Authority of the Church

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar, isn’t there some value in a method of 'managing birth that effectively leaves an open door to God’s action? Is there really nothing that distinguishes it from method’s that effectively and intentionally close that door?

I believe responsible persons can utilize birth control and still be fruitful and multiply as God intended. I don’t see the hard stance against birth control. It certainly has made many problems in many countries that have not been able to use. I don’t believe God’s Word to be fruitful and multiply was intended to remove mere pleasurable sex from a proper marriage. That is one of the finest gifts God gave us as long as it is done in a proper marriage.

I believe the Rhythm method serves both purposes, helping those who want to get pregnant and likewise helping those when they do not want to get pregnant. I have no problem with that or with other methods.

 

[wanner47]

That’s fine but there were many millions more who used it as birth control.

The Catholic Church has never condemned birth control when used for grave reasons (as opposed to selfish reasons). NFP is birth control and it is permissible to use for grave reasons.

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS condemned contraception.

Also, according to this article:

Prior to the 20th century, contraception was generally condemned by all the major branches of Christianity, including the major reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin.

I’ve read the entire article and it says nothing about the LCMS being a champion of contraception prior to 1981.

 

[Old_Scholar]

The Catholic Church has never condemned birth control when used for grave reasons (as opposed to selfish reasons). NFP is birth control and it is permissible to use for grave reasons.

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS condemned contraception.

Also, according to this article:

I’ve read the entire article and it says nothing about the LCMS being a champion of contraception prior to 1981.

If you have read this entire post, you will find that there is no record of the Lutheran Church ever sanctioning contraception or forbidding it.

 

[wanner47]

If you have read this entire post, you will find that there is no record of the Lutheran Church ever sanctioning contraception or forbidding it.

What about this?

“Prior to the 20th century, contraception was generally condemned by all the major branches of Christianity, including the major reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin.”

That sure sounds like a condemnation by the LCMS to me.

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s fine but there were many millions more who used it as birth control.

My point is… its still Gods Will. If women’s cycles were perfect, you might have a case, but there are still numerous variables in play.

I guess next you’re going to condemn chastity among priests?

Also, does this new tact mean you don’t like the fact that the Lutheran church changed its position on contraception and your trying to turn the blame around? And I’m just wondering (I haven’t a clue the answer to this one, but you know that’s never stopped me… ), what was the Lutheran church’s take on “the rhythm method” through the 4 centuries of its existence?

 

[savedsinner]

I am still waiting for any Scripture saying that contraception is bad. What you quoted said that what was displeasing in the sight of the Lord was not impregnating the woman, not wasting the semen.

The penalty prescribed in the Old Testament for this offense was public humiliation not death, which is what Onan received. This points to the fact that the crime was far worse than not just fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law to provide a child for his brothers widow.

Deut. 25:7–10
And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.' Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, `So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.

 

[Old_Scholar]

What about this?

“Prior to the 20th century, contraception was generally condemned by all the major branches of Christianity, including the major reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin.”

That sure sounds like a condemnation by the LCMS to me.

Of course you will post the reference to that ambigious cut-n-paste according to the rules?

Give an official document of the LCMS and then I’ll believe you. Even if the statement you made is true, it says ‘generally’ and that means there were some who did not agree…

Incidentally, the Lutheran Church did not exist in the days of Luther…

 

[Old_Scholar]

My point is… its still Gods Will. If women’s cycles were perfect, you might have a case, but there are still numerous variables in play.

I guess next you’re going to condemn chastity among priests?

Also, does this new tact mean you don’t like the fact that the Lutheran church changed its position on contraception and your trying to turn the blame around? And I’m just wondering (I haven’t a clue the answer to this one, but you know that’s never stopped me… ), what was the Lutheran church’s take on “the rhythm method” through the 4 centuries of its existence?

There is no position of priest in the Bible. Those we call bishops are to be married, according to Scripture…

And in order to find out what the church believed in the first 4 or 5 cneturies, read the early church writers…

 

[NotWorthy]

There is no position of priest in the Bible. Those we call bishops are to be married, according to Scripture…

Nowhere does it say a Bishop has to be married, OS. If you read carefully, you will see that a Bishop cannot re-marry. And if you think the Presbyteroi, or elder, are not what we today call priests, then again, you are sadly mistaken.

And in order to find out what the church believed in the first 4 or 5 cneturies, read the early church writers…

We’ve been down that road before. If you read the Church Fathers in their entirety, and not’s what spoon-fed to you by those who only want you to see what they want you to see, then you would drop down on your knees in front of the altar, gaze on the Crucifix with deep gratitude, and thank the Holy Spirit for guiding these forums into your life!

 

[BRB]

And in order to find out what the church believed in the first 4 or 5 cneturies, read the early church writers…

Which ones have you studied … to formulate your opinion ?

Give us your recommended required reading list of the ECF writings and 1st - 5th century historians — whose works you have read.

Indicate on list those authors / books that don’t support the primacy of Church … and lend support to another “brotherhood of the faithful”.

 

[NoelFitz]

OS
I think that the Church is not against birth control per se. It is against artificial, as opposed to natural, birth control. To some it seems the Church is in favor of the rhythm method as it does not work.

However has this discussin wandered from Authority of the Church?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Nowhere does it say a Bishop has to be married, OS. If you read carefully, you will see that a Bishop cannot re-marry. And if you think the Presbyteroi, or elder, are not what we today call priests, then again, you are sadly mistaken.

We’ve been down that road before. If you read the Church Fathers in their entirety, and not’s what spoon-fed to you by those who only want you to see what they want you to see, then you would drop down on your knees in front of the altar, gaze on the Crucifix with deep gratitude, and thank the Holy Spirit for guiding these forums into your life!

In matter of faith and morals, I only pay attention to what Christ has told me in His word; His Scriptures. No one will ever be able to accuse me of following the doctrines of man and not God.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Which ones have you studied … to formulate your opinion ?

Give us your recommended required reading list of the ECF writings and 1st - 5th century historians — whose works you have read.

Indicate on list those authors / books that don’t support the primacy of Church … and lend support to another “brotherhood of the faithful”.

I read a great deal of the early church leaders. I believe most of what they wrote. After all they reaffirmed over 75% of the New Testament in their writings. Only when they deviate from Scripture do I not believe them.

And for the record, they all spoke of the “church” but not in the sense the RCC has become today. In fact, practically everyone of the early church leaders were opposed to the authority of a pope. Until about the 5th and 6th centuries, they all believed that each church had its own authority and did not believe in the primacy of one individual except Christ.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Nowhere does it say a Bishop has to be married, OS. If you read carefully, you will see that a Bishop cannot re-marry. And if you think the Presbyteroi, or elder, are not what we today call priests, then again, you are sadly mistaken.

We’ve been down that road before. If you read the Church Fathers in their entirety, and not’s what spoon-fed to you by those who only want you to see what they want you to see, then you would drop down on your knees in front of the altar, gaze on the Crucifix with deep gratitude, and thank the Holy Spirit for guiding these forums into your life!

There were only two offices established for the church—elders, or Presbyters, and deacons. The elders are what has become the bishop today. The priest, as his duties indicate, is a fabrication of the RCC. And for your information, Paul writes what is expected from an elder, presbyter or bishop, quite definitively. Strange how the church, for the first 500 years or so, followed Paul’s teachings quite well…

 

[Yab_Yum]

The penalty prescribed in the Old Testament for this offense was public humiliation not death, which is what Onan received. This points to the fact that the crime was far worse than not just fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law to provide a child for his brothers widow.

Like stoning disobedient children?

 

[NoelFitz]

OS

I accuse you again, as I have before, of following the doctrines of man and not God. You use eisegesis, not exegesis. You read into the scripture, at times, your own ideas.

Thus I disagree with you when you write:

No one will ever be able to accuse me of following the doctrines of man and not God.

NotWorthy

I also disagree with you.

You wrote:

Nowhere does it say a Bishop has to be married, OS. If you read carefully, you will see that a Bishop cannot re-marry. And if you think the Presbyteroi, or elder, are not what we today call priests, then again, you are sadly mistaken.

The UBS dictionary has for PRESBUTEROS:

elder (of the Jewish religious leaders and of church leaders); elder (of two sons); eldest (Jn 8.9); old man or woman (Ac 2.17; 1 Tm 5.2); παράδοσις τῶν π. the tradition of pronouncements by earlier Jewish leaders.

In English one sees:

NAB 1 Timothy 3:2 Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,

NRS 1 Timothy 3:2 Now a bishop1 must be above reproach, married only once,2 temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,

NAU 1 Timothy 3:2 1aAn overseer, then, must be above reproach, bthe husband of one wife, ctemperate, prudent, respectable, dhospitable, eable to teach,

However the Greek is MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA which means a man of one wife.

 

[Old_Scholar]

OS

I accuse you again, as I have before, of following the doctrines of man and not God. You use eisegesis, not exegesis. You read into the scripture, at times, your own ideas.

Thus I disagree with you when you write:

NotWorthy

I also disagree with you.

You wrote:

The UBS dictionary has for PRESBUTEROS:

In English one sees:

However the Greek is MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA which means a man of one wife.

Since you disagree, then I would think you would have the courtesy to show me where I have done what you imply…Show me where I have changed Scripture!

 

[wanner47]

Of course you will post the reference to that ambigious cut-n-paste according to the rules?

Give an official document of the LCMS and then I’ll believe you. Even if the statement you made is true, it says ‘generally’ and that means there were some who did not agree…

Incidentally, the Lutheran Church did not exist in the days of Luther…

I already gave it. The quote is a repeat of the quote from post 375. I guess this proves you don’t read my posts.

At any rate, you haven’t given any information to refute it, from official LCMS sources or otherwise.

 

[NotWorthy]

In matter of faith and morals, I only pay attention to what Christ has told me in His word; His Scriptures. No one will ever be able to accuse me of following the doctrines of man and not God.

Duck and Dodge. You throw out the accusation, and when its refuted, your reply is, “Well, I follow Christ and Christ only”.

My response is,
“Except when…"
“…Christ gives the authority to bind and loose to His Church”
“…Christ tells you to take issues to the Church”
“…Christ tells you to hold on to the Traditions passed on”.
“…Christ gives the Church the authority to forgive sins in His Name”.
"…Christ tells you that the Bread IS His Body and the Wine IS His Blood”.
I could go on for a lot longer.

Oh yeah, you’re the model of obedience.

 

[NotWorthy]

There were only two offices established for the church—elders, or Presbyters, and deacons. The elders are what has become the bishop today. The priest, as his duties indicate, is a fabrication of the RCC. And for your information, Paul writes what is expected from an elder, presbyter or bishop, quite definitively. Strange how the church, for the first 500 years or so, followed Paul’s teachings quite well…

So, was the Church a mustard seed or not? The man is still the same person as the child. As the Church grew, do you feel there was a need for servants acting in place of the Bishop?

You can claim this is not necessary, but you can’t deny there were these 3 offices in the first century of the Church, long before the “fifth century inventions” you claim.