Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[Souldier]

Think of it this way, look at politics, when we value our political party above the truth then we become slaves to the party rather than the truth itself. WE will not see the truth that the apposing political side may be holding, and we will not see the lies that our own side may be holding. We become slaves to ideas rather than truth. I use cto be a Republican, i was convinced that my side was right and the other was wrong. I started to find a need for God in my life, as i studied the words of Jesus and Paul i began to see truth. I didn't always understand it but i followed it anyway. I then began to understand that which i didn't understand. I began to see that not all liberalism is bad, and not all conservatism is good, and vise versa. I also began to see how futile politics are. Religion can be like politics. I think the scriptures which were written long ago in the Time of Christ and the Apostle Paul are the truth. I think its all we need and i see no reason to complicate that truth by adding anything to it. I do however see a reason not to add anything to it.

 

[Souldier]

Truth is what matters yet to suppose that our church and the leaders thereof are less in love with God and less able to discern truth than we must be a sign of a too high an estimate of ourselves.

No to the contrary. I think we are men and we are all fallible. I think the holy spirit is the teacher and only he is infallible. So i lower myself and exalt Him alone. I believe the holy scriptures which Paul established are spirit. I think everything outside those scriptures are fallible, they may or may not be the truth. So i follow only that which is infallible, the spirit. The Pope is just a man like myself, we are both fallible. Likewise preachers are just like myself, we are both fallible.

 

[Souldier]

1. As I read what the RCC itself claims about it itself individually and exclusively - I think it quite natural to wonder if such is a sign of too high an estimate of itself..... Especially in light of the profound lack of anything it offers to substantiate it.

2. I doubt many suppose a lack of love or sincerity on the part of Catholics or the RC Denomination. But then I think the same would be the case for Mormons and the LDS Denomination or even Muslims and the various Islamic denominations. But then as you indicated, TRUTH is the issue: not sincerity or even respective egos. I don't agree that the denomination with the most radical ego is thus more likely to be truthful.


But it would be just swell if there was some discussion of the opening post.....



Thank you ever so much!


Blessings


- Josiah

Amen. Well said.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Maybe when he says "what scripture?" he's referring to things that Catholicism has added to Christianity that protestants do not follow. Dont Catholics believe that things written by the Pope are "new" scriptures that get added as the Pope exercises his apostolic authority which can establish new doctrine? If so then there is much disagreement on scripture as well, according to the definition of scripture. Perhaps i misunderstand what Catholicism teaches about the Pope's authority to write new holy scripture. Im not sure.

To the bolded above, no, that's not what we believe. There is no new doctrine, by the way. Any Catholic doctrine has been believed from the beginning. It's possible that it has been developed, but there's nothing new.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Any Catholic doctrine has been believed from the beginning.

NOW you are starting to address the issue. READ POST #1.

Now, perhaps it would advance our discussion if you'd document your claim as truthful: Perhaps you could consider just a few of the UNIQUE RCC DE FIDE DOGMAS (dogmas of highest importance possible) and document that they were "believed" in the First Century. In fact, let's make it extremely easy for you: Perhaps you would please just verbatim quote the words from just 5 people - just five!!! - from the First Century stating exactly as the RCC now does, indicating that the Dogma was believed then (even though you seem to be admitting Scripture left it out). Start with the following:

1. Mary was CONCEIVED without the "stain of ORIGINAL sin." Just quote just 5 (no more is requested) from the First Century making that statement as something at least that one believes.

2. The Roman Pontiff is specifically (if conditionally) INFALLIBLE.

3. Transubstantiation/Accidents (not to be confused with Real Presense).


Let's just start with those 3. That would be 15 verbatim quotes from the First Century. That would least give SOMETHING - however small - SOMETHING to suggest at least a tiny bit of truthfulness to your claim..... And advance our discussion.



Thank you in advance! I await with great anticipation reading those 15 quotes from the First Century!


Blessings


- Josiah

 

[Root of Jesse]

Think of it this way, look at politics, when we value our political party above the truth then we become slaves to the party rather than the truth itself. WE will not see the truth that the apposing political side may be holding, and we will not see the lies that our own side may be holding. We become slaves to ideas rather than truth. I use cto be a Republican, i was convinced that my side was right and the other was wrong. I started to find a need for God in my life, as i studied the words of Jesus and Paul i began to see truth. I didn't always understand it but i followed it anyway. I then began to understand that which i didn't understand. I began to see that not all liberalism is bad, and not all conservatism is good, and vise versa. I also began to see how futile politics are. Religion can be like politics. I think the scriptures which were written long ago in the Time of Christ and the Apostle Paul are the truth. I think its all we need and i see no reason to complicate that truth by adding anything to it. I do however see a reason not to add anything to it.

But Jesus didn't preach anything about division. There is only one Truth. We trust that Jesus gave us an authority to help us, and that that authority (which issued from Jesus' very lips from the Cross) will lead the Church inerrantly. That authority is the Holy Spirit. Jesus told his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them...and that's where the Catholic Church is from.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But Jesus didn't preach anything about division.

yet the RC Denomination is in division with all.... with a unity of NONE.... in theological unity with NONE (even if we just limited the comparison to what it itself uniquely and currently regards as DE FIDE DOGMA - dogma of THE most importance and highest standing possible - even then, a unity of none, division with all).


The opening post has nothing to do with denominations (like the RCC) that are in disunity and have theological unity with none (even if its unique dogmas ARE supported in the way indicated by the opening post).

We trust that Jesus gave us an authority to help us, and that that authority (which issued from Jesus' very lips from the Cross) will lead the Church inerrantly.

You have yet to quote where Jesus gave ANYTHING to the singular, unique, specific, INDIVIDUAL RC Denomination, so I see your point as irrelevant and baseless.

LEADING inerrantly has nothing whatsoever to do with a denomination claiming that it itself individually and uniquely FOLLOWS infallibly.



But it just would be swell if we could discuss the opening post. This thread is not about how egotistical and individualistic and power-centered denominations might be (although that IS a shocking and deeply disturbing subject for another day and thread)....



Thank you!


Blessings


- Josiah

 

[Root of Jesse]

yet the RC Denomination is in division with all.... with a unity of NONE.... in theological unity with NONE (even if we just limited the comparison to what it itself uniquely and currently regards as DE FIDE DOGMA - dogma of THE most importance and highest standing possible - even then, a unity of none, division with all).


The opening post has nothing to do with denominations (like the RCC) that are in disunity and have theological unity with none (even if its unique dogmas ARE supported in the way indicated by the opening post).






You have yet to quote where Jesus gave ANYTHING to the singular, unique, specific, INDIVIDUAL RC Denomination, so I see your point as irrelevant and baseless.

LEADING inerrantly has nothing whatsoever to do with a denomination claiming that it itself individually and uniquely FOLLOWS infallibly.



But it just would be swell if we could discuss the opening post. This thread is not about how egotistical and individualistic and power-centered denominations might be (although that IS a shocking and deeply disturbing subject for another day and thread)....



Thank you!


Blessings


- Josiah

That wasn't really true for 1500 years. Denominations, I have to agree, can be egotistical, individualistic, and power-centered. But Catholicism, being not-a-denomination, isn't any of those things. Christ-centered, for certain!

 

[Root of Jesse]

yet the RC Denomination is in division with all.... with a unity of NONE.... in theological unity with NONE (even if we just limited the comparison to what it itself uniquely and currently regards as DE FIDE DOGMA - dogma of THE most importance and highest standing possible - even then, a unity of none, division with all).


The opening post has nothing to do with denominations (like the RCC) that are in disunity and have theological unity with none (even if its unique dogmas ARE supported in the way indicated by the opening post).






You have yet to quote where Jesus gave ANYTHING to the singular, unique, specific, INDIVIDUAL RC Denomination, so I see your point as irrelevant and baseless.

LEADING inerrantly has nothing whatsoever to do with a denomination claiming that it itself individually and uniquely FOLLOWS infallibly.



But it just would be swell if we could discuss the opening post. This thread is not about how egotistical and individualistic and power-centered denominations might be (although that IS a shocking and deeply disturbing subject for another day and thread)....



Thank you!


Blessings


- Josiah

Actually, I, and we, have. You just disagree. But that's your prerogative.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually, I, and we, have. You just disagree. But that's your prerogative.

I disagree. You have presented nothing to show that if God promises to inerrantly lead, ERGO - as the mandate - ONE must be an infallible follower.

No, the reality is, you have not quoted Jesus or any Apostle or any Scripture even mentioning the RCC. I think that's reality - not my "disagreement.'

No, you have not shown that the individual RC Denomination is in unity with all..... or anything other than itself alone, in disunity with all others.


Now, it would be just delightful if we could - at last - get to the opening post????

 

[Souldier]

To the bolded above, no, that's not what we believe. There is no new doctrine, by the way. Any Catholic doctrine has been believed from the beginning. It's possible that it has been developed, but there's nothing new.

Ok, perhaps you believe that whatever the Pope writes is infallible? If i misunderstand then please forgive me. If however that is what you believe then if he teaches something fallible then wouldn't it also be something new?

 

[Souldier]

But Jesus didn't preach anything about division. There is only one Truth. We trust that Jesus gave us an authority to help us, and that that authority (which issued from Jesus' very lips from the Cross) will lead the Church inerrantly. That authority is the Holy Spirit. Jesus told his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them...and that's where the Catholic Church is from.

The holy spirit guides us all but we are not qualified to establish the boundaries of sound doctrine. That task was given only to the apostles who established the Church in the 1st century. The Pope isn't one of those apostles, and he is just as fallible as you and me.

 

[Souldier]

That wasn't really true for 1500 years. Denominations, I have to agree, can be egotistical, individualistic, and power-centered. But Catholicism, being not-a-denomination, isn't any of those things. Christ-centered, for certain!

Catholicism is not what Paul and Peter, James and John gave to us. Catholicism is a fallible interpretation of what those apostles gave us. It is not unlike a denomination in that way. Catholicism is not pure in doctrine, it has many errors in it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Catholicism is not what Paul and Peter, James and John gave to us. Catholicism is a fallible interpretation of what those apostles gave us. It is not unlike a denomination in that way. Catholicism is not pure in doctrine, it has many errors in it.

No more than an oak tree and an acorn are the same.
Your version of Catholicism, and frankly, mine, are indeed fallible interpretations of what Catholicism is. But Jesus gave us a Church; nothing Jesus ever did was errant in any way, and what proceeded from Him is not errant either. The Church proceeded from Christ, and therefore is perfect.

You say there's errors, but we've gone down that road many, many times. If we see errors in the Church, the errors are in us, nowhere else. What is impure is ourselves. The Holy Spirit, which guides the Catholic Church, is completely without error.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholicism is not what Paul and Peter, James and John gave to us. .

True.

In fact Paul said that apostasy would come in after his departure.

28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

Thank God for the Protestant Reformation.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok, perhaps you believe that whatever the Pope writes is infallible? If i misunderstand then please forgive me. If however that is what you believe then if he teaches something fallible then wouldn't it also be something new?

That's a tricky point - because in 1774 Pope Clement XIV declared "By all the fullness of Apostolic Power" that the Jesuit order was forever abolished.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe when he says "what scripture?" he's referring to things that Catholicism has added to Christianity that protestants do not follow. Dont Catholics believe that things written by the Pope are "new" scriptures that get added as the Pope exercises his apostolic authority which can establish new doctrine? If so then there is much disagreement on scripture as well, according to the definition of scripture. Perhaps i misunderstand what Catholicism teaches about the Pope's authority to write new holy scripture. Im not sure.

No I don't think they do that.

The only addition they want to the 66 books of the Bible - is to add the Apocrypha.

though I think they would claim that some messages from the Pope - do come from God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

No, he said some form. Could be the elements are there, just as I said. Could be examples of dogmas are present, such as Elijah being assumed into heaven bodily.

There are many examples in the Bible of dogma -

An easy one is in the 4th Commandment the creation doctrine - is given in Ex 20:11 explicitly in legal code. beyond all doubt.

The doctrine on the resurrection in !Cor 15:1-8 and in Matt 28:1-8

 

[fhansen]

I think that when we seek truth at all costs then we will be faced with the challenge of questioning our own beliefs and our own church leaders too. Truth is what matters above all else. Value that and you find freedom, in my opinion.

Yes, church teachings-or the opinion of anyone else for that matter- intend to offer the guideline; they're ultimately valuable only to the extent that we come to agree with them.

 

[fhansen]

Ok, perhaps you believe that whatever the Pope writes is infallible? If i misunderstand then please forgive me. If however that is what you believe then if he teaches something fallible then wouldn't it also be something new?

Infallibility is considered to be a gift to the church. The church is just being honest when it states that it understands and proclaims the gospel correctly-something anyone would or should believe about themselves if they're going to bother believing in, much less proclaiming, a story as otherwise far-fetched as the Christian gospel.