Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.

All I did was to show what the reference actually said. You don't interpret straight narrative. It is what it says it is. You are wanting to interpret it your way because of your basic belief that m@asturbation is sin. But the reference does not mention it. You are actually adding your personal belief to the Word of God.

 

[Markie Boy]

So I'll go out on a limb here - Contraception. Before 1930 - all of the churches agreed and were against contraception. It also seems the reformers were against such things as well.

I am a protestant (non-Catholic) - but the protestants I know don't seem to pause much to even consider the weight that all of Christian history is against contraception.

Then look at the link - next came common abortion. I'll assume we can all agree that that is not OK.

And then the huge spike in the divorce rate.

Are these things connected?

I must say one thing I find disappointing in protestantism, is the lack of respect or even interest, in Christian history. I do not think we are the better for it.

 

[The Liturgist]

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?

And indeed I would note conservative Sola Scriptura Protestants object to it and other non-reproductive acts on the basis of the Onan story in Genesis, and also sodomy, which happens to also be the basis for Orthodox repudiation of unnatural forms of coitus, even in wedlock, which in the Pedalion, the definitive Eastern Orthodox nomocanon (compendium of canon law) is referred to frequently as arsenokoetia, which literally translates to flaming/burning/firery (in the sense of hellfire) intercourse.

 

[The Liturgist]

So I'll go out on a limb here - Contraception. Before 1930 - all of the churches agreed and were against contraception. It also seems the reformers were against such things as well.

I am a protestant (non-Catholic) - but the protestants I know don't seem to pause much to even consider the weight that all of Christian history is against contraception.

Then look at the link - next came common abortion. I'll assume we can all agree that that is not OK.

And then the huge spike in the divorce rate.

Are these things connected?

I must say one thing I find disappointing in protestantism, is the lack of respect or even interest, in Christian history. I do not think we are the better for it.

Indeed, but there are exceptions to this, such as the Continuing Anglican Churches, and also the remaining conservative members of the Anglican Communion, for example, the Church of Ghana, and a significant portion of the Church of England, and then within Lutheranism we have the Evangelical Catholic movement led by churches such as the LCMS/LCC of which my friend @MarkRohfrietsch is a member.

 

[Clare73]

It is the contraceptive mentality that was proscribed not the method.

Where in Scripture. . . by whom in Scripture?
I'm referring to natural contraception, and believers.
Contraception or no contraception makes no difference in the eternal destiny of a non-believer.

Regardless of method, the goal is the same, pleasure without responsibility.

That's general characterizing and painting with an awfully large brush.
Scripture views it differently.
The intimacy of the sexual union of the two-in-one-enfleshment of which Christ and the church are the illustration (Eph 5:30-32) is not just for pro-creation. It is also for the purpose of an intimate union through that two-in-one-enfleshment.
That the sexual union is Scripturally abused does not negate God's good purposes in the union.

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

The word of God written is my authority. I see no prohibition of natural (no extinction of a zygote) contraception in Scripture.
I acknowledge no human authority over Scripture.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Where in Scripture. . . by whom in Scripture?
I'm referring to natural contraception, and believers.
Contraception or no contraception makes no difference in the eternal destiny of a non-believer.

That's general characterizing and painting with an awfully large brush.
Scripture views it differently.
The intimacy of the sexual union of the two-in-one-enfleshment of which Christ and the church are the illustration (Eph 5:30-32) is not just for pro-creation. It is also for the purpose of an intimate union through that two-in-one-enfleshment.
That the sexual union is Scripturally abused does not negate God's good purposes in the union.

The word of God written is my authority. I see no prohibition of natural (no extinction of a zygote) contraception in Scripture.
I acknowledge no human authority over Scripture.

The unitive aspect of the marital act is secondary, procreation is it’s primary end. There is no two-in-one enfleshment if the couple uses a barrier, either chemical, material or mental. The cells cannot join.
Marriage by many is being used as a license rather than for the purpose it was given. Contraceptive sex cannot consummate a marriage. It is intrinsically disordered.
The plain reading of scripture we can see that we are called to chastity, offering our bodies as a living sacrifice to the Lord, not looking for ways we can feed our flesh.

 

[Clare73]

The unitive aspect of the marital act is secondary, procreation is it’s primary end. There is no two-in-one enfleshment if the couple uses a barrier, either chemical, material or mental. The cells cannot join.

Who made that rule?

Marriage by many is being used as a license rather than for the purpose it was given. Contraceptive sex cannot consummate a marriage. It is intrinsically disordered.
The plain reading of scripture we can see that we are called to chastity, offering our bodies as a living sacrifice to the Lord, not looking for ways we can feed our flesh.

Except for those pesky little verses of 1 Co 7:3-5.
The sexual intercourse of the marriage union is not "unspiritual."

 

[GDL]

Just grabbing a link here for some data: When am I most fertile? How to calculate your ovulation cycle

So (all research having to do with a heterosexual married couple - of course):

• 7 days no sex (please forgive me for not looking up the Scripture- some won't care anyway because it's in Mosaic Law)
• 5 days highest probability of conception
• 4 days lower probability of conception
• 12 days unlikely to conceive

So:

• 25% of days no sex
• 18% of days highest probability of conception
• 14% of days lower probability of conception
• 43% of days unlikely to conceive

Conclusion:

• God designed sex mostly to be enjoyed without likelihood and with low probability of conception (but He can and will surprise re: unlikelihood & low probabilities).

BTW, this is the same God who designated days for feasting, and enjoyment of the result of labors, and for abundance for those who do His will even with this earth being under the curse from sin.

 

[GDL]

Who made that rule?

You know who...

 

[GDL]

Except for those pesky little verses of 1 Co 7:3-5.
The sexual intercourse of the marriage union is not "unspiritual."

And then there's the actual context of the referenced Rom12:1. And if Rome misapplies context, then it's just another example of why God allowed and/or facilitated the many departures from Rome.

 

[Clare73]

Just grabbing a link here for some data: When am I most fertile? How to calculate your ovulation cycle

So (all research having to do with a heterosexual married couple - of course):

• 7 days no sex (please forgive me for not looking up the Scripture- some won't care anyway because it's in Mosaic Law)

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.

• 5 days highest probability of conception
• 4 days lower probability of conception
• 12 days unlikely to conceive

So:

• 25% of days no sex
• 18% of days highest probability of conception
• 14% of days lower probability of conception
• 43% of days unlikely to conceive

Conclusion:

• God designed sex mostly to be enjoyed without likelihood and with low probability of conception (but He can and will surprise re: unlikelihood & low probabilities).

BTW, this is the same God who designated days for feasting, and enjoyment of the result of labors, and for abundance for those who do His will even with this earth being under the curse from sin.

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

 

[Clare73]

You know who...

Where?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Who made that rule?

Except for those pesky little verses of 1 Co 7:3-5.
The sexual intercourse of the marriage union is not "unspiritual."

They are not pesky verses, and they mention nothing about contraception. Sexual intercourse is beautiful as it was created. Why do you need contraception?
All the evil in the world at this time is flowing through that 1930 decision by the Anglicans. There is no need ever for a baptized believer in Christ to use contraception. It destroys the marital act, and leads to the destruction of the family, which serves Satan’s purpose not God’s.
Satan’s attack on souls in the 21st century comes in two ways, lust and greed, and those two methods are used to destroy the family.
Those that lust use contraception, others mask their greed with Marxism. I can’t believe that you would want to be part of that. Your interpretation of scripture is flawed, and I know because I used to believe like you, until God redeemed me from my sin.
I know what is going through your mind because you sound like I used to.
Just remember Jesus preached repent and believe the Gospel, deny yourself take up your cross and follow Him.
You cannot say you are denying while you are indulging

 

[Clare73]

They are not pesky verses, and they mention nothing about contraception.

Nor the "chastity" which you assert. . .

 

[zippy2006]

All I did was to show what the reference actually said.

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

 

[zippy2006]

So I'll go out on a limb here - Contraception. Before 1930 - all of the churches agreed and were against contraception. It also seems the reformers were against such things as well.

I am a protestant (non-Catholic) - but the protestants I know don't seem to pause much to even consider the weight that all of Christian history is against contraception.

Then look at the link - next came common abortion. I'll assume we can all agree that that is not OK.

And then the huge spike in the divorce rate.

Are these things connected?

I must say one thing I find disappointing in protestantism, is the lack of respect or even interest, in Christian history. I do not think we are the better for it.

Without an interpretive method which respects tradition and history Scripture can be made to say anything one wants it to say. Thus when certain sins become societally acceptable folks will attempt to justify them on the basis of their religion. This phenomenon occurs very quickly in those Protestant denominations which eschew history, and we have seen it with things like contraception, m@sturbation, homosexuality, women "priests", etc.

 

[Clare73]

Without an interpretive method which respects tradition and history Scripture can be made to say anything one wants it to say.

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.

Thus when certain sins become societally acceptable folks will attempt to justify them on the basis of their religion. This phenomenon occurs very quickly in those Protestant denominations which eschew history, and we have seen it with things like contraception, m@sturbation, homosexuality, women "priests", etc.

As in head covering in worship in the RCC?

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

 

[GDL]

Your interpretation of scripture is flawed, and I know because I used to believe like you

Interesting criteria for proper interpretation of Scripture.

 

[GDL]

Where?

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

 

[GDL]

Without an interpretive method which respects tradition

That would be Paul's tradition that began in Jerusalem, that began with Jesus' tradition that began in Heaven, correct?