Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas? (2)

[fhansen]

What did Christ say? His words are spirit. Whats that mean? Whats it mean to walk by faith not sight?

Walking by faith not by sight has nothing to do with "spiritualizing" all Christs commands. It simply means that we believe what we cannot yet see. Is He telling us, in Matt 25:31-46, for example, that we should really, physically feed the hungry and clothe the naked -or not?

 

[Souldier]

Walking by faith not by sight has nothing to do with "spiritualizing" all Christs commands. It simply means that we believe what we cannot yet see. Is He telling us, in Matt 25:31-46, for example, that we should really, physically feed the hungry and clothe the naked -or not?

I never suggested that it meant to spiritualize every command. Yet there are hidden things and not everything is seen.


Matthew 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

 

[Souldier]

And yes Christ is telling us to actually feed the widows and orphans. Literally.

 

[MoreCoffee]

OK, the 66 books are holy scripture, everything else is debatable. Why debate when we can spend that time searching, discussing and meditating on said scriptures?

My bible has 73 books.

 

[Souldier]

My bible has 73 books.

What do you see in them?

 

[MoreCoffee]

And we are washed by the word and cleansed by the word spoken

We are washed in the blood, in the soul cleansing blood of the lamb, of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I see that you remembered the blood a little later ...

Washed in the blood too, i forgot that one.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What do you see in them?

Around 1,700 pages.

 

[Souldier]

Around 1,700 pages.

What do the eyes of your heart see?

 

[fhansen]

I never suggested that it meant to spiritualize every command. Yet there are hidden things and not everything is seen.


Matthew 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Yes, and that revelation is the goal-to know Christ, which means, in turn, to know God. A matter of grace. But you already diverge in some of your beliefs, based on your interpretations, from the most ancient churches as well as plenty of Protestant ones. Your own beliefs are no different, in reality, from their dogmas or doctrines. Why do you think that yours are superior?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What do the eyes of your heart see?

That is a matter between myself and God as all matters of conscience must be.

 

[Souldier]

Yes, and that revelation is the goal-to know Christ, which means, in turn, to know God. A matter of grace. But you already diverge in some of your beliefs, based on your interpretations, from the most ancient churches as well as plenty of Protestant ones. Your own beliefs are no different, in reality, from their dogmas or doctrines. Why do you think that yours are superior?

Are you sure that i diverge from most ancient churches?


Revelation 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”

 

[Souldier]

That is a matter between myself and God as all matters of conscience must be.

Yes amen.

 

[fhansen]

Are you sure that i diverge from most ancient churches?

Yes

Revelation 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”

 

[Albion]

No, I refuse to admit that there's disunity in RC teachings. Individuals can teach whatever they want. I encounter false teachers often, inside and outside the church. IOW, some teachers don't teach Catholicism. At any rate, this whole argument is disingenuous. The OP is addressing Catholic dogma, not the opinions of mavericks.

Regardless, the claim was that Sola Scriptura causes disagreement on dogma; and the fact is that Tradition doesn't guarantee it, either. So if there is no "gain" in unity by going by the word of Man instead of us confining ourselves to the word of God, you have no argument.

So you now want to move the goalposts, as it were, when your argument has gone sour, saying that it's only among the members that there's disagreement whereas the church itself is consistent on what it teaches. But that is exactly what you rejected when it was pointed out that there are plenty of other denominations (other than your own) which have firm and official doctrinal positions, even if the membership does not concur all the time.

What's more, if we turn to the church's teachers and theologians, there are certainly Protestant denominations which tolerate less deviation from the official position than is the case with the RCC.

 

[fhansen]

Regardless, the claim was that Sola Scriptura causes disagreement on dogma; and the fact is that Tradition doesn't guarantee it, either. So if there is no "gain" in unity by going by the word of Man instead of us confining ourselves to the word of God, you have no argument.

So you now want to move the goalposts, as it were, when your argument has gone sour, saying that it's only among the members that there's disagreement whereas the church itself is consistent on what it teaches. But that is exactly what you rejected when it was pointed out that there are plenty of other denominations (other than your own) which have firm and official doctrinal positions, even if the membership does not concur all the time.

What's more, if we turn to the church's teachers and theologians, there are certainly Protestant denominations which tolerate less deviation from the official position than is the case with the RCC.

I want to move the goalposts? LOL. Your argument went sour and you refused to admit it. What part does truth and democratic vote by membership have do to with each other? Why do I need to keep addressing such a juvenile argument? Should God ask humans how to run His universe? Tradition absolutely helps gain unity. Because, like it or not, it's the one ingredient that SS adherents lack, that is able, with rightful authority, to resolve the very disagreements observable on this thread. You can accept that authority, or reject it, as humans are wont to do, but that is the simple truth.

 

[Souldier]

Yes

Thats your opinion. Maybe its your Church which has moved away. Have you ever considered that possibility?

 

[Souldier]

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.

 

[fhansen]

Thats your opinion. Maybe its your Church which has moved away. Have you ever considered that possibility?

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.

 

[Albion]

I want to move the goalposts?

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

What part does truth and democratic vote by membership have do to with each other?

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

Why do I need to keep addressing such a juvenile argument?

Ah, you do indeed.

Tradition absolutely helps gain unity.

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?

Because, like it or not, it's the one ingredient that SS adherents lack, that is able, with rightful authority, to resolve the very disagreements observable on this thread.

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.

 

[Albion]

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.

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