To vote in favor of sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition

[boughtwithaprice]

Or course I am interested in hearing about your life. I am sorry this reply was delayed, I have had many life changes over the past week. God is working on me because I asked Him to do so. I can explain what I have been doing but I don’t want to talk about myself. I have been thinking of you and your testimony.
I’ll let you know where God has lead me in prayer. You say that I am more Adventist than I know. I can see that you are more Catholic than you know. I want us to be able to talk about the deep things of God and His word.
The answer that I got in prayer is that it would do neither myself nor you any good, if I convinced you to join the Catholic Church by my words and reasonings it would only serve to swell my pride and diminish you. That is not what God commands, as His word tells us to consider all others as better than ourselves. I would rather be as John the Baptist and say I must decrease and He must increase.

I am not going to try and trick you or make a mockery of your view point, but only discuss the simple truth of the Gospel and God where the Holy Spirit leads.

I think we have derailed this thread for now, so we can start a new thread. Simple truths of the Christian Faith. It can be a discussion between you and I, yet be in this forum. You can tell me all about your life and we can talk about the word of God together. Let me know if interested

 

[Gary K]

Or course I am interested in hearing about your life. I am sorry this reply was delayed, I have had many life changes over the past week. God is working on me because I asked Him to do so. I can explain what I have been doing but I don’t want to talk about myself. I have been thinking of you and your testimony.
I’ll let you know where God has lead me in prayer. You say that I am more Adventist than I know. I can see that you are more Catholic than you know. I want us to be able to talk about the deep things of God and His word.
The answer that I got in prayer is that it would do neither myself nor you any good, if I convinced you to join the Catholic Church by my words and reasonings it would only serve to swell my pride and diminish you. That is not what God commands, as His word tells us to consider all others as better than ourselves. I would rather be as John the Baptist and say I must decrease and He must increase.

I am not going to try and trick you or make a mockery of your view point, but only discuss the simple truth of the Gospel and God where the Holy Spirit leads.

I think we have derailed this thread for now, so we can start a new thread. Simple truths of the Christian Faith. It can be a discussion between you and I, yet be in this forum. You can tell me all about your life and we can talk about the word of God together. Let me know if interested

Sounds good to me. We can share experiences too. God ahead and start the thread.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'd vote, but non of the choice accurately reflects what His Church teaches.

Indeed, I can’t vote because no option reflects either the Orthodox position or my understanding the Anglican, Lutheran and Wesleyan positions.

I think it would be a good idea to rerun this poll if @concretecamper or @chevyontheriver and @MarkRohfrietsch or @JM and @FenderTL5 and @Shane R want to propose an alternate set of questions. In particular, accomodations must be made for the different approaches to scripture among the ancient churches, and also to the very different understanding of what Sola Scriptura means in the traditional, liturgical Protestant chuches, for example, the Anglican Tripod or the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Once I have more info I could supply this to the OP or alternately set up another poll with a revised question set. Since at present I feel the current questions do not reflect the spectrum of beliefs on this subject among traditional Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox / Assyrian Christians.

 

[The Liturgist]

Sounds good to me. We can share experiences too. God ahead and start the thread.

God bless you both @Gary K and @boughtwithaprice !

 

[chevyontheriver]

Indeed, I can’t vote because no option reflects either the Orthodox position or my understanding the Anglican, Lutheran and Wesleyan positions.

I think it would be a good idea to rerun this poll if @concretecamper or @chevyontheriver and @MarkRohfrietsch or @JM and @FenderTL5 and @Shane R want to propose an alternate set of questions. In particular, accomodations must be made for the different approaches to scripture among the ancient churches, and also to the very different understanding of what Sola Scriptura means in the traditional, liturgical Protestant chuches, for example, the Anglican Tripod or the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Once I have more info I could supply this to the OP or alternately set up another poll with a revised question set. Since at present I feel the current questions do not reflect the spectrum of beliefs on this subject among traditional Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox / Assyrian Christians.

None of the options in the OP were adequate for me either. Another poll could be useful, one that people of traditional Christian belief could actually answer.

 

[Shane R]

A case of some people not speaking the language of the church. In the Evangelical world there is a dialect I have come to call 'Christianish' which employs Biblical words in a manner utterly divorced from their denotation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I voted yes. As a confessional Lutheran I am compelled to do so. However we do not have an issue with any (and all) tradition that neither contradicts scripture nor is forbidden by it. The application of the rule of Adiaphora expresses an understanding and application of "tradition" that is regrettably absent among the Reformed.

 

[The Liturgist]

None of the options in the OP were adequate for me either. Another poll could be useful, one that people of traditional Christian belief could actually answer.

A case of some people not speaking the language of the church. In the Evangelical world there is a dialect I have come to call 'Christianish' which employs Biblical words in a manner utterly divorced from their denotation.

I voted yes. As a confessional Lutheran I am compelled to do so. However we do not have an issue with any (and all) tradition that neither contradicts scripture nor is forbidden by it. The application of the rule of Adiaphora expresses an understanding and application of "tradition" that is regrettably absent among the Reformed.

I have an approximate idea on a more inclusive series of questions on this issue; I could PM you or I could just post such a poll, if our friend who posted this thread is not interested in redoing the poll, depending on your preferences. Or, what might be most efficacious, would be to have a poll in Traditional Theology on the ideal contents of a poll which could then be posted here or in DST, which would address this issue, or alternately to discuss in the thread the ideal questions, openly, before editing the OP to add a poll, if that is technically possible. We could also invite the OP to a group discussion if he is interested in redoing this particular poll. But even if he is not, I think he deserves a lot of credit for starting the discussion, and I don’t believe the questions were intended to chorale traditional Christians but rather, it should be considered, many people outside of the liturgical churches simply aren’t deeply aware of the nuances of our respective beliefs concerning scripture and tradition.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have an approximate idea on a more inclusive series of questions on this issue; I could PM you or I could just post such a poll, if our friend who posted this thread is not interested in redoing the poll, depending on your preferences. Or, what might be most efficacious, would be to have a poll in Traditional Theology on the ideal contents of a poll which could then be posted here or in DST, which would address this issue, or alternately to discuss in the thread the ideal questions, openly, before editing the OP to add a poll, if that is technically possible. We could also invite the OP to a group discussion if he is interested in redoing this particular poll. But even if he is not, I think he deserves a lot of credit for starting the discussion, and I don’t believe the questions were intended to chorale traditional Christians but rather, it should be considered, many people outside of the liturgical churches simply aren’t deeply aware of the nuances of our respective beliefs concerning scripture and tradition.

I would say trying to work with the original poster as far as that is possible. Otherwise a new thread not against the OP but that more of us could see their positions in.

 

[BobRyan]

I voted yes. As a confessional Lutheran I am compelled to do so. However we do not have an issue with any (and all) tradition that neither contradicts scripture nor is forbidden by it. The application of the rule of Adiaphora expresses an understanding and application of "tradition" that is regrettably absent among the Reformed.

I was not making the argument that "All tradition violates scripture" or that "no tradition should be accepted" in the OP. I will try to clarify that in the OP.

 

[BobRyan]

The SDA position on sexuality, which I have read, goes deeper than its tolerance for abortion. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Our Lord’s teaching on sexuality as to render it meaningless.

We believe there are only two genders and that marriage is for one man and one woman. We also believe that it is wrong to kill babies.
Yet we do have a "life of the mother" exception where the choice is between 1 of two lives.

Our Lord said that if anyone looks on a woman with lust, he has committed adultery in his heart.

True - but He did not say to put people in jail for "thought crimes". He is talking about sin in Matt 5

For 1900 years, Christians were taught that contraception was sinful.

Contraception has to do with preventing a human being from starting. As opposed to the concept of killing one that has begun.

The word of God tells you what happens, when the natural use of the woman is left. God abandons them to all of their lusts,

Romans 1 is not talking about abortion - it is talking about homosexuality.

The SDA used to preach sexual restraint. Ellen White, I believe was very vocal against masturbation

Fine - but that is not about killing a human.

You need to realize, as the Supreme Court did in planned parenthood vs Casey, that contraception necessitates abortion, because all babies conceived while using contraception are unwanted by the nature of the act of contraception.

Regardless of whether they are wanted -- the issue is at what point is the single cell named and given a funeral or is it after x-months etc. Certainly everyone must know that the moment a baby reaches the point of being a viable birth even if premature - it is murder to kill it and most of us would argue that this is true even long before that. But we do not have "doctrine" on which point the multi-cell entity develops an actual organ or ... etc.

(technically not the topic of this thread - but still it is interesting)

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed, I can’t vote because no option reflects either the Orthodox position or my understanding the Anglican, Lutheran and Wesleyan positions.

Feel free to show how your view does not fit in at least one of the options

 

[boughtwithaprice]

We believe there are only two genders and that marriage is for one man and one woman. We also believe that it is wrong to kill babies.
Yet we do have a "life of the mother" exception where the choice is between 1 of two lives.

True - but He did not say to put people in jail for "thought crimes". He is talking about sin in Matt 5

Contraception has to do with preventing a human being from starting. As opposed to the concept of killing one that has begun.

Romans 1 is not talking about abortion - it is talking about homosexuality.

Fine - but that is not about killing a human.

Regardless of whether they are wanted -- the issue is at what point is the single cell named and given a funeral or is it after x-months etc. Certainly everyone must know that the moment a baby reaches the point of being a viable birth even if premature - it is murder to kill it and most of us would argue that this is true even long before that. But we do not have "doctrine" on which point the multi-cell entity develops an actual organ or ... etc.

(technically not the topic of this thread - but still it is interesting)

Bob, I believe you misunderstand. Romans one is about sexuality of which homosexuality is an aberration against the truth. The “natural use of the woman” spoke of is for children not sterile sexual intercourse. The point could be clarified to you and is clarified to Catholics when we read the book of Tobit. A virgin was married seven times, and seven times her husband was slain on their wedding night by Asmodeus because he wanted to use the virgin for lust. Tobias was wary to marry her because all of her husbands were slain, but he was able to complete the marital act because they did it for children and not lust. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church and the meaning of Our Lord’s words when he said if we use our eyes for lust adultery is in our hearts. SDA fails to make that connection, and if they are so meticulous about the commands of God, I do not understand why.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Bob, I believe you misunderstand. Romans one is about sexuality of which homosexuality is an aberration against the truth. The “natural use of the woman” spoke of is for children not sterile sexual intercourse. The point could be clarified to you and is clarified to Catholics when we read the book of Tobit. A virgin was married seven times, and seven times her husband was slain on their wedding night by Asmodeus because he wanted to use the virgin for lust. Tobias was wary to marry her because all of her husbands were slain, but he was able to complete the marital act because they did it for children and not lust. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church and the meaning of Our Lord’s words when he said if we use our eyes for lust adultery is in our hearts. SDA fails to make that connection, and if they are so meticulous about the commands of God, I do not understand why.

They fail to understand because they have exchanged the full counsel of God for Sola Scriptura testing. They can't see deeper because for them there is nothing deeper. By definition.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

They fail to understand because they have exchanged the full counsel of God for Sola Scriptura testing. They can't see deeper because for them there is nothing deeper. By definition.

Even many Catholics fail to understand due to lack of catechesis. We have to pray and seek God to even find the correct teaching, but at least it is there in the Catechism for those that look. It can be gleaned from the scriptures, but if we don’t have the teaching to cause us to look, we won’t unless prompted by God

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I believe you misunderstand. Romans one is about sexuality of which homosexuality is an aberration against the truth.

Rom 1:
24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, 27 and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Romans 1 is not talking about abortion - it is talking about homosexuality.

You say that is wrong and that in fact Rom 1 is talking about homosexuality -- not sure how your saying the same thing I just said shows that I am not correct about something.

The “natural use of the woman” spoke of is for children not sterile sexual intercourse.

I don't know of any "for children" or "for the purpose of having children" when it then references men with men instead of men with women. It is "natural relations with women" that the men were setting aside to engage in sinful activities with people that were not women at all.

 

[BobRyan]

They fail to understand because they have exchanged the full counsel of God for Sola Scriptura testing. They can't see deeper because for them there is nothing deeper. By definition.

accusations are easy to make .. what is needed is facts when accusing others.

You are implying that sola scriptura testing is rejection of the full counsel of God - without any proof to support your accusation

 

[chevyontheriver]

accusations are easy to make .. what is needed is facts when accusing others.

I ACCUSED you of nothing. But take it how you want to take it.

 

[Gary O']

Perhaps it's time to review the rules of this forum?

Definition of a Fellowship post in the forum

DEFINITION OF A FELLOWSHIP POST 1) It is not debate or apologetics (defense). Those who disagree with a congregation’s Statement of Faith will not discuss reasons for or against any subject being discussed on this sub-forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or...

www.christianforums.com

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Rom 1:
24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, 27 and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.


You say that is wrong and that in fact Rom 1 is talking about homosexuality -- not sure how your saying the same thing I just said shows that I am not correct about something.

I don't know of any "for children" or "for the purpose of having children" when it then references men with men instead of men with women. It is "natural relations with women" that the men were setting aside to engage in sinful activities with people that were not women at all.

The result is their homosexual acts, the difference is on what you say is exchanged. The term “natural relations”. When men and women have natural relations, the end result is most likely a child. Homosexuality is sterile in that the lust they feel and claim is love is unfruitful. It is not why God gave us sexual
Intercourse.

Why would a married couple wish to mimic a homosexual in their lust for pleasure in the marital act by rendering it sterile through contraception? Does lust have exceptions or does God universally condemn it?

1 cor 6 tells us to fly fornication because fornication causes us to sin against our own body. Why would a couple want to imitate fornication by rendering their actions sterile?
If they pursue sex only for pleasure then what is wrong with masturbation or homosexuality?

Our natural appetites are to be mortified not amplified. The libido must be brought under the control of will be restricting it to the procreation of children. A couple can take advantage of their natural state with the marital act but must never introduce artificial means that render the bject
Of the act other than what God intended

We are told to fly fornication because it acts as a powerful drug when used for pure pleasure. We are to rule our appetites or be ruled by them.
When the marital act is misused, the man becomes ruled by it. Instead of ruling his house as is his proper place he trades his role for fleeting pleasure. Instead of edifying his wife he degrades her and she will resent that