What is dogma?

[Marymog]

Mama Mia, yes it was. I said after the first century, apostolic authority ended. Therefore, since Revelation was written within the 1st century (90 ad), it has apostolic authority.

Oh....I see! Makes sense now...

 

[Marymog]

Yes, you are correct, but they are one and the same. The 1st century Apostles spread the Word orally, but simultaneously, it was being written down. So yes, chronologically, one did not necessarily precede the other in its entirety, but both occurred during the same period, up until the end of the 1st century. One does not contradict the other. But, what proceeded after the death of the Apostles and the writing of the Book of Revelation (last letter written), I don't believe has apostolic authority. It becomes much too subjective, unregulated, and conflicting/chaotic at this point.

Hi DNB,

I think I understand what you are saying. The 27 books recognized by The Church are the only historical Christian writings that we as Christians should rely on for our Christian traditions?

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

Not to give infallibility to his adherents, nor to offer new doctrines and dogma. But, to support, enlighten and edify his elect, with understanding of the pre-established God-ordained, Christian dogma, that ended after the 1st century.

Hi DNB,

Wouldn't the 500 year teaching that one does not need to be baptized or baptism doesn't save anyone be considered a "new doctrine and dogma"?

Curious Mary

 

[DaChaser]

Got it....You rely on you!

Nope, on Him!

 

[DaChaser]

Hi DNB,

Wouldn't the 500 year teaching that one does not need to be baptized or baptism doesn't save anyone be considered a "new doctrine and dogma"?

Curious Mary

No, as the church of acts knew water baptism itself did not save!

 

[Marymog]

Nope, on Him!

Ummmmm.......Do you interpret His words or do you rely on someone else?

 

[Marymog]

No, as the church of acts knew water baptism itself did not save!

Seven words from Scripture destroy YOUR interpretation of Scripture......"even baptism doth also now save us" (KJV)!

 

[theefaith]

Not to give infallibility to his adherents, nor to offer new doctrines and dogma. But, to support, enlighten and edify his elect, with understanding of the pre-established God-ordained, Christian dogma, that ended after the 1st century.

Not new doctrine Jude 1:3 thee faith revealed by Christ must still be taught disciples must still be baptized

 

[DNB]

Thank you DNB.


Soooo where does Scripture tell us to STOP holding fast to oral traditions and tell us to hold fast only to the words the Apostles wrote? I can't find it.

No where specifically, you are correct.
But, like I said, there comes a point where the Gospel must be established, which it was before time began. Therefore, The Apostles knew it thoroughly, and we don't consider that Jesus or God held back anything from them. As Paul said, 'I was not taught it by man, but by Jesus Christ'.
Who else can make that same claim today, and justify the delay in new revelation?
Like I said - It becomes much too subjective, unregulated, and conflicting/chaotic at this point, if man claims to have received anything new from God, that is equivalent to dogma. For example, Mary's assumption into heaven, and Theotokos, came about during the 6th and 18th centuries, respectively. And papal infallibility centuries after Christ. What are we to make of these 'new' and procrastinated revelations? It the pope is the vicar of Christ, why did God wait so long to enlighten the Church?
Such additions to Christian dogma is nothing but spurious and unjustifiable.

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

I think I understand what you are saying. The 27 books recognized by The Church are the only historical Christian writings that we as Christians should rely on for our Christian traditions?

Respectfully, Mary

Yes, we've been given the official document, there is no justifiable grounds to alter, add, or subtract from it.

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

Wouldn't the 500 year teaching that one does not need to be baptized or baptism doesn't save anyone be considered a "new doctrine and dogma"?

Curious Mary

THere are many doctrines that have been established by many denominations, that are in question of their veracity. All I'm saying is that it is solely the Bible where we go to determine the truth. Despite disagreements, we don't allow extra-Biblical works, or man's tradition to discern Christian orthodoxy.

 

[DNB]

Not new doctrine Jude 1:3 thee faith revealed by Christ must still be taught disciples must still be baptized

There will always be controversy, that's not the point. No new revelations since John's Book of Revelation.

 

[theefaith]

There will always be controversy, that's not the point. No new revelations since John's Book of Revelation.

I know but there are still apostles teaching the nations baptizing the disciples and governing the church

 

[DNB]

I know but there are still apostles teaching the nations baptizing the disciples and governing the church

According to what was already revealed. Papal Bulls are not stating this, they are declaring new doctrine and Dogma.

 

[Stumpmaster]

Seven words from Scripture destroy YOUR interpretation of Scripture......"even baptism doth also now save us" (KJV)!

Surely Marymog, you don't believe that salvation is obtainable by just the act of being immersed in water [as per Gr. baptizo, see below]

Quote from Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible with reference to 1 Peter 3:21
Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh - Not a mere external washing, however solemnly done. No outward ablution or purifying saves us, but that which pertains to the conscience. This important clause is thrown in to guard the statement from the abuse to which it would otherwise be liable, the supposition that baptism has of itself a purifying and saving power. To guard against this, the apostle expressly declares that he means much more than a mere outward application of water.

Strong's G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
bap-tid'-zo
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.
Total KJV occurrences: 80

 

[Marymog]

Surely Marymog, you don't believe that salvation is obtainable by just the act of being immersed in water [as per Gr. baptizo, see below]

Quote from Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible with reference to 1 Peter 3:21
Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh - Not a mere external washing, however solemnly done. No outward ablution or purifying saves us, but that which pertains to the conscience. This important clause is thrown in to guard the statement from the abuse to which it would otherwise be liable, the supposition that baptism has of itself a purifying and saving power. To guard against this, the apostle expressly declares that he means much more than a mere outward application of water.

Strong's G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
bap-tid'-zo
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.
Total KJV occurrences: 80

Hi Stumpmaster,

No, I do not believe that baptism is the only thing a person must do to obtain salvation.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

No where specifically, you are correct.
But, like I said, there comes a point where the Gospel must be established, which it was before time began. Therefore, The Apostles knew it thoroughly, and we don't consider that Jesus or God held back anything from them. As Paul said, 'I was not taught it by man, but by Jesus Christ'.
Who else can make that same claim today, and justify the delay in new revelation?
Like I said - It becomes much too subjective, unregulated, and conflicting/chaotic at this point, if man claims to have received anything new from God, that is equivalent to dogma. For example, Mary's assumption into heaven, and Theotokos, came about during the 6th and 18th centuries, respectively. And papal infallibility centuries after Christ. What are we to make of these 'new' and procrastinated revelations? It the pope is the vicar of Christ, why did God wait so long to enlighten the Church?
Such additions to Christian dogma is nothing but spurious and unjustifiable.

Hi DNB,

Since no where specifically does Scripture say that we are to stop holding fast to the traditions we were taught by word of mouth then I will hold fast to the traditions we are taught.

The word of mouth traditional teaching that Mary was assumed should not be disregarded since is it a tradition that is taught.

Mary

 

[DaChaser]

Ummmmm.......Do you interpret His words or do you rely on someone else?

The Holy Spirit instructs the saved, and also thru the teachings of pastors and teachers, and biible reference works!

 

[DaChaser]

Seven words from Scripture destroy YOUR interpretation of Scripture......"even baptism doth also now save us" (KJV)!

its the person baptized into that saves us, as if one does not receive Jesus as lord thru faith, then the water just gets you all wet!

 

[theefaith]

According to what was already revealed. Papal Bulls are not stating this, they are declaring new doctrine and Dogma.

Jude 1:3 eph 4:5

Pius XII defines the assumption in 1950 is this new doctrine or dogma no it’s thee faith revealed by Christ to His apostles it was defined or decreed in 1950 not made a new doctrine the assumption has been celebrated as an annual feast for over 1500 years and is nothing new