When you say that dogma exists to keep the right balance between the invisible and the visible world, how does one really know (objectively) what the right dogma is? Is that technically even possible outside of our own intuition of what the right balance is within ourselves as individuals (and to balance that out, for interpersonal cohesion, with others who believe similarly)? I don't believe that miracles as written are even supposed to be interpreted as literal, scientific events. But that does not mean my perspective of that balance isn't on the nose or close to it, as far as I can tell, for living out my own life in the best way possible. It seems it's like many other things in life: when you know, you know. No one else can know it for you. The issue is that I can't find any Christians who share this point of view and it's bothered me, since I feel sure that still believing in Christ's message (as I understand it) makes me at least some kind of Christian.
Thank you very much. Yes Councils and Dogmas arise as a reaction to heresy; and heresy (often) is just overemphasizing one thing. It's literally the joke about the kid who never talked his entire life until "this oatmeal is too salty". Why speak all of a sudden? Everything was fine until then.
The Trinity is not a paradox. If you say God is One of something and also Three of that same something then you have a problem. But if you say God is One of something, and Three of something else then you are logically consistent
@apyruite8493 if God was ineffable to that degree then you would not be "effing" about Him right now, you'd remain silent. But by your speaking up you are in a performative contradiction and as such you have added nil nor taken away nil. God cannot be described exhaustively, but that does not mean He cannot be described at all. In the beginning was the Logos, the Logic, and A is A even for God...by God's own Nature.
@@robertparris532 God reveals Himself through his energies. God's essence (you may call it substance/nature) is incomprehensible. Msr Pageau talks about this often. These dogmatic principles were formulated as divine truths established in the Ecumenical Councils. Christian Tradition is not a type of propositional logic or a philosophy.
This, although I can agree to its terms in the context, undermines the nuance of what people are attempting to communicate when they challenge the notion of dogma. What most people mean by "dogma" is an idea that is, by virtue of its own nature, unchallengeable. Dogmatic traditions develop in response to heresy, yes, i do agree with that, but it is also the nature of the dogmatic tradition to incorporate memes (better described as anti-memes) to wall itself from divergent thought prior to the development of heresy. Let's not beat around the bush of a history full of the imprisonment and excommunication of heretics in church-states or even burning any dissent at the stake. That is what people who challenge the idea of dogma mean when they say it's harmful. In respect to Pageau's explanation, Mcghilichrist certainly asserts a dogma against dogmas, but it is something that he has no problem challenging, a thought that can be played with in the context of a free relationship without overtly harmful suppression. This is where scientism can enter, in this allowance of this freedom of thought, and yes, we need to insert other dogmas to help protect against that, but at no point can we consider them unchallengeable. At no point can we consider coming together as a collective and shunning members of society for having those thoughts or barring them from a meanginful participation in society. In a secular world we still need to proceed with caution. Look at the flat earther debates as an example of how quickly respectable thought can devolve into a war of shame tactics. Antimemes can't not exist, but the colloquial discussion about dogma pertains to whether or not they should be intentionally collectively enforced.
You're being too naive. People nowadays lose their jobs, career, reputation and are cancelled, sometimes imprisoned, because of certain held views (abortion, transgenderism, etc).
@reinedire7872 sorry, we should definitely still worry about the latter, but there's a categorical difference between being shunned from society or imprisoned or killed and getting your account banned on a social media website. My statement was relative given the discrepancies.
@@matheusmotta1750 I agree, we should definitely still worry about it today. It's not as much of an issue where I'm from but it certainly could be and I am aware of what's happening in places like Canada and the UK. I'm not familiar with specifics regarding anyone's imprisonment, but I'll amend my original post to factor that in.
Ironically, the very act of responding to certain particulars and idiosyncrasies is itself a branching off into complexity. Clinging to these blanket statements pronounced in response to particular situations thousands of years ago and blindly applying them to current situations often leads to needless conflicts and misunderstandings. I’ve seen people get into arguments on things they completely agree about over these things, comparing certain ideas to various ancient ideologies. For example, people will blindly call others a gnostic for discussing ideas that are actually present in the scriptures (weakness of the flesh, temporality of the physical world, etc.) Dogmas are a recreation of the Law (branching into complexity, creation), when we have been given the fullness of faith in Christ (returning to simplicity, de-creation). Of course, it should be said that Protestantism failed in returning to simplicity (faith alone) because of their lack of understanding, but the church is also to blame for this. Protestantism leapt into the chaos and destroyed all structure in attempt to return to simplicity because they were tired of the endless dogmas and traditions which no longer held their meaning. This is related to going out into the wilderness before you are baptized, or reaching out and taking the cup for yourself vs. receiving the cup from the Father.
As far as I understand it, dogmas are the signposts that guide you to the true Christ in whom you have the fullness of faith. The purpose of Law is to reveal sin. Christ didn't abolish the Law because sin persists. Because sin persists, dogma is necessary to shield from deception, precisely in order to preserve the fullness of faith in Christ. Everything hinges on a presupposition of clarity of scripture. The apostolic churches do not believe in scriptural self-evidence. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
But faith alone isn't correct either (assuming you're talking about what is necessary for attain salvation). Not sure if that's what you were trying to say.
"It has to be preserved at all costs". Dogma is this assertion of knowing something as incontrovertibly true. This is where something like science has the edge over faith. Dogma doesn't allow for new data, counter arguments, or rational debate. Dogma says "We have the answer. Now, shut up." It has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with what is valuable to the group.
Your definition of dogma is probably different than his definition of dogma. Most debates are just arguing over what words actually mean. According to the notion of dogma as described herein, he's correct.
You don't have a unity then. Christianity, like any other religion, isn't merely a set of propositions you intellectually ascent too. It's a way of life. A liturgical community. Dogma is there to preserve the unity, as a bulwark against heresy/error. Critiquing Dogma as being a "incontrovertibly true" statement is somewhat of a shallow perspective It's about knowing whether you are straying or not. If you deny the divinity of Christ, for example, the dogma is there to make it known that you are now outside the official bounds of the Church. Obviously, if you are a christian, it is considered true. That's part of your defining core beliefs.
@@drooskie9525 I agree that it is an effective identity marker. It sets a boundary that separates "us" from "them". But who decides where those boundaries are? What information is it based on? Can it change if we find out we were wrong? What happens to people that leave fence and how do we treat people outside it?
I hear Pageau saying that both sides of any duality must be kept in mind for understanding. Is Christ God or man? Yes, both fully. Is God a unity or multiplicity? Yes, both fully (though a trinity seems a funny way to put it. God is multiple, but together, so it's three, but only 3?) Forgiving or strict? Each in its proper time. Progressive or conservative? Innovation and coherence are both the right answer. And now for my heresy. We are all the divine incarnation. Would Pageau agree? Most Christians I know 100% flip tf out because they think I'm undermining the specialness of Jesus. Could it be both? Jesus is special, and we're exactly like him in humanity and divinity?
Dogma is not necessary nor is it good. It is a way to hide your lack of personal understanding or revelation behind the "expert opinion" instead of searching out these truths in Gods word and bolstering your defense against Satan.
No offense, but going too far in trusting your own personal understanding seems to put you in danger of Pride and handing yourself to Satan on a plate. The "expert opinion" can hardly be a blind acceptance of credentialism in this day and age when you can use the device your watching this on to access the writings of the Church Fathers and other theologians for less than a cup of coffee. Unlike many of today's "experts" they are often more than happy to show their working, so it's hardly blind trust
No! Dogma is EVIL. And it is NOT dogmatic to say so. Stating a FACT is not dogma. If you are NEVER going to agree to change your mind NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE, you are either a fool or evil. Pick one.
@@gs.daniel87unfortunately for your argument, I do not support or believe in trinitarian dogma, nor did Christ. Acts 2:22 - Peter declares plainly who Jesus is: "a man approved by God" John 20:17 - Jesus plainly declares his relationship with God, his father Romans 8:17 - Paul states that we are "heirs OF God and joint heirs WITH Christ" to the same purpose. One cannot be joint heirs with the same being towards the same thing you are heirs of from that same being Revelation 1:6 - John describes Christ as making us "priests to his (Christ's) God and Father" Revelation 3:2 - Jesus states "I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God" Revelation 3:13 - Jesus again reiterates this saying, referring to God as "my God" 4 times in a single verse 1 John 5:7 - this verse, perhaps the crux of trinitarians entire argument, declaring "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." is actually not present in any original biblical manuscripts and has now been collectively judged as having been added in after the fact, likely by a trinitarian translator (of which all of King James' translators were). Daniel 7:9,13 - these verses provide us with the vision Daniel received of God and his Son. He describes God almighty as "the Ancient of days... who's garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire". He then states in verse 13: "behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom". There is a clear separation of persons here between the Lord God almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ. John 17:3 - "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Stated by Jesus himself, God our Father, is the only true God. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 - Paul describes Gods plan for Jesus after all rule and authority and power, all enemies, are put under Jesus' feet. Paul makes specifically clear that God is not included in those under Jesus' feet. After all of this is done Jesus will then hand over the entire kingdom to God and will be made subject under God along with all of his creation so that "God may be all in all" clearly establishing a hierarchy with God at top and Jesus under him. John 1:1-14 - This is certainly the most prominent proof text that trinitarian followers recite, believing it proves their doctrine when it does no such thing. They assert that this chapter, which to me is clearly John rendering the new creation in terms of the phrasing of Genesis 1, discussing how in Christ a new creation is made similar to how in the beginning God created man, his world, and everything in and around it. The logic they use to assert that Jesus is God is verse 1 in conjunction with verse 14, which is that "in the beginning was the word , and the word was with God, and the word was God" and "and the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father)." They attempt to characterize Christ as a literal incarnation of Gods word (his spoken word, his divine wisdom, his divine instruction) known as the "Word" which is a logical jump as we know what Gods word is and additionally the Greek does not render the "word" as a proper noun.
"There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it.” - GK Chesterton
Dogma is armor. That's clarifying. Thank you.
Great conversation
Just on time, once again!
Nice profile pic lol😂
@ hahaha thanks, i made it over 10 years ago!
thank you for your patience(s)
Dogma is discipline, that is the only reason why it is necessary. If you do not reflect upon the why of the dogma then it is an evil.
Hi Jonathan, may I ask about the origin and meaning behind the dragon image featured in your profile pic?
_" I used to be in the Resistance, but I got so good at it that I started resisting them."_
--Buford
💯
When you say that dogma exists to keep the right balance between the invisible and the visible world, how does one really know (objectively) what the right dogma is? Is that technically even possible outside of our own intuition of what the right balance is within ourselves as individuals (and to balance that out, for interpersonal cohesion, with others who believe similarly)?
I don't believe that miracles as written are even supposed to be interpreted as literal, scientific events. But that does not mean my perspective of that balance isn't on the nose or close to it, as far as I can tell, for living out my own life in the best way possible.
It seems it's like many other things in life: when you know, you know. No one else can know it for you. The issue is that I can't find any Christians who share this point of view and it's bothered me, since I feel sure that still believing in Christ's message (as I understand it) makes me at least some kind of Christian.
Dogma is what God says; doctrine is man’s understanding (interpretations) of what God said, regardless of what “The Church” dictates.
Thank you very much. Yes Councils and Dogmas arise as a reaction to heresy; and heresy (often) is just overemphasizing one thing. It's literally the joke about the kid who never talked his entire life until "this oatmeal is too salty". Why speak all of a sudden? Everything was fine until then.
The Trinity is not a paradox. If you say God is One of something and also Three of that same something then you have a problem. But if you say God is One of something, and Three of something else then you are logically consistent
@@robertparris532 God is ineffable and beyond comprehension. He is not a "thing" as we know things.
@apyruite8493 if God was ineffable to that degree then you would not be "effing" about Him right now, you'd remain silent. But by your speaking up you are in a performative contradiction and as such you have added nil nor taken away nil. God cannot be described exhaustively, but that does not mean He cannot be described at all. In the beginning was the Logos, the Logic, and A is A even for God...by God's own Nature.
@@robertparris532 God reveals Himself through his energies. God's essence (you may call it substance/nature) is incomprehensible. Msr Pageau talks about this often. These dogmatic principles were formulated as divine truths established in the Ecumenical Councils. Christian Tradition is not a type of propositional logic or a philosophy.
Dogma is necessary?
(I suppose that’s right.)
Maybe it’s the “I’ll rule” howl?
Oh Lorde…
😂
Nobody is saying that it is not necessary. Problem is that it is claimed to be TRUTH when it isnt and not regulated properly.
This, although I can agree to its terms in the context, undermines the nuance of what people are attempting to communicate when they challenge the notion of dogma.
What most people mean by "dogma" is an idea that is, by virtue of its own nature, unchallengeable.
Dogmatic traditions develop in response to heresy, yes, i do agree with that, but it is also the nature of the dogmatic tradition to incorporate memes (better described as anti-memes) to wall itself from divergent thought prior to the development of heresy. Let's not beat around the bush of a history full of the imprisonment and excommunication of heretics in church-states or even burning any dissent at the stake. That is what people who challenge the idea of dogma mean when they say it's harmful.
In respect to Pageau's explanation, Mcghilichrist certainly asserts a dogma against dogmas, but it is something that he has no problem challenging, a thought that can be played with in the context of a free relationship without overtly harmful suppression.
This is where scientism can enter, in this allowance of this freedom of thought, and yes, we need to insert other dogmas to help protect against that, but at no point can we consider them unchallengeable. At no point can we consider coming together as a collective and shunning members of society for having those thoughts or barring them from a meanginful participation in society. In a secular world we still need to proceed with caution. Look at the flat earther debates as an example of how quickly respectable thought can devolve into a war of shame tactics. Antimemes can't not exist, but the colloquial discussion about dogma pertains to whether or not they should be intentionally collectively enforced.
You're being too naive. People nowadays lose their jobs, career, reputation and are cancelled, sometimes imprisoned, because of certain held views (abortion, transgenderism, etc).
"In a secular world we no longer have to worry about the latter"?
Someone hasn't been paying attention.
@reinedire7872 sorry, we should definitely still worry about the latter, but there's a categorical difference between being shunned from society or imprisoned or killed and getting your account banned on a social media website. My statement was relative given the discrepancies.
@@matheusmotta1750 I agree, we should definitely still worry about it today. It's not as much of an issue where I'm from but it certainly could be and I am aware of what's happening in places like Canada and the UK. I'm not familiar with specifics regarding anyone's imprisonment, but I'll amend my original post to factor that in.
Edited 🤝
Ironically, the very act of responding to certain particulars and idiosyncrasies is itself a branching off into complexity. Clinging to these blanket statements pronounced in response to particular situations thousands of years ago and blindly applying them to current situations often leads to needless conflicts and misunderstandings. I’ve seen people get into arguments on things they completely agree about over these things, comparing certain ideas to various ancient ideologies. For example, people will blindly call others a gnostic for discussing ideas that are actually present in the scriptures (weakness of the flesh, temporality of the physical world, etc.) Dogmas are a recreation of the Law (branching into complexity, creation), when we have been given the fullness of faith in Christ (returning to simplicity, de-creation). Of course, it should be said that Protestantism failed in returning to simplicity (faith alone) because of their lack of understanding, but the church is also to blame for this. Protestantism leapt into the chaos and destroyed all structure in attempt to return to simplicity because they were tired of the endless dogmas and traditions which no longer held their meaning. This is related to going out into the wilderness before you are baptized, or reaching out and taking the cup for yourself vs. receiving the cup from the Father.
Is it just me, or do you have that wilderness baptism thing backward?
@ I was giving that as an example of something you should not do
Nice to see you here again. Once again well said. It really is a pleasure to read your responses in the comment section of this particular channel.
As far as I understand it, dogmas are the signposts that guide you to the true Christ in whom you have the fullness of faith. The purpose of Law is to reveal sin. Christ didn't abolish the Law because sin persists. Because sin persists, dogma is necessary to shield from deception, precisely in order to preserve the fullness of faith in Christ.
Everything hinges on a presupposition of clarity of scripture. The apostolic churches do not believe in scriptural self-evidence. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
But faith alone isn't correct either (assuming you're talking about what is necessary for attain salvation). Not sure if that's what you were trying to say.
"It has to be preserved at all costs". Dogma is this assertion of knowing something as incontrovertibly true. This is where something like science has the edge over faith. Dogma doesn't allow for new data, counter arguments, or rational debate. Dogma says "We have the answer. Now, shut up." It has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with what is valuable to the group.
😂😂😂
Your definition of dogma is probably different than his definition of dogma. Most debates are just arguing over what words actually mean. According to the notion of dogma as described herein, he's correct.
You don't have a unity then. Christianity, like any other religion, isn't merely a set of propositions you intellectually ascent too. It's a way of life. A liturgical community.
Dogma is there to preserve the unity, as a bulwark against heresy/error. Critiquing Dogma as being a "incontrovertibly true" statement is somewhat of a shallow perspective It's about knowing whether you are straying or not. If you deny the divinity of Christ, for example, the dogma is there to make it known that you are now outside the official bounds of the Church. Obviously, if you are a christian, it is considered true. That's part of your defining core beliefs.
@@reinedire7872 I actually don't think that we are disagreeing on definition. My criticism is more about dogmatism as a necessarily good thing.
@@drooskie9525 I agree that it is an effective identity marker. It sets a boundary that separates "us" from "them". But who decides where those boundaries are? What information is it based on? Can it change if we find out we were wrong? What happens to people that leave fence and how do we treat people outside it?
I hear Pageau saying that both sides of any duality must be kept in mind for understanding.
Is Christ God or man? Yes, both fully.
Is God a unity or multiplicity? Yes, both fully (though a trinity seems a funny way to put it. God is multiple, but together, so it's three, but only 3?)
Forgiving or strict? Each in its proper time.
Progressive or conservative? Innovation and coherence are both the right answer.
And now for my heresy. We are all the divine incarnation. Would Pageau agree? Most Christians I know 100% flip tf out because they think I'm undermining the specialness of Jesus.
Could it be both? Jesus is special, and we're exactly like him in humanity and divinity?
Dogma is not necessary nor is it good. It is a way to hide your lack of personal understanding or revelation behind the "expert opinion" instead of searching out these truths in Gods word and bolstering your defense against Satan.
No offense, but going too far in trusting your own personal understanding seems to put you in danger of Pride and handing yourself to Satan on a plate.
The "expert opinion" can hardly be a blind acceptance of credentialism in this day and age when you can use the device your watching this on to access the writings of the Church Fathers and other theologians for less than a cup of coffee.
Unlike many of today's "experts" they are often more than happy to show their working, so it's hardly blind trust
Accepting the Dogmas of the Virgin Birth, the God Son of God in the Nicene Creed is perfectly unnecessary.
No! Dogma is EVIL. And it is NOT dogmatic to say so. Stating a FACT is not dogma. If you are NEVER going to agree to change your mind NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE, you are either a fool or evil. Pick one.
Christ did not appreciate dogma and neither will I
- Is Jesus God?
- yes
- thats a Dogma. Nothing wrong with that
Dogma: something considered as an established opinion
@@gs.daniel87unfortunately for your argument, I do not support or believe in trinitarian dogma, nor did Christ.
Acts 2:22 - Peter declares plainly who Jesus is: "a man approved by God"
John 20:17 - Jesus plainly declares his relationship with God, his father
Romans 8:17 - Paul states that we are "heirs OF God and joint heirs WITH Christ" to the same purpose. One cannot be joint heirs with the same being towards the same thing you are heirs of from that same being
Revelation 1:6 - John describes Christ as making us "priests to his (Christ's) God and Father"
Revelation 3:2 - Jesus states "I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God"
Revelation 3:13 - Jesus again reiterates this saying, referring to God as "my God" 4 times in a single verse
1 John 5:7 - this verse, perhaps the crux of trinitarians entire argument, declaring "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." is actually not present in any original biblical manuscripts and has now been collectively judged as having been added in after the fact, likely by a trinitarian translator (of which all of King James' translators were).
Daniel 7:9,13 - these verses provide us with the vision Daniel received of God and his Son. He describes God almighty as "the Ancient of days... who's garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire". He then states in verse 13: "behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom". There is a clear separation of persons here between the Lord God almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 - "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Stated by Jesus himself, God our Father, is the only true God.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 - Paul describes Gods plan for Jesus after all rule and authority and power, all enemies, are put under Jesus' feet. Paul makes specifically clear that God is not included in those under Jesus' feet. After all of this is done Jesus will then hand over the entire kingdom to God and will be made subject under God along with all of his creation so that "God may be all in all" clearly establishing a hierarchy with God at top and Jesus under him.
John 1:1-14 - This is certainly the most prominent proof text that trinitarian followers recite, believing it proves their doctrine when it does no such thing. They assert that this chapter, which to me is clearly John rendering the new creation in terms of the phrasing of Genesis 1, discussing how in Christ a new creation is made similar to how in the beginning God created man, his world, and everything in and around it. The logic they use to assert that Jesus is God is verse 1 in conjunction with verse 14, which is that "in the beginning was the word , and the word was with God, and the word was God" and "and the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father)." They attempt to characterize Christ as a literal incarnation of Gods word (his spoken word, his divine wisdom, his divine instruction) known as the "Word" which is a logical jump as we know what Gods word is and additionally the Greek does not render the "word" as a proper noun.