Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yes, the parallel is quite interesting - Jesus Christ, the Word of God who upholds all things through His word. Curiously, I was surprised at the first RCC mass I attended when, at some point, an acolyte held up an open book, which looked like a Bible to me, and loudly proclaimed, "This is the word of the Lord, this is the word of the Lord, this is the word of the Lord."

There is a world of difference between holding up the Bible, saying it is the Word of the Lord, and actually sitting down and reading plus obeying what it tells us to do.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is a world of difference between holding up the Bible, saying it is the Word of the Lord, and actually sitting down and reading plus obeying what it tells us to do.

I agree entirely. When I first read the Bible for myself it totally changed my life. There was so much in it that had never been mentioned in all the years attending church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Masturbation is merely a bodily function. It is not a sin in itself. The sin is what arouses the person to cause him or her to want to do it. It is the sexual fantasy or the viewing of inappropriate content which is the sin, not the act of masturbation itself.

Quite correct.

 

[The Liturgist]

Jesus is and always will be the authority over His Ekklesia and over all creation albeit we have to deal with some instruction in 1Cor15 that there's no need to specify for you since you don't read Scripture.

Once we understand the truth that Rome does not equal His Ekklesia, it's not too tough to understand how He really delegates authority. It's spelled out in His Word.

The idea that the Church interprets Scripture is fully compatible with your ecclesiology and with Protestantism and Sola Scriptura. I have believed it for most of my life, including those periods when I was fully Calvinist.

As I see it, it is simply self-evident. The interpretation of Scripture by the whole Church is why we believe in the Trinity, the Nicene Creed, and so on, and likewise the interpretation of scripture by different Reformed churches, which is achieved through the consensus of the Presbyteries or Classis as they are called in the Continental Reformed churches, and the individual presbyters and laymen.

Nor does this view require acceptance of any specific doctrine of infallibility, and certainly not Papal infallibility.

However, it is universally beneficial to regard as effectively infallible the Bible when accurately translated and interpreted, and the first two Ecumenical ecumenical councils which defined the Creed, and the refutation of Arius by St. Athanasius, who is called the Pillar of Orthodoxy and who also provided the universally accepted 27 book New Testament canon, which was later adopted by Rome, then Antioch and the rest of the autocephalous churches. The reason for this is the doctrine of the Creed and the 27 book New Testament are universally held among Christians. Likewise the rejection of Pelagianism should be regarded as effectively infallible, since it is also universally held.

Effectively infallible might be sub-optimal language, of course. It might be better to say “Fundamental to normative Christianity and universally believed within” or as “Essential to the proper understanding of Scripture and correct identification as a member of the Ekkelsia” or as a “integral to the universal beliefs of all Christians” or as “a test of catholicity” in the sense of the entire Church and not just the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

Everything that speaks about Christ's authority is found in the Bible and nowhere else. Even the Church itself is a product of what the Bible says about it. Therefore the Church is not the first cause or the foundation. The Bible is the foundation on which the Church is built.

I am in no sense disputing that Christ our God is the Master of our religion, the supreme authority, being the Father revealed to us, as the Gospel of John explains.

The Church is the body of Christ, who is its Head. Therefore where a doctrine is universally held this can be considered Christ guiding the Church through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Liturgist]

Concerning a certain behavior being discussed, the Early Church and Judaism before it always regarded it as a sin (see Onan in Genesis), and it is not a natural bodily function (in contrast to nocturnal emission, which happens to unmarried men if one resists the temptations of fornication or that sin committed by Onan, or to married men who for whatever reason are not sleeping with their wives), but a deliberate act.

Nonetheless, regarding it, among the unmarried men, especially those of a certain age, it is an extremely difficult temptation to resist and consequently is an example of why we require the forgiveness of Christ.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Concerning a certain behavior being discussed, the Early Church and Judaism before it always regarded it as a sin (see Onan in Genesis), and it is not a natural bodily function (in contrast to nocturnal emission, which happens to unmarried men if one resists the temptations of fornication or that sin committed by Onan, or to married men who for whatever reason are not sleeping with their wives), but a deliberate act.

Nonetheless, regarding it, among the unmarried men, especially those of a certain age, it is an extremely difficult temptation to resist and consequently is an example of why we require the forgiveness of Christ.

Onan's sin was not about that certain action. It was about refusal to obey God's express command to sire children through his deceased brother's wife. This was at a time when it was important to bring as many children into the world to increase the population. The condemnation of the certain action is a twist of the Scripture to make it mean something it doesn't.

The three rules for interpreting Scripture are:
Context
Context
and Context.

 

[The Liturgist]

Onan's sin was not about that certain action. It was about refusal to obey God's express command to sire children through his deceased brother's wife. This was at a time when it was important to bring as many children into the world to increase the population. The condemnation of the certain action is a twist of the Scripture to make it mean something it doesn't.

The three rules for interpreting Scripture are:
Context
Context
and Context.

This is a common argument given by liberal theologians, but the Early Church Fathers were consistent in their rejection of this sin and the reason why, and they were far more careful to engage in exegesis and avoid eisegesis than many theologians today (it also helped that they frequently worked with a broader range of scriptures, such as the Deuterocanonical Books).

Now because this sin is easy to fall victim to temptation towards, we must be extremely humble out it, as perhaps more than nine out of ten men have committed it, but still it is something to try to resist, and eventually either matrimony or celibacy can be attained, facilitating continence.

 

[Markie Boy]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 states that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work. Complete, and fully equipped. That means to me that the Word is sufficient, and no more is needed.

I would agree that other sources may be helpful or insightful - I love the Didache. And the Didache will challenge both Catholics and Protestants, as neither really fully lines up with it. A dose of humility and patience is needed on our path.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Not seeing sexual intercourse with contraception prohibited in the Scriptures.

I don’t see sex with contraception taught in the scriptures. This makes your position of sola scriptura inconsistent. You have to go outside of scripture to justify it.
I don’t see the scriptures reflected in modern marriage either. There is no longer the husband is the head of the wife. There is no longer wives be subject to your husbands. It’s all go to school, get a career, you are better than a man, and anything he does you can do better. Children are a burden and cost too much. Gotta chase that comfortable lifestyle. No, I don’t see that taught in scripture either. Yet, those that live like that can claim sola scriptura? It would be absurdly funny if it was not so sad.
Christ teaches us to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. Contraception is the exact opposite of self denial. It is pure indulgence. It is very funny that Protestants try to say that Catholics sell indulgences, when they themselves practice literal indulgence. That is irony.
A marriage without contraception is pure in intent. The reason to get married is to have children and raise a family. It is not to help the wife’s career or make her feel more empowered.
Without contraception, a man must behave with discipline. He must learn to deny himself. He learns to respect his wife and not use her for gratification. If a man has not yet learned sexual discipline, the he is not ready for marriage

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is a common argument given by liberal theologians, but the Early Church Fathers were consistent in their rejection of this sin and the reason why, and they were far more careful to engage in exegesis and avoid eisegesis than many theologians today (it also helped that they frequently worked with a broader range of scriptures, such as the Deuterocanonical Books).

Now because this sin is easy to fall victim to temptation towards, we must be extremely humble out it, as perhaps more than nine out of ten men have committed it, but still it is something to try to resist, and eventually either matrimony or celibacy can be attained, facilitating continence.

Here is the actual Scriptural reference - Genesis 38:7-10:

"Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.7But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death.8Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."9But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his sperm on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.10What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."

This shows clearly from the literal reading of the reference that the reason why Onan allowed his sperm to spill to the ground was his deliberate act to keep from producing offspring for his brother. That was what was wicked in the Lord's sight. Onan did not m@sterbate. He had sex with Tamar but practiced coitus interruptus to prevent Tamar conceiving children, contrary to Judah's express instruction. Therefore Onan's act cannot be a foundation for saying that m@sterbation is a mortal sin.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is entirely correct and should be evident even to Protestants and those who adhere to an Invisible Church or Local Church ecclesiology.

The problem with the statement that Christ and the Church are one, is the question: which church is being referred to, seeing that the visible Church is split up into many different denominations.l

So, which one? Is it:
Roman Catholic
Anglican
Baptist
Vineyard
AOG
Lutheran
Presbyterian,
to cite some examples?

Each of these sincerely believe that they are the church that is closest to God and at the cutting edge of His will.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The problem with the statement that Christ and the Church are one, is the question: which church is being referred to, seeing that the visible Church is split up into many different denominations.l

So, which one? Is it:
Roman Catholic
Anglican
Baptist
Vineyard
AOG
Lutheran
Presbyterian,
to cite some examples?

Each of these sincerely believe that they are the church that is closest to God and at the cutting edge of His will.

That does, indeed, pose a real problem. Many, if not most, Christians, find their answer in the existence of a spiritual, invisible (to human eyes) church composed of true believers and not the messy denominations which contain tares among the wheat. Others, such as the RCC, insist that they and they alone, are the ONE, TRUE CHURCH of GOD.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don’t see sex with contraception taught in the scriptures. This makes your position of sola scriptura inconsistent. You have to go outside of scripture to justify it.
I don’t see the scriptures reflected in modern marriage either. There is no longer the husband is the head of the wife. There is no longer wives be subject to your husbands. It’s all go to school, get a career, you are better than a man, and anything he does you can do better. Children are a burden and cost too much. Gotta chase that comfortable lifestyle. No, I don’t see that taught in scripture either. Yet, those that live like that can claim sola scriptura? It would be absurdly funny if it was not so sad.
Christ teaches us to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. Contraception is the exact opposite of self denial. It is pure indulgence. It is very funny that Protestants try to say that Catholics sell indulgences, when they themselves practice literal indulgence. That is irony.
A marriage without contraception is pure in intent. The reason to get married is to have children and raise a family. It is not to help the wife’s career or make her feel more empowered.
Without contraception, a man must behave with discipline. He must learn to deny himself. He learns to respect his wife and not use her for gratification. If a man has not yet learned sexual discipline, the he is not ready for marriage

Indeed, contraception is a great evil. The traditional Roman Catholic British politician Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has six children, the youngest being named after Pope St. Sixtus (who is also highly venerated in the Syriac Orthodox Church which attributes an Anaphora to him), and a hero of mine, the Antiochian Orthodox priest Fr. Josiah Trenham, who like Raymond Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco and Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, is an outspoken opponent of sexual immorality and abortion,

Also Fr. Josiah Trenham keeps an Orthodox casket, probably one from the OCA convent in Santa Paula, in the basement of his church, also in Southern California, so that when a parishioner reposes in the Lord they can be economically buried, as the Orthodox Church is one of only a few which maintains the historic prohibition on cremation, which is an ugly thing to do to the precious relics of our loved ones as they await the Resurrection, and also was rejected by the early church as it is the preferred practice of Pagan religions, from Northern Europe to Rome to India and to Japan, with only a few exceptions, such as ancient Egypt (and embalming also historically was not done and is quite rare in Orthodox Christian funerals, and I believe the Jews also reject it).

 

[The Liturgist]

The problem with the statement that Christ and the Church are one, is the question: which church is being referred to, seeing that the visible Church is split up into many different denominations.l

So, which one? Is it:
Roman Catholic
Anglican
Baptist
Vineyard
AOG
Lutheran
Presbyterian,
to cite some examples?

Each of these sincerely believe that they are the church that is closest to God and at the cutting edge of His will.

With invisible church ecclesiology, you just assert that Christ is the head of the invisible Church comprised of all Christians who adhere to doctrines contained in the Nicene Creed such as the Trinity and certain other essential beliefs, which are basically those outlined in the ChristianForums.com Statement of Faith, which is an extremely good document because it starts with the Nicene Creed and tacks on a few useful responses to modern errors, for example the denial of the Apostolate of St. Paul, which has become in recent years an increasingly popular heresy, and because these beliefs are deemed essential for normative Christianity, separating the wheat of Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Baptism, and other denominations (I don’t know much about the Vineyard or AOG so cannot attest if they fit the bill, but I would assume they do, since those denominations which do not are generally regarded as cults, for example, the J/Ws, Christian Science, the Mormons, etc.

Speaking of Mormons and cults, I am in southern Utah today for medical reasons and saw at the grocery store a pair of women dressed in the distinctive 1950s hairstyle and clothing required of members of the polygamist FLDS cult in nearby Colorado City, Arizona, which is still run by Warren Jeffs from prison, where he is serving a life sentence for the abuse of children. I prayed for them and it was an extremely sorry sight, and we must pray God delivers those women from the slavery in which they live.

Thus, when we look at a cult such as that or even the mainstream Mormons and compare it with any authentic Christian church, one can readily discern the distinctions, and these represent the authority of the Church by virtue of being accepted ecumenically and being a requirement of an apostolic catholicity, that is, the whole faith handed down from the Apostles, in an invisible church ecclesiology.

In a sense, this also means that the early Church in such an ecclesiology has more authority than the divided churches of today, alienated by schism, but this is also the case if one adheres to any form of Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran or Roman Catholic ecclesiology, since in those denominations you have Tradition and the Creeds as important parts of the faith, and these originated in the Early Church.

 

[Clare73]

I don’t see sex with contraception taught in the scriptures. This makes your position of sola scriptura inconsistent. You have to go outside of scripture to justify it.

Fallacy. . .

I don't see eating with a fork taught in Scripture, or being a vegan, or brushing your teeth, etc. . .you have to go outside Scripture to justify them.

 

[zippy2006]

Here is the actual Scriptural reference - Genesis 38:7-10:

"Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.7But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death.8Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."9But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his sperm on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.10What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."

This shows clearly from the literal reading of the reference that the reason why Onan allowed his sperm to spill to the ground was his deliberate act to keep from producing offspring for his brother. That was what was wicked in the Lord's sight. Onan did not m@sterbate. He had sex with Tamar but practiced coitus interruptus to prevent Tamar conceiving children, contrary to Judah's express instruction. Therefore Onan's act cannot be a foundation for saying that m@sterbation is a mortal sin.

You are free to interpret the verse as you wish, and your interpretation is not implausible, but your "Therefore..." is a non sequitur. Here is the traditional argument:

1. The intentional spilling of seed outside of the marital embrace is a sin
2. Onan spilled seed outside of the marital embrace
3. Therefore, Onan sinned

There are two acts here: the spilling of seed, and the omission of the law of Deuteronomy 25:5. Both acts took place in Genesis 38. You are attempting to claim that the LORD found the second act wicked but found the first act to be innocuous. Except you are going beyond the text, because it simply doesn't say this. You can say that the text leaves the status of the first act ambiguous, but you cannot say that it unambiguously classifies it as innocuous. Further, as has already been noted, neither the ancient Jews nor the early Christians read the text the way you are reading it.

As for the traditional view, we should ask whether God would have punished Onan if he had merely committed (omitted) the second act and had not carried out the first. Your novel view seems to imply that if Onan had merely committed the second act he would have been punished just as severely. Yet this seems highly implausible.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Fallacy. . .

I don't see eating with a fork taught in Scripture, or being a vegan, or brushing your teeth, etc. . .you have to go outside Scripture to justify them.

Well for the first 1900 years of Christianity it was taught to be a sin. It was only in 1930 at the Lambeth conference of the Anglican denomination that it was voted that it may be acceptable in marriage in rare circumstances.
That did not last long, it was accepted in all Protestant denominations and now in modern society it is treated as a right and a way of life.
The fruit of contraception is abortion as we know sin when it has finished its work brings about death. If there were no contraception there would be no abortion, as any couple would realize that to have intercourse is to endeavor to conceive. It used to be thought of that contraception was for prostitutes and degenerates, now one is thought a fool that refuses to use it. My my Satan is sly and sin continues its work.
I am not afraid to be thought a fool. I am a Catholic man, and I will only have intercourse with a woman that is to be or is the mother of my children. I will never use birth control, nor will I have intercourse with a woman who does. The mother of my children can only be my wife, and it is till death do us part.

For 1900 years we had the word of God, and contraception was denounced. It was not scripture that brought it to us, but human thought. That is not a fallacy, that is fact.

 

[Clare73]

Well for the first 1900 years of Christianity it was taught to be a sin. It was only in 1930 at the Lambeth conference of the Anglican denomination that it was voted that it may be acceptable in marriage in rare circumstances.
That did not last long, it was accepted in all Protestant denominations and now in modern society it is treated as a right and a way of life.
The fruit of contraception is abortion as we know sin when it has finished its work brings about death. If there were no contraception there would be no abortion, as any couple would realize that to have intercourse is to endeavor to conceive.

All intercourse is not an endeavor to conceive.

But you've raised a good point. How is contraception abortion? Does it kill a zygote (one-celled human life)?

And what form of contraception was proscribed 1900 years ago?

Preventing a conception is not the same as terminating a conception, which is terminating human life.

n It used to be thought of that contraception was for prostitutes and degenerates, now one is thought a fool that refuses to use it. My my Satan is sly and sin continues its work.
I am not afraid to be thought a fool. I am a Catholic man, and I will only have intercourse with a woman that is to be or is the mother of my children. I will never use birth control, nor will I have intercourse with a woman who does. The mother of my children can only be my wife, and it is till death do us part.

For 1900 years we had the word of God, and contraception was denounced. It was not scripture that brought it to us, but human thought. That is not a fallacy, that is fact.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

All intercourse is not an endeavor to conceive.

But you've raised a good point. How is contraception abortion? Does it kill a zygote (one-celled human life)?

And what form of contraception was proscribed 1900 years ago?

Preventing a conception is not the same as terminating a conception, which is terminating human life.

It is the contraceptive mentality that was proscribed not the method. Regardless of method, the goal is the same, pleasure without responsibility. What then happens when the contraception fails? A fair number have abortions. But for the fact that a contracepting couple does not want a child, there would not be a need for abortion. Instead of children being welcomed into the world , they are either begrudgingly accepted or aborted. This practice does not sound godly or scriptural to me

Why do you find it acceptable despite church teaching to the contrary?