Rho,
You keep harping about the total insignificance of the Apostolic Tradition/Teaching which is so irrelevant and not even related to the Bereans in Acts 17:1-12 teaching "Sola Scriptura".
Let's get real again, afterwards few questions. Your church (I guess Reformed) in the 30's was one who agreed, actually ALL christian churches that artificial contraception is against the Will of God - what happened since the Anglican Lambeth conference 80 years ago? Does your Church TEACH what is otherwise FALSE? What happened to Unchangeability of Truth? These are real hard facts, that most if not all protestant churches (in their assertion to each his own) have followed historically the footsteps of Anglicanism. (google Humanae Vitae).
How about gay-marriage? Many evangelical churches had already succumbed, again history is repeating itself....one by one.
Without the Apostolic Teaching which Christ ordained and founded upon His Apostles and successors that are BINDING to Christians without which we are lost. That is a fact! Now if you think otherwise that it is Biblically ok (the use of contraception) then from what authority do you say so?
Jae,
the total insignificance of the Apostolic Tradition/Teaching which is so irrelevant
Where have I "harped on" that? Or even said anythg of the kind?
Rather, I've merely asked you and all other RCs and EOx to prove that what you claim is Apostolic Tradition really is Apostolic Tradition. The way Jesus told us to examine such things to find out is to examine them in light of Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), and the Bereans here in Acts 17 follow that example.
When I ask you to prove that your alleged ApTrad actually came from the apostles, you retreat to "we're the church founded by Christ!" and "we have bishops going back to Peter!" and other irrelevancies. Try actually answering the challenge sometime. It'd be a refreshing change.
what happened since the Anglican Lambeth conference 80 years ago?
A better question is: Why should I care?
What happened to Unchangeability of Truth?
What happened to judging Truth by what God has said, rather than what people think and agree on?
How about gay-marriage? Many evangelical churches had already succumbed
Oh, so other churches' succumbing means that I am wrong for holding to Sola Scriptura. All you need is a connecting argument!
Now if you think otherwise that it is Biblically ok (the use of contraception) then from what authority do you say so?
If you insist on your bizarre and questionably-healthy obsession with opposing contraception loudly and openly all the time, fine - show me in the Bible where Jesus or the apostles gave us commands with respect to never using contraception. Don't show me psgs where we're commanded not to murder people - I absolutely oppose abortion, RU486 and other morning-after pills, birth control pills of all kinds (since all contain an abortifacient functionality), and other abortifacient methodologies. Don't quote the psg about Onan, since his problem was clearly that he refused to provide offspring for his brother. I don't see a biblical problem with barrier methods. Prove me wrong, if you (notice, you brought it up, not me) insist on talking contraception.
Also, for purposes of instruction, show me Apostolic Tradition opposed to barrier methods of contraception. Do not quote it unless you prove that it came from an apostle, and describe specifically how you know it came from an apostle, and which one, and whether this is just your private opinion or whether this has been infallibly stated by the RCC; if the latter, state where and when and how you know it was infallible. Thanks!
(PS - It should go without saying, but I would like to iterate clearly that I speak only for myself in this post; opinions I express are not necessarily those of anyone else on the highly-paid and highly-trained Beggars All team.)
Posts
14 comments:
On assuming RCC is right about everything, and weird ways to argue such
I've been informed that large numbers of Catholics use contraception and think it's okay.
Are all these contracepting Catholics their own private popes? And using and applying private interpretation to Infallible Magisterial Teaching?
-----
Vatican II followed after Lambeth 1930.
Rho, you're right in the fact use of contraception (or lack thereof) has no bearing on Sola Scripture. That's a strange way to prove his point for sure.
But I think you may be off on your asking to prove a ban on contraception based on passages. Historically, the Protestant faith, including the Reformed churches, has not held to the modern view of contraception. Like egalitarianism, contraception in the churches was not even something considered until Feminism of the 1960s arose.
I think Scripture implies that contraception is a bad idea when it speaks of children being a blessing (a gift) from God (Gen. 33:5, Chron. 28:5, Psalm 127, Ruth 4:13b, etc.) Hence why would we want to block a blessing for the Lord? Much like the Bible speaks of debt as wrong, but does not outright call it a sin.
Also there is the command of "be fruitful and multiply", given to Adam, Noah, and the nation of Israel. But one could argue that having 2-3 children (based on the American standard) is enough to be fruitful and contraception is fine thereafter.
While not every believer is to marry, everyone who marries is expected to try and be fruitful with children.
While I agree the with you on the sin of Onan, one can not separate other "wrongs" he did here from his sin. Here are a few comments from Luther and Calvin on that passage:
"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment. He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred."(Luther's Works, Vol. 7, p. 20-21)
The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring. The impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses' mouth, that Onan, as it were, by a violent abortion, no less cruelly than filthily cast upon the ground the offspring of his brother, torn from the maternal womb.(Calvin's Commentary on Genesis 38:8-10, translated from the Latin)
In my opinion Jae's fixation beats Bellisario's.
In Christ,
CD
Some church fathers that militantly championed celibacy (liek Jerome) were downright hostile to the idea of bearing children itself.
They actually argued that with the coming of Christ, the old commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" had been abrogated and nullified!
These pro-celibacy fanatics were thus far from the modern pro-family RCC position. They only wanted to produce childlessness via celibacy, not with contraceptives.
I would also point out (somewhat cynically) that in pre-contraceptive times, fear of childbearing was a major factor in the recruitment of nuns. Those females who did not want to become "baby machines" in the peasant societies of old could escape that fate (with social respectability) only by becoming nuns.
Thus contraceptives took away a great recruitment tool of nuns from the RCC. No wonder the church detests it.
Uhh...wow Henry...
I'm not sure if I'm more surprised by your comment itself, or by the fact that it actually got posted, and has sat there publicly for hours without being summarily deleted by the blogmaster(s).
Would you say that you're "born-again", Henry?
In Christ,
CD
sat there publicly for hours without being summarily deleted by the blogmasters
I have job, so I can't always babysit every ridiculous comment that is posted.
Many people live on-line, I don't.
Thanks James.
It looks like your unwanted guest is a repeat offender.
I can certainly sympathize with duties away from the blogosphere, and I'm not thin-skinned enough to be particularly concerned about what "Henry" says or thinks about me.
Maybe unfortunate comments like Henry's are the exception rather than the rule here; if so you should consider yourself blessed.
If not, you might consider moderating comments, or else asking your fellow contributors for support in policing the blog. These are only suggestions of course - after all it is your blog, and a fine one at that.
Perhaps it's because you have such a good blog that the fact folks can come in and soil the place at will seems so out of place.
Henry,
If you were to die tonight do you believe you would go to heaven, hell, purgatory, or elsewhere and why?
In Christ,
CD
Coram you should concern yourself more with where you will end up if you die tonight.
Henry,
If I were to physically die my eternal spirit would enter into the presence of God because Jesus Christ redeemed me with His own precious blood, and gave me new life. He rescued me from my sin and the condemnation and divine wrath it brought upon me.
Although I'm unworthy, nevertheless I've been crucified with Christ, and I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. Likewise I live in Him being made a new creature by the power of God out of His own vast oceans of grace, love, mercy, and pity.
Jesus Christ said that a man must be born-again or he will never see the Kingdom of heaven. Would you say that you're born-again, Henry?
In Christ,
CD
I would say that you can also know a man's state of soul by his fruits. Would you say that your conduct is an example of someone who has been "born again?"
Henry said: "I would say that you can also know a man's state of soul by his fruits. Would you say that your conduct is an example of someone who has been "born again?"
That's an interesting observation, Henry.
Let's examine the respective "fruits" of our combox conversation here, shall we?
Your first comment was deleted because it was spiteful, off subject, and essentially murderous because by wishing that the parents of a human being had used contraception in order to have prevented the existence of someone, is basically to wish them out of existence.
To wish someone did not exist is akin to wishing them destroyed or annhilated. It could be argued that this sort of fantasy is in direct violation of the 6th Commandment, and is certainly in violation of the Biblical admonition to love one's neighbor.
Your second comment was deleted for similar reasons.
Your third comment, as I recall, contained objectionable language and was also deleted.
My responses to you have consistently pointed to the need for men to be born-again in order to enter the Kingdom of heaven and inquired as to whether you consider yourself to be born-again and to consider the trajectory of your eternal soul.
Thus far you've failed to respond to my very straightforward questions, preferring instead to change the subject, or answer questions with questions.
In the light of scripture which of these "fruits" do you think seems more consistent with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and the admonitions of the Holy Bible?
I don't want you to go to hell, Henry; I want you to place your faith solely in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world; God's only provision for the forgiveness of sins.
John 3:5 states:
"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Would you say that you're born-again, Henry?
In Christ,
CD
Post a Comment