A dialogue with a sola scriptura Guy


so with the different sects having differing rules on practicing gay clergy, which one is right especially since they all believe the bible allows them to do what they preach.

is this a ss issue or not and if not why



Of course it isn’t an SS issue. Where in scripture is homosexuality permitted? This is an issue of secular progressivism overriding scripture.


who says it isn’t scripture. some have interpreted homosexuality as only fornication and those in a ssm justified


[quote=“MichaelP3, post:29, topic:460751, full:true”]

I always saw the Apochrypha as an admin (yet still problematic when "infallibly’ declared) issue![/quote]

Admin? What do you mean by that?

What does it reaĺly change. I am aware of the most popular part in Macc. but that doesn’t really do it.

Doesn’t do what?

I’m afraid you’re being a bit vague for me to understand what you mean. The question I asked is a simple yes or no, question. Do Lutherans believe that the Apocrypha is the inspired word of God? Yes or no?


Hm? What’s the difference?

belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.
"Huss was burned for heresy"
synonyms: dissension, dissent, nonconformity, heterodoxy, unorthodoxy, apostasy, blasphemy, freethinking; More

I’ve always considered them synonyms.

Merriam Webster
heresy Synonyms
dissent, dissidence, heterodoxy, nonconformity

Yes. And yes. The only final norm, in this case.

Glad we agree.

No. And they consider them disputed such that they cannot be used as a primary source for doctrine.

So, although they include them in the Bible, they wouldn’t call them the Word of God. Right?



I don’t really know what that exercise got me, but thanks for your honesty. Bye.


Chapter and verse, please.


I would, but they might not, particularly when read from the lectern.


How about a pleasant exchange between two people of God. :grinning:


Before my conversion I was Episcopalian and the priest told me that a lot of children and babies died back then and so homosexuality was only wrong in “those times”, since people needed to have as many children as possible. And he said he thinks and hopes the EP church will end up
On the “right side of history”. Can you believe that?! And it’s what clergy in the EP are being taught. So I don’t have a chapter and verse but they are feeling free to re-interpret scripture to suit OUR times. With no doctrine on faith and morals in line with God’s Law that can NEVER change, and no Authority to interpret the scriptures, they can do what they want to…that’s a major reason my family converted. There can’t be all of these versions of truth, only one can be right and it has to be the one that has been there from the beginning and has never changed.


they say the words in Romans 1:26-27 or 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10, do not include today’s ssm relationships. they say if it was meant to be taken as we understand it paul would have used different wording?

so who is interpreting it wrong?

without an authority how do we know who is right and who is wrong?


Doesn’t work. Someone still needs to interpret in order to determine and establish the norm.


Yes, I agree with this. I studied 2 years in the LCMS Church and Luther’s small Catechism was used for confirmation. The Small Catechism itself is named after Luther and his interpretation of the number of Sacraments, Faith alone etc based on the Bible. There is no way around the fact t he Bible needs to be interpreted by someone to define doctrine for each denomination or Stand alone Church.

The Concord book was used for Ordination. This is one HUGE book, (larger than the Catholic Catechism :)) Reader beware, it is NOT Catholic friendly. The LCMS people I met were wonderful Christ Centered people.


One of the problems I have with Sola Scriptura is it is unfair to the illiterate. If you can’t read, how are you supposed to arrive at the Truth?
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the printing press coincided with the Prostestant Reformation.


This could be an issue if a group misinterprets Sola Scriptura as private interpretation.


That’s why it’s s practice of the Church


Then they are adding something to it that isn’t there. That is clearly eisegesis, and not a sola scriptura practice.


And clearly they are imposing a modern secular progressive philosophy onto scripture.
That’s not sola scriptura. In fact, aren’t they saying scripture should be ignored on the issue because of the social norms of the time? It is quite the opposite of sola scriptura


Sorry, did that sound kind of abrupt? I just got to the end of that line of inquiry and realized that I didn’t have anything left to say. Oops! :sweat_smile:


No worries. I understand. :+1:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.