Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[bbbbbbb]

The above is just too silly to bother with.

I agree, as are many of the Dogmas invented during later centuries of Christian history.

 

[Standing Up]

The pagans mocked Christians for eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The pagans called Christians cannibals. How like the pagans these objections are.

Let God be true even though the pagans rage against him.

Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Let's not forget the martyrs of Lyons who specifically denied eating flesh. They went to their deaths.

Apparently, it was those who agreed with the pagans that lived.

 

[Standing Up]

Not only that, but the believe they're pulling Christ down from His throne in heaven, to be presented on the alter.

-John O'Brien, The Faith of Millions

Correct. Thus Paul, like Moses, reminds us why scripture was written (Romans 3).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

Lutherans do NOT - in any sense - affirm the point of the opening post. And I gave MY reply to it at the end of the opening post (which I believe is typically "Lutheran").

While it is true that SOME Lutherans affirm SOME Marian views that we'd find in modern, contemporary Catholicism, we do NOT embrace them as de fide dogma (they are, typically, pious opinion) and we do NOT hold that these were taught as such by Jesus and all 12-14 Apostles and believed by the First Century Christians but oddly the Holy Spirit forgot to include these essential dogmas of highest importance possible from the Scriptures. We typically do NOT declare them heresy OR Dogma - and do NOT hold them as outlined in the opening post.


BTW, friend, addressing another point, we also do not hold that Sola Scriptura is such. We don't hold that it is a dogma AT ALL (it's praxis) and thus it is not taught in Scripture (praxis rarely - very rarely - is taught at all, although it MAY be demonstrated or illustrated), and whether Jesus and all 12-14 Apostles and all First Century Christians use this or not is a point we don't address since we hold it's a practice for US to us, not necessary for Adam or Noah or Abraham or even Jesus. It's not an issue in this thread because it's not a dogma at all and no one claims it was De Fide Dogma tuaght by Jesus, all the Apostles but that the Holy Spirit forgot to state in His Scripture to us. It's a PRAXIS we think sound for US to practice as WE TODAY evaluate disputed dogmas among us.



Back to the issue of the opening post....



Thank you!!


Pax


- Josiah

 

[barryatlake]

Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas ?
Not according to the Catholic Holy Bible, but it's no wonder the question was asked by a non-Catholic, because I'm not sure how all the other conflicting interpretations could possibly agree on what dogma is and isn't.
The only interpretation that the Catholic/Apostolic Church uses is that very same interpretation used to give us the Canonical Books compiled in our bibles, so if we all agree that the Holy Bible contains the correct Books in our Holy Bibles then why is their more than that One True Interpretation used by all other churches ?

 

[SpyderByte]

Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas ?
Not according to the Catholic Holy Bible, but it's no wonder the question was asked by a non-Catholic, because I'm not sure how all the other conflicting interpretations could possibly agree on what dogma is and isn't.
The only interpretation that the Catholic/Apostolic Church uses is that very same interpretation used to give us the Canonical Books compiled in our bibles, so if we all agree that the Holy Bible contains the correct Books in our Holy Bibles then why is their more than that One True Interpretation used by all other churches ?

Barry you keep reposting this (or ones just like it) and it keeps getting smacked down. Will you and topcare please stop cluttering the thread with previously debunked posts?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas ?
Not according to the Catholic Holy Bible

Then Catholicism can renounce and destroy and repudiate two legs it defends and promotes so passionately and foundationally - Tradition and Magisterium - because according to you, the opening post is wrong and all the unique, new dogmas of the individual Denomination ARE stated in Scripture (well, at least the new, UNIQUE RCC Bible).



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Lutherans do NOT - in any sense - affirm the point of the opening post. And I gave MY reply to it at the end of the opening post (which I believe is typically "Lutheran").

While it is true that SOME Lutherans affirm SOME Marian views that we'd find in modern, contemporary Catholicism, we do NOT embrace them as de fide dogma (they are, typically, pious opinion) and we do NOT hold that these were taught as such by Jesus and all 12-14 Apostles and believed by the First Century Christians but oddly the Holy Spirit forgot to include these essential dogmas of highest importance possible from the Scriptures. We typically do NOT declare them heresy OR Dogma - and do NOT hold them as outlined in the opening post.


BTW, friend, addressing another point, we also do not hold that Sola Scriptura is such. We don't hold that it is a dogma AT ALL

You're the Lutheran here, but what you've written above is completely accurate from all that I know.

 

[fhansen]

The doctrine of the Real Presence has been with Christianity since the beginning. Many ECFs attest to this. It's expressed in both the eastern and western ancient churches as well as in certain Protestant denominations, which believe Scripture supports their practice. However, since Scripture can be plausibly interpreted either way, this is a perfect example of Tradition filling in where Scripture can be considered vague. God gave the gospel to the Church first of all.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The doctrine of the Real Presence has been with Christianity since the beginning. Many ECFs attest to this.

The new, unique Eucharistic Dogma in the individual RC Denomination is Transubstantiation/Accidents. SOME would argue that this is an example of what the Opening Post is addressing. Are you defending/supporting this new unique Dogma of the singular RC Denomination with the thought of the opening post?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[concretecamper]

[/B]Here is what I think....

[/I]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
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR]

Was it the intent of the Bible to list all dogmas? You can certainly approach the bible in this fashion but I do not think that this approach is commanded by scripture.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Was it the intent of the Bible to list all dogmas? You can certainly approach the bible in this fashion but I do not think that this approach is commanded by scripture.

Read the opening post. Perhaps post #2 as well.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Was it the intent of the Bible to list all dogmas?

YES!

To be more precise, it is the purpose of the revealed word of God to give us all that is necessary for our salvation, yes--and, furthermore, it testifies to that purpose itself.

 

[concretecamper]

The new, unique Eucharistic Dogma in the individual RC Denomination is Transubstantiation/Accidents. SOME would argue that this is an example of what the Opening Post is addressing. Are you defending/supporting this new unique Dogma of the singular RC Denomination with the thought of the opening post?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

I would argue that the idea of transubstantiation is not new. The Church always believed in the literal meaning of "IS". Transubstantiation is used to more clearly define and clarify what "IS" means.

Just like #3 Ephesus and #4 Chalcedon went on to clarify and define Christ's divinity and His 2 natures. This defining and clarification was needed because of heresy.

 

[barryatlake]

Josiah, you wrote; " Then Catholicism can renounce and destroy and repudiate two legs it defends and promotes so passionately and foundationally - Tradition and Magisterium ...."

] What is so difficult to understand that with the advancement of ages comes the advancement of grammar that contain labels that coin such dogma / doctrine.[

 

[bbbbbbb]

??????? Link???????

Beheading of St. John the Baptist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Head of St. John the Baptist at Amiens Cathedral | Atlas Obscura

Scientists find new evidence supporting John the Baptist bones theory - Telegraph

http://www.mgrfoundation.org/JdBRelics.jpg

MYSTAGOGY: The Skull (Head) of St. John the Baptist

 

[concretecamper]

Read the opening post. Perhaps post #2 as well.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

I have.

 

[concretecamper]

YES!

To be more precise, it is the purpose of the revealed word of God to give us all that is necessary for our salvation, yes--and, furthermore, it testifies to that purpose itself.

Yes, I know some people approach the bible in this manner.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think there are really questions here - first - within the context of the Church, are there any Christian dogmas that are not contained in Scripture: I would have to say no, with the caveat that some might be more clear than others, but when scripture is rightly divided within the context of the Church (aka Tradition) then the dogmas are all there in one form or another.

The second part of the question then is what if you try to divide scripture outside the context of Tradition - can you still find all dogmas within? Or, if taken to the logical extent - could someone, given a copy of the Bible, reproduce all of the Christian dogmas directly from Scripture? I would have to say not very likely - nearly impossible. Scripture alone does not provide the context necessary to rightly divide itself.

So the net would be you really need both the written word (scripture) AND the Holy Spirit working in the context of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in order to discern Christian dogma.

I realize that you are Orthodox and not Roman Catholic and thus your dogmas are different than theirs. This being the case, I think your argument holds more water. The problem I see with Orthodoxy is that there are no doctrines which are clearly enunciated as such, at least in the same sense that I see in the Catholic Church.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, you wrote; " Then Catholicism can renounce and destroy and repudiate two legs it defends and promotes so passionately and foundationally - Tradition and Magisterium ...."

] What is so difficult to understand that with the advancement of ages comes the advancement of grammar that contain labels that coin such dogma / doctrine.[

You seemed to indicate your repudiation of the position related in the opening post and that the unique Dogmas of the individual Denomination are all confirmed by "the CATHOLIC Bible." Okay. Then my point is obvious: Catholicism then doesn't need the two "legs" it so very, very passionately and foundationally insists upon: the Tradition and Leadership of it itself, perhaps flowing from the "spin" related in the opening post. Your position was that all the new, unique, DE FIDE DOGMAS are clearly stated in the unique Bible of the singular RC Denomination.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah