Protestants: please stop using the label "Bible-believing"

[erikd]

Woah! What???

See posts 743, 779, 794 and 819.

 

[Janet1983]

See posts 743, 779, 794 and 819.

Onan and contraception are 2 different things.
Onan offended God because he was supposed to lay with his sister-in-law so that his brother was having legal offspring. Instead of giving it to the next in line he agreed and then he made sure it wasn’t going to happen…
He broke the law and God punished him.
The case of a man and a woman who are married is totally different and there is no such case in which someone is said to have used birth control and was then killed… Apart from that it was good to have many children back then because they would help taking care of their parents in their old age.

 

[erikd]

Onan and contraception are 2 different things.
Onan offended God because he was supposed to lay with his sister-in-law so that his brother was having legal offspring. Instead of giving it to the next in line he agreed and then he made sure it wasn’t going to happen…
He broke the law and God punished him.
The case of a man and a woman who are married is totally different and there is no such case in which someone is said to have used birth control and was then killed… Apart from that it was good to have many children back then because they would help taking care of their parents in their old age.

Hi, Janet

If you look through the posts I indicated to you, you’ll see why that logic can’t work. Feel free to answer any of those posts directly, that way we’re not clogging up the thread by re-stating that which has already been stated. These arguments have already been raised by Bengoshi, and he has since moved to just attacking the Catholic Church instead of sticking with his original argument which I think he knows is illogical. I look forward to your response and it’s nice to talk to you again.

 

[erikd]

You are assuming that it is God’s gift. It may not always be the case.

I thought everything we have is God’s gift to us. Is it not? Do you know of another creator?

 

[erikd]

You are assuming that it is God’s gift. It may not always be the case. God’s gift is our ABILITY to have offspring, but that doesn’t mean we should have to! Check out the following links:

religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Protestants_endorse_family_planning.htm

ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43280

philippineasiannewstoday.com/pinky-a-bartolome/312-the-ironic-twist

Catholics, wake up! This is the sad reality we are facing, especially in poor countries like the Philippines and others in the Asian region.

Bengoshi:

I know it’s a little off topic but I wanted to ask if you’re in the Philippines? If so are you safe from the floods happening right now? If not, all Theological differences aside, you have my prayers.

 

[Janet1983]

Hi, Janet

If you look through the posts I indicated to you, you’ll see why that logic can’t work. Feel free to answer any of those posts directly, that way we’re not clogging up the thread by re-stating that which has already been stated. These arguments have already been raised by Bengoshi, and he has since moved to just attacking the Catholic Church instead of sticking with his original argument which I think he knows is illogical. I look forward to your response and it’s nice to talk to you again.

Well I did read through the post you wrote, I disagree, and my arguments are here…
See my last post.

 

[erikd]

Well I did read through the post you wrote, I disagree, and my arguments are here…
See my last post.

Thanks for reading through the posts. In post 794 I asked Bengoshi which of the three categories he subscribes to in order to support his argument and I have the same question for you. The argument you make has to be supported by one of those three things to make sense. Which of the three do you subscribe to? If your answer is none, can you explain. Thanks in advance.

 

[steve_b]

steve_b:

The emperor was NOT head of the Church. THAT’s the point. Now if you talk about the Byzantines, after THEY broke away, they had a problem with emperors. Later even the Muslim Sultans controlled them to the point of naming and deposing Patriarchs at will.

Anglicans had that problem during the Protestant revolt with the king, Henry VIII who took over as head of the English Church.

Catholics still existed, loyal to the pope, unlike those who divide with the king.

lucky:

The Emperors were the head of state!

That doesn’t equate to head of the Church.

lucky:

They had an interest in all that was going on

True, but that’s different from king or queen or emperor trying make themselves head of the Church. They can’t do it. They have no authority to do it.

lucky:

and when the Christian leadership ignored or didn’t know about papal claims they used the Emperor’s to settle the questions.

EVERYBODY in the Church knew about papal claims. It’s when you got people trying to go against the teachings of the Church that you see and read from Councils or Church fathers writing against this or that heresy or heretic(s) that bore the heresy. You should familiarize yourself with their writings.

lucky:

Had you any idea whatsoever, you would know that Henry claimed Imperial authority ,he was the Chief magistrate no more and the English Church tacked on to the legislation the claim that* Henry was “the singular protector only and supreme lord and so far as the Law of Christ will allow of the English Church and Clergy!”* That is the case in any civilised country! Or do you think that the Church should be above the laws?

You’re mixing apples and turnips.

Henry broke from the pope. Catholics said no. Catholics remained united to the pope and remained Catholic. The rest broke away from the Church with Henry as THEIR head. At that point they were no longer Catholics.

lucky:

you have not tackled the (name removed by moderator)ut of the state in to the authority and place of the Bishop of Rome within the catholic Church! His authority chiefly came from the state, he was a civil servant in orders, the Church in Rome was a Dept of the Empire.

The authority of the Church and the pope does NOT come from the state. It comes from God

From the 1st century to the 4th century, read about the pope and his authority in the Church… all the while being persecuted by the state. Most of those popes were martyred. Are you even familiar with the Early Church fathers? Those that wrote DURING The severe persecutions of the Church BY the state? Church and state were water and oil. And in many cases still is.

Once Constantine converted however, he was the last of the line of Caesars that persecuted the Church. Once the state was converted from paganism to Catholicism, the persecution of Catholics ended.

lucky:

He was allowed to enforce his orders by means of the Stasi.

huh? I can’t wait to hear this one?

lucky:

Further, something else that you avoid, the pope was a territorial magnate over most of Northern Italy A Prince and a bishop? What is the difference between England and Italy? Except that the English Catholics limited, as far as they were able the chances of Henry becoming a tyrant. As far as the Roman Church was concerned their was not even a muffled burp!

English Catholics remained Catholic by staying united with t he pope. All those who broke from the pope are no longer Catholic

 

[steve_b]

Onan and contraception are 2 different things.
Onan offended God because he was supposed to lay with his sister-in-law so that his brother was having legal offspring. Instead of giving it to the next in line he agreed and then he made sure it wasn’t going to happen…
He broke the law and God punished him.

Made sure WHAT wouldn’t happen? conception.

Onan didn’t mind the sex. He could have abstained. But no, He was going to have sex, he just wanted to make sure conception didn’t occur. His act of withdrawl to deliberatly prevent conception is conta-conception by definition i.e. contraception.

janet:

The case of a man and a woman who are married is totally different and there is no such case in which someone is said to have used birth control and was then killed…

Do you think everyone gets punished here for their sins?. If that was the case there would be no need for hell, nor for Jesus and the apostles to warn of it.

 

[Janet1983]

Made sure WHAT wouldn’t happen? conception.

Onan didn’t mind the sex. He could have abstained. But no, He was going to have sex, he just wanted to make sure conception didn’t occur. His act of withdrawl to deliberatly prevent conception is conta-conception by definition i.e. contraception.

He made sure that no children of his were to be raised and accounted for as children of his brother.
That was against the law… He had agreed and not given this duty to the next of kin so he was punished. This is still not against contraception however…

 

[Janet1983]

Thanks for reading through the posts. In post 794 I asked Bengoshi which of the three categories he subscribes to in order to support his argument and I have the same question for you. The argument you make has to be supported by one of those three things to make sense. Which of the three do you subscribe to? If your answer is none, can you explain. Thanks in advance.

None of the points are valid resons to claim that contraception is not legal accoding to the Bible.
Onan did willingly and knowingly defy God. It was not that he did not want to accept the duty as next of kin. In the example of Ruth this was not an issue either and someone else was found. He did accept it and then tried to prevent it from happening. He was in defiance in that he did not give this woman a fair chance to give birth to a son for his deceased brother.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus gave Peter special gifts and reponsibilities. The are also referred to as Petrine gifts. To Peter was given the specific commission to feed and care for the flock. Of course he was not to do this in isolation from the other Apostles, but Jesus clearly appointed him to this duty.
luckyfredsdad;5745079:

I have no doubt that Peter was given a specific commission as you say, but so were all the other Apostles!

Peter was the only one who was told that, after he was restored, he should strengthen his brethren. This is where we understand he was being made shepherd of the shepherds…

Scripture however, doesn’t record that anything was passed to the Bishop of Rome , beyongd his duties as a diocesan bishop and Patriarch

Scripture does not record a lot of truths. It does not record when Peter went to Rome, or what happened to Paul after he got there. Scripture does not record the two building up the Church there, or them both being martyred there. Peter passed his duties on to his successor, just as Judas’ duties were passed on to Matthias. This is apostolic succession. Peter had additional responsibilities that went with his office.

Apostolic Succession is not only the mechanical laying on of hands however, it is also the successful teaching of the revelation of Christ which is interpreted for us by the Christian fathers of the First Centuries. This is confirmed by Roman Catholic Councils, especially and famously, by Trent! Yet nowhere on these forums do we find any recognition of the part played by the fathers in  the apostolic process!

I guess I do not understand your complaint. It seems to me that most of the evangelicals that come here for dialogue have no use for the fathers. I tried to encourage one yesterday to read Irenaeus and he replied “if it is not in the Scripture, I am not interested”. It is impossible to benefit from the contribution of the Early Church Fathers with such an attitude.

I instance the comments put forward by your contributers on the Matthean Rock quote! The interpretation of the Holy fathers are either rubbished or ignored.``

Oh. I see what you mean! Yes. It is not necessary to separate Christ, Peter, and the statement he made. All of them are solid Rock!

I think the unifying role of the successor of Peter did not become clear for centuries.

When the NT was written, the office of the Pope had not yet developed. Neither had the term “trinity”. What we see in the NT as a small seed has become a large tree.

Development?

Yes. this is the term that is used to truths revealed to and by the Apostles that did not become clearly defined until decades or centuries later, the hypostatic union, for example.

There is no development in our Catholic dogma, it is revealed by Christ, once to the saints, as S.Jude [His Brother,?} tells us and it is completed, explained and interpreted by the same holy fathers within the seven ecumenical councils with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. As you say the doctrine of the Trinity is a supreme example! As is, I think, our relationship to The Lady Mary shown quite clearly by the Councils at Ephesus, Constantinople and the Seventh Council.

Development is the process of the Church to understand and clarify the once for all divine deposit of faith. This occurs when there are heresies that need to be addressed. This is where the term Trinity came from (doctrinial development). The Church strove to define and explain the Apostolic Teaching in a manner that would address the problems of the day. The Gnostic and Arian heresies were both critical in doctrinal development. Arianism sprurred the Church to choose the term “theotokos” for Mary. There is no evidence at all in scripture that anyone ever referred to her as the Mother of God.

I do think that the claims of the papacy restrict and diminish the post of the diocesan bishop to their detriment!

This would definitely be an interesting thread. There were times in history when as much as 80 % of the bishops fell into heresy. These situations caused a need for strong papal actions. It may be that bishops are “restricted”. I don’t know any that are, but one has to keep in mind why such restrictions may have been necessary.

Peter, If I remember was Apostle to the Circumcision, the Jews? Whilst Paul was Apostle to the Gentiles.

The two agreed to minister to these populations, but it would be false to say that they were not in unity with one another, or that both of them did not minister to the other populations. God certainly chose Peter to open the door of the gospel to the Gentiles, before he called Paul to work in that field. Paul also always went first to the synagogues in every place, before he went on to the Gentiles. Not sure what you rpoint is here.

It was about 300yrs gone before the Pope of Old Rome, was made Patriarch of the West,it was a gift of the Church. later the same priviliges were bestowed upon the Bishop of New Rome, Constantinople.

No it was actually in the 7th century that secular power was transferred to the Roman Patriarch. Rome was always one of the five Patriarchies in the Church, but did not have secular authority. When Rome collapsed politically, and the Emperor decided to move to Constantople, there was no organized structure to adminster the affairs of the city, except the Patriarch. He was given the title of Pontiff (secular ruler) and responsibility for utilities and governance. I don’t think it was a “gift to the Church” an all. I think it was a last ditch effort for the Emperor to leave with some grace (not abandon the popluace completely of governance), and one of the worst things that could have happened to the Church. If the Latin Rite had not been conflated with secular governance, the Reformation may never have occurrred. That is one reason today, Latin priests are forbidden to hold public office. The Bishop taking secular governance is not a gift at all!

I know, but you don’t have to fall into the same ignorance. There are a majority of Latin Rite Catholics that do not even know there are 22 non-“Roman” Rites all in communion with the Successor of Peter.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[guanophore]

Just when did Henry, or the Church in England break from the Roman Church?

Henry did so when he chose to commit adultery, and refused the instruction and correction from the authority appointed by Christ.

The people living in England broke with the Church founded by Christ when they lined up with Henry.
luckyfredsdad;5745079:

Neither he nor the Church did! What happened was that the Synod passed a canon that foreign bishops have no jurisdiction in this country! [rough trans.] In doing this they simply followed the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. It is these latter, that have and hold the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

It was problematic for the Bishop to become involved in secular affairs. Taking on secular responsibility set the stage for this problem way back in the 7th century. No one could see the division and schism that was going result.

At no time did the Anglican Church breakaway or separate themselves from the Church on the Continent!

I think we must be reading different history books. It became illegal in England to be Catholic. If people wanted to practice their faith, and live, they had to become Anglican.

You bring out the business of the Headship of the Church!!

Yes. I think this whole ordeal was about Henry wanting an heir of his own body, and the power bickering of men.

Henry in claiming this was doing no more than the Roman Emperors had done. After all they had called Ecumenical Councils, had appointed the chair at these councils and had

Are you saying that this is the right and proper method of governing the Church?

in some cases chosen time and place. They had even ratified the results of the Councils. Which is a ll the Bishop of Rome has done!

Are you saying you are in support of secular rulers governing the Church, and church leaders ruling in the secular realm?

Further to this, the Bishop of Rome was the ruler of vast lands in Northern Italy, Civil Ruler, mark you and he claimed headship of the Church. What was the difference?

Only that civil headship had been handed to the Pontiff voluntarlily. However power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Cardinal Pole, his cousin, writing of Princes said,' They too are the Vicars of Christ'. He goes on, ' He,   the monarch,] is the Regal Head of the Church, as the pontiff is the Sacerdotal Head. Both are Vicars of Christ, who is both Priest and King. The Emperor is indeed like Christ, who is    King of Kings. ' And in a General Council he has those parts exactly  which Christ  as their Lord , Master and King discharged towards His Apostles.....

No, Jesus was clear that His Kingdom was not of this world. The notion of creating the Kingdom of God in the secular realm is purely an invention of man. And we see the fruits of it. His Apostles never advocated secular rulership, and never taught that there was to be any Vicar of Chist who was a secular ruler.

There’s a lot more and all from a Cardinal who very nearly reached the position of pope himself. The trouble is that most Romanists believe only that which suits there particular fad of the moment, their preconceived notions.

The context of this statement and the tone suggests that you are using the term “Romanists” in a pejorative tone, which would be a violation of the forum rules.

Cardinals individually do not define the doctrine of the Church. This cardinals opinion is not constent with the doctrine of the Church. Maybe there was a divine protection, preventing him from becoming pope, and bringing his heresies with him?

 

[steve_b]

He made sure that no children of his were to be raised and accounted for as children of his brother.

You’re missing the point.

Gen 38:
1 At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah. 2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and lay with her; 3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er. 4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan. 5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.

6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But* Er*, Judah’s firstborn,was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.

What did Er and Onan have in common

• they were brothers
• both were wicked in the Lord’s sight
• for what they did, The Lord put them both to death

What did Er do to be wicked in the sight of God? It doesn’t specifically say, but the language used for Er and Onan seem the same. Was Er doing the same thing Onan did? That whenever he lay with his wife he spilled his seed rather than have children? We don’t know how many times Onan layed with his brothers wife. Just that whenever he layed with her, he spilled his seed rather than be open to life. And THAT was wicked in the Lord’s sight. And the Lord put Onan to death too.

Judah said to Onan, “Fulfill your duty to produce offspring” Onan refused

Janet:

That was against the law…

What law?

janet:

This is still not against contraception however…

Sure it is

 

[Bengoshi]

Wow, the news in the Philippines seems really biased, or are these just opinion pieces? I guess I could give you a few opinion pieces of my own, but what’s the point of that when the facts are available?

Also, wanted to get one point cleared up. Are you saying that viable seed is not God’s gift? Have you ever asked someone who cannot have children whether he thinks that is God’s gift?

Contraception is forbidden by the penalty of death according to Holy Scripture. It is something you have yet to answer and continue to avoid. The Catholic Church, along with all other churches throughout the world, for 1900 years taught abstinence. Christians, until the beginning of the 20th century, had always been taught abstinence. But I guess that position is not as popular, so it’s easier for non-Catholic churches, who really don’t have to hold to any Biblical standards, to teach whatever seems popular at the time. The narrow road is the one you’re avoiding by avoiding the teachings of Holy Scripture. Perhaps it is not the Catholics that need to wake up.

Those are facts supported by statistical data. I have already answered the biblicality of contraception. The RC interpretation of Onan’s story is misplaced. Check out my previous posts, I already discussed that. We keep going around in circles because you keep on clinging to outdated and unbiblical beliefs with regard to contraception. Essentially, there is no difference between NFP and artificial contraception. The end is the the same, only the means differ. sperm die, there is no conception, life does not even begin.

Yes, life is a gift of God, and so is the ability to procreate, but that does not mean that we should use that gift irresponsibly to the detriment of society and the lives of our children. The problem with the RCC is that they stubbornly cling to human tradition instead of the biblical teachings. The RCC keeps on adding to what Scripture commands us, hence, “you load people down with burdens thay can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them” (Like 11:46). Jesus hates this.

 

[erikd]

None of the points are valid resons to claim that contraception is not legal accoding to the Bible.
Onan did willingly and knowingly defy God. It was not that he did not want to accept the duty as next of kin. In the example of Ruth this was not an issue either and someone else was found. He did accept it and then tried to prevent it from happening. He was in defiance in that he did not give this woman a fair chance to give birth to a son for his deceased brother.

But the issue you have not addressed, which was the main point of contention between myself and Bengoshi, was why Onan was put to death when the penalty for not producing an heir to the brother’s wife was public humiliation? I’m not sure how you can say that this is not a valid point.

 

[Bengoshi]

Bengoshi:

I know it’s a little off topic but I wanted to ask if you’re in the Philippines? If so are you safe from the floods happening right now? If not, all Theological differences aside, you have my prayers.

Hi Erik,

Thank you for your concern, I appreciate it! By God’s grace, our house and family were spared. Unfortunately, I couldn’t say the same for some of my officemates and friends whose houses were inundated well above human level. A lot of people as I’m sure you’ve seen in the news are already on their roofs in order to escape from the flood and have not eaten for days. We have been gathering relief goods since Sunday in our church and also here in our office (I work for a school). The good thing is that not that many lives were lost in this calamity, although billions worth of property were destroyed and lost. Again thank you and Godbless!

 

[Bengoshi]

You’re missing the point.

Gen 38:
1 At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah. 2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and lay with her; 3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er. 4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan. 5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.

6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But* Er*, Judah’s firstborn,was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.

What did Er and Onan have in common

• they were brothers
• both were wicked in the Lord’s sight
• for what they did, The Lord put them both to death

What did Er do to be wicked in the sight of God? It doesn’t specifically say, but the language used for Er and Onan seem the same. Was Er doing the same thing Onan did? That whenever he lay with his wife he spilled his seed rather than have children? We don’t know how many times Onan layed with his brothers wife. Just that whenever he layed with her, he spilled his seed rather than be open to life. And THAT was wicked in the Lord’s sight. And the Lord put Onan to death too.

Judah said to Onan, “Fulfill your duty to produce offspring” Onan refused

What law?

Sure it is

The reason why Onan spilled his semen on the ground as because he knew that the offspring would not be his. He enjoyed his dead brother’s wife without fulfilling his duty to produce offspring for him, and that was wicked in the Lord’s sight, not he act of spilling his semen on the ground per se. If *coitus interruptus *was indeed forbidden bu God, then He would have said so directly just like in the other commandments and not make us guess on what He means. Do not add to what Scripture does not teach expressly or impliedly.

 

[guanophore]

Again, Catholics keep on misunderstanding contraception. Contraception is NOT abortion. There is no embryo to speak of yet in contraception because there hasn’t been any fertilization of the egg by the sperm yet! Exactly, it is against the beginning, so life has not begun yet. There is NO embryo yet.

Actually, the majority of contraceptives are abortifacents. But what does this have to do with the topic?

 

[Bengoshi]

Actually, the majority of contraceptives are abortifacents. But what does this have to do with the topic?

A certain poster (I forgot who) commented that contraception is the same as abortion. Contraception per se is not abortion, as the term itself suggests.