Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas? (2)

[SpyderByte]

Fact: The OP was once Catholic is now a Lutheran
Fact: RickOtto was once Catholic is now not affiliated with any denomination
Fact: Albion was once Catholic is now Anglican

See the pattern?

Fact: Person leaving the Catholic Church do not all turn up in the same denomination with the same beliefs and practices. If they did, their collective testimony would be more compelling, but they didn't, so it's not.

Now, here's an assertion: Sola scripturist have no dogma unique to their tradition to which all sola scripturists assent.

Here's another assertion: Sola scripturists have failed to define dogma.

And here's my final assertion: Sola scripturists are incapable of defining dogma.

Your "facts" don't add up to the confusion you're espousing. Fact: some people go to your denomination from others, so what? The point is still the same. You made a fallible decision to join the rcc.

Eta: Simply because a dogma has been long held does not remove it from the realm of sola scriptura. That is why those who practice sola scriptura deny those dogmas held by other denominations that are not found there. Such as the Marian dogmas or the papal dogmas. Other's, such as the Trinity, Christ's deity, and the 5 Solas, are all found within the only thing called "God Breathed", scripture....

 

[Rick Otto]

Your faith is very warm, fuzzy, and comfortable. Convenient for you. But that's not what Christ preached.

Now you're confusing what Christ preached with what Rome preached.
Being responsible for my beliefs is not as warm and fuzzy as your confidence in Rome.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Now you're confusing what Christ preached with what Rome preached.
Being responsible for my beliefs is not as warm and fuzzy as your confidence in Rome.

I'm not confusing anything. Having confidence in Christ's Church (which really doesn't involve Rome at all...) is difficult. Ask any martyr, or saint. But when you toss out doctrine because you don't agree with it, rather than struggling to understand it, that's like sitting under a blanket.

 

[tadoflamb]

The Church is not Christ,

Is that dogmatic?

 

[tadoflamb]

Your "facts" don't add up to the confusion you're espousing. Fact: some people go to your denomination from others, so what? The point is still the same. You made a fallible decision to join the rcc.

Eta: Simply because a dogma has been long held does not remove it from the realm of sola scriptura. That is why those who practice sola scriptura deny those dogmas held by other denominations that are not found there. Such as the Marian dogmas or the papal dogmas. Other's, such as the Trinity, Christ's deity, and the 5 Solas, are all found within the only thing called "God Breathed", scripture....

No, in response to a heartfelt prayer, I was led to the Catholic Church. I'm sure God, in His divine wisdom would have led me to any of the two dozen or so protestant denominations within a ten minute drive of where I live if it was there that He would be known in the way that He wants to be known.

Dogmas defined before 1577 were defined by the Catholic Church and not by using the principle/praxis/concept/teaching/doctrine/dogma of sola scriptura. It brings back to mind that sola scripturists are incapable of defining dogma, at least not beyond denominational lines.

So, how about it? Name me any dogma any denomination formulated after 1577, or is my hunch correct that sola scripturists wouldn't know a dogma if it bit them?

 

[SpyderByte]

I'm not confusing anything. Having confidence in Christ's Church (which really doesn't involve Rome at all...) is difficult. Ask any martyr, or saint. But when you toss out doctrine because you don't agree with it, rather than struggling to understand it, that's like sitting under a blanket.

No, tossing out doctrine with no basis in history or scripture is using one's head for more than a hat rack. We see people testing what the apostles taught in the Scriptures to make sure they were true, and yet now we have a denomination that says "Don't look at the bible, we've spoken, that's the end of it!"

 

[SpyderByte]

No, in response to a heartfelt prayer, I was led to the Catholic Church. I'm sure God, in His divine wisdom would have led me to any of the two dozen or so protestant denominations within a ten minute drive of where I live if it was there that He would be known in the way that He wants to be known.

Dogmas defined before 1577 were defined by the Catholic Church and not by using the principle/praxis/concept/teaching/doctrine/dogma of sola scriptura. It brings back to mind that sola scripturists are incapable of defining dogma, at least not beyond denominational lines.

So, how about it? Name me any dogma any denomination formulated after 1577, or is my hunch correct that sola scripturists wouldn't know a dogma if it bit them?

Ok, ignoring what I posted, isn't a good response. And you're still using a fallible choice to join the rcc, as I did in joining my church. Unless you're claiming that because I'm no longer RC I'm not a Christian? That God only leads people to the rcc?

 

[bbbbbbb]

If that's the case, then the Catholic Church is also sola scriptura. But I don't believe it to be the case. At any rate, Scripture is used for verification of all Catholic dogmas, except for the TOC. We make sure no Catholic dogma goes against Scripture.

Does that include John the Baptist having at least seven heads? I am not saying it is a dogma, but it is a provable fact that the Catholic Church venerates seven skulls (or parts thereof) of John the Baptist.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Right, which is why it's hard to pin you down on what you believe.

But you mischaracterized More Coffee's contention. He said that the TOC of 66 books is an unbiblical Protestant dogma. You see, dogma does not come only when it is etched in stone at an ecumenical council. It is certainly defined there, but all our dogmas have been held since early on.

So, do I understand you correctly in characterising MoreCoffee's characterization that the Protestant ToC is an extrabiblical dogma, but the Catholic ToC is a biblical dogma? When, prior to 1577 was the dogma of your ToC first established?

 

[Souldier]

Who told you that what you believe is the truth? Anyone with authority?

THe scripture told me. WHo is the scripture?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I must object.
Cafeteria Catholics refers to Catholics who remain in "the one true church", but pick and choose what to believe and what not to, often without any deep thought or study.

I knew there were big problems with the institution in first grade catechism.
By fourth grade when they tried to indoctrinate me into transubstantiation, I decided they were all wrong and I just needed to learn to keep my head down and yes, "go with the flow" until I was 18.

Yes, I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

THe scripture told me. WHo is the scripture?

That is one of the really difficult things than many denominationalists stumble over. They assume that people join church because of some persuasion by other people. However, for many of us, it is through our personal study of the Bible and not a denominational influence.

 

[Souldier]

However, for many of us, it is through our personal study of the Bible and not a denominational influence.

I think what you describe is the place we must find. At some point we must look around and see the things around us. We will become discouraged by all the denominations and divisions. That however will guide us to seek the truth as Christ tells us to. seek and you will find. Then we seek His words and find that truth within our self, by the power of the Word.

 

[Souldier]

The Jews were always looking for someone to rule over them. Israel wanted Gideon to rule over them but he said he would not. He said the Lord would rule over them. Likewise they wanted a king but when they were given the King of Kings they didn't want him.

This is what we must do. We must allow Christ to rule in our hearts and minds. We have been given a promise that Christ will teach us and rule over us. We need not look for any other person to rule over us.

 

[Souldier]

Judges 7:2 And the Lord said to Gideon, “The people who are with you are too many for Me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel claim glory for itself against Me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’ 3 Now therefore, proclaim in the hearing of the people, saying, ‘Whoever is fearful and afraid, let him turn and depart at once from Mount Gilead.’” And twenty-two thousand of the people returned, and ten thousand remained.

Hebrews 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.

2 Corinthians 12:9 And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast [a]about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

 

[Souldier]

Thats how i see it. It can be a fearful thing at times. I have experienced many battles with fear. Faith however trusts God and pushes forward. Thats spiritual warfare.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Jews were always looking for someone to rule over them. Israel wanted Gideon to rule over them but he said he would not. He said the Lord would rule over them. Likewise they wanted a king but when they were given the King of Kings they didn't want him.

This is what we must do. We must allow Christ to rule in our hearts and minds. We have been given a promise that Christ will teach us and rule over us. We need not look for any other person to rule over us.

Likewise, the people of Israel went to Samuel and demanded a king to rule over them. Samuel made it quite plain that this was not God's will and what the king would do to them. Nevertheless, God allowed Saul to be their first king and when he failed miserably God replaced him with David. After David the rest went steadily downhill in fits and starts until Israel was led into captivity by Assyria and Judah was led into captivity by Babylon. Disobedience to God's revealed will carries a very steep price.

 

[Souldier]

Likewise, the people of Israel went to Samuel and demanded a king to rule over them. Samuel made it quite plain that this was not God's will and what the king would do to them. Nevertheless, God allowed Saul to be their first king and when he failed miserably God replaced him with David. After David the rest went steadily downhill in fits and starts until Israel was led into captivity by Assyria and Judah was led into captivity by Babylon. Disobedience to God's revealed will carries a very steep price.

Yes. I guess we should seek the Lord with all our heart.

 

[mluiesp]

First of all, sorry but I can't possibly follow all the posts that have been added on this thread. However, I think that one of the arguments that Catholics are making in defense of the Magisterium of the RCC lies in that the Bible is ambiguous or, as St Augustine would have said, heretics can use Scripture to support almost anything twisting the language and such.

However, the Magisterium creates its own set of problems. Mainly that the Magisterium expresses itself in documents (Constitutions, Letters, Bullas and so on...) that can or must be interpreted. And they are, resulting in different branch of RC theologians interpreting the Magisterium in different ways. One example would be the question of papal infallibility.

 

[Souldier]

First of all, sorry but I can't possibly follow all the posts that have been added on this thread. However, I think that one of the arguments that Catholics are making in defense of the Magisterium of the RCC lies in that the Bible is ambiguous or, as St Augustine would have said, heretics can use Scripture to support almost anything twisting the language and such.

However, the Magisterium creates its own set of problems. Mainly that the Magisterium expresses itself in documents (Constitutions, Letters, Bullas and so on...) that can or must be interpreted. And they are, resulting in different branch of RC theologians interpreting the Magisterium in different ways. One example would be the question of papal infallibility.

It all seems a bit legalistic doesnt it? Look at what the apostles teach us. They teach us about how love fulfills the law. They teach us about lust and how to abstain from it. Its like they dont want us to observe a bunch of rules but instead learn to walk spiritually and follow holiness, which is really seeking the kingdom.

The rules they teach us are important but its not law, its not something we do and earn salvation, its not legalistic like that. Its more like a teaching that helps us grow and know how to seek the kingdom. Its not that we do those things so we do not sin, which is important, but its so we can grow by seeking the kingdom. We grow into spiritual people rather than carnal people. However, in my opinion, the way Rc has created this legalistic code actually misses the point. Its actually leading us to be carnal and legalistic rather than spiritual. I think some people in RC do grow into spiritual people, but the RC doctrine still misses the point. We need to simplify things, not make them more complicated. RC has complicated the doctrine we have been given. They have added a bunch of needless stuff to our doctrine and its nothing more than carnal religious stuff. The whole idea of the Pope is carnal, its exactly what Paul was trying to get the corinthians to stop doing. I know people will get offended by what i said but its true. We gotta start simplifying things and stop adding more than is necessary.