Sola Scriptura and Marriage

[Kay_Cee]

Where does a Roman Catholic get the age from?

Off topic. Catholicism isn’t sola scriptura. This thread is about sola scriptura and marriage.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Time out. sola scriptura is a practice of the Church, but scripture alone is still the final norm. When it comes to doctrine, teachings, the sole final norm is scripture. That is the very definition of sola scriptura.

Jon

And you still haven’t explained where you get this idea. By what authority do you know “scripture alone is still the final norm”?

 

[ahs]

Time out. sola scriptura is a practice of the Church, but scripture alone is still the final norm. When it comes to doctrine, teachings, the sole final norm is scripture. That is the very definition of sola scriptura.

Jon

And as we discussed previously, when two persons or groups disagree about what Scripture is actually saying, final authority rests with the teaching authority of the Church (even according to Lutherans). “Scripture as understood by a Teaching Authority”…“Scripture + Tradition”. So, what you are saying is that SS, per your definition, is actaully equal to S+T.

 

[steido01]

Well, if it’s scripture + tradition, it isn’t exactly sola scriptura, is it? But I digress.

If it helps you to better understand what Sola Scriptura means, and you feel the need to be “right” - then you can certainly think of the term that way. But isn’t it only fair that the group using the term has the right to define it? I agree with your second sentence; you are most certainly abusing a deceased equine.

You still haven’t shown me where the Lutheran church gets the authority to ban polygamy or provide answers for the rest of my questions in post #1, since the answers don’t seem to be in the Bible.

We entrust certain issues to the secular authorities, just as the Roman Catholic church does.

 

[JonNC]

=Kay Cee;11023665]Where in scripture? If it’s in Genesis 2, why no later condemnation of Jacob, for example?

And what would you say to a polygamist who claims to be following scripture? He could say that when scripture says to cling to his wife (singular), he does. And he also cleaves to his second wife. Didn’t Jacob cleave to both Leah and Rachel? Didn’t he become one flesh with Leah? And then later with Rachel?

Kay, you asked the question, and I gave the answer.

Well, if it’s scripture + tradition, it isn’t exactly sola scriptura, is it? But I digress.

No, you didn’t digress. You still don’t understand sola scriptura, for whatever reason… I will assume it is my inability to make it clear.
sola = alone, as in the only, in this usage, final norm.
scriptura = that which the sola refers to

sola scriptura is, therefore, the only final norm (sola) is scripture.

Tradition is, as a result, not equal to scripture, but accountable to it.

You still haven’t shown me where the Lutheran church gets the authority to ban polygamy or provide answers for the rest of my questions in post #1, since the answers don’t seem to be in the Bible.

Yes, I did. From Genesis and the teaching responsibility granted to the Church in scripture.

Jon

Jon

 

[Erich]

Scripture then puts the details in the hands of the Church, via its teaching authority.

Which begs the question, which Church?

We know that Christ founded a Church (Matthew 16:18), that He intended for His Church to be visible (Matthew 18:17), and that He commissioned this Church to act on his behalf until the end of time (Luke 10:16).

But, we also know that He intended to found only one such Church (John 17:21).

 

[ahs]

And you still haven’t explained where you get this idea. By what authority do you know “scripture alone is still the final norm”?

Exactly. “…Scripture alone is still the final norm…” is not in the Scriptures…it is a tradition. And those who adhere to it accept this tradition on some “authority” outsdie of Scripture…obviously…because it can’t be found in Scripture.

 

[ahs]

…sola scriptura is, therefore, the only final norm (sola) is scripture.

Tradition is, as a result, not equal to scripture, but accountable to it.

Except when, as we discussed previously, there is conflict in the meaning of Scripture…at which point Tradition has Authority to interpret the true meaning of Scripture (according to Lutheran teaching) which naturally subjects Scripture to the Teaching Authority. That is S+T…not SS.

In other words, even though mayn non-Catholics say they believe in SS, they really don’t. They actually practice S+T…except the “T” they follow didn’t come around (in some of their beliefs anyway) until after the 1500’s.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have a question regarding marriage for the sola scriptura crowd. Allow me to give a bit of background first:

The Bible has a Commandment against adultery and also gives a stern warning against fornication in 1 Cor. 6:9. It is therefore very important to know that you are married to the person you are having sex with.

Now, I think we would all agree that a man can’t just grab a woman by the wrist, drag her kicking and screaming into church, and announce to the congregation, “I’ve decided she’s my wife!” That would not constitute a marriage.

My question is: Where does the Bible give the criteria for what constitutes a marriage?

1. Is there a minimum age requirement? Genesis 2:24 says that a *man *leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife. But where does the Bible say at what age a boy is considered a man? And what is the minimum age for a girl?
2. Are vows required? And if so, what must be stated in those vows?
3. Are witnesses required? If it’s not permissible for a man and a woman just to make vows to each other while alone, where does the Bible say there must be witnesses?
4. Must there be a religious leader (e.g. a Protestant minister) performing the wedding in order for the marriage to be valid in the eyes of God?

I’ve read the Bible from cover to cover, and I do not recall seeing any answers to the above questions. A Catholic will point to the authority of the Catholic Church to provide the answers, but since the Bible alone is the authority for a *sola scriptura *adherent, where does the Bible answer these questions? (And if the answer is “It depends on the government and culture in which you live” my next question is “Where does the Bible say it depends on the government and culture in which you live?”)

Please note: This thread is not about whether or not non-Catholic marriages are valid. It is about where the Bible states the criteria for what constitutes a valid marriage.

You are assuming that Sola Scriptura means the same to all denominations.

bzkoss236 already addressed this in a very nice manner and you jumped back on your high horse and demanded book, chapter and verse… He’s Catholic like you and me.

For any logical argument you would need to establish the identity of that which is being discussed. What you personally understand for sola scriptura will not be the same for a lot of denominations. I’d suggest you identify what you understand the definition of sola scriptura is and then establish the boundaries of the discussion around this identity. Otherwise, the arguments will be all over the place. If you decide to ask an open ended definition of Sola Scriptura then you would have to address each poster on the boundaries of what they practice sola scriptura, not yours.

And the book, chapter and verse of my post can be found here:

1 Corinthians 1:19

 

[Kay_Cee]

If it helps you to better understand what Sola Scriptura means, and you feel the need to be “right” - then you can certainly think of the term that way. But isn’t it only fair that the group using the term has the right to define it? I agree with your second sentence; you are most certainly abusing a deceased equine.

I can do without the insults. Go ahead and define SS any way you like. It still doesn’t explain where your church gets the authority to decide such issues.

We entrust certain issues to the secular authorities, just as the Roman Catholic church does.

The Catholic Church does not entrust the issue of marriage to the secular authorities. If she did, she would allow gay marriage and re-marriage after divorce, both of which are legal in my state (California).

But let’s stay on topic, okay? The thread is not about the Catholic Church. It’s about sola scriptura and marriage. Bringing a Church that does not claim sola scriptura into the discussion is going off topic.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And as we discussed previously, when two persons or groups disagree about what Scripture is actually saying, final authority rests with the teaching authority of the Church.

Right and then a new denomination is founded

 

[JonNC]

Off topic. Catholicism isn’t sola scriptura. This thread is about sola scriptura and marriage.

Actually, Kay, with all due respect, the thread seems to be about your idea of sola scriptura is.
I don’t say this to be snarky, but people have provided you some background as to why you are not getting the responses you seem to want. The reason is because for us to give those kinds of answers would require us to jettison sola scriptura for a different practice.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Which begs the question, which Church?

We know that Christ founded a Church (Matthew 16:18), that He intended for His Church to be visible (Matthew 18:17), and that He commissioned this Church to act on his behalf until the end of time (Luke 10:16).

But, we also know that He intended to found only one such Church (John 17:21).

Well, since Kay was asking non-Catholics, it seems it is those parts of the church Militant she was seeking an answer from. The question for you response is, where is that Church?
Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem? Which patriarchate is that Church. I contend it is all of them, and more.
Lord, forgive us for our division in His one true Church…
Jon

 

[Erich]

And as we discussed previously, when two persons or groups disagree about what Scripture is actually saying, final authority rests with the teaching authority of the Church (even according to Lutherans).

Again, which Church? This sounds good in theory, but doesn’t work in practice.

For example, Lutherans disagree even among themselves about what Scripture is saying regarding marriage and holy orders:

• ELCA (distinguished from other Lutherans by female clergy, retaining some divorced pastors on their clergy rosters, and (since 2009) openly homosexual clergy)
• LCMS
• WELS (click here for major differences from LCMS and ELCA)
• LCMC (mostly, ELCA refugees dissatisfied with the ELCA’s liberal drift; grew from 31 congregations as charter members in 2001, to 225 congregations by Aug. 2009, to 800+ congregations today)

If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not. And I don’t see any of the above listed groups of Lutherans submitting to the authority of any of the other listed groups, much less to the authority of any non-listed group.

 

[JonNC]

Again, which Church? This sounds good in theory, but doesn’t work in practice.

For example, Lutherans disagree even among themselves about what Scripture is saying regarding marriage and holy orders:

• ELCA (distinguished from other Lutherans by female clergy, retaining some divorced pastors on their clergy rosters, and (since 2009) openly homosexual clergy)
• LCMS
• WELS (click here for major differences from LCMS and ELCA)
• LCMC (mostly, ELCA refugees dissatisfied with the ELCA’s liberal drift; grew from 31 congregations as charter members in 2001, to 225 congregations by Aug. 2009, to 800+ congregations today)

If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not. And I don’t see any of the above listed groups of Lutherans submitting to the authority of any of the other listed groups, much less to the authority of any non-listed group.

Well, shoot. That logic can be used in the reverse, when we recognize that Old Catholics, PNCC, Lutherans, are part of the western Church and claim to be part of the Church Catholic. And I don’t see Rome submitting to the authority of Wittenburg, or Utrect.

Jon

 

[Kay_Cee]

You are assuming that Sola Scriptura means the same to all denominations.

bzkoss236 already addressed this in a very nice manner and you jumped back on your high horse and demanded book, chapter and verse… He’s Catholic like you and me.

For any logical argument you would need to establish the identity of that which is being discussed. What you personally understand for sola scriptura will not be the same for a lot of denominations. I’d suggest you identify what you understand the definition of sola scriptura is and then establish the boundaries of the discussion around this identity. Otherwise, the arguments will be all over the place. If you decide to ask an open ended definition of Sola Scriptura then you would have to address each poster on the boundaries of what they practice sola scriptura, not yours.

And the book, chapter and verse of my post can be found here:

1 Corinthians 1:19

Goodness, I’m not trying to jump on a high horse. I really want an answer to something I’ve often wondered about.

I can’t seem to get an answer out of sola scriptura adherents (however you define it) that shows where their church gets the authority to answer the questions I posted. If it’s not in the Bible, they appeal to tradition, but they don’t show me where their church has the authority to impose such tradition.

JohnNC told me in post #2 “It allows for and does not exclude Tradition or traditions in any way except if they are in contradiction to scripture.” Okay, fine. But I haven’t seen any explanation of where this idea comes from. And what am I to make of the fact that Martin Luther himself, no stranger to sola scriptura, agreed that scripture does not contradict polygamy? If I follow the logic, sola scriptura, by JohnNC’s definition, allows for and does not exclude traditions except if they are in contradiction to scripture. And we can see in the Bible a tradition of polygamy in the stories of Jacob, David, and Solomon. Luther didn’t disallow polygamy. So on what basis does JohnNC seem to condemn it? If the basis is the tradition of his church, where does his church get the authority to impose that tradition, especially in light of the fact that Luther didn’t?

Do you see my problem?

Sorry, but I have to bow out of the discussion for a while. I’m starving for lunch, and my husband will probably want the computer for the rest of the day. Meanwhile, let’s please keep things civil. This is turning into one interesting thread!

 

[bzkoss236]

Book, chapter, and verse, please. Also, where is the condemnation of Jacob, David, and Solomon?

First, in the NT, Jesus says that some things were permitted because of the hardness of people’s hearts (this would include polygamy). Which is why Jacob, David, and any others who had multiple wives (if they were in-fact wives and not just more like house servants) were not condemned at the time.

Second:

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 2:24[/BIBLEDRB]
One man, one woman, to become one flesh. Not one man, many women, or vice versa.

This is reiterated here, but with more context:
[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:2-12[/BIBLEDRB]
One is not permitted to divorce and remarry because that would be adultery (meaning that one is still married to the other). This can also be taken to mean that he cannot have another wife, because that too would be adultery.

These same verses are also mentioned in Matt 19:3-12.

There are probably more.

 

[steido01]

Just some loving words of caution, here…

It is one thing to academically disagree with Sola Scriptura and the hermeneutic approach that necessarily accompanies it. Learned Lutherans and Roman Catholics alike can acknowledge this. (Jose, bzkoss, etc. - we Lutherans appreciate your respectful disagreement, even though we think you’re wrong. )

It is another thing entirely to set up a straw man argument (whether intentional or simply uninformed) and demand that those who disagree be bound to it. This is not only unhelpful in ecumenical dialogue, but plain offensive. Telling Lutherans that they do not understand Sola Scriptura (the doctrine credited to our namesake) is akin to telling Roman Catholics that they worship Mary - both assertions are false.

Now…
Kay Cee:

I can do without the insults. Go ahead and define SS any way you like. It still doesn’t explain where your church gets the authority to decide such issues.

I meant no insult - I was simply trying to help you understand a concept that we SS adherents seem to be poor at communicating to you. The dead horse comment was intended to bring some lightheartedness to a thread that otherwise was becoming rather confrontational. I am sincerely sorry if it seemed in poor taste.
Kay Cee:

The Catholic Church does not entrust the issue of marriage to the secular authorities. If she did, she would allow gay marriage and re-marriage after divorce, both of which are legal in my state (California).

Come again? The Roman Catholic church most certainly entrusts marital issues such as marriageable age, marriage between relatives, etc. to be governed by the state. When the secular authorities legalize un-biblical practices, our churches reject it for the same reason - not simply because a magisterium said such practice was wrong, but because it is against the clear command of God. We have much more in common here.
Kay Cee:

But let’s stay on topic, okay? The thread is not about the Catholic Church. It’s about sola scriptura and marriage. Bringing a Church that does not claim sola scriptura into the discussion is going off topic.

When we find common ground, I find it better to share it.

JonNC:

Lord, forgive us for our division in His one true Church.

Amen. :sad_yes:

 

[Erich]

The question for you response is, where is that Church?
Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem?

Rome, of course

I contend it is all of them, and more.

Which is how the LCMS’ Christian Cyclopedia defines “church”

Unfortunately, the pairing of the invisible Church and Bible-alone concepts leads to the conclusion most Protestants avoid: Christ failed to keep his promise (Matt. 28:20) that he would remain with his Church throughout history; instead, he allowed it to become rudderless for the 1500 years it took to invent the printing press and to disseminate the Bible widely.

 

[Kay_Cee]

First, in the NT, Jesus says that some things were permitted because of the hardness of people’s hearts (this would include polygamy). Which is why Jacob, David, and any others who had multiple wives (if they were in-fact wives and not just more like house servants) were not condemned at the time.

Since Jesus didn’t specify polygamy, this is a supposition.

Second:

[bibledrb]Gen 2:24[/bibledrb]
One man, one woman, to become one flesh. Not one man, many women, or vice versa.

This is reiterated here, but with more context:
[bibledrb]Mark 10:2-12[/bibledrb]
One is not permitted to divorce and remarry because that would be adultery (meaning that one is still married to the other). This can also be taken to mean that he cannot have another wife, because that too would be adultery.

These same verses are also mentioned in Matt 19:3-12.

There are probably more.

But a polygamist doesn’t divorce his first wife (that’s what makes him a polygamist). And this can also be taken to mean that he can have another wife, so long as he doesn’t divorce the first one.

In other words, Jesus doesn’t mention polygamy at all. You have to add it in to get that interpretation.