Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[BobRyan]

When Jesus is asked for the greatest commandment in Matt 22 He says it is Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart". And all the Jews agree with Him.

This was not a new idea.

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" also quoted by Jesus - also not new and also agreed to by the Jews.

Then this is quoted again in Rom 13 and in James 2 showing that the Levitical law basis was still being used.

In fact Eph 6:1-2 says that the 5th Commandment is the FIRST commandment with a promise in scripture. This is only true in the "unit of Ten".

That is why all those evangelical and even Catholic confessions affirm the continued authority of all TEN of the Bible Ten Commandments. As some of us saw on this page - click--> #1

I did not bring this subject up on this thread - someone else did because of this #5

Because we are talking about the relationship of man-made traditions and commandments to the actual Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This change occurred very, very early in the Church. Worship and fellowship and the breaking of bread on the Lords Day is already evident in Scripture,

Just not in an actual text showing week-day-1 after week-day-1 observance or by calling week-day-1 the "Lord's Day" neither of those critical pieces of evidence are actually in the Bible.

and the Tradition of observing the sabbath day of rest on that day, while not explicit in Scripture, was apparently considered to be within the purview of the Church's authority under the New Law.

Certainly we do find an argument to that point here .. #5 that some group claims to have had the authority to edit/bend/alter the Law of God no matter what the Bible says to the contrary.

A missing dogma in any overt way and one that, again, has only vague Scriptural support -which your denomination obviously denies.

It is true that you have an example of missing-dogma when arguing for week-day-1 being called the Lord's Day or Sabbath or the new Sabbath or the new Christian way of Sabbath in the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[fhansen]

Certainly we do find an argument to that point here .. #5 that some group claims to have had the authority to edit/bend/alter the Law of God no matter what the Bible says to the contrary.

It is true that you have an example of missing-dogma when arguing for week-day-1 being called the Lord's Day or Sabbath or the new Sabbath or the new Christian way of Sabbath in the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

But what's interesting is that, while the early believers were still intimately familiar with the Ten Commandments, there's virtually no argument or controversy from history over the matter, from any of the churches/areas (even the use of "The Lord's Day" for the first day of the week isn't seriously contested by many). This was simply a practice, which nonetheless may've experienced a degree of evolution in one way or another. In any case it wasn't as if the Big Bad All-Powerful Roman Catholic Church (BBAPRCC) suddenly decided to decree that Sunday shall now be the day. It's similar to the case of infant baptism where the practice is simply considered to be universal, east and west, from as far back as the Church can remember, from the days of a nascent fledgling persecuted church.

 

[Albion]

After all is said and done, I truly believe that this issue is of great importance but is also a matter of one's personal conviction. Is the Bible the word of God not? Is there anything else that is the equal of the Bible?

For me, it is the Bible. In theory, the Bible could be all bunk, but if so, there is no Christianity. And every Christian Church accepts the Bible as the word of God, even those who want to add legend or custom or the private inspiration of some latter-day prophet or any of that.

So, it's the Bible or we give up on this faith.

But what about additions to the Bible (as we hear advocated here often)? In theory again, that is a possibility, but since the Bible I've already decided to cast my lot with gives no support whatsoever to that notion, I have to say "no" to it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There is no Pope in the bible. Thats an RCC tradition but not one that the Apostles had.

There's no "Trinity" in the Bible either. Pope is a title. It's English for Papa.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Who needs him when we can call our Lord Abba Father..

Doesn't get any better than that.

And of course the Trinity is in the bible. The Father, His only begotten Son, and the Spirit are all over the holy scriptures.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There's no "Trinity" in the Bible either. Pope is a title. It's English for Papa.

I think there is a pope in the bible. He's called Simeon bar Jonah and the Lord Jesus Christ renamed him Peter which is Greek for Rock. He led the twelve apostles of the Lord. He was first to preach the gospel in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. He was first to preach to the gentiles. And he planted churches in all sorts of places. He lived a remarkable life as the Lord's spokesman and leader in the church. He died in Rome. According to ancient tradition he was crucified like the Lord Jesus Christ but out of humility he asked to be crucified upside down and he was. He is a saint that we all ought to honour and from whom we all can learn humility as well as truth. He was the first of a long succession of popes, numbering two hundred and sixty six today. The current successor is Francis, he lives in Rome.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Gee, and my bible says that there are only TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb.

Oh wait, maybe that is one of the edits you're speaking of.

Go figure.

 

[fhansen]

Gee, and my bible says that there are only TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb.

Oh wait, maybe that is one of the edits you're speaking of.

Go figure.

Yep. Another example of the unworkable nature of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Albion]

Yep. Another example of the unworkable nature of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

How can it be "unworkable?" It either supports his view or it does not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How can it be "unworkable?" It either supports his view or it does not.

Yes. It either does or it does not. Which is it?

 

[fhansen]

How can it be "unworkable?" It either supports his view or it does not.

It's unworkable because people are trying to use Scripture in a way its not intended. Much can be gleaned from Scripture. The voice of God speaks throughout-and we all recognize it there, at least His sheep do. But that simply does not mean that every relevant fact of the revelation given to the church via Jesus Christ was recorded in printed form. That is presumption. And it becomes even more obvious when we can't even agree, based on Scripture alone, what that revelation is.

 

[Albion]

It's unworkable because people are trying to use Scripture in a way its not intended. Much can be gleaned from Scripture.

I see. So Scripture is not to be understood to mean what it says when it tells us that it is for our instruction?

But that simply does not mean that every relevant fact of the revelation given to the church via Jesus Christ was recorded in printed form.

That is a guess. We have no reason to assume that what is in God's universe or in his mind and purposes that are NOT relevant for the purposes of our salvation and life as disciples must have been made available to us somewhere or other, and if it's not in Scripture, we postulate that it must be somewhere else since, after all, we must know everything, right? No

And it becomes even more obvious when we can't even agree, based on Scripture alone, what that revelation is.

We cannot agree, based upon any other system, either. So your point is not valid.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is much more likely to be unworkable because the chaps interpreting holy scripture are not equal to the task. That seems to be the most common source of errors.

 

[concretecamper]

How can it be "unworkable?" It either supports his view or it does not.

un·work·a·ble /ˌənˈwərkəb(&#601l/

adjective

not able to function or be carried out successfully; impractical.

The doctrine of SS is not able to function (logically at least), cannot be argued or applied successfully, and is impractical.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Yep. Another example of the unworkable nature of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Feel free to correct the word of God then.

He says there are TWELVE, you say there are over two hundred.

Silly LORD, can't even get the number of His Apostles correct.

 

[MoreCoffee]

un·work·a·ble /ˌənˈwərkəb(&#601l/

adjective

not able to function or be carried out successfully; impractical.

The doctrine of SS is not able to function (logically at least), cannot be argued or applied successfully, and is impractical.

I've never seen a sound biblical argument in favour of it but it still seems to me that the more common and more egregious problem is with the competence of the aspiring interpreters of holy scripture.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Who is correct?

The holy scriptures record TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb.

The RCC says that there are over two hundred Apostles.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The answer is very obvious.

There are twelve apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ and 265 successors of saint Peter.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

The answer is very obvious.

There are twelve apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ and 265 successors of saint Peter.

Sounds extra biblical to me.. is this the MISSING dogma we've been waiting for?