• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
54,590
12,314
Georgia
✟1,210,729.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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.


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.

Christ hammers the magisterium for making stuff up - making up their doctrine - and argues in Mark 7 that it should not be done.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,202
4,278
✟430,391.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Does your understanding of God as described above mean that God is unable to save mankind or that he is merely unwilling to do so? Or do you believe that God will save all of mankind?

As God allowed Adam to fall, and evil to enter by man's choice, so does He allow us to reject/disobey Him now, or turn away again if we've entered communion with Him at some point. Our free will consists in His not forcing His will upon us, even as He draws us to Himself by His grace. This is so due to His choice, according to His wisdom. He's certainly not constrained in any way from doing otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,268
✟584,052.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
"Force" isn't the only means of control.
Allowing is also still control.

I've thought a lot about this over the years, and my view is that to say God really loves us so much than he'd allow us to stupidly make fatally wrong choices ...is a non-starter. This is no more the deep, abiding, fervent love that we say caused him to send his own Son to die on the cross than it would be for any human parent to allow a toddler to walk into traffic and be killed in order to allow that child to 'learn for himself' and /or 'choose for himself.' No. Not even worth considering, it's so absurd.
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,603.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I've thought a lot about this over the years, and my view is that to say God really loves us so much than he'd allow us to stupidly make fatally wrong choices ...is a non-starter. This is no more the deep, abiding, fervent love that we say caused him to send his own Son to die on the cross than it would be for any human parent to allow a toddler to walk into traffic and be killed in order to allow that child to 'learn for himself' and /or 'choose for himself.' No. Not even worth considering, it's so absurd.

I will consider my objection before wording it.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,268
✟584,052.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I probably erred in attaching my comment to your post, Rick, when it really was a reaction to Fhansen's message...and, to be clear, it refers only to the matter of salvation (and choice or Election), not to that other argument we often hear that runs something like, "God wouldn't let there be sadness, war, or acne if he really was loving."
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,202
4,278
✟430,391.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
"Force" isn't the only means of control.
Allowing is also still control.

How so, Rick? Isn't "allowing" the very act of releasing control to someone else? If I were to plant a vineyard, lease it out, and have my own servants beaten by the tenants when I send my servants to collect rent, are the tenants deserving of a "wretched end"? Or am I responsible for their behavior? If I create a human being, command him not to disobey me, but he disobeys anyway, am I responsible for his disobedience? Did I want him to disobey my command, to actually do what I told him not to do? And if I cause a being to do things that are deserving of eternal hellfire, aren't I worse than him? And what's the alternative to man being ultimately responsible for his choosing life or death, heaven or hell; that God created some for eternal torment, without regard to man's will?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,268
✟584,052.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
How so, Rick? Isn't "allowing" the very act of releasing control to someone else? If I were to plant a vineyard, lease it out, and have my own servants beaten by the tenants when I send my servants to collect rent, are the tenants deserving of a "wretched end"? Or am I responsible for their behavior? If I create a human being, command him not to disobey me, but he disobeys anyway, am I responsible for his disobedience? Did I want him to disobey my command, to actually do what I told him not to do?

The problem is that we are comparing God's actions to Man's. I admit that I used a similar analogy myself, but that's the problem area IMO. To say that "God gave us a chance and we blew it, Oh well," doesn't seem to explain everything, when you really think about it.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,202
4,278
✟430,391.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The problem is that we are comparing God's actions to Man's. I admit that I used a similar analogy myself, but that's the problem area IMO. To say that "God gave us a chance and we blew it, Oh well," doesn't seem to explain everything, when you really think about it.

But to say that the way we choose to live our lives has no effect on our eternal destiny doesn't work either. Or to say that God gave us no chance; we're either predestined to heaven or hell.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,268
✟584,052.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But to say that the way we choose to live our lives has no effect on our eternal destiny doesn't work either.
I'm not as sure about that. Of course, we all think Hitler is going to get what's coming to him, but what of the ordinary person? According to all the "works-righteous" churches, he can be damned for almost any slipup...and then it's "Well, you had your chance. Too bad." IF we humans were uniformly wise, it would be different, but we all know that most of the time we just stumble along, trying our best, but that we're not that smart and we're not that strong.

Or to say that God gave us no chance; we're either predestined to heaven or hell.

Well, if there are God's Elect, we can't say "God gave us no chance." He would have given SOME people a chance and more than that. But leaving this part of the argument aside, if God chooses some and not others, at least God is God and knows what he's doing.

What's more, we all deserve hell, so if we get it, there's no injustice in that. The reason most people recoil at the idea of Predestination is because they think we deserve better but are denied it by the act of an arbitrary God. He is neither arbitrary in his choice nor do we deserve heaven if we are to be judged only on our own merits.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟72,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I've thought a lot about this over the years, and my view is that to say God really loves us so much than he'd allow us to stupidly make fatally wrong choices ...is a non-starter. This is no more the deep, abiding, fervent love that we say caused him to send his own Son to die on the cross than it would be for any human parent to allow a toddler to walk into traffic and be killed in order to allow that child to 'learn for himself' and /or 'choose for himself.' No. Not even worth considering, it's so absurd.

Is a comparison between God with respect to human freedom to self-destruct and parents looking on with the thought that he must learn for himself as their toddler son is about to walk into traffic a fair comparison?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,268
✟584,052.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Is a comparison between God with respect to human freedom to self-destruct and parents looking on with the thought that he must learn for himself as their toddler son is about to walk into traffic a fair comparison?

Analogies are always questionable, it seems, but that is the perspective we have been given by many posters, i.e. God watches and stands by as we bungle and get it wrong. Too bad, we had our choice.

I do not think that this is a sufficient argument.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,202
4,278
✟430,391.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm not as sure about that. Of course, we all think Hitler is going to get what's coming to him, but what of the ordinary person? According to all the "works-righteous" churches, he can be damned for almost any slipup...and then it's "Well, you had your chance. Too bad." IF we humans were uniformly wise, it would be different, but we all know that most of the time we just stumble along, trying our best, but that we're not that smart and we're not that strong.
The CC teaches that one must persist in sin that is so grave and deliberate that it constitutes an adamant refusal to love God and neighbor, and, as such, a willful turning away from God. The CC also teaches that one's culpability can be reduced by various mitigating factors-God, alone is the final judge, of course.
Well, if there are God's Elect, we can't say "God gave us no chance." He would have given SOME people a chance and more than that. But leaving this part of the argument aside, if God chooses some and not others, at least God is God and knows what he's doing.
No argument.
What's more, we all deserve hell, so if we get it, there's no injustice in that. The reason most people recoil at the idea of Predestination is because they think we deserve better but are denied it by the act of an arbitrary God. He is neither arbitrary in his choice nor do we deserve heaven if we are to be judged only on our own merits.
But do we all really deserve eternal torment? Isn't this a bit overboard especially if we maintain, as you seem to here, that we have no role to play, no "chance"? And that we're stumblers as well, not so smart, doing our best? Eternal torment?
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟251,695.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
It seems to me the issue of this thread has become forgotten.....

Here's what we are discussion:


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.....




.





Thank you.


A blessed Holy Week to all....


- Josiah
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,268
✟584,052.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The CC teaches that one must persist in sin that is so grave and deliberate that it constitutes an adamant refusal to love God and neighbor, and, as such, a willful turning away from God. The CC also teaches that one's culpability can be reduced by various mitigating factors-God, alone is the final judge, of course.
I don't think so. If you murder someone a minute before you have a fatal heart attack at the sight of the blood, you're going to hell, according to the RCC.

Do we all really deserve eternal torment?
We do, if we were to be judged on our own merits.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟72,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Analogies are always questionable, it seems, but that is the perspective we have been given by many posters, i.e. God watches and stands by as we bungle and get it wrong. Too bad, we had our choice.

I do not think that this is a sufficient argument.

Yes, I agree that it is an insufficient presentation of what people are and who God is with regard to the question of human freedom and God's love.

What perspective do you hold?
 
Upvote 0

Kristos

Servant
Aug 30, 2006
7,379
1,068
Minnesota
✟52,552.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It seems to me the issue of this thread has become forgotten.....

Here's what we are discussion:







Thank you.


A blessed Holy Week to all....


- Josiah
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

It's a strawman - so what's to discuss?
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟251,695.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
It's a strawman - so what's to discuss?

Read the opening post.

It is what I was taught before I became a Lutheran. And we see many (not just or only Catholics) who insist that their unique dogmas come from the very thing the opening post presents - we see this apologetic OFTEN. It's foundational to an understanding of "apostolic tradition" in SOME Christian communities.

If you've never heard of this and if you believe all the dogmas and teachings tuaght by Jesus and the Apostles that we know of are clearly found in the words of the Bible, then obviously you don't know or agree with the position being discussed (and you are free to so state).



A blessed Holy Week to you and yours.


- Josiah
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.