Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[bbbbbbb]

sez bbbbbbb

sez Augustine - Augustine's Doctrine of the Bondage of the Will

 

[bbbbbbb]

I know no one in my circles who "crave that glory and call it "autonomy"". The Catholics I know of-and I truly suspect this is true of your acquaintances as well- are nothing if not humbled more by the prospect that their will and efforts are required. Who wouldn't be? No absolutely free ride to either heaven or hell.

Wow! Everyone has to work their way to heaven or hell. What happens to those of us sluggards who don't work, but trust Jesus Christ to save us?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, because the rcc just absorbs all its schismatics...

Schismatics would be those who left the Church of their own volition. The Church waits for them with open arms. It's they who refuse to come back.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Wow! Everyone has to work their way to heaven or hell. What happens to those of us sluggards who don't work, but trust Jesus Christ to save us?

Being a sluggard is a choice too it is choosing the sin of sloth, right?

 

[BobRyan]

Hey guys, remember the op?

Let's get back on track.

Sounds like a good idea.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The discussion in this thread is to be about this.....

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.....

- Josiah

 

[BobRyan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDcw_-16j7Q

The ending statement "I am not limited to the Bible" gets to one of the ideas in this thread.

Also this RC priest states something that is affirmed by Popes in the last 50 years or so regarding non-Christians going to heaven.

Pope Francis assures atheists: You don?t have to believe in God to go to heaven - Europe - World - The Independent

=====================================

quote from: What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers

Invincibly Ignorant

The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
​

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)
​

================================================

However in the video the question is asked about salvation without a personal relationship with Christ - ie. the New Birth, walking by the Spirit etc and when the Priest says "yes" the issue put to him is whether his teaching conforms to the Bible standard for doctrine on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The discussion in this thread is to be about this.....

- Josiah

So this is my point.

When they go to 'making stuff up' - the question is whether it conflicts with the Divine standard for Doctrine - the Word of God, whether it is doctrine, tradition or practice.

For example - there is the practice of wearing suits and ties to church -- well Jesus did not wear a suit and tie - but the practice is not condemned by the Bible.

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 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.



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

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then why does Galatians tell us flat out that God worked effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision as He did with Paul to the Gentiles?

Because it's a nice thing to say?

That Paul and colleagues should go to the Gentiles did not exclude his preaching to the Jews as well (Rom 1:13–16) or Cephas to Gentile areas.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Are you telling us that a priest has no credentials and cannot speak for the Catholic Church? If that is the case, who are you to be speaking for the Catholic Church?

Me? I'm nobody. But if I tell you what the Church teaches, then it's not me speaking, but the Church. Same with a priest. If he teaches in concert with what the Church teaches, then he's in communion. If not, then not.
You may not realize it, but this is true even with what you think you understand of the Doctors of the Church. They are not authoritative if they present opinion. So when Jerome thought the DC should not be part of the Canon of Scripture, he was not speaking for the Church. And even though he said this, he did obey the Church. I know, it's a concept that's hard for you to grasp.

 

[Root of Jesse]

sez Augustine - Augustine's Doctrine of the Bondage of the Will

Is that why he said the quote I have in my sig from him?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Wow! Everyone has to work their way to heaven or hell. What happens to those of us sluggards who don't work, but trust Jesus Christ to save us?

If you're flailing about in the water, and someone throws you a life-ring, if you dont' actually grab it, you won't be saved. It requires effort on your part. Even those Jesus cured had to perform an act of their own will to be cured.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you're flailing about in the water, and someone throws you a life-ring, if you dont' actually grab it, you won't be saved. It requires effort on your part. Even those Jesus cured had to perform an act of their own will to be cured.

So, it requires effort to be lost? Using your analogy, what if I am doing a leisurely back float in the water, drifting peacefully along with the current, not knowing or caring whether the current will send me hurtling to my death over the high waterfall or if it will take me gently to the beach of the resort? Then I hear a splash and see a funny round, white ring in the water and choose to continue to drift leisurely along.

To complicate your analogy further let us say that I am a member of the elite Dolphin Swim Club, having joined as an infant when my parents took me to the clubhouse and dipped me in the pool. Aside from a few basic swim lessons at the club I decided not to swim competitively, but to enjoy the nice, warm water of the club's river. Will my club membership help my situation or not?

 

[sunlover1]

If you're flailing about in the water, and someone throws you a life-ring, if you dont' actually grab it, you won't be saved. It requires effort on your part. Even those Jesus cured had to perform an act of their own will to be cured.

??
Lazarus?
The centurions servant?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Me? I'm nobody. But if I tell you what the Church teaches, then it's not me speaking, but the Church. Same with a priest. If he teaches in concert with what the Church teaches, then he's in communion. If not, then not.

You may not realize it, but this is true even with what you think you understand of the Doctors of the Church. They are not authoritative if they present opinion. So when Jerome thought the DC should not be part of the Canon of Scripture, he was not speaking for the Church. And even though he said this, he did obey the Church. I know, it's a concept that's hard for you to grasp.

Quoted for truth.

It is important for discussions between Catholic christians and christians from other traditions to make this point as clearly as possible. What the church teaches is the teaching of Christ but what a saint or a doctor of the church opines is not necessarily the teaching of Christ. What a humble catholic says if he/she is saying what the church teaches has greater authority than what is said by an exalted theologian be he (or she) a saint or a doctor of the church if it is not the teaching of the church. Thus saint Jerome's opinions about this or that book in holy scripture if his opinion is not the teaching of the church is of less importance than what you or I write if we write what the church teaches about the same book.

 

[Rick Otto]

Is that why he said the quote I have in my sig from him?

What work of his is that quote from?

 

[Rick Otto]

Quoted for truth.

It is important for discussions between Catholic christians and christians from other traditions to make this point as clearly as possible. What the church teaches is the teaching of Christ but what a saint or a doctor of the church opines is not necessarily the teaching of Christ. What a humble catholic says if he/she is saying what the church teaches has greater authority than what is said by an exalted theologian be he (or she) a saint or a doctor of the church if it is not the teaching of the church. Thus saint Jerome's opinions about this or that book in holy scripture it his opinion is not the teaching of the church is of less importance than what you or I write if we write what the church teaches about the same book.

What the church teaches about the teachings of Christ, is not the teachings of Christ. It is the teaching of the church about the teaching of Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What the church teaches about the teachings of Christ, is not the teachings of Christ. It is the teaching of the church about the teaching of Christ.

That's your opinion, it is not mine.

 

[Standing Up]

Quoted for truth.

It is important for discussions between Catholic christians and christians from other traditions to make this point as clearly as possible. What the church teaches is the teaching of Christ but what a saint or a doctor of the church opines is not necessarily the teaching of Christ. What a humble catholic says if he/she is saying what the church teaches has greater authority than what is said by an exalted theologian be he (or she) a saint or a doctor of the church if it is not the teaching of the church. Thus saint Jerome's opinions about this or that book in holy scripture it his opinion is not the teaching of the church is of less importance than what you or I write if we write what the church teaches about the same book.

Which church? RC, EO, OO, P, A.

Why not be clear? "What RC teaches is RC teaching, but other Christians may teach something else."

 

[Rick Otto]

That's your opinion, it is not mine.

It is a fact, not an opinion.
What Christ taught is the teachings of Christ.