Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[bbbbbbb]

OK, but the LDS don't provide a very good example, for obvious reasons. Yet, you are correct if we consider such dogmas as Papal Supremacy and infallibility, the Assumption of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Treasury of Merit, Seven Sacraments, etc.

I agree. I chose the LDS as an example because the basic process is similar with both denominations - an inspired leader chosen by God through a means of succession is given direct revelation from God, the Holy Spirit, to reveal "truth" previously not known or understood.

 

[Albion]

I agree. I chose the LDS as an example because the basic process is similar with both denominations - an inspired leader chosen by God through a means of succession is given direct revelation from God, the Holy Spirit, to reveal "truth" previously not known or understood.

Oh, we're back to pinning every corrupt practice and false doctrine on Apostolic Succession again.

 

[hedrick]

Whether Scripture is missing essential dogmas depends upon what you think they are. Scripture has the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement. What it doesn’t have is three persons with one nature, two natures in one person, and penal substitution.

If you’re willing to say that three persons with one nature is a way the Church developed to understand and explain the Trinity, but that other ways are also acceptable, we have no problem. If you see the specific traditional explanations are essential dogmas, then I think we have a problem with Sola Scriptura.

The traditional Protestant view has been to accept both that the traditional explanations are essential dogma and Sola Scriptura. This is done by saying that the traditional explanations are the obvious and only possible conclusion one can come to when looking at Scripture. But is that credible?

Mainline theology is more inclined to say that while the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement are essential, the traditional explanations are natural developments, given the philosophical concepts of the culture in which they developed, and the specific challenges they were defending against, but that they are not the only possible way to explain things.

The Catholic tradition doesn’t have this problem, because they can maintain that the Holy Spirit guided the development of the traditional explanations, and thus that they are part of Holy Tradition and essential. Protestants can use the same explanation, but at the risk of watering down Sola Scriptura to be point where it’s not actually the touchstone for doctrine.

 

[com7fy8]

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....

What I see is that people have beliefs which are not in the Bible, and they do not make a point of sharing about what is very important which is in the Bible.

For example, ones can argue "pre-trib" which has no direct and plain statements of it in the New Testament; but ones so busy with talking about "pre-trib" may never say a word about >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation," (in Philippians 2:14-16)

By stopping our complaining and arguing, this can help us to become blameless, harmless, and without fault, even right "in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation". And this has us ready for our Groom Jesus, whenever He really comes back for us. But ones can give such attention only to "pre-trib", but not to this which can have us ready.

So, this is only one example of what people can promote but it can keep our attention away from all that can be so more beneficial which is right in the Bible, for example Philippians 2:14-16.

This missing stuff tends to be whatever is UNIQUE DOGMA in that specific denomination.

Cults can invent certain things and then say, "Oh we are the only ones who have this and it is essential; so you have to join us."

But Jesus is superior to all groups!!! And all of us need correction.

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.

But there are plenty of very beneficial things that are in the Bible and so clear. But ones can decoy themselves and their attention away from what is in the Bible, by coming up with questions and issues about things that are not essential or very beneficial . . . much less helpful, at best.

For one example, I think . . . while I was in a certain group, I was told how I needed for "saints" and Mary to pray for me. I was taught how to get their prayer. But not a word ever came my way about all the Bible says about how Jesus and the Holy Spirit are making intercession for us > Romans 8:26&34. I would think Jesus and the Holy Spirit can make more beneficial intercession than saints and Mary could; but They were given no attention, that I remember, like the amount of attention which was called to "saints" and Mary.

Plus, in the Bible there is so much about how we Christians can pray with God's results, including what I have gained through James 5:16 and Galatians 6:1, and 1 Timothy 2:1-4 . . . and Ephesians 6:18 which says to pray "for all the saints" > never was I told that "all the saints" need my prayer!!

So, it can be good to give prayerful attention to all that is in the Bible, and not be decoyed into fussing and fighting about things the Bible does not clearly talk about. There is plenty that is essential, that is in the Bible.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Whether Scripture is missing essential dogmas depends upon what you think they are. Scripture has the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement. What it doesn’t have is three persons with one nature, two natures in one person, and penal substitution.

If you’re willing to say that three persons with one nature is a way the Church developed to understand and explain the Trinity, but that other ways are also acceptable, we have no problem. If you see the specific traditional explanations are essential dogmas, then I think we have a problem with Sola Scriptura.

The traditional Protestant view has been to accept both that the traditional explanations are essential dogma and Sola Scriptura. This is done by saying that the traditional explanations are the obvious and only possible conclusion one can come to when looking at Scripture. But is that credible?

Mainline theology is more inclined to say that while the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement are essential, the traditional explanations are natural developments, given the philosophical concepts of the culture in which they developed, and the specific challenges they were defending against, but that they are not the only possible way to explain things.

The Catholic tradition doesn’t have this problem, because they can maintain that the Holy Spirit guided the development of the traditional explanations, and thus that they are part of Holy Tradition and essential. Protestants can use the same explanation, but at the risk of watering down Sola Scriptura to be point where it’s not actually the touchstone for doctrine.

All of this, yes.

Note to everyone else: The Catholic tradition doesn't necessarily have to say that the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity (one nature/essence/substance, three persons/hypostases) and the fully developed doctrine of the Incarnation (two natures/essences/substances, one person/hypostasis) are oral traditions that existed in their fully developed form in the first century and were simply written down later through the writings of the fathers and the creeds and definitions of the councils. Catholics can, and many do, hold to the idea of a development of doctrine, a process guided by the Holy Spirit.

And quite frankly, as an evangelical catholic, high church Lutheran, I'm perfectly fine with that as long as we're talking about a time when the church was united across the known world. I get less comfortable after the schism with the East Syriac/Assyrians/Nestorians, even less the Oriental Orthodox/West Syriacs (+Indians)/Copts (+Ethiopians)/Armenians, even more uncomfortable as the Acacian and Photian schism come down the pipeline, and then totally uncomfortable by the time of the schism of Greco-Slavic East and Latin West. Each schism makes me less comfortable with the idea of the development of doctrine, and therefore less comfortable with the cultural contextualization of essential theological matters like the Trinity and the Incarnation apart from a simultaneous affirmation of the superiority of the work of the council fathers.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

And that, in a way, gives us an inside view of the Trinity because we can see Christ "down here," distinct from the Father "up there," distinct from the Spirit "in us." Christians have an inside view of the Trinity because of the incarnation and because of Pentecost.

Well said, but theologians have not stopped there.

But Scripture doesn't tell us as much. That experience is grounded in the events of the New Testament, but is only understood reflectively through collective experience. It took several subsequent centuries for the implications of all that to pan out, including the work of the first four ecumenical councils, Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.

Much of that work was good, but there exists another creed on the Trinity that goes into much more detail that is not explicit in scripture or easily inferred from it. It certainly fits in with this thread as dogma, especially since it is of unknown origin and is so bold as to claim damnation if you are not in agreement with it.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Much of that work was good, but there exists another creed on the Trinity that goes into much more detail that is not explicit in scripture or easily inferred from it. It certainly fits in with this thread as dogma, especially since it is of unknown origin and is so bold as to claim damnation if you are not in agreement with it.

You're talking about the Athanasian Creed. And while it looks like it goes into detail, it is actually just using a whole series of divine attributes as multiple examples of a singular reality: one essence, three persons.

 

[Knee V]

The Scriptures are not a catechism or a systematic theology, so to say that any given teaching is "missing" from the Bible (sarcastically or otherwise) is to miss the point of what the Bible is: the written legacy of those who encountered God's revelation (revelation always being a personal encounter and not a description of God). God did not give us a doctrinal encyclopedia. We are not Muslims.

 

[hedrick]

The Scriptures are not a catechism or a systematic theology, so to say that any given teaching is "missing" from the Bible (sarcastically or otherwise) is to miss the point of what the Bible is: the written legacy of those who encountered God's revelation (revelation always being a personal encounter and not a description of God). God did not give us a doctrinal encyclopedia. We are not Muslims.

This is basically the mainline / liberal view of Scripture, with which I agree. But (1) not everyone agrees. You'll see postings in CF all the time that treat the Bible as an instruction manual, and (2) if true, it raises difficult questions about the status of doctrine. Unless you believe in ongoing revelation, doctrine begins to look like something constructed by the Church, which could be changed when the way we view the world changes. None of this is a problem to me, but it is a problem for many CF readers. Historically, Christians have often defined Christianity by adherence to specific doctrines.

The reason I used “ongoing revelation” is because I don’t think guidance of the Holy Spirit alone can give you unique, permanent doctrine. At most it gives you doctrine that is a faithful witness to the truth. Given that we don’t understand God’s nature fully, I think it’s hard to claim — absent divine inspiration — that a particular set of doctrines is a final, culturally-independent understanding. But many Christians think it's essential to claim exactly that.

Furthermore, most Protestants today think that the Church has erred on matters that go back as far as Nicea does, and are widespread, e.g. some of the Marian ideas. That makes it hard for us to lean too heavily on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In order to get certainty about doctrine, they believe that while the Bible doesn't explicitly teach things such as the Trinity, those things can be demonstrated from Scripture so clearly that we can say that the doctrines are true based on the authority of Scripture. I'm a bit concerned that we haven't seen any representatives of this view in this discussion.

CJ is Lutheran. The Lutheran have their own perspective, which isn't identical to the typical CF evangelical. Perhaps Lutherans could take a position closer to the Catholic one, that we can rely on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for doctrines that have been accepted by the Church historically. That would imply acceptance of Marian ideas (which is not a problem for many Lutherans), and reject only ideas on justification, etc., which the Reformers thought were erroneous medieval developments, and thus not doctrines accepted always and everywhere. However I'm not sure how that would deal with my concern that inspiration of the Holy Spirit gives you only faithful doctrines, but not necessarily doctrines that survive the transition to a different culture.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Scriptures are not a catechism or a systematic theology, so to say that any given teaching is "missing" from the Bible (sarcastically or otherwise) is to miss the point of what the Bible is: the written legacy of those who encountered God's revelation (revelation always being a personal encounter and not a description of God). God did not give us a doctrinal encyclopedia. We are not Muslims.

This is basically the mainline / liberal view of Scripture, with which I agree. But (1) not everyone agrees. You'll see postings in CF all the time that treat the Bible as an instruction manual, and (2) if true, it raises difficult questions about the status of doctrine. Unless you believe in ongoing revelation, doctrine begins to look like something constructed by the Church, which could be changed when the way we view the world changes. None of this is a problem to me, but it is a problem for many CF readers. Historically, Christians have often defined Christianity by adherence to specific doctrines.

The reason I used “ongoing revelation” is because I don’t think guidance of the Holy Spirit alone can give you unique, permanent doctrine. At most it gives you doctrine that is a faithful witness to the truth. Given that we don’t understand God’s nature fully, I think it’s hard to claim — absent divine inspiration — that a particular set of doctrines is *the* final, perfect understanding. But many Christians think it's essential to claim exactly that.

Would you say, then, that when Jesus says "the Spirit will lead you into all truth" it's not simply a promise, but also a challenge? I ask because it seems to me that that was exactly the task of early Christians: to gather together their collected experience, and then write them down, and then gather together those writings together with their ongoing experience as worshiping communities, and eventually bring together the synthesis that forms the basic Christian narrative and more specifically the confessions concerning Jesus Christ. That was the work, as I see it, of Irenaeus, Origen, and Augustine as regards the whole narrative, and the church councils as regards the identity of the in-and-revealed-through-Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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....

Exactly which dogmas and which community or communities do you have in mind. The anonymity in the above quote may be a ruse, I am inclined to think it is.

 

[fhansen]

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

Why would you think that Scripture was ever intended to include all dogmas? Is it your personal opinion that Scripture was meant to be some sort of catechism-or treatise on theology?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Holy Scripture is our daily bread. Peter says it is how a man is born again, by the word of God. That's where it all started.. with the incorruptible seed of the word of God.

Growth comes the same way, by the sincere milk and strong meat of the word.

The parable of the Sower makes this abundantly clear. Although remember that there are also enemies sowing things out there that may look real, although the difference is life and death.

 

[Albion]

Is it your personal opinion that Scripture was meant to be some sort of catechism-or treatise on theology?

Gee why would anyone think that? Just because that's exactly what the Bible itself says?? Naa. Who'd think that?

But let some church committee make up its own catechism hundreds of years later...

Now we're talking infallibility, right? :

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why would you think that Scripture was ever intended to include all dogmas? Is it your personal opinion that Scripture was meant to be some sort of catechism-or treatise on theology?

That, my friend, is a reasonable question. One wonders what expectations are implied in the Original post?

 

[fhansen]

Gee why would anyone think that? Just because that's exactly what the Bible itself says?? Naa. Who'd think that?

But let some church committee make up its own catechism hundreds of years later...

Now we're talking infallibility, right? :

The Church produced catechisms-the Didache is one-and mini catechisms, aka "creeds", from very early on. It seems they somehow thought, maybe in a deluded state, that such endeavors could help further explain what was, um, not so clearly explained by Scripture.

Other "churches", much later, wrote such things as confessions , along with their own catechisms, for the same purpose. I guess they should've just let scripture stand on its own.

Maybe Phillip was deluded too, seeing as he thought he had to explain Scripture to the Eunuch.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Should one expect the find the Dogma of the Holy Trinity in holy scripture. Making allowance for the use of reason and the basic data in the scriptures one could say that the dogma is present in holy scripture but not as a formal theological definition. Clearly the basic data in holy scripture needs to be ordered and classified to arrive at the dogma.

Is that the case will all the dogmas that are taught among Christians? Let's see how our interlocutors answer that question.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

The enemy isn't going to tell you that he's sowing false seeds.. he's a tad more subtil than that.

And that's EXACTLY what the LORD says that the enemy IS doing.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Who is speaking for the incorruptible seed of the word of God here.

Who is speaking against the incorruptible seed of the word of God and inserting something that looks like it, but is in reality a false doctrine growing into a tare?

It's gettin ripe in here..:o

 

[fhansen]

The enemy isn't going to tell you that he's sowing false seeds.. he's a tad more subtil than that.

And that's EXACTLY what the LORD says that the enemy IS doing.

Yes, we've seen much of that down through the centuries-right into this very forum, in fact!