Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[GoingByzantine]

I think Paul was wanting people to take the grace of God seriously. He didnt want people to use the wine to get drunk like some were doing. Maybe it was a sign of disrespect. That scripture doesn't prove that the wine actually becomes blood though.

With all due respect, 1 Cor 11:27-28 makes no mention of drunkenness, and he also explicitly says that people who do drink or eat unworthily would be committing a sin against the body and blood of Christ. If the body and blood were just symbols, why would it be a big deal to commit a sin towards them. Also if they were merely symbols, why would it be offense to the body of Christendom?

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

 

[Souldier]

With all due respect, 1 Cor 11:27-28 makes no mention of drunkenness

1 Co 11:20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here dogmas! ... Here dogmas! ... where are you boys ... Here dogmas!

Have we found them yet?

 

[fhansen]

Which ones?

You could look up Arianism:

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." John 14:28

About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matt 27:46

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Luke 22:42

 

[Souldier]

You could look up Arianism:

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." John 14:28

About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matt 27:46

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Luke 22:42

There is more scripture to support the creed than deny it. One of those scriptures you provided are from John 14. Lets examine it further.

John 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

Do you know of any Dogma not found in scripture? Thats what the OP is referring to. Lets talk about those.

 

[Souldier]

Here dogmas! ... Here dogmas! ... where are you boys ... Here dogmas!

Have we found them yet?

You would know. Please enlighten us.

 

[hedrick]

With all due respect, 1 Cor 11:27-28 makes no mention of drunkenness, and he also explicitly says that people who do drink or eat unworthily would be committing a sin against the body and blood of Christ. If the body and blood were just symbols, why would it be a big deal to commit a sin towards them. Also if they were merely symbols, why would it be offense to the body of Christendom?

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Even if the bread and wine are just symbols, they are symbols of Christ's body and blood. It's quite common to regard inappropriate treatment of symbols as reflecting an attitude towards the thing they symbolize. E.g. note how mistreatment of the US flag has often been regarded as showing disrespect for the nation. Hence eating unworthily could quite reasonably be seen as disrespect for Christ's actual body and blood, even with a purely symbolic understanding of the elements.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by fhansen

Alright, the main problem that many were having at the time was in recognizing Jesus as God. That may or may not be important to you or your personal theology but its very relevant to the Church's basic, grounded understanding of why Jesus is able to save at all- just Who He is. We may bite the hand that feeds us but, in the end, your and my understanding of the faith today has much to do with the work and faith of believers who came before us over the course of the past many centuries.
​

The trinity statement found in the creed is still based on scripture knowledge. So its besides the point anyway. Its not a dogma which is not found in the bible. There are many scriptures that can be used to support what the creed says.

Souldier makes a good point here.

In fact anyone who has studied with JW's on this point knows full well the that the diety of Christ, the divinity of Christ - and yes even the Trinity is proven "sola scriptura" even to the most hardened JW's such that they throw up their hands saying that they cannot bring out their Arian belief and justify it in light of the scriptures showing that Christ is God - they simply ask that we "go talk to some JW leadership" hoping that maybe the leaders can rescue their doctrine.

Hint - JW's are not going to take "Well lets go ask Catholics what to think" as "proof of something". And I think everyone here agrees with this point. It is "irrefutable". And it is never the "solution".

The fiction, the imagination, the story-telling that goes around speculating that the Bible does not provide this case for the deity of Christ - is the thing that is "most surprising".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[GoingByzantine]

Alright lets switch gears for a second.

What do you all think of this statement:

• The Bible is a dogma.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by GoingByzantine

With all due respect, 1 Cor 11:27-28 makes no mention of drunkenness, and he also explicitly says that people who do drink or eat unworthily would be committing a sin against the body and blood of Christ. If the body and blood were just symbols, why would it be a big deal to commit a sin towards them. Also if they were merely symbols, why would it be offense to the body of Christendom?

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
​

]Even if the bread and wine are just symbols, they are symbols of Christ's body and blood. It's quite common to regard inappropriate treatment of symbols as reflecting an attitude towards the thing they symbolize. E.g. note how mistreatment of the US flag has often been regarded as showing disrespect for the nation. Hence eating unworthily could quite reasonably be seen as disrespect for Christ's actual body and blood, even with a purely symbolic understanding of the elements.

Indeed the earthly sanctuary filled with "symbols" that were sanctified by God - those symbols were not "little gods" themselves but merely symbols and the death penalty was the sentence for violating or abusing them under God's theocracy - as we all know.

So as Paul points out with the "Altar"

1 Cor 10
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.


Symbols yes - but important all the same.

 

[BobRyan]

Alright lets switch gears for a second.

What do you all think of this statement:

• The Bible is a dogma.

The Bible contains doctrines of God and by contrast the doctrines of men are condemned by Christ in Mark 7.

There is in the Bible "teaching about scripture" -- But the Bible "is a book" it is "The Word of God" -- it is Holy, sanctified, set apart.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[GoingByzantine]

The definition I am getting for dogma is, "a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted."

 

[BobRyan]

With all due respect, 1 Cor 11:27-28 makes no mention of drunkenness, and he also explicitly says that people who do drink or eat unworthily would be committing a sin against the body and blood of Christ.

Vs 21 -- DARBY

21 For each one in eating takes his *own* supper before [others], and one is hungry and another drinks to excess.

The contrast is between gluttony and extreme want.

It is not a contrast between grape juice and alcohol.

In fact Passover is part of the feast of unleavened bread - no leaven at all in the house - that includes the leaven of brewers yeast - and wine yeast. Only pure grape juice was used at Passover. That is what they were using at the Lord's Supper.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

You would know. Please enlighten us.

Just looking for the missing dogmas. Anybody have them?

 

[Souldier]

Just looking for the missing dogmas. Anybody have them?

I dont study Catholicism so i cannot answer. I was hoping you would fill me in on those things which Catholicism teaches that are not found in scripture. I suppose other Churches have Dogmas too, and im sure you are aware of those as well. Please share your knowledge.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't know of any Catholic dogmas that are not present in holy scripture in some form.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know of any Catholic dogmas that are not present in holy scripture in some form.

That looks like a "doctrines in the Bible" statement to me.

That is the sort of sola-scriptura affirmation of Catholic doctrine that proves to be rare - but I thought it would be as common as rain prior to coming here.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[fhansen]

There is more scripture to support the creed than deny it. One of those scriptures you provided are from John 14. Lets examine it further.

"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. John 14:28

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. Luke 18:19

The point is that Scripture can be used to support both orthodoxy and heresy. An honest and objective reader, picking up the bible and reading it on their own without the benefit of past, er, traditions of the church, would most likely throw up their hands and say, “I’m not really sure what they’re trying to get at here in this book”.

Do you know of any Dogma not found in scripture? Thats what the OP is referring to. Lets talk about those.

I believe that Scripture is “materially sufficient”, as they say, in terms of possessing all necessary teachings pertaining to the salvation of man. Some are more clear and some less so but they’re all there in one form or another. It’s always been the role of the Church to make clear, to know, exactly what Scripture means to tell us. OTOH, you seem to assert that Scripture is missing at least one dogma as you apparently deny the Real Presence, a basic tenet of the Christian faith. As for myself, I'm just fine with that old time religion, the basic one that the Church, east and west from the beginning, has practiced.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The point is that Scripture can be used to support both orthodoxy and heresy.

Not nearly as well as the phantom of what Scripture does NOT say. Read the opening post.

An honest and objective reader, picking up the bible and reading it on their own

ENTIRELY off-topic but I fully agree with you: I reject the rubric of self insisting that self alone is the sole authoritative (and unaccountable) interpreter. But there is only one church, denomination, sect or cult that does that - the RCC (CCC 85). So it's irrelevant elsewhere (the LDS use to have this insistence but dropped it over a century ago). But that's not the point here: we aren't talking about various interpretations of the verbatim words of Scripture leading to divisive, varient dogmas - we're talking about the embracing of what is NOT in Scripture as the basis for divisive, variant, unique dogma.

It’s always been the role of the Church to make clear, to know, exactly what Scripture means to tell us.

Again, ENTIRELY off topic but I could not agree with you more. It's foundational to why I left the RCC and why (after careful study) I did not join the LDS.

But your point here relates to ONE point in the OP..... I agree, the church is to help us understand and apply the words of Scripture, not the words missing in Scripture. Read the opening post.



Thank you.


A blessed Easter to you and yours....


- Josiah

 

[fhansen]

Not nearly as well as the phantom of what Scripture does NOT say. Read the opening post.







ENTIRELY off-topic but I fully agree with you: I reject the rubric of self insisting that self alone is the sole authoritative (and unaccountable) interpreter. But there is only one church, denomination, sect or cult that does that - the RCC (CCC 85). So it's irrelevant elsewhere (the LDS use to have this insistence but dropped it over a century ago). But that's not the point here: we aren't talking about various interpretations of the verbatim words of Scripture leading to divisive, varient dogmas - we're talking about the embracing of what is NOT in Scripture as the basis for divisive, variant, unique dogma.








Again, ENTIRELY off topic but I could not agree with you more. It's foundational to why I left the RCC and why (after careful study) I did not join the LDS.

But your point here relates to ONE point in the OP..... I agree, the church is to help us understand and apply the words of Scripture, not the words missing in Scripture. Read the opening post.



Thank you.


A blessed Easter to you and yours....


- Josiah

The problem with the OP from the get go is that it's based on a huge PRESUMPTION, that the bible was intended to be some sort of an exhaustive catechism of the Christian faith-and it simply was not. The church, whoever and whatever that entity was that Christ established, held and preached the gospel before a word of the NT was written.