filled experiences in some case (another topic) for 2 millennia, and continues to, in both Protestant and Catholic camps, with great strides in better understanding of the faith resulting.

The whole enterprise of the Church, with its apparent megalithic structure, worldwide presence, sometimes wild and varied history, human foibles, et al is aimed at one thing: the establishment of relationship/communion of the individual with God. It's performed that task sometime better, sometimes worse, but that's the purpose. And I know Him better than I otherwise would as a result of all the witnesses that came and all the work that was done before me.

 

[fhansen]

Its a fact that they moved away from what the apostles teach us.

That's your opinion.

 

[Souldier]

OK, you might be surprised, though, in looking closer, that the CC and others aren't as far away from your position as you think, even within the variations of interpretation. Sacraments, for example, are thoroughly spiritual even as their form is physical. (The Eucharist is the recognition that we must partake of God, and partake of Him worthily, BTW-the theology is built into these simple physical acts which have served the faith of often simple and illiterate peoples for centuries and continues to now). But that's for another thread I suppose. Theology isn't bad. We all do it; we're doing it in this thread. It means to define the nature and will of God. The Church has a huge, rich wealth of this thought, pondering God's revelation, as well as direct grace-filled experiences in some case (another topic) for 2 millennia, and continues to, in both Protestant and Catholic camps, with great strides in better understanding of the faith resulting.

The whole enterprise of the Church, with its apparent megalithic structure, worldwide presence, sometimes wild and varied history, human foibles, et al is aimed at one thing: the establishment of relationship/communion of the individual with God. It's performed that task sometime better, sometimes worse, but that's the purpose. And I know Him better than I otherwise would as a result of all the witnesses that came and all the work that was done before me.

Forget the sacraments. Thats non debatable. Everone agrees that the Lord gave us instruction to get baptized and to partake of the Lords supper. Lets not get into trying to promote these so called ancient churches because you just open yourself up to much needed criticism. Anyway, as you said, this is my opinion.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Returning to the thread topic I ask which dogmas do you allege are not in holy scripture?

I've listed one, viz, The table of contents is important dogma, and it is not included in holy scripture. Do you have another?

 

[fhansen]

How about you name some churches for us which have no doctrinal position but instead advocate that the members just use their "personal interpretations?"

If you followed along, you'd know that Souldier was asserting that the RCC moved away from the practices of the original Church, based on his interpretation of Scripture, interpretations that in many case are at variance with your own. I had maintained that the practices of the oldest churches that we know of support a certain reading of Scripture, impacting some dogma of course. And those practices, at least, are a matter of historical fact, not opinion.

 

[fhansen]

Forget the sacraments. Thats non debatable. Everone agrees that the Lord gave us instruction to get baptized and to partake of the Lords supper. Lets not get into trying to promote these so called ancient churches because you just open yourself up to much needed criticism. Anyway, as you said, this is my opinion.

Guess I'm still not sure of you're position then. Sorry. The Sacraments are very debatable among some circles. Apparently you believe in the Real Presence after all.

 

[Souldier]

If you followed along, you'd know that Souldier was asserting that the RCC moved away from the practices of the original Church, based on his interpretation of Scripture, interpretations that in many case are at variance with your own. I had maintained that the practices of the oldest churches that we know of support a certain reading of Scripture, impacting some dogma of course. And those practices, at least, are a matter of historical fact, not opinion.

Hey, perhaps my manners were not what they should have been. Im sorry for that but i stick with what i said, and its true, no matter what you say it wont change the truth. I need some rest brother. Please have a blessed day.

 

[fhansen]

Yep. That's why I spent a little time explaining it.


I never said they do. Got any more diversions to try out?

Ah, you do indeed.


How so, considering that every denomination or communion that adheres to it, has a different set of doctrines and a different interpretation of Tradition from all of the others? Explain that.

If the word of God isn't good enough, how can "take your pick and call it 'Tradition?'" be an improvement?


No, that would be true only if you confine yourself to one denomination. But if you do that, you can find the same certainty with a Sola Scriptura church body. You still have no coherent argument about any system that improves upon a reliance upon the word of God.

This really isn't at all complicated. Churches that rely solely on Scripture when supporting, say, the Real Presence using John 6, have to depend on their best educated exegesis, whereas a Church that also has its Tradition, its lived experience, uses the same Scripture in the same way but can also back that position up by saying, "This is simply the way we've always and everywhere done it."

 

[Rick Otto]

That's your opinion.

It's my opinion, too.

 

[fhansen]

Hey, perhaps my manners were not what they should have been. Im sorry for that but i stick with what i said, and its true, no matter what you say it wont change the truth. I need some rest brother. Please have a blessed day.

I know-do you ever sleep? I have an excuse lately-I have a messed up shoulder that's been waking me up-and keeping me there -in the middle of the night. Get some rest for round 2-or whichever one we're on. Or not; I've got to get moving too. The wife's been giving me that glare.

 

[fhansen]

It's my opinion, too.

Yes, there are a lot of opinions floating around; that we can agree on.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Looks like, aside from the table of contents of one's bible, nobody has any dogmas that are not in the bible.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, there are a lot of opinions floating around; that we can agree on.

Freedom of flotation is magisterial, tho.

 

[Albion]

If you followed along, you'd know that Souldier was asserting that the RCC moved away from the practices of the original Church

If you'd followed along with the conversation you and I had been having, you'd know that I was referring to your comments, not his. So if this is not another dodge, answer my question, please.

 

[Albion]

This really isn't at all complicated.

That's what I thought, too.

Churches that rely solely on Scripture when supporting, say, the Real Presence using John 6, have to depend on their best educated exegesis, whereas a Church that also has its Tradition, its lived experience, uses the same Scripture in the same way but can also back that position up by saying, "This is simply the way we've always and everywhere done it."

Well, you know, that sounds just great on paper, except that the facts are entirely to the opposite. You have yet to come up with a single reason why adhering to custom, etc. is more reliable than, or preferable to, reliance upon the word of God.

 

[topcare]

66 book Bible is an aberration that man made into dogma

 

[Albion]

66 book Bible is an aberration that man made into dogma

The Bible is not a dogma.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Bible is not a dogma.

The definition of what constitutes holy scripture is.

 

[fhansen]

That's what I thought, too.



Well, you know, that sounds just great on paper, except that the facts are entirely to the opposite. You have yet to come up with a single reason why adhering to custom, etc. is more reliable than, or preferable to, reliance upon the word of God.

Oh... maybe because the Word of God, in written form, doesn't always give us a clear understanding. I guess I’ll continue on this well-trodden path to see if it can lead anywhere-it certainly should by common sense alone.

In the case of infant baptism, Scripture can be appealed to for either a pro or con stance. It’s not particularly well supportive of the infant baptism position, however, and those who read Scripture to suggest an opposing position may do so without a great degree of difficulty, and in fact, will maintain that infant baptism is a Catholic dogma missing in Scripture. But both of the more ancient churches, east and west, just happen to agree that infant baptism has always been the practice, even though division for other reasons was beginning to occur between these churches from a very early point in time. And it was virtually unquestioned until exegeting Scripture on a mass scale became popular, using it as one’s sole authority on matters of faith. Anyway, that practice, that tradition, should mean something to anyone coming from an objective perspective. Same with the Real Presence, and also with some kind of state of purification after death, with views on soteriology/justification, and with the roles of the human will and works of love in our salvation. These are historical facts that should contribute something to this kind of dialogue.

In any case some of these very matters, as well as others, are often controversial between SS adherents.