Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[MoreCoffee]

It still isn't the interpretation itself. Yes, I agree that we ought (not that we can say everyone does) to follow our consciences in this regard as in other matters.

I did not say that one's conscience was the interpretation itself.

 

[Albion]

I did not say that one's conscience was the interpretation itself.

Then we are agreed that the two are not interchangeable. What I commented on was the statement about personal interpretation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Then we are agreed that the two are not interchangeable. What I commented on was the statement about personal interpretation.

Yes, that is what you commented upon but you were not commenting on interpretation alone but also upon what one chooses to follow. Is that not so?

 

[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.

The Catholic Church is the subject I addressed. The teaching in question is the teaching of Christ in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Not exactly because others like EO say the same thing. Then the conversation falls flat.

It is best to phrase it this way: "The teaching in question is the teaching of the Catholic Church. This may or may not be the same as the teaching of Christ as evidenced by others like EO, OO, P, and A."

It would be much better to keep the peace, don't you agree?

 

[Albion]

Yes, that is what you commented upon but you were not commenting on interpretation alone but also upon what one chooses to follow. Is that not so?

We all choose one path of personal interpretation or another. Either we interpret it ourselves or we make a personal decision to believe the interpretation of someone else (which is also a personal decision about the correctness of whatever that other person comes up with) or else we have made a personal interpretation to the effect that Scripture isn't credible. It's all personal interpretation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not exactly because others like EO say the same thing. Then the conversation falls flat.

It is best to phrase it this way: "The teaching in question is the teaching of the Catholic Church. This may or may not be the same as the teaching of Christ as evidenced by others like EO, OO, P, and A."

It would be much better to keep the peace, don't you agree?

No I do not agree because that would be keeping a lie rather than keeping the peace.

 

[sunlover1]

Not so much as personal interpretation as following one's conscience. It is never safe to go against one's conscience.

Which is why it's very important to hide His Word in our hearts and to
be sensitive to hearing God.
Otherwise men can defile our consciences and have us believing all sorts
of lies, keeping us bound up and living a life of rules rather than walking
in freedom and loosing others who are bound.

I found this out the hard way, and have had to RENEW my mind, including
my conscience.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It still isn't the interpretation itself. Yes, I agree that we ought (not that we can say everyone does) to follow our consciences in this regard as in other matters.

Which brings me around to the OP. When is it proper to permit an individual or individuals to follow their conscience and develop dogmas that never existed in the primitive church and then to promulgate them as authentic, having been taught "from the beginning" through a vague "oral tradition"?

 

[Albion]

Which brings me around to the OP. When is it proper to permit an individual or individuals to follow their conscience and develop dogmas that never existed in the primitive church and then to promulgate them as authentic, having been taught "from the beginning" through a vague "oral tradition"?

I guess that the individual has to follow his conscience, but that doesn't mean it will lead to the right answer. An uninformed or misinformed conscience is still your conscience, but if it leads you astray, you're still going to be in the wrong. There are plenty of false believers who are sincere.

 

[hedrick]

Which brings me around to the OP. When is it proper to permit an individual or individuals to follow their conscience and develop dogmas that never existed in the primitive church and then to promulgate them as authentic, having been taught "from the beginning" through a vague "oral tradition"?

It's probably inevitable, to some extent. Dogmas related to the Trinity and the Incarnation were necessary to guard against misunderstandings of Scripture that would have had significant consequences. Other dogmas which I'm not going to list, don't seem as necessary, and some seem downright harmful.

But in the end nobody wants to start from scratch. Even I, who stick more closely to Scripture than most people who claim to be sola scriptura, depend upon a community of scholars and interpreters. I’m not sure I’d say their conclusions are dogmas, but they are still particular interpretations that aren’t easily changed.

I think we’re better off to recognize that everyone uses some combination of individual and community judgement, and look at the best way to make the judgement as reliable as possible and correct it when it goes wrong.

The biggest sources of error I’ve seen are (1) I don’t use tradition; I just believe the Bible with no interpretation, and (2) my tradition doesn’t make errors.

 

[Standing Up]

No I do not agree because that would be keeping a lie rather than keeping the peace.

Just so we're clear, you're saying what EO, OO, P, and A might teach is not what Christ taught. You're saying we can only find what Christ taught in the teachings of RC.

Do you at least understand that your view (not RC per se) may not be accurate, helpful, or ecumenical?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Just so we're clear, you're saying what EO, OO, P, and A might teach is not what Christ taught. You're saying we can only find what Christ taught in the teachings of RC.

Do you at least understand that your view (not RC per se) may not be accurate, helpful, or ecumenical?

I would think that the rulers of this dark world would love to have men actually believe that their assembly is infallible and the only source of truth.

Just think of how that could play out. You could sell them just about anything..

 

[BobRyan]

The pattern is made evident in saint Mark's gospel the seventh chapter. Consider what it says and it will be evident that the traditions of the ancients are condemned because they contradict the teaching of Moses in the law.

The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered round him, and they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing them. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, keep the tradition of the elders and never eat without washing their arms as far as the elbow; and on returning from the market place they never eat without first sprinkling themselves. There are also many other observances which have been handed down to them to keep, concerning the washing of cups and pots and bronze dishes. So the Pharisees and scribes asked him, 'Why do your disciples not respect the tradition of the elders but eat their food with unclean hands?' He answered, 'How rightly Isaiah prophesied about you hypocrites in the passage of scripture: This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. Their reverence of me is worthless; the lessons they teach are nothing but human commandments. You put aside the commandment of God to observe human traditions.' And he said to them, 'How ingeniously you get round the commandment of God in order to preserve your own tradition! For Moses said: Honour your father and your mother, and, Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death. But you say, "If a man says to his father or mother: Anything I have that I might have used to help you is Korban (that is, dedicated to God)," then he is forbidden from that moment to do anything for his father or mother. In this way you make God's word ineffective for the sake of your tradition which you have handed down. And you do many other things like this.' (Mark 7:1-13)​

Scripture is called "God's Word" and "The Commandment of God" and "Moses said" in the example above.

And clearly it is this that is used to hammer the God-ordained magisterium of Christ's day.

A pattern we cannot ignore.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We have seen some "no doctrine in the Bible" claims on this thread.

To which I gave this answer.

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.



(Doctrine in the Bible vs man's doctrine condemned).

Mark 7

7 Howbeitin 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.

Question for MoreCoffee -- do you consider your personal view to be aligned with the "No Doctrines in the Bible" position??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

Just so we're clear, you're saying what EO, OO, P, and A might teach is not what Christ taught. You're saying we can only find what Christ taught in the teachings of RC.

Do you at least understand that your view (not RC per se) may not be accurate, helpful, or ecumenical?

No, I did not say what you've said and I do not believe it either.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
Question for MoreCoffee -- do you consider your personal view to be aligned with the "No Doctrines in the Bible" position??

in Christ,

Bob

I do not understand what "no doctrine in the bible" is intended to mean. Which bible do you mean (66 books or some other) and what do you mean by "no doctrine"?

 

[BobRyan]

I do not understand what "no doctrine in the bible" is intended to mean. Which bible do you mean (66 books or some other) and what do you mean by "no doctrine"?

The right Bible has 66 books in it.

I thought we all knew that

No NT author quotes apocryphal books using the words "it is written" or "scripture says" or "The Holy Spirit says" -- but all of those terms are used for actual OT texts.

=================== however that is another story entirely.

The point is that a number of Catholic posters on this thread have suggested that just maybe - there is "no doctrine in the Bible" -- hence the texts I used to show that there in fact is doctrine in the Bible.

But I would like to hear your opinion of that point.

Do you accept that the Bible has doctrine in it?

Or do you think that only the Apocrypha has doctrine in it??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

The right Bible has 66 books in it.

I thought we all knew that

No NT author quotes apocryphal books using the words "it is written" or "scripture says" or "The Holy Spirit says" -- but all of those terms are used for actual OT texts.

=== however that is another story entirely.

The point is that a number of Catholic posters on this thread have suggested that just maybe - there is "no doctrine in the Bible" -- hence the texts I used to show that there in fact is doctrine in the Bible.

But I would like to hear your opinion of that point.

Do you accept that the Bible has doctrine in it?

Or do you think that only the Apocrypha has doctrine in it??

in Christ,

Bob

I cannot, of course, do anything but reject your stated view on the bible. Mine contains seventy three books and I deem this to be the exact number intended by God and the holy catholic church. And although I agree that no NT book contains a quote from an apocryphal book I fear that your definition of apocryphal and mine differ significantly. So I must disagree with your stated view on what is quoted, referenced, or alluded to in the new testament. And when you say a "number of Catholic posters" have said this and that on doctrine I need better proof than a mere say so. Produce the posts where this is said and I shall look and see if your claim is borne out by the realities and the context.

 

[Rick Otto]

Good grief.
66 is enough to make an accurate generalization.
I don't think our choices are without implications.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The biggest sources of error I’ve seen are (1) I don’t use tradition; I just believe the Bible with no interpretation, and (2) my tradition doesn’t make errors.

This is so great I want to put it in my signature.