Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas? (2)

[Rick Otto]

Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

I wrote a song with that as the chorus.

...nice posting, fellahs.

 

[Rick Otto]

While I don't believe the bishop was speaking dogmatically, I do believe he had other dogmatic beliefs, some of which I'm sure aren't shared by sola scripturists today. Coming to think of it, some sola scripturists of today don't even have bishops.

Regardless of your personal interpretation:
Do we still have what we think we do when it has been totally corrupted,
or do we have it in name only?

 

[Albion]

And how does that glorify God when you pass him through your digestive tract and out your bowel?

Nobody "Bites Christ" in John 6.

I'm sure that both of these comments must seem awfully cute and meaningful to their authors, but since neither of them does accurately describe what believers in the Real Presence themselves think about it, could we just conduct ourselves at a slightly higher level in the future??

 

[BobRyan]

Nobody "Bites Christ" in John 6.

Christ did not say "someday in the future my flesh will be food" in John 6 -- He said it already WAS and that He already WAS the bread that came down out of heaven.

THEN in John 6 He explains the SYMBOL - by saying that "literal flesh is worthless - my WORDS are spirit and are life".

In Matt 16 the disciples get smacked-down because they took the symbol of bread "TOO literally" and later realized that by that SYMBOL Christ meant "teaching".

It is plainly stated so in Matt 16.

So then - no "biting Christ" in John 6.

And no "Confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ"
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

All such man-made-doctrines are not found in the Bible.

I'm sure that both of these comments must seem awfully cute and meaningful to their authors, but since neither of them does accurately describe what believers in the Real Presence themselves think about it, could we just conduct ourselves at a slightly higher level in the future??

On the contrary - the post goes directly to the core of the issue.

All irrefutable posts such as the one I gave above - will get the non-start response - Christ also got the same 'answer in silence' to his own irrefutable proof of the resurrection in Matt 22.

I think we all knew that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[fhansen]

So then - no "biting Christ" in John 6.

And no "Confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ"
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

All such man-made-doctrines are not found in the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

Many of us here, whether SS adherents or not, maintain that the real presence is found in the bible, most specifically John 6, and, if the doctrine isn't laid out as clearly as it could be, then you've answered the question in the OP anyway: Scripture would be missing dogma, the dogma that's always been held by the oldest churches we know of, both in the east and in the west. It's wishful thinking to believe the bible was ever meant as an exhaustive systematic theological handbook but many continue to wish away in spite of that-with these various disagreements resulting.

 

[BobRyan]

Nobody "Bites Christ" in John 6.

Christ did not say "someday in the future my flesh will be food" in John 6 -- He said it already WAS and that He already WAS the bread that came down out of heaven.

THEN in John 6 He explains the SYMBOL - by saying that "literal flesh is worthless - my WORDS are spirit and are life".

In Matt 16 the disciples get smacked-down because they took the symbol of bread "TOO literally" and later realized that by that SYMBOL Christ meant "teaching".

It is plainly stated so in Matt 16.

So then - no "biting Christ" in John 6.

And no "Confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ"
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

All such man-made-doctrines are not found in the Bible.

Many of us here, whether SS adherents or not, maintain that the real presence is found in the bible, most specifically John 6, and, if the doctrine isn't laid out as clearly as it could be, then you've answered the question in the OP anyway: Scripture would be missing dogma, the dogma that's always been held by the oldest churches we know of, both in the east and in the west.

Scripture is "missing that dogma" or... that dogma is not supported by scripture?

Mormons and JW's could come up with a host of ideas "missing from the Bible" that we would counter with "not at all supported by the Bible". One cannot sweep all error under the rug of "well that is missing from the Bible"


In John 6 -( where many like to go for some sort of transubstantiation idea ) we do not find "some day in the future you will need to bite me" or "someday in the future you will need to eat my flesh" -- Christ said it was already true.

So then the "test" is whether anyone takes that view and bites Him then and there - nobody does it because as He said in John 6 "literal flesh is worthless it is my WORDS that have life".

Same lesson about BREAD that we find in Matt 16 where it is the symbol for teaching.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[fhansen]

Scripture is "missing that dogma" or... that dogma is not supported by scripture?

Mormons and JW's could come up with a host of ideas "missing from the Bible" that we would counter with "not at all supported by the Bible". One cannot sweep all error under the rug of "well that is missing from the Bible"

Mormon's claim new revelation-1850 or so years after the fact. JWs, with a companion background to the SDA church, claim SS for their doctrines.

In John 6 -( where many like to go for some sort of transubstantiation idea ) we do not find "some day in the future you will need to bite me" or "someday in the future you will need to eat my flesh" -- Christ said it was already true.

So then the "test" is whether anyone takes that view and bites Him then and there - nobody does it because as He said in John 6 "literal flesh is worthless it is my WORDS that have life".

Same lesson about BREAD that we find in Matt 16 where it is the symbol for teaching.

in Christ,

Bob

Thank you for you personal interpretation.

 

[fhansen]

I find that a very weak justification for constantly pointing to Scripture while denouncing others for relying upon it. Whenever anyone wants to persuade someone else of a different POV, he introduces something that is NOT already in dispute, and you never seem to turn to legends or the musings of some old saint when trying to prove any doctrine. If that is what persuades you, it follows that you'd be showing the rest of us why it should persuade us also.

I never denounced Scripture. The CC has always appealed to both Scripture and tradition to support her positions.

You've appealed to past history, I agree, but not with much more than "it's always been believed--trust me--so you know it has to be so." That's just a claim; it has no substance unless you show that X is indeed what the church always and ever believed and then, that there is some reason why we should consider this to make any difference at all.

The lived experience and practices of the Church east and west offer the very support you demand.

With the Bible, we agree that it's of God. Even if you showed that X was always believed, everywhere, and by all, that doesn't make it a dogma, not any more than if you showed that candles always were used in church so God is saying we must profess a belief in them.

Makes little difference when, on this thread, many different "dogmas" have been presented by sincere adherents of SS which are radically divergent from each other.

And you are speaking of your own denomination, I assume. But we are not trying to outdo each other for "One true church denomination" here; we are speaking of what it is that contains God's will and intentions, regardless of one's affiliations.

We're looking for how God deposited the faith and maintained its integrity throughout the ages.

That isn't the point, though. All of these operate from a sectarian perspective--"We are the only true church so whatever we decree IS the truth, period." That means that neither Scripture nor Tradition nor anything else is really what justifies such church bodies. They are self-justifying.

Of course God's church would be self-justifying, just as He is. It cannot work any other way. Scripture is self-justifying too-it can't be proven to be God's word. And what justifies your interpretation of Scripture as opposed to say, Bob Ryan's or Souldier's?

 

[Souldier]

Of course God's church would be self-justifying, just as He is. It cannot work any other way. What justifies your interpretation of Scripture as opposed to say, Bob Ryan's or Souldier's?

Mine is not an interpretation but its a understanding that is based on all NT scripture. It combines Pauls teaching on liberty with Pauls teaching on following the Spirit, with Christ teaching on how we get the Spirit and how we are taught by HIm, along with Johns words about not needing a teacher.

Its an understanding based on all doctrine combined. Its also based on reality and observation. I see everyone has their own so called prophets and apostles who have done nothing but cause division in the body. So i embrace liberty in the spirit and i dont follow any teacher accept those who wrote scripture.

 

[Souldier]

There is no division in my church. Paul says we are not saved by works and i agree. Paul says we should learn to do works and i agree. John says we need no teacher and i agree. Its simple and unrebukable. I dont need to defend the Pope because i have no pope. I dont need to defend Ellen White because i dont follow her. I follow no man or woman. I follow only scripture. I dont need to defend that. I have no division and i have peace without conflict.

 

[fhansen]

Mine is not an interpretation but its a understanding that is based on all NT scripture. It combines Pauls teaching on liberty with Pauls teaching on following the Spirit, with Christ teaching on how we get the Spirit and how we are taught by HIm, along with Johns words about not needing a teacher.

Its an understanding based on all doctrine combined. Its also based on reality and observation. I see everyone has their own so called prophets and apostles who have done nothing but cause division in the body. So i embrace liberty in the spirit and i dont follow any teacher accept those who wrote scripture.

That's great as long as you know what they meant. But either way, in the end, one's "understanding" is no different from their "interpretation". Everyone who takes Christianity seriously enough to make the effort to follow or conform to it's teachings believe that they understand those teachings correctly, whether the teachings have been confirmed by the beliefs of the church or personalities that preceded them or whether they do it lone-ranger style. I've done it both ways.

 

[fhansen]

There is no division in my church. Paul says we are not saved by works and i agree. Paul says we should learn to do works and i agree. John says we need no teacher and i agree. Its simple and unrebukable. I dont need to defend the Pope because i have no pope. I dont need to defend Ellen White because i dont follow her. I follow no man or woman. I follow only scripture. I dont need to defend that. I have no division and i have peace without conflict.

I have no conflict either-I have no need to-I don't disagree with the Church or her bible. But, yes, you're right, the minute two or more people make up a church, division of one kind or another is likely to follow. Fairly hard to disagree with ourselves.

 

[Souldier]

That's great as long as you know what they meant. But either way, in the end, one's "understanding" is no different from their "interpretation". Everyone who takes Christianity seriously enough to make the effort to follow or conform to it's teachings believe that they understand those teachings correctly, whether the teachings have been confirmed by the beliefs of the church or personalities that preceded them or whether they do it lone-ranger style. I've done it both ways.

You must admit you havent been able to refute anything i have said. That may be an indication that i am right. Not that i wish to be right and others wrong, its just that i wish to know the truth which sets us free, and to live in peace with all men.

 

[Souldier]

I have no conflict either-I have no need to-I don't disagree with the Church or her bible. But, yes, you're right, the minute two or more people make up a church, division of one kind or another is likely to follow. Fairly hard to disagree with ourselves.

Notice however that i dont need to defend the Pope or Catholicism. I dont need to defend SDA or Ellen white. Im free from all that. I need no teacher yet i follow the teachers Christ sent. Everything i say is irrefutable. Thats proves thats its right. If we want the truth we must embrace that which is irrefutable and cast off anything that is refutable. Its just that simple.

 

[fhansen]

You must admit you havent been able to refute anything i have said.

Of course-it becomes a he said/she said thing; everyone has their own interpretation-and your particular method has been very general: Jesus spoke in parables, the meaning is spiritual; His sheep hear His voice and understand Him. And while there's much truth here, and I believe you've understood some important truths correctly, Jesus didn't speak only in parables- He also used plain language. And when, for example, He said that He would rise from the dead He meant that He would physically rise from the dead. There are those who want to "spiritualize" those words also-as in a spiritual rebirth/reawakening-which eviscerates the power of the resurrection by effectively turning it into a fairy tale or allegory only.

 

[Souldier]

Of course-it becomes a he said/she said thing; everyone has their own interpretation-and your method has been very general: Jesus spoke in parables, the meaning is spiritual; His sheep hear His voice and understand Him. And while there's much truth here, and I believe you've understood some important truths correctly, Jesus didn't speak only in parables- He also used plain language. And when, for example, He said that He would rise from the dead He meant that He would physically rise from the dead. There are those who want to make those words strictly spiritual-as in a spiritual rebirth/reawakening-which eviscerates the power of the resurrection by effectively turning it into a fairy tale.

No it doesnt boil down to he said she said. It boils down to HE said.

Christ said the spirit would teach us all things. John says we need no teacher. Yet RC seems to say that isnt true. And so im right, and RC is wrong. And its only because i follow those who are right. Its not that im right, its that they are right. Do you wish to agree that we need no teacher? If you do then you too will be right.

 

[fhansen]

Notice however that i dont need to defend the Pope or Catholicism. I dont need to defend SDA or Ellen white. Im free from all that. I need no teacher yet i follow the teachers Christ sent. Everything i say is irrefutable. Thats proves thats its right. If we want the truth we must embrace that which is irrefutable and cast off anything that is refutable. Its just that simple.

Well, that may be safe I guess-just stay away from the controversial stuff-but that won't necessarily lead to the full truth. Either way we all need to be satisfied that we're on the right track at least, and you obviously believe that you are at this point. And I actually agree with much of your basic understanding of the faith and the way that it sounds like you're living it by what you've said.

 

[fhansen]

No it doesnt boil down to he said she said. It boils down to HE said.

Christ said the spirit would teach us all things. John says we need no teacher. Yet RC seems to say that isnt true. And so im right, and RC is wrong. And its only because i follow those who are right. Its not that im right, its that they are right. Do you wish to agree that we need no teacher? If you do then you too will be right.

As has been pointed out, Scripture tells us God calls and appoints teachers. So the CC is right and you're wrong-on that point, at least. Both are true in the end, however. Because teachers transmit the faith to us-but God takes it from there-and even then continuing to also lead/guide us by His Church's teachers as needed.

 

[Souldier]

Well, that mat be safe-just stay away from the controversial stuff-but it won't necessarily lead to the full truth.

But it has. I lack nothing that God wont give me if he wishes me to have it. I have everything i need to stand today. Amen.

 

[Souldier]

As has been pointed out, Scripture tells us God calls and appoint teachers. So the CC is right and you're wrong-on that point, at least. Both are true in the end, however. Because teachers transmit the faith to us-but God takes it from there-even then continuing to lead us by His Church's teachers as needed.

Yes an those teachers are the Lord, and Paul, Peter, James and John. Thats what John and the Lord are both saying in this scripture. You need teachers but i need only these men. I need only that which was given to us in the beginning. I dont need the Pope or Ellen white. I got everything i need. I got the anointing.




1 John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will[a] abide in Him.

The Children of God
28 And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. 29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.





John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.


22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?”

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

The Gift of His Peace
25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.