Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[MoreCoffee]

This is so great I want to put it in my signature.

It might be worth looking this gift horse in the mouth.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The biggest sources of error I’ve seen my tradition doesn’t make errors.

That's central to those that embrace the position outlined in the opening post. The whole point of the claim is to support that it itself uniquely is infallible/unaccountable/inerrant because it itself uniquely and individually is relating what Jesus taught (but the Holy Spirit forgot to include in Scripture). Its own unique "tradition" can't be wrong because it is dogmas Jesus Himself taught.



Thank you.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


- Josiah

 

[Root of Jesse]

You misunderstand me. Since the teaching of the Catholic Church is the teaching of Christ accepting it is accepting Christ's call to obedience to him.

Amen!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well... that is what the RCC insists upon.

No, there are other alternatives than the POWER-GRABS of individual persons, churches, denominations, sects, cults: all seeking to displace God with itself. The very, very ROMAN obsession with unmitigated, unaccountable, absolute, God-like POWER and lording it over others is (IMO) not Christian (or wise) - it's just the obsession of Rome being applied by those who above all seek it - to substitute self for God. To confuse authority with Dictator.


See post # 3.



Thank you.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


- Josiah

Which gets back to submission-humbly submitting yourself to Christ, and trusting that what He gave us, an enduring Church, is perfect, even when those who run His Church are not perfect, or even close to perfect. We TRUST God at His word.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Which gets back to submission-humbly submitting yourself to Christ, and trusting that what He gave us, an enduring Church, is perfect, even when those who run His Church are not perfect, or even close to perfect. We TRUST God at His word.

I think NO ONE has any debate with "submitting" to Christ. It's the docilic absolute submission to a denomination that itself calls for such to it itself as unto (or in lieu of) Christ Himself that is the issue. When a denomination essentially declares itself to BE Christ and substitutes submission to itself for submission to Christ. THAT, and the substitution of the concept of authority with the very unbiblical, very ROMAN concept of dictatorship.

But this thread is about denominations that insist their dogmas are those mysteriously taught by Jesus (and ergo, by that nature, are unaccountable) - but dogmas the Holy Spirit forgot to include in Scripture. See the opening post. There is another thread about the Roman concept of dictatorship and the Army soldier concept of submission.


Thank you.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


- Josiah

 

[Root of Jesse]

I cannot, of course, do anything but reject your stated view on the bible. Mine contains seventy three books and I deem this to be the exact number intended by God and the holy catholic church. And although I agree that no NT book contains a quote from an apocryphal book I fear that your definition of apocryphal and mine differ significantly. So I must disagree with your stated view on what is quoted, referenced, or alluded to in the new testament. And when you say a "number of Catholic posters" have said this and that on doctrine I need better proof than a mere say so. Produce the posts where this is said and I shall look and see if your claim is borne out by the realities and the context.

I have been one who said there is no doctrine in the Bible. People will suggest that Jesus taught core Christian doctrines in the Sermon on the Mount. I would say that Jesus did not. He gave core principals, for sure. What is written in Scripture is not doctrine.

For example, most of us believe in the Trinity. We see the parts of the Trinity in the Bible, especially in scenes such as Jesus being baptized in the Jordan. But there is no doctrine of what the Trinity means to us in the Bible, which is why the early Church fought over what the doctrine of the Trinity represents.

Certainly, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in the Bible. How they relate to each other is there in a few places. But you can see how some people would see three gods rather than one God in three Persons. That's what doctrine explains.

Doctrine takes a set of core beliefs, generally, and defines what they mean, like what a dictionary does. It takes a word and explains it. Doctrine takes a concept and defines what it means.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think NO ONE has any debate with "submitting" to Christ. It's the docilic absolute submission to a denomination that itself calls for such to it itself as unto (or in lieu of) Christ Himself that is the issue. When a denomination essentially declares itself to BE Christ and substitutes submission to itself for submission to Christ. THAT, and the substitution of the concept of authority with the very unbiblical, very ROMAN concept of dictatorship.

But this thread is about denominations that insist their dogmas are those mysteriously taught by Jesus (and ergo, by that nature, are unaccountable) - but dogmas the Holy Spirit forgot to include in Scripture. See the opening post. There is another thread about the Roman concept of dictatorship and the Army soldier concept of submission.


Thank you.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


- Josiah

Unaccountable, except to God, that is. Accountable to no man, for sure.
The rest of your post shows that you, like most of us, are not humble enough to really trust God in what He told us and gave us.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The rest of your post shows that you, like most of us, are not humble enough to really trust God in what He told us and gave us.

I trust what God says. But not always the egotistical, baseless, self-centered, self-serving, self-glorifying, power-grabbing claims that a denomination itself may make for it itself. Big difference.


Now, to the issue of the opening post....



- Josiah

 

[Root of Jesse]

I trust what God says. But not always the egotistical, baseless, self-centered, self-serving, self-glorifying, power-grabbing claims that a denomination itself may make for it itself. Big difference.


Now, to the issue of the opening post....



- Josiah

If the Catholic Church was a denomination, I could agree with you. And I can agree that you don't trust the Church on earth, but even that is HIS Church. I don't follow any man, man. I follow the Holy Spirit and how He guides His Church.
I've written a lot about Scripture, Dogma and Doctrine, but it doesn't meet with what you think, so I just shrug my shoulders. Because you're not humble enough to know that what you think is not all that important.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If the Catholic Church was a denomination, I could agree with you

If you could prove that every parish that is owned and operated by the RC Denomination was instead NOT so but rather each is entirely, wholly autonomous, independent with NO shared Catechism, governance, etc - then I'd agree it's not a denomination. But you can't be submissive to a denomination if it doesn't exist. Now if you want to submit to CHRIST and not your denomination, then we'd be in agreement.


But back to the issue of this thread.....

I've written a lot about Scripture

And well proved that your denomination isn't even so much a MENTIONED there - not once, not ever, not at all. Never given anything. Never authorized for anything. Never exempted from anything. (staff edit)




.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

And well proved that your denomination isn't even so much a MENTIONED there - not once, not ever, not at all. Never given anything. Never authorized for anything. Never exempted from anything. That all the incredibly egotistical, self-centered, self-serving, self-glorifying, truth-evading, accountability-denying, Rome life power grabbing CLAIMS of it itself for it itself are completely without biblical affirmation. You have been proving that for as long as I've known you. You just - for some reason - haven't noticed what you've been proving.

It's what happens when they're a multi-gazzillion dollar entity. There's no way they're about to give all that up.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have been one who said there is no doctrine in the Bible. People will suggest that Jesus taught core Christian doctrines in the Sermon on the Mount. I would say that Jesus did not. He gave core principals, for sure. What is written in Scripture is not doctrine.

For example, most of us believe in the Trinity. We see the parts of the Trinity in the Bible, especially in scenes such as Jesus being baptized in the Jordan. But there is no doctrine of what the Trinity means to us in the Bible, which is why the early Church fought over what the doctrine of the Trinity represents.

Certainly, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in the Bible. How they relate to each other is there in a few places. But you can see how some people would see three gods rather than one God in three Persons. That's what doctrine explains.

Doctrine takes a set of core beliefs, generally, and defines what they mean, like what a dictionary does. It takes a word and explains it. Doctrine takes a concept and defines what it means.

Yes, I thought it would be something like that. You are, of course, stating that holy scripture contains source material from which doctrinal statements are developed and when other pieces of knowledge are added to the source material from holy scripture a form of words for the statement of doctrine is reached. That is a true perception of what holy scripture gives to us. Our doctrinal statements almost always involve use of words and ideas that are not explicitly present in holy scripture. Thus the example of the Holy Trinity that you give is an excellent one for showing that holy scripture does not contain the doctrine as we state it. What holy scripture contains is source material on the unity of God and the plurality of persons in God. But the formal statement - such as we find in the creeds - involves more than a collection of passages from the two testaments. Looking at what is stated in the Athanasian Creed on the Holy Trinity ought to be enough to establish the correctness of your point on that doctrine.

Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For
there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy
Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the
Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the
father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father
eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three
eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty,
the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three
almighties but one almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not
three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy
Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are
compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be
both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say,
there be three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the
Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the
Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So
there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and Holy
Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before
or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are
coeternal together and coequal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the trinity in Unity and the Unity
in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of
salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity.

 

[BobRyan]

If you could prove that every parish that is owned and operated by the RC Denomination was instead NOT so but rather each is entirely, wholly autonomous, independent with NO shared Catechism, governance, etc - then I'd agree it's not a denomination. But you can't be submissive to a denomination if it doesn't exist. Now if you want to submit to CHRIST and not your denomination, then we'd be in agreement.


But back to the issue of this thread.....

And well proved that your denomination isn't even so much a MENTIONED there - not once, not ever, not at all. Never given anything. Never authorized for anything. Never exempted from anything. That all the incredibly egotistical, self-centered, self-serving, self-glorifying, truth-evading, accountability-denying, Rome life power grabbing CLAIMS of it itself for it itself are completely without biblical affirmation. You have been proving that for as long as I've known you. You just - for some reason - haven't noticed what you've been proving.

It is a 'denomination' because it splintered off from the prior Christian church before it - forming its own denomination.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ThatTrueLight]

For example, if Paul writes in Galatians that God worked effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision as He worked mightily in Paul to the Gentiles.. then that means that Peter is the Pope.

 

[BobRyan]

The right Bible has 66 books in it.

I thought we all knew that

No NT author quotes apocryphal books using the words "it is written" or "scripture says" or "The Holy Spirit says" -- but all of those terms are used for actual OT texts.

=================== however that is another story entirely.

The point is that a number of Catholic posters on this thread have suggested that just maybe - there is "no doctrine in the Bible" -- hence the texts I used to show that there in fact is doctrine in the Bible.

But I would like to hear your opinion of that point.

Do you accept that the Bible has doctrine in it?

Or do you think that only the Apocrypha has doctrine in it??

in Christ,

Bob

I cannot, of course, do anything but reject your stated view on the bible. Mine contains seventy three books and I deem this to be the exact number intended by God and the holy catholic church. And although I agree that no NT book contains a quote from an apocryphal book I fear that your definition of apocryphal and mine differ significantly. So I must disagree with your stated view on what is quoted, referenced, or alluded to in the new testament. And when you say a "number of Catholic posters" have said this and that on doctrine I need better proof than a mere say so. Produce the posts where this is said and I shall look and see if your claim is borne out by the realities and the context.

You are of course wrong about the number of books in the OT and both Christians and Jews know this to be true. However that is another topic.

The question from the post above remains - which is the question about doctrine in the Bible.

1. Do you agree that there is Doctrine in the Bible? Do you deny that it does?

2. Would you only take a stand if you knew exactly what other posters have said about it first? (I will try to find some quotes for you in that case)

3. Is your side trail on the apocrypha instead - simply your way of saying that the apocrypha has doctrine but the Bible does not??

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks for saving me the trouble of the search --

]I have been one who said there is no doctrine in the Bible. People will suggest that Jesus taught core Christian doctrines in the Sermon on the Mount. I would say that Jesus did not. He gave core principals, for sure. What is written in Scripture is not doctrine.

For example, most of us believe in the Trinity. We see the parts of the Trinity in the Bible, especially in scenes such as Jesus being baptized in the Jordan. But there is no doctrine of what the Trinity means to us in the Bible, which is why the early Church fought over what the doctrine of the Trinity represents.

Certainly, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in the Bible. How they relate to each other is there in a few places. But you can see how some people would see three gods rather than one God in three Persons. That's what doctrine explains.

Doctrine takes a set of core beliefs, generally, and defines what they mean, like what a dictionary does. It takes a word and explains it. Doctrine takes a concept and defines what it means.

 

[BobRyan]

And my response to that are these examples of doctrine in the Bible affirmed by Christ and the NT saints.

==========================================

Originally Posted by BobRyan

2 Tim 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I will side with the Bible in that debate.



(Doctrine in the Bible vs man's doctrine condemned).

Mark 7

7 Howbeitin vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
​

 

[MoreCoffee]

You are of course wrong about the number of books in the OT and both Christians and Jews know this to be true. However that is another topic.

I am a Christian and I reject a 66 book bible as incomplete. I do not know how you define "christians" but it is evident that many Christians accept more than 66 books as canonical holy scripture. Clearly Catholic and Orthodox christians accept more than 66 as do Oriental Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian Orthodox and a number of others. These churches constitute a majority of christians in the world. So I reject your statement quoted above as inaccurate. As for Jews, I think they do not accept 66 books either. As far as I am aware Jews reject the 27 books of the new testament. Therefore I doubt that Jews would accept your statement as correct.

The question from the post above remains - which is the question about doctrine in the Bible.

1. Do you agree that there is Doctrine in the Bible? Do you deny that it does?

2. Would you only take a stand if you knew exactly what other posters have said about it first? (I will try to find some quotes for you in that case)

3. Is your side trail on the apocrypha instead - simply your way of saying that the apocrypha has doctrine but the Bible does not??

See post #512.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thanks for saving me the trouble of the search --

I would hope you read the rest of the post...

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, I thought it would be something like that. You are, of course, stating that holy scripture contains source material from which doctrinal statements are developed and when other pieces of knowledge are added to the source material from holy scripture a form of words for the statement of doctrine is reached. That is a true perception of what holy scripture gives to us. Our doctrinal statements almost always involve use of words and ideas that are not explicitly present in holy scripture. Thus the example of the Holy Trinity that you give is an excellent one for showing that holy scripture does not contain the doctrine as we state it. What holy scripture contains is source material on the unity of God and the plurality of persons in God. But the formal statement - such as we find in the creeds - involves more than a collection of passages from the two testaments. Looking at what is stated in the Athanasian Creed on the Holy Trinity ought to be enough to establish the correctness of your point on that doctrine.

The model that was suggested is that it is only man's tradition, man's doctrine the is in fact "doctrine" and the post above further downgrades the text to "source material" with doctrine being the result of man.. again.

But in Mark 7;6-13 "Commandments of man" and "Traditions" of the magisterium are contrasted and condemned by the Bible - according to Christ.

In Christ,

Bob