I think we should respect Pilgrim’s wishes here. If you click on my name you’ll go to my blog. The lead article (by chance) is about Catholic apologetics vs. Reformed apologetics vs. Restorationists (The Rock-paper-scissors of Apologetics). Feel free to continue this discussion there.

I think I’ve seen enough of your subversive attempts to tear down the Christian faith while spreading the false gospel of Romanism.

I know, I know, this is the part where you pound your fist on the table and declare that, “It’s not fair that I can’t have complete and totally unfettered free rein to say and do whatever I want on someone else’s blog.”

From here on out, perhaps your ideas would be better received (and believed) on a Romanist blog.

Is someone who accepts TULIP a heretic? If no, why not?

No, and see above where I talked about heresy. People who accept TULIP are honestly mistaken. The same way that most people think of space-time as flat not curved, they aren’t evil they are just wrong.

Is TULIP in violation of Sola Scriptura? Does it contradict scripture?

No, it is not a violation of Sola Scriptura. As for contradicting scripture, yes, but in subtle non-obvious ways. TULIP rightfully supports that majesty of God and the importance of divine involvement. It takes Soli Deo gloria seriously. Arminianism quite often in practice turns into semi-Pelagianism. TULIP aims to correct this.

The problem is that it replaces a defect with a much more serious defect. TULIP taken to its logical conclusion destroys all moral accountability from people and undermines freewill. Scripture does not present a systematic theology of salvation that rectifies all questions, people have to do that on their own and do the best they can.

Progress happens by people trying to figure out ways to make sense of these hard questions. Thinking about them, drawing analogies, praying about them, talking to one another. Overtime these issues get refined and resolved. Catholics and Baptists don’t disagree that doctrines need to develop. Where they disagree is the idea that anyone can rule on anyone else by force of authority or worse force of law rather than by force of argument. We call this bible freedom, the belief that the individual is free to interpret the Bible for himself or herself, using the best tools of scholarship and biblical study available to the individual.

I understand that people who believe in TULIP are doing this.

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin…

Here’s a better one. How many souls has the RCC helped damn to hell for eternity.

Rev 18:2 And he called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.

-Jim

Is TULIP in violation of Sola Scriptura? Does it contradict scripture?

Staying with my Baptists answers, I was Arminian. I’d have rejected all 5 points of Calvinism and in particular have asserted conditional security.

What would you tell someone who was looking for a Church to join?

I’d pick one out. My criteria would be to generally be looking for

a) Credobaptist.
b) Evangelical.

What would you tell someone who asked you what is required to be saved

A saving faith in Jesus. Sola fide. You must want to be saved and asked to be saved and allow Jesus into your life and heart. From there it is between you and the Holy Spirit and fully individual. I can possible advise but ultimately nothing I say beyond that is definite.

What would you tell this person as what are the deterministic and non-deterministic issues (with regards to his peronal salvation)?

There are no deterministic issues. There are beliefs that may create enough distortion as to make things less likely, but saving faith is possible in any belief system.

What would you tell this person as to what positions are heretical?

Any belief which is contrary to scripture, honestly held due to a misreading or misunderstanding of scripture. However heresy is often used to mean a definitive definition which implies the existence of a permanent extra scriptural collection of doctrines that are fully binding. What I would tell someone who was asking the question that way was that the very belief in such a thing is a violation of sola scriptura. There is no heresy in that sense.

The creeds for example can act as a personal guide, how others read and understand scripture, but not being scripture they are not ultimately binding. In other words, a read of scripture is binding on you only if the Holy Spirit makes it so. I can’t tell you what is binding for you. I can tell you what is binding for me.

I brought up the issue of Birth Control as an example (one of hundreds) that shows how incomprehensible and self-contradictory Protestantism is to me. You seem like a fair-minded individual, so can you help me out here?

What would you tell someone who was looking for a Church to join?
What would you tell someone who asked you what is required to be saved?
What would you tell this person as what are the deterministic and non-deterministic issues (with regards to his peronal salvation)?
What would you tell this person as to what positions are heretical?

I’m just trying to pin this down here. I’ve asked every way I can think of, but to no avail.

Thank you in advance.

Sola Scriptura? …..crickets
“Faith Alone”? …..crickets
“Once Saved, Always Saved”? …..crickets
“Murder a thousand times a day”? ……crickets

But Jerry your problems are so so much worse.
A succession of Pope’s going back to Peter … huge breaks at several critical points.
A doctrine once taught to the apostles …. a clear historical evolution of doctrine.
A church claiming to be inerrant in matters of faith and morals…. a long history of grievous institutional sins of the worse sorts.

The Reformation happened for good reasons. It is time Catholic apologists addressed those.

Sola Scriptura? …..crickets
“Faith Alone”? …..crickets
“Once Saved, Always Saved”? …..crickets
“Murder a thousand times a day”? ……crickets

I agree.

Your bottom lines:

1. Sola Scriptura is correct – and anyone who adds to it (e.g. the Catholic Church) is to be condemned BUT NOT Luther, Calvin, or Wesley. They get a pass.

2. Birth Control , abortion, stealing, lying, the 10 Commandments, etc. are all pointless and “secondary” issues because “once saved always saved” and anyone who says otherwise (e.g. the Catholic Church) is to be condemned BUT NOT Luther, Calvin, or Wesley. They get a pass.

3. Sola Scriptura is correct – and will always lead an individual to the correct conclusion. BUT, you will not explain how Protestants yesterday and today can all use Sola Scriptura and reach a whole spectrum of varying, and often contradictary, conclusions. Especially the wide gulf between the “Reformers” and modern day Protestants. Sola Scriptura Fail Supreme – but you will not explain how this is possible.

These are all fundamental issues that undepin your and all Protestant thinking. I understand why you avoid discussing these issues (i.e. they are impossible to reconcile to truth, logic, consistency or scripture), but refusing to discuss them, does not make them go away.

I think you know (in your heart and your head) that there are indeed major,fatal flaws in Protestant
views that you just cannot reconcile. I don’t expect you to admit that publicly, but keep trying hard
enough, and I think you’ll eventually reach the correct conclusions.

P.S.
C’mon Lyn, you can see it, right?……

Martin Luther wrote:
“Even if you sin greatly, believe even more greatly, and be a sinner and sin boldly but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. No sin will separate us from the Lamb even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”

I will not waste any more time going around in circles with you, I have made myself clear and you want to confuse my words to defend a pointless and secondary issue, birth control. For your information, I did NOT condemn the Catholic church on their view of birth control, I stated they should be corrected. Luther and Calvin got the Gospel right, that is essential. The Catholic church is NOT open to correction by anyone outside their ‘denomination’, plus they teach a false gospel. They should be shunned for that reason more than any other. Please, do not add words to my comments, I never condemned anyone solely on the basis of a view on birth control, but rather on a combination of views.

Please, move on sir, enough time has been wasted on your endless and pointless merry go round.

You gotta be fair here. I am not using Catholic or my own personal standards. Rather, I am using your own statements, standards and logic. You have repeatedly condemned Catholicism on specific issues, essentially because they violate Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone. Examples:

On 1/13/2012, you implicitly condemned Catholicism for infant batism and the sacraments:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.’ – Ephesians 2:8-9
I emphasize ‘not as a result of works’, which includes infant baptism, sacraments, etc.”

On 1/28/2012 you explicity condemned Catholicism for saying birth control is sinful and you said you would condemn ANYONE else (including Protestants) who also did so:
“…..those who claim the Bible states birth control is sinful are in error and should be corrected. If they cannot argue rightly from God’s word, they should be shunned and avoided.”
“…..stating birth control is sinful is not the only reason Roman Catholicism is a dead religion, it is one of many.”

You have to be consistent here, if Catholics are wrong and condemnable on birth control, infant baptism, and the sacraments, then so are Luther and Calvin. Why will you not “pull the trigger” here? It is not that hard to do.

For your reference, here is a consistent Protestant who did exactly that and condemned both Calvin and Luther using the exact same standards as yours:

“There is NO way that such men (Luther and Calvin) could have been saved because they ADDED works to faith, which is no faith at all. Calvin taught that believers must persevere to the end to be saved. This is works salvation.”

from:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Calvinism/john_calvin_exposed.htm

Following your lettering:

a) Agreed. Thanks for the correction there.

b.) Actually she was, not only that she was a theologian in this area. Her writings focused on spiritual marriage, which is a sex/birth topic. Her visions did as well. And I quoted her originally if you would remember in the context of whether Mary could have been conceived by normative intercourse.

c) I agree she is not Protestant. Your claim had been more broad to Lyn that until recently everyone was in agreement. If you want to restrict your claim to only Protestants and concede the Catholic church was all over the place in previous centuries that’s fine.

d-e) You are quoting Provan as part of an argument. Yes you are bringing up his point.

f) Read what I wrote earlier. The people at the time viewed this as birth control. Today we would view it as abortion. The definition of birth control vs. abortion change over the centuries.

g) Yes the social purity movement was Protestant, with prominent Protestant theologians. As an aside the German social purity movement was Catholic and also pro birth control (though admittedly in supported birth control as an alternative to sterilization).

George and Mary Craigan — Preached on birth control as leading to spiritual perfection
Luciana Umphreville — All carnality including giving birth was sinful
John Henry Noyes — Discourages sex, marriage and procreation seeing them all as from the devil.
Erasmus Stone — Who supported spiritual wifery (semi-polgamy). Marriage was financial / procreative not sexual.
Hiriam Sheldon — Same

I could keep going and going and going.

As for what Quiverful has to say… generally they play the “well those people don’t agree with me on sexual theology”. So their claim of 19th century Protestants just becomes a claim that “19th century Protestants that didn’t believe in birth control didn’t believe in birth control”.

h) Actually I’ve named a 1/2 dozen groups that disprove his historical claims. He claimed such people didn’t exist.

i) Luther, Calvin and Wesley were opposed to birth control. I don’t disagree with you on that. Point conceded.

j) I agree they are authoritative. If people like Lyn did believe in the “teachings of men” them having been in the anti-contraception camp would be very troublesome. Further anyone who is free to disagree with them on this issue becomes free to disagree on others. Hence my point that Protestantism has methodological but not doctrinal content.

k) I am using mainstream accepting for judging the existence of theological positions. “Correctness” is not an objective criteria. If “orthodoxy” is to mean anything objective it means what is widely believed. Otherwise there is just rampant personal judgement. In other words what is seen as orthodox is orthodox.

If you want to feel free to use non-objective criteria, then I’ll just declare all statements against birth control backwards in time to be heretical and thus freely discount them while declaring all statements in support of it to be orthodox and thus considering them church history. You will declare the opposite and there is nothing to say.

l.) Wow I’m not sure these forums even exist anymore. A lot of the stuff surrounding Doug Phillips. When CREC was breaking away I was talking to people on both sides.

m.) I don’t understand what you are even saying here. I think some words are missing.

n) If you mean I destroyed sola scriptura as pointing to specific doctrine on this, I agree.

o) Sola Scriptura is highly dependent on how you weigh evidence. Scripture doesn’t provide a guide to weighing evidence. Focus on law and morality the old testament, you end up with Judaizing sects. Focus on Romans and John you end up where Luther did. Focus on Revelations and Daniel and you are where Ellen White was.

p) Actually no the comments about Catholics are not irrelevent. Because you are about to suggest the superiority of a magisterium as a solution to the problem of sola scriptura. If the supposed solution still produces the same symptoms…

p.) Your last point about Catholic opinions on this matter are completely off-base and irrelevant:
“Catholics are all over the map on whether procreative sex is more or less sinful than non-procreative sex.”

As for your misguided and false accusations -“Sola Scriptura” Lyn? Really? Sounds like someone’s “playing footsy” with falliable men and their teaching, don’t it? Sounds like someone’s been doing a whole lot of “wasting my time researching what fallible men believe,” don’t it?”- I reiterate…my reference was in the understanding of the doctrines of grace and the study of soteriology, NOT birth control, which is a secondary issue. This is why I read the Reformers and Puritans writings, who uphold the doctrines of grace, because if the foundation concerning salvation is not right, essential doctrines will not be correct, doctrines such as sanctification, regeneration, total depravity, limited atonement, eternal security. As for what Calvin believed to be true concerning a non-essential issue such as birth control, it is irrelevant when it comes to the salvation of a soul and the growing in Christ-likeness. His view on birth control does not hinder my spiritual growth, his teaching on the five solas as well as tulip is spot on when it comes to getting right what is absolutely essential…the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You have a misguided understanding of what true unity within the body of Christ actually is…it isn’t adhering to believing what a church as a whole tells you to believe on matters that again, are secondary. The true body of Christ differs on issues such as eschatology, but that doesn’t mean we are not one. It isn’t our views that unite us, it is the Spirit of God and Christ Himself that unites us through His saving power and understanding of His commands for His people. Love and humility are the ties that bind believers to our Great Shepherd, not upholding church tradition.

a.) Saint Birgitta was actually from the 14th Century

b.) She was never considered a theologian during or after her life

c.) She was not Protestant

d.) I am not the one bringing up the issue of “orthodox (Protestant) theologians” – it is the late, Protestant scholar, Charles Provan (d. 2007). He (nor I) consider St. Birgitta a theologian.

e.) I am not the one asserting that “we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900′s. NOT ONE!” – it is the late, Protestant scholar, Charles Provan (d. 2007) who did so.

f.) We are discussing birth control not abortion.

g.) Was the “social purity movement” a Protestant-led or affiliated movement? Did prominent Protestant theologians publicly support it? If so, which ones? If not, this point is irrelevant. What does Quiverfull have to say on this matter?

h.) Nothing you have presented so far undermines Charles Provan’s historical claims at all, thus you haven’t proven anything.

i.) You made no attempt to undermine his Luther, Calvin or Wesley quotes. Even if you did discredit Provan’s “Protestant theologians” claim (which you didn’t, so far), you still have left standing Luther’s, Calvin’s and Wesley’s comments.

j.) Not undermining Luther’s and Calvin’s comments is actually a significant problem for you, because according to you (see your previous post): “Luther and Calvin…….you can’t get more authoritative than that for Protestants”

k.) You appear to be using “mainstream acceptance” as a criteria for judging the correctness of a theological position. Surely you’re joking. Leaving moral theologogy to the whims of the masses, like in Noah’s time, or Sodom and Gomorrah, or Nineveh, are we?

l.) In what forum did you argue with Quivefull? I’m sure you did, but I’d like to see the transcript, and how they responded. Perhaps you did prevail there.

m.) You think you are reinforcing “sola scriptura”:
“In terms of your broader point, of sola scriptura I’d say I’m reinforcing it not undermining it.”

n.) In reality, you actual destroyed it, in your very next sentence:
“I’m presenting a bunch of sola scriptura Protestants that believed that abortion was acceptable, some even a moral necessity; which of course almost all conservatives Protestants would disagree with today.”

o.) How can some Protestants, using sola scriptura, arrive at the conclusion that abortion is acceptable, but other Protestants, using sola scriptura, arrive at the exact opposite conclusion? As I said before, “The exact same methodology (sola scriptura) is used by both parties, but the exact opposite conclusion is obtained.”

p.) Your last point about Catholic opinions on this matter are completely off-base and irrelevant:
“Catholics are all over the map on whether procreative sex is more or less sinful than non-procreative sex.”

What individual Catholics believe or practice is not at all relevant to the teaching of the Church or the underlying theology of the issue – no more than what the city folk of Nineveh in Jonah’s time thought about their sin. Can you cite any Catholic theologian who thinks procreative sex is sinful?

@Lyn said:

“What others believe concerning birth control is secondary, much like eschatology. The primary concern I have is defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Roman Catholic church has made a mockery of.”

But the underlying issue is Sola Scriptura. If Sola Scriptura fails so miserably on the issue of Birth Control (and according to CD.Host, also fails on abortion), then where does that leave you?

If you claim Sola Scriptura is true, then you must condemn those (using your own logic, standards, and words) who claim that Birth Control is sinful, and this includes Luther, Calvin and Wesley, just like you have condemned the Catholc Church who holds the exact same position as these guys using the exact same reasoning. You must be consistent here. You simply must.

Lyn,

You say:
“I see no point in wasting my time researching what fallible men believe”

However, in a previous posting, you stated:
“That is why sola Scriptura was the cry of the Reformation”

Also, when I click on the link (that corresponds to your name hi-lighted), I see many references to “falliable men” and their teaching there, such as:

“….as I read ‘The Doctrines of Grace’ by Dr. Boice, I realize Calvinism is the only correct biblical view; it all depends on how you view God’s glory and His grace. Let’s look at what Dr. Boice has to say…”

“….If it weren’t for men like Watson, Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle, and in these days men like MacArthur, Washer, Boice, Lawson, and Begg, I would never have learned the deeper truths of God. I have never been ‘fed’ in my church life, ever. The Bible is the sole source yes, but, hearing it properly expounded is essential in growth: this is rare in our day. I found this quote from David Wells’ book ‘God in the Wasteland, the Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams’…..”

“…..However, the deepest and most significant thinking ever done on the subject of the will and its impotence was by Jonathan Edwards in a treatise called ‘A Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Prevailing Notions of the Freedom of the Will’…..”

“Sola Scriptura” Lyn? Really? Sounds like someone’s “playing footsy” with falliable men and their teaching, don’t it?

Sounds like someone’s been doing a whole lot of “wasting my time researching what fallible men believe,” don’t it?

These guys you believe, but you reject/dismiss Luther, Calvin and Wesley (the ones who originated the “crying” of “Sola Scriptura”)? Really?

You actually state that “I realize Calvinism is the only correct biblical view” but yet you reject his view of Onan, Genesis 38, and birth control? Wait a minute now, there’s a major contradiction here.

You are going down rabbit trails to try and discredit what some protestants do or do not believe, again, this is secondary compared to the most vital truth found in God’s word…the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the gift of eternal life given by God according to whom He chooses, all by His grace for His glory. What are you trusting in on that final day Jerry D.?

I disproved (b) for you. I gave you a theologian from the 13th century whom you consider orthodox.

You want Protestants, OK I’ll give you the Americans. Americans until well into the 19th century held that birth control, mostly what we would today call abortion, was legitimate until “quickening” (externally feel-able movement) which was about the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy. There was in fact encouragement the entire social purity movement considered birthing bastard children a far greater sin than either birth control or abortion, and encouraged prostitutes or distressed young women to abort.

This opinion only started to change in the US around the 1850s when abortions started being about 1/5th of all pregnancy. I think you can argue that American Protestant theologians became opposed when it was obvious that Protestant women were regulating family size much more-so than Catholic women. Groups like woman’s Klan was pro-eugenics for other races and Catholics, but most Protestants didn’t want to take such openly racist positions so they argued the issue wasn’t race but the inherent immorality of birth control….

So no, I don’t agree with your (Charles Provan’s) historical claims at all. Unless the writer is going to play the game of defining “orthodox” to be “people who agree with me”. But by any neutral definition like wide mainstream acceptance (b) is false.

As an aside I have argued against Quiverfull people before on their history.

_____

In terms of your broader point, of sola scriptura I’d say I’m reinforcing it not undermining it. I’m presenting a bunch of sola scriptura Protestants that believed that abortion was acceptable, some even a moral necessity; which of course almost all conservatives Protestants would disagree with today. I just disagree with your specific point of fact.

However, you aren’t on any better ground than they on sexual issues. Certainly on birth control the church is pretty consistent. Catholics are all over the map on whether procreative sex is more or less sinful than non-procreative sex. Or even how sinful marital sexuality is. Conversely Protestant don’t view marital sexuality as sinful.

You cannot prove the cited work (not my work, I’m just the messenger) wrong by citing Catholic writers.

The claims made (not my claims, btw) are that

a. Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all condemned non-procreative sex (as their own quotations clearly demonstrate). To disprove that they believed this, you must disprove the accuracy of that reference OR bring forth a later reference which indicates that they changed their position. CIting what Catholic saints believed is completely irrelevant as to what Luther, Calvin and Wesley believed.

b. “We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900′s. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it.” It’s easy to show that this statement is false (if it is false) if you can find “one orthodox (Protestant) theologian before 1900″ that defends Birth Control OR if you cannot find several “high-regarded Protestant theologians who enthusiastically opposed it (before 1900)”.

In both cases, you should start by picking apart the research of Protestant scholar, Charles Provan. who in 1989 published the book, “The Bible and Birth Control”. While Mr. Cowan is now deceased, there are many Protestants who share his view (and the views of Luther, Calvin and Wesley) on this matter. Suggest you challenge them at Quivefull.dot.com or SWRB.dot.com.

In any case, please keep in mind that this all boils down to a debate between some Protestants who use sola scriptura to conclude that Birth Control is horribly sinful, and some other Protestants who also use sola scriptura to conclude that Birth Control is not (per se) immoral or sinful. Note: The exact same methodology (sola scriptura) is used by both parties, but the exact opposite conclusion is obtained.

With most kind Regards.

We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900′s. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it.”

Baloney. In fact I’ll do you one better, I’ll pick one from your team. Saint Birgitta in her vision of Anne and Joachim procreative sex is a result of the fall. Procreation is sin, “When the couple comes to the bed, my Spirit leaves them immediately and the spirit of impurity approaches instead because they only come together for the sake of lust and do not discuss or think about anything else with each other.”

Children of God should not be born through sex but rather, “Seventh, they beget sons and daughters for their God through their good behavior and good example and through the preaching of spiritual words. ”

And frankly Jerome breached something similar that God partially redeems the sin of procreation via. implanting souls (revelation 1.26). For example when she describes the consumation that led to the birth of Mary,

When an angel revealed to them that they would give birth to the Virgin from whom the salvation of the world would come, they would rather have died than to come together in carnal love; lust was dead in them. I assure you that when they did come together, it was because of divine love and because of the angel’s message, not out of carnal desire, but against their will and out of a holy love for God.

Where Augustine disagreed was arguing that the sin was the procreative act (sex), not procreation, “use but do not enjoy”. But the minority position best expressed by Birgitta and certainly well by Jerome led to a whole subgroup on this matter that would have and did rejected the idea that procreative sex was to be preferred over non-procreative. Sex was

The inquisition goes after anti-procreative preaching in later centuries since it is (usually rightfully) associated with Catharism or spin off sects. In terms of sexuality both Luther and Calvin challenged Catholic views on sexuality, you can’t get more authoritative than that for Protestants. After that the reformers are mainly coming from the left both in terms of Protestantism and Catholicism.

If you want to get more recent, since you are using the 1900 as a cutoff, in the early 19th century you would find both left wing Jacobin and right wing Napoleonic Catholics rejecting the Augustinian view. Both would have asserted that laws governing marriage came from the state not from the church. To conservatives sacramental marriage led to youngsters marrying for sexual attraction and hence divorce. The church in sanctifying procreative activities based on sex, and not on proper exchanges of contract and property by parents was sanctioning immorality.

So no. Just not true at all. The truth is much more complex.

I will provide you with a link to their writings, but as a back-up I’ll also repost them below (I know the moderator for this site will not be able to object to the content, but just in case). Please share your thoughts on these misguided men when you get a chance. Please enjoy! Thank you.

Here’s the link:
http://www.thinkchastity.com/aProtestantisx.html

Here’s relevant content from the link:
“It’s time to look at how Protestant’s throughout history have viewed sex deliberately made non-
procreative. Let’s start at the beginning…

(Note: I owe much credit to the research of Protestant scholar, Charles Provan. In 1989 Mr.
Provan published a book, The Bible and Birth Control. Most of his research into historical
Protestant views on this subject came from reading commentaries on Genesis 38, in which
Onan, who married his deceased brother’s wife to fulfill his familial obligation, withdrew from her
during intercourse rather than impregnate her. God then killed Onan.)

Martin Luther and John Calvin are recognized as fathers of the Reformation.

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) – “Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel.
This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it
unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and
copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman
conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be
followed.”

John Calvin (1509 to 1564) – 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.

Also, John Wesley is recognized as the founder of the Methodism.

John Wesley (1703 to 1791) – “Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great
abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone,
refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very
displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did
displeased the Lord – And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very
thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant
leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical,
Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non-
procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated,
“We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth
Control before the 1900′s. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly
regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it.”

Again, I consider anything that is contrary to sound doctrine a dead religion, a faulty belief, false, erroneous, etc.

Consider the case of someone I know who used to be Catholic, but became a Protestant. Although a Protestant, he considers any non-procreative sex act (even inside marriage) to be horribly sinful, even more sinful than adultery. His view is actually officially shared by the particular Protestant church he belongs to. He and the Protestant church he belongs actually claim their view is based on the Bible (sola scriptura).

Thus, my questions to you are:

1. Would you shun and avoid this person? If not, why not? (your quotes: “As I already stated, the Bible is silent on birth control” and “those who claim the Bible states birth control is sinful are in error”)

2. Do you consider this person’s Protestant church a “dead religion” since they too state birth control is sinful based on sola scripture? If not, why not?

Thank you.

As for #2, those who claim the Bible states birth control is sinful are in error and should be corrected. If they cannot argue rightly from God’s word, they should be shunned and avoided.

As for #3, stating birth control is sinful is not the only reason Roman Catholicism is a dead religion, it is one of many.

You are using a Catholic standard and arguing that Protestantism fails to fulfill it. Protestantism is a meta-denomination it doesn’t have much doctrinal content. Catholicism in general (western and eastern rite) also has limited content, though certainly more than Protestantism.

To get to actual doctrinal content you need to go at least one level deeper. In the case of Catholicism to Western Rite Catholicism i.e. Roman Catholicism. In the case of Protestantism you can get limited content at the denominational level and to get specific you often need to go to the individual level.

That may sound bad from a Catholic perspective. On the other hand, if we use the United States as an example… Protestant individuals tend to broadly agree with their church on most doctrinal issues to much greater degree than Catholics do. The data on self proclaimed Catholics and their attitude towards church doctrine in the last 50 years are rather negative and it is starting to be reflecting in widespread refusal to even do the minimums like marriage or baptism of children in the church. I’m not sure why if given the choice:

(a) Individuals belong to a denomination with highly structured beliefs that they reject
(b) Individuals belong to a denomination with moderately structured beliefs that they accept.

You are arguing that (a) is so much superior to (b).

The fact is a Protestant who is looking for a church that has rigid doctrinal content covering most areas of life can find one. A Protestant looking for a church that has rigid doctrinal content covering most areas of theology can find one. Those things are available. But most Protestants to hold to sola scriptura as vital. The catholic position in practice (though not in theory) is prima ecclesia.

____

As far as the doctrine of Mary I think this explicates the basic church issue.

There is evidence of a very expansive Marion theology very early in some sects of Christianity. Identifications of Mary with Sophia are common in 2nd century literature. And of course in Collyridian Christianity Mary was a full fledged member of the Godhead. Obviously docetic sects have more room for a elevated Mary than those that emphasized the full humanity of Jesus. When the books were selected for the canon those that had an elevated role for women tended not to be selected. So the canon does not have much of a Mariology.

Irenaeus certainly taught something like the current Roman Catholic position, But I think it is fair to say that Mary’s extensive role, as it exists in Western Rite Catholicism primary comes from the 4th century virginity movement and Ambrose. If one accepts Ambrose (mostly) then one should be Catholic so I’m not sure how this whole divergence into essentially prima ecclesia helps your case on Mary.

Just to clarify, you said that the Bible is silent on the issue of birth control, and thus it is a decision to be made by a married couple. To be consistent though, you must also endorse the following three obvious implications of your position here:

1. Birth Control is NOT immoral or sinful, or if it is sinful, it is nonetheless allowable/tolerated for any married Christian who is already saved.

2. Any person who asserts that the Bible condemns Birth Control, either explicitly or implicitly, is adding to the the Word of God, and should not be taken seriously (in accordance with your logic in your 1/12/2012 post: “No one here will take you serious if the word of God doesn’t back your story.”)

3. Any religion (or person) which condemns birth control as sinful is a dead religion (or believes in a dead religion), since they are adding to the Word of God (in accordance with your logic in your 1/13/2012 post: “This is why your dead religion is worthless, it is based on man’s work, man’s tradition, adding to the finished work of Christ thus making it null and void”)

These are all obvious and fair implications of your posistion, are they not?

As for birth control, the Bible is silent on this issue, so it must be a decision made between a husband and wife. The Bible also tells us about the flood, so whatever denominations teach, if it doesn’t line up with God’s word, it is to be rejected. That is why sola Scriptura was the cry of the Reformation, and still is to those who hold to God’s word as the sole authoritative and only source of truth.

Can one potestant church state that “homosexuality” is morally acceptable, and another say that it is an abomination, and both be correct?

Can one potestant church state that Noah and the Flood is a fable, and another say that it is a literal fact, and both be correct?

Can one potestant church state that “birth control” is morally acceptable, and another say that it is sinful, and both be correct?

According to you, can the Lord accept and save all people who believieth onto Him, regardless of how accurately or inaccurately they interpret the Gospel, regardless if they lives their lives in a most sinful manner?