Sola Scriptura?biblical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sancte_joseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tell me how you define adultery with the scriputre verses below.

In Matthew 5:31–32, he says, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Similarly, in Matthew 19:9, he says, “And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery”

How do you explain the “exceptive clauses” as compared to the below scripture?

In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18 says, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

In Romans 7:2–3 “a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39, “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”
I am reposting as Crusador thought it was off topic. It is not.

How does one determine the truth when scripture contradicts itself as it shown above. Not only do we have the Bible giving two rules of faith they are conflicting in the Gospels. Which verse is correct? How do you do it without going outside the Bible? How does Sola Scriptura decide?
 
The reason for the disagreement about what Scripture teaches - is due to the fact that there are many so-called interpreters of Holy Scripture that have not the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit of Truth - and the Author of this book. 😉

No catch 22, just truth - but thanks anyways for your adhominem arguments and your “private” opinions. 👍
That is an ugly statement. I know many very good Christians that do everything they can for God yet do not interpret scripture the same way.

Your statement is way off base and is very judgemental of others.
 
I am reposting as Crusador thought it was off topic. It is not.

How does one determine the truth when scripture contradicts itself as it shown above. Not only do we have the Bible giving two rules of faith they are conflicting in the Gospels. Which verse is correct? How do you do it without going outside the Bible? How does Sola Scriptura decide?
You’ve neglected to point to the contradiction; where is it?
 
Quote= OneNow, Throughout our salvation history, GOD has always provided a ‘Father Figure’ to guide His people. Some examples are, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, and Peter and the succession of Popes.

Jesus is the Father’s plan of renewing man to His original plan before the sin of Adam.Once again, God uses man to convey truth.

ja4, You know all the verses refering to, Peter, and the preeminent use of his name in scripture;and since St. Paul seems to be a prooftext of denial, of the one true church, Paul seems to know Peter as Cephas or Rocky I wonder why ?

Peace,OneNow1
I agree with your thoughts.

I would like to add to refute Apostolic Succession is to refute the whole OT. Moses clearly laid his hands on successors. The Jewish trace this lineage all they way back to Moses. That is another weakness of Protestant beliefs they tend to ignore Old Testament teachings.
 
Some state unchastity is a reason for divorce. Others state there is no reason for divorce. How do you decide which is correct?
How does that disagreement between two camps equal a contradiction in the scripture?
 
PerryJ;4179056]I am reposting as Crusador thought it was off topic. It is not.
How does one determine the truth when scripture contradicts itself as it shown above.
If the Scriptures does contradict itself we have a far more serious problem. Contradictions are a sign of a false belief or source. If what you say is true then the Scriptures are not the Word of God.
Not only do we have the Bible giving two rules of faith they are conflicting in the Gospels. Which verse is correct? How do you do it without going outside the Bible? How does Sola Scriptura decide?
Context. Each of those passages have a specific contexts that they are not dealing with exactly the samething.
 
If the Scriptures does contradict itself we have a far more serious problem. Contradictions are a sign of a false belief or source. If what you say is true then the Scriptures are not the Word of God.

Context. Each of those passages have a specific contexts that they are not dealing with exactly the samething.
Then it should be easy tell me how your church or you define the teaching via Sola Scriptura. Two equally authoritative scripturas give two different laws. Tell me how you do this using Sola Scriptura.
 
PerryJ;4179154]Then it should be easy tell me how your church or you define the teaching via Sola Scriptura.
i have already done so. Here is the definition:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.
Two equally authoritative scripturas give two different laws. Tell me how you do this using Sola Scriptura.
What “two equally authoritative scripturas” are you referring to?
 
What “two equally authoritative scripturas” are you referring to?
How do you reconcile divorce and adultery from these passages. We have gospel verses stating what appears to be different laws. How do you reconcile them? Give me your Churches rules for divorce and remarriage based upon these scriptures. Matthew states "whoever divorces his his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery. Luke states “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” So is it everyone or is there an exception? How do you reconcile using the Bible?

In Matthew 5:31–32, he says, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Similarly, in Matthew 19:9, he says, “And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery”

How do you explain the “exceptive clauses” as compared to the below scripture?

In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18 says, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

In Romans 7:2–3 “a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39, “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”
 
40.png
PerryJ:
How do you determine which is correct?
Marital unfaithfulness is a grounds for divorce; it isn’t presented as a demand for divorce, but as a condition for divorce.
 
Marital unfaithfulness is a grounds for divorce; it isn’t presented as a demand for divorce, but as a condition for divorce.
What about remarriage? Is it adultery or not? How does your Church decide?

Matthew states "whoever divorces his his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.

Luke states "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery

How do you decide based upon the Bible?
 
40.png
PerryJ:
What about remarriage? Is it adultery or not? How does your Church decide?

Matthew states "whoever divorces his his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.

Luke states "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery

How do you decide based upon the Bible?
You’re not making any sense, Perry. Matthew includes a ground for divorce—marital unfaithfulness.
 
What about remarriage? Is it adultery or not? How does your Church decide?

Matthew states "whoever divorces his his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.

Luke states "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery

How do you decide based upon the Bible?
Divorce is a very tricky thing. Unfaithfullness is very hurtful. I have a friend who thought she was happily married until she discovered her husband was being unfaithfull with her “best friend” - he left they divorced and he married the “friend”. Now that is not her fault and I think she should not be expected to remain single forever because she was not the guilty party. I think the Church understands this. There are other cases where a party is NOT TO BLAME. I feel so sad because I have been fortunate to have a wonderful marriage. Sometimes I feel embarassed to express my hapiness because there are so many unfortunate and sad and lonely people who have suffered in their marriage. This is a big problem in the world today.
:love:
 
How do you reconcile divorce and adultery from these passages. We have gospel verses stating what appears to be different laws. How do you reconcile them? Give me your Churches rules for divorce and remarriage based upon these scriptures. Matthew states "whoever divorces his his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery. Luke states “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” So is it everyone or is there an exception? How do you reconcile using the Bible?

In Matthew 5:31–32, he says, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Similarly, in Matthew 19:9, he says, “And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery”

How do you explain the “exceptive clauses” as compared to the below scripture?

In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18 says, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

In Romans 7:2–3 “a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39, “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”
These are good questions and it would require a lot pages to work through the specifics of each. God does hate divorce and there is just a a very few reasons that would justify a divorce on some grounds. Matthew 19:9 would be what is called an exception for divorce. It does not mean a person must divorce for this reason but that they would be justified in doing so.
Divorce is a reality and the Scriptures do address it by giving us guidelines to work with. This is far better than a system that promotes an anullment that claims a valid marriage never took place.
 
OK- I will address your “council” arguments that propagate the false notion that it is the Church who determines the Scriptures.

The canon is not ‘determined’ by the church or church leaders. The church did not give us the Bible. Rather, *God gave the Bible to His people, the church, and not the other way around. *Every book written by the inspiration of God is, by definition, canonical. It is canonical because it is the Word of God, not because of any human decision to regard it as such. Therefore the canon of the Scripture was completed when the last book of the New Testament was written, even though all Christians did not yet possess all the canonical books collected in one book.

The New Testament books were given to the churches as sacred Scripture. During the apostolic age, Christians were aware that new books were being added to the Scriptures, which were of equal authority to the Old Testament scriptures. These books and epistles were copied, circulated among the churches, and passed on to succeeding generations. There was a general consensus among Christians on most books of the New Testament, though there were some doubts about a few.

By the fourth century, there was a general agreement on all books of the New Testament, both in the eastern and the western church. The Eastern Orthodox Church was the first to formally identify the 27 books of the New Testament in A.D. 367. The canonical books were listed in Athanasius’ Easter letter from Alexandria. Later on the Western church accepted the same books at the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397). Having received from the Jews the books of the Old Testament and from our Christian forefathers the books of the New, today we possess the complete Bible.

Catholic apologists often argue about the canon, either to discredit Sola Scriptura (the Bible is the sole, infallible rule of faith), or to elevate the authority of the magisterium and tradition. They employ three basic arguments, all of which are fallacious.
  1. The canon cannot be ascertained from Scripture alone
No, we cannot, but we don’t have to either. The Bible is not a doctrine to be determined from the Bible itself. Rather, Scripture was given by God to His people as the infallible rule of faith, and as such it has been recognized and handled to succeeding generations. There is no inspired table of contents in the Bible, but there is something even better. Our confidence that we possess all the correct books of the Bible rests in the goodness and omnipotence of our God who both gave and preserved His Word for His children. In His wise providence, God has so directed His people (fallible and imperfect as they are) to recognize for certain His Holy Word. The Good Shepherd had promised that His sheep would hear His voice, and that they will not be mislead by the voice of a stranger - and that is exactly what happened, and what continues to happen to this day. “My sheep hear my voice!”

2 The canon cannot be known apart from church tradition.

In a sense, this is true. Our forefathers cherished and preserved the sacred writings, and the Lord directed the church to a general consensus on all the books. We have received from their hands the 27 books of the New Testament. We may call this ‘tradition’ - a heritage that is passed on from one generation to the next.

This ‘tradition’ has nothing to do with the concept of ‘Sacred Tradition’ of the Roman Catholic Church. The ‘table of contents’ was not passed orally from one bishop to the other, until somebody decided to publish it! Rather, the books that were already regarded as Scripture by the churches were included in the list of canonical books- and passed on to us.

3.The canon cannot be known with certainty apart from the infallible magisterium.

We are told that unless we rely on the decision of the infallible Church magisterium, we have no sure basis for knowing the extent of the canon. How can we be sure that the early Christians did not exclude an inspired book, or included a book that is not inspired?

It would be nice to have an infallible magisterium to declare infallibly the list of canonical books. Unfortunately, there are two big problems with this fantasy. First, historically it did not happen that way. Secondly, how can we know that the magisterium is infallible to start with?

From the Roman Catholic standpoint, it was not until the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent, that a general council declared ‘infallibly’ the books of the Bible. (The councils of Hippo and Carthage were local synods, and could not be considered infallible, since the list of Old Testament books was different from that given by Trent. Indeed, if Trent is correct, then Hippo and Carthage were not merely fallible, but actually mistaken). Yet for fifteen hundred years and more, Christians had built their life and hope on the teaching of those books, being fully confident that they are the Word of God, even though there was no declaration by an infallible magisterium. Today, Evangelicals continue to walk in the steps of their forefathers, having full assurance of the authenticity of the books of the Bible, apart from any ‘infallible’ declaration by a group of bishops.

Similarly, the Jewish people recognized a corpus of books that they called ‘sacred Scriptures’ (the Old Testament). The Lord Jesus and His apostles reasoned with the Jews from the Scriptures, implying of course that there was a canon that was generally recognized. Yet, it is clear that the same Jews that recognized the canonical books were not themselves ‘infallible.’ Jesus does not attribute infallibility to the leaders whose forefathers had first acknowledged the books of the sacred Scriptures. As a matter of fact, they were mistaken on many issues of doctrine and morals, to the extent that they crucified the Messiah prophesied in the same Writings.

We can be confident that God has providentially worked in history so that we now possess in our hands the inspired writings. Moreover, we would be wise to follow Jesus and His apostles not to attribute infallibility to the church He used to that end.

Secondly, the need for an infallible magisterium creates an additional logical problem. If we cannot know for certain the canon of Scripture apart from an infallible authority, how can we know for certain that the Roman claim to infallibility is certainly true? To say that the magisterium teaches that the magisterium is infallible is begging the question. Nor is it possible to argue from the Bible that the magisterium is infallible, for that presupposes that the canon of the Bible is known for certain (apart from the infallible declaration by the magisterium).

We thank God for giving us His Word in written form. Rather than waste our time arguing on the canon of the New Testament, about which Catholics and Protestants agree, we should move on to study these sacred books to learn God’s will and to correct false doctrines that have crept into the churches.

Don’t you agree?
Good post Crusador.👍
 
You’re not making any sense, Perry. Matthew includes a ground for divorce—marital unfaithfulness.
So is Matthew superior to Mark and Luke concerning remarriage? Mark and Luke clearly states that if one divorces and gets remarried it is adultery. Their is no exception in Mark or Luke. How do you determine that Matthew is correct versus two other gospels that refute unchastity as a cause for divorce.

Let us take it a step further how do you refute Roman’s and Corithians that state it would be adultery.

I have not see a response that explains how one refutes four scripture verses via Matthew. How does Sola Scriputra solve this issue. Two gospels and two other Bible writings stating something different than one gospel? I want to see how Sola Scriptura solves this issue.
 
Divorce is a very tricky thing. Unfaithfullness is very hurtful. I have a friend who thought she was happily married until she discovered her husband was being unfaithfull with her “best friend” - he left they divorced and he married the “friend”. Now that is not her fault and I think she should not be expected to remain single forever because she was not the guilty party. I think the Church understands this. There are other cases where a party is NOT TO BLAME. I feel so sad because I have been fortunate to have a wonderful marriage. Sometimes I feel embarassed to express my hapiness because there are so many unfortunate and sad and lonely people who have suffered in their marriage. This is a big problem in the world today.
:love:
My point is not to attack divorce or people involved. ja4 stated that law is clear in the Bible and even stated adulterly as an example. (Not trying to put words in his mouth) My point is how does one resolve what appear to be inconsistencies in the Bible via Sola Scriptura.
 
So is Matthew superior to Mark and Luke concerning remarriage? Mark and Luke clearly states that if one divorces and gets remarried it is adultery. Their is no exception in Mark or Luke. How do you determine that Matthew is correct versus two other gospels that refute unchastity as a cause for divorce.

Let us take it a step further how do you refute Roman’s and Corithians that state it would be adultery.

I have not see a response that explains how one refutes four scripture verses via Matthew. How does Sola Scriputra solve this issue. Two gospels and two other Bible writings stating something different than one gospel? I want to see how Sola Scriptura solves this issue.
🤷 You’re quibbling; Matthew states marital unfaithfulness as a ground for divorce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top