sola scriptura

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

And the sum total of Revelation was it spoken or written?

Both.

 

[Porknpie]

Gaelic,

I believe that the OHCAC is clear on this teaching based on Scripture and Tradition and has not waivered. Unfortunately disobedience is not based on what Scripture says but not hearing what God says through the Church, the means by which the manifold wisdom of God is known.

Coptic,

We might as well add contraception into the conversation. While we are aborting 1.2M human lives in the USA, we are also aborting an untold number of lives through contraception, and with the use of the pill in particular. In it’s third means of preventing pregnancy, it acts as an abortificient, preventing the fertilized egg from attaching ( if I am saying this incorrectly, correct me Dr. )

Contraception has been a sin throughout Church history. The reformers even spoke out against it yet the protestant world accepted it beginning in 1930. So for all those bible believing only Christians whose Church changed their doctrine beginning in 1930, what changed in scripture that banned it before 1930 and allowed it after 1930? Killing human life is not following the commandments of our Lord yet that is exactly what the pill does at some frequency.

So there is the OHCAC again,…consistent in teaching for 2000 years. Against abortion…against contraception, guiding humanity to the Truth that is in Jesus Christ.

 

[CopticChristian]

Both.

Gaelic,

I am dumbfounded. I am aghast. I find my Faith shaken. I can hardly type. The OHCAC teaches in the Catechism that…

In many and various ways God Spoke to us through His prophets in part and in these last days He spoke to us through His Son…

The sum total of Revelation is a person. All that we need to know God spoke once and He said Jesus.

So let us get back to which came first…if the sum total of Revelation is Jesus and the Church is the Body of Christ and the Bible that was spawned by the Church, with Apostolic Tradtion that includes Paul, what was written by Paul is that the Church is the means by which the manifold wisdom of God is known and is the mystery hidden for all ages…The Church/Body of Christ/preceeded any writing of any kind…

and John Chrysosotom in the 4th Century says this…

There his words are, I am not meet to be called an Apostle. 1 Corinthians 15:9 Here he says that he is even less than the least of all saints; to me, says he, who am less than the least of all saints was this grace given. What grace? To preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from all ages has been hid in God, who created all things, to the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places, might be made known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God. True, to man it was not revealed; and are you enlightening Angels and Archangels and Principalities and Powers? I am, says he. For it was hid in God, even in God who created all things. And do you venture to utter this? I do, says he. But whence has this been made manifest to the Angels? By the Church. Again he says, not merely the manifold (ποικίλος) but the much-manifold (πολυποίκιλος) wisdom, that is, the multiplied and varied. What then is this? Did not Angels know it? No, nothing of it; for if Principalities knew it not, much less could Angels ever have known it. What then? Did not even Archangels know it? No, nor even they.

He was certainly closer to Christ than you are I…do you dispute that the Church was hidden for all ages and that through the Church/Body of Christ the manifold wisdom of God is know for all that is summed up in the Revelation of God is Christ and The Body of Christ is the Church?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

I am dumbfounded. I am aghast. I find my Faith shaken. I can hardly type. The OHCAC teaches in the Catechism that…

In many and various ways God Spoke to us through His prophets in part and in these last days He spoke to us through His Son…

The sum total of Revelation is a person. All that we need to know God spoke once and He said Jesus.

So let us get back to which came first…if the sum total of Revelation is Jesus and the Church is the Body of Christ and the Bible that was spawned by the Church, with Apostolic Tradtion that includes Paul, what was written by Paul is that the Church is the means by which the manifold wisdom of God is known and is the mystery hidden for all ages…The Church/Body of Christ/preceeded any writing of any kind…

and John Chrysosotom in the 4th Century says this…

He was certainly closer to Christ than you are I…do you dispute that the Church was hidden for all ages and that through the Church/Body of Christ the manifold wisdom of God is know for all that is summed up in the Revelation of God is Christ and The Body of Christ is the Church?

So you are trying to convince me that the church (as an aside, the church is all Christians, and not just a hierarchy or magisterium) is the recepient of divine revelation. The church proclaims this divine revelation to an unbelieving world. And…you think I disagree with that, how?

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,

We might as well add contraception into the conversation. While we are aborting 1.2M human lives in the USA, we are also aborting an untold number of lives through contraception, and with the use of the pill in particular. In it’s third means of preventing pregnancy, it acts as an abortificient, preventing the fertilized egg from attaching ( if I am saying this incorrectly, correct me Dr. )

Contraception has been a sin throughout Church history. The reformers even spoke out against it yet the protestant world accepted it beginning in 1930. So for all those bible believing only Christians whose Church changed their doctrine beginning in 1930, what changed in scripture that banned it before 1930 and allowed it after 1930? Killing human life is not following the commandments of our Lord yet that is exactly what the pill does at some frequency.

So there is the OHCAC again,…consistent in teaching for 2000 years. Against abortion…against contraception, guiding humanity to the Truth that is in Jesus Christ.

Pork,

Amen to that. I confess, a smile crosses my face everytime I see that Red copy of the Audio Catechism at the bottom, I know it is you. You are hard to miss. I too recommend it.

Imagine if every CAF member did just as you have done…can you imagine how hard these posts would be to miss…Whoa…there is another one…

 

[CopticChristian]

So you are trying to convince me that the church (as an aside, the church is all Christians, and not just a hierarchy or magisterium) is the recepient of divine revelation. The church proclaims this divine revelation to an unbelieving world. And…you think I disagree with that, how?

Gealic,

If something was hidden for all ages and is made known…what was it you might consider that John Chrysosotom was speaking of that was made known? How can you make something known?

Let’s see…hey everyone…all of us gathered here are the Church…Wow…do you guys have the manifold wisdom…cause those guys over there say they have the manifold wisdom…uh uh…the guys with the leather jackets have the manifold wisdom they took it from us and now they say we can do whatever we want…

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, in the Catholic view. Some of those Scripture doesn’t teach. So I don’t believe I’m missing out. I understand you disagree.

Yes, of course I would disagree but that isn’t really important. Do you feel certain that you have discerned God’s will from Scripture and are missing nothing? Don’t get me wrong, the Scriptures are invaluable in revealing God’s will to us. My point is this. Do you feel that, never having heard of the concept of the Trinity, you could pick up the Bible and understand the Trinity the way you understand it today? I’m not certain that I could even come close, especially with the understanding the Church has imparted over the centuries when defining it dogmatically. Do you see what I mean? I need more than just me and the Bible in order to discern God’s will and understand his revealed truth.

And you too…your last post in the LOVE thread was particularly brilliant

Thanks.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gealic,

If something was hidden for all ages and is made known…what was it you might consider that John Chrysosotom was speaking of that was made known? How can you make something known?

Let’s see…hey everyone…all of us gathered here are the Church…Wow…do you guys have the manifold wisdom…cause those guys over there say they have the manifold wisdom…uh uh…the guys with the leather jackets have the manifold wisdom they took it from us and now they say we can do whatever we want…

So your view being presented here is that when the word “church” is used, we can substitute magisterium? I want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding what you’re saying here.

Also, another question. The mystery hidden for ages that has been made known. That’s from Ephesians 3. I would be happy to answer that. What do you think it is?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Yes, of course I would disagree but that isn’t really important. Do you feel certain that you have discerned God’s will from Scripture and are missing nothing? Don’t get me wrong, the Scriptures are invaluable in revealing God’s will to us. My point is this. Do you feel that, never having heard of the concept of the Trinity, you could pick up the Bible and understand the Trinity the way you understand it today? I’m not certain that I could even come close, especially with the understanding the Church has imparted over the centuries when defining it dogmatically. Do you see what I mean? I need more than just me and the Bible in order to discern God’s will and understand his revealed truth.

It’s probably an impossible answer, Steve. Of course we wouldn’t articulate it the way that the Council of Nicea did. The language and such. I do believe the Bible teaches the basic understanding the way that Nicea understod it. The councils were important in articulating it and refuting the heretics. I am not a conciliar Trinitarian though. I believe it because Scripture teaches it.

 

[CopticChristian]

So your view being presented here is that when the word “church” is used, we can substitute magisterium? I want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding what you’re saying here.

Also, another question. The mystery hidden for ages that has been made known. That’s from Ephesians 3. I would be happy to answer that. What do you think it is?

Gaelic,

The view I am presenting is a view that spans 2000 years as opposed to a view that spans 500. When you find the manifold wisdom of God, you find the place it came from and if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God…figure out where it came from and you then have a hint…all translations into English when they were first translated were based on the Vulgate…where did that come from?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

The view I am presenting is a view that spans 2000 years as opposed to a view that spans 500. When you find the manifold wisdom of God, you find the place it came from.

Coptic…okay…so when Scripture uses the word church and we substitute magisterium, let’s see what we get, ok?

Oh the mystery hidden through the ages that displays the manifold wisdom of God is that the Gentiles will be brought into the covenant.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic…okay…so when Scripture uses the word church and we substitute magisterium, let’s see what we get, ok?

Oh the mystery hidden through the ages that displays the manifold wisdom of God is that the Gentiles will be brought into the covenant.

Gaelic,

You side stepped Ephesians…yes, this is true, but how are they going to be brought into the Covenant? With a bible? Nope, by the Church.

 

[SteveVH]

It’s probably an impossible answer, Steve. Of course we wouldn’t articulate it the way that the Council of Nicea did. The language and such. I do believe the Bible teaches the basic understanding the way that Nicea understod it. The councils were important in articulating it and refuting the heretics. I am not a conciliar Trinitarian though. I believe it because Scripture teaches it.

You’re probably right, who knows. I only refer to my own expeirience and the delight that comes from learning something from my Church that had never occurred to me and I doubt would ever occur to me. I need my Church.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You’re probably right, who knows. I only refer to my own expeirience and the delight that comes from learning something from my Church that had never occurred to me and I doubt would ever occur to me. I need my Church.

I need mine too, Steve. It’s our body.

 

[SteveVH]

I need mine too, Steve. It’s our body.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

You side stepped Ephesians…yes, this is true, but how are they going to be brought into the Covenant? With a bible? Nope, by the Church.

I didn’t side step. You asked me what the mystery was…I answered…cause it’s right in Eph. 3. Yes they will be brought into the church by the church preaching what Scripture contains…revelation.

 

[SteveVH]

I didn’t side step. You asked me what the mystery was…I answered…cause it’s right in Eph. 3. Yes they will be brought into the church by the church preaching what Scripture contains…revelation.

I think it is rather that Scripture contains what the Church preaches since Scripture is a record of at least part of what the Church was preaching. But the Church possessed the divine revelation before the New Testament was even written, much less cannonized, so it cannot be the sole source of divine revelation. It is the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles to the Church that is important. Part of that was committed to writing in the form of the New Testament but all of it was held in the life of the Church before, during and after the New Testament was penned and cannonized.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I think it is rather that Scripture contains what the Church preaches since Scripture is a record of at least part of what the Church was preaching. But the Church possessed the divine revelation before the New Testament was even written, much less cannonized, so it cannot be the sole source of divine revelation. It is the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles to the Church that is important. Part of that was committed to writing in the form of the New Testament but all of it was held in the life of the Church before, during and after the New Testament was penned and cannonized.

Steve, just for clarification purposes, neither of us disagrees that revelation was first transmitted through preaching, by Christ and then His apostles. That isn’t a point of contention. I see those arguments being debated and it just gets in the way of discussion. When Catholics say the church wrote the New Testament…well yes, but it was actually the apostles, who were the same ones doing the preaching. So it’s neither here nor there. It wasn’t the collective church doing it. It is authoritative because it’s ultimate author is God, not because it was written by “the church.”

Secondly, the point at the heart of disagreement about the nature of revelation between Protestants and Catholics is not that the church preaches revelation but that revelation in the form of tradition contains information not contained in Scripture. For that, the burden is on the Catholic side to show that doctrine not contained in Scripture is apostolic. We can’t disprove a negative. If all the church meabt by tradition was the substance of what is inscripturated, we would be on the same page.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, just for clarification purposes, neither of us disagrees that revelation was first transmitted through preaching, by Christ and then His apostles. That isn’t a point of contention. I see those arguments being debated and it just gets in the way of discussion. When Catholics say the church wrote the New Testament…well yes, but it was actually the apostles, who were the same ones doing the preaching. So it’s neither here nor there. It wasn’t the collective church doing it. It is authoritative because it’s ultimate author is God, not because it was written by “the church.”

Nor is it the collective Church today, but rather its bishops, just as it was in the beginning. You say that it is authoritative because it’s ultimate author is God, but you would not know that to be the case unless the Church told you so. And keep in mind the awesome authority give to the Church by Christ, which was the power to bind and loose and thus the power to determine and close the canon of Scripture. It was the Church that determined what was and what was not the inspired word of God.

Secondly, the point at the heart of disagreement about the nature of revelation between Protestants and Catholics is not that the church preaches revelation but that revelation in the form of tradition contains information not contained in Scripture.

So what? The same Church that told you that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, with which you apparently agree, holds these very truths and more in its Sacred Tradition. Why do you believe the Church when it comes to the Bible but reject it when it comes to anything else? Do you understand that Sacred Scripture is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing?

"“You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.” - Mark Shea

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Nor is it the collective Church today, but rather its bishops, just as it was in the beginning. You say that it is authoritative because it’s ultimate author is God, but you would not know that to be the case unless the Church told you so. And keep in mind the awesome authority give to the Church by Christ, which was the power to bind and loose and thus the power to determine and close the canon of Scripture. It was the Church that determined what was and what was not the inspired word of God.

I don’t share your presupposition when you use the word church. Your viewpoint substitutes the word magisterium/bishops for the word church in passages like 1 Tim. 3:15. Wouldn’t know it is authoritative? I don’t agree. I base my epistemological knowledge of Scripture’s inspiration on Christ, not what the church said about it a few centuries after its composition. The church played a key role in receiving the canon (and again I’m not substituting bishops for church when I say that). The apostles penned Scripture but had nothing to do with its inspiration, which is an act of God alone. Again, your use of binding and loosing is based on your use of the word church.

So what? The same Church that told you that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, with which you apparently agree, holds these very truths and more in its Sacred Tradition. Why do you believe the Church when it comes to the Bible but reject it when it comes to anything else? Do you understand that Sacred Scripture is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing?

I don’t believe the NT is inspired because the bishops said so. I don’t disagree with the everything the Latin church says. But I don’t believe everything it says simply because it says so. I believe their statements on the NT because it is verifiable, both naturally and supernaturally. I don’t believe it when no evidence can be provided to support the assertion being made.