Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[Souldier]

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.

Exactly, the errors are in us. They are in the Pope, his bishops and even protestants as well. Its also in their doctrine, in their writings, in the dogmas that they hold.

 

[Souldier]

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.

Yes he did say that.

 

[Souldier]

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

I dont quite understand what you mean Bob.

 

[Souldier]

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

If there are dogmas that are not found in the bible, then those dogmas are written down somewhere and are considered holy. Correct? So if they have holy writings which teach dogmas then isnt that considered scripture to them? I'm starting to think that this debate often dodges answers by shifting definitions around like pieces on a chess board.

 

[Souldier]

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.

I think that gift of infallibility was given only to those who started the church, people such as Peter, John and Paul. I think after them we have nothing but fallible men who struggle to understand the words we were given in the beginning. I dont think that RCC is infallible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think that gift of infallibility was given only to those who started the church, people such as Peter, John and Paul. I think after them we have nothing but fallible men who struggle to understand the words we were given in the beginning. I dont think that RCC is infallible.

Where does it say that???

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where does it say that???

Our friend stated it as opinion, you've been stating things as dogmatic fact.

My own OPINION is that only God is inerrant. I extend that to Scripture ONLY because I BELEIVE (like Catholics) that Scripture is God's words. But I do NOT extend that to any among us (person, denomination, sect, cult or religion) that itself claims such for self uniquely and individually. I'd likely have followed Jim Jones if I did.

And... more to the point.... I disagree with your fundamental point that GOD inerrantly leading ergo mandates that one denomination among us therefore infallibily follows. You have confused two ENTIRELY different things and twisted (horribly and illogically) the promise of Jesus (or perhaps are repeating the claim of one who does). Same for your inistance that since the Holy Spirit promised to teach (and I agree, that would be inerrantly) ERGO there is one among us (a denomination, sect, cult, church, religion) that is The Infallible Student. I think you are making a completely illogical and unbiblical statement (or parroting one who does).


But I am (perhaps vainly) hoping that maybe.... someday..... the opening post will get discussed.



- Josiah

 

[Souldier]

Where does it say that???

Paul warns us against a great apostasy in the last days, so that indicates that the Church will not always teach sound doctrine. RCC is claiming to be the Church so its quite possible that they have fallen into apostasy. John gives us direction however, he says we need no teacher if we follow that which was taught to us in the beginning. Where does the bible say that the Pope is peters successor? It doesnt say that. It instead says that we need no Pope and that what we need are what the apostles teach us in the bible, in the beginning, not in the last days. Paul likewise teaches us to follow his teaching.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Our friend stated it as opinion, you've been stating things as dogmatic fact.

My own OPINION is that only God is inerrant. I extend that to Scripture ONLY because I BELEIVE (like Catholics) that Scripture is God's words. But I do NOT extend that to any among us (person, denomination, sect, cult or religion) that itself claims such for self uniquely and individually. I'd likely have followed Jim Jones if I did.

And... more to the point.... I disagree with your fundamental point that GOD inerrantly leading ergo mandates that one denomination among us therefore infallibily follows. You have confused two ENTIRELY different things and twisted (horribly and illogically) the promise of Jesus (or perhaps are repeating the claim of one who does). Same for your inistance that since the Holy Spirit promised to teach (and I agree, that would be inerrantly) ERGO there is one among us (a denomination, sect, cult, church, religion) that is The Infallible Student. I think you are making a completely illogical and unbiblical statement (or parroting one who does).


But I am (perhaps vainly) hoping that maybe.... someday..... the opening post will get discussed.



- Josiah

That's been answered a long time ago, Josiah.
Now I see your mistake. You confuse what men do and what God does in the Church. We believe that, just as God chose Mattias to replace Judas, God leads those he ordains (which are through Apostolic Succession) to do the right thing inerrantly in matters of faith and morals. Those same men can make errors in judgment regarding other things, but that's not what's important, at all.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Paul warns us against a great apostasy in the last days, so that indicates that the Church will not always teach sound doctrine. RCC is claiming to be the Church so its quite possible that they have fallen into apostasy. John gives us direction however, he says we need no teacher if we follow that which was taught to us in the beginning. Where does the bible say that the Pope is peters successor? It doesnt say that. It instead says that we need no Pope and that what we need are what the apostles teach us in the bible, in the beginning, not in the last days. Paul likewise teaches us to follow his teaching.

That's not what Paul was talking about. It's funny that you believe that something that Jesus instituted could possibly fail.
Paul also teaches us to follow the traditions he taught. He was speaking to the one he laid hands on, Timothy. That shows apostolic succession, and it also shows inerrancy in what those ordained by God teach in matters of faith and morals.
It is true that there are bishops who have strayed down through the ages. The bishops must have a moral direction, which comes from the greatest among equals, the Pope.
So Scripture shows us the handing on of the faith from one generation to the next, and we know that teaching is inerrant. So just as Timothy followed Paul, as did Titus, we know that Peter had successors as well.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You confuse what men do and what God does in the Church.

With all due respect, I think the RCC confuses what it does/says/claims with God. That's a POSITION that some Catholics probably disagree with, and we aren't likely to resolve that. And it's wholly unrelated to this thread (and thus probably hijacking and a rule violation) so let's leave it at that.

We believe that, just as God chose Mattias to replace Judas, God leads those he ordains (which are through Apostolic Succession) to do the right thing inerrantly in matters of faith and morals. Those same men can make errors in judgment regarding other things, but that's not what's important, at all.

God never said ANY man or ANY denomination is "the infallible follower" or "the infallible student." Or "is exempt from truthfulness, responsbility and accountability." Or "just docilicly swallow whatever it itself uniquely says cuz it itself now does." Or "if a church, denomination, sect, cult, religion or self-described prophet claims he is THE infallible follower and student of God - ergo such a one must exclusively be."

Now.... your point about COLLECTIVITY is one I fell passionately about - it's one of the reasons I left your denomination; it absolutely rejects that with its insistence on it itself exclusively. But again, we are WAY, WAY off topic .... You seem to be more closing addressing issues of a different thread.





- Josiah

 

[Souldier]

That's been answered a long time ago, Josiah.
Now I see your mistake. You confuse what men do and what God does in the Church. We believe that, just as God chose Mattias to replace Judas, God leads those he ordains (which are through Apostolic Succession) to do the right thing inerrantly in matters of faith and morals. Those same men can make errors in judgment regarding other things, but that's not what's important, at all.

The RCC itself proves that their teaching on succession is not truth. They do in fact have things that they teach by this RCC authority which are not sound in doctrine. So that proves that they are not successors of the apostles. If you would empty yourself of all that you have been taught by RC and search the scriptures with an open mind you will see things clearly. Why do you think that protestants dont follow RC? Perhaps its possible that they have good reason?

Why did John say that we need no teacher? Why did paul teach us to folow him? Are the words of John and paul not enough to guide us? Why do we need a Pope?

 

[Souldier]

Im of the opinion that none of this is complicated. Its more simple than we think. Just pray, follow the words of Christ and his apostles to the best of your ability and leave everything else in Gods hands. Just walk by faith, not sight. Search for truth within yourself and fight that good fight of faith.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Im of the opinion that none of this is complicated. Its more simple than we think. Just pray, follow the words of Christ and his apostles to the best of your ability and leave everything else in Gods hands. Just walk by faith, not sight. Search for truth within yourself and fight that good fight of faith.

THAT does not give abounded, unmitigated, unaccountable POWER to any singular, individual church, denomination, sect, cult or "prophet" among us.... no basis to lord it over others as the Gentiles do..... no basis to insist that all OTHERS are immediately and fully accountable just not self..... no basis to insist that when self speaks God Himself must agree..... What YOU suggest..... means humility. For some, all is a passionate effort toward the opposite (for self). IMO.


Now, to the issue of the thread....



- Josiah

 

[Souldier]

THAT does not give abounded, unmitigated, unaccountable POWER to any singular, individual church, denomination, sect, cult or "prophet" among us.... no basis to lord it over others as the Gentiles do..... no basis to insist that all OTHERS are immediately and fully accountable just not self..... no basis to insist that when self speaks God Himself must agree..... What YOU suggest..... means humility. For some, all is a passionate effort toward the opposite (for self). IMO.


Now, to the issue of the thread....



- Josiah

What is the issue?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What is the issue?

LOL.... yeah the opening post has been pretty ignored..... oh, well. I've tried many times before and had the same result - ignoring. Happens.

 

[Souldier]

LOL.... yeah the opening post has been pretty ignored..... oh, well. I've tried many times before and had the same result - ignoring. Happens.

Maybe things will turn around.

 

[concretecamper]

The RCC itself proves that their teaching on succession is not truth. They do in fact have things that they teach by this RCC authority which are not sound in doctrine. So that proves that they are not successors of the apostles. If you would empty yourself of all that you have been taught by RC and search the scriptures with an open mind you will see things clearly. Why do you think that protestants dont follow RC? Perhaps its possible that they have good reason?

Why did John say that we need no teacher? Why did paul teach us to folow him? Are the words of John and paul not enough to guide us? Why do we need a Pope?

who do you believe chose Mattis to replace Judas....man or God?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

who do you believe chose Mattis to replace Judas....man or God?

It's interesting.... because there is some HINT that JUDAS (only he) would be replaced. But actually, God never told the Apostles to replace him (at least that God chose to tell us in His Scripture).... it seems the apostles just assumed that.

In any case, interesting there's no biblical evidence they EVER did it again. James, Paul, Peter - they all died withing the time recorded in NT books. And as far as God chose to tell us - NEVER was there a repeat of what they Apostles choose to do with Judas.... Not sure what to make of that, just seems curious - and perhaps important.

But in any case, there's NOTHING that says all of the 12 or 13 Apostles were INERRANT or INFALLIBLE or UNACCOUNTABLE or EXEMPT from truthfulness. And there is NOTHING that indicates that if they were, they could re-gift this to whomever they choose. And of course, Judas didn't chose Matthias.... and there is NOTHING in Scripture that says at Paul or Peter chose any successor to themselves and re-gifted any infallibility, inerrancy, absolute POWER to anyone. Much less to one specific, individual denomination.


But it would be just swell is there was some attempt to discuss the issue of this thread....


Thanks!


- Josiah

 

[Souldier]

who do you believe chose Mattis to replace Judas....man or God?

If the apostles endured beatings and stonings, why then doesn't the pope endure such things? HE is protected by bullet proof glass and body guards. Im not saying its wrong for him to stay behind the safety of bullet proof glass, im just questioning his role as Peters successor.