Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[Albion]

It's hard to appreciate a religious theory that flatout says X is not in Scripture but Scripture doesn't explicitly rule it out...so the institutional church is at liberty to invent anything it wants and impose it upon the people to be believed as a condition of their salvation.

That would include the Assumption of Mary legend but it could just as well include a claim that Mary flew through the air on her angel wings to tell Elizabeth of her pregnancy...or almost anything in that vein, in fact.

 

[SpyderByte]

It's hard to appreciate a religious theory that flatout says X is not in Scripture but Scripture doesn't explicitly rule it out...so the institutional church is at liberty to invent anything it wants and impose it upon the people to be believed as a condition of their salvation.

You could literally say anything is dogma. No argument works when your evidence for it is "well scripture doesn't expressly say no to it!"

That would include the Assumption of Mary legend but it could just as well include a claim that Mary flew through the air on her angel wings to tell Elizabeth of her pregnancy...or almost anything in that vein, in fact.

Exactly, especially considering it was heretical and gnostic works where these ideas come from originally, but hey! The scriptures don't say no!

 

[concretecamper]

I'm just not going to get that biblical evidence of those 2 dogmas am I....

My favorite explanation on the perpetual viginity is Luke 1:31,34 -

"the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived)"

My favorite on the assumption is Rev. 12:1 -

"we see Mary, the "woman," clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul." The woman can also be interpreted as the Church.

Similar are the doctrines of the Triune God and the Hypostatic Union. Both CANNOT be absolutely proved using scripture alone. Scripture only points to the ideas. Why do you accept the dogmas of the Trinity and the 2 nature's of Christ as taught by the RCC without absolute scriptural evidence?

I'll ask you the same question....show me in scripture the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the 2 nature's of Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The topic title temps one to call out

Here rover ... rover ... where are you rover ... come here you naughty dogma!​

 

[sunlover1]

For good reason. For what little has been provided about the Trinity is oft misunderstood.


I liken missing dogmas to a cell phone. You don't have to know every intricate engineering detail of how a cell phone works to know how to use it. God has deemed that understanding of the intricate workings of the three persons of God are not needed for us to live a Christian life.

Unfortunately man has an insatiable desire to know everything. Such was the temptation of the very first sin, to be like God, knowing what God does. To feed this desire, many have claimed "new revelations" and many have claimed "new understandings". Most all are wrong.

The Bible starts with the beginning. The Bible ends with the last day and the new beginning. It tells a complete message that God wants us have. I agree with the OP assessment that the Bible is not lacking anything important for our Christian life on earth. When we get to heaven, we will certainly know more about God.


For now we should just appreciate how well God's word has been preserved throughout thousands of years. What we have is not even understood completely. If it was understood, and one could teach it with authority like Jesus did, I fathom we would not have so many arguments here on CF and so many different denominations.

NO man completely understands or can
explain it 'exactly'.. as we can see by the
question: Does the Spirit proceed from the Son?

 

[sunlover1]

The topic title temps one to call out

Here rover ... rover ... where are you rover ... come here you naughty dogma!​

Dog ma:

 

[SpyderByte]

Ok, where to begin, where to begin...

My favorite explanation on the perpetual viginity is Luke 1:31,34 -

"the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived)"

Sheer eisegesis. Iirc, the direct translation is actually better stated "I am not knowing a man" as in she wasn't currently having sexual relations, because she wasn't married yet. Also, did the angel put a time frame on the conception? You have to read into it, that she took a vow of virginity. I would think such a vow, of a supposedly sinless woman, would be rather important, and be more explicit than the possible tense of a single word.

My favorite on the assumption is Rev. 12:1 -

"we see Mary, the "woman," clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul." The woman can also be interpreted as the Church.

The RCC disagrees with you:

* [12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from[bless and do not curse]Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6,[bless and do not curse]13–17); cf.[bless and do not curse]Is 50:1;[bless and do not curse]66:7;[bless and do not curse]Jer 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12. The above is the only explanation given of Revelation 12:1, and also note they mention she gives birth in pain. For that to be true would indicate a natural birth, thus negating the ever virginity.

Similar are the doctrines of the Triune God and the Hypostatic Union. Both CANNOT be absolutely proved using scripture alone. Scripture only points to the ideas. Why do you accept the dogmas of the Trinity and the 2 nature's of Christ as taught by the RCC without absolute scriptural evidence?

This is utter hogwash. The doctrine of the Trinity is shown throughout scripture, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, but easily found.

I'll ask you the same question....show me in scripture the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the 2 nature's of Christ.

Start with the 2 natures:
John 1:1,14
Col. 2:9
Hebrews 1:3
There are many more especially when you start putting together the verses where one says He is man, while another in another book says He is God, but don't expressly say them together.
Trinity:
Matt 28:19
1 Cor. 12:4-6
2 Cor. 13:14
Again there are others, but you get the drift. So again, outside of eisegesis, there is zero evidence of those Marian dogmas. I appreciate the attempt though. It was more than your fellow Catholics were willing to do.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It's hard to appreciate a religious theory that flatout says X is not in Scripture but Scripture doesn't explicitly rule it out...so the institutional church is at liberty to invent anything it wants and impose it upon the people to be believed as a condition of their salvation.

That would include the Assumption of Mary legend but it could just as well include a claim that Mary flew through the air on her angel wings to tell Elizabeth of her pregnancy...or almost anything in that vein, in fact.

I see your point. At the same time, we're forced to do things like that all the time. The Anglican tradition is a case in point: universal usage of the Book of Common Prayer. I understand that it's a point of order and not a requirement of salvation, and Lutherans would use a similar justification regarding church ordinances. But I think that's the biggest issue: not whether areas where Scripture is silent can be regulated by the church for the sake of common order, but whether areas where Scripture is silent can be proclaimed as dogma required for salvation.

 

[Standing Up]

My favorite explanation on the perpetual viginity is Luke 1:31,34 -

"the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived)"

My favorite on the assumption is Rev. 12:1 -

"we see Mary, the "woman," clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul." The woman can also be interpreted as the Church.

Similar are the doctrines of the Triune God and the Hypostatic Union. Both CANNOT be absolutely proved using scripture alone. Scripture only points to the ideas. Why do you accept the dogmas of the Trinity and the 2 nature's of Christ as taught by the RCC without absolute scriptural evidence?

I'll ask you the same question....show me in scripture the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the 2 nature's of Christ.

Ever-virgin. Can't be true and believe Christ is like us (1 John 5:6), regardless of whether Mary/Joseph consummated their marriage.

Rev. 12:1 Can't be Mary unless you think she was part of sin (travailed in birth), thus denying your IC.

2 natures. Try: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

 

[sunlover1]

I see your point. At the same time, we're forced to do things like that all the time.

I'm not.

 

[topcare]

I'm not.

Of course you do (hope that doesn't come off as rude, not meant to be) and all Faith traditions do it to one extant or another. For instance Scripture alone does not appear in the Bible at all and is silent on the issue but Protestant faith tradition says that using the Bible alone is okay and in Ancient Liturgical orthodox Christianity the tradition is to not use just the Bible alone but the whole Deposit of faith.

The Trinity is another area where the Bible is silent, the Bible does not say something along the lines "God is trinity" but both Faith traditions believe there is a Trinity

 

[Albion]

I see your point. At the same time, we're forced to do things like that all the time.

We're forced to invent doctrines created out of thin air? I don't think so.

The Anglican tradition is a case in point: universal usage of the Book of Common Prayer. I understand that it's a point of order and not a requirement of salvation

Exactly. That's just a procedural matter and no one is obligated under pain of sin to go along with it if he wishes not to.

and Lutherans would use a similar justification regarding church ordinances. But I think that's the biggest issue: not whether areas where Scripture is silent can be regulated by the church for the sake of common order, but whether areas where Scripture is silent can be proclaimed as dogma required for salvation.

I think you're agreeing with me on this, although at the start it sounded like there was a disagreement.

 

[sunlover1]

Of course you do (hope that doesn't come off as rude, not meant to be) and all Faith traditions do it to one extant or another.

Well actually, I don't...and I don't belong to any "faith traditions" unless you
mean I follow Jesus. I'm a Jesus follower.

For instance Scripture alone does not appear in the Bible at all and is silent on the issue

Let's say this is true for the sake of your argument.

but Protestant faith tradition says that using the Bible alone is okay

Ummm, this has nothing to do with "force" though.
And why wouldn't it be alright to use God's words "only" to come to conclusions?
He did say we'd LIVE by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, no?

The Trinity is another area where the Bible is silent, the Bible does not say something along the lines "God is trinity" but both Faith traditions believe there is a Trinity

But nobody is forcing me to agree with trinity.
And I dont agree that it's not shown in the Bible.
I didn't believe trinity until I did see it in there.

And no, you're not at all rude to disagree with me.
God bless you!

 

[SpyderByte]

Of course you do (hope that doesn't come off as rude, not meant to be) and all Faith traditions do it to one extant or another. For instance Scripture alone does not appear in the Bible at all and is silent on the issue but Protestant faith tradition says that using the Bible alone is okay and in Ancient Liturgical orthodox Christianity the tradition is to not use just the Bible alone but the whole Deposit of faith.

The Trinity is another area where the Bible is silent, the Bible does not say something along the lines "God is trinity" but both Faith traditions believe there is a Trinity

See my post to concretecamper on the Trinity mistake you made. As to sola scriptura, it's a teaching found in the bible, and you've been shown where quite a few times. Please stop with the same inaccurate jargon. Talking points lose their potency quickly when they've been debunked.

 

[Albion]

Ummm, this has nothing to do with "force" though.
And why wouldn't it be alright to use God's words "only" to come to conclusions?

That's the point that has to be made. What do our friends suppose is better than the word of God? Or even equal to it?

The most that they can say is that the Bible doesn't command us to use the Scriptures alone in those exact words. But by that token it doesn't tell us to use anything else, either, and the Bible certainly does describe itself as God's revelation to man and as being of unparalleled worth.

So what logic is there in substituting something inferior and manmade instead? None.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Every words that proceeds out of the mouth of God is, brother Albion, the equal of holy scripture in dignity and in value.

 

[sunlover1]

Every words that proceeds out of the mouth of God is, brother Albion, the equal of holy scripture in dignity and in value.

"Every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" is indeed valuable,
and although I was using that passage to make an important point,
I believe that God was speaking of us actually hearing His voice.
He said that His sheep "hear" His voice.
And He also said that if we lack wisdom we should "ASK of God".
Notice it doesn't say that we should search Scripture.
So IMO, when He says to live by every word that proceeds from
His mouth, He means just that. His lips to our ears.

God is very much interested in having a conversation with His kids,
just as He and Adam did, in the very beginning. Nothings changed
concerning His feelings toward us.

 

[sunlover1]

That's the point that has to be made. What do our friends suppose is better than the word of God? Or even equal to it?

Greetings Albion.
I'm sure not one would say that anything is above or beside it.
"It" being HIS very words, and we know that there is none above or beside HIM..
So how could there be wisdom or revelation above or beside HIS WORDS?
Does not compute lol

The most that they can say is that the Bible doesn't command us to use the Scriptures alone in those exact words. But by that token it doesn't tell us to use anything else, either, and the Bible certainly does describe itself as God's revelation to man and as being of unparalleled worth.

So what logic is there in substituting something inferior and manmade instead? None.

I concur.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

It's hard to appreciate a religious theory that flatout says X is not in Scripture but Scripture doesn't explicitly rule it out...so the institutional church is at liberty to invent anything it wants and impose it upon the people to be believed as a condition of their salvation.

That would include the Assumption of Mary legend but it could just as well include a claim that Mary flew through the air on her angel wings to tell Elizabeth of her pregnancy...or almost anything in that vein, in fact.

Might as well, that's why it's vital to let God (alone) be true. IMO

In times past God did speak audibly; although Peter wrote that we have a more sure word of prophecy than that (God's audible voice).. and that of course is holy scripture.

It's no mistake that the enemy must diminish the "actual" value of the incorruptible seed of the word of God.. because it pretty much tells Christians all that the enemy is doing in effort to raise up their own fruit from their own seeds.. and it just ends up revealing itself as the day approaches.

 

[MoreCoffee]

God is truth and his words are true. That isn't the issue. The issue is where is God's word found.

• Some say in the bible and that's what in the bible is supreme. Of course they have their own definition of what's in the bible.
• Some say in holy tradition which has a written component, a spoken component, and a component that involves actions. The bible in this view is the written word of God and this view also has its definition of what is in the bible.
• Some say something different which I will leave for them to explain.

I take the view that the word of God is found in holy tradition. The word of God is a reflection of the Lord Jesus Christ and as such is revelation from God. The word of God is intended to speak in actions, words, and signs about the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence the liturgy, the sacraments, and the holy scriptures all contribute to the church's understanding of God's self revelation.

Of course the ultimate self revelation of God is the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that all Christians accept this.