You know the old stereotype about adolescent boys who learn the facts of life from other adolescent boys when they have no one else they feel comfortable consulting. I suppose, in the Internet age, that that’s gone the way of the dinosaur. For better or worse, information is only a mouse click away.
However, that old stereotype occurred to me as I was skimming some comments at Called to Confusion:
Start with comment #149, and take it from there.
Here we see a commenter (David Meyer) who’s asking if it’s morally permissible for a husband to have conjugal relations with his pregnant wife.
Of course, that takes the Catholic position to its logically absurd conclusion. But for now I wish to focus on a different point:
Why doesn’t it occur to David that maybe, just maybe, that’s a question he should ask his priest? And why does it not occur to the other respondents like Sean Patrick to tell him that he ought to consult his priest? Isn’t the priesthood the retail end of the Magisterium?
They attack sola scriptura. They attack the right of private judgment. They insist on the absolute necessity of the Magisterium.
great comment steve.
ReplyDeleteAnd, you know, its odd...even though you guys have your bibles (sola scriptura) ya'll still sit around like adolescent school boys talking about moral issues like masturbation (something you condone publicly). Gee, you think the SS paradigm would be enough to answer all those questions.
Gee, I can make an argument like Steve Hays!
Actually, it's Catholic commenters who reflect an adolescent obsession with masturbation. Catholic commenters are the ones who can't think or talk about anything else.
ReplyDeleteWhat a cheap post. You seem to not want to think the best of people.
ReplyDelete"Why doesn’t it occur to David that maybe, just maybe, that’s a question he should ask his priest?"
Maybe, just maybe I did. Maybe, just maybe you should ask ME and find out instead of trying to score comedy points with this rude and uncharitable post?
About asking my priest:
Perhaps I was not clear enough in the comments at CTC. I dont need to ask my priest because I already know what the magisterium teaches on the topic. Also my priest is out of town this weekend if you must know.
My question for the CTC folks had more to do with the reasoning behind the Church teaching, and specifically how the church sees the understanding of some of the Church fathers, and how some of their statements fit into the Church teaching.
"They attack sola scriptura."
I tried my darndest to defend it last year (but of course I am an idiot right?) but Sola S. attacks itself (it is not in the Scripture). It is self contradictory. I refuse to defend a theory that contradicts itself.
"They turn to each other, like adolescent boys who, instead of consulting their parents or family doctor, use the locker room as their information clearinghouse for SexEd 101."
And you are calling ME adolescent? Let the reader judge. You behaviour in this post is what is adolescent.
BTW, I just happened upon this post while looking for the one I commented on yesterday about the consensus patrum. I could easily have missed it. Why did you not even atempt to let me know you posted this? If you thought I needed correction, why not inform me? Instead you post this. For what purpose? To point and laugh at someone? If you actually care about souls, and want to win people to your position, that is a bad way to go about it. (not that you put forth an intelligent position in this post)
If you have any honor you will appologize, and in as much as you are a Christian, I ask that you appologize to me.
If not, then you have just posted something that did nothing but attempt to make yourself look funny, while pushing someone away from reading this blog more often and potentially being influenced by it. At least you could try to give offence for preaching the Reformed gospel, but no, you are content to heap contempt upon yourself not for anything substantial, or the gospel, but for some cheap laughs at someones expense.
David,
ReplyDeleteYou need to grow up. You voluntarily expressed yourself in a public forum. It's not as if I betrayed a confidence. You put that in the public domain, not me.
Moreover, you posted those comments on a blog (CTC) whose sole mission in life is to attack Evangelicalism. So that invites a corresponding response.
You've also been playing a double game in which you sound very sure of yourself when you post negative comments at Tblog, but when you post comments at a Catholic blog you let your guard down and frankly admit your doubts and misgivings. So you're not as self-confident about Catholic policy as you pretend to be.
Finally, Tblog has dealt with the charge that sola Scriptura is self-contradictory. Try a new objection for a change.
I dont need to ask my priest because I already know what the magisterium teaches on the topic.
ReplyDeleteI don't need to ask the Magisterium b/c I already know what the Bible teaches on topics you think I need the Magisterium for.
Rhology, you claim to know what the Bible teaches on this topic... unlike, say, Martin Luther, John Calvin, the other Protestant Reformers, and every Protestant denomination until 1930 (when the Anglicans cautiously allowed artificial contraception, in grave cases, with every other denomination soon to follow suit, in much less than grave cases)?
ReplyDeleteNothing like going over the same ground with another person who hasn't acquainted themselves with the discussion.
ReplyDeleteAppeal to authority = fail
Appeal to consensus = fail
Next up, we'll appeal to our feelings and "heart".
Christopher,
ReplyDelete1) That's no response to what I said.
2) Do you think disagreement about a text necessarily means that text is unclear?
Steve - I must say this reflects quite poorly on you. David Meyer is right - although one is hard pressed to cheapen this blog any further you have somehow managed to find a way.
ReplyDeleteMr. Fosi and Rhology,
ReplyDeleteMy comment was not simply about an "appeal to authority" or an "appeal to numbers." It was about what Rhology claims that he knows "the Bible teaches" on this topic-- a teaching which seems to be, in his view, that the use of artificial contraception is not an objective moral evil, and is, therefore, allowable. My comment was pointing out Rhology has somehow discovered a "Biblical teaching" that eluded all of the Protestant Reformers, and every Protestant denomination until 1930. Somehow, they *all* missed the clear teaching of the Bible on this subject-- all of them, from the 16th century until 1930?
It's rather amazing. Rhology's Biblical exegesis, on this topic, is supposedly better than all of the Reformers, and all Protestant denominations until 1930?
Rhology, as a credobaptist, you also seem to believe that you know the clear Biblical teaching on baptism, more so than Luther and Calvin. On this issue, you agree with the Anabaptists-- whom Luther and Calvin both considered to be enemies of the faith for the Anabaptist position on believer's-only baptism (among other reasons).
Curious-- the Reformers had quite a different view of the "Christian essentials" than the people here at Triablogue.
However, the teaching of Scripture is still clear, on what Calvinistic Protestants say are the "essentials"... for now... until they change their minds, "from Scripture," even further from the Reformers, at some point in the future.
Somehow, they *all* missed the clear teaching of the Bible on this subject-- all of them, from the 16th century until 1930?
ReplyDeleteStill not answering my question or challenge.
Seems like you need some supplemental reading. This has been gone over so many times before.
Christopher Lake said: My comment was not simply about an "appeal to authority" or an "appeal to numbers"... My comment was pointing out Rhology has somehow discovered a "Biblical teaching" that eluded all of the Protestant Reformers, and every Protestant denomination until 1930. Somehow, they *all* missed the clear teaching of the Bible on this subject-- all of them, from the 16th century until 1930? ... Rhology's Biblical exegesis, on this topic, is supposedly better than all of the Reformers, and all Protestant denominations until 1930?
ReplyDeleteNot much to be said, as I think what you've said stands (falls, actually) on it's own.
Rhology and Mr. Fosi,
ReplyDeleteYour responses don't deal with the issue here, which is what Rhology claimed that "the Bible teaches" on this topic. If the Bible is clear here-- or at least, sufficiently silent enough that it is legitimate for Protestants to use artificial contraception, then how is that that all Protestant exegetes and denominations missed that Biblical clarity, from the 16th century until 1930? (This, again, is in the context of Rhology's claim that he knows what the Bible teaches here.)
John Henry Newman says: Development!
ReplyDeleteIf the Magisterium is clear on whether EOdox are part of the One True Church or not -- or at least, sufficiently part that it is legitimate for RCs to use talk ecumenically with them, then how is that the Great Schism occurred and has persisted? (This, again, is in the context of David Meyer's claim that he knows what the Magisterium teaches here.)
IOW, you haven't said anything that hasn't been discussed many, many times before. How about reading a bit and bringing something new to the discussion?
A good observation, Steve.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I would find it difficult to talk about sex with a guy who is suppose to be celibate.
But Carrie, he may be celibate but he has infallible information about sex. So I think it evens out.
ReplyDeleteRhology, I'm sure that you know full well that the Catholic Church accepts the EO's claims to apostolic succession, but they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, because they do not accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome to resolve theological and ecclesiastical issues for the Church (as the early Church accepted that authority).
ReplyDeleteYour reference to Newman is obviously illegitimate, as he refers to doctrinal development that is in continuity with the teachings of the early Church, not against those teachings-- as artificial contraception is against the Biblical and traditional understanding of all Christians, from at least the first century until 1930.
Still waiting for an answer...
ReplyDeleteRhology, disagreement over a text does not necessarily mean that said text is unclear-- but if you, a "Reformed Baptist," disagree with the *entire Protestant Reformation*, over whether the Bible is clear on infant baptism, then that doesn't say much for the perspicuity of the Bible on baptism, does it? Moreover, Calvinists may say, today, that infant vs. believer's baptism is a "non-essential" issue, but the Reformers definitely *did not* see it as such. They saw "credobaptists" as enemies of the Christian faith. How do you know that you are right, and they were wrong?
ReplyDeleteI studied the Bible. Crazy how that goes, really - consistency.
ReplyDeleteAthanasius had a different Canon of Scr than the modern RCC. How do you know he was wrong?
Pope St Gregory the Great had a different Canon of Scr than the modern RCC. How do you know he was wrong?
Athanasius was a Sola Scripturist. How do you know he was wrong?
Chrysostom, Clement of Rome, and Basil of Caesarea held to sola fide. How do you know they were wrong?
Is Molinism or Thomism correct? How do you know?
I mean, I could go on all day. This line of questioning is so ridiculous.
On a side note, I would find it difficult to talk about sex with a guy who is suppose to be celibate.
ReplyDeleteAnd to think that Jesus and Paul were celibate and both taught quite a bit about who we are to conduct ourselves, including sexually.
Athanasius was a "Sola Scripturist"? How, then, does one explain the following statement from him about Mary?
ReplyDelete"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O [Ark of the New] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them. . . . If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you. . . . If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne of God, while you hold God in your hands."
-- from pages 106-107 of the book, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church," by Luigi Gambero.
I also can't help but laugh that the entirety of the 'exegesis' offered in support of artificial birth control on this website is..."Well, it does not say that ya can't!"
ReplyDeleteChristopher Lake said:
ReplyDeleteas artificial contraception is against the Biblical and traditional understanding of all Christians, from at least the first century until 1930.
Included in such an understanding of "contraception" would be Natural Family Planning; the early church was "universally" (to use the term as it is usually employed in these discussions) against any sexual act that was not for the express purpose of creating children. No one follows the tradition of the Church on this point, whatever weight you seem to want it to carry in this discussion. Your denomination also thinks it has interpreted the Scriptures better than the whole tradition of the Church.
And why shouldn't it? Faulty biology and a heavy dose of Stoic thought are poor foundations for Godly thinking about contraception. The fathers were unduly influenced by the pagan philosophies of their era, as were most intellectuals of the time.
I would also add that the Eastern Orthodox, noting the conflation of abortion and contraception in the early church fathers, allow contraception in some cases:
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101
Included in such an understanding of "contraception" would be Natural Family Planning; the early church was "universally" (to use the term as it is usually employed in these discussions) against any sexual act that was not for the express purpose of creating children.
ReplyDeleteNot having sex in the time that God himself makes fertilization difficult is not a sexual act.
Not having sex in the time that God himself makes fertilization difficult is not a sexual act.
ReplyDeleteHaving sex with the intent to avoid fertilization is...a sexual act.
Matthew, I'm not Eastern Orthodox. Some Orthodox jurisdictions have, indeed, capitulated on the historic Church teaching on artificial contraception, which grieves me.
ReplyDeleteYou write that the early Church's thinking on artificial contraception is influenced by "faulty biology and heavy does of Stoic thought." Isn't it curious, though, that all of the Reformers, and all Protestant denominations, period, agreed with the Church's basic stance on artificial contraception until 1930?
From the 1st century until 1930 is a very long time for pagan philosophy to overwhelm a "right Biblical understanding" of artificial contraception, is it not?
the early church was "universally" (to use the term as it is usually employed in these discussions) against any sexual act that was not for the express purpose of creating children.
ReplyDeleteYeah, forgot to mention that it is not the universal teaching of the early church that every sexual act must expressly be held with the aim of making a baby. The act must be procreative in its nature, however. Funny enough, however, many couples who have difficulty conceiving (often times due to years of taking oral contraceptives which mess up a woman's natural cycle) turn to NFP in order to learn the best times to try to conceive.
By the way Matthew, can you provide exegesis in support of artificial birth control that goes beyond, "It does not say you can't do it!"
This website appears to hold exegesis in high esteem so its odd that when it comes to this matter, so little is required to throw off two millennia of Christian faith and practice.
Christopher Lake said:
ReplyDeleteIsn't it curious, though, that all of the Reformers, and all Protestant denominations, period, agreed with the Church's basic stance on artificial contraception until 1930?
Why is that curious? One of the problems with modern discourse is that people often leave their arguments implied or hidden.
From the 1st century until 1930 is a very long time for pagan philosophy to overwhelm a "right Biblical understanding" of artificial contraception, is it not?
Whether something is "long" is relative, and whether this length should be of concern is another issue altogether. If Christ tarries another 10,000 years, Christians in the future will likely find the period short.
I also note that your denomination's position on NFP is a "capitulation" and subject to some of the same implicit criticisms you are raising here.
Also, Matthew, that certain Church Fathers *may* have taught that every act of intercourse must be for the purpose of procreation is not an argument against Natural Family Planning, as NFP is completely in accord with the Church's *historic stance* on *artificial contraception*.
ReplyDeleteNFP is still open to the possibility of life being created in the marital act, as God designed it. NFP is not artificially closed off to that possibility, in a way that does not respect God's actual, physical, design for marital sexual union (as artificial contraception is closed off to that design).
Steven said:
ReplyDeleteYeah, forgot to mention that it is not the universal teaching of the early church that every sexual act must expressly be held with the aim of making a baby.
Where's the evidence?
By the way Matthew, can you provide exegesis in support of artificial birth control that goes beyond, "It does not say you can't do it!"
If Scripture does not speak to the issue, Scripture does not speak to the issue. The issue then falls under wisdom, which I should hope is a principle I am not required to defend to a Catholic.
Still waiting for Rhology to explain how St. Athanasius held to "Sola Scriptura," in light of the above quote that I posted from him on Mary...
ReplyDeleteAlso, Rhology, is it seriously your answer, to my earlier question, that you disagree with the *entire Protestant Reformation* on infant baptism because you "studied the Bible"?
As if Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and the rest of the Reformers *did not* sufficiently study the Bible enough to be clear on baptism?
Christopher Lake said:
ReplyDeleteAlso, Matthew, that certain Church Fathers *may* have taught that every act of intercourse must be for the purpose of procreation is not an argument against Natural Family Planning, as NFP is completely in accord with the Church's *historic stance* on *artificial contraception*.
The earlier church fathers seem to have held the Stoic position that all sexual acts that were not intended to produce children were wrong. That is not the same as "being open" to life. These fathers would take (serious) complaint with your denomination's teachings on intent in sexual activity.
By the way, Catholic.com tacitly concedes this:
"It should be noted that some of the Church Fathers use language that can suggest to modern ears that there is no unitive.aspect to marital intercourse and that there is only a procreative.aspect. It is unclear whether this is what some of them actually thought or whether they are intending simply to stress that sexual activity becomes immoral if the procreative.aspect of a given marital act is deliberately frustrated. However that may be, over the course of time the Church has called greater attention to the unitive.aspect of marital intercourse, yet it remains true that the procreative.aspect of each particular marital act must not be frustrated."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
Matthew, the intent in Natural family Planning is to respect God's natural, physical design for marital sexuality-- not closing off the possibility of new life through barrier methods and/or contraceptive pills that have been invented by *man*.
ReplyDeleteA woman's natural fertility cycle has been designed by *God*. Do we humans really need to "work around" His design, in order to get our pleasure?
NFP is not a capitulation, either Biblically, historically, or culturally. It is Protestants who have capitulated on this subject on *all three* of those levels.
NFP is *massively* counter-cultural to our current age, which cares more for ease, convenience, and pleasure, than for respecting God's physical design for marital union. NFP preserves the marital act of intercourse, as God designed it. It is not changed in its essential nature. It is still unitive and procreative, as it is still open to life. Couples *do* use NFP to procreate...!
That some of them also use it to space births may contradict certain selected Church Fathers, but it does not contradict the historic teaching of the Church, and the Protestant Reformers, and all Protestant denominations, until 1930, on artificial contraception.
Honestly, I am stunned at the ease with which you dismiss over 1,900 years of Christian thinking on this subject, in favor of what Protestants have very recently decided is their "liberty" therein.
All-- I am not feeling well and really should be resting. However, I have chosen to respond to the "arguments," from Rhology and others, in this thread, who defy the historic Christian position on this subject-- what even the Reformers, and most of history's Protestants, period, have agreed is the Biblical position on it, as over against most of contemporary Protestantism (Reformed and Arminian), which has caved into the pull of Western "convenience culture" on artificial contraception.
ReplyDeleteIt is a telling indictment of contemporary Protestantism that *no one* in the early Church, and in the Church of later centuries, and *none* of your historic Reformed exegetes, agree with you *at all* on "the Bible's teaching" on artificial contraception.
And, one last time, before I go to rest-- Rhology, St. Athanasius held to Sola Scriptura? No, he did not, not even close. The same Church Father who defended the Trinity against the Arian heretics also had a devotion to Mary that no "Sola Scriptura" Protestant would countenance, but that Catholics understand and love, because they understand the context of the theological battles against *heretics* from which the Church developed her *Christocentric* thinking about Mary to defend the doctrine of Christ as "fully God, fully man." It is in that context that St. Athanasius rightly called Mary "Mother of God," as Christ *is* God.
ReplyDeleteI quote again, from the non-"Sola Scripturalist," St. Athanasius:
"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O [Ark of the New] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them. . . . If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you. . . . If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne of God, while you hold God in your hands."
-- from pages 106-107 of the book, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church," by Luigi Gambero.
Now, I can rest.
Christopher Lake said:
ReplyDeleteThat some of them also use it to space births may contradict certain selected Church Fathers, but it does not contradict the historic teaching of the Church,
Many church fathers seem to have thought this way, not just some here or there. Since no denomination follows all of the church fathers on this, or any other, subject, it makes your complaints on this subject less than compelling.
The fact that you have to make a distinction between what the church fathers taught on this subject and what the "Church" teaches on this subject yet again shows us Protestants that the Roman Catholic approach to church history is ideological, instead of historical. Though the church fathers are invoked at every turn, when they are in disagreement with the "Church," which is really just a euphemism for the Magisterium, they are dismissed in favor of more modern interpretations.
and the Protestant Reformers, and all Protestant denominations, until 1930, on artificial contraception.
Ground which has been covered, both in this thread and previous threads.
You are not explaining why this is problematic. I suspect this is because if you gave a serious and developed argument for your concern, its fallacious nature would be clear.
Honestly, I am stunned at the ease with which you dismiss over 1,900 years of Christian thinking on this subject, in favor of what Protestants have very recently decided is their "liberty" therein.
It is not with "ease" that we dismiss these things. I certainly do not think reading the relevant secondary and primary literature on this subject has been easy. Many of us have engaged this topic with sober reflection.
CHRISTOPHER LAKE SAID:
ReplyDelete“If the Bible is clear here-- or at least, sufficiently silent enough that it is legitimate for Protestants to use artificial contraception, then how is that that all Protestant exegetes and denominations missed that Biblical clarity, from the 16th century until 1930?”
i) Counting mere opinions counts for nothing. What matters is the quality of the supporting arguments.
ii) BTW, are you a geocentrist? Wasn’t that the census position of the church fathers? Cf. Stanley Jaki, Genesis 1: Through the Ages.
“Rhology, disagreement over a text does not necessarily mean that said text is unclear-- but if you, a ‘Reformed Baptist,’ disagree with the *entire Protestant Reformation*, over whether the Bible is clear on infant baptism, then that doesn't say much for the perspicuity of the Bible on baptism, does it?”
i) Since the Anabaptists were part of the Protestant Reformation, your apposition is nonsensical.
ii) You also fail to draw an elementary distinction between what Scripture clearly says, and what is unclear to us because Scripture doesn’t speak to certain issues.
To say Scripture is silent on certain questions people ask doesn’t mean Scripture is unclear in what it says.
“How do you know that you are right, and they were wrong?”
Rhology doesn’t have to speak with more or less certainty on this or other issues than God reveals.
CHRISTOPHER LAKE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Matthew, the intent in Natural family Planning is to respect God's natural, physical design for marital sexuality-- not closing off the possibility of new life through barrier methods and/or contraceptive pills that have been invented by *man*.”
Not to mention the use of general anesthesia in surgery to block the natural pain receptors which were designed by God. Shocking how medical science has “invented” manmade anesthetics, not to mention manmade chemotherapy to interfere with letting cancer take its natural course.
Let’s abolish medical science, which tries to “get around” the natural order. Let’s operate on patients without resorting to anesthetics–not to mention manmade antibiotics which “get around” the “natural” infection process.
“Honestly, I am stunned at the ease with which you dismiss over 1,900 years of Christian thinking on this subject, in favor of what Protestants have very recently decided is their "liberty" therein.”
Honestly, I am stunned at the ease with which the Roman Church has come to terms with evolutionary biology, in defiance of centuries of Sacred Tradition.
And to think that Jesus and Paul were celibate and both taught quite a bit about who we are to conduct ourselves, including sexually.
ReplyDeleteWell, Jesus is God and creator so the celibacy part isn't a problem. As far as Paul, it is possible he was married at some time, scripture doesn't say. But even if he were never married his teachings (in scripture) are under the guidance of the HS, so again, the celibacy isn't a problem there either.
I'm not saying a celibate priest can't offer basic advice based on church teachings. But if I had very specific questions about sexual relations someone in a forced celibacy role wouldn't be my ideal adviser.
Matthew, you wrote to me:
ReplyDelete"The fact that you have to make a distinction between what the church fathers taught on this subject and what the "Church" teaches on this subject yet again shows us Protestants that the Roman Catholic approach to church history is ideological, instead of historical."
I reply:
I do make a legitimate distinction between what *certain* Church Fathers wrote about purpose and procreation in marital sexual intercourse, and what the Church has historically taught on the subject, because the Church's teaching is not just a matter of what certain Church Fathers believe, but of what the Pope and the Magisterium officially teach, reasoning from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Tradition being responsible, humanly speaking, for the New Testament canon itself, as the NT does not tell us which books are are to be in the NT). The views of certain Church Fathers do not change the official teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals. Any one, or three, or five Church Fathers do not have final teaching authority in the Church.
The fact is, the Church's position against artificial contraception remains unchanged, from the earliest centuries, to today. All other Christian bodies have caved in on this issue. If you don't see why that is problematic, on multiple levels, read Pope Paul VI's encyclical from 1968, "Humanae Vitae." It correctly notes, and in some ways, prophetically predicts, the moral and cultural disorientation that was about to ensue in the Western world, as a result of the increasingly widespread use of artificial contraception.
Steve, it is seemingly your contention that the quality of your exegetical arguments for credobaptism are more sound than the exegetical arguments for infant baptism of the Protestant Reformers. Who makes the decision, then, concerning the "quality" of competing Biblical arguments, and upon what basis?
ReplyDeleteAgain, lest you treat this as a matter of "non-essential" consequence, the original Protestant Reformers did not consider those of "credobaptist" convictions to be Christians. How is it that you have the authority to simply pronounce that they were wrong about the "non-essential" nature of this subject? You may say that this issue is not as "clear from Scripture" as other issues, and therefore, "non-essential," but the Reformers obviously thought it *was* clear from Scripture, in favor of infant baptism, and they would have considered you an enemy of the Christian faith. Just read the extended section in Calvin's Institutes on baptism. Not friendly to credobaptists at all. How you know that he and Luther were wrong on the degree of the importance of this issue?
Also, strictly speaking, many historic, confessional Reformed Protestants do not consider credobaptists to truly be part of the *Protestant* Reformation, proper. I know-- I used to be a "Reformed Baptist," tried to claim the Reformation as my own, and was, shall we say, "denied" by some informed, confessional Reformed Protestants. Credobaptists are from the Radical Reformation, not the original, historic Protestant Reformation (the RR being an offshoot of it, which Luther and Calvin considered clearly heretical).
Steve, in your comment, comparing artificial contraception to the advances of medical science in surgery and in treating cancer-- think very clearly about this. You are comparing God's natural, physical design for the female fertility cycle, and the natural, physical, marital act of sexual intercourse, *as God designed it*, to the spreading of *cancer* and to pain in surgery!
ReplyDeleteSteve, pregnancy in marriage is not a disease. It is not a cancer. It is the natural result of marital sexual intercourse, as God designed it, other than when engaged in during times of infertility in the cycle-- which ultimately, are determined by God, even as we can chart them, usually, today, with amazing accuracy. Again, why "work around," for our pleasure, what God has designed perfectly in His wisdom? How is that not rebellion?
On the Church's supposed "coming to terms" with evolutionary biology, in dimissal of "centuries of Sacred Tradition," St. Augustine was arguing, in the 4th century, for a non-literal understanding of aspects of the Genesis creation narrative.
Carrie, Roman Catholic priests are not in a "forced celibacy" role. They choose to be priests, with celibacy being part of the discipline for the Roman rite of the Catholic Church. In the Eastern rite of the Catholic Church (not Eastern Orthodox, but Eastern Catholic, also in communion with the Pope, as part of the worldwide Catholic Church), men who are already married can become priests, because celibacy is a discipline of the Church, which can legitimately change, not a doctrine of the Church, which cannot change.
ReplyDeleteI apologize, Steve; in an earlier comment here, I confused you for Rhology, on the issue of credobaptism. Everything else that I wrote to you is actually for you.
ReplyDeleteUrbani,
ReplyDeleteYou still here?
Still misrepresenting people?
Calvin and now the SS?
See here how Urbani misrepresented Calvin a few days ago-
http://vanberean.blogspot.com/2011/07/refusing-to-seed.html
the original Protestant Reformers did not consider those of "credobaptist" convictions to be Christians.
ReplyDelete0h n03s!!!1
Do us all a favor and go to the next step now that you've repeated this claim at least thrice. So what?
How is it that you have the authority to simply pronounce that they were wrong about the "non-essential" nature of this subject?
It's not a question of authority, for I have none.
It's a question of truth, and the truth is accessible to all.
Now, before you ask for the millionth time "So why didn't they agree with you?!?!?!??!!?" ask yourself why the EOdox don't agree with the breadth of the Pope's claims to authority. then you'll have part of the answer that I'd give.
Roman Catholic priests are not in a "forced celibacy" role. They choose to be priests, with celibacy being part of the discipline
So, upon being priests, they are in a forced celibacy role.
Don't try to pull wool over eyes, please. Just admit it; be proud of your church!
Christopher,
ReplyDeletePlease see here.
CHRISTOPHER LAKE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, in your comment, comparing artificial contraception to the advances of medical science in surgery and in treating cancer-- think very clearly about this."
I did. Why don't you try to think very clearly for a change.
You are comparing God's natural, physical design for the female fertility cycle, and the natural, physical, marital act of sexual intercourse, *as God designed it*, to the spreading of *cancer* and to pain in surgery!"
Pain-receptors are God's natural, physical design for human bodies. And cancer is a natural, physical process, too.
"Steve, pregnancy in marriage is not a disease. It is not a cancer."
You seem to lack the intelligence to follow your own argument. Did I say pregnancy is cancer? No. Was that the level at which the comparison operates? No.
The analogy involves natural, physical processes which God designed.
"It is the natural result of marital sexual intercourse, as God designed it, other than when engaged in during times of infertility in the cycle-- which ultimately, are determined by God, even as we can chart them, usually, today, with amazing accuracy."
Cancer is a natural result of natural factors which God designed. Cause and effect.
"Again, why 'work around,' for our pleasure, what God has designed perfectly in His wisdom? How is that not rebellion?"
Again, why "work around" cancer to avoid the unpleasantness of illness and death, what God has designed perfectly in his wisdom. How is that not rebellion?
CHRISTOPHER LAKE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve, it is seemingly your contention that the quality of your exegetical arguments for credobaptism are more sound than the exegetical arguments for infant baptism of the Protestant Reformers.”
Actually, I incline to paedobaptism. However, God doesn’t have much to say about either option, so it’s adiaphorous.
“Who makes the decision, then, concerning the ‘quality’ of competing Biblical arguments, and upon what basis?”
Well, you decided that the arguments for Roman Catholicism were better than the arguments for Evangelicalism. So you were your own pope at that stage of the game.
“How is it that you have the authority to simply pronounce that they were wrong about the ‘non-essential’ nature of this subject?”
One doesn’t need authority to say what’s true or false. One only needs to be correct.
In Jn 9, the religious leaders who opposed Jesus had the “authority.” The blind man had no authority. But he was right and they were wrong. That’s all that matters.
“How you know that he and Luther were wrong on the degree of the importance of this issue?”
How do you know that Benedict XVI is the linear successor to Peter? Can you go back and double-check every link in the chain? Were you present at each papal conclave to verify the integrity of the process?
Is there an infallible list of popes, distinguishing the true popes from the antipopes? No.
Christopher
ReplyDeleteYou make a great deal out of the fact that the Reformers were opposed to the Radical Reformers and credobaptism and considered them enemies of the faith, and ask how do we know they were wrong?
Well, the 15th/16th century popes considered Protestants enemies of the faith and had thousands tortured and killed. But now we're "separated brethren". How do you know the the Renaissance popes were wrong and the current popes are correct?