Changing times and Sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

Correct, but I put it in there for a reason. It was granted to us by God in the creation of the reproductive system.

If God put a built in way, that when used correctly is as effective as ABC, why not use it?

ja4 has pointed out the answer to that. One would have to restrain one’s passions in order for it to work, and with the other methods, this is not necessary.

This is why birth control was invented in the first place- to provide freedom for the reign of the sexual passions. There was already a 100% effective method of avoiding pregnancy called abstinence. But mankind did not want to work along with God’s creation, and preferred to create conditions in which lust and wanton sexual passion might reign.

 

[ralphinal]

ja4 has pointed out the answer to that. One would have to restrain one’s passions in order for it to work, and with the other methods, this is not necessary.

This is why birth control was invented in the first place- to provide freedom for the reign of the sexual passions. There was already a 100% effective method of avoiding pregnancy called abstinence. But mankind did not want to work along with God’s creation, and preferred to create conditions in which lust and wanton sexual passion might reign.

I missed that post from ja4.

Interesting thought. Did Jesus ever teach that we are to refrain from anything? Did he ever teach that we had to control our passions?

 

[MIZER]

That’s blatantly untrue - and has nothing to do about the doctrine of sola scriptura (which all Protestants don’t adhere to anyway).

What protestants do not adhere to sola scriptura?

From whence do they draw their “tradition?”

How do they defend that their “tradition” is true?

 

[MIZER]

My tradition does not embrace sola scriptura. But this looks like one of Jimmy’s baiting threads.

What good can possibly be gained by such?

So United Methodists do not adhere to Sola Scriptura? Really? So where do you get the tradition part of your faith? I’m not being facitious, I’m really interested in this. I never heard a protestant say this before. Where does your tradition come from and how do you know (trust) that it is God’s own truth and not just the opinion of man?

 

[MIZER]

Oh really.

No other denomination on the planet earth has a strong stance on issues regarding morality.

Got it.

Now prove this statement please.

How come I don’t think you can.

Then you shouldn’t be making inflammatory, outrageous, unsubstantiated statements you can not prove.

Oh regarding the original post, I do think you can use Scriptural principles in the cases where Scripture does not get into specifics.

I agree that the post you are responding to here is a bit provacative but isn’t it true that denominations, as Church Bodies, do not set themselves up to be authoritative teachers?

Isn’t the whole premise behind faith alone and Bible alone that the individual is his own “sprit filled” and thus “spirit lead” teacher, into the knowledge of the truth? (the truth regarding both faith issues and morality) Isn’t this precisely why we see so many opposing denominations?

Because, when someone reads the Bible and the “Holy Spirit leads them” into an interpretation that may oppose what their present pastor believes, they can either go somewhere else where the pastor agrees with them, or, as many have done, start their own church.

The last part of your post begs the questions:

How do you know that what you, as an individual, extrapolate as “Scriptural principals” are really a reflection of the one truth the Bible holds?

How do you know that your interpretation is true and someone elses is not true?

Two opposing views cannot both be correct. Christian people on every side of every issue use the Bible to defend their position. In my work as a prolife advocate I have heard some vary clever Biblical justifications for abortion, an act of violence that kills a child. Where I live, in the nearest major city where abortions are performed, the first abortion mill was in the basement of a Methodist church. Those people interpreted the Bible in such a way as to justify their actions. Were their interpretations the truth? If so, how do you know?

 

[Hope070408]

Hmm…coming from a Protestant background, sola scriptura wasn’t a term I’d ever heard, so I’m not really sure about this. But we are certainly taught about the faith in church during service, Sunday school, class in preparation for baptism, etc. And of course, there is the Bible. Truly the main difference from my experience seems to be that there are fewer of those doctrines and little emphasis on church authority in comparison to Catholicism.

I’m not sure what you mean by this idea that there is a separate tradition. Certainly there are various disagreements over doctrine, but Christian history and tradition is Christian history and tradition. It’s mainly that the Bible tends to get read rather than other writings (writings I am curious to read at some point soon).

 

[MIZER]

I actually agree. The Stance that the Catholic Church has had on issues has less to do with where our doctrine comes from and more to do with having a central leadership. Another aspect of it is having a leadership that tends not to care about public opinion.

There have been times that other denominations have taken a hard line on issues. The Southern Baptists, for instance, have been way out front on fighting the gay marriage agenda. It is unfair to say that non-Catholic Christians have never taken a strong stance.

It is fair to say that at times they have not taken a hard enough stance.

I think some of you are missing the point and the bigger picture. What difference does it make if one denomination (or even more so, an individual pastor) takes a strong stance on some issue if the overall teaching is that I am my own pope? What difference does it make if I can just go down the street and get a different stance on the same issue and still believe that I’m following the will of God. Many protestants will tell you (or have told me) that "it doesn’t matter what path you take (in other words it doesn’t matter what denomination you adhere to) all roads (in Chirstendom) lead to heaven.

*For the lurkers reading this:

Please be aware that the Catholic Church is not a denomination. She is simply The Church Christ founded. The Lord Jesus did not establish denominations. Man did that. *

So if your denomination goes so far as to “authoritatively” teach you something about faith and/or morals, how do you know that what you are being taught is the one truth of the Gospel message? What verse in the Bible (whether you follow sola scriputura or not), tells you that this “authoritative” teaching is true and that the pastor down the street, shepherding a different flock (denomination), is teaching error?

 

[MIZER]

Hmm…coming from a Protestant background, sola scriptura wasn’t a term I’d ever heard, so I’m not really sure about this. But we are certainly taught about the faith in church during service, Sunday school, class in preparation for baptism, etc. And of course, there is the Bible. Truly the main difference from my experience seems to be that there are fewer of those doctrines and little emphasis on church authority in comparison to Catholicism.

I’m not sure what you mean by this idea that there is a separate tradition. Certainly there are various disagreements over doctrine, but Christian history and tradition is Christian history and tradition. It’s mainly that the Bible tends to get read rather than other writings (writings I am curious to read at some point soon).

Hello Hope,

I’m gald to see that it sounds like someone (a non-catholic?) is giving this some thought. Regarding the “seperate tradition,” people use the word tradition to mean different things. Another poster said, “in my tradition…”

He meant, in the tradition of the metholidists, or in the tradition of how the Baptists practice their faith or the tradition of some other denomination. When Catholics refer to “tradition,” we are talking about that deposit of faith, (which originated with Christ) which was never committed to Scriputure, Scripture being, the written word of God. This “Sacred Tradition” may or may not have been written in other places, over the course of history, but it is taught by the One True Church which Christ founded and commissioned to teach all nations. This Sacred Tradition is what produced the Bible in the first place and it is referred to in the NT by a couple of it’s human writters. Sacred Tradition t is not “scripture” and yet it is still, “the word of God.”

Does that make sense to you?

The Bible itself tells us that not everything the Lord taught could be written. The Bible says that if it were, the world would not be big enough to hold that book. In the OT we are told that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Protestants, because they do follow Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone), if they follow the precepts of their own religion, believe that this OT verse is refering only to the written word, the Bible. They are (sorry to say) wrong.

Every word uttered by God cannot be, and is not now, written. So my questions, prompted by the poster who is denying that all Protestants follow “Bible Alone” theology, is: How do they know that their tradition (the tradition of men, as opposed to the tradition of the One True Church, which is, according to the Bible, lead and animated by the Holy Spirit and, according to Bible, the "pillar and foundation of truth, 1Tim3:15), based on the one truth?

How can it be? Unless it is in line with what the One Apostolic, teaching Church (that is the Catholic Church) teaches, how can that tradition (based on the personal (private) interpretation of any given man, be he John Calvin, Martin Luther, Zwingly, Joseph Smith, etc…) of the Holy Bible, how can it be known to be true?

 

[MIZER]

Hope posted:

It’s mainly that the Bible tends to get read rather than other writings…

Hope,

Have you, by any chance, been taught that Catholics don’t read the Bible, favoring instead, "other writings that may be refered to as catholic tradition?

 

[Hope070408]

Hi, MIZER!

Yes, I am Protestant but have been attending Mass with my husband for awhile now and have started RCIA. So I understand where you’re coming from in terms of tradition, and what you’re saying does make sense. I was also thinking about Christianity as a whole in relation to tradition. When I think of the denomination I come from, tradition has more to do with what we all share in Christianity and less to do with the history of how my own denomination came about. I’ve been taught a little about how the denomination came about but remember very little of that.

In terms of being concerned about being free from error in interpretation and knowing for certain what is the truth, it’s a vastly different mindset that when I’m used to. It’s been a big adjustment, I can tell you!

Actually, no, what we think Catholics do or don’t do isn’t ever a subject that I remember coming up. I just meant that I’ve never had exposure to any other writings in Sunday school or anything else, other than much more recent books about religion for discussion. And I haven’t even looked at those, because I don’t get to my church often these days. It’s too much of a distance.

 

[MIZER]

We Methodists are from the Anglican line… so the solas run counter to understanding Scripture through the lenses of tradition, reason, and experience.

All problems are “modern” problems when they happen in the here-and-now. I suspect Christians of 500, 1000, and 1500 years ago said, “I don’t think the biblical writers ever thought [insert here] would be a problem to wrestle with.”

I can’t wrap my mind around what you mean? The Anglicans broke from the Catholic Church because Henry the Vlll declared that he, himself (and then his succesors to follow), was the rightful head of the Church (so he could grant himself an annulment). My understanding of the history is that the protestant monarchs to succeed Henry were of the mindset that morals would be a matter of personal conscience and as long as the subject adhered to the laws of the state (of course no seperation of church and state), he could keep his head and do as he pleased.

So when you say that the solas run contrary to understanding Scripture through the lenses of tradition, reason, and experience, whose tradition, reason, and experience are you refering to? Your own? The Kings? Some other authoritative body elected by the congragants?

 

[MIZER]

OS Luke posted:

All problems are “modern” problems when they happen in the here-and-now. I suspect Christians of 500, 1000, and 1500 years ago said, “I don’t think the biblical writers ever thought [insert here] would be a problem to wrestle with.”

But don’t you think that God, certainly anticipated, and thought [insert here] would be a problem to wrestle with that we would be dealing with?

Did Jesus not provide for us to know the truth of what His teachings would be, regarding these modern day questions, just as if he had come as the Messiah, in our own time in history? What does His words, “…and I will be with you always.” mean to you? Did Jesus leave us orphans with no way of knowing, definitively what is moral behavior and what is not moral behavior? Do we, as modern day Christians, have no way on earth to truly discern the one truth of the written word? Do you really think that was Christ’s plan? Are we to accept that we are somehow cursed with ignorance because we happened to have been born 2000 years following His death and resurection? What does the great commission mean to you? What did Jesus mean when he said, to the apostles, and only to the apostles, as a group, “go and teach all nations, all that I commanded you…and I will be with you always…and I will send to you another advocate, the spirit of truth…and you will remember everything…and I will be with you always…” ? Not to mention, "I will build my church…and, my favorite, “the household (implies a unified body under a roof) of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

The truth is ONE. “I am the way, the truth and the life” The truth is Jesus, the very Word of God. The truth is not the many asundry and opposing interpretations of the Bible. If you do not know whole truth, the one truth, as taught by His One Church, through His living voice, then you do not know Him. How’s that for provocation?

 

[MIZER]

I don’t think sola scriptura is very helpful, personally. Prima scriptura certainly gives you historical and theological framework. But I don’t think God gave us a mind, reason, and the ability to discern of the Holy Spirit for nothing.

So what is “prima scriptura?” Prima to what? Tradition? Whose tradition? Whose reason? Whose mind and whose ability to discern?

 

[MIZER]

*(1) We call for a ban on all human cloning, including the cloning of human embryos. This would include all projects, privately or governmentally funded, that are intended to advance human cloning. Transcending our concerns with embryo wastage are a number of other unresolved and barely explored concerns with substantial social and theological ramifications: use or abuse of people, exploitation of women, tearing of the fabric of the family, the compromising of human distinctiveness, the lessening of genetic diversity, the direction of research and development being controlled by corporate profit and/or personal gain, and the invasion of privacy. These unresolved concerns generate significant distrust and fear in the general public.

(2) We call for a ban on therapeutic, medical, research, and commercial procedures which generate waste embryos. The methods of concurrent research protocols in cloning necessitate the production of excess or “waste embryos,” which are ultimately destroyed.

(3) We commit to the widespread discussion of issues related to cloning in public forums, including United Methodist schools, seminaries, hospitals, and churches. Given the profound theological and moral implications, the imperfection of human knowledge, and the tremendous risks and social benefits, we urge that there be a moratorium on cloning-related research until these issues can be discussed fully by both the general public including significant participation from communities of faith, as well as by experts in agricultural and biological science, public policy, ethics, theology, law, and medicine, including genetics and genetic counseling. The psychological and social effects of cloning on individuals, families, parental relationships, and the larger society should be fully discussed. Those presently affected by in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, artificial insemination, and other reproduction technologies should be consulted to provide insight into some related psychological and social issues.

(4) We call on all nations to ban human cloning and to identify appropriate government agencies to enforce the ban. Appropriate social and governmental bodies must monitor and guide research and developments in the field. Concern for profit and commercial advantage should be balanced by consideration for individual rights, the interest of wide constituencies, and the common good of future generations.

ADOPTED 2000

See *Social Principles, United Methodist Book of Discipline, ¶ 162M.

The only statement on birth control is the following:
We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. ¶161K

¶160 All creation is the Lord’s, and we are responsible for the ways we use and abuse it. Water, air, soil, minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life, and space are to be valued and conserved because they are God’s creation and not solely because they are useful to human beings. God has granted us stewardship of creation. We should meet these stewardship duties through acts of loving care and respect. Economic, political, social, and technological developments have increased our human numbers, and lengthened and enriched our lives. However, these developments have led to regional defoliation, dramatic extinction of species, massive human suffering, overpopulation, and misuse and overconsumption of natural and nonrenewable resources, particularly by industrialized societies. This continued course of action jeopardizes the natural heritage that God has entrusted to all generations. Therefore, let us recognize the responsibility of the church and its members to place a high priority on changes in economic, political, social, and technological lifestyles to support a more ecologically equitable and sustainable world leading to a higher quality of life for all of God’s creation.

So, OS Luke, it looks like, as a Metholdist, you follow some authority that is extraneous to the Bible for guidance on some of these modern day issues. Who is that authority? Where does that persons authority come from? The Bible says all authority comes from God. So how do you know that this authority figure, whoevever wrote this and commands you (as a methodist) to believe it as truth, is in possession of God given authority? How do you know that this person (or persons) is not an imposter? How do you know that he (they) didn’t just claim to have this authority that you trust with your very salvation?

 

[MIZER]

Contrary to popular belief, the Methodist Church never stopped being anti-abortion, though factions within it did.

As stated earlier, abortion cannot be justified as:

• a means of birth control
• a means of gender selection

The UMC also opposes late-term D&E.

As you can see, there are very, very few instances where the UMC justifies abortion. It is a very strong statement, in my opinion.

By your own words you condem your own religion by stating that
“there are very, very few instances where the UMC justifies abortion.” By definition, that statement means that there are some instances where the UMC does in fact, justify this act of violence that kills a child. Unless the only instance, the only exception, is where the literal “life” of the mother is at stake, for example in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, then your exception means that the UMC is not really “anti-aboriton” at all.

That the UMC (by their own authority, I assume) states that:

abortion cannot be justified as:

• a means of birth control
• a means of gender selection

in no way protects the unborn child that might be aborted for “health reasons” on the part of the mother. So if I’m a Methodist, I can still “righteously” have an abortion as long as I’m not having it to control the size of my family or for gender selection. That leaves, almost the entire list of reasons woman give for having abortions under the “health” exception, as outlined by Roe. That’s not “pro-life.”

Is it possible that your own church is decieving you in it’s official “teaching.”

 

[MIZER]

JonNC posted:

I’m not so moved by the “marital act” reason, but I do understand it. Of course, with my wife and I, it is what we preferred, anyway.

Very cute. But, you do not “understand it.”

The teachings of the One True Church, that is the Dogma of the Church does not change with the times. This “seperation of the possiblility of the creation of new life from the marital embrace” is the same teaching against the use of artificial birth control. And that, you do not accept. There is a remnant of this teaching that also applies to the teaching that tells us that masterbation is a sin, and I imagine you also reject that.

This lack of a deeper understanding of the “marital act” is the reason why this aspect of the teaching on in-vitro doesn’t “move you.” For you, if there was no risk of abuse of the extra fertilized eggs, then you would have no problem with invitro fertilization and you wouldn’t deny the truth of the churches true teaching on this issue.

I will leave it up to you to do the extensive study you would have to do to have an understanding but I will tell you that it has to do with the sanctity of human life and the obligation we have to treat that new life with dignity and respect and it has to do with the rights human beings have, rights endowed by God, “even before he forms us in the womb,” because “HE knows” us even before that event occurs.

You do not understand these issues on the level that Christ made available to you to understand them, precisely because you and all Protestants (non-Catholics) reject the teacher Christ gave you. That is you reject The One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church which He founded and commissioned to teach His singular truth. I find that very sad.

 

[MIZER]

Too late to edit. This:

This lack of a deeper understanding of the “marital act” is the reason why this aspect of the teaching on in-vitro doesn’t “move you.” For you, if there was no risk of abuse of the extra fertilized eggs, then you would have no problem with invitro fertilization and you wouldn’t deny the truth of the churches true teaching on this issue.

Should say that you would deny the truth of the churches teaching. In other words, you only see the teaching as true because you can see that there is a problem with the wanton destruction of the the left over embryos. You do not see the teaching as true for the reason that IVF separates pro-creation from the marital embrace.

 

[Hope070408]

Posted for you a page or so back, MIZER.

The issue of IVF is an interesting discussion. I understand these teachings of the Catholic Church and would never consider IVF as an option. In infertility, God has chosen to separate the marital embrace from procreation. Is if for the reason that God alone can properly do this, that the Church teaching is that no one else may do so (e.g., with IVF)?

 

[MIZER]

Posted for you a page or so back, MIZER.

The issue of IVF is an interesting discussion. I understand these teachings of the Catholic Church and would never consider IVF as an option. In infertility, God has chosen to separate the marital embrace from procreation. Is if for the reason that God alone can properly do this, that the Church teaching is that no one else may do so (e.g., with IVF)?

Very simply put, yes. God is the author of life. So for the same reason that an unborn child might be spontaneously aborted (miscarriage), and pro-life Catholics are not going to say that sin is involved directly, because it is an act of God’s will and not the willful act of a human being, infertility, in as much as suffering that ordeal can be seen as the will of God in the life of the couple, sin is not directly involved as it is the will of God.

So what you say here is true, on both ends of the spectrum. If we are claiming to be Christian, or believers in Christ then we are saying that we are attempting to live our lives according to the will of God, not according to our own will. It is not for us to become the author of life (to become our own God) and either prevent the possibility of new life on the one hand, or force it in a way that the Church, that is the Church which speaks with the mind and voice of Christ, says denies the sanctity of human life, on the other hand. Denying the sanctity of human life is sinful.

I guess it boils down to this: Who do you trust for the truth on these crucial issues regarding life and death? Infertility is a horrible situation to endure for any couple wishing to have their own child. And we are never going to eradicate sinfulness. We all struggle against the temptations to sin and with the technology at our disposal today the temptations are stronger then ever. The desire to procreate is primal for most people, especially for most women. I can only imagine how hard it must be for the woman who so desperately wants a baby to say no to what seems like a quick and easy fix to a most distressing problem and forgo having the IVF proceedure.

I think the fact that the Catholic Church is, truly, the only Christian body, in the world that upholds these difficult ideals, across the board, simply on the basis that they are the truth, is just one more piece of evidence that she is the One True Church, founded by Christ, and commissioned by Him to teach his singular Gospel, to all nations. The Gospel of Christ is, very clearly, a Gospel of life.

Only a loving and responsible parent (Mother Church) can be trusted to teach a really hard truth. A truth that will cause her child to suffer greatly if it is embraced. And anyone reading this who is currently going through the trauma of infertility, believe me, I know the pain. But if we live up to the ideal of our faith, which every Christian claims to desire, then we will ultimately find blessing in the end. Sometimes the hardest thing to do in the world is what we know in our hearts is the right thing. Isn’t that the very essence of what Christ did for us?

Look at the mercy of God, found in a most profound way, only in the Catholic Church, as we enjoy the true Sacraments, Reconciliation (confession) being the greatest, IMO.

 

[Hope070408]

Infertility is so rough, and can be incredibly devastating to those of us affected by it. It could be all too easy to turn to what available options are out there to be able to have a child. IVF can be such a very costly and lengthy process that can be frought with lack of success, just adding to anguish, loss, and frustration. None of the major options truly are a quick fix, and it is good that the Church provides such clear guidance on what is right and moral in this area.

Oddly enough, the possibility of living a child-free life is something I’d never before considered, but I’ve found peace with whatever (including that) is in God’s plan for me. I think that sort of trust and faith is so helpful, not to mention having a wonderfully supportive spouse!

Thank you for your well-put, thorough explanation!