Can you really live by Sola Scriptura?

[boughtwithaprice]

Where is the scriptures that state contraception is immoral? - There is none. According to the scriptures, sexuality serves a unifying purpose in marriage that is God-ordained and distinguishable from the procreative purpose (Genesis 2:24). Sexuality in marriage is intended to include joy, pleasure, and delight (Ecclesiastes 9:9; Proverbs 5:18, 19; Song of Solomon 4:16-5:1). God intends that couples may have ongoing sexual communion apart from procreation (1 Corinthians 7:3-5), a communion that forges strong bonds and protects a marriage partner from an inappropriate relationship with someone other than his or her spouse (Proverbs 5:15-20; Song of Solomon 8:6, 7). In God’s design, sexual intimacy is not only for the purpose of conception. Scripture does not prohibit married couples from enjoying the delights of conjugal relations while taking measures to prevent pregnancy (point 3). If your disagree your welcome to provide scripture for your teachings. Otherwise all you have provided is your opinion over something never stated in scripture. As shown earlier, through the scriptures, sex in marriage is not fornication therefore not immoral *see also Hebrews 13:4

I understand what you are saying and I appreciate your attention to Scripture, but I don't know if you realize that the Scriptures you provided do not say that contraception is moral either. That is the judgement of men. My question, which you have not answered, is does your group teach that contraception is moral. A simple yes or no will suffice.

For approximately 1900 years Christians had possessed the scriptures you quote, but no one dared think that contraception was moral. That changed by the judgement of men in 1930. The Catholic Church holds to the original teaching, although not all Catholics follow it, but that does not change the teaching.
The fruits of the change in teaching by non-Catholics are sins worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. Until that time the world was restrained by the Church. Since that time we have unbridled lust, masturbation, pornography, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, fetishes, artificial sex, and pedophilia. Contraception imitates those acts because all that is desired is pleasure. The marital act is the two flesh becoming one, not the indiscriminate stimulation of sexual organs. Contraception also necessitates abortion, as the pregnancy is unwanted by the fact of contraception; some will choose abortion they would nor otherwise. Over 60,000,000 dead. That fruit smell ripe to you? The word says you will know them by their fruits, and the ways of sin are the ways of death. Contraception fits that description.
The word of God teaches that when you leave the natural use of the woman, i.e. procreation, your conscience is burned with a hot iron, and God gives you up to all unnatural desires. Not everyone in equal measure, but a sin against nature is a sin against God.
He calls all to repentance, we need not continue our error, even if we have been taught it our whole lives. I bought the contraceptive lie in the past, temporary pleasure, self evident misery in myself and those around me. I repented, God had mercy as He promised, the sin and the desire for sin left me; I will never go back.

Romans 1:26-32

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Pay attention particularly to verse 29-32. It's not talking about homosexuality. If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts. He who hath ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.

Ezekiel 36 says I will take your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will cause you to walk in my Statutes

 

[boughtwithaprice]

We have not been taught the same history. William Tyndale - Wikipedia

The Douay Rheims was an English translation printed before Tyndale. The Catholic Church did not want the Bible suppressed from the English language, but Tyndale's translation was so horrible that it was not useful for the Christian faith, much like Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation today, it was just horribly done. It was not authorized for that reason.
If the Catholic Church wanted to suppress the Bible from the common people, she would have kept it in Greek, which is the language of scholars, not common folks. Jerome translated it into Latin, which was the common tongue at the time. It may seem like high minded language now, but back then it was called the Vulgate because it was for the vulgar uneducated people, regular folks that know how to listen or read, but have not studied Greek. The Catholic Church had an English translation


I appreciate your input and pray your search continues to go well

 

[BPPLEE]

The Douay Rheims was an English translation printed before Tyndale. The Catholic Church did not want the Bible suppressed from the English language, but Tyndale's translation was so horrible that it was not useful for the Christian faith, much like Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation today, it was just horribly done. It was not authorized for that reason.
If the Catholic Church wanted to suppress the Bible from the common people, she would have kept it in Greek, which is the language of scholars, not common folks. Jerome translated it into Latin, which was the common tongue at the time. It may seem like high minded language now, but back then it was called the Vulgate because it was for the vulgar uneducated people, regular folks that know how to listen or read, but have not studied Greek. The Catholic Church had an English translation


I appreciate your input and pray your search continues to go well

William Tyndale (/ˈtɪndəl/;[1] sometimes spelled Tynsdale, Tindall, Tindill, Tyndall; c. 1494 – c. 6 October 1536)
The Douay–Rheims Bible (/ˌduːeɪ ˈriːmz, ˌdaʊeɪ -/,[1] US also /duːˌeɪ -/), also known as the Douay–Rheims Version, Rheims–Douai Bible or Douai Bible, and abbreviated as D–R, DRB, and DRV, is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English made by members of the English College, Douai, in the service of the Catholic Church.[2] The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament portion was published in two volumes twenty-seven years later in 1609 and 1610 by the University of Douai.

The Douay Rheims Bible was published 46 years after Tyndale died. Was his version so bad that he and other translators were deserving of the death penalty? Douay–Rheims Bible - Wikipedia
William Tyndale - Wikipedia
John Wycliffe - Wikipedia

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Where is the scriptures that state contraception is immoral? - There is none. According to the scriptures, sexuality serves a unifying purpose in marriage that is God-ordained and distinguishable from the procreative purpose (Genesis 2:24). Sexuality in marriage is intended to include joy, pleasure, and delight (Ecclesiastes 9:9; Proverbs 5:18, 19; Song of Solomon 4:16-5:1). God intends that couples may have ongoing sexual communion apart from procreation (1 Corinthians 7:3-5), a communion that forges strong bonds and protects a marriage partner from an inappropriate relationship with someone other than his or her spouse (Proverbs 5:15-20; Song of Solomon 8:6, 7). In God’s design, sexual intimacy is not only for the purpose of conception. Scripture does not prohibit married couples from enjoying the delights of conjugal relations while taking measures to prevent pregnancy (point 3). If your disagree your welcome to provide scripture for your teachings. Otherwise all you have provided is your opinion over something never stated in scripture. As shown earlier, through the scriptures, sex in marriage is not fornication therefore not immoral *see also Hebrews 13:4

Your response here...

I understand what you are saying and I appreciate your attention to Scripture, but I don't know if you realize that the Scriptures you provided do not say that contraception is moral either. That is the judgement of men. My question, which you have not answered, is does your group teach that contraception is moral. A simple yes or no will suffice.

For approximately 1900 years Christians had possessed the scriptures you quote, but no one dared think that contraception was moral. That changed by the judgement of men in 1930. The Catholic Church holds to the original teaching, although not all Catholics follow it, but that does not change the teaching.
The fruits of the change in teaching by non-Catholics are sins worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. Until that time the world was restrained by the Church. Since that time we have unbridled lust, masturbation, pornography, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, fetishes, artificial sex, and pedophilia. Contraception imitates those acts because all that is desired is pleasure. The marital act is the two flesh becoming one, not the indiscriminate stimulation of sexual organs. Contraception also necessitates abortion, as the pregnancy is unwanted by the fact of contraception; some will choose abortion they would nor otherwise. Over 60,000,000 dead. That fruit smell ripe to you? The word says you will know them by their fruits, and the ways of sin are the ways of death. Contraception fits that description.
The word of God teaches that when you leave the natural use of the woman, i.e. procreation, your conscience is burned with a hot iron, and God gives you up to all unnatural desires. Not everyone in equal measure, but a sin against nature is a sin against God.
He calls all to repentance, we need not continue our error, even if we have been taught it our whole lives. I bought the contraceptive lie in the past, temporary pleasure, self evident misery in myself and those around me. I repented, God had mercy as He promised, the sin and the desire for sin left me; I will never go back.

Romans 1:26-32

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Pay attention particularly to verse 29-32. It's not talking about homosexuality. If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts. He who hath ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.

Ezekiel 36 says I will take your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will cause you to walk in my Statutes

Well here is the thing. You were posting earlier that sex in marriage outside of pro-creation was fornication therefore contraception was immoral. This was the basis of your earlier arguments about why you believe that contraception was immoral. The scriptures provided in the post you were quoting from and the linked post in it (not fornication) show that sex in marriage is not fornication and is not immoral but a blessing of God between a married couple. The scriptures you have posted in Romans 1:26-32 are not about marriage but fornication outside of marriage and yes Romans 1:26-32 is talking about homosexuality outside of marriage so not relevant to our discussion so we might have to agree to disagree here. Now as posted earlier unless you have some scripture showing that contraception is immoral or against God's Word all you have provided here is your opinion which is fine but it is not God's Word or is it supported by he scriptures.

Take care.

 

[BPPLEE]

Your response here...


Well here is the thing. You were posting earlier that sex in marriage outside of pro-creation was fornication therefore contraception was immoral. This was the basis of your earlier arguments about why you believe that contraception was immoral. The scriptures provided in the post you were quoting from and the linked post in it (not fornication) show that sex in marriage is not fornication and is not immoral but a blessing of God between a married couple. The scriptures you have posted in Romans 1:26-32 are not about marriage but fornication outside of marriage and yes Romans 1:26-32 is talking about homosexuality outside of marriage so not relevant to our discussion so we might have to agree to disagree here. Now as posted earlier unless you have some scripture showing that contraception is immoral or against God's Word all you have provided here is your opinion which is fine but it is not God's Word.

Take care.

I hope he doesn't use Onan as an example.

 

[Valletta]

Papal supremacy - Wikipedia So this is wrong?

Wikipedia is a poor source for anything where there is disagreement because any individual can change it.
I use it for locating geographical places like counties or cities. The teachings of the Catholic Church may be found in the Catholic Catechism.

 

[Valletta]

Not sure what you mean, I posted quotes from your church on what really happened with one of God’s commandments. Jesus told us to obey God’s commandments over mans traditions and for me I choose to believe in the teachings of Jesus over a church.

Man-made traditions are different than the Sacred Tradition passed down from Jesus through the Apostles and popes. For example, the Bible does not say that the Archangel Michael is Jesus, that is a man-made tradition in a religion.

 

[BPPLEE]

Wikipedia is a poor source for anything where there is disagreement because any individual can change it.
I use it for locating geographical places like counties or cities. The teachings of the Catholic Church may be found in the Catholic Catechism.

Boughtwithaprice didn't dispute anything in the link. If it's incorrect feel free to correct it

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Man-made traditions are different than the Sacred Tradition passed down from Jesus through the Apostles and popes. For example, the Bible does not say that the Archangel Michael is Jesus, that is a man-made tradition in a religion.

There is no scripture that says we can alter, change or abrogate one of the commandments of God, written by the finger of God. The change in one of the commandments did not come from God and no church is above God. You provided no scripture that backs your statement, so its mans word against the Word of God, I believe in the Authority of Lord Jesus Christ, who kept all of His Fathers commandments and told us to as well. Matthew 5:17-30, Matthew 15:3-9, Mark 7:6-8, Matthew 19:17-19. Not once did Jesus state there was a change to one of the commandments of God.

Jesus is called many names in scriptures, an angle just means messenger. Jesus is not something that was created, like an angel, He is the Creator.

 

[disciple Clint]

Where is the basic message of the gospel found? He was explaining what the Bible says to them. His message was from the Bible. You are correct in what you say but he got his message from the Bible

Where did the Apostles get message, the N.T. had not been written yet when they were converting people to Christianity

 

[Valletta]

There is no scripture that says we can alter, change or abrogate one of the commandments of God, written by the finger of God. The change in one of the commandments did not come from God and no church is above God. You provided no scripture that backs your statement, so its mans word against the Word of God, I believe in the Authority of Lord Jesus Christ, who kept all of His Fathers commandments and told us to as well. Matthew 5:17-30, Matthew 15:3-9, Mark 7:6-8, Matthew 19:17-19. Not once did Jesus state there was a change to one of the commandments of God.

Jesus is called many names in scriptures, an angle just means messenger. Jesus is nothing something that was created, He is the Creator.

The Word of God is not just in Holy Scripture, the Catholic Church was thriving with the Word of God before one word of the NT was written and for centuries before the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. I am pleased that you know that you cannot change any of God's Commandments.

 

[BPPLEE]

Where did the Apostles get message, the N.T. had not been written yet when they were converting people to Christianity

They had the Septuagint and the word they.received directly from Jesus

 

[disciple Clint]

They had the Septuagint and the word they.received directly from Jesus

Correct the word they got from Jesus which had not become scripture yet, they were preaching a Gospel that was not yet written it was not yet scripture. Perhaps that is why we have the scripture "faith comes by hearing the word"

 

[boughtwithaprice]

William Tyndale (/ˈtɪndəl/;[1] sometimes spelled Tynsdale, Tindall, Tindill, Tyndall; c. 1494 – c. 6 October 1536)
The Douay–Rheims Bible (/ˌduːeɪ ˈriːmz, ˌdaʊeɪ -/,[1] US also /duːˌeɪ -/), also known as the Douay–Rheims Version, Rheims–Douai Bible or Douai Bible, and abbreviated as D–R, DRB, and DRV, is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English made by members of the English College, Douai, in the service of the Catholic Church.[2] The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament portion was published in two volumes twenty-seven years later in 1609 and 1610 by the University of Douai.

The Douay Rheims Bible was published 46 years after Tyndale died. Was his version so bad that he and other translators were deserving of the death penalty? Douay–Rheims Bible - Wikipedia
William Tyndale - Wikipedia
John Wycliffe - Wikipedia

My mistake, we hear the story of Tyndale but do we ever have a copy of his translation?
If it was good, why is it not in use today?

I would have to review the case to understand his sentence. It is foolish to use 21st century thinking to judge what governments did at their time
The Jews of Jesus time would brag that if they were alive at the time, they would not have killed the prophets. Jesus rebuked them

 

[BPPLEE]

My mistake, we hear the story of Tyndale but do we ever have a copy of his translation?
If it was good, why is it not in use today?

I would have to review the case to understand his sentence. It is foolish to use 21st century thinking to judge what governments did at their time
The Jews of Jesus time would brag that if they were alive at the time, they would not have killed the prophets. Jesus rebuked them

I agree you can't judge by today's standards. But things were done by the Church that were wrong This is the Church that made Galileo recant and live under house arrest for saying the earth orbits the sun, gave us the inquisition and the crusades. Protestants have some terrible things in the past too.i think we have to admit that things were done that were wrong.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I agree you can't judge by today's standards. But things were done by the Church that were wrong

I would clarify that by saying humans in the Church, and not the Church herself. The same is going on today in that those that call themselves Catholic want to deny Church teaching and make it in their own image
Tyndale was condemned by secular authorities, I believe Charles V. Tyndale wanted to change the Bible to say what he wanted, not just give an accurate English version. I read that he wanted to make the last supper symbolic, but the original text does not say that. Both John 6, and the Gospels do not use symbolic language regarding the Eucharist. Jesus said this IS may body, this IS my blood of the new covenant. Protestants disagree on the interpretation of those verses, but Tyndale wanted to change the verses himself. Wycliffe's version was also full of errors
The same is happening today with the new inclusive language NIV, most people, even protestants agree that you don't change the Bible to fit society, you preach the Gospel to change society. I think most are rejecting the inclusive language NIV

I need further research on this, and I apologize for mischaracterizing the Douay Rheims; I read that there were English translations before Wycliffe and it was not a crime to translate into English at the time

 

[BPPLEE]

I would clarify that by saying humans in the Church, and not the Church herself. The same is going on today in that those that call themselves Catholic want to deny Church teaching and make it in their own image
Tyndale was condemned by secular authorities, I believe Charles V. Tyndale wanted to change the Bible to say what he wanted, not just give an accurate English version. I read that he wanted to make the last supper symbolic, but the original text does not say that. Both John 6, and the Gospels do not use symbolic language regarding the Eucharist. Jesus said this IS may body, this IS my blood of the new covenant. Protestants disagree on the interpretation of those verses, but Tyndale wanted to change the verses himself. Wycliffe's version was also full of errors
The same is happening today with the new inclusive language NIV, most people, even protestants agree that you don't change the Bible to fit society, you preach the Gospel to change society. I think most are rejecting the inclusive language NIV

I need further research on this, and I apologize for mischaracterizing the Douay Rheims; I read that there were English translations before Wycliffe and it was not a crime to translate into English at the time

Yes you could rightly say it was people who were wrong. There are gender neutral Bibles and it won't be long before there is a version that removes references to homosexuality so you are right about people changing God's word

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

The OP of this thread is about Sola Scriptura - not Sabbath Worship. Keep it on topic, some posts have been cleaned.

ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[BPPLEE]

Correct the word they got from Jesus which had not become scripture yet, they were preaching a Gospel that was not yet written it was not yet scripture. Perhaps that is why we have the scripture "faith comes by hearing the word"

Rom 10:17

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

The OP of this thread is about Sola Scriptura - not Sabbath Worship. Keep it on topic, some posts have been cleaned. This is a grace message as my previous Hat may have been missed.

ADMIN HAT OFF