Does it have relevance to you that for 18 centuries all Christians believed something to be immoral but now only some Christians hold the same belief?
Upvote
0
Calvinists still condemn contraceptives as John Calvin
- Thread starter saintboniface
- Start date
Does it have relevance to you that for 18 centuries all Christians believed something to be immoral but now only some Christians hold the same belief?
Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Thank you for the response, even if conclusions drawn from the short quote are ridiculous. By the same reasoning, no Catholic knows how to interpret the Bible, because contrary to what you might think or want to believe, there is not complete unanimous agreement among Catholics in the interpretation of Scripture. In fact there is not complete unanimous agreement among the Popes. You are free to pompously dismiss what I have said, since I am not taking the time to "prove" my assertions with citations and quotes, etc., but any reasonable and well read Catholic with half a conscience should come to agree, even if begrudgingly. Tell you what, how about I simply quote from the councils of Orange:
Council of Orange - 529 AD - Canons 3-8
CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).
Sweet, since Catholics have unanimous undivided agreement, it appears all confessing Catholics are monergists too (per council of orange)!
You may say this is off topic, but you said; "What does it prove? At the very least it proves that either John Calvin himself didn't know how to interpret the bible or most modern Calvinists don't know how to interpret the bible. Either way it is a very awkward situation."
The underlying assumption of your assertion is that there must be a unanimous agreement among Calvinists, for a Calvinist to "know" how to interpret the Bible, which is completely absurd as I have demonstrated!
Btw, you do realize that in Scripture we read that the Lord had Onan put to death for spilling his seed? Onan did it intentionally out of spite to not give children to his brother, against commands. Now if God thought it serious enough that Onan would die, can it (indeed should it) not be inferred that "Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible."? The context of Calvin's exposition btw, is "intercourse of man and woman" proper. To assume his argument also applies to single people is a bit of an extrapolation, and further all sin is "monstrous" if we wish to go that route, and all have sinned, all deserve the same fate as Onan, and it is only by grace that we do not get what we deserve, I believe Augustine would agree.
Upvote
0
The underlying assumption of your assertion is that there must be a unanimous agreement among Calvinists, for a Calvinist to "know" how to interpret the Bible, which is completely absurd as I have demonstrated!
The underlying assumption is that somebody is wrong on the morality of the subject either John Calvin or modern Calvinists. But it goes beyond John Calvin either modern Calvinists are wrong or all Christians for the first 18 or so centuries are wrong. I don't think you would argue that truth changes over time. So you would have to argue that all Christians, including Calvin and Luther, called a non-truth a truth.
Personally, I wouldn't mind hearing you or others say, Yes, the unanimous thought of Christians for the first 18 centuries on the topic of contraceptives was wrong.
Regarding the Council of Orange interjection, I agree that if you were to show that the Catholic Church taught one truth and later a contrary truth it would prove the falsity of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church boldly claims the deposit of faith. However, I don't see that in the paragraph you underlined. Why do you suspect that the Church holds the contrary now?
Btw, you do realize that in Scripture we read that the Lord had Onan put to death for spilling his seed? Onan did it intentionally out of spite to not give children to his brother, against commands. Now if God thought it serious enough that Onan would die, can it (indeed should it) not be inferred that "Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible."? The context of Calvin's exposition btw, is "intercourse of man and woman" proper. To assume his argument also applies to single people is a bit of an extrapolation,
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Are you asking if intentionally spilling seed warrants death? If so, I would answer that spilling seed does warrant death. In fact, it warrants more than mere death it warrants eternal damnation if un-repented.
Upvote
0
Yes, it would bother me if there was an actual Church teaching that said one thing and said the contrary later. You guys seem to be solely focused on this monergism issue. Can't you point me to a website or something that has a concise summary of how Church teaching changed? I'm not interested in researching this topic either. As I stated in other posts - it doesn't seem to make much practical difference anyhow. The bottom line is that the ones who go to heaven are the ones who live according to God's laws. The issue of contraception is a more practical one since its use or non-use have implications of eternal life or eternal punishment.
Upvote
0
Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Not interested in researching? So not interested in the truth of the matter, even where it concerns the Church you're committed to? Catholocism is riddled full of contradictions. Other than Augustine, can you point to any other prominent Catholic teachers that taught monergism? Can you show where St. Aquinas teaches monergism? If so, he contradicts himself, and the Council of Orange! No? Prove me wrong!
Upvote
0
Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
You really need to take a course in logic, at least learn some fallacies, or think a little more before you post, not trying to be mean, but it just does not seem you're thinking these things through.
Either John Calvin or modern Calvinists? Why do you assume modern Calvinists have 100% agreement on every detail, and interpretation of Scripture? I know Catholics do not have that kind of agreement, not even among the Popes and what they have said throughout history. Do you believe as Catholic leaders of the past did that the Scriptures should not be in the hands of the layman, the common, every day average person? Do you believe that English translators should be burned at the stake like William Tyndale? Oh well I guess modern Catholics are wrong. Come on now, let's get real.
God is right on the morality of the subject, and the Sacred Scriptures are right on the subject. John Calvin's interpretation does seem to be faithful to the Scriptures. Interpretations may vary on the subject among modern Calvinists, and one reason is because a Calvinist may be an Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian, long ago even some of the Methodists were Calvinist. With so many different denominations and traditions it is not surprising there are some differences in interpretation, but it would be a shame to merely see all the differences, without seeing all we have in common.
Upvote
0
The Council of Orange is talking about grace. Grace is the free and undeserved help God gives all men to help them respond to his call. Grace is not the end of the story.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Grace and justification
So why am I not interested in researching this issue? First, because you don't seem to understand Catholic teaching on the subject enough to know what the Council of Orange is really getting at. Second, you ask about prominent Catholic teachers as if they decide what Catholic doctrine is. That is like asking a football fan how many super bowl wins the Cleveland Indians have. The football fan won't even respond because the there is no Cleveland Indians football team. Saints, and teachers, and doctors of the Church can teach in error.
Upvote
0
It has never been the teaching of the Church that the scriptures be unavailable to the layperson. Nor has it been a teaching of the Church that translators be burned to death. If a Pope or a bishop or a government filled with Catholics declared it to be proper at the time it does not change the morality of it or represent Church teaching. When some of the Popes had illegitimate children it did not change the role of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ.
I understand that Calvinists don't agree on every interpretation. But I can guarantee that there is near unanimous approval of contraception. Heck, there is near unanimous approval of contraception among lay Catholics as well!!! I can also guarantee that among any pre-1850 AD Christians who put pen to paper and wrote about the topic, there is unanimous condemnation of contraceptives.
What do you mean by this:
John Calvin's interpretation does seem to be faithful to the Scriptures.
Are you saying that the condemnation of spilling seed is biblical?
Upvote
0
Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
agree
agree with underlined part, disagree with the second part
re-read section 5 previously quoted from above, here..."if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles"
The common grace which God gives to all men is not sufficient unto salvation. Section 5 is not referring to a common grace, it is referring to effectual grace, a particular saving grace accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Common graces do not give any man ability to respond to His call (or obey the requirements of the law), and to suggest men by nature can respond out of common grace is against Scripture, against the Council of Orange, and sound interpretation and reasoning. It is to put the efficacy of grace on man, who is dead in the sins and trespasses of unbelief by nature.
To be sure, it is the beginning of the story.
What does my understanding or not have to do with you researching? Are you not concerned in researching for your own sake? I understand enough about Catholic and Protestant teaching to understand why I am not a Catholic, and why I am a Protestant. I understand the major points of disagreement to know that the Reformation was necessary, and there is no turning back, despite what some liberalized evangelicals today suggest. For what I do know, I freely confess ignorance on countless things. If I spent the rest of my life learning, I will still be ignorant on countless things. God be the judge between us and where understanding is lacking.
Since you have no confidence in my understanding:
Contrasting Augustine and the Council of Orange (529 AD) with The Council of Trent (1563)
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aptly refuted here:
Did the Council of Trent Contradict the Second Council of Orange? | Called to Communion
You do agree then that the condemnation of spilling the seed is biblical?
Upvote
0
Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yes I do. But the question is whether or not it is a universal command, whether or not it applies to every human being that has ever lived.
The ethic as it is described in Scripture, seems to be situational, the situation being honoring his dead brother by giving his widowed wife a child with the same family blood. He intentionally disobeyed a command from the Lord that was specific to him and his situation. Of course not all commands are situational, like the ten commandments, but some apply to individuals and their situation (if you need other examples, I can accommodate).
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
For the reading pleasure of those browsing this thread; from Pius XI's Casti Connubii in 1930 AD (contemporaneous to the Lambeth Conference in which the Anglican Church, for the first time, permitted contraceptives):
Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Augustine -- On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I)
It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness, and drags it clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin. Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or the man the wife's adulterer.
It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness, and drags it clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin. Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or the man the wife's adulterer.
Upvote
0
nonaeroterraqueous
Nonexistent Member
And herein lies the reason why I consider Catholicism to be not a different denomination of Christianity, but a different religion, altogether. In a dispute regarding matters of doctrine, the debate among protestants falls into two categories: there are those who turn to the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of our differences, and there are those who rely on themselves as their own authority. Those of us who rely on the Bible consider to be heretics those who rely on themselves. Ah, but the Catholic church is a different beast, entirely. They rely on the authority of certain respected persons, such as the Pope, as well as tradition. In relying on the authority of a small number of contemporaneous individuals, it seems to be a similar situation to the protestants who rely on themselves as the ultimate authority, except that it involves fewer people, but even despite that, it leaves us with no real common ground and no way to resolve our differences. When a Catholic tries to debate a Biblical issue with us on Biblical grounds, it becomes somewhat disingenuous.
What does the Bible have to say?
Be fruitful and multiply: We've got something like seven billion people on Earth right now. As it is, we excel far above and beyond anything that early Christians or the ancient Israelites ever imagined. Being fruitful and multiplying is hardly an issue. There isn't any serious evidence that we've failed in that regard.
The sin of Onan: He sinned by failing to do something that the average Christian would consider a sin to even attempt. Since even the Catholic church would never suggest that a man have sex with his brother's widow, like this, the entire argument is disingenuous.
The argument from Christian tradition: Tradition is not our authority on doctrinal matters. The comparison is not terribly relevant, anyway. During the time of the writing of the Bible until fairly recently, a married couple could have children at a fairly unrestricted rate without increasing the population significantly. Hence, mortality was so great that one had to reproduce at a maximum rate just to make up for early death. Their situation is not even similar enough for comparison.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I disagree that there are two camps in protestantism. You say there are those that rely on themselves as authority and those that rely on the bible as authority. In the end, both rely on themselves as the final authority because the bible is interpreted in many different ways. It is interesting that there is a time in history after Christ's resurrection where there was no bible and thus no bible Christians. In 45 A.D. ALL Christians relied "on the authority of certain respected persons" rather than the bible. The same is true of all Christians for at least 100 years after that.
You are right, I am not appealing primarily to the bible for support that contraception is gravely sinful. I am appealing to reason. There can only be one truth, right? Contraception is evil or not evil. For 18 of the 20 centuries since Christ resurrected, Christians unanimously believed that contraception was evil. That is indisputable. So who is wrong, you or all Christians before the most recent modern times?
I am with Calvin, and Luther, and Augustine, etc on this one. I am with all of the Christians of days gone by and Catholics of today. You are with Hollywood, contemporary culture, feminists, modernists, and relativists. I know you are not pro-abortion but you line up with them on this issue - pro-abortion people would never call contraception a sin.
Look at the famous Jim Bob Duggar with 20 children. He is a baptist that read the bible for himself and said if children are a blessing from God why am I trying to stop Him from giving them to me? I don't know if he would say contraception is a sin but he recognized the disconnect.
Lastly, note that human cloning is never called sinful in the bible but we can both agree it is.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The sin of Onan is the intentional spilling of seed. John Calvin puts it like this:
Commentary on Genesis 38
Verse 10. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD . Less neatly the Jews speak about this matter. I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
