Developing Dogmas and Doctrines

[simspt]

** Timothy 3**
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works

blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1822&t=KJV

throughly furnished 1822

1. to complete, finish

a) to furnish perfectly

b) to finish, accomplish, (as it were, to render the days complete)

I dont fully understand why this verse is given to support sola scriptura advocates especially if you look at the word used for inspiration.
For example with the Council of Ephesus 431 you have in the Synodical Epistle (Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, p 70, line 11) that describes the council’s condemnation of Nestorius as “their inspired (theopneustos) decision”. Again Cyprian of Carthage explains his writing his treatise as “instructed by the aid of divine inspiration.”(ANF 5:496) Even tomb inscriptions were considered inspired for example Life of Abercius (author unknown) the epitaph Abercius (late 2nd century) bishop of Hierapolis composed for himself an inspired (theopneuston) inscription. Another example would be Gregory of Nyssa in Apologia in Hexaemeron refering to Basil’s commentary on the first six days of creation as an “inspired (theopneuston) exposition,…(admired) no less than the words composed by Moses himself.” We have the term (theopneustos) we find in 2 Timothy 3:16 not being the unique designation for only the canonical writings but also being used in a commentary, a synodical letter and even an inscription on a tomb.

 

[guanophore]

I dont fully understand why this verse is given to support sola scriptura advocates especially if you look at the word used for inspiration.
For example with the Council of Ephesus 431 you have in the Synodical Epistle (Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, p 70, line 11) that describes the council’s condemnation of Nestorius as “their inspired (theopneustos) decision”. Again Cyprian of Carthage explains his writing his treatise as “instructed by the aid of divine inspiration.”(ANF 5:496) Even tomb inscriptions were considered inspired for example Life of Abercius (author unknown) the epitaph Abercius (late 2nd century) bishop of Hierapolis composed for himself an inspired (theopneuston) inscription. Another example would be Gregory of Nyssa in Apologia in Hexaemeron refering to Basil’s commentary on the first six days of creation as an “inspired (theopneuston) exposition,…(admired) no less than the words composed by Moses himself.” We have the term (theopneustos) we find in 2 Timothy 3:16 not being the unique designation for only the canonical writings but also being used in a commentary, a synodical letter and even an inscription on a tomb.

And there is amnesia about the fact that the Church is also theopneustos. God (in Christ) “breathed upon them” (the Church) and said “receive the Holy Spirit…” The only other time God breathed the “breath of life” into man was at creation.

Yes, the Scriptures are God breathed, as is the Church, and those other God breathed acts that are not confined only to Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Look again-

*throughly furnished g1822 ἐξαρτίζω exartizō *

1. to complete, finish
   a) to furnish perfectly
   b) to finish, accomplish, (as it were, to render the days complete)

Quoting from a dictionary to prove God’s revelation is not, um…, convincing.

 

[schaick]

…

God created humans with an eternal soul. Many of those souls reject the aid of God. Yes, they live eternally without the aid of God. Mary is not one of them.

Such a statement reflects a deficient doctrine of the nature of man. Mankind was not created with sin. God did not make us for sin, and came so that our humanity could be transformed again to remove us from sin,and sin from us. Sin is not part of the human creation. There is nothing inherintly sinful about being human. Humans were not created, by nature, to fall short of the perfection of sinlessness.

Yes, but the potential of sin existed when Adam and Eve were created. Yet, they were created without sin, or the tendency to sin. The potential existed in their being made in the image and likeness of God (with freedom).

We don’t have a record of his sin. When one is “full of grace”, there is no room for sin.
Mary was full of grace since conception. We gather than Stephen was at least full of grace at his martrydom, and perhaps before.

This does not equate to having a sin nature, or to committing sin. Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature also, yet had the potential of sinning. The angels were created without a sin nature, yet had the potential of sinning. the potential exists in the freedom of will, not the innate tendency to sin.

…

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is about Jesus’ nature.

Yes I understand the original sin concept.

Why would Paul say -

All have sinned and fall short if it didn’t include Mary - it means all. LOL! Someone earlier asked if that meant Jesus too? Guess they didn’t know the whole context verse.

22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Funny! I had to explain to my Catholic nephews that Immaculate Conception was about Mary’s conception. They could not believe it. Only if you say it was Jesus that was immaculately conceived.

You do not need it to understand Jesus’ nature.

 

[schaick]

This is an irrelevant premise, from a Catholic point of view. Sacred Tradition, which preserves these doctrines infallible in the Church, does not make a distinction between which parts of the Word of God existed orally, or in writing. It has more to do with how the Scriptures are understood. For example, according to the Gospel, the OT prophesies are understood to apply to Jesus, and His Holy Bride, the Church.

One could say that all these prophesies about the Christ are “first laid out in the bible”. However, clearly the Jews did not understand those scriptures this way. They understood the Messiah as a temporal ruler who would crush the oppressive Romans.

Yes. It would be that humans do not have the liberty to determine for themselves what is essential for our salvation. This is God’s perogative, since we are His creation, and He is the author and finisher of our salvation.

From a Catholic point of view, these were first in the Bible. But Catholics have never constricted the Word of God to the Scripture.

Perhaps it seems this way to you because you are not familiar with the heresies over which they were developed?

Perhaps when you study the history of the faith, it will become clear that all the doctrines about Mary are corollaries to what is true about Christ. He is true God, and true Man. It follows from that.

I think you have read all these in your Bible. Do you think there is something lacking in your faith?

Of course it is GOD that lays out tghe requirements and HE did in HIS Word.

I know that there were many heresies-even a group that worshipped Mary -

*Collyridians, a small fourth-century sect in Arabia, mainly composed of women, who evidently worshipped the Blessed Virgin, offering cakes to her during a religious ceremony. They claim this is an early example of former pagans worshipping Mary as a “goddess.” *

Friend that is exactly the point - Mary Dogmas are not in Scripture - the nature of GOD Jesus and Holy Sprit is.

There is no evidence that the Apostles, Paul or the Disciples thought/talked about Mary in the way the Dogmas do or that belief in them are required for our salvation.

You are saying GOD left a requirement out of HIS Gospel message? Only to be developed hundreds of years later?

 

[schaick]

Schaick,

It is true that you do not need to accept the dogma of Mary - if you are Catholic. But you should.

The only way people can begin to understand any Marian dogma is to first understand Catholic mysticism. And St. Catherine of Siena’s Dialogues is a good place to start.

The Dialogues are not something you just literally read. The first book is just so many pages long. But each sentence, each phrase caused me deep reflection and thought on the spiritual walk to be in union with Christ. That walk with Jesus was and always has been my focus in life, and it is the case with other Catholics. Mysticism is not literalism. And mysticism comes from Christ Himself…it is transcendent, universal and unifying.

Jesus called us to communion. The Church is essentially communion. He has called us to be one…His constant prayer here on earth. Christianity is failing our country because we have so many disputes and divisions within the Body of Christ. So it is not something I take lightly or shrug off.

United we stand, and divided we fall, and we could … into an abyss of atheism and further degradation of human life…our grandchildren could be living in a matrix for all we know. Christ said when He returns, will there be any faith left. So divisions of the Word – Who is Christ Himself, and through the Word – Christ, God the Father created the carnate universe…should be approached to bring us to further communion with the Father and with each other. And constant disputes and challenges…can be debilitating and even deceptive…because we are losing out in living our faith in the world each day.

After much reflection and study, I was able to a certain degree to explain the spiritual walk to my third order formation group. But I wasn’t able to do that until several years later. When you begin to understand the spiritual walk in perfection…you will see the essence of Christ and being in Christ…It is mystical. And the walk is the same for every person. So much involves the purgation of our soul from sin, and repeatedly asking our Lord for grace to love Him more.

After all, the kingdom of Christ is the Pearl of Great Price…and it costs us giving up our entire life for Christ to take root in us, and to bear much fruit for Him. Once you understand this process…it will come in God’s time…you will then begin to see and reflect on Mary’s walk,her sinlessness, and how she followed our Lord perfectly.

There are many Catholics who simply believe in the Church teachings out of respectful acceptance but do not understand. Mary’s perfection is the same we will share once we are in heaven with the Lord. So to believe in the dogma of Mary is to believe what is in store for us.

What is the essence of Mary – her perfection in Christ – will be ours for those who endure in the Lord to the end. She is a reflection of us and what is promised us. She represents us and the Church and where we are going as Church.

Thank you for answering. Finally what I have been looking for-
It is true that you do not need to accept the dogma of Mary - if you are Catholic.

I consider communion of saints with Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, all in the universal Church. Do Catholics?

 

[PRmerger]

It seems that you are not distinguishing between Sacred Tradition (the Word of God) and human tradition (the book bag story).

Actually, my “book bag story” was a metaphor for how doctrine develops, through Sacred Traadition.

While it is true,* in real life*, that it is a “human tradition” that my children are required to hang up their book bags…

However, the METAPHOR for the Church applies in this way: there are no new dogmas/doctrines. All teachings have existed from the Beginning…BUT! The dogmas/doctrines develop.

Example of how this occurs: my book bag story. There was no new teaching when, 3 years later, DH and I announced: all backpacks need to be hung up. It was the constant teaching of the household, from the beginning to put all school supplies away. But when the use of backpacks came about, we had to refine the constant teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

All have sinned and fall short if it didn’t include Mary - it means all. LOL! Someone earlier asked if that meant Jesus too? Guess they didn’t know the whole context verse.

22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

You don’t find it illogical that you’re saying this: “ALL” means “LITERALLY ALL”, but also “NOT LITERALLY ALL, 'cause, of course, there’s the exception of Jesus, so NOT LITERALLY all, but, yes LITERALLY ALL”. :whacky: :whacky: :whacky:

Funny! I had to explain to my Catholic nephews that Immaculate Conception was about Mary’s conception. They could not believe it. Only if you say it was Jesus that was immaculately conceived.

Yes, many Catholics are poorly catechized.

I love that you’re here on the CAFs and can tell the average clueless Joe-Catholic-in-the-Pews, “No, Sir, your Church does not believe that. It believes ______ and you should be ashamed that I, a non-Catholic, know more about your faith than you do!”

You do not need it to understand Jesus’ nature.

Without it, heresies were promulgated.

 

[schaick]

Surely the two are interwtined?

If it is important for some reason that you believe this, after all these examples to the contrary have been given to you, then I will commend you to your perceptions. Perhaps this false premise is an integral part of your rejection of the authority of the Church Christ founded.

There is no “gap” in the Word of God.

When I read this, it seems clear that the false premise you cling to is, indeed, an integral element in the Sola Scriptura doctrine.

Certainly if you refuse to accept the evidence that exists, there will be “no evidence” in your mind. I suppose you think that all the Reformers, who accepted these Apostolic truths, did so on “no evidence”?

It seems that you are not distinguishing between Sacred Tradition (the Word of God) and human tradition (the book bag story).

Also, dogmas (developed doctrines) come out of the Word of God, not human traditions.
The Church is forbidden to add to the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith. This is one of the reasons we cannot “add” modern innovations such as Sola Scriptura.

Or maybe it is the other way around? Maybe the authority of the Church revolved around the Word of God that is present in the Church.

I find it interesting that you, 1500 years after the fact, find yourself in a position to determine what was necessary for the Church to combat the early heresies.

Yes. But, remember the Psalmist? “In sin did my mother conceive me”.

“jewishness” being from the mother was because this was the only certain way to know where the baby came from. There was no way to “prove” who the father was. But, when the baby comes out of the mother’s body, clearly parenthood was established.

Of course this is true, not just because it is a Catholic statement, but because the Word of God cannot contradict itself. That is why there are no contradictions between the Scritures and the Sacred Traditions - they are equally the Word of God.

For the record, facts cannot be infallible. Falliblity requries the ability to act (and thus, err). Facts do not act.

You cannot accept the evidence that exists, schaick. That does not nullify the evidence for anyone but yourself.

You are using another false premise here, that something is not valid because “it developed hundreds of years later”. Yet, at the beginning of this post, you stated that you embrace many Sacred Tradittions that developed centuries later, such as the Creed, the NT canon of Scripture, the hypotsatic union, the Trinity. The amount of time that passes is irrelevant because the Word of God is outside of time.

And excommunication does not necessarily mean a person will not be saved, either.

Most modern Catholics excommunicate themselves and dont even realize it.

Are you saying that Mary is a stumbling block to you?

The Dogmas and Doctrines about Jesus yes they are intertwined.

According to many Catholics you have to be a member of the Catholic to be saved.

Oh no Mary is not a stumbling block for me. That Bible quote was directed at me- I must not be a stumbling block for those that can not have a personal relationship with Jesus without going through Mary.

What I question is saying it is needed to be believed for our salvation when it is not mentioned by Jesus, the Disciples, Apostles - Paul

 

[schaick]

Quoting from a dictionary to prove God’s revelation is not, um…, convincing.

lol!!

No ordinary dictionary but one showing the use of the word in Scripture and Greek.

 

[schaick]

You don’t find it illogical that you’re saying this: “ALL” means “LITERALLY ALL”, but also “NOT LITERALLY ALL, 'cause, of course, there’s the exception of Jesus, so NOT LITERALLY all, but, yes LITERALLY ALL”. :whacky: :whacky: :whacky:

Yes, many Catholics are poorly catechized.

I love that you’re here on the CAFs and can tell the average clueless Joe-Catholic-in-the-Pews, “No, Sir, your Church does not believe that. It believes ______ and you should be ashamed that I, a non-Catholic, know more about your faith than you do!”

Without it, heresies were promulgated.

Oh my Goodness. Can you not see how ridiculous that is? You have to take the verse out of context to come up with such a silly conclusion.

An excellant example of how heresies can develope

I’ll walk you through it just in case you ar not jesting:
Romans 3
22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Righteousness comes through GOD through Christ, redemption came by Jesus.

Tie that in with Jesus portrayed as the perfect Lamb in other Scripture verses and the perfect lambs sacrificed in the temple.

The Bible does not contradict itself and so we also have:
**1 Peter 2:22 **
22"He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth."

Actually I had my nephews check with their sister who taught RICA I think are the initials.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

What fullness is a Christian missing if their statement of faith is the Nicene Creed?

Just for starters, opposition to abortion, opposition to gay marriage, a feeling of responsibility to others(especially the less fortunate), zeal for evangelism, etc.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh my Goodness.

[SIGN1]Can you not see how ridiculous that is? You have to take the verse out of context to come up with such a silly conclusion.[/SIGN1]

Truer words were never spoken by a non-Catholic Christian than this!

In order to accept the multitude of NCC doctrines one must take verses out of context to come up with silly conclusions.

Examples:
-baptism is an ordinance
-the Lord’s day must be celebrated on the Sabbath
-the Eucharist is just a symbol
-Jesus is the archangel Michael
-when we die we enter into soul sleep
-the Rapture
-OSAS

However, back to the original point of my post:

Which is it, schaick: either

(A) it’s a LITERAL “ALL”, which means Jesus sinned.

Or

(B) it’s an “ALL” with exceptions.

You seem to have opted for choice (B), which means you can’t say “ALL” have sinned has to include Mary.

Logic dictates this, schaick.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[PRmerger]

You are saying GOD left a requirement out of HIS Gospel message?

Not at all, schaick. God has given us His Word. His Word produced two channels: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

IOW, we don’t believe that the Gospel is only in written form.

Only to be developed hundreds of years later?

Like the Trinity.

Like the hypostatic union.

Like the canon of Scripture.

All developed hundreds of years later.

(By Catholics.)

 

[PRmerger]

According to many Catholics you have to be a member of the Catholic to be saved.

That is not a teaching of the CC, no matter what “many Catholics” proclaim.

The teaching is this: Outside the Church there is no salvation.

What I question is saying it is needed to be believed for our salvation when it is not mentioned by Jesus, the Disciples, Apostles - Paul

Let’s eliminate this point of contention out of the discussion…

And just start here:
If God Himself appeared to you and said, “Schaick, there are 433 trees in your back yard. Under one of those trees is a treasure chest.”

You wouldn’t ask Him, “Lord, is this information necessary for my salvation?”

Instead, you would state, “Wow! God has revealed something! I believe it! It must be important!”

So, it’s really a pointless question to ask what revelation God has provided is essential to our salvation. God has spoken. It is His Truth. We consider it important.

 

[PRmerger]

lol!!

No ordinary dictionary but one showing the use of the word in Scripture and Greek.

Interesting.

An extra-biblical source to provide your doctrine?

 

[joe370]

Hey Schaick…

What new dogmas or doctrines have been developed about Jesus that was not laid out first in the Bible?

Schaick, wouldn’t you agree that all of the teachings found in the NT were new, and were taught orally prior to those new teachings being committed to writing?

A Sacred Tradition that was passed down through just the Catholic Church from the time of the Apostles, something that must be believe for our salvation.

A sacred tradition that was passed down through the CC from the time of the apostles, (that is not found in sacred scripture) - that must be believed for our salvation? I can’t think of one.

Example, developed Mary Dogmas - we know absolutely from the Bible that she was a virgin when she concieved Jesus. What developed later and not in the Bible is that she was concieved immaculately, remained forever a virgin and was assumed to heaven.

Then is this belief really required for our salvation?

I thought it was about Jesus? It was believed that Mary was sinless and remained a virgin long before the bible was codified in the 4th century, according to the ECF’s. The AOM was definitely developed doctrine that makes logical sense in light of Mary’s sinless state in life, just as the bible was developed over a long period of time.

We are not saved by Mary or the defined dogmas of Mary. We are saved by Jesus alone, as per the CC.

 

[ERose]

I think that the answer to your question is yes and no.

What do I mean by this? If you were never taught these truths then it will not be held against you on the final day. But if you are a member of the true Church and have been taught these truths and yet you reject them then you are a dissenter and a heretic and salvation is not found by that person.

Ignorance or the lack thereof is the key point of your question. In fact one can be saved without even knowing the name of Jesus or even hearing of God, if he or she has never been given the opportunity to learn about Jesus or his Father. The perfect examples are infants and severly mentally retarded people.

But the more you know and understand the more is required of you.

 

[joe370]

schaick;7116047]LOL!! I have studied Luke. No where in Scripture does it mention that Mary remained forever virgin or was immaculately concieved.

If it’s not in scripture it’s not to be believed - correct? The Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 AD (hundreds of years after Jesus and the apostles walked the earth) - that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human, and the CC defined it because many heretical sects (NESTORIANISM for example) - were attacking Mary’s title as mother of God, just as they do today. This is a perfect example of developed doctrine, don’t you think? Where is theotokos (God-bearer - the one who gives birth to God) - explicitly taught in the bible? Many in the past, as well as today, believe that Mary did not give birth to God, but the man Jesus only. I should see, somewhere in the bible, according to them, the words:

Mary mother of God. You helped me with the Trinity, so perhaps you could help me out here. Syllogistically we can conclude:

*Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus’ mother.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
*

But still, many Christians, including some of my family, believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus’ humanity or of the man Christ Jesus and claim that that is why they never read in the Bible that she is the mother of God, but only that she is Jesus’ mother or the mother of Jesus, as identified in Scripture. If, (like the IC, according to you) - nowhere in Scripture does scripture mention that Mary is the mother of God, then why do you believe it? My sister, for example, will simply tell you that Jesus existed long before Mary gave birth to Him, so therefore Mary only gave birth to His humanity.

 

[joe370]

I think that the answer to your question is yes and no.

What do I mean by this? If you were never taught these truths then it will not be held against you on the final day. But if you are a member of the true Church and have been taught these truths and yet you reject them then you are a dissenter and a heretic and salvation is not found by that person.

Ignorance or the lack thereof is the key point of your question. In fact one can be saved without even knowing the name of Jesus or even hearing of God, if he or she has never been given the opportunity to learn about Jesus or his Father. The perfect examples are infants and severly mentally retarded people.

But the more you know and understand the more is required of you.

ERose, I think that you are so right!!! I couldn’t agree more, and it is supported by scripture.