Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[mackbrislawn]

aussie_stockman;9399841

The “issue” I was pointing out was NOT whether it was “OK” to meet on Sundays (as opposed to the traditional Jewish Sabbath) - but merely to point out, as a matter of pure practicality, that for the early church (VERY early) - most of whom were Jews - meeting on a Sunday morning would not be terribly easy, since the majority of them were getting up to go to work on Sunday morning. It would just be difficult to imagine that the Apostles - who were all Jews - started “meeting times” on Sunday mornings, when for the rest of their culture, that was the “first work day of the week”.

So, again, my point is that, although the tradition of Sunday morning meetings probably did indeed start pretty early on (say, by 99 AD), I have my doubts that it was the Apostles that started it… That’s all…

I see your point aboiut getting up Sunday morning to go to work, which seemingly might preclude Sunday meetings. However Acts indicates that they also met *day by day *continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house. Also they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. The Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

So from the above passages it would seem they didn’t slack off on any day, which means meeting on Sunday would present no particular difficulty. And this was the very early church in Jerusalem.

It’s true, this isn’t explicit, and maybe the Jerusalem church didn’t practice the Lord’s Day. But the Jerusalem church essentially went out of existence when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Any Christians remaining there would have been slaughtered along with everyone else. It is said because of prophecy they escaped across the Jordan, but even so, after that, they had little influence on the development of subsequent Christianity. Pauline Christianity outside of Jerusalem prevailed.

Pauline Christianity of course was largely Gentile, and so meeting on Sunday would present no problem.

Another thought is that in the Greek world, there was no such thing as a day off. They worked every day of the week. So Greek converts would have as much difficulty meeting on Sunday as well as Saturday. So if the Greek converts could get up early Sunday morning and go to church, the Jewish converts could just as easily get up Sunday mornings too.

There is scriptural evidence that in Paul’s day his churches met on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7 Also Revelation 1:10 uses the term 'Lord’s day. Of course, you might argue that all the apostles were dead when Revelation was written, and a John other than the apostle wrote it. In either event, the Lord’s day was established in New Testament times, and so has Holy Spirit sanction.

 

[aussie_stockman]

aussie_stockman;9399841

I see your point aboiut getting up Sunday morning to go to work, which seemingly might preclude Sunday meetings. However Acts indicates that they also met *day by day *continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house. Also they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. The Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

So from the above passages it would seem they didn’t slack off on any day, which means meeting on Sunday would present no particular difficulty. And this was the very early church in Jerusalem.

It’s true, this isn’t explicit, and maybe the Jerusalem church didn’t practice the Lord’s Day. But the Jerusalem church essentially went out of existence when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Any Christians remaining there would have been slaughtered along with everyone else. It is said because of prophecy they escaped across the Jordan, but even so, after that, they had little influence on the development of subsequent Christianity. Pauline Christianity outside of Jerusalem prevailed.

Pauline Christianity of course was largely Gentile, and so meeting on Sunday would present no problem.

Another thought is that in the Greek world, there was no such thing as a day off. They worked every day of the week. So Greek converts would have as much difficulty meeting on Sunday as well as Saturday. So if the Greek converts could get up early Sunday morning and go to church, the Jewish converts could just as easily get up Sunday mornings too.

There is scriptural evidence that in Paul’s day his churches met on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7 Also Revelation 1:10 uses the term 'Lord’s day. Of course, you might argue that all the apostles were dead when Revelation was written, and a John other than the apostle wrote it. In either event, the Lord’s day was established in New Testament times, and so has Holy Spirit sanction.

You’re points are well-taken, and basically, it all makes sense… I’ve got no problem with that…

The only thing I have a problem with is the original statement which somebody made, saying that the APOSTLES started the Sunday “meeting day”. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. The Bible just doesn’t say WHO started it.

I mean, it’s not like it would take some “Act of the Apostles” to start a meeting with other believers on a Sunday (or Monday, or Tuesday, etc). There were - even in the pre-persecution days in Jerusalem - PLENTY of people that were very “active” in the church… Some guys, like Stephan (for example) were really “out there”, totally unafraid to preach the gospel. I suspect there were numerous “proactive” types, and also numerous “sub-groups”, and the whole idea of “hey, lets meet on Sunday” could have been brought up by just about ANYBODY…

Thats all I’m saying. It’s totally fine with me that we have Sunday meetings. But, it’s not like it takes either “Apostolic Intervention” OR some great “Move of the Holy Spirit” for people to pick a different day than the Jewish Sabbath to have meetings on…

I mean, some of this stuff just happened because it MADE SENSE to do it that way… Thats all I’m saying…

 

[mackbrislawn]

You’re points are well-taken, and basically, it all makes sense… I’ve got no problem with that…

The only thing I have a problem with is the original statement which somebody made, saying that the APOSTLES started the Sunday “meeting day”. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. The Bible just doesn’t say WHO started it.

I mean, it’s not like it would take some “Act of the Apostles” to start a meeting with other believers on a Sunday (or Monday, or Tuesday, etc). There were - even in the pre-persecution days in Jerusalem - PLENTY of people that were very “active” in the church… Some guys, like Stephan (for example) were really “out there”, totally unafraid to preach the gospel. I suspect there were numerous “proactive” types, and also numerous “sub-groups”, and the whole idea of “hey, lets meet on Sunday” could have been brought up by just about ANYBODY…

Thats all I’m saying. It’s totally fine with me that we have Sunday meetings. But, it’s not like it takes either “Apostolic Intervention” OR some great “Move of the Holy Spirit” for people to pick a different day than the Jewish Sabbath to have meetings on…

I mean, some of this stuff just happened because it MADE SENSE to do it that way… Thats all I’m saying…

I think you’re right. Anybody could have started the idea of meeting on Sunday, it wouldn’t have to have been at the direction of an apostle as such. And it did make sense. It wouldn’t have required an act of the apostles. My own opinion is that is just naturally happened in apostolic times. And that is what is important to counter the argument of Seventh Day Adventists–that Sunday and not Saturday worship is a practice inherited from the early times.

 

[aussie_stockman]

I think you’re right. Anybody could have started the idea of meeting on Sunday, it wouldn’t have to have been at the direction of an apostle as such. And it did make sense. It wouldn’t have required an act of the apostles. My own opinion is that is just naturally happened in apostolic times. And that is what is important to counter the argument of Seventh Day Adventists–that Sunday and not Saturday worship is a practice inherited from the early times.

Well, you know… hehehe… If the Seventh Day guys want to meet on Saturdays, thats OK… I mean, yeh, sure, the Jews met on Saturdays (or really, on Friday nights, to be precise)… And, they’re right - the EARLY church didn’t meet on Sundays, if you define the “Early Church” as “those believers who met together in the first six months after the Resurrection”… hehehe… After that? Well, those early believers evidently liked to get together quite a bit throughout the week. You know, that’s the way it is in a lot of little churches down in mexico, honduras, ecuador, places like that. Some of those churches have meetings several times a week… like, 4 or 5 times… They rather enjoy that down there… May not have been much different in the “Jerusalem church”, either… Well, it wouldn’t surprise me if it wasn’t much different, lemme just say that…

 

[Dhugz]

Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.

prorege-forum.com/forum_entry.php?id=11558

From first ce up to 4th ce, there is no bible, only at the end of the 4th ce started the canonization of the Bible. Why we only rely to the bible as the source or the ultimate rule of our faith since it is just the product of the Oral and writen Traditions of the Catholic Church? in the first 4 century catholics or christians relied only to the teachings of the bishops during that time. That is why, i am telling you to believe the Catholic Church first, because it is the Church who gave the bible to the world.

 

[aussie_stockman]

From first ce up to 4th ce, there is no bible, only at the end of the 4th ce started the canonization of the Bible. Why we only rely to the bible as the source or the ultimate rule of our faith since it is just the product of the Oral and writen Traditions of the Catholic Church? in the first 4 century catholics or christians relied only to the teachings of the bishops during that time. That is why, i am telling you to believe the Catholic Church first, because it is the Church who gave the bible to the world.

Actually, the Orthodox Church says the same thing…

 

[Dhugz]

Actually, the Orthodox Church says the same thing…

During those times Orthodox and the Latin Church are visibly united.

 

[Phineas]

Compare Scripture with Scripture With No Contradiction

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts. For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little: Isaiah 28:9-10;

Mark the plain and manifest places of the Scriptures, and in doubtful places see thou add no interpretation contrary to them; but (as Paul saith) let all be conformable and agreeing to the faith.— **William Tyndale, Preface to the New Testament, 1526. **

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them … The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.— Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647.

To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. Isaiah 28:7-29;; Proverbs 19:27; Luke 24:27,44,45; Romans 16:26; 2 Peter 1:19-21

The basic rule of proper Bible scholarship as summarized from the above statements is to never force scripture to contradict itself, for all scripture is inspired and God is not the author of confusion.

When someone says the 10 commandments are no longer valid or one or more of them have been changed or discarded, then you know that is a contradiction of scripture and therefore a false doctrine. You can go to Matt 5:17-19 where Jesus they stand fast, and not the least of which will be changed. In addition there is a woe unto anyone who breaks any of them and teaches others to do so as well. You can also cite Psalms 111:7-8 where the commandments of God stand fast for ever and ever. You can go the writings of Paul and cite Romans 7:12. You can also cite John 14:15 and1 John 2:3-5.

Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Bible’ (Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 2:15) in its support so that we do not make God the author of confusion.and Gospel doctrine subject to the whims of men.

 

[Porknpie]

Compare Scripture with Scripture With No Contradiction

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts. For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little: Isaiah 28:9-10;

Mark the plain and manifest places of the Scriptures, and in doubtful places see thou add no interpretation contrary to them; but (as Paul saith) let all be conformable and agreeing to the faith.— **William Tyndale, Preface to the New Testament, 1526. **

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them … The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.— Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647.

To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. Isaiah 28:7-29;; Proverbs 19:27; Luke 24:27,44,45; Romans 16:26; 2 Peter 1:19-21

The basic rule of proper Bible scholarship as summarized from the above statements is to never force scripture to contradict itself, for all scripture is inspired and God is not the author of confusion.

When someone says the 10 commandments are no longer valid or one or more of them have been changed or discarded, then you know that is a contradiction of scripture and therefore a false doctrine. You can go to Matt 5:17-19 where Jesus they stand fast, and not the least of which will be changed. In addition there is a woe unto anyone who breaks any of them and teaches others to do so as well. You can also cite Psalms 111:7-8 where the commandments of God stand fast for ever and ever. You can go the writings of Paul and cite Romans 7:12. You can also cite John 14:15 and1 John 2:3-5.

Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Bible’ (Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 2:15) in its support so that we do not make God the author of confusion.and Gospel doctrine subject to the whims of men.

Phineas -

Christ established his Catholic church through St. Peter, and St. Paul tells us that this church is the pillar and foundation of truth, both in written form and what has been spoken. The canon was established, through tradition (the teaching of Christ to his disciples and their successors) to have a defined and universally tought set of readings to be used at Mass. Inspired? Yes! Profitable for teaching? Absolutely! A compendium of all truth in Christ? No! The church holds the truth in both written form, the bible and through the sacred tradition.

Where in the bible does it say that we should use the “bible alone”? It must say it if you believe it. Otherwise it is self-contradicting.

2 Timothy 4 makes it clear such heresy will occur but Christ also promised that he would be with his church until end of time. It can not and has not errored in faith and morals.

3
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers
4
and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.*

 

[JonNC]

=Phineas;9418423]

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them … The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.— Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647.

*This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… *- Martin Chemnitz

To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. Isaiah 28:7-29;; Proverbs 19:27; Luke 24:27,44,45; Romans 16:26; 2 Peter 1:19-21

We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church. - Chemnitz.

When someone says the 10 commandments are no longer valid or one or more of them have been changed or discarded, then you know that is a contradiction of scripture and therefore a false doctrine.

Who has done this? And how?

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.* - Chemnitz.
Jon

JonNC, I asked this on another post and wasn’t intending to ask it here but given the ECF testimony above, the bible itself and Luthers teaching on contraception being immoral, why does the LCMS not teach that the contraceptive pill is immoral? In it’s 3rd means of preventing pregnancy, the pill stops a fertilized pill from implanting, killing human life. Consistent with Luther, I understand that the LCMS once taught that all contraception was immoral and now it does not. Is this change coming from a change in biblical interpretation or tradition? Reason for my asking this is to be better informed and to discuss the morality of the pill with a LCMS co-worker who is criticizing me on the Catholic teaching on contraception. I want to be informed to help her form her conscious on the matter. Thank you.

 

[Adamski]

Someone recently asked me can you have Christ church without the bible?
I came up with this

The answer is yes you can have his church without the bible but you can’t have the bible without the church

Reasons why
1- for thousands of years or longer God had a covedent with the Jewish people as they were nomadic with no written language or ability to write down Gods words*

2- can a child or a disabled person believe in Christ if they can’t read or write

3- *the apostles and nicene creeds established by a living church can give us a guidance for Christ as our savior. The apostles creed may pre date the new testament right to the day of Pentecost

4- the sacrements of baptism, eucharist, confession, comfirmation, holy orders, matrimony and anointing of the sick offer us tools for our salvation. All sacrements are out lined through the church in the bible

5-there were many Christians before the last book (revelations) was written in 95 ad that had Christian guidance*

6- there was not even a universal understanding of what books belonged in the bible (73 books) until the church said so at synod of hippo 393 ad through second council of Carthage at 406ad

7-the Eucharist has always been the center of main stream Christian worship service (catholic, Anglican, Coptic, lutheran, Methodist, orthodox, some Presbyterian and more) plus would still be the center without the bible as Jesus said and did 4 times in the bible. John 6:53

8-The church of the saint thomas of India existed as a trinity, baptism initiated, Eucharist centered church from the year 52ad until 1550 without western influence and a new testament*

9-we would be able to know the true nature of Christ and the traditional apostolic church just through the pre nicene writings. Which are the writings from church fathers such as polycarp that studied directly under the apostles that walked with Jesus.

10- if the catholic church didn’t exist we wouldn’t have a bible that they preserved through out the ages against heresies such as Arianism, and gnosticism. Also against invading barbarians, Mongols, and Islam.

11-as languages were developing and constantly changing they preserved*
the bible in the only language that has not changed and is still used for over. 2,000 years Latin*

12-for near enternity until only the last 100 years less than 10% of all Christians and before that Jewish *did not have the ability to read and were still they under the guidance of their pastors and priests believed their covadent with God

13- there are 2.3 billion trinity baptized Christians and and 1.8 billion of them recognize the apostles and nicene creed and have a sacramental understanding that baptism, and holy Eucharist are there church foundations.*

14-Jesus never left us with any actual writings he left us with 12 men

15-the bible says it is not the only rule of faith (1: Tim 3:15)
( 2 thess 2:15)

16- there was no common name in any language for Rock before peter (petros) was named**Cephas in Jesus’s native*
Aramaic in Matt 16:18

In conclusion jesus left us 12 imperfect men that under the guidance of the holy ghost were able to write a perfect book and were able to appoint successors that canonized and preserved the catholic churches perfect book that over 38,000 small splitter groups use today. *Finally if there was no catholic church there would be no bible.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC, I asked this on another post and wasn’t intending to ask it here but given the ECF testimony above, the bible itself and Luthers teaching on contraception being immoral, why does the LCMS not teach that the contraceptive pill is immoral? In it’s 3rd means of preventing pregnancy, the pill stops a fertilized pill from implanting, killing human life. Consistent with Luther, I understand that the LCMS once taught that all contraception was immoral and now it does not. Is this change coming from a change in biblical interpretation or tradition? Reason for my asking this is to be better informed and to discuss the morality of the pill with a LCMS co-worker who is criticizing me on the Catholic teaching on contraception. I want to be informed to help her form her conscious on the matter. Thank you.

Porknpie,
There just isn’t a gard pro or con position taken by the synod, so far as I know. Statements I have seen tend to be nuanced, such as this one from, I think, a 1981 study group:

In view of the Biblical command and the blessing to “be fruitful and multiply,” it is to be expected that marriage will not ordinarily be voluntarily childless. But, in the absence of Scriptural prohibition, there need be no objection to contraception within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful. Moreover, once we grant the appropriateness of contraception, we will also recognize that sterilization may under some circumstances be an acceptable form of contraception. Because of its relatively permanent nature, sterilization is perhaps less desirable than less-far reaching forms of contraception. However, there should be no moral objection to it, especially for couples who already have children and who now seek to devote themselves to the rearing of those children, for those who have been advised by a physician that the birth of another child would be hazardous to the health of the mother, or for those who for reasons of age, physical disability, or illness are not able to care for additional children. Indeed, there may be special circumstances which would persuade a Christian husband and wife that it would be more responsible and helpful to all concerned, under God, not to have children. Whatever the particular circumstances, Christians dare not take lightly decisions in this area of their life together. They should examine their motives thoroughly and honestly and take care lest their decisions be informed by a desire merely to satisfy selfish interests.

With respect to voluntary childlessness in general, we should say that while there may be special reasons which would persuade a Christian husband and wife to limit the size of their family, they should remember at all times how easy it is for them simply to permit their union to turn inward and refuse to take up the task of sharing in God’s creative activity. Certainly Christians will not give as a reason for childlessness the sorry state of the world and the fear of bringing a child into such a world. We are not to forget the natural promise embedded in the fruitfulness of marriage. To bear and rear children can be done, finally, as an act of faith and hope in God who has promised to supply us with all that we “need to support this body and life.”

Now understand, when we speak of only contraception. We are not talking about any thing that interferes with those who are already conceived. The LCMS is completely against anything type of abortion, chemical or physical. These are not contra-conceptives.

There are groups within the LCMS are are pushing hard for an affirmation of what the historic Church, including Lutheranism, has taught for centuries. I encourage you to look around.

lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=20

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Now understand, when we speak of only contraception. We are not talking about any thing that interferes with those who are already conceived. The LCMS is completely against anything type of abortion, chemical or physical. These are not contra-conceptives.**

Jon,

This is precisely the problem with the pill. It IS an abortificent in its third method of preventing pregnancy. It can interfere with life already conceived. The issue for my friend is that the LCMS is not teaching this so I’ll be explaining the biology of how the pill works, the Catholic position and the Luthers position. Luther was right here.

Regarding scripture, the OT does speak in several places about the immorality of crushing testicles to prevent pregnancy. This is a contraceptive type that unfortunately hurts . The ECF spoke to the evil of the same and sterility drugs, and I believe they spoke to barriers women put inside themselves.

I found this short article but what strikes me here is that the LCMS has never had an official stance on birth control (see highlighted text). This explains in part the problem with my LCMS friend…

lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-synodical-resolution-on-birth.html

To get back on topic, I would submit that the topic of birth control is one where the errors of sola scriptura and infallibilty of Catholicism on morals can be clearly seen. I realize in saying this that the LCMS is not alone in their stance on birth control and I can see from the blog above that there are LCMS members who want to go back to the biblical teaching. What is kind of interesting is that a number of them know what Luther believed and reference him by name but none of them reference the ECF. What is your thought on this last observation?

 

[JonNC]

=Porknpie;9427289]
This is precisely the problem with the pill. It IS an abortificent in its third method of preventing pregnancy. It can interfere with life already conceived. The issue for my friend is that the LCMS is not teaching this so I’ll be explaining the biology of how the pill works, the Catholic position and the Luthers position. Luther was right here.

IF any medication or contraceptive is an abortificent, the LCMS says they reject it. President Harrison said as much in front of Congress.

I found this short article but what strikes me here is that the LCMS has never had an official stance on birth control (see highlighted text). This explains in part the problem with my LCMS friend…

lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-synodical-resolution-on-birth.html

We are not alone, which the article I’ll link alludes to.

To get back on topic, I would submit that the topic of birth control is one where the errors of sola scriptura and infallibilty of Catholicism on morals can be clearly seen. I realize in saying this that the LCMS is not alone in their stance on birth control and I can see from the blog above that there are LCMS members who want to go back to the biblical teaching. What is kind of interesting is that a number of them know what Luther believed and reference him by name but none of them reference the ECF. What is your thought on this last observation?

I disagree that it is a topic of sola scriptura, because Orthodoxy seems to take a similar approach to what the LCMS has taken. If the article I cite, or the conclusion I draw from it are factually wrong, I hope some will correct me.

Opinions about contraception have varied in the Orthodox Church. There is complete unanimity that no form of contraception that is abortifacient is acceptable and there are definitive ecumenical canons that proscribe abortifacients. The Fathers of the Church, such as Ss. Athanasius the Great, John Chrysostom, Epiphanios, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Caesarious, Gregory the Great, Augustine of Canterbury and Maximos the Confessor, all explicitely condemned abortion as well as the use of abortifacients. However there are a range of opinions on the issue of non-abortifacient contraception.

1. There are those who hold the view that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, and so even natural family planning would be prohibited.
   2)There are those who argue that natural family planning is acceptable, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely.
   3)There are those who teach that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one’s spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons.
   The statement on marriage and family from the 10th All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America follows along these lines, as does “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” section XII. 3, which was approved by the 2000 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.
   While some local churches have issued official statements on this issue, it is not an issue that has been clearly defined by the entire Church.

Vocal opponents to the prevailing view of contraception in Orthodoxy today include [incomplete]: Bp. Hilarion of Vienna [ROC], Bp. Artemije of Kosovo [SOC], Fr. Josiah Trenham, Fr. Patrick Reardon, Fr. John Schroedel and Fr. Patrick Danielson.

orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

Coloring and bolding are mine.

In the red, this is almost exactly what the LCMS seems to be saying, when it uses the phrase,* “there need be no objection to contraception within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful.”*

In the blue, as you can see, Orthodoxy has not clearly defined the issue either. So, as I said, one can’t simply fault sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

IF any medication or contraceptive is an abortificent, the LCMS says they reject it. President Harrison said as much in front of Congress.
Jon

Hi Jon,

So if I follow you above, since the pill is an abortificent as registered by the drug companies to the FDA, then LCMS rejects it. That’s the root of my problem with my LCMS friend, their church is not teaching this about the pill. They believe it is only a contraceptive which the Catholic church teaches is immoral but I’m trying to communicate to her that it is more evil than that, it is also registered with the government as an abortificient in its 3rd means of preventing pregnancy.

So question is … Does the teaching vary between LCMS churches on this? If she were to go to another LCMS church in another town, would the pastor preach that the pill should not be used because it can act as an abortificient? Sorry if I sound confused but I am.

The Catholic church understands that contraceptives were condemned as immoral including the use of sterilizing drugs, mutilation of the male genitals an woman putting barriers inside themselves to prevent pregnancy. There are biblical and/or ECF citations for the latter points. The Orthodox are following a man made tradition, ignoring the bible and the teachings of the Church and church history. They are calling “evil, good”.

 

[JonNC]

=Porknpie;9431276]Hi Jon,

So if I follow you above, since the pill is an abortificent as registered by the drug companies to the FDA, then LCMS rejects it. That’s the root of my problem with my LCMS friend, their church is not teaching this about the pill. They believe it is only a contraceptive which the Catholic church teaches is immoral but I’m trying to communicate to her that it is more evil than that, it is also registered with the government as an abortificient in its 3rd means of preventing pregnancy.

So question is … Does the teaching vary between LCMS churches on this? If she were to go to another LCMS church in another town, would the pastor preach that the pill should not be used because it can act as an abortificient? Sorry if I sound confused but I am.

Here is what the linked study says:

Concluding Remarks on hormonal contraception
Insofar as no hormonal contraceptive can suppress ovulation all the time, there is some risk, whether great or small, of breakthrough ovulation, thus creating a scenario in which the egg may or may not be fertilized. If fertilized (which would lead to a pregnancy), it may or may not be able to successfully implant in an altered endometrium (which would either lead to a pregnancy or a chemical abortion).
The LCMS has historically determined that human life begins at conception. This position is firmly grounded on the science of embryology and on Holy Scripture.14 Because of this confession on human life, some people have ethical concerns about the use of hormonal contraception. Some pro-life medical organizations have not taken a stance against hormonal contraception.15,16 Other pro-life medical organizations emphasize “that the pill
and similar birth control products act, part of the time, by design, to prevent implantation of an already created human being. These products clearly cause an early abortion and are — despite the semantic gymnastics of their ardent apologists — abortifacient.”17 Nearly all scientists and medical professionals agree that this is a possible action
of the pill; however, scientific data does not exist to state with certainty how frequently such events occur. Therefore, the scientific data does not allow one to state definitively that hormonal contraceptive methods are abortifacients, but the possibility that this can occur must be acknowledged.
There are also some pro-life health care providers and theologians who believe that “the pill” works solely by preventing ovulation. 18,19
The LCMS Sanctity of Human Life Committee, following the mandate given to it by the Synod in convention, cannot state definitively that hormonal contraception does not at least some of the time cause a chemical abortion. The medical and scientific community acknowledges this possibility, but cannot state how frequently or if, in fact, this does occur. In light of this, some Christian couples may have concerns about hormonal
contraception. Rather than defaulting immediately to “the pill” or other hormonal methods, they should keep an open mind and make themselves aware of all forms of contraception, including natural family planning, barrier methods, and sterilization in certain exceptionally difficult situations.

Nw, this study was intended to research the issue, not set doctrine. That’s why it doesn’t sound like a doctrine statement. Clearly, however, the pill can be an abortificent, and at least ought to stand outside any possible synod approval.

www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=632

The Catholic church understands that contraceptives were condemned as immoral including the use of sterilizing drugs, mutilation of the male genitals an woman putting barriers inside themselves to prevent pregnancy. There are biblical and/or ECF citations for the latter points. The Orthodox are following a man made tradition, ignoring the bible and the teachings of the Church and church history. They are calling “evil, good”.

I respect you for taking the stance your communion does. My point, in light of the thread, was to clarify that this is not an issue of sola scriptura gone astray, but a matter of communions looking at the science, Tradition, and scripture to guide their members.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

I respect you for taking the stance your communion does. My point, in light of the thread, was to clarify that this is not an issue of sola scriptura gone astray, but a matter of communions looking at the science, Tradition, and scripture to guide their members.

Jon

Jon, Thank you as now I have more information to talk to my LCMS friend. I look forward to talking with her on what God wants us to “do” in our lives in this area and how we are called to holiness.

Back on topic, we stand or sit on opposite sides on this one. Science says the pill can act as an abortificient as its registered with the FDA that way. Tradition, including ECF and Luther, points to contraception being immoral. At least for 1900 years across all major Christian faiths. Scripture says the same. Solo scriptura lacks an authority and I again submit with respect, that the issue of contraception shows that Christ is guiding his Catholic church in morals without error and solo scriptura is leading to error.

God bless.

 

[Phineas]

Phineas -

Christ established his Catholic church through St. Peter, and St. Paul tells us that this church is the pillar and foundation of truth, both in written form and what has been spoken. …

Where in the bible does it say that we should use the “bible alone”? It must say it if you believe it. Otherwise it is self-contradicting.

2 Timothy 4 makes it clear such heresy will occur but Christ also promised that he would be with his church until end of time. It can not and has not errored in faith and morals.

.

Claiming to be Christ’s church means nothing. Doing the will of Christ is what matters.

Christ established his church on Himself. He is the cornerstone on which the rest of the foundation was laid. The rest of the foundation of the church was built upon the apostles and the prophets (both Old and New Testament writers)

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,** Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; **

Christ church has the following characteristics:
1.. Christ is the sole head of the church
1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
Eph 1:22 And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church, 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all

2.. Christ’s church is made up of those, like Peter, that love Him, do His will, and keep his commandments
Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

3. All church members are brethren with no member having supreme authority in religious matters, but all servants to each other.
Matt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted

Peter never considered himself infallible, nor does the Bible say he would have successors who would infallibly lead the church. See Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he erred.

You asked,*"Where in the bible does it say that we should use the "bible alone
*
Sola Scriptura means that all doctrine, dogma or tradition of the Christian church to conform to the word of God as written in the scriptures and should in no way contradict or annul it.

If your church wants to commemorate the day the Lord was resurrected , fine, for that violates no scripture. But to make Sunday the new Lord’s Day and reject the Sabbath commandment would be sinful according to Jesus, the head of the church… (See Matt 5:17-19)

You said," 2 Timothy 4 makes it clear such heresy will occur but Christ also promised that he would be with his church until end of time. It can not and has not errored in faith and morals."

Christ’s church keeps the commandments of God and He has given no earthly authority permission to change them.(See Matt 5:19 for specifics)

 

[Porknpie]

Phineas -

Peace.

**Sola Scriptura means that all doctrine, dogma or tradition of the Christian church to conform to the word of God as written in the scriptures and should in no way contradict or annul it. **

Understand your definition but the new testament comes from the tradition… We love the bible, infallible yes, profitable for teaching yes. But we don’t hold the bible over tradition. If you believe that, where in scripture does it say it? And what did the church do for the first 400 years until the canon was set? They relied on tradition. Remember the canon was set to have a set of readings to be used at Mass, not as a compendium of all truth. An example here is the Trinity. Regarding Mass, does your church believe in the Eucharist? If not, why not? It’s both biblical and found in tradition.

If your church wants to commemorate the day the Lord was resurrected , fine, for that violates no scripture. But to make Sunday the new Lord’s Day and reject the Sabbath commandment would be sinful according to Jesus, the head of the church… (See Matt 5:17-19)

Christ fulfilled the OT sabbath and the church has the power given to Peter to move the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, recognizing the day of Christ’s resurrection. There is no conflict.

**You said," 2 Timothy 4 makes it clear such heresy will occur but Christ also promised that he would be with his church until end of time. It can not and has not errored in faith and morals." Christ’s church keeps the commandments of God and He has given no earthly authority permission to change them.(See Matt 5:19 for specifics) **

Christ gave the Church through Peter, his prime minister on earth, the power to bind and loose on earth and it would be bound and loose in heaven.