A Birth Control Quiz

Pastor Larry

If you have a minute could you answer how you feel about the fallowing.

Alcohol consumption.
Cigarette and cigar smoking
Smoking pot
Polygamy
Stem cell research on embryonic stem cells.
Marrying girls under 18, let's say 13 year olds.
gambling
Having Dog fights and cock fights which is banned in this country.
Human Cloning

Perhaps some scriptural support for those you disagree with would be nice.

Blessings

 

Anyone else who says there has to be explicit Biblical text that condemns a certain action or it is okay to do care to answer the above? Eldar? Diane?

Let's add another. Say a little kid is out playing with her dog or cat and I hate dogs and cats (I don't) so I shoot it. Any scripture that says I cannot do this. If not and her dad comes over and punches me, he certainly is sinning.

Tell me, does Romans 2:15 mean that what is written in mens hearts is also written ver batum in the scriptures?

Blessings

 

You apparently did not read carefully. I never said that therehad to be explicit scriptural statements to regard something as sin.

Unwise, but not strictly forbidden.

Sinful because it is addictive, an express violation of Scriptural command to not be under the power of anything other than the Spirit.

Sin because it violates the biblical command to obey the governmental authority (Rom 13).

Sin because it violates God's ordained pattern of one man and one woman for one life (Gen 2), and because it violates the biblical command to obey government (Rom 13).

Probably sinful since it i]most likely[/i] involves the taking of a human life to obtain the stem cells. I have not researched this enough to know if it actually does involve the taking of a human life. Nor do I know if there are viable ways of obtaining the stem cells from natural causes that do not avoid the taking of a human life. If it does involve the taking of human life, then it is a violation of the command to not murder.

Not expressly sinful though it would be if it violates the government's standards. It most probably is very unwise in any case.

Probably not expressly sinful in all cases, though it certainly is an attempt to gain money through unethical means or gain money unjustly, both of which are violations of the biblical principles of money. Gambling, in and of itself, is not always sinful.

Since they are banned in this country, you have answered your own question (Rom 13).

I am not sure it is possible since I am not sure that you can clone a soul. The Bible does not expressly speak to this issue however and I am not fully versed in the ethical issues involved. I am against it but I cannot take a dogmatic stand from Scripture because I have not studied it. (I haven't studied it in depth because it is not a pressing issue of concern at this present time for me.)

I have given it where appropriate.

On many of these issues, like BC, there is room for latitude among people. There is no clear and unambigous statement from God on some of these things. We would do well to make our case from Scripture and to have a clear conscience without pressing our own views on others with undue insistence.

 

" You apparently did not read carefully. I never said that therehad to be explicit scriptural statements to regard something as sin."

You apparently haven't read carefully as I don't see where I said you did. It just seems that those who side with ABC being okay like to use the arguement that scripture isn't explicit so it is okay which ends up being relativistic from a moral perspective. The very same arguements used against ABC being immoral are the same ones used by abortion oppents. That is what I see in your posts.


" Alcohol consumption. Unwise, but not strictly forbidden."

So Jesus in changing water in to wine at the wedding of cana contributed to the unwise behavior of the wedding guests and so was himself not infinitely wise.

Sinful because it is addictive, an express violation of Scriptural command to not be under the power of anything other than the Spirit."

Hmmmmm. I have know people who were not addicted to cigarettes but smoked them once in a while. I myself smoked a few in my late teenage early twenty years and never became addicted. I find your blanket categoraization of it as being sinful interesting considering that the exact same words could be said of alcohol. Once again Jesus turned water in to WINE. A little wine is good for the stomach.

"Smoking pot. Sin because it violates the biblical command to obey the governmental authority (Rom 13)."

So below you say that we shouldn't impose our views on others. Apparently some have and now smoking pot is illegal. I agree with your reason and even thought of it before I posted. It's a strech as far as being explicit though. Should pot smoking be illegal. If it were legalized are you okay with it. (I think it is legal in Alaska).


Polygamy. Sin because it violates God's ordained pattern of one man and one woman for one life (Gen 2), and because it violates the biblical command to obey government (Rom 13).

So what of the OT polygamy. If they had Genisis 2 how come Moses and Abraham and most of all Solomon engaged in it and God continued to bless them. Solomon who had the most wives was said to be the most wise of all men ever. Once again should the government be imposing this on people. The one man one woman thing is taken by the Mormons to mean one man and one woman and the same one man and another woman. Once again don't twist this (as you will) that I am in favor of legalizing polygamy. Just wondering how you would defend things.

"Stem cell research on embryonic stem cells.[/QUOTE][/qb]Probably sinful since it i]most likely[/i] involves the taking of a human life to obtain the stem cells. I have not researched this enough to know if it actually does involve the taking of a human life. Nor do I know if there are viable ways of obtaining the stem cells from natural causes that do not avoid the taking of a human life. If it does involve the taking of human life, then it is a violation of the command to not murder."

What if the researcher just harvests the stem cells that another has murdered? That is the real question.

"Marrying girls under 18, let's say 13 year olds. Not expressly sinful though it would be if it violates the government's standards. It most probably is very unwise in any case."

My guess once again is solomon had some very young wives. Whyt does it violate government standards when below you say we shouldn't impose our standards on others if they are not expressly biblical. America has been doninated by Protestantism. Why do they keep imposing their standards if that is not what is supposed to be done?

"gambling. Probably not expressly sinful in all cases, though it certainly is an attempt to gain money through unethical means or gain money unjustly, both of which are violations of the biblical principles of money. Gambling, in and of itself, is not always sinful.

One point I want to make in all of this is that many sincere baptists will take issue with you on wether those things that you say are unwise or not expressly forbidden are sinful. Gambling is one of them. So are you for legalization of gambling everywhere?

"Having Dog fights and cock fights which is banned in this country.Since they are banned in this country, you have answered your own question (Rom 13). "

Should they be. Would you be okay with them if they were legalized.

"I am not sure it is possible since I am not sure that you can clone a soul. The Bible does not expressly speak to this issue however and I am not fully versed in the ethical issues involved. I am against it but I cannot take a dogmatic stand from Scripture because I have not studied it. (I haven't studied it in depth because it is not a pressing issue of concern at this present time for me.)"

Are all your dogmatic stands on moral issues infallibly correct. Are there some issues that you don't take that are dogmatically defendable in scripture, but you have an incorrect interprutation that does not provide you with the dogmatic stance?

"Perhaps some scriptural support for those you disagree with would be nice.[/QUOTE][/qb]I have given it where appropriate."

Thanks. It's been interesting. Still lots of questions unanswered. The bottom line is your moral theology comes out as very relativistic. I am sure you won't agree but it's a fact.

"On many of these issues, like BC, there is room for latitude among people. There is no clear and unambigous statement from God on some of these things."

Case and point. Many say the same about abortion. There are biblical principles and implicit if not explicit statements on everything I have found. We can know right from wrong and God has written it on every mans heart (rom 2:15). We ignore his commands written in our hearts and so violate his commands.

"We would do well to make our case from Scripture and to have a clear conscience without pressing our own views on others with undue insistence. "

very mushy Larry. Thanks for your time.

Blessings

 

Thessalonian said...

"So what of the OT polygamy. If they had Genisis 2 how come Moses and Abraham and most of all Solomon engaged in it and God continued to bless them. Solomon who had the most wives was said to be the most wise of all men ever. Once again should the government be imposing this on people. The one man one woman thing is taken by the Mormons to mean one man and one woman and the same one man and another woman. Once again don't twist this (as you will) that I am in favor of legalizing polygamy. Just wondering how you would defend things."

I think you would agree that Solomon's 700 wives seriously compromised his witness, and had a very bad effect on his kingdom. And it doesn't look like Moses, or Abraham were blessed for their numerous wives. Sure, God kept his promise, but all three examples you gave had bad consequenses.

I know you don't advocate polygamy.

In other cases, God blessed folks after grave errors, David, Adam and Eve, and Sampson all goofed big, and God took care of them. (Just to name a few)

But the polygamy laws were based on the Bible, like a lot of the original laws of our country. The law in my state used to say we couldn't sell beer on Sundays, and you know where that came from. Now that the law has been relaxed, do you think this one will fall also ?

I hope I didn't stray too far from the original idea of this thread.

 

Immediately after posting to me you said, Anyone else who says there has to be explicit Biblical text that condemns a certain action or it is okay to do care to answer the above? The words "anyone else" imply that someone you addressed already believed this, namely me.

What is ABC and what is an abortion oppents? The fact is that there is nothing relativistic about it. My position is based solidly in an understanding of Scripture. You differ on some key things and thus hold a different position. That is not relative. It is a case where Scripture is not explicit.

I didn't say that at all. I have no idea where you are going with this. The wine in SCripture is very different than it is today. Furthemore, my specific comments were directed towards addictive alcohol and it is unwise to put yourself in that position. Furthermore, in many circles, alcohol is sufficiently questionable so as to create problems for your testimony. I do not think drinking a alcoholic beverage is always wrong. I think in most cases, it is unwise and opens the door for needless temptation. There is also a great difference in the quality fo alternatives today.

The people who smoke and are not addicted are in the vast minority, if they even exist. (It reminds me of the guy said, "These pills can't be habit forming, I have been taking them for years). Point being that medicine and science have shown nicotine to have an powerfully addicting influence. The same could be said of alcohol; it can have a powerful addicting influence. But it works in a different way. Smoking also introduces sufficient damage to one's testimony to warrant it as unwise.

Now you change the question. Should it be legal? I don't think so, but not for a biblical reason. But that wasn't the question. You asked if it was sinful or not and I gave an unrefutable answer. It is explicit. When the government forbids something, it is explicitly sinful, unless it violates biblical commands.

None of those men were blessed becuasethey had multiple wives. All of them suffered great difficulties because of having multiple wives. God often allowed men to live in sinful ways and blessed them anyway. Such is the case with polygamy. It is directly against the revealed will of God.

Should the government impose it?? Once again, a different question than what you asked. I don't know. I can think of both pros and cons. Overall, from a social sense, probably so. But I can be convinced otherwise.

Difficult ethical quandary. As I say, I have not studied it in depth. The situation with the 60 or so stem cell lines now is that exact case, which is why Bush allowed the continued use of them ... they were already dead. Preventing future use of newly murdered babies should serve as a disincentive although it won't since murders are not committed to obtain stem cells, but rather the stem cells are a by product of it. The ethical questions of such a situation are staggering. It might be similar to using the liver of a murdered man as organ replacement. Since he was murdered, should we then not use his organs?? It is a difficult situation and someone who says they have all the answers should be laughed out of the room.

I am not saying the government should impose these standards. You have to remember, you keep changing the question from what was asked. There are a great many reasons why, today, marriage should be for older people. But that was not the question. The Bible does not set an age and therefore, I don't have a biblical mandate apart from submitting to government.

No, I am not for legalized gambling. It is legalized here and it hasn't helped. It is poor stewardship; it is addictive; it is hard on families. There may be some people who take issues with me on the explicitness of these things. I have no problem with that. Just bring Scripture when you come to debate them.

Again, different question than what you asked. But in the bottom line, I don't care whether they are legal or not. I don't participate or watch now and I won't them. I think it is unnecessary though uglier things happen in the wild everyday of our lives; we just don't see it. I think it is a stupid thing to be involved in, but I have no Scripture that I can think of to explicitly forbid it. That is not to say that there isn't one. I just haven't studied it in that light. This is the first time I have thought of cock fighting and dog fighting in years.

Not necessarily though I have as good a shot at it as anyone else on this planet does. I do try to expose myself to all sides of the issue and take counsel from the Word.

AI am struggling to understand this. I think you are asking if there is a possibility that my non dogmatic stance springs from a misinterpretation about somethign taht Scripture is in fact dogmatic about. It could be; in most cases where I take dogmatic stands, I am comfortable enough in my research to be dogmatic. If I am not comfortable being dogmatic, I generally am not dogmatic. By my understanding is no more flawed or no less flawed than any other living human.

Obviously I don't agree as I already stated. You say it is relativistic because you don't share it. That is a far cry from a being a "fact."

And they would be explicitly wrong. There are explicit dogmatic commands regarding the sanctity of human life.

This is a reference to the conscience and as Paul reminds us, this can be seared. The law written on the heart is not infallible. His word is.

Nothing mushy about it. I notice how you did not respond with any Scripture to refute anything I said. Very telling, I might respond.

As for your question about government imposing a standard vs. us not imposing our standards, you are dealing with two different issues - apples and oranges. The government has a mandate over its citizens; I do not have a mandate over you. Therefore, the government can impose some things that I cannot.

Didn't take much ... these are pretty easy questions actually ... at least the way you asked them the first time. Now the second time around about "Should the government impose some of these things" ... well that is a little more difficult and it kind of a moot point in this discussion. Might fit well into the politics forum or another thread here.

 

Actually, wouldn't expect him to. We are heretics, and in my case, apostates, so at least he is being honest, although completely ignorant of Church history, good hermeneutics, and totally brainwashed by those who have taught him. I know. Been there -- done that --IN SPADES. So if he wishes to say such -- have at it!! He's still wrong.

Naaaaaaaaaa....yer jest pissy because I called you wrong Has little to do with truth as such. I have returned to God's truth, the Church which He founded upon St. Peter and which is the institution which meets all the requirements of covenant. You belong to some Johnnie-Come-Lately cult of about 500 years. Like all cults, you try to tag Jesus onto your beliefs. So do the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and SDA's. What's the difference between you and them? All four of you SWEAR that you have the "real true truth" which was left behind centuries ago and lost to the world until YOUR FOUNDER suddenly got a revelation from God.

So this means that prior to 500 AD the Church was A-okay? Well if that is so, then you had better start baptizin' dem babies in yer congregation and git yerself consecrated to offer the true Body and Blood in the Eucharist, because according to record, THAT, and not your Baptist distinctives, are what the Church did as early as the second century.

Yup. You most certainly have studied Catholicism. The very same way I studied it -- by reading those poisonous little Chick tracts and every piece of garbage out there which vilifies the Catholic Faith and presents a completely untrue picture of what it is. On top of that, you have been taught wrong ideas, wrong hermeneutics and wrong assumptions about the Bible and sadly, believe them to be the truth.

Naaaaaaaaaaa...what you KNOW about the Catholic Faith, I mean REALLY KNOW as in understand, could be put in a thimble and have room still for a Mack truck.

Uhhhhh, goofy....there were ONLY CATHOLICS 1500 years ago!!! Oh, you must be a Landmark Baptist. Talk about delusion. Wow!!

Sorry Carson, Baptists do not make errors. I learned this when I was an Anabaptistic Fundamentalist. "WE" are right in everything, have defense for everything, and everyone else is wrong -- ESPECIALLY THEM PAPISTS!!!

Well, obviously you don't much read my posts, because when I defend a teaching or a principle, I quote Scripture and show how it fits in with the principle of God's covenantal dealings with mankind.

Ahhhhhh yup. Jesus promised that. Promised that we poor sinners, blind and stupid, would have an institution where the devil's lies would not be allowed reign and where we could look for truth. Go read it -- that promise is in Matthew 16.

It is not the Word of God which is the authority in your life, sir, it is your mind and your agreement with certain interpretations of that Word. Don't try to pull off that "Word of God" stuff on me. The Catholic Church defined the Word of God for you and has taught it for 2 millenia.

Can't be. We have Christ's Word and Promise that he Church would not be overrun by the gates of hell. Futhermore, the Church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ, as the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15:45) is not going to let His Eve (the Church) be raped by Satan as the first Adam allowed his bride to be. What kind of husband do you take Christ for anyway?

What is sad is that you so bow down and worship the Bible that if it doesn't SPECIFICALLY AND IN PLAIN ENGLISH SAY "Don't use Trojans" then you don't believe it is a Biblical principle. You are so infatuated with your "sola scriptura" position that you will not allow for any exegesis which proves any point that is not specifically outlined word for word in Scripture.

The principle is the same. We are in the image of God. We are called to be like Him, to mirror His glory on earth, to follow in His ways. God is a God of love and life. Contraception is death and selfishness. 2 + 2 = 4. If God is that way, then in my life I need to be that way also. End of discussion.

As was said in another thread -- if you are following a MISINTERPRETATION of God's Word, then you really are not following God's Word!! If I don't speak French and my trusty translator interprets "Arretez vous" as "Let's go!!" and I cross the street and am hit by a truck, then the fault is that I never heard what was said from a trusty source.

Without a proper interpretation of the Word of God, you are not following the Word of God. For instance, when you DENY the Real Presence, when Jesus made it clear, both by His own words, plus the testimony of the very next generation who wrote epistles, that you MUST eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life, then are you hearing the very same WORD OF GOD which came from the lips of Jesus Himself??

Of course not. You are hearing and obeying something else unrelated to what Jesus said.

Think on it.

 

By the way. For those of you who will try to put the relativist tag on me becuase I do not believe that morality is all clearly laid out in scipture, it is only from a sola scriptura viewpoint that I have presented the above post in light of that I may come accross that way. I believe that each of the issues provided is answerable conclusivly but not from a SS viewpoint. Further I believe that every man has been given the ability to know right from wrong because of Rom 2:15. The teachings of the Church which is the "pillar and support of the truth" verify these things written on our hearts. Those of you who say ABC is okay know better. I knew better when I used to be involved in the culture of death. That after all is what ABC is about. Satan hates children and will do anything to prevent these little ones from being a part of this world and thereafter entering in to heavenly glory. You have been decieved.

Blessings

 

Not in the least. You are desparate to defend your thinking and so you resort to such statements, not because they are true, but because they satisfy the god of your mind.

I thought you were a Catholic?? Did you change since the last time we had this discussion?

The RCC has more in common with these than we do. We base our beliefs on teh teachings of God's word. Your church and these you mention all share the authority of man as your basis for belief.

Haven't seen a chick tract about hte Catholic church or anything else in years. I learned what I know from the Catholics themselves. I am wrong only if the catechism and the church and her bishops are wrong.

I agree that Landmarkers are delusional. I am not one of them. Shows that your thought process is not as good as you would pretend that it is.

This is not true. Baptists do make errors.

But I have shown in countless cases that your view depends on your faulty thinking, thinking that has no connection to the text of Scripture itself. You make stuff up and then pretend as if it is what God said. I simply refuse to use that unbiblical approach. It all starts with your faulty hermeneutic and your misplaced authority.

Jesus said nothing about the Catholic church. That is the worst kind of eisogesis. Of course, it is necessary to continue to perpetrate the religious fraud but it is unbiblical. Jesus spoke of the church that would remain true to his word. The RCC left that long ago. Therefore, on teh basis of the words of Jesus himself, they are disqualified from being considered the church. But this is a case where you placed the authority of men over the authority of Christ.

No it didn't. You are grossly uninformed about church history and my authority.

Christ did promise his church would not be overrun by the gates of hell. You have identified yet another proof that the RCC is not the church of the NT and of Jesus Christ. They have given up his doctrine; they have ceased to follow him exclusively. This is not the church that Christ described and promised.

I have already shown this to be false. You know it. This was outright dishonesty on your part.

End of discussion for you ... that's fine. Contraception, by definition, precedes life. Therefore, what is not alive cannot be killed. I agree that we are to be like him and mirror his glory through obedience. I wish you would return to that, by following in obedience to him and his doctrine. I sincerely hope that you will.

Which is teh point I have made all along. You follow the RCC because you have misinterpreted his word. Therefore, by your own condemnation, you are not following his word.

We have long ago dispensed with this foolishness. We used exegesis to do so and you refused to submit yourself to Scripture then. You refused to follow the example of the apostles. You refused to even answer basic questions. You profess to love Scripture, but then refuse to listen to it. I can't help that.

I have for years, coupled with reading the word of God and Catholic doctrine. That is why I have consistently refused to follow it. It bears little resemblance to the Scriptures.

It is unfortunate that people so steeped in their ways refuse to listen to Scripture. It is truly sad to see a life that could be so much better headed down such a path.

 

I don't think anyone here has said that all morality is clearly laid out in Scripture. I would rather argue that it is all based in Scripture as God's revelation.

[qutoe]I believe that each of the issues provided is answerable conclusivly but not from a SS viewpoint.[/quote]Where did you come by all this wisdom?? You raised some very interesting topics. I would be interested in seeing your conclusive answers.

Do you not think that man's conscience can be seared to the point that he does not know right from wrong conclusively??

So you are undermining the authority of the church and placing it in the hearts of man?? That seems strange coming from a Catholic. I would not say that at all.

It is you who has been deceived. BC is not a part of death. By definition it is prior to life. Let's get our facts straight before we going lambasting those who hold a different view on what Scripture does not speak to.

 

"Let's get our facts straight before we going lambasting those who hold a different view on what Scripture does not speak to. "

Thanks for the infallible opinion Larry. Larry you should be a Pope. I find this whole conversation rather amusing. There is nothing a Protestant can hang his hat on. It is precisely the kind of arguements used by Pastor Larry that have the Episcopalians putting in gay bishops. Where's the authority in Protestantism. It's not Jesus. It's not scripture. It's what every man thinks scripture says and doesn't say. God bless Larry. You can have the last word if you like.

 

You are right ... Actually, you know that I haven't claimed to be infallible. I have explicitly said that. You know that. Why you would say something you know to be untrue is beyond me. If we are going to have differences (which we will), let's have honest differences. Don't make stuff up ...

This is absolutely false, and once again, you know it. We hang our hat on something different than you do. That does not mean we don't hang it on anything.

The Catholic church has changed its doctrines far more over the years than Protestants have. They have changed "infallible" decrees. They have had competing popes. They have changed what ideas and words mean. They have denied doctrines they once held to be infallible. So your argument here means nothing. The Episcopalians would never accept my hermeneutic or my theology for a very precise reason: They do not accept the authority of Scripture. They insist that Scripture be subjected to their own minds. In that way, they are closer to you than to us. We are not bound to a church's interpretation of the Bible. We are bound by the Bible itself.

The authority is in Scripture. There is no authority in man's thought. Your authority is in man's thought ... whatever the pope and the bishops (with the help of canon lawyers) decided to be true is what you believe. Therein, you have accused us of the very thing that you readily accept ... the authority of man. There is a serious flaw in your logic and theology that you are blind to because you cannot see the issue of authority clearly. Your authority tells you what the authority is, and you believe him without bothering to check with God first.

I would like that, but I doubt your friends will be so generous. However, I was quite serious when I said I would like to see your "conclusive" answers to those problems you put forth. Start a thread. I will probably read more than comment but if you have conclusive answers, I would like to see them and test them. I am always up for learning something.

 

If you are referring to me, you have grossly mischaracterized my position. I truly believe in his providence. To deny that God creates each individual soul is not a denial of his creative work. Some serious study in the area of traducianism and the flaws of soul creationism would be worthy of your time. You might not agree but it will save you from making these kind of statements that are devoid of reality. I appeal to you as I did to Ed: there is enough things to discuss without misrepresenting my (or your opponent's) position.

We can differ on the history of the Catholic church. There is plenty of fodder for interpretation and discussion. I am quite sure we will come down on different sides and it does not require misrepresentation of either of our position. But for you to accuse me (if I am the one you were talking about) of denying God's creation and providence is patently wrong and is absurd to the highest degree. You can disagree with what I say. Do not misrepresent what I say. Following this practice will take you a long ways if you decide to further your education or to enter serious discussions of difference. I know in my own educational process that failing to represent an opponent correctly is grounds for serious demerit on a paper or thesis. It was totally unacceptable. If I were grading your work in this matter, you would have been severely reprimanded for misrepresenting your opponent.

The general rule of thumb is this: "Say about your opponent only what he would say about himself." If you have to mischaracterize his position to make your point, then you don't have a point worthy listening to. Disagree with what I believe, not with what you wish I believed.

If you want to start a discussion on the merits of traducianism, feel free. I would love to see how you deal with some of the major issues involved. It would be enlightening for us all and an opportunity to learn.

 

Seems to me that with verses like these God would want us to know what is and isn't sin rather than this "well it's sin for me but I am not going to impose it" stuff.

1 John 3:8
the one who practices sin is of the devil

1 Corinthians 15:34
Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death,

 

Seems someone doesn't know what the word sarcasm means.

 

Curtis,

Methinks you miss my point in focusing on any one of that list I gave. I agree with your post on polygamy. So what. It is not explicitly stated and if the Bible is to be exclusively our moral guide then it seems to me that at least most Protestants would have a problem arguing with a Mormon that Polygamy is forbidden. I have done it before so I know the ways they defend it. Scripture does not explicitly answer in my opinion any of the moral issues that I posted. We Catholics are always held to the explicit "whre is that found in the Bible test". If it is not explicit (even when it is) we get the "that's not what that says. Peter is a little stone. Na Na boo boo". Needless to say hardly a convincing arguement from my side of the fence.

Thanks for the comments though I will remember them next time I run in to a Mormon. They still do believe in polygamy by the way even if they don't practice it. They say it is a higher law that has been taken from this earth.

Blessings

 

Not so. I explain my interpretations of the text. Very few, including you, use the text to refute them. An interpretation is valid only if it means what the text means. The text is the test. I am perfectly willing to have my interpretations critiqued and am willing to be convinced otherwise. But you have to show it. So far, your side has been unable to do that.

Since your "infallible intepretation" isn't infallible, then you are left to your own mind. The reality is that your mind convinces you the RCC is right; therefore, you are following the authority of your own mind. The reality is that my interpretations are stronger because they can more ably deal with the text. Again, that is the test. Does what you say line up with the text. Are you willing to put your interpretations up against that??

This can be shown in so many places it is amazing taht someone who claims to know church history questions it. For starters, just study the evolution of the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the church. That will take you a while and will show the truth of my assertion that Catholic doctrine has changed over the years.

They operate the same way we do .. under the authority of the apostles. For them, apostolic authortiy was in person. For us, apostolic authority is in the words of the apostles that Jesus preauthenticated in John. He did not preauthenticate some mysterious magesterium. That is unbiblical doctrine. So the truth is that we operate the same way that the NT church operated -- under apostolic authority.

Actually, I do not trust my own interpretations. I study hours a day to verify them and to examine them. I have not denied human authority per se. I have merely recognized that the NT did not set up a human authority apart from the NT for doctrine.

I am not asking you to do this, CArson. I am asking you to place Scripture in the place of authority that God does and to abandon your manmade authority. I am fallible. I have said that many times. And so are you, your church, and your pope. The only infallible person is Christ, and the only infallible standard of doctrine is his word. You need to submit to that, not to your man-made church heirarchy.

When I get a chance I will look it up. In the meantime, I trust you will give more serious thought to this matter of your own mind deciding what authority really is. The difference between you and I is not that our minds have come to a conclusion about authority. We both have. The difference is that your mind has chosen to follow another man--and institution who has been shown to be in direct contradiction of God's revealed truth; my mind has chosen to skip the middle man and go right to the source--God's word itself.