Posted on 01/03/2014 8:59:21 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
Protestants opposed contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Conference. After this, positions changed. So, did the Bible change, or did they?
I understand your personal commitment and respect it. I am sure you have worn out shoe leather protesting abortion. My point was a general smugness on this thread that Christians other than Catholics are pro abortion. The facts from election results say otherwise in deep red states that are predominantly non Catholic Christian.
No need to reinvent the wheel: http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm
Take your Bible, and find in it any passages that--interpreted with a literal, grammatical, historical, cultural hermeneutic--proves me wrong.
Take your footing, shear from it any reference to extra-biblical fallible tradition, and rests only on Biblical truths, that proves your position Scriptural.
Paul's gospel is my gospel. It stands solely on the Scriptures revealed to him and his fellow apostles, and explained by them. Yours is not, and cannot stand without extra layers of post-apostolic excuses, IMHO.
Seems to be a compassionate site where seekers could go. Not a site to generate apologetics materiel for the home team:)
I have met "Christians" of all stripes that are Pro-Life and Pro-abortion. You have no idea how much it kills me to see people that consider themselves "Christian" with Obama/ Biden bumper stickers. I know one woman (Non-Catholic) that brags about having worked at Planned Parenthood. She sees no dichotomy with that and sitting in a pew every Sunday.
Indeed. Brings us back here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3108002/posts
Which must have proved uncomfortable thus starting this thread.
No need to reinvent the wheel: http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm
Interesting site.
But I don't see anyone trying to get it banned.
I will be charitable, but this is going to take a minute...
The Catholic religion has some very pretty, very expensive buildings to sit in during their services...Some Catholic people are nice...
“Authentic” teaching of the Church
Catholic teaching is only the belief of the Church if it is “received” by the people of the Church. That means that anything promulgated by the hierarchy which does not resonate as true in at least most of the Catholic people is opinion and not essential to Catholic belief. Polls show that roughly half of all Catholics, like most of the American population, believe that abortion can be allowed in certain cases and that the decision belongs to the woman. Therefore, the Pro Life position is not infallible teaching of the church, and not necessarily a requirement of being a good Catholic, no matter how many priests and bishops (and even popes) say so.
And btw, all Democratic bishops are pro abortion, whether they admit it or not...
A very good point indeed. It’s shameful how many Catholics still vote for the Dems. Many have a hard time letting go of the past and realizing that the Dems have changed for the worst. Fortunately, my in-laws are not among them. They used to vote Dem but haven’t for years and it’s due to the pro-life views they hold. And I’m sure there are still many JFK Catholics that still hold onto the old way of thinking. Hopefully more and more will realize that the Dems are pro-death and that the way they “take up for the poor” is not really working. Hopefully.
No mental contortions needed! Other than semantically, what is the difference in preventing conception by closely monitoring fertile times and having sex outside of those times and the use of barrier methods or withdrawal that basically do the same thing? The result is the same - the sex act that avoids, or tries to avoid, conceiving a child. If your church allows one way that permits a married couple to enjoy sexual intimacy while avoiding conception, then how can it/you disallow any other method that basically does the same thing? I'm certainly not advocating for those contraceptive methods that use abortifacient back-ups or which primary function is to abort embryonic life nor do I condone abortion for any reason with the ONLY exception being when BOTH the mother and child will die without medical intervention to stop the pregnancy (truly rare).
What I object to is threads such as these that have the main reason of condemning all "Protestants" with a broad brush and the not-so-subtle conclusion that Roman Catholicism must be right about everything else based on this one subject. It is dishonest as well as hypocritical for the Catholics here to piously assert a superior religion while at the same time ignoring or discounting the actual evidence that shows non-Catholic Christians demonstrate a more consistent pro-life view that translates through their voting records than Catholics. Y'all like to assert that pro-abortion Catholics aren't "real" Catholics but they are STILL counted in population totals, surveys and other ways while nothing is done to actively bring about repentance. Catholics - especially well known ones, are embraced, never forbidden from observance of the sacraments and treated with respect in life as well as in death. Can you imagine St. Peter or St. Paul putting up with members like these who refuse to be corrected or brought to repentance?
You and others in your "club" appear to use every opportunity to take shots at the Catholic Church.
I don't have a "club". When I read threads that I sense God's leading to respond, I do and I pray about what I should say. I have the feeling that those in your vocal "club" would like nothing more than to never hear from anyone who isn't Catholic on threads like these again, you know, the ones that take shots at "Protestants". That anyone should be allowed to slam "Protestants" (or all non-Catholic Christians) with impunity is NOT the intent of OPEN Religion Forum threads and I am grateful to JR and those who give all of us this voice. I'm sure you would feel the exact same way if the shoe was on the other foot. Besides, there are PLENTY of threads (seeing as Catholics like to dominate the RF) that I don't even read much less give comments to. So, your "every opportunity" is just so much hyperbole.
I for one would like you to publically say just one nice thing about either Catholics or the Catholic Church.
Why do you presume I haven't? There are plenty of times when I have but I don't expect you to keep track since it doesn't seem to register anyway. How many times have you publicly said one nice thing about non-Catholic Christians? Why not see these threads for the value they provide rather than getting personally offended anytime someone dares criticize? When it's relevant to say something "nice", I will do so. It certainly won't be at your command.
Well that was certainly a derisive comment by you...
Well there you are...I was missing your valuable input...And that’s how you respond to charity...
It is because you do not understand the qualities of a New Testament-based church that you keep barking your shins on the issue of the government of "Baptists" versus that of top-down denominations (of which yours is only one).
There are many, many more Baptists than those subscribing to the advantages of mass purchasing, advertising, publication, and education like the Southern Baptist Convention. This Convention is not a "Church." It is not of a "top-down" government headed by an autocratic figurehead. It is an association of autonomous local assemblies who have decided to share a common statement of faith, and the power of numbers.
However, in the U. S. there are other such Associations like the General Association of Regular Baptists, the Conservative Baptist Association, the Seventh Day Baptists, and many more. Globally, Wiki lists many:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_denominations
In addition, there are thousands of totally local, independent, autonomous church bodies named "Baptist" that acknowledge no interlinking other than love of Christ, the Scriptures, and the brethren. And there are many more immersionist assemblies that only refer to themselves as autonomous Bible Assemblies. One such would be the conference of brethren after the style of those meeting in Plymouth, of which John N. Darby was a proponent.
But those who call themselves baptists have certain defining distinctives in common, that set them apart from the Catholic denomination or its Reformer Protestants, and they are as follows:
===== Baptist "Distinctives" =====
- - - - - in a nutshell: - - - - -
o Biblical Authority (Sola Scriptura)
The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture's inherent authority.
o Autonomy of the Local Church
The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self-governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church's beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a "member" of any other body.
o Priesthood of the Believer
"Priest" is defined as "one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion, especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God." Every believer today is a priest of God and may enter into His presence in prayer directly through our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. No other mediator is needed between God and people. As priests, we can study God's Word, pray for others and offer spiritual worship to God. We all have equal access to God - whether we are a preacher or not.
o Two Ordinances
The local church should practice two ordinances: (1) baptism of believers by immersion in water, identifying the individual with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, and (2) the Lord's Supper, or communion, commemorating His death for our sins.
o Individual Soul Liberty
Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.
o Saved, Baptized Church Membership
Local church membership is restricted to individuals who give a believable testimony of personal faith in Christ and have publicly identified themselves with Him in believer's baptism. When the members of a local church are believers, a oneness in Christ exists, and the members can endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
o Two Offices
The Bible mandates only two offices in the church - pastor and deacon. The three terms - "pastor, " "elder" and "bishop," or "overseer" - all refer to the same office. The two offices of pastor and deacon exist within the local church, not as a hierarchy outside or over the local church.
o Separation of Church and State
God established both the church and the civil government, and He gave each its own distinct sphere of operation. The government's purposes are outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and the church's purposes in Matthew 28:19 and 20. Neither should control the other, nor should there be an alliance between the two. Christians in a free society can properly influence government toward righteousness, which is not the same as a denomination or group of churches controlling the government.
Matthew 22:15-22; Acts 15:17-29
============ end of list =============
You see, regarding the matter of conception or contraception, you conceive that the Baptist individual would be subject to an overruling external authoritative direction of his conscience, as does the Romanist, who apparently has no right to an internal, indwelling rule of his own conscience.
This kind of assumption is dead wrong, and any comparisons you make regarding a Roman Catholic and any Baptist will be dead wrong also. Hence you wind up in verbal hassles that you cannot win. For exactly, your Roman Catholic does wind up flaunting the directions of his Church, while the Baptist only either follows his conscience as guided by his Scripture, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and his spiritual maturity as assisted by external counsel, or he rejects a holy decision (with commensurate consequences).
That is, the Baptist claims individual soul liberty, the consequences of which he will answer before the Judgment Seat of Christ.
The Romanist doctrine does not admit of any such individual liberty. But, in truth, it is exactly such individual liberty upon which our country (and this forum) are founded. And it is exactly that also which the died-in-the-wool Romanist wishes to tear down, which leads to deconstruction of the themes of the Constitution as written. (And which came in with the importation of Romanist masses in the mid-to-late 1800s, persisting to this day.)
Take note also, that the "A" in the acronym B-A-P-T-I-S-T-S stands for preeminence of the local church assembly, an earthly bodily visible manifestation of the Body of Christ, reporting only to Him and His Father, and to no other presumptuous external religious structure. The meaning is that, unlike the Anglican, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran structures, no Baptist will declare his faith as summed up in the Apostles' Creed symbol, because of one word: catholic.
To the Bible-believing Baptist, the only universal invisible body of Christ is the general assembly and church of the Firstborn-out-of-dead-ones, which is written (and assembles together) in Heaven.
But as a last note for this moment, the greatest overriding thrust of the Baptist is that of Separation--separation from unbelievers at the foremost. Here is a summary of that position:
http://bible-truth.org/Separation.html
Salvation's goal is for the person who would know and fear The God, and walk in His ways, to die to self, to Sin as a master, and to the world system, and come alive to Christ and His abundant life.
Are you willing to do that? and stop foisting false religionism on the rest?
This, of course, narrowly applies to the issue of conception, to whom the individual believer must come to terms with life factors between him/themselves and Christ, and stop interfering with others.
Trying to bludgeon politicians into subservience to religious institutions has not found much success in the United States. Ask "the Moral Majority."
My dad was an old Al Smith Irish Catholic die hard democrat. He used to campaign for local dems back in the day some were still conservative. It took four years of Jimmah Carter to scare him straight and vote for Reagan. He never looked back again because he knew the demoncrats stood for Roe vs Wade and abortion.
“Ok, understand you have no answer why all those Baptists seem to ignore what a piece of paper says and vote their conscience for pro life candidates to end abortion.”
You’re assuming that happens. I don’t. Remember, no one is pro-life if he supports selective abortions as the SBC does. Thus, I think you have to search far and wide to find more than a handful of Protestant who actually do want to ban abortions under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
“How can you cast stones with these measurable facts presented?”
I didn’t cast a single stone. My Church denounces abortion - even for incest, rape and health of the mother. The SBC does not. The SBC supports abortion then.
“There is a word for groups of people passing judgment on others where their own hands are not clean. Hypocrites.”
The hypocrisy belongs to those who either those Catholics who support abortion or those Protestants who lie and say they’re pro-life when they actually support selective abortion. Selective baby-killing is still baby-killing - and Baptist sects like the SBC support it.
Baptist sects like the SBC support baby-killing through selective abortions. Make all the excuses you want for that.
Other than informing and advising against methods that cause the death of the unborn - and the general respect for ALL life, what business is it of any church to mandate to its married couples what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their own marriage bed? The methods you mentioned were NOT abortifacient, were they?
The turn of the century brought changes in the needs of families. We went from an agrarian to an industrial society where large families were more difficult to provide for. The medical community responded to the need for parents to limit or control the number of children they brought into the world. Nobody intended that it would lead to increased promiscuity, adultery, prostitution or abortion. I don't think it was the intent to change the moral fabric of society or destroy the family. What started out as a helpful and needed benefit for civilization was perverted and twisted into what we have today. It has always been satan's design.
Did pre/extramarital sex, prostitution, adultery, abortion, child murder and abuse, exploitation of women exist before the "sexual revolution"? Yes, but these acts were not accepted by civilized society and were rightfully seen as negative, wrong and destructive to us all. Not very many people were aware that the "pill" had a back-up function of making the uterine wall incapable of attachment of an embryo - should one be fertilized. Most people - doctors included - were lead to believe that the pill only prevented a mature egg from being released and fertilized. That was how it was sold and why some churches did not object to women having that option. None of the "Protestant" churches approved of sex outside of marriage nor of abortion.
When the question is asked, "Did the Bible change in 1930, or did Protestantism?", the answer isn't so clear cut. First of all, the Bible didn't say anything about contraception. Outside of the Onan incident - which isn't a clear cut prohibition of "withdrawal" so much as disobedience to God's commands regarding a Jewish brother's responsibility to his deceased brother's widow - nothing is even close to talking about the subject. Again, nobody advocated for baby murder. That's why I think the question is disingenuous. Catholics have NO Apostolic tradition they can point to that proves them right on their prohibition of ALL methods of contraception. All they have is other people's ideas and opinions, but nothing regarding official teaching from the Apostles. We have their prohibition against sexual immorality, but not word one about married people and what they can or cannot do in the marriage bed.
Now, we can talk about doctrines that DO matter for a person's salvation and those that HAVE changed over the years in the Roman Catholic Church. Doctrines that some Protestant and Evangelical churches, for example, have never strayed from and which can be traced back directly to the Apostles because they are clearly taught in sacred Scripture. Did the Bible change or did Catholicism?
You've found a one-note tune you want to thrum on until everyone tires of you, to which you think you have won some kind of theological victory. In this case, as usual, you are displaying a black-hole density.
You totally miss the point. SBC does not control its member churches, much less the individual soul liberty that each and every Baptist has and allows others. The Southern Baptist leadership does not dictate on contraception or abortion. Neither does the Vatican, though it wishes otherwise.
You've flunked and we're done here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.