Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[BobRyan]

I would hope you read the rest of the post...

I think it would be interesting if you or MC were to demonstrate how your model survives Mark 7:6-13.

The details seem to argue against it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think it would be interesting if you or MC were to demonstrate how your model survives Mark 7:6-13.

The details seem to argue against it.

in Christ,

Bob

No relationship at all. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think it would be interesting if you or MC were to demonstrate how your model survives Mark 7:6-13.

The details seem to argue against it.

in Christ,

Bob

I fear that the connection between the Pharisees' traditions of the elders and the magisterium of the holy catholic and apostolic church is in your post but not in reality.

 

[tadoflamb]

I've always found this passage to be interesting:

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. (Matthew 23:1-3)

For one, Jesus is pointing to the scribes and Pharisees as an authentic teaching authority in spite of their abundant personal deficits (Matthew 23:4-35) and secondly, the chair is the source of that authority. So, if you're not Catholic, whatever happened to the chair? Did it get lost with the keys?

 

[BobRyan]

No relationship at all. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees.

He says He is speaking to the magisterium --

And my response to that are these examples of doctrine in the Bible affirmed by Christ and the NT saints.

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

Originally Posted by 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.



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

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.
​

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

The elders are in fact the "magisterium" even Paul admits to this.

And as was just pointed out --

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. (Matthew 23:1-3)

 

[BobRyan]

I fear that the connection between the Pharisees' traditions of the elders and the magisterium of the holy catholic and apostolic church is in your post but not in reality.

Sadly for some points of view - it proves that the pattern Jesus is setting is for hammering the magisterium "sola scriptura" so those following the teaching and example of Christ have an irrefutable example of just how it is done

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Standing Up]

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....-snip-

Can you show us where scripture states it is missing dogmas? How about the reverse; can you show us were scripture says it is not missing dogma?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Can you show us where scripture states it is missing dogmas? How about the reverse; can you show us were scripture says it is not missing dogma?

Ahem, that is where inspired denominations such as the RCC and the LDS step in for us. One has Holy Tradition to fill in those nasty details that God, in His infinite ignorance, failed to include in the Bible, and the other has its Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, to do the same.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Can you show us where scripture states it is missing dogmas? How about the reverse; can you show us were scripture says it is not missing dogma?

Things are missing but exactly what is missing isn't there so we can't tell you what it is without reference to holy tradition.

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

 

[fhansen]

It seems apparent that this thread has served to disprove the OP. Based on Scripture alone sincere people argue and disagree on the veracity of the doctrine of the Real Presence. Based on Scripture, sincere people argue plausibly and disagree about the deity of Jesus. Based on scripture, sincere people argue and disagree over the need for baptism for regeneration, or the effectiveness of infant baptism. Based on Scripture, alone, equally well-credentialed scholars disagree on the role of grace and man’s will in salvation. Based on Scripture one could reasonably conclude that the seventh day must be a believer’s day of rest and worship.

“But oh!”, many still protest, “Scripture, alone, can and should serve as the sole rule of faith-we can’t possibly rely in any serious way on the lived history, the experience- the traditions -of the Church, because, well…they weren't recorded, and…we just don’t like that!”

 

[MoreCoffee]

It seems apparent that this thread has served to disprove the OP. Based on Scripture alone sincere people argue and disagree on the veracity of the doctrine of the Real Presence. Based on Scripture, sincere people argue plausibly and disagree about the deity of Jesus. Based on scripture, sincere people argue and disagree over the need for baptism for regeneration, or the effectiveness of infant baptism. Based on Scripture, alone, equally well-credentialed scholars disagree on the role of grace and man’s will in salvation. Based on Scripture one could reasonably conclude that the seventh day must be a believer’s day of rest and worship.

“But oh!”, many still protest, “Scripture, alone, can and should serve as the sole rule of faith-we can’t possibly rely in any serious way on the lived history, the experience- the traditions -of the Church, because, well…they weren't recorded, and…we just don’t like that!”

Holy scripture never truly is alone. Just as faith is never truly alone.

And like faith holy scripture receives its life and its complete sense through the Holy Spirit. One cannot truly understand the holy scriptures without the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is given to the whole church. Thus one ought to hear the whole church to get the full and true sense of holy scripture.

Those separated from the Catholic Church receive the truth handed down to them yet reject holy tradition unless it is also written in holy scripture. This may explain why there are differences in the interpretation of holy scripture and differences in doctrine among the separated brethren.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

The members of the RCC here are essentially telling everyone that the good incorruptible seed of the word of God is not enough to produce an increase of either thirty, sixty, or an hundred fold.

The Sower and His Seed is not enough they say.

And of course we know why.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The members of the RCC here are essentially telling everyone that the good incorruptible seed of the word of God is not enough to produce an increase of either thirty, sixty, or an hundred fold.

The Sower and His Seed is not enough they say.

And of course we know why.

The seed mentioned in the parable is not holy scripture. It is the word of the kingdom. At the time this parable was told the only scriptures accounted as holy are the old testament scriptures. The word of the kingdom is the message of the gospel.

 

[Rick Otto]

The word of God in the OT was enough to disprove or verify what was to be in the NT.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The word of God in the OT was enough to disprove or verify what was to be in the NT.

The parable does not mention holy scripture. It doesn't say "written word". It says only "word of the kingdom". τον λογον της βασιλειας is about a spoken word.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by ThatTrueLight

The members of the RCC here are essentially telling everyone that the good incorruptible seed of the word of God is not enough to produce an increase of either thirty, sixty, or an hundred fold.

The Sower and His Seed is not enough they say.

And of course we know why.
​

The seed mentioned in the parable is not holy scripture. It is the word of the kingdom. At the time this parable was told the only scriptures accounted as holy are the old testament scriptures. The word of the kingdom is the message of the gospel.

"The Gospel was preached to THEM just as it was to US also" Heb 4:2.

Again you have a distinction without a difference.

"THIS Gospel of the kingdom" was preached by John and then by Christ - BEFORE the cross.

And the NEW Covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:31-33.

The "ONE Gospel" Paul speaks of in Gal 1:6-9 is "preached to Abraham" Gal 3:7.

These Bible facts are irrefutable.

So also #525

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ThatTrueLight]

The seed mentioned in the parable is not holy scripture. It is the word of the kingdom. At the time this parable was told the only scriptures accounted as holy are the old testament scriptures. The word of the kingdom is the message of the gospel.

Very strange knowing that your own self declared Pope Peter wrote that we have a more sure word of prophecy in the holy scriptures.

Even more sure than if we heard the audible voice of God, as Peter did on that mountain.

Although this is obviously a vain effort to discredit the very word of God so that you can basically sell anything you want. It's pretty obvious that this is an enemy tactic.

Who obviously wants men to diminish the word of God?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Very strange knowing that your own self declared Pope Peter wrote that we have a more sure word of prophecy in the holy scriptures.

Even more sure than if we heard the audible voice of God, as Peter did on that mountain.

Although this is obviously a vain effort to discredit the very word of God so that you can basically sell anything you want. It's pretty obvious that this is an enemy tactic.

Who obviously wants men to diminish the word of God?

Saint Peter wrote "We ourselves heard this voice from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have confirmation of the words of the prophets; and you will be right to pay attention to it as to a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them." (2 Peter 1:18-21)

It is the voice from heaven that is the confirmation of the words of the prophets.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Saint Peter wrote "We ourselves heard this voice from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have confirmation of the words of the prophets; and you will be right to pay attention to it as to a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them." (2 Peter 1:18-21)

It is the voice from heaven that is the confirmation of the words of the prophets.

Wrong again, Peter the Apostle to the circumcision is saying that the holy scriptures are more sure than some guy claiming to hear the voice of God audibly.

Of course you can't hear this because then it upholds the written word of God which easily exposes the lies of the enemy who can't stand the truth.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Think about it for a minute..

Who hates the written word of God and does everything possible to dismiss them?