Sola Scriptura and Marriage

[Kay_Cee]

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.

 

[JonNC]

=Kay Cee;11022912]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?

What the Bible has done is set out marriage as a holy union between a man and woman. Scripture then puts the details in the hands of the Church, via its teaching authority. Now different communions have different rituals, etc. for marriage, and so long as they don’t violate scripture - such as same gender marriage - then they would be fine.

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?

Even the Church has generally left this to civil authorities.

1. Are vows required? And if so, what must be stated in those vows?

Up to each individual communion, or perhaps civil authorities.

1. 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?

Well, realistically, who would know or attest to it without witnesses. Again, each communion or civil authorities.

1. 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?

Depends on the communion.

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?”)

Since scripture doesn’t deny civil authority, and in fact supports it, and since the Church has teaching authority, your question is answered.

Let’s remember what sola scriptura is: it is the practice of the Church to hold teachers, doctrines, etc., accountable to scripture as the final norm. It allows for and does not exclude Tradition or traditions in any way except if they are in contradiction to scripture.

Jon

 

[Kay_Cee]

Let’s remember what sola scriptura is: it is the practice of the Church to hold teachers, doctrines, etc., accountable to scripture as the final norm. It allows for and does not exclude Tradition or traditions in any way except if they are in contradiction to scripture.

Jon

Since this seems to be your argument in a nutshell, I’ll address this.

Where does the Bible say we should not “exclude Tradition or traditions in any way except if they are in contradiction to scripture”? Can you quote me book, chapter, and verse?

And if scripture says we should support civil authority, does that include civil authorities that allow polygamy?

 

[JonNC]

=Kay Cee;11023072]Since this seems to be your argument in a nutshell, I’ll address this.

Where does the Bible say we should not “exclude Tradition or traditions in any way except if they are in contradiction to scripture”? Can you quote me book, chapter, and verse?

An obvious misunderstanding of how sola scriptura works. Since, again, the Church has teaching authority, there is nothing wrong with Tradition or traditions, unless they contradict the final norm, that being scripture.

In a nutshell, from the Lutheran confessions:

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

And if scripture says we should support civil authority, does that include civil authorities that allow polygamy?

Obviously not if civil authority stands outside the teaching of the Church. Polygamy, while not condemned in scripture, stands outside the teachings of the Church for various and good reasons.
Our two communions have been quite clear in our joint stance against the HHS Mandate. Perfectly appropriate.

Jon

 

[Kay_Cee]

An obvious misunderstanding of how sola scriptura works. Since, again, the Church has teaching authority, there is nothing wrong with Tradition or traditions, unless they contradict the final norm, that being scripture.

No, no, no. You have to explain where you got this idea from the Bible. Please quote book, chapter, and verse.

Obviously not if civil authority stands outside the teaching of the Church. Polygamy, while not condemned in scripture, stands outside the teachings of the Church for various and good reasons.
Our two communions have been quite clear in our joint stance against the HHS Mandate. Perfectly appropriate.

Jon

Wait a minute. You did say, “It (meaning sola sciptura) allows for and does not exclude Tradition or traditions in any way except if they are in contradiction to scripture.” (emphasis mine)

Now you are telling me polygamy is not condemned in scripture. So polygamy is a tradition that is not in contradiction to scripture. It does not contradict, as you put it, your “final norm, that being scripture.” Therefore, if I follow your reasoning, sola scriptura must allow it if we are to submit to civil authorities that allow it.

 

[Tomyris]

the Bible alone is the authority for a *sola scriptura *adherent,

This is what this thread is about: a fallacious definition of SS and then using that fallacy to show that the definition does not work.

Neither Jon nor I agree with your definition of SS. Jon explained to you what SS is, but you simply ignored his explanation and pressed ahead anyway. Why?

 

[bzkoss236]

Now you are telling me polygamy is not condemned in scripture. So polygamy is a tradition that is not in contradiction to scripture. It does not contradict, as you put it, your “final norm, that being scripture.” Therefore, if I follow your reasoning, sola scriptura must allow it if we are to submit to civil authorities that allow it.

Even as a Catholic, I would disagree that Scripture doesn’t condemn polygamy. Scripture clearly states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Secondly, many Lutherans and some Evangelicals actually believe in Prima-Scriptura (Scripture as ultimate/prime authority), rather than Sola-Scriptura (Scripture alone), even though they call it as such. As such, they have no problem with Tradition as they understand it, as long as it is subject to Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

=Kay Cee;11023206]No, no, no. You have to explain where you got this idea from the Bible. Please quote book, chapter, and verse.

The teaching authority is, at least, in the Great Commission.

Wait a minute. You did say, “It (meaning sola sciptura) allows for and does not exclude Tradition or traditions in any way except if they are in contradiction to scripture.” (emphasis mine)

Now you are telling me polygamy is not condemned in scripture. So polygamy is a tradition that is not in contradiction to scripture. It does not contradict, as you put it, your “final norm, that being scripture.” Therefore, if I follow your reasoning, sola scriptura must allow it if we are to submit to civil authorities that allow it.

Well, it is true that it is not condemned in scripture. However, scripture also does not present it as a God-pleasing practice, as monogamy is presented, such as in Genesis - one man and is wife - both in the singular.

I guess my question for you is, is this a thread about marriage, or one about sola scriptura?

Jon

 

[Kay_Cee]

This is what this thread is about: a fallacious definition of SS and then using that fallacy to show that the definition does not work.

Neither Jon nor I agree with your definition of SS. Jon explained to you what SS is, but you simply ignored his explanation and pressed ahead anyway. Why?

I’m asking where he gets his definition. Who has the authority to decide?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Even as a Catholic, I would disagree that Scripture doesn’t condemn polygamy. Scripture clearly states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

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

Secondly, many Lutherans and some Evangelicals actually believe in Prima-Scriptura (Scripture as ultimate/prime authority), rather than Sola-Scriptura (Scripture alone), even though they call it as such. As such, they have no problem with Tradition as they understand it, as long as it is subject to Scripture.

What I seem to be hearing, though, is that what is not contrary to scripture is allowed. Yet polygamy is not allowed.

 

[bsroufek]

Well, Canon Law requires a man to be at least 16 and a girl to be at least 14 for marriage.

But, you’re asking about Sola Scriptura. If you look at the books of Kings and Chronicles, and note the ages of the kings of Judah and the successors’ ages upon ascending the throne, I think you might deduce that some of these princes married quite young. I don’t know exactly how young though.

 

[Kay_Cee]

The teaching authority is, at least, in the Great Commission.

And where does the Great Commission get its authority?

Well, it is true that it is not condemned in scripture. However, scripture also does not present it as a God-pleasing practice, as monogamy is presented, such as in Genesis - one man and is wife - both in the singular.

But we also have stories about Jacob, David, and Solomon.

Could you also please quote for me the scripture where polygamy is presented as not a God-pleasing practice? I must have missed it.

I guess my question for you is, is this a thread about marriage, or one about sola scriptura?

Jon

Both, hence the title of the thread. If we are relying on scripture alone, how does the Bible answer the questions I raised in my first post? If we are relying on scripture + tradition, where does the authority for a tradition not listed in the Bible come from? Catholicism would trace it back to the apostles. Where do you trace it to?

Since you’re a Lutheran, shouldn’t you agree with what Luther claimed? He said, “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

I’m confused. Luther seems to contradict your views about polygamy and about civil authorities.

 

[JonNC]

=Kay Cee;11023509]Book, chapter, and verse, please. Also, where is the condemnation of Jacob, David, and Solomon?

bzkoss is Catholic, so I wouldn’t expect that kind of answer from him/her.

What I seem to be hearing, though, is that what is not contrary to scripture is allowed. Yet polygamy is not allowed.

Then let me try again. While there is no specific, explicit condemnation of polygamy, scripture provides a clear understanding of what a God-pleasing marriage looks like, that being one man and one woman. That is why polygamy is not permitted.

As for you question about a definition of sola scriptura, I provided the Lutheran understanding, as provided in our confessional documents.

Jon

 

[Kay_Cee]

Well, Canon Law requires a man to be at least 16 and a girl to be at least 14 for marriage.

But, you’re asking about Sola Scriptura. If you look at the books of Kings and Chronicles, and note the ages of the kings of Judah and the successors’ ages upon ascending the throne, I think you might deduce that some of these princes married quite young. I don’t know exactly how young though.

My point is that the Bible doesn’t seem to give us a standard age. So where does a sola scriptura adherent get it from?

 

[steido01]

No, no, no. You have to explain where you got this idea from the Bible. Please quote book, chapter, and verse.

“No, no, no,” he doesn’t. Carefully re-read what he wrote with an open mind. The definition for “Sola Scriptura” that you are using is not Sola Scriptura; it is a mischaracterization of the doctrine. Sadly, some protestant churches have promulgated this terribly misguided understanding - often quite publicly. So please don’t think I fault you for misunderstanding. That said, those of us who subscribe to the original (and correct) understanding of Sola Scriptura do not need to defend a straw man argument or be told what we believe.
Kay Cee:

What I seem to be hearing, though, is that what is not contrary to scripture is allowed.

Then you do not seem to be listening to what you are hearing. As others in this thread have noted, the teachings of the church still hold a role to those who profess Sola Scriptura, but the teaching role is subject to Scripture, that’s all (For example, no Lutheran bishop could, say, write up a statement regarding faith and morals in contradiction to Scripture). This short article may be helpful in understanding what Sola Scriptura means.

For Lutheran Christians, reading the Bible does not mean setting aside critical thinking skills. Instead, the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura includes certain rules for thought…

 

[JonNC]

My point is that the Bible doesn’t seem to give us a standard age. So where does a sola scriptura adherent get it from?

Since scripture doesn’t give a specific age, it is obvious that the Church, with a teaching responsibility, has the authority to make a determination, or leave to the judgement of civil authorities.
Contrary to what you might think, that is how sola scriptura works.
Jon

 

[ahs]

This is what this thread is about: a fallacious definition of SS and then using that fallacy to show that the definition does not work.

Neither Jon nor I agree with your definition of SS. Jon explained to you what SS is, but you simply ignored his explanation and pressed ahead anyway. Why?

With all due respect, Kay Cee has a very good point. Despite any person’s definition of Sola Scrpitura, it will fail every time. I recall a conversation with Jon NC as a matter of fact, where in the end, we realized together that the Lutheran understanding of SS is not SS at all, but that final authority rests with the interpreter, not the Scripture itself. Case in point:

“Since scripture doesn’t give a specific age, it is obvious that the Church, with a teaching responsibility, has the authority to make a determination, or leave to the judgement of civil authorities.
Contrary to what you might think, that is how sola scriptura works.” (Jon NC)

That is Scripture + Tradition.

But let’s be fair and make sure we are arguing the same terms. Tomyris, please define SS as you understand it. After that, I will ask you to demonstrate it based upon your definition (or that of your faith group, etc…).

 

[steido01]

My point is that the Bible doesn’t seem to give us a standard age. So where does a sola scriptura adherent get it from?

Where does a Roman Catholic get the age from?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Then let me try again. While there is no specific, explicit condemnation of polygamy, scripture provides a clear understanding of what a God-pleasing marriage looks like, that being one man and one woman. That is why polygamy is not permitted.

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?

As for you question about a definition of sola scriptura, I provided the Lutheran understanding, as provided in our confessional documents.

Jon

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

 

[JonNC]

=ahs;11023641]With all due respect, Kay Cee has a very good point. Despite any person’s definition of Sola Scrpitura, it will fail every time. I recall a conversation with Jon NC as a matter of fact, where in the end, we realized together that the Lutheran understanding of SS is not SS at all, but that final authority rests with the interpreter, not the Scripture itself.

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