Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[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.

Not at all, it does not say to formulate doctrine it is very specific, there is no doctrine in Scripture. All man make doctrine, ...

Not true at all.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in 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.

 

[BobRyan]

So "profitable for doctrine" doesn't mean "profitable for doctrine".

I totally get that, having been raised RCC.

Well at least "someone" gets how that might be....

I was never Catholic - so I struggle with the "no doctrine in the Bible" concept..

 

[fhansen]

I think there’s some merit in which CJ has said, but I’d like to divorce it from the anti-Catholic polemic that has been inching into some of this discussion.

What is the power of the keys? Both commentaries I consulted (Word and Hermeneia) connect it to Jewish rabbinical practice and say that it is primarily the power to make authoritative interpretation, i.e. to determine what actions and permitted and what are not. It is not an arbitrary power to include or exclude people from the Kingdom. If applied to specific cases it can show itself as Church discipline.

To whom is it given? Because of the reference to Church in Mat 16:18, I assume that the authority given to Peter was intended for the Church and not just him personally. I don’t know many interpreters who claim it was just a personal grant. It’s kind of irrelevant whether Jesus was referring in the first place to Peter or his faith, since in either case the authority is intended for the Church.

However CJ’s point that Scripture doesn’t specify that the authority is passed to only some part of the Church seems quite sensible. The most obvious understanding would be that the authority passes to the entire Church. If the Church isn’t united, that is a significant problem with exercising it, but attempts to say that one’s own Church is the only one with this authority is unlikely to convince anyone else. That’s a mode of dealing with ecumenical relations that I think we’re in the process of recovering from.

What do we do in a situation where different communities make different decisions? I think we're subject to whatever community we are part of. Yes, people can shop around for communities whose judgement lets them to what they want, but remember that ultimately we have to face Jesus. Similarly, I am convinced that those of us in leadership will be asked to explain how we exercised the authority given to us.

But how do we identify "Church", then? Did God give the keys of the kingdom to any group that happens to identify themselves as a, or the, Christian Church?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But how do we identify "Church", then?

Where two or three are gathered together?
Where there is faith?

Seems to ME Christians are visible - and so may be their faith and love. No denomination is visible.


But, if I may, perhaps we could return to the subject of the opening post????



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


- Josiah

 

[Root of Jesse]

You have free will - you may choose not to see the point if you wish.

For the non-Catholic readers - this makes a lot of sense.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes, what few of you there are...

 

[Root of Jesse]

So "profitable for doctrine" doesn't mean "profitable for doctrine".

I totally get that, having been raised RCC.

Profitable for doctrine means profitable for making doctrine. It doesn't say there's any doctrine there already. For example, where's the doctrine, in Scripture, regarding marriage being between one man and one woman? And isn't there examples in Scripture of polygamous marriage? So why exclude one over the other?

 

[Albion]

But how do we identify "Church", then?

The church of Christ, in the truest and fullest sense, is the assembly of all true believers of all times and places, regardless of denomination. Who those people are, as individuals, is known only to God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's not clear that Christ observed/celebrated it, as much as He used it for a teaching occasion. This is similar to Paul later going to synagogues; not because he agreed, but that's where his audience was.

You don't go fishing where the fish aren't. That's why Paul went to the synagogues. But you, trying to say that Jesus was there, but wasn't celebrating the Dedication of the Temple is disingenuous, at best.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thanks. Synagogues also come to mind. They were an inter-testamental development, although not mentioned in the DC. Herod's temple, as well. The fact that these things appear in the NT which were obviously not to be found in the OT hardly elevates them to the level of dogma.

No, the fact that they're in there elevates them to history.

But once again, you miss the point. There's other doctrines that exist in the Deuterocanon which are also seen in the NT. Purgatory, for one. The doctrine isn't there, but the pieces which make it are there-atonement for sins after death while still in friendship with God. In Maccabees, some of the dead were carrying good-luck amulets, which was forbidden. The rest of the soldiers prayed for them. If they were in hell, prayers would do no good, if they were in heaven, prayers weren't necessary. They were somewhere in between, which we call Purgatory. Also attested to in 1 Corinthians.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Besides that, unless 'Root of Jesse' is maintaining that we Christians have an obligation to be practicing Jews, his example is meaningless.

I know lots of Protestants who don't go to celebrate the Lord's birthday who do celebrate Passover and Hanukkah. Go figure.

Where did I say we should be celebrating it? The point is that there's relevant information in the Deuterocanonicals, from which we get some doctrine, which you guys just want to toss out with the bathwater.

The question asked was for a specific example of Jesus following something that exists nowhere in Scripture. I believe I answered it, though SU wants to quibble about whether he was in the act of celebration.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not at all, but rather because the holy scriptures come right out and tell us that the Lord wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision.

Galatians 2:8

That's only if the word of God matters though.

Where does that say that Peter was the apostle ONLY to the circumcision? I don't see that as an exclusive reference at all.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well at least "someone" gets how that might be....

I was never Catholic - so I struggle with the "no doctrine in the Bible" concept..

Obviously.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The church of Christ, in the truest and fullest sense, is the assembly of all true believers of all times and places, regardless of denomination. Who those people are, as individuals, is known only to God.

Catholicism doesn't disagree with you, either.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, the fact that they're in there elevates them to history.

But once again, you miss the point. There's other doctrines that exist in the Deuterocanon which are also seen in the NT. Purgatory, for one. The doctrine isn't there, but the pieces which make it are there-atonement for sins after death while still in friendship with God. In Maccabees, some of the dead were carrying good-luck amulets, which was forbidden. The rest of the soldiers prayed for them. If they were in hell, prayers would do no good, if they were in heaven, prayers weren't necessary. They were somewhere in between, which we call Purgatory. Also attested to in 1 Corinthians.

Please define Purgatory for me. I have received definitions of it from Catholics which range from a place where redeemed souls are excoriated for their temporal sins until they have been fully paid in the sight of a holy God to a refreshing experience not unlike taking a shower.

Please show me which, if any, of these definitions are given in any of the DC.

Thank you.

 

[hedrick]

But how do we identify "Church", then? Did God give the keys of the kingdom to any group that happens to identify themselves as a, or the, Christian Church?

Where two or three are gathered. However for the power of the keys to be useful, it needs to be two or three with enough structure to have leaders for which this kind of authority makes sense.

But I acknowledge even groups such as the JW's as meeting the definition. I think they're using the authority badly, and that Jesus will have words with them in the Judgement. But the power of the keys is inherent in being a Church leader.

That's assuming you don't think it was intended just for Peter personally. But from the context I think that's unlikely, and in fact no one that I know really thinks that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Please define Purgatory for me. I have received definitions of it from Catholics which range from a place where redeemed souls are excoriated for their temporal sins until they have been fully paid in the sight of a holy God to a refreshing experience not unlike taking a shower.

Please show me which, if any, of these definitions are given in any of the DC.

Thank you.

I already did your last request. See above.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607


As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:


Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

 

[Albion]

No, the fact that they're in there elevates them to history.

But once again, you miss the point. There's other doctrines that exist in the Deuterocanon which are also seen in the NT.
Purgatory, for one. The doctrine isn't there.

So the doctrine of Purgatory is in the Deuterocanonical books...but it is not. That says it approximately correctly. It's not there.

 

[Rick Otto]

Catholicism doesn't disagree with you, either.

...At least not "technically".

 

[bbbbbbb]

I already did your last request. See above.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

Thank you. What we have here is a relatively developed doctrine which, although in a current process of redefinition by some individuals in the Catholic Church, does represent the traditional view. That said, the fully develop doctrine of Purgatory as expressed in the Catechism has an extremely weak basis in the DC.

Job offered sacrifices for his children while they were alive, not after they were dead.

Job 1:4 His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When the days of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually.

Exactly where in the DC does it state, "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."?

 

[Standing Up]

Profitable for doctrine means profitable for making doctrine. It doesn't say there's any doctrine there already.

Sure there is. Here's a couple.

1John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

Rom. 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

OR

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Gal. 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,