• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟421,565.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Very interesting. Thanks. Of course, Catholics here will tell you that he is not the Pope and is not actually presenting Catholic doctrine, but there is no doubt that he is not speaking merely for himself.

Well, just as you folks believe, just because someone claims to speak for someone has no relevance to whether he actually speaks for them. We believe the Pope speaks for Jesus, you don't buy it. But you would buy a guy who has no credentials speaking for the Catholic Church???:doh:
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟251,695.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
just because someone claims to speak for someone has no relevance to whether he actually speaks for them.


That's one of the reasons I left your denomination....

But please, back to the subject of this thread.


A blessed Holy Week to all....


- Josiah
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0

SpyderByte

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2012
740
114
✟31,375.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
Well, just as you folks believe, just because someone claims to speak for someone has no relevance to whether he actually speaks for them. We believe the Pope speaks for Jesus, you don't buy it. But you would buy a guy who has no credentials speaking for the Catholic Church???:doh:

Yes, because the rcc just absorbs all its schismatics...
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,603.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
5
Actually, according to me, Augustine, the CC, and others, man cannot possibly be saved without God, yet God elects not to save us without us, without our role to play, dependent on our capabilities. Now, according to many others, some men can't possibly be saved at all!

Fortunately, there is nothing misleading in the way scripture explains God determined whom He would elect to save before any of them were created.
Still, we crave that glory and call it "autonomy".

Eph 1:4: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
[5] Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
[6] To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,205
4,279
✟430,404.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
5

Fortunately, there is nothing misleading in the way scripture explains God determined whom He would elect to save before any of them were created.
Still, we crave that glory and call it "autonomy".
I know no one in my circles who "crave that glory and call it "autonomy"". The Catholics I know of-and I truly suspect this is true of your acquaintances as well- are nothing if not humbled more by the prospect that their will and efforts are required. Who wouldn't be? No absolutely free ride to either heaven or hell.
 
Upvote 0

SpyderByte

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2012
740
114
✟31,375.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
I know no one in my circles who "crave that glory and call it "autonomy"". The Catholics I know of-and I truly suspect this is true of your acquaintances as well- are nothing if not humbled more by the prospect that their will and efforts are required. Who wouldn't be? No absolutely free ride to either heaven or hell.

Our wills are not required. In fact, according to Jesus, our wills are corrupt and slaves of sin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,205
4,279
✟430,404.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Our wills are not required. In fact, according to Jesus, our wills are corrupt and slaves of sin.
He often spoke in Parables of course and gave a good outline of the proper Christian response to grace in the Parable of the Talents-and the consequences of refusing it, of refusing to do the works God's planned for a believer. We may not be able to move our wills towards God but we can always resist/reject His call, or turn away from Him again after answering it.
 
Upvote 0

SpyderByte

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2012
740
114
✟31,375.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
He often spoke in Parables of course and gave a good outline of the proper Christian response to grace in the Parable of the Talents-and the consequences of refusing it, of refusing to do the works God's planned for a believer. We may not be able to move our wills towards God but we can always resist/reject His call, or turn away from Him again after answering it.

Smh, no. But this isn't the thread for it...
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,603.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I know no one in my circles who "crave that glory and call it "autonomy"". The Catholics I know of-and I truly suspect this is true of your acquaintances as well- are nothing if not humbled more by the prospect that their will and efforts are required. Who wouldn't be? No absolutely free ride to either heaven or hell.

I admit to hyperbole, but the only guy who could have paid the price, already did.
Mercy is undeserved, my esteemed colleague from across the aisle.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟72,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Mercy is truly undeserved.

For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment.

How does one show no mercy except by choosing to be merciless and how can one show mercy except by choosing to show mercy?
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
5,319
1,091
America
Visit site
✟365,214.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We all certainly still have responsibility, including in what we do, and we are accountable, so we do choose in such things, otherwise choice and responsibility are really meaningless. Yahweh gives such to any people as being made in the image of God has responsibility meant in that, it is with God's grace, that any can respond to it as they should. That many don't doesn't make that less so at all. And even those taken very early have choice that they make.
 
Upvote 0

ThatTrueLight

John 1:9
Feb 12, 2015
2,091
52
✟2,579.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But it does nothing to preclude that Peter couldn't preach to the Gentiles, or that Paul could preach to the Jews. In fact, Paul went into synagogues, mostly, to teach them.
The point is Jesus never told Peter "You stick to the Jews", or to Paul "Only to the Gentiles will you go." All the apostles preached where the Holy Spirit sent them, excluding no one.

Then why does Galatians tell us flat out that God worked effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision as He did with Paul to the Gentiles?

Because it's a nice thing to say?
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,603.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We all certainly still have responsibility, including in what we do, and we are accountable, so we do choose in such things, otherwise choice and responsibility are really meaningless. Yahweh gives such to any people as being made in the image of God has responsibility meant in that, it is with God's grace, that any can respond to it as they should. That many don't doesn't make that less so at all. And even those taken very early have choice that they make.

I don't think they are meaningless, I just don't think they have so much value.
I think your last statement regarding the young, affirms it.
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,603.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Mercy is truly undeserved.

For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment.

How does one show no mercy except by choosing to be merciless and how can one show mercy except by choosing to show mercy?

The fact that He gives mercy proves He is not merciless.
 
Upvote 0

SpyderByte

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2012
740
114
✟31,375.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
Hey guys, remember the op?
It is a foundational, dogmatic insistence in some Christian communities/denominations that while the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God, that it nonetheless is MISSING a whole bunch of really super important things that Jesus taught and that we must know and believe....

The spin goes like this....

God, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures:

The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible; it is His inscripturated words to the faithful. And He did so inerrantly. And thus, it is infallible. But.... the thing is....... well....... the Holy Spirit did a lousy job. Because He just forgot a whole mess of really, really, really important dogmas - essential, de fide dogmas - matters of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible, matters impacting the salvation of souls. Just.... forgot! Jesus taught these (we just have NOTHING that REMOTELY indicates that)..... and thus all 12-14 Apostles taught them (we just have NOTHING that REMOTELY indicates that)..... it's just that the Holy Spirit.... well...... forgot. He told us how many fish the disciples caught one day (153) but forgot a mess of super important, critical DOGMAS we gotta believe.

What to do?

Realizing the error, God could have done a re-write. But that would have been a lot of work. God just let it stand - and hoped for the best.

"Oral"

But...... while the Holy Spirit forgot, there was/were Christian(s) who remembered! And somehow (no one knows how)...... these super important DOGMAS Jesus and all the Apostles taught that the Holy Spirit forgot to include in Scripture.... well, they survived!

Eventually (maybe many, many centuries later), one denomination kinda learned about one or more of these!!!!! And eventually (maybe many, many centuries later) it itself decided to tell Christians about this!

This is sometimes called "Apostolic Tradition" (although it can NEVER, EVER be related to ANY much less all of the Apostles). It is sometimes also called "Second Testimony"

This missing stuff tends to be whatever is UNIQUE DOGMA in that specific denomination. "Jesus taught this as de fide dogma - it's just part of the forgot stuff but this denomination learned it somehow - and here it is." Oddly, these "forgotten dogmas" are never the same....

Stools

Some communities that buy into all the above (and they do so passionately and foundationally) state that because the Bible is so.... well, see above about God forgetting..... therefore we need TWO (maybe 3 - we'll get to that) EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL sources for our dogma:

1. Scripture (which is good - as far as it goes)
2. Oral Stuff (which is the forgotten stuff, equally important but usually more clear).

These are like two streams that blend into one inseparable river - one source, one revelation, one truth. All the equal teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and the Early Church (it's just that..... sadly...... we have NOTHING - absolutely nothing at all that indicates that Jesus or any of the Aposltes or anyone in the First Century and often for long after that ever even heard of any of these "oral stuff" Dogmas).

Now, some add a third stool: themselves (or the leaders self chooses from among self that are pleadged to agree with self). It just reinforces the ME part.

What do you think of all that?

Here is what I think....

1. I think there WAS a Christian "proclamation" for the 10 years or so between Easter and the first NT Book was penned and the NT began to take shape. This is called "the kerygma" Thing is: we don't know EXACTLY what "it" was for one simple reason, it was never recorded. But I find no reason to believe it included a whole bunch of super important DOGMAS that became lost (or at least with ZERO evidence - for CENTURIES).

2. I don't think the Holy Spirit forgot Dogmas. Yes, John tells us that Jesus DID some things not recorded in THAT specific singular book (the Gospel of John) but that's a whole other enchilada than insisting that THEREFORE God forgot a bunch of critical DOGMAS from the ENTIRE Bible.

3. I find no credible reason to believe that the NT is MISSING super important, critical DOGMAS taught by Jesus plus all 12-14 of the Apostles. No credible reason to believe the whole "God messed up.... God forgot" insistence.

4. I DO think that as time moved on, beyond the period of the Apostles, it is almost certain that questions and issues arose that no Apostle could be asked about (not that such would necessarily know) and that Scripture didn't address. Heaven knows, the Second, Third, Fourth Centuries were likely the most chaotic time in all of Christian history - there WERE questions and debates, and not always did those 27 books adequately address these. IMO, there were some very wise men with enormous insights and faith that often prevailed - applying Scripture. Some call these "Early Church Fathers." And I'm grateful for the Roman Emperors calling meetings in the Fourth - Seventh Centuries (we cal these the Seven ECUMENICAL Councils) that I think also did some very wise and very helpful work. But while I hold this in great esteem - I do NOT regard them as THEREFORE what JESUS and the 12-14 APOSTLES and every Christian in the First Century believed. NOT part of the "Oops, the Holy Spirit just forgot to include" stuff. And it means I place these UNDER Scripture - not EQUAL to such. Our words - however wise - are NOT ergo Jesus', it is not Jesus' job to parrot what WE eventually said - however wise we regard such.

I look forward to your responses.....

Pax

- Josiah
Let's get back on track.
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Well, just as you folks believe, just because someone claims to speak for someone has no relevance to whether he actually speaks for them. We believe the Pope speaks for Jesus, you don't buy it. But you would buy a guy who has no credentials speaking for the Catholic Church???:doh:

Are you telling us that a priest has no credentials and cannot speak for the Catholic Church? If that is the case, who are you to be speaking for the Catholic Church?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.