Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; mitch5501; BlueDragon; bonfire; ...

my favorite pillar of morality, Luther, how polygamy cannot be denied based on the scripture alone

He is your favorite person to use as if he were a pope and that SS requires we follow such, and which distracts from popes who were known immoral persons even before their election. In any case, Luther's statement about polygamy would not be a valid argument even if Luther was giving broad approval, as the fact that one can teach some error - which Rome allows of itself outside infallible teaching (if you can discern them all) - does not negate the primacy of the source.

RCs also misinterpret both Scripture and Rome, both of which are subject to interpretation, and the can claim no infallible interpreter of the latter. And sola ecclesia enables autocratic propagation and perpetuation of error and required assent to it, in contrast to doctrine being established based upon Scriptural substantiation, which is how the church began in dissent from those who sat in power as the stewards of Holy Write and inheritor of Divine promises, but who presumed they could teach as doctrine the mere "tradition of the elders."

And in regard to polygamy, Luther was wrong when he judged Scripture as not forbidding it, though he was doing so in the explicit NT sense, as the Christian prohibition, in contrast to the OT where God allowed — and even seems to sometimes give — men more than one wife, is a derived one, but valid.

However, while it is your practice to use select quotes of a man whom we do not look to as a pope, and whose theology, like that of CFs, was in a stage of development, the whole of Luther's teaching shows he forbade Christians to engage in polygamy, unless in an extreme case of necessity. Today it is still difficult when tribal polygamist turn to Christ as their wives look to him for support and the children to him as their father.

“Moreover, although the patriarchs had many wives, Christians may not follow their example, because there is no necessity for doing this, no improvement is obtained thereby, and, especially, there is no word of God to justify this practise, while great offense and trouble may come from it. Accordingly, I do not believe that Christians any longer have this liberty. God would have to publish a command that would declare such a liberty." (Letter to Joseph Levin Metzsch of December 9, 1526)

And i consider the formal papal sanction of torture of theological opponents by Rome to be more serious.

Innocent’s Bull [Ad Extirpanda], promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, prescribes that captured heretics, being “murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb.” — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.) http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html

"On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received". — Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html

The fact that Rome now forbids torture, and uphold religious freedom and free access to the Bible, and other things in contrast to the past, simply examples how sola ecclesia allows autocratic authority to do whatever it will.

When Sola Scriptura means "holding Scripture as supreme", that is correct and wholly Catholic doctrine.

Rome does not hold Scripture as the supreme standard, but effectively places herself as this, for she claims to define both what Scripture consists up and its meaning, having defined herself as being assuredly infallible. Her teachings need not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, only that they do not contradict Scripture, but as she is the autocratic judge of that, then she can dismiss all reproof to the contrary. It is quite the system. In contrast, under SS doctrine must be established based upon Scriptural substantiation, thus by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. " (2 Corinthians 4:2)

You do the bare minimum of works that faith requires, which is not surprising since to you, you are all saved anyway.

In post after post you have relied on fallacies, including using liberal Protestants for whom the Scriptures are not the wholly inspired Word of God and are to be basically taken literally (unlike in so many approved notes of Rome) as the supreme transcendent material standard, to link SS and SF to moral laxity. But which is what Rome under sola ecclesia is abundantly evidenced to foster. But which evidence is ignored, thus a few stats will be provided, or it is dismissed . However, again, Rome treats them as members in life and in death, and this treatment manifests what Rome fosters overall and really believes (as it manifests how she interprets her words) And while we can leave liberal churches for better ones, RCs are stuck with their Ted Kennedy's.

Now i have a headache due to so much reading and wrong glasses.

955 posted on 12/14/2012 4:30:42 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212
Now i have a headache due to so much reading and wrong glasses.

"Statistics are no substitute for judgment."
-- Henry Clay

979 posted on 12/14/2012 6:03:18 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 955 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; mitch5501; BlueDragon; bonfire
as if he were a pope

I think I explained that. I know Protestants have no popes, but in Luther's shenanigans -- both with his "marriage" and his unbridled masturbation habit, -- I see a pattern of individualistic self-indulgence in Protestantism that has lead over time to bizarre interpretations of the Holy Scripture and the moral decay of the modern Western society, gay "rights" and all. Maybe you needed a pope, of some kind.

Of course he weaseled out of his pro-polygamy scriptural stance. I would like to know which were his scriptural arguments for monogamy though.

she claims to define both what Scripture consists up and its meaning

But we do so in accordance with consensus patrem. There is that continuity of hermeneutics, you know. You should have it, too.

Yes, plenty of lay Catholics do not know their doctrines. For that, too, I blame YOU KNOW WHOM.

I got to run. Thank you for taking the trouble with this lengthy post; I will return to it if need be.

982 posted on 12/14/2012 6:09:00 AM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 955 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; mitch5501; BlueDragon; bonfire
I would add this:

using liberal Protestants for whom the Scriptures are not the wholly inspired Word of God

Well, liberal Protestants as just as Protestant as you are. I haven't read from, nor met, an Episcopalian, or a Methodist who would not ardently defend Sola Scriptura and then proceed with it wherever his proclivities lead him. Your interpretation of the scripture differs, that is all; the fact is you both pick whatever you like from the scripture and ignore what you don't like or explain it away. You both lack the patristic authority of the Early Fathers.

However, while I may, of course, point out to liberal Protestants just as you, quite justifiably, can point out to liberal Catholics, my most hotly disputed point on this thread is not that, but the overall trend toward individualism, making the Christian religion fit modern sensibilities; that may not be modern American liberism of the Kennedys, but liberalism it is. Protestantism is by definition liberal, because Sola Scriptura is a liberal doctrine, leaving the Hoyl Scripture at the mercy of the individual reading it. When Catholics do something like that, they go against the grain of the Catholic culture, and it is the Reformation that enabled them and gave them rhetorical tools. When a Protestant discovers that polygamy is OK if there is a "necessity", or female bishops, or homosexual "marriage" are OK because there is nothing in the Bible against it, -- he is simply doing what Luther started, reading the Scripture with his own understanding.

The fact that Rome now forbids torture, and uphold religious freedom and free access to the Bible, and other things in contrast to the past, simply examples how sola ecclesia allows autocratic authority to do whatever it will.

One should distinguish development of practice from development of dogma. It is no different than recognizing that the earth is round or bacteria cause disease: torture was thought of as a proper method of substantiating evidence, and now we know better. It is remarkable that despite that being a best prosecutorial practice, the Church called for applying torture mildly. The changed attitude regarding torture does not prove fluidity of the Catholic dogmas regarding the core of our faith.

1,073 posted on 12/14/2012 5:46:10 PM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 955 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson