Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I wrote a song with that as the chorus.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.
Regardless of your personal interpretation: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.
And how does that glorify God when you pass him through your digestive tract and out your bowel?
Nobody "Bites Christ" in John 6.
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??
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.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
BobRyan said: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.
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.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"
Thank you for you personal interpretation.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
I never denounced Scripture. The CC has always appealed to both Scripture and tradition to support her positions.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.
The lived experience and practices of the Church east and west offer the very support you demand.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.
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.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.
We're looking for how God deposited the faith and maintained its integrity throughout the ages.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.
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?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. What justifies your interpretation of Scripture as opposed to say, Bob Ryan's or Souldier's?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
Well, that mat be safe-just stay away from the controversial stuff-but it won't necessarily lead to the full truth.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?