Sola Scriptura and Marriage

[bzkoss236]

Also; love, sex and affection are different things. You can be in love and show affection without sex. Therefore, you can marry, be in love and show affection and not be able to have sex.

You both are misunderstanding what I said about sex. I said sex is AN expression of love, meaning there are more expressions. Affection is an expression of love. Sex is a type of affection.

And it doesn’t matter what individual Catholics say. The Catholic Church isn’t a democracy. It only matters what the Church says about it.

 

[dronald]

You both are misunderstanding what I said about sex. I said sex is AN expression of love, meaning there are more expressions. Affection is an expression of love. Sex is a type of affection.

Which is why I don’t believe sex is mandatory for a loving marriage.

And it doesn’t matter what individual Catholics say. The Catholic Church isn’t a democracy. It only matters what the Church says about it.

I haven’t heard enough opinions on the matter about the paralyzed not being allowed to get married to say with 100% certainty that this is really what the CC is saying.

I’ll just give a scenario (a real one too):

I am currently with a girl who I plan on marrying. If we get engaged and then I am struck by a car and am handicapped from the waist down, I can no longer marry her according to your beliefs which you claim is an infallible Church doctrine.

I have come to acknowledge that this is your belief and I have not misrepresented it in any way. And I also believe that you believe the Church teaches this, exactly. However, I’ve only heard your opinion and I haven’t accepted it on behalf of all Catholicism yet because I find this belief surprising and I’ve heard no other points of view but your own.

 

[Alizarin]

And it doesn’t matter what individual Catholics say. The Catholic Church isn’t a democracy.

Not a “direct democracy” of the laity of course, but when an ecumenical council is held, like Vatican II, the world’s bishops get together and hash these things out with debate, don’t they? Eventually they reach a consensus, and that’s what ends up proclaimed as the doctrine emerging from that council. Not much different than the what the Anglicans do at Lambeth.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Reuben_J]

Which is why I don’t believe sex is mandatory for a loving marriage.

I haven’t heard enough opinions on the matter about the paralyzed not being allowed to get married to say with 100% certainty that this is really what the CC is saying.

I’ll just give a scenario (a real one too):

I am currently with a girl who I plan on marrying. If we get engaged and then I am struck by a car and am handicapped from the waist down, I can no longer marry her according to your beliefs which you claim is an infallible Church doctrine.

I have come to acknowledge that this is your belief and I have not misrepresented it in any way. And I also believe that you believe the Church teaches this, exactly. However, I’ve only heard your opinion and I haven’t accepted it on behalf of all Catholicism yet because I find this belief surprising and I’ve heard no other points of view but your own.

Just a thought. My personal view as a Catholic would be to agree with all that you says in this post though I don’t really think it is replying to the other Catholic poster.

Yes, sex is not mandatory in marriage. There are couples who get married knowing that they will not have any sex for some reasons like old age or where health does not permit it but nevertheless want to be tied by Matrimony.

Loving marriage I think is subjective. The love we often talking about is not merely Eros but mostly Agape. It is about giving and devoting to the others and in many marriages it may not be always loving. That usually depends on the reciprocation on both parties.

You are right therefore that impotence or inability to have sex is not an impediment to marriage provided that this is accepted and agreed by both parties.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Church doesn’t say that a marriage has to produce children. It is only required that the parents be open to life, meaning that they won’t prevent the conception of children when they have sex, if they have sex.

Yes, this is what the Church teaches.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

This has always been a problem with me even with this definition of sola scriptura. No offense meant, Jon.

The final norm being scripture. The question is, what does the scripture say and who get to interprete the final meaning? Isn’t it going back to tradition again? That is, if the scripture (the referred verse, chapter or passage) is understood from the the traditional perspective.

 

[andrewstx]

I have found that solo scriptura people just plain ignore the words of Our Lord in RE to divorce “re marriage” and adultery. Most of them seem to divorce and “re marry” at will.

My dad a solo scriptura church of Christ member was divorced and “remarried”.

But that was nothing compared to my Mother, she had four 4 “husbands”, she finally got her millionaire on the 4th try and outlived him.

 

[bzkoss236]

I have found that solo scriptura people just plain ignore the words of Our Lord in RE to divorce “re marriage” and adultery. Most of them seem to divorce and “re marry” at will.

My dad a solo scriptura church of Christ member was divorced and “remarried”.

But that was nothing compared to my Mother, she had four 4 “husbands”, she finally got her millionaire on the 4th try and outlived him.

My wife’s parents are from the Evangelical Sola-Scriptura crowd. They view marriage as serious business and were very upset when my wife’s oldest sister so nonchalantly got a divorce not so long ago and is now remarried. My wife’s mother did remarry, but her first husband was very emotionally and physically abusive and manipulative.

 

[Kay_Cee]

No, it means that he is still married to his first wife. If polygamy were allowed, he could divorce his first wife and have no issue marrying another (especially if he was still considered married to his first wife), meaning it wouldn’t be adultery. Adultery is having marital relations with someone who is not your wife. If divorce is strictly a legal matter, and if polygamy wasn’t condemned, there would be no issue with marrying another woman.

Some more scripture for you:
[bibledrb]Romans 7:2-3[/bibledrb]
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband is alive and consorts (aka. marries) another man, she is an adulteress. The same goes for the man (as can be seen in the previous verses I posted).

[bibledrb]1 Cor 7:1-5[/bibledrb]
A man should have his own wife (doesn’t say wives), and a woman her own husband (not husbands).

And later on about divorce again
[bibledrb]1 Cor 7:10-11[/bibledrb]

More singulars:
[bibledrb]Ephesians 5:28-33[/bibledrb]

Condemning adulterers:
[bibledrb]Hebrews 13:4[/bibledrb]

Thanks for posting all the verses, but I don’t see polygamy mentioned even once in them. Those who support such practices would argue that a man should have his own wife (not someone else’s wife) and a woman should have her own husband (not someone else’s husband), for that would be adultery, which is condemned. If these verses really are about polygamy, why isn’t the topic of multiple spouses specifically mentioned?

Please note: I am not in favor of polygamy. I am merely asking where a SS adherent gets the criteria for what constitutes a marriage. This thread is not about polygamy per se, althought it has veered off in that direction since a definition of SS that I was given would seem to allow the practice of it.

 

[JonNC]

This has always been a problem with me even with this definition of sola scriptura. No offense meant, Jon.

The final norm being scripture. The question is, what does the scripture say and who get to interprete the final meaning? Isn’t it going back to tradition again? That is, if the scripture (the referred verse, chapter or passage) is understood from the the traditional perspective.

Actually, it’s the other way. But that’s not to say we don’t use tradition to understand scripture. We do.
Here’s the thought: if the Church is going to bind the conscience of the believer to a teaching or doctrine, it must be supported by scripture, not simply by Tradition. That, in essence, is the practice of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[bzkoss236]

Thanks for posting all the verses, but I don’t see polygamy mentioned even once in them. Those who support such practices would argue that a man should have his own wife (not someone else’s wife) and a woman should have her own husband (not someone else’s husband), for that would be adultery, which is condemned. If these verses really are about polygamy, why isn’t the topic of multiple spouses specifically mentioned?

Please note: I am not in favor of polygamy. I am merely asking where a SS adherent gets the criteria for what constitutes a marriage. This thread is not about polygamy per se, althought it has veered off in that direction since a definition of SS that I was given would seem to allow the practice of it.

You were saying the polygamy isn’t condemned, you never said it had to be explicitly mentioned. But as I mentioned with the one verse, if polygamy were okay, then getting a divorce and ‘re’ marrying wouldn’t be an issue, because it wouldn’t be adultery. You have to look at it as a whole and not pick one verse out that could be debated. In collection with all the verses about marriage, it says that marriage is between one man and one woman and that the two become one flesh. They, while not explicitly mentioning polygamy, do refute it. It’s like saying a hammer is for hitting a nail into wood. This statement doesn’t mention a screw, but if this is explicitly what a hammer is for, then it should be evident that you don’t hit screws into wood with a hammer.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

"Reuben J:

The final norm being scripture. The question is, what does the scripture say and who get to interpret the final meaning? Isn’t it going back to tradition again? That is, if the scripture (the referred verse, chapter or passage) is understood from the traditional perspective.

Actually, it’s the other way. But that’s not to say we don’t use tradition to understand scripture. We do.
Here’s the thought: if the Church is going to bind the conscience of the believer to a teaching or doctrine, it must be supported by scripture, not simply by Tradition. That, in essence, is the practice of sola scriptura.

Jon

I would not argue with this since I don’t set the definition of Sola Scripture. And admittedly you seem to make sense here.

Sensible it is, I do not quite understand though. So I continue with was what I tried to say. A teaching/doctrine was supported by scripture you said. My question earlier on, who got to decide on the interpretation of the scripture concerned? Or was the understanding of the scripture derived from the traditional understanding? In other word, from tradition.

 

[steido01]

I would not argue with this since I don’t set the definition of Sola Scripture. And admittedly you seem to make sense here.

Sensible it is, I do not quite understand though. So I continue with was what I tried to say. A teaching/doctrine was supported by scripture you said. **My question earlier on, who got to decide on the interpretation of the scripture concerned? **Or was the understanding of the scripture derived from the traditional understanding? In other word, from tradition.

A great question! If I am understanding your question correctly, we have opened the can of worms that is hermeneutics.

We would say that Scripture interprets Scripture and the church has the responsibility to teach what Scripture teaches about itself. This answer may, admittedly, appear to be circular reasoning at first glance, though it is not. Perhaps this page will help. Fittingly, one of the examples used is regarding marriage/divorce.

The key to this idea of “scripture interpreting scripture” is that you cannot look at one passage or verse in a vacuum. To earnestly understand what the Bible (and therefore God) says on a subject we must look at the whole of the book [and, necessarily, Christian historical teachings regarding it].

Bracketed addition mine, for easier relation to this thread.

bzkoss236:

You have to look at it as a whole and not pick one verse out that could be debated.

 

[Erich]

We would say that Scripture interprets Scripture and the church has the responsibility to teach what Scripture teaches about itself.

But, Scripture does not interpret itself. Denominations exist within Protestantism because of differences in either belief or authority. There are many Protestants who come up with legitimate interpretations of many passages of Scripture based on their own private reading of the Bible. As a Lutheran, you support (or should support) the idea of baptismal regeneration – that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism. You also believe (or should believe) that a baptized Christian can lose salvation if he later falls from faith, and you can probably quote Scripture to back you up. But someone who believes in Once Saved Always Saved can also quote Scripture which appears to back him up. Who, then, has the right to decide what is and is not sound scriptural practice, what is and is not doctrinal, what is and is not moral?

By Protestants’ own theology, everyone has just as much right as anyone else to interpret the Bible to determine what is and is not truth. No Protestant can say their private interpretation of any given Scripture passage is infallible, since they claim that no man is infallible. So… Protestants are not infallible in their interpretation of the Bible, by their own claims; their fallibility could, therefore, lead them to believing in false doctrines.

 

[JonNC]

=Erich;11027333]But, Scripture does not interpret itself. Denominations exist within Protestantism because of differences in either belief or authority. There are many Protestants who come up with legitimate interpretations of many passages of Scripture based on their own private reading of the Bible. As a Lutheran, you support (or should support) the idea of baptismal regeneration – that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism. You also believe (or should believe) that a baptized Christian can lose salvation if he later falls from faith, and you can probably quote Scripture to back you up. But someone who believes in Once Saved Always Saved can also quote Scripture which appears to back him up. Who, then, has the right to decide what is and is not sound scriptural practice, what is and is not doctrinal, what is and is not moral?

The difference is they will proof text, and we will look at the entirety of scripture. That is what is meant by “scripture interprets scripture”. Further, we will also consider the teachings of the historic Church, the ECFs, etc., something they are less willing to do. So not only can I look at scripture and understand Baptism as regenerative, I can also consider what the early Church thought about the same thing.
So, while that OSAS communion can determine its own doctrine, they are not going to be right, whereas, we are. But the question, “who has the right to decide” a question that is at least a thousand years old.

By Protestants’ own theology, everyone has just as much right as anyone else to interpret the Bible to determine what is and is not truth. No Protestant can say their private interpretation of any given Scripture passage is infallible, since they claim that no man is infallible. So… Protestants are not infallible in their interpretation of the Bible, by their own claims; their fallibility could, therefore, lead them to believing in false doctrines.

I guess I’m getting tired, but I sure cant find this Protestant church and their theology and dogmas I keep hearing about.
We don’t claim infallibility because, in part, we have seen it claimed by a number of others, and they don’t agree with each other. How is one to know which is right? I would contend that the claim of infallibility of the early Church is now called into question by division. The patriarchs and bishops who were once able to hold councils are no longer in communion with each other.
But let me talk about my “private interpretation”. It means absolutely nothing when it comes to doctrine. As a Lutheran, I look to the Lutheran Church and its confessional documents for that. Since I’m not infallible, I trust the Church, and if the confessions got something wrong, I trust grace.

Jon

 

[Bergon]

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…).

Please let me begin by saying that I’m Catholic and don’t follow the doctrine of sola scriptura. I do understand the doctrine. The Bible doesn’t tell us what to do in every circumstance. So, churches have to make decisions. Lutherans don’t accept Tradition as Catholics do. The Bible doesn’t set a minimum age for marriage so someone has to decide. I don’t think that either Lutherans deciding a suitable age for marriage or leaving it to the local civil authorities makes Lutherans accept Tradition as understood by Catholics.

 

[Bergon]

The Catholic Church does not entrust the issue of marriage to the secular authorities

That statement is wrong. There are many aspects of marriage that the Church leaves to civil authorities. It is described as the Church “canonising” civil law.

 

[JonNC]

Please let me begin by saying that I’m Catholic and don’t follow the doctrine of sola scriptura. I do understand the doctrine. The Bible doesn’t tell us what to do in every circumstance. So, churches have to make decisions. Lutherans don’t accept Tradition as Catholics do. The Bible doesn’t set a minimum age for marriage so someone has to decide. I don’t think that either Lutherans deciding a suitable age for marriage or leaving it to the local civil authorities makes Lutherans accept Tradition as understood by Catholics.

You make a good point here. Yes, we Lutherans accept and even highly value Tradition. We do, however, see its role and authority differently. So, when we say that we accept the 7 general councils of the Church, we see a level of authority in them that does not reach the level of scripture. So our acceptance of Tradition is somewhat different.

Jon

 

[Bergon]

Do Catholic’s have a set age that a man or a woman is allowed to get married?

The minimum age is 14 for females and 16 for females. Fourteen seems low but it’s acceptable in some cultures but please read on. If the state sets a higher age then in that country Catholics must accept the age set by the state. So canon law says girls can marry at 14. English laws says girls must be 16 to marry. So in England the Church wouldn’t allow girls under 16 to marry.

Also, a set age in which they may have intercourse?

No it doesn’t but it doesn’t need to. You shouldn’t have sex before marriage so you have to be married. The minimum age is therefore indirectly in place it’s the same as the minimum age for marrying. There’s no separate rule so for example the Church doesn’t say you can marry at 14 but mustn’t have sex until your 16.

 

[Bergon]

I haven’t heard enough opinions on the matter about the paralyzed not being allowed to get married to say with 100% certainty that this is really what the CC is saying.

In the end it isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a Church teaching. The Church teaches that if a man or a woman is:

1. Impotent,
2. Is permanently impotent, i.e. it can’t be cured, and
3. The impotency was known about before the marriage

it renders the marriage invalid.

So if let’s say a man had erectile dysfunction but a urologist could cure it he’d be able to marry. The impotence must be permanent.

If a man and a woman married and impotency was discovered after marriage then the marriage wouldn’t be invalid. The impotency must be known about prior to the marriage. Knowing about it but concealing the fact doesn’t mean the impotency is unknown.