Same-sex ‘marriage’ in the Church of Norway

[anon67074017]

Is it?

Of course it is. They actually follow the Biblical definition of marriage unlike the progressive Church of Norway.

 

[Thorolfr]

Of course it is. They actually follow the Biblical definition of marriage unlike the progressive Church of Norway.

But do they still follow the Biblical definition of slavery?

Leviticus 25:44: As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.

1 Peter 2:18: Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.

St. Augustine (from Enarrationes in Psalmos): "if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t.

 

[anon67074017]

I was not aware of that.

But do they still follow the Biblical definition of slavery?

Leviticus 25:44: As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.

1 Peter 2:18: Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.

St. Augustine (from Enarrationes in Psalmos): "if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t.

The Biblical definition of slavery was a reflection of the culture at the time. No church follows it today.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Essentially I’m saying that to stay, we demand alternative episcopal oversight. That essentially means two Churches (under one roof).

Matthew 12:25
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

Matthew 10:36
A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

 

[Thorolfr]

The Biblical definition of slavery was a reflection of the culture at the time. No church follows it today.

So Biblical views on slavery are only a reflection of the culture of the time and no church follows it today, but the Biblical definition of marriage is eternal and is not just a reflection of the culture of the time. Got it.

(Of course 200 years ago, many people would have said that Biblical views on slavery are eternal, too).

 

[Sy_Noe]

So Biblical views on slavery are only a reflection of the culture of the time and no church follows it today, but the Biblical definition of marriage is eternal and is not just a reflection of the culture of the time. Got it.

(Of course 200 years ago, many people would have said that Biblical views on slavery are eternal, too).

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[steido01]

So Biblical views on slavery are only a reflection of the culture of the time and no church follows it today, but the Biblical definition of marriage is eternal and is not just a reflection of the culture of the time. Got it.

(Of course 200 years ago, many people would have said that Biblical views on slavery are eternal, too).

You still don’t understand the difference between (Levitical) Ceremonial Law and the Moral Law, do you? Please, do watch the educational video I provided. After you’ve digested the video and the verses I’ve quoted, please respond. It’s poor form to ignore legitimate responses.

 

[ChaosGamma]

So Biblical views on slavery are only a reflection of the culture of the time and no church follows it today, but the Biblical definition of marriage is eternal and is not just a reflection of the culture of the time. Got it.

(Of course 200 years ago, many people would have said that Biblical views on slavery are eternal, too).

So tell me, what in the Bible actually IS eternal truth? Because I’m pretty sure it’s possible to make up an argument for why the Bible supports anything at all.

Let’s see, Solomon had 1000 wives, therefore I can marry as many women as I want, including 12 and 13 year old girls (since I’m pretty sure some of the Israelite kings had sons at about that age, so it must be fine). And since Leviticus forbidding incest is only a reflection of culture at the time, I can take my sisters or daughters as wives too. You can’t tell me that I’m wrong, who are you to judge? Keep your morality out of my bedroom!

Or you could just recognize that God didn’t set up such a ridiculous and unworkable system. That He didn’t just throw a book at us and tell us to figure out for ourselves what it meant. But that might be a tad inconvenient, mightn’t it.

 

[JonNC]

So Biblical views on slavery are only a reflection of the culture of the time and no church follows it today, but the Biblical definition of marriage is eternal and is not just a reflection of the culture of the time. Got it.

(Of course 200 years ago, many people would have said that Biblical views on slavery are eternal, too).

How often did Christ define slavery?

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

You still don’t understand the difference between (Levitical) Ceremonial Law and the Moral Law, do you? Please, do watch the educational video I provided. After you’ve digested the video and the verses I’ve quoted, please respond. It’s poor form to ignore legitimate responses.

So please explain to me how the issue of slavery fits into the Moral Law/Ceremonial Law scheme? It is accepted in Genesis, Leviticus and other Old Testament books but also in many New Testament books and in the writings of Augustine and other early Christians. It can’t be claimed that the acceptance of slavery was part of the Ceremonial Law that no longer applied after Jesus since early Christians obviously did not see it this way.

Colossians 3:22: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.

Ephesians 6:5-6: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

1 Timothy 6:1-2: Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church;[a] rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.

Titus 2:9-10: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, 10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

1 Peter 2:18: Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.

1 Timothy 6 even speaks of “believing masters” who were “members of the church.”

And please don’t say that these slaves who were owned by Christian masters were treated well since the writings of St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom and others speak of whipping slaves and did not oppose this as long as it was within limits.

 

[JonNC]

So please explain to me how the issue of slavery fits into the Moral Law/Ceremonial Law scheme? It is accepted in Genesis, Leviticus and other Old Testament books but also in many New Testament books and in the writings of Augustine and other early Christians. It can’t be claimed that the acceptance of slavery was part of the Ceremonial Law that no longer applied after Jesus since early Christians obviously did not see it this way.

Colossians 3:22: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.

Ephesians 6:5-6: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

1 Timothy 6:1-2: Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church;[a] rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.

Titus 2:9-10: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, 10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

1 Peter 2:18: Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.

1 Timothy 6 even speaks of “believing masters” who were “members of the church.”

And please don’t say that these slaves who were owned by Christian masters were treated well since the writings of St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom and others speak of whipping slaves and did not oppose this as long as it was within limits.

Please tell me how slavery in the Bible has anything to do with same gender "marriage ", which no where appears in scripture.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

How often did Christ define slavery?

Jon

Christ also apparently didn’t oppose slavery since he never condemned it as far as I know. So I must conclude that he accepted slavery.

 

[JonNC]

Christ also apparently didn’t oppose slavery since he never condemned it as far as I know. So I must conclude that he accepted slavery.

Why are you assuming Christ’s view of slavery, and what does that have to do with the fact that He clearly defines marriage as the Genesis definition: one man and one woman?

There is no justification for same gender "marriage " in scripture or in the history of the Church Catholic, including the Lutheran tradition within the Church. This is an innovation, and at best a heterodox one at that. Pannenberg and Krauth are both correct on this.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

There is no justification for same gender "marriage " in scripture or in the history of the Church Catholic,

And what justification do we have based on Scripture to now condemn slavery? Why can’t we conclude that since some early Christians in the Church owned slaves and Leviticus specifically allows it, that it should still be allowed and should still be acceptable to all Christians?

 

[JonNC]

And what justification do we have based on Scripture to now condemn slavery? Why can’t we conclude that since some early Christians in the Church owned slaves and Leviticus specifically allows it, that it should still be allowed and should still be acceptable to all Christians?

How does the issue of slavery impact marriage?

Jon

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Those who follow Christian news may have heard that the synod in the Church of Norway have voted on in favour of allowing same-sex ‘marriage’ in the Church.

I am, as a priest in the Church of Norway, part of a group who seek alternative episcopal oversight (as in the Church of England), but I’m not especially optimistic. I was interviewed by three newspapers (because I am a vicar or parish priest who, alongside 200 others, have signed a petition, declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman), and I have said that if nothing happens before the new liturgy has been passed (it doesn’t yet exist), which will probably be in January 2017, I will have to resign my office and no longer remain as a member of the Church. I will probably, in that scenario, stay until the summer of 2017, for the sake of the youth in my confirmation class.

If it happens, I will have to go elsewhere. Where that is, I don’t know. I just know that some small Lutheran free church will not be an option. I’m not part of the Church of Norway specifically because it’s Lutheran but because it’s the historical Church of the Norwegian realm.

Prayers will be appreciated. Monday was a sad day indeed.

I think Wolfhart Pannenberg says it best, and I’ll give him the last word:

Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Prayers ascending for you and your church community. I pray your church hierarchy see the error of their teaching. It is a emotionally and spiritually challenging time for you and others in your church who share your views.

The anglicans and others went through a similar upheaval. Some here may be able to share their experiences with you.

It can be unsettling and frightening even. Cling to the cross. Know that we your Catholic brothers and sisters in christ will also help carry the load by keeping you in our prayers.

 

[JonNC]

Prayers ascending for you and your church community. I pray your church hierarchy see the error of their teaching. It is a emotionally and spiritually challenging time for you and others in your church who share your views.

The anglicans and others went through a similar upheaval. Some here may be able to share their experiences with you.

It can be unsettling and frightening even. Cling to the cross. Know that we your Catholic brothers and sisters in christ will also help carry the load by keeping you in our prayers.

A beautiful post.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’ve been thinking about the phrase “right to object,” in this context and I am confused how it could be a rule actually implemented in any Church without major problems. Say a Pastor rejects a lesbian couple wanting to be married. The couple goes to another priest who accepts same sex marriage and marries them. This couple goes to the previous church with the priest who rejected them and expects communion. Is that priest obliged to give them communion despite the fact he regards what they are doing as a sin? Who is protected by the Church in this case? The congregation whose marriage is accepted or the Priest who has the right to object?

Or have I completely misunderstood the structure of the Church of Norway?

 

[ChaosGamma]

And what justification do we have based on Scripture to now condemn slavery? Why can’t we conclude that since some early Christians in the Church owned slaves and Leviticus specifically allows it, that it should still be allowed and should still be acceptable to all Christians?

So explain to me then why it is that you believe slavery is wrong. Seriously now. At the very least we can agree that the Bible doesn’t really proscribe slavery.

By the same token I think we can agree that the Bible, at the very last, doesn’t much reinforce the idea that two persons of the same sex can be married. Yet you believe that they can. Why is that?

You must be accepting some sort of teaching outside of the Bible itself that you believe to be of at least equal authority with the Bible. So where does this authoritative teaching come from? Why was homosexuality seen as a sin by the Church for the last nearly 2000 years when it apparently wasn’t?

 

[Thorolfr]

So explain to me then why it is that you believe slavery is wrong. Seriously now. At the very least we can agree that the Bible doesn’t really proscribe slavery.

By the same token I think we can agree that the Bible, at the very last, doesn’t much reinforce the idea that two persons of the same sex can be married. Yet you believe that they can. Why is that?

The fact that, based on the Bible and the beliefs of early Christians including quite eminent ones like St. Augustine, there is nothing wrong with owning slaves and whipping them, that would seem to me to be a big black stain on the history of Christianity. And yet now, slavery is almost universally condemned and is considered by most people to be morally wrong. So the notion that we should bind ourselves to what first century Christians considered to be moral and immoral (including their ideas about sexuality) and that standards of morality shouldn’t change seems rather problematic to me.