Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[GDL]

Not exactly. . .

That would be the seven days of uncleanness during her menstrual period (Lev 15:19) during which time if the husband "lies with her" he is likewise unclean for seven days (Lev 15:24).
However, note that he is not forbidden to "lie with her."

And yes, these defilement laws were not about morality, they were about teaching the meaning of sin as (spiritual) defilement.


And the reason for those pesky little verses of 1 Co 7:3-5.

Thanks for the lookup & clarification. Uncleanness was not a desired state, but your clarification is merited.

1Cor7:3-5 no headaches clause.

 

[Clare73]

Begins with an R & ends with an e. Or some follower thereof.

I t'ink I got it. . .

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, you just made up an interpretation which is not present in the text. Trying actually reading my post.

It was just a piece of descriptive narrative about what one man did way back in history and the consequences that resulted. It was not designed to be a doctrine for us thousands of years later. If you decide to make a doctrine out of historical narrative, you might as well say that because Judas betrayed the Lord, became depressed and hanged himself, we should do the same when we fail the Lord and become depressed about it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It was just a piece of descriptive narrative about what one man did way back in history and the consequences that resulted. It was not designed to be a doctrine for us thousands of years later. If you decide to make a doctrine out of historical narrative, you might as well say that because Judas betrayed the Lord, became depressed and hanged himself, we should do the same when we fail the Lord and become depressed about it.

Good point. There is so much historical narrative in the Bible which, while profitable and instructive, is hardly to be obeyed as direct commandments from God.

 

[Valletta]

With fidelity to an interpretive method based on the meanings and usage of words in Scripture, in their contexts, and in the context of all Scripture, the Scriptures cannot be made to say anything one wants to say.

As in head covering in worship in the RCC?

And divorce (uh-hum, "annulment") in the RCC. . .thereby making bastards?

Church disciplines like head coverings or fasting can be altered or changed. Annulment is not divorce. For example, if two people are high on drugs and marry do you think that is the marriage God intended because a government says so. What is or is not a true marriage according to God's will should not be judged by secular society.

 

[Clare73]

Church disciplines like head coverings or fasting can be altered or changed.

My point precisely. . .just as other denominations change.

Annulment is not divorce.

My point precisely. . .you are unaware of some RCC practices in this area.

 

[zippy2006]

It was just a piece of descriptive narrative about what one man did way back in history and the consequences that resulted.

You are all over the place in this thread. You have claimed that "Masturbation is merely a bodily function," and The Liturgist had to point out that in fact it is an intentional act and not merely a bodily function. Then you claimed that the story of Onan can have nothing to do with masturbation because he wasn't masturbating, and I had to point out that the middle term is the spilling of seed, not masturbation proper. You already said that the story is about Onan's sin and God's punishment, and now you are contradicting yourself and claiming that it is "just a piece of descriptive narrative about [behavior] and the consequences that resulted."

Some of your errors in this thread are understandable. Others seem to be due to sheer sloppiness and neglect.

 

[zippy2006]

With fidelity to an interpretive method based on the meanings and usage of words in Scripture, in their contexts, and in the context of all Scripture, the Scriptures cannot be made to say anything one wants to say.

If someone is self-critical and is seeking the truth there will be bounds on their interpretive errors, true. But it is much less likely that multiple generations of Christians over thousands of years would be consistently misled than that one historically isolated Christian would be misled. To ignore the practices and beliefs of the historical Body of Christ is dangerous indeed.

 

[Valletta]

My point precisely. . .just as other denominations change.

My point precisely. . .you are unaware of some RCC practices in this area.

We are not a denomination, but in our Church things were changing under the Apostles as well. In the first centuries Catholics held mass in secret and did not have church buildings. We did not have the Bible. The Catholic Church decided readings should only come from Holy Scripture, there were differences in Catholic mass readings from area to area. The 73 books of the Bible were selected in a process that spanned centuries and the canon was settled in the late 300s. So yes, readings were not all the same. Decisions were made that had not been made before, for example Peter, after consulting with our bishops, decided Baptism would replace circumcision. Now dogma stands, the dogma that has been passed down through the Apostles and popes stands. We can come to a greater understanding of what has been passed down, as did the Apostles. Disciplines change, whether it by prayer or fasting, etc.
As to annulment, I am familiar with Catholic teachings on annulment. Do you claim to be a mind reader? How else can you know what I am aware of or unaware of?

 

[Clare73]

If someone is self-critical and is seeking the truth there will be bounds on their interpretive errors, true. But it is much less likely that multiple generations of Christians over thousands of years would be consistently misled than that one historically isolated Christian would be misled. To ignore the practices and beliefs of the historical Body of Christ is dangerous indeed.

Relevance?

 

[Clare73]

As to annulment, I am familiar with Catholic teachings on annulment. Do you claim to be a mind reader? How else can you know what I am aware of or unaware of?

You presented no awareness of the issue on which I spoke.

 

[zippy2006]

Relevance?

To ignore the practices and beliefs of the historical Body of Christ is dangerous indeed.

 

[Clare73]

To ignore the practices and beliefs of the historical Body of Christ is dangerous indeed.

And even more dangerous to ignore the holy word of God written.

 

[zippy2006]

And even more dangerous to ignore the holy word of God written.

You haven't been following our conversation at all, have you?

 

[Clare73]

You haven't been following our conversation at all, have you?

Actually, that goes directly to the conversation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You are all over the place in this thread. You have claimed that "Masturbation is merely a bodily function," and The Liturgist had to point out that in fact it is an intentional act and not merely a bodily function. Then you claimed that the story of Onan can have nothing to do with masturbation because he wasn't masturbating, and I had to point out that the middle term is the spilling of seed, not masturbation proper. You already said that the story is about Onan's sin and God's punishment, and now you are contradicting yourself and claiming that it is "just a piece of descriptive narrative about [behavior] and the consequences that resulted."

Some of your errors in this thread are understandable. Others seem to be due to sheer sloppiness and neglect.

Seeing that 95% of all men have m@sterbated, and the other 5% are liars, then if it is a mortal sin, we are all guilty of it and therefore will deserve hell at the Judgment, you included even if you have done it only once in your life, which I might find a little difficult to believe. Even the 5% who are liars are condemned because the Scripture says that no liars will inherit the kingdom of God. Furthermore, m@asterbation arises mostly out of lust, sexual fantasy and viewing of porn, so that makes the person an adulterer in heart, and the Scripture says that no adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God. So when you condemn others, you are basically condemning yourself as well. Was it Jesus or Paul who said to the Pharisees who were demanding compliance to the Law, that they telling others to do what they were not doing themselves.

So what is the answer? When we stand before Christ at the Judgment we are going to be found rightfully guilty of breaking God's commandments. We will all be found guilty because there is none righteous, no not one. We all are deserving of hell. But there is a "parachute". Jesus died on the Cross to take upon Himself the penalty for our failure to keep God's Law, so that when we repent and trust Him, God will dismiss our case, because the penalty has already been paid, and we will go free. But like a parachute, we need to put it on before we jump out of the airplane. For us to have our case before God dismissed, we need to "put on" Christ by repenting of our sin and committing our trust to God's grace alone through Christ alone.

So, in the light of that, it makes the issue of m@sterbation somewhat irrelevant for those who are dead to it being crucified with Christ.

 

[zippy2006]

Seeing that 95% of all men have m@sterbated, and the other 5% are liars, then if it is a mortal sin, we are all guilty of it and therefore will deserve hell at the Judgment, you included even if you have done it only once in your life, which I might find a little difficult to believe.

You find it difficult to believe that all are under the wrath of God?

Even the 5% who are liars are condemned because the Scripture says that no liars will inherit the kingdom of God. Furthermore, m@asterbation arises mostly out of lust, sexual fantasy and viewing of inappropriate content, so that makes the person an adulterer in heart, and the Scripture says that no adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God. So when you condemn others, you are basically condemning yourself as well. Was it Jesus or Paul who said to the Pharisees who were demanding compliance to the Law, that they telling others to do what they were not doing themselves.

We are talking about the status of something as a sin. Don't move the goalposts and play the victim card by pretending I am condemning you.

So what is the answer? When we stand before Christ at the Judgment we are going to be found rightfully guilty of breaking God's commandments. We will all be found guilty because there is none righteous, no not one. We all are deserving of hell.

Then your first objection fails.

But there is a "parachute". Jesus died on the Cross to take upon Himself the penalty for our failure to keep God's Law, so that when we repent and trust Him, God will dismiss our case, because the penalty has already been paid, and we will go free. But like a parachute, we need to put it on before we jump out of the airplane. For us to have our case before God dismissed, we need to "put on" Christ by repenting of our sin and committing our trust to God's grace alone through Christ alone.

So, in the light of that, it makes the issue of m@sterbation somewhat irrelevant for those who are dead to it being crucified with Christ.

Again, you are all over the place. "Masturbation can't be a sin because if it were a sin then everyone would be deserving of Hell, and I find that difficult to believe." "Everyone is deserving of Hell." "Sin doesn't matter if we have a parachute." "The issue of masturbation is irrelevant."

This isn't looking to be a productive conversation, in large part because your positions are so shifty.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You find it difficult to believe that all are under the wrath of God?


We are talking about the status of something as a sin. Don't move the goalposts and play the victim card by pretending I am condemning you.


Then your first objection fails.


Again, you are all over the place. "Masturbation can't be a sin because if it were a sin then everyone would be deserving of Hell, and I find that difficult to believe." "Everyone is deserving of Hell." "Sin doesn't matter if we have a parachute." "The issue of masturbation is irrelevant."

This isn't looking to be a productive conversation, in large part because your positions are so shifty.

I looked back at post #1 and see that the discussion about m@sturbation is irrelevant to the original theme of the thread.

Sola Scriptura is correct, because the clear account of God's plans and purposes for mankind, and the way to receive salvation in Christ is found only in the Bible. Any literature outside of the Bible is basically irrelevant to the central issue of God's plan of salvation in Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I looked back at post #1 and see that the discussion about m@sturbation is irrelevant to the original theme of the thread.

Sola Scriptura is correct, because the clear account of God's plans and purposes for mankind, and the way to receive salvation in Christ is found only in the Bible. Any literature outside of the Bible is basically irrelevant to the central issue of God's plan of salvation in Christ.

Whew! At last someone is attempting to get this thread back on topic. Thank you!

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Interesting criteria for proper interpretation of Scripture.

I lived in objective error, and I have taken the log out of my eye, as scripture directs. I can now see clearly. I agree that it is interesting, but also humbling as I looked at all the wasted years of living in error. I cannot make you see, only the Holy Spirit of God can do that.
What I can do is tell you that my life with contraception produced no good fruit, only pain and misery under the delusion of pleasure. I was Protestant and believed all the faith alone stuff
It was just a slogan, as sin would continue to easily beset me. I bought into the gold covered dung analogy and thought that I would never be free in this life. It is not true, as it leaves many in their sins and saves no one.
It was when I submitted to the authority of the Apostles in the Church founded on Peter that the sin that so easily beset me was gone. I did not even think it would happen, but it was as if I had truly been born again. Jesus breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins. The sacrament of confession cleansed me. It was not of my own, but the grace of God flowed through the sacrament. His holy Eucharist nourishes me and decreases my desire for sin. It is no longer I that liveth, but Christ liveth in me. I am humbled by His mercy as well as saddened and appalled at my former self.
I saw that it was not faith alone that showed me I was born again, but as Paul describes in 1Cor13, when I repented, I received Faith, Hope, and Charity. They are the three theological virtues that come from God alone. Faith to know that God is and He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him. Hope that he fulfills His promises and cleanses us from sin if we ask Him as He says in Revelation 3:20, and Charity so that I can love God with all my heart and forever seek ways to please Him. We please Him by obeying His commandments. It’s not in some fantasy future heaven when we will live without sin, but now is the day of salvation. We pray Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. It is not His will for us to remain in sin to be cleansed later, but now, just ask Him. He is mighty to save and will deliver anyone that asks.
I don’t care if anyone thinks I am deluded or doesn’t believe me. I know what I was and how He has delivered me. But for the Catholic Church, I would not have known that I was in sin and needed to repent. God bless our holy father and the magisterium, for they guard the faith once delivered to the saints.