# Contraception; The Vindication of Humanae Vitae



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 21, 2008)

A good friend of mine just tipped me off to an article broaching this subject in First Things on the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI.

The Vindication of Humanae Vitae
by Mary Eberstadt

Copyright (c) 2008 First Things (August/September 2008).

Gives us a lot to think about.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 21, 2008)

Sad that Papists are more biblical on this issue than many so-called protestants. As Martin Luther said, "conception is the work of God", and "he who does not love children is a blockhead."

Cheers,

Adam





Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> A good friend of mine just tipped me off to an article broaching this subject in First Things on the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI.
> 
> The Vindication of Humanae Vitae
> by Mary Eberstadt
> ...


----------



## Davidius (Jul 21, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Sad that Papists are more biblical on this issue than many so-called protestants. As Martin Luther said, "conception is the work of God", and "he who does not love children is a blockhead."
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam



I don't see what either of Luther's quotes have to do with the issue of contraception in itself.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 21, 2008)

The first Luther quote belies a belief in the providential hand of God in when you will and when you will not become pregnant. It is an excellent quote for this discussion In my humble opinion.


----------



## Davidius (Jul 21, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The first Luther quote belies a belief in the providential hand of God in when you will and when you will not become pregnant. It is an excellent quote for this discussion In my humble opinion.



Don't get me wrong - I appreciated the article. I also thought that the second quote from Luther was a sentimental straw man at best, and, used in this context, a bearing of false witness against brothers at worst.


----------



## Jon Peters (Jul 21, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The first Luther quote belies a belief in the providential hand of God in when you will and when you will not become pregnant. It is an excellent quote for this discussion In my humble opinion.



We are to trust God providentially for our food and clothing, right? Does this mean I don't need a job? Or does God use my employment to bring about his providential will?

There may be good arguments for contraception, but claiming that to use contraception is to not trust in God's providential hand doesn't quite seem right, at least not as a blanket accusation.

I would assume, as well, that you would be opposed to any "natural" form of birth control, correct?

Sorry if I am misunderstanding your position.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 21, 2008)

Would you say prophylactics and cars perform the same purpose? 

Absurd right? Well so is comparing your work to intercourse.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jul 21, 2008)

In recent years my wife and I came to the possition that we would not use contracepives. It was not a possition I came to easily and I certainly don't bludgeon brethren that think differently over the head with it. 

I will say that my father finds it immprudent but he and I don't see eye to eye on many things. 

My wife and I are currently expecting our third child. We're both 40 years old and are absolutely jazzed.

Still as I said, I don't make a hugemongous deal out of the whole thing. I wouldn't beat anyone up over it. Though I believe it to be the biblical way.


----------



## Jon Peters (Jul 21, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Would you say prophylactics and cars perform the same purpose?
> 
> Absurd right? Well so is comparing your work to intercourse.



This is your response? Okay. Case closed.

But, just in case it's not...Your argument was that an accurate understanding of God's providence would forbid the use of contraceptives, right? Well, does this view of providence hold true for other areas? If I have no food in the cupboard, do I pray and wait in my lazy boy, or do I go earn some money to buy some food?

Your question re: cars is rather silly, so forgive me if I don't offer a response.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 21, 2008)

Nowhere in the Bible are we instructed not to use contraceptives. Nowhere in the Bible is the wrongness of birth control even implied. Thus anyone claiming birth control is a "sin" is basing that on their own opinion and assumptions rather than the written Word. 

Jon Peters is exactly right in his analogy to work: as Paul said, "if I don't work I don't eat." God gave us a brain with the ability to plan for the future. He expects us to use it accordingly...


----------



## Davidius (Jul 21, 2008)

The mantra that you will see used by those against all forms of contraception is that "God opens and closes the womb." In the Old Testament this language is not used to describe specific instances of pregnancy for healthy women. Some women can bear children, and others can't. God says that he makes some women barren and allows others to have children. The language used for this in the narrative passages of the Pentateuch and in the prophets is "opening and closing the womb." I don't believe that this warrants a view of conception that disallows for natural processes interwoven by God into our biology, and for this reason I certainly don't believe that the above principle can be used in a discussion of family planning. It simply isn't what is being talked about in these OT instances. 

Furthermore, we talk a lot about confessionalism on this board, and I don't think that some should be allowed to question others' rectitude based on highly speculative interpretations of particular passages. Believers who come to fellowship here and subscribe in good faith to our accepted standards shouldn't have to deal with being called out for sin on an unconfessional issue.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jul 21, 2008)

Davidius said:


> It still boggles my mind how intelligent Christians on this board could take a statement such as "It is God who opens and closes the womb" to mean that pregnancy is something that magically happens by an immediate action of God on an individual, one that is not at all tied to empirically observable and scientifically understandable natural processes, and that to circumvent it for a time is to defy God Himself. Yes, God opens and closes the womb. If you look at the way this language is used in the Old Testament, it _clearly_ has reference to God making some women barren and allowing others to have the _ability_ to conceive. It has _nothing_ to do with the individual opportunities of conception for a healthy woman. It has nothing to do with "trusting God" in the area of family planning and provision. The fact of the matter is that we know how pregnancy works. God gives us children in the same way He gives us basically everything in life, through secondary causes, natural processes, and our own use of our talents, abilities, etc. The bible is absolutely silent on this question, and I am absolutely tired of this non-biblical, _non-confessional_ (for those of you who are very concerned about this being a confessional board) issue being one for which some here are allowed to call others sinners.




Not trying to start a fight brother, but I haven't seen anyone here call anyone else a sinner. 

This is a touchy issue and their are opportunities for misunderstanding on both sides. It can get a bit heated at times.

I certainly wouldn't beat any of my brethren up over it.


----------



## Davidius (Jul 21, 2008)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > It still boggles my mind how intelligent Christians on this board could take a statement such as "It is God who opens and closes the womb" to mean that pregnancy is something that magically happens by an immediate action of God on an individual, one that is not at all tied to empirically observable and scientifically understandable natural processes, and that to circumvent it for a time is to defy God Himself. Yes, God opens and closes the womb. If you look at the way this language is used in the Old Testament, it _clearly_ has reference to God making some women barren and allowing others to have the _ability_ to conceive. It has _nothing_ to do with the individual opportunities of conception for a healthy woman. It has nothing to do with "trusting God" in the area of family planning and provision. The fact of the matter is that we know how pregnancy works. God gives us children in the same way He gives us basically everything in life, through secondary causes, natural processes, and our own use of our talents, abilities, etc. The bible is absolutely silent on this question, and I am absolutely tired of this non-biblical, _non-confessional_ (for those of you who are very concerned about this being a confessional board) issue being one for which some here are allowed to call others sinners.
> ...



You're right, and I don't want to be the cause of things heating up, so I edited my post and tried to make it more neutral.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 21, 2008)

I've stood on both sides of this debate a various times, but I tend to agree with David and Mason now. There is no sin in using our God-given intellect to plan the growth of our families in accord with our abilities to properly parent more or fewer children as the case may be at particular times.


----------



## Jon Peters (Jul 21, 2008)

Brad said:


> I've stood on both sides of this debate a various times, but I tend to agree with David and Mason now. There is no sin in using our God-given intellect to plan the growth of our families in accord with our abilities to properly parent more or fewer children as the case may be at particular times.



Like you, I have been on both sides as well. Like many things, the use of contraceptions depends on the motivations and intents of the person using it. It is not always wrong, but neither is it always right.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jul 21, 2008)

There are two issues that need to be settled with this topic. 

First is regarding control - is it permissible for man to control (or attempt to control) the size of his quiver. Must all people everywhere have as many children as possible never preventing conception minus abstinence or else violate a moral law?

Answer this one first then move on to the second:

Second is regarding _types_ of control. Is abstinence, medication, abortifacients, coitus interruptus or Barrier methods permissible?


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 21, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Sad that Papists are more biblical on this issue than many so-called protestants. As Martin Luther said, "conception is the work of God", and "he who does not love children is a blockhead."
> ...



Davidius,

Sorry, let me see if I can find the full quote from Luther. Here's a related quotation:

"Fertility was regarded as an extraordinary blessing and a special gift of God, as is clear from Deut. 28:4, where Moses numbers fertility among the blessings. 'There will not be a barren woman among you,' he says (cf.Ex.23:26). We do not regard this so highly today. Although we like and desire it in cattle, yet in the human race there are few who regard a woman's fertility as a blessing. Indeed, there are many who have an aversion for it and regard sterility as a special blessing. Surely this is also contrary to nature. Much less is it pious and saintly. For this affection has been implanted by God in man's nature, so that it desires its increase and multiplication. Accordingly, it is inhuman and godless to have a loathing for offspring. Thus someone recently called his wife a sow, since she gave birth rather often. The good for nothing and impure fellow! The saintly fathers did not feel like this at all; for they acknowledged a fruitful wife as a special blessing of God and, on the other hand, regarded sterility as a curse. And this judgment flowed from the Word of God in Gen. 1:28, where He said: 'Be fruitful and multiply.' From this they understood that children are a gift of God." (Luther's Works, Vol.5, p.325).

One may also puruse the comments of Calvin on Genesis 38:8-10.

As for a comment made about working vs. trusting in God's provision, let me say this.

Scripture compares the begetting of children and the reception of such as the receiving of a reward, and as a great treasure. As such, the analogy about "working and trusting God's providence" is misstated. Rather, the analogy should be to compare a man who works, and yet does not want to receive his reward: his wages. He works and works, but then tells his employer "I know I've been working very hard, but I don't want to be paid for this week. I've had too much reward, and I want to limit my reward, to make sure I'm a good steward of my reward."

This is the analogy properly stated, since Scripture clearly calls children a reward, just as a laborer is rewarded for his labors with money.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 21, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> As for a comment made about working vs. trusting in God's provision, let me say this.
> 
> Scripture compares the begetting of children and the reception of such as the receiving of a reward, and as a great treasure. As such, the analogy about "working and trusting God's providence" is misstated. Rather, the analogy should be to compare a man who works, and yet does not want to receive his reward: his wages. He works and works, but then tells his employer "I know I've been working very hard, but I don't want to be paid for this week. I've had too much reward, and I want to limit my reward, to make sure I'm a good steward of my reward."
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone is arguing children aren't a blessing - clearly they are. But the question is should we decide when and in what circumstances we have children. I would argue yes, we should follow God's will regarding the timing of children just as we follow Him for any other decision in life. For some people that means using no birth control methods at all and having 10 kids, all of which are a complete "surprise." For others it means using birth control except for one specific time when God calls them to have a child. 

What I disagree with is the idea that not using birth control is "better" or more spiritually insightful. I see no Biblical basis for this whatsoever...


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 21, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing children aren't a blessing - clearly they are. But the question is should we decide when and in what circumstances we have children. I would argue yes, we should follow God's will regarding the timing of children just as we follow Him for any other decision in life. For some people that means using no birth control methods at all and having 10 kids, all of which are a complete "surprise." For others it means using birth control except for one specific time when God calls them to have a child.
> 
> What I disagree with is the idea that not using birth control is "better" or more spiritually insightful. I see no Biblical basis for this whatsoever...




Mason,

Do you think that being fruitful is a moral commandment, or is optional? The reason that I ask is that I have met reformed people who believe that there is nothing morally wrong with preventing "being fruitful and multiplying", whereas the traditional view (and I would argue is biblical) is that preventing/seeking to control "fruitfulness" is wrong on many levels.

Also, do you think my analogy is incorrect with regard to preventing children would be like preventing being rewarded for one's work?

Cheers,


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 21, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Do you think that being fruitful is a moral commandment, or is optional? The reason that I ask is that I have met reformed people who believe that there is nothing morally wrong with preventing "being fruitful and multiplying", whereas the traditional view (and I would argue is biblical) is that preventing/seeking to control "fruitfulness" is wrong on many levels.
> 
> Also, do you think my analogy is incorrect with regard to preventing children would be like preventing being rewarded for one's work?



Being fruitful and multiplying _is_ a moral commandment. My wife and I will have kids one day (God willing), and will probably adopt others. That is upholding that moral law. But God did not tell Adam and Eve, nor does He tell us, to procreate all the time as often as possible. He also says nothing about preventing conception during certain times and seasons in our lives. So a believer can certainly uphold the moral command to be fruitful and at the same time use birth control - not having children at a specific time is not the same as being fruitless. 

And with all due respect, no, I do not believe your analogy is the correct one. Certainly children are a gift and a reward, but God is under no obligation to grant them as a reward; such thinking is moralistic at best. The decision regarding when to bear offspring is just like any other major decision in life, such as a new job, a career, a spouse, a re-location, etc. We are active in the decision-making process as we follow God's will in all of those areas - I fail to see how child-bearing is any different...


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 21, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> And with all due respect, no, I do not believe your analogy is the correct one. Certainly children are a gift and a reward, but God is under no obligation to grant them as a reward; such thinking is moralistic at best. The decision regarding when to bear offspring is just like any other major decision in life, such as a new job, a career, a spouse, a re-location, etc. We are active in the decision-making process as we follow God's will in all of those areas - I fail to see how child-bearing is any different...



Mason,

Thanks for interacting on this important issue.

Do you consider the Old Testament's promises which God Himself made to be moralistic?

Deuteronomy 28:1 And it shall come to pass, *if* thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, *to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day*, that *the LORD thy God will* set thee on high above all nations of the earth: 2 And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God. 3 Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. 4 Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. 5 Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store.


In light of this, and many more passages which could be multiplied from Scripture, do you think it's really moralistic to expect God to make us to multiply in food, clothing, little ones, etc. if we obey His commandments? For instance, if God promises long life if we honor our father and mother, is it moralistic to expect God to fulfill His free promise? 

The point I was making with my analogy is that it is hypocritical to say that we will limit God in one area of blessing without consistently asking Him to limit our blessings in other areas. If we only want a modest amount of reward, perhaps we should pray for poverty, or ask our boss not to reward us for the work we do. Otherwise, we're picking and choosing where we want our blessings. That was all I intended to say.

Further, God promises to bless us in all areas if we fear Him and walk in His ways. And, He threatens to curse us in all areas if we disobey Him. I don't think this is moralism, I think it's the Bible.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 21, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> In light of this, and many more passages which could be multiplied from Scripture, do you think it's really moralistic to expect God to make us to multiply in food, clothing, little ones, etc. if we obey His commandments? For instance, if God promises long life if we honor our father and mother, is it moralistic to expect God to fulfill His free promise?
> 
> The point I was making with my analogy is that it is hypocritical to say that we will limit God in one area of blessing without consistently asking Him to limit our blessings in other areas. If we only want a modest amount of reward, perhaps we should pray for poverty, or ask our boss not to reward us for the work we do. Otherwise, we're picking and choosing where we want our blessings. That was all I intended to say.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your posts as well, Adam.

Being moralistic is assuming that _every_ blessing _must_ be a reward for a good walk with the Lord, while _every_ trial _must_ be a punishment for straying from Him. This way of thinking views the Lord as obligated to reward our good works and punish the bad - this was the very mistake Job's friends made. While the Lord generally blesses those who walk with Him, there are many variations and degrees and many differences in timing. In short, to walk with the Lord for the purpose of receiving material or earthly reward is moralistic. I'm not accusing you of believing that, Adam, but I do believe that is what your analogy implies.

But even if I agree that your analogy is appropriate, it really doesn't impact to how we view this issue. I am looking forward to having children, and my wife currently has "baby fever" - we definitely consider children gifts and we anticipate them. But I still fail to see how anticipating kids precludes birth control. We both realize this isn't the best time for kids (for many reasons), though we do want them, and will one day have kids if the Lord allows. I don't see where this is limiting any blessing. And I don't see where this violates or is at odds with any Biblical concept.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 21, 2008)

Mason,

I think we are at an impasse, and may have to amicably agree to disagree. See comments below.



ColdSilverMoon said:


> Being moralistic is assuming that _every_ blessing _must_ be a reward for a good walk with the Lord, while _every_ trial _must_ be a punishment for straying from Him. This way of thinking views the Lord as obligated to reward our good works and punish the bad - this was the very mistake Job's friends made. While the Lord generally blesses those who walk with Him, there are many variations and degrees and many differences in timing. In short, to walk with the Lord for the purpose of receiving material or earthly reward is moralistic. I'm not accusing you of believing that, Adam, but I do believe that is what your analogy implies.




I don't think scripture ever condemns Job's friends for *what* they say, but only for *the situation they MISapply it to*. Scripture is filled with the sayings of Job's friends (see, for example, the Proverbs). Wisdom teaches us when one of the biblical "moralisms" applies, and when it doesn't.

You stated: "In short, to walk with the Lord for the purpose of receiving material or earthly reward is moralistic." 

I can agree to this statement, if you added the word "solely" before "for the purpose" etc. If God uses material blessings to motivate us to serve Him, then it is sinful to neglect or despise His gracious promise of reward. In other words, if we say that there is only profit in the world to come in serving God, we make a mockery of all of the threats and promises that God has made concerning *this life*. I refuse to do this, and if that makes me a moralist by this standard, then I am a moralist. I'm in good company, however, because Paul told the Ephesian children that the promise of long life in the Law still applied to them, and he used it to motivate them. Moses did the same thing, as did Jesus. Remember, Jesus said that those who forsook all to follow Him would lose a great deal, but then He promised that they would receive ample reward in this life, as well as in the next:

Mark 10:29-31 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold *now in this time*, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Moses wasn't mistaken in Deut 28, and if we categorize the teaching of the Law as "moralism", I guess that's fine, so long as no negative meaning is intended.

Again, very enjoyable discussion. I pray God He may bless you with many little ones. We have two so far, and one on the way, and they are quite a delight. Having one may convert you to my view 

Cheers,


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 21, 2008)

To use the Deuteronomy 28 passage as an example, would it be wrong to separate the bulls from the heifers, if your herd was going to get too large to be supported by the field you own if you didn't? Or to lay a field fallow to improve it's ability to support a crop? If those are acts of good and wise stewardship, please explain why using similar wisdom in procreation is not.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 21, 2008)

Brad,

Good questions:

To the bulls, if we're talking business, any wise man would clearly make a killing off of bulls for sale (see the case of Jacob and Laban for more on what a godly man does in such situations).

As for fields, Scripture appoints one year in seven as a sabbath for the land. Scripture appoints periods of abstention after the birth of a child, and during the woman's flow. Scripture also permits short periods of abstention for "prayer and fasting" followed by a rejoining of nuptial bliss. These are Scriptural commands/permission, and not made up by man's mind.

For more on Deut 28, I would highly recommend Calvin's sermons.

Cheers,

Adam




Brad said:


> To use the Deuteronomy 28 passage as an example, would it be wrong to separate the bulls from the heifers, if your herd was going to get too large to be supported by the field you own if you didn't? Or to lay a field fallow to improve it's ability to support a crop? If those are acts of good and wise stewardship, please explain why using similar wisdom in procreation is not.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 22, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Mason,
> 
> I think we are at an impasse, and may have to amicably agree to disagree. See comments below.



Fair enough - it is an interesting discussion. As we have seen many times on the forum and elsewhere, well-meaning Christians can view the Scripture and its implications differently.

One final side note on moralism - I think we pretty much agree, except that I would say it is acceptable and even good to _expect_ earthly reward, but not to follow God _in order to receive_ earthly reward. To follow God in order to gain material reward is fundamentally selfish. We should follow God for the sake of following God, and expect that He will reward us in His way and according to His timing.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jul 22, 2008)

MrMerlin777 said:


> In recent years my wife and I came to the possition that we would not use contracepives. It was not a possition I came to easily and I certainly don't bludgeon brethren that think differently over the head with it.
> 
> I will say that my father finds it immprudent but he and I don't see eye to eye on many things.
> 
> ...



Introduce your father to Voddie Baucham:
Voddie Baucham Ministries

and the Centrality of the Home.

Praise God for expecting! 

*edit*

In addition, check out the Multigenerational Promise:
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Podcast/Entries/2008/1/7_Multigenerational_Promise.html


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 22, 2008)

I am a barren woman. Every time this discussion comes up, and people talk without any qualifications or any nuances about how children are a reward for good behaviour, I think of all the ungodly women who've been rewarded with children while I haven't. I don't feel self righteous. I feel terrible, and that God must be very angry with me. Then I think of poverty stricken people in Mexico who are examples to me in every way and yet God has blessed me with more money than they have (& we could be making more money still, but we decided that being able to actually spend time with one another was more important than pursuing riches: in other words we are limiting a blessing in this area: I'm not sure how that plays into the discussion. But this is an option the saints in Mexico don't even have). There is definitely an aura of moralism surrounding an unnuanced approach to these things that leads us to think we are being blessed for good behaviour and punished for bad behaviour according to circumstance. I reject this thinking, but it is rooted into all of us I think: I have experienced serious depression feeling that I have no favor with God because of circumstances. Praise God my favor with Him is defined in the circumstance of the cross. Christ has born my curse. Though I have no children, I am a blessed woman.

Just wanted to remind that alcohol significantly affects sperm count in men. It is one of the first things one is told to cut out when visiting a fertility clinic. Yet most people who hold that all kinds of birth control are evil because they mess with what is God's province enjoy alcohol. Apparently it's okay to mess with chances of conception for reasons of one's own pleasure, but not okay for the sake of something like the woman's health. I have a friend with nine children, whose pregnancies have put her in such a condition she can hardly care for her family. Deo Volente, she will not be having anymore. I have another friend with nine plus who practices natural planning in between each pregnancy so that she does not get into such a condition and better preserves her fertility. She is thinking that one or two more and she will probably not go on risking this as there have been health complications with the last couple. I can scarcely take seriously any position that winds up condemning either of these ladies, considering the demonstration in herculean labors, and daily blood, sweat, and tears, that they have both made of their commitment to loving God's blessings.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 22, 2008)

Heidi, you are NOT a barren woman. You might not have biological children, but everybody here knows that you have many spiritual children, and are fruitful beyond measure in your love for the people of God. No more of that talk...


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 22, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> There is definitely an aura of moralism surrounding an unnuanced approach to these things that leads us to think we are being blessed for good behaviour and punished for bad behaviour according to circumstance. I reject this thinking, but it is rooted into all of us I think: I have experienced serious depression feeling that I have no favor with God because of circumstances. Praise God my favor with Him is defined in the circumstance of the cross. Christ has born my curse. Though I have no children, I am a blessed woman.



Heidi,

Thank you for sharing your own experience, and the experiences of two of your friends.

First, let me say that I appreciate your interjecting the need to qualify ANY teaching of Scripture. 

Second, let me say that I am not ashamed that I have said what I have said, and do not retract any of it. It is my opinion (perhaps wrong) that it is unnecessary to argue according to exceptions. In other words, if I'm talking about justification by faith, and discussing it with someone, I don't necessarily feel the need to qualify every little thing I say with caveats and counter-examples. A general rule is a general rule, and I attempt to treat it as such in discussions.

That said, of course, God can bless someone in singleness, in marriage, in children, in withholding children. The point in all of this is that it is God who decides these things, and not man.

As to your friend that has practiced some form of natural controls in order to maintain her fertility, clearly her attitude is in favor of being fruitful and multiplying. In other words, her motivation is very very good, and (I believe) accords with the Scriptural teaching.

As for considering it moralistic to state things in a non-nuanced manner, I find that hard to swallow, since Scripture does this time and again. Take for instance Psalms 127 and 128. Are they moralistic? What about the Proverbs? 

As pointed out earlier, the book of Job does not condemn what you're calling "moralism", but it condemns the lack of wisdom of people applying the maxims to the wrong situations.

So, if I presumed to judge your situation and say that you are cursed for some specific sin, then I think I would be acting the part of Job's friends. But if I simply state the well established biblical truth that God rewards with children, I don't think this is moralistic. There are exceptions, but they are just that.

Along the same lines, if your attitude has always been that God will give you as many as HE chooses, then you have nothing NOTHING to be ashamed of, or guilty about. God opens and closes the womb, and as others have pointed out, God has used you in a mighty way, even though not as others may think He should. The discussion hinges on that basic principal: are we willing to take what God gives us, and wait upon Him for our reward? Again, the reward is one based upon God's free promise, and therefore, God isn't our divine Coke Machine. If He chooses not to open the womb, that is His choice, not ours.

God bless,

Adam


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 22, 2008)

Dear Adam,

Thanks for your kind words.

I understood you to be applying those maxims to all situations, which I think would be a misapplication. Certainly Scripture states these things boldly --it also states boldly that baptism saves us; that faith without works cannot save us. These things are true: we could go around saying them without qualification, as boldly as Scripture does, without telling any sort of lie. But we don't. We qualify not because we feel that Scripture is inadequate, but because it elsewhere contextualises these remarks so that they say something different than what they might mean to a person who didn't have that context. The portion of God's people here on this earth has by and large, of a vast by and largeness, been to suffer without all the material blessings that they see the ungodly having. It is not just an 'exception'. It is the rule (and one that is found in experiences and expressions throughout Scripture), that most Christians globally (though perhaps not in the states) live a life of hardship, very much relating to the Psalmists complaints about seeing the blessings the ungodly enjoy in this life, themselves wandering about 'in sheepskins and goatskins', their lives often cut short, and only finding some sort of reconciliation of promises that God will bless obedience when they go into God's house and consider the end. The promises are primarily to do with this end, not with this middle part we are living now. So millions of babies are aborted by godless women, though children are a reward --this is not an exception in our experience here. Brad very kindly reminded me that I can still have children in the spiritual realm. I do not think this negates any teaching about physical blessings, but it does qualify it _considerably _if the physical is not the main thing Scripture has in view: if the physical, though certainly a legitimate plane in itself, is never meant to be the 'end', but is itself to point us, in plenty or scarcity of material blessing, to spiritual realities; indeed it qualifies so much that to teach that what is primarily in view in all these promises is the material blessings of God in reward for obedience does seem like a moralistic misconstruction, that can only tend to discourage the godly and make the ungodly self righteous. This is the misconstruction that fuels the tv evangelists: and they use the words of Scripture, without qualification.

I simply find an unnuanced position on this to be inconsistent with all of Scripture's teaching; I find the position that material blessings come to those who are obedient, and we are supposed to expect as much as possible of them here, to be inconsistent with the rule of Christian experience in this life (and I recall that the Proverbs ask God for neither poverty _nor riches_, thus using the means of prayer to seek to limit a material blessing). I think the position that we should never do anything that involves us in managing our health etc., which is also a blessing, by using means with regard to conception to be inconsistent with the practices of people who advocate such positions (ie, in that men will consume alcohol for enjoyment but won't allow their wives to practice nfp for health. Also, as you indicate above, generally trying to be more fertile is not a problem though equally interfering in God's domain; but trying to be less fertile is). I respect your statement of things and your spirit, and have appreciated your posts in many threads recently; I don't want to simply argue to no purpose. But as someone who has been negatively affected by unnuanced statements in the past, I simply wanted to register my disagreement.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 22, 2008)

Heidi,

Thank you again for giving attention and thought to this issue. It is good to be reminded of the need to consider all vantage points that Scripture gives us.

As to the doctrines of Scripture, the general rule is not that baptism saves, or that faith without works is dead. The general rule is that sacraments cannot save, and that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works. The exceptions are the statements you have pointed out. They are similar to the statements that barrenness is a blessing, or that some are given the gift of singleness. They are exceptions, and to be viewed and nuanced in light of the general rule (children are a reward and we are justified by faith alone, for instance).

It is a sociological fact that countries affected by the Reformed Faith are the most prosperous on the earth. Countries that used to be colonies of the Reformed are the most prosperous "third world countries". 

I don't agree with the assessment that poverty is the lot of God's people. Poverty (again as the general rule) is the result of indolence and sloth. See the Proverbs for more on this. Long life is the result of obedience to parents. Does that mean that some saints have not been poor? Nope. And Jesus died at 33 or so (that is, before being raised to newness of life). So, He died young.

Again, the basic rule is: diligence makes rich, and honor your father and mother that your days may be long upon the land. The exceptional cases are to be understood as exceptions. 

Your situation is exceptional, and God has clearly had very special things planned for you. Things you could not have done with a large family. God has blessed you, and used you.

Thanks again for your input, and may the Lord continue to bless you in all your ways!

As a sidenote, people who drink (as a general rule) are more likely to... ehem... do things that cause children to be born. As a rule, tee-totalers are less fruitful; doctor's advice notwithstanding. Also, the medical community is in controversy as to the affect of alcohol on furtility and fecundity.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 22, 2008)

Adam, just a final insert that I do understand what you're saying. It is my position that in Scripture, esp. in the OT where many of these statements are made, the rule is of not seeing promises _physically _fulfilled. Certainly wisdom teaches us to live in such a way that we will not bring evil consequences on ourselves, and to expect good consequences from good actions. But Christian wisdom also teaches us to hold out for the good consequences though we do not see them now (and to expect the evil consequences to visit the ungodly at a later time, though they seem to be enjoying the consequences of godliness now). This is traditional Christian wisdom, though hard learned by each of us through many painful experiences because we are born expecting to see the things we hope for immediately. The whole heroes hall of fame is composed of people who 'did not inherit' those things they were promised, who looked past the material lack of fulfillment: the people of God are there characterized, as against those who enjoy pleasures now, as those who 'suffer affliction'.

I don't honestly know much about European nations which I assume have been the most affected by the things you speak of; but they are a minority of the world; and Christians are not confined there. I do know that America has Christian roots; and certainly it is prosperous, though it has legalized the mass murder of its most innocent and helpless (I doubt it is now a Christian nation'). It was prosperous when it was much closer to those roots; while stripping, raping, branding, beating, working to death its African slaves; taking advantage in many cases of brothers and sisters in Christ who were not even allowed to go to church (I am not one who thinks that the Bible makes no provision for slavery: but the African slave trade and American practice, as witnessed on many first hand accounts, were simply appalling). Christians have always been persecuted even in Christian countries. We are taught to expect the experience of Christ on earth as a rule: and as you point out, he was homeless, and he died young.

I think the balance I am trying to advocate --the promises which are certainly a 'rule', and the lack of fulfillment we experience, which is also a 'rule', are well stated by N. T. Wright in his book about the Problem of Evil (and I do understand that Mr. Wright has some other problems  Italics mine. 

'It is quite clear on the one hand, particularly in the Psalms, that David and his dynasty are to be seen as God's answer to the problem of evil. They will bring judgment and justice to the world. Their dominion will be from one sea to the other, from the River to the ends of the earth. And yet the writers are all too aware of the puzzle and ambiguity of saying such a thing. The greatest royal psalm, Psalm 89, juxtaposes 37 verses of celebration of the wonderful things God will do through the Davidic king with 14 verses asking plaintively why it's all gone wrong. The psalm then ends with a single verse blessing YHWH forever. That is the classic Old Testament picture. Here are the promises; here is the problem; God remains sovereign over the paradox. _Split the psalm up either way, and you fail to catch the flavor of the entire corpus of biblical writing_. God's solution to the problem of evil, the establishment of the Davidic monarchy through which Israel will at last be the light to the nations, the bringer of justice to the world, comes already complete with a sense of puzzlement and failure, a sense that the plan isn't working the way it should, that the only thing to do is to hold the spectacular promises in one hand and the messy reality in the other and praise YHWH anyway.'

I think this necessarily adds a different dimension to discussions on children, because often those who teach that we should not preserve one blessing by taking means to limit another interpret the promises by splitting up the biblical teaching, and failing to catch a flavor of an entire corpus, thinking that as a rule we can and should have it all physically now. It also adds more nuance when it comes to applying those promises to barren women, etc.

Thanks again for your very thoughtful and kind responses. All the best.


----------



## mybigGod (Jul 22, 2008)

Just some thoughts after reading this thread but not all of it.
If it was Gods will for you to have a baby do you think birth control is going to stop Him? I know that 3 condoms wont. that really happened. Not me. 
God also says that he takes from the rich and gives it to the righteous. 
There are times of the month were it is pretty safe not to become pregnant. Is this Gods design?
There requirement of work as a means does not prove anything of value in standing before God. So that he may work through the means or he may choose to work outside the means. But we are required to see that all of our goods come directly from His hand. In spite of our laziness.


----------

