# Bible mandate that Christians have children?



## shackleton

Does the bible mandate that Christians have children? God told Adam and Noah to, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," but that was to two individuals who were alone on the earth. Does that command still apply to us today? 
Or in reality is this more a command to help fulfill "Christian Deconstructionism" and Theonomy?"


----------



## LadyFlynt

Do you see anywhere that the command was revoked? Has the means of procreation of the results of intimacy changed? Is it not still our natural, God created and ordained, desire to bear and have children?


----------



## AV1611

shackleton said:


> Does the bible mandate that Christians have children? God told Adam and Noah to, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," but that was to two individuals who were alone on the earth. Does that command still apply to us today?
> Or in reality is this more a command to help fulfill "Christian Deconstructionism" and Theonomy?"



I believe that that command is perpetual and it is a Christian's duty to have children if they are married. Now I am not saying it is sinful if the wife or husband are unable to have children due to some physiological reason but abstinence withing marriage (save for the reasons listed by St. Paul but then only for a minimal period) and birth control are sinful.

A married women shows her obedience to Christ through good works one of which is child bearing and nurture.

*1 Timothy 2:15* "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."


----------



## CDM

AV1611 said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the bible mandate that Christians have children? God told Adam and Noah to, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," but that was to two individuals who were alone on the earth. Does that command still apply to us today?
> Or in reality is this more a command to help fulfill "Christian Deconstructionism" and Theonomy?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that that command is perpetual and it is a Christian's duty to have children if they are married. Now I am not saying it is sinful if the wife or husband are unable to have children due to some physiological reason but abstinence withing marriage (save for the reasons listed by St. Paul but then only for a minimal period) and birth control are sinful.
> 
> A married women shows her obedience to Christ through good works one of which is child bearing and nurture.
> 
> *1 Timothy 2:15* "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
Click to expand...


 Beautifully stated, brother.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

My wife has given birth to 4, and is bearing #5! Soli Deo Gloria!!!


----------



## AV1611

Reformed Baptist said:


> My wife has given birth to 4, and is bearing #5! Soli Deo Gloria!!!



 and congratulations 

*Psalm 127* "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep. Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate."

*Psalm 128* "Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that walketh in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the LORD. The LORD shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life. Yea, thou shalt see thy children's children, and peace upon Israel."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

So you say it is sin to control births? Or have a vasectomy or tubal ligation apart from health reasons?


----------



## KMK

My wife and I had four children and then I had a reversal without any Biblical reason for doing so. I have since had a reversal which did not take. We are in the process of adopting more and considering another reversal. (Which is not a pleasant experience)

My wife and I believe we sinned in getting a reversal since we had no Biblical mandate to do so. I am not going to make our convictions necessarily binding on everyone, *but*...

To all of the young men on the board, before you go down the road I did, consider carefully your steps. Does the Bible give us the freedom to choose? Does the Bible give us the freedom to perform elective surgery on the bodies that God gave us? If children are truly a blessing from the Lord, do you really want to cut that blessing off? If children really are arrows in your quiver, do you really want to go into battle without every advantage possible? Who is telling you to protect yourself from more children? Is it the world? Because the world hates children. Is it Satan who does not want any more children raised in Christian homes? Is it your flesh which is just lazy and doesn't want the extra work involved? 

I did not have any one ask me those questions when I had surgery and my wife and I are now paying the price for our sin. I was a weak Christian at the time and the voices of my enemies were deafening.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yes, those voices can be deafening. Typically moms of many get to hear it regularly (don't you know what causes that? Is this the last one? How are you going to afford another?...all very nosy and rude questions/comments...some go so far as to say we are sinning, where the bible calls it a blessing?!)

Geoff, congratulations! When is she due?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 24:



> 2. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife;a *for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed;b* and for preventing of uncleanness.c
> 
> a. Gen 2:18. • *b. Mal 2:15.* • c. 1 Cor 7:2, 9.
> 
> b. Mal. 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.


----------



## satz

The bible _command_ to have children was given to Adam and Noah and I see no indication it extended beyond them. The command to multiply is not to my knowledge repeated to anyone else, whether in the New Testament epistles or the Law of Moses, or anywhere else. It is worthwhile to note that those two had the unique position of standing on an empty earth.

If there is indeed a command to all Christians to multiply and be fruitful, it applies to singles as well, who must make all haste to get married, a proposition in direct conflict with 1 Corinthians 7. If single Christians can chose for sober and godly reasons to forgo marriage, than I believe by application of principle, married couples may for sober and serious reasons chose to limit the number of children they have for a time or permanently, in extreme circumstances.



> 1 Corinthians 7:26-32 *I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.* Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. *But I would have you without carefulness.* He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:



Paul told the Corinthians they might chose to forgo marriage either to concentrate on serving the Lord, or because of the _present distress_ most probably persecution or other trouble that a married man or woman would find more difficult to cope with an a single person. Likewise, I believe that if the wife’s health is at stake, or the couple is having genuine difficulty in coping with their family situation, be it financial or in terms of child-training, they are justified in using non-abortive birth control. Again, Paul says he would have the Corinthians without carefulness – for it is easier to serve the Lord properly with less commitments than with more. I am sure, and I apologize, that many will react with anger at having such language applied to children, but the fact is that Paul here uses it in reference to marriage. I see no compromise in saying that it is easier to take care of your family properly when you have four children instead of eight. That certainly does not mean those families who want eight or more children are wrong in doing so, but we should not condemn those who many soberly and prayerfully decide they should make do with less.

Does the bible say children are a blessing and a good thing from the Lord? Absolutely. That, however, does not mean it is a sin to limit your number after sober consideration. Marriage is a very good thing, but I just showed above how a christian can, without sin, chose to forgo this good thing. Wine is a blessing from God, but we control its use and some may chose to forgo for various reasons. Rain is a blessing, but we dig ditches and use umbrellas and would not want an unlimited amount. Sunshine is a blessing, but we wear sunglasses, sunscreen and go indoors. Riches are often described as a blessing, and God often rewarded his saints with earthly wealth, yet wise men may pray against them (Pr 30:8-9).

From pass experience, many will declare it impious to compare children with those things. I will grant that it ‘feels’ like it might be so, but I have yet to see a biblical explanation for why. How is controlling childbirth different from controlling wine, rain, sunshine and wealth? And even if those examples are not convincing, I point again to the fact that Paul said marriage itself, without which childbirth is impossible, could be restricted due to difficult circumstances. My simple point is; all because God has said something is good, does not make limiting or controlling that thing a sin.

I am aware I am probably in the minority on this issue on this board. However, I would urge others to try to consider the issues without getting emotional. Arguing for the use of birth control by Christians in certain situations as I have done is not in any way supportive of abortion or women who forgo children to chase careers, anymore than arguing for moderate use of alcohol is promoting drunkenness, or arguing for gun ownership is promoting murder (wink wink at my American friends).


----------



## Herald

Jerusalem Blade said:


> So you say it is sin to control births? Or have a vasectomy or tubal ligation apart from health reasons?



Steve - I noticed your question wasn't answered directly. I'd like to take your specific questions and make them part of a larger category. Is birth control sinful? Is there liberty in the matter? Is the bible clear on it or not? I don't want the OP to get too far off track. If this post results in that I'll start a separate thread.


----------



## AV1611

Jerusalem Blade said:


> So you say it is sin to control births? Or have a vasectomy or tubal ligation apart from health reasons?



Indeed I would although I am not aware what health reasons would necessitate a vasectomy or tubal ligation and I am not sure what the latter is anyway.

As an aside, I would point out that the commande to multiply was given to man an not Adam as an individual as such hence we should see the command as binding upon all men everywhere, let us not forget that Adam was our federal head.

*Genesis 1:27, 28* "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."


----------



## beej6

At the same time, we are one body in Christ. Those with no (or fewer) children, or those who remain single, may still find their role in God's kingdom, yes?


----------



## Kevin

Mark, that was well stated.

I think the issue of surgical modification is broader then birth controll. However, if a couple said "NO" to the possibility of children then that would be sinfull. That does not mean however that many of the reasons Mark raised above are not valid Non-sinfull reasons to "space" or "plan" your family.

in my opinion this is a "on-the-one-hand" yet "on-the-other-hand" typeof issue.


----------



## Answerman

shackleton said:


> Does the bible mandate that Christians have children? God told Adam and Noah to, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," but that was to two individuals who were alone on the earth. Does that command still apply to us today?
> Or in reality is this more a command to help fulfill "Christian Deconstructionism" and Theonomy?"



Sure sounds like it, doesn't it.

I would start another thread if you want to bring Theonomy into it. And Christian Deconstructionism, which is the current majority position in Christendom would probably float right down stream with the secular humanists view on this matter, after all we let them educate us.


----------



## TexasBerean

Kevin said:


> Mark, that was well stated.
> 
> I think the issue of surgical modification is broader then birth controll. However, if a couple said "NO" to the possibility of children then that would be sinfull. That does not mean however that many of the reasons Mark raised above are not valid Non-sinfull reasons to "space" or "plan" your family.
> 
> in my opinion this is a "on-the-one-hand" yet "on-the-other-hand" typeof issue.




I agree. There is a definite difference between family planning and having a vasectomy. Those who believe in family planning may still acknowledge god's gift in the children they have, and even use planning to increase their enjoyment of this gift. Those who don't believe they can properly nurture children when they are born less than two years apart may wish to use family planning to create a better environment for their children to be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. However, using birth control to without planning and simply because you "don't want a baby right now" is selfish and as such must be sinful. Many say this as if a baby just doesnt fit into their plans and never worry about fitting into God's. This behavior is also calling God a liar; he has said that children are his blessing, a blessing we deny when we seek to forbid our bodies from bearing children. Though I do understand people wishing to plan their families, I myself do not wish to do so, because I would rather let God do that, he is the master planner after all. He knows what is good for me even if I don't know myself.


----------



## Herald

This topic really can branch off into a thousand areas. What do we say about couples that may not be fit to raise children? Do we encourage them to bring children into the world knowing that they may be unfit parents? Obviously if a pregnancy happens the child is to be born. But what about these type of people. We all know some.


----------



## LadyFlynt

BaptistInCrisis said:


> This topic really can branch off into a thousand areas. What do we say about couples that may not be fit to raise children? Do we encourage them to bring children into the world knowing that they may be unfit parents? Obviously if a pregnancy happens the child is to be born. But what about these type of people. We all know some.


And who is going to determine what is "fit"? I've had people say we weren't "fit" simply because our religious beliefs and parenting practices were different than theirs or because my husband is a blue collar worker instead of a white collar worker. Have had a friend called "unfit" because she's "had too many and must surely be tired out". Should we now have to procur permission to marry (yep, licensure is a double edged sword) or a permit to bear children?


----------



## TexasBerean

If I were the Judge of who was and was not fit to have children, I would forbid any who would not raise their clildren in the church and in a christian home. But this is an impracical suggestion. Those whom we would deem unfit for parenting may simply be in need of the sanctifying effect of child rearing by which God has deemed to make them fit. It is not our place to determine who is fit to have children because god alone knows the heart, and god alone knows how to change and sanctify it. Someone who thinks they are unfit to raise children should not have a vasectomy because that would be denying God's ability to change them and make them fit to raise children. This also would preclude them from using birth control for the same reason. Who knows if God will not use their bearing of children as a means to sanctify and ready them to be fit for it? Birth control is not the solution. We must have faith in God's providence and pray to God to give us wisdom, and by wisdom and understanding and faith, *make us fit*. Consider James 1:4-6 "But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth unto all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering."


----------



## Herald

LadyFlynt said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This topic really can branch off into a thousand areas. What do we say about couples that may not be fit to raise children? Do we encourage them to bring children into the world knowing that they may be unfit parents? Obviously if a pregnancy happens the child is to be born. But what about these type of people. We all know some.
> 
> 
> 
> And who is going to determine what is "fit"? I've had people say we weren't "fit" simply because our religious beliefs and parenting practices were different than theirs or because my husband is a blue collar worker instead of a white collar worker. Have had a friend called "unfit" because she's "had too many and must surely be tired out". Should we now have to procur permission to marry (yep, licensure is a double edged sword) or a permit to bear children?
Click to expand...


My question was purely speculative. If someone is going to advocate not having children and endorse birth control why not put stipulations on who can have children? Folks may have thought my mother was unfit because she was divorced and had to raise my sister and I on welfare for a few years. 

The burden of scripture seems to fall on having children, not on finding creative means not to have them.


----------



## CDM

Reformed Baptist said:


> My wife has given birth to 4, and is bearing #5! Soli Deo Gloria!!!



 and congratulations!


----------



## jbergsing

AV1611 said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the bible mandate that Christians have children? God told Adam and Noah to, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," but that was to two individuals who were alone on the earth. Does that command still apply to us today?
> Or in reality is this more a command to help fulfill "Christian Deconstructionism" and Theonomy?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that that command is perpetual and it is a Christian's duty to have children if they are married. Now I am not saying it is sinful if the wife or husband are unable to have children due to some physiological reason but abstinence withing marriage (save for the reasons listed by St. Paul but then only for a minimal period) and birth control are sinful.
> 
> A married women shows her obedience to Christ through good works one of which is child bearing and nurture.
> 
> *1 Timothy 2:15* "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
Click to expand...


----------



## Davidius

I have a friend whose wife recently had to have a tubal ligation. She would have died without the operation and left her husband to take care of four children alone. It's sad that there are some who would label her as being in sin. Many thanks to Mark for being a voice of reason in this discussion! Aside from that, I do think that Christian couples with the physiological ability should have children but disagree with the notion that the woman must have them until she's killed by it or the family resources, both tangible and intangible, are run into the ground.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Is not the first purpose of marriage companionship? “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” (Gen 2:18) The gracious command came afterwards, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…” (Gen 1:28) As there were no other humans on the earth at that time, the command was timely.

As mentioned by Mark above, if that command – physically understood – is to be taken for all time, then marriage ought to be compulsory. Was it only the remarks of the Lord on eunuchs (Matt 19:12) that reversed such a supposed command? Was a B.C. Jew in sin if he remained single? Jeremiah remained so (he did have the LORD’s command for such), and perhaps Daniel.

Some 6,000+ years later the earth is abundantly populated. Not only so, but it is increasingly filled with violence, as in the days of Noah. During the time while the Lord was on the earth, in His Olivet discourse, foreseeing the calamitous days ahead for the Jews, He said, “…woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!” (Matt 24:19) Paul echoed that when he, lauding the virtues of singleness, said, “I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress…” (1 Cor 7:26)

Is it not primarily for companionship, and sexual intimacy in particular, Paul exhorts single believers who need a mate to marry? (1 Cor 1:2) 

Are those who consider the world too wicked to bring children into, and opt instead to labor to give birth to spiritual children, violating any command of God? Are they not multiplying for His Kingdom? May there not be a spiritual fulfilling of the command to replenish the earth?

If a couple already have children, and choose a vasectomy or tubal ligation to limit their capacity for more, by what mandate are they to be yoked in the breeding house? We limit our cattle; may we not limit our children if the tooth and claw of violence prowls rampant in the street, and we choose instead physical barrenness that we may bear children unto the Lord, plucking multitudes of them out of the fire? May not our physical regenerative capacity, now made desolate, reap us more children than the children of the fertile married? (Isaiah 54) May not a husband and wife become eunuchs of sorts – child-wise – for the Kingdom’s sake?

If the Lord is the one who opens the womb (and we know He is), does this mandate that to trust Him we must forsake our choice to cease physical childbearing, and to labor instead to bear spiritual children?

Will those who deny this blanket all who practice birth-control of some kind with the condemnation of sin?


----------



## Davidius

Jerusalem Blade said:


> If the Lord is the one who opens the womb (and we know He is), does this mandate that to trust Him we must forsake our choice to cease physical childbearing, and to labor instead to bear spiritual children?
> 
> Will those who deny this blanket all who practice birth-control of some kind with the condemnation of sin?



Yes, that is exactly what many on the board assert.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Well, David, there are those who disagree, and understand the Scripture to support them.


----------



## Davidius

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Well, David, there are those who disagree, and understand the Scripture to support them.



I was just answering your question. Sorry if I sounded cynical.


----------



## MamaArcher

AV1611 said:


> *Genesis 1:27, 28* "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."



Any time we are called to give control over to GOd and we refuse it is sin, we are to be in submission to the Lord in ALL things. My hubby has had a vas. reversal, we have 8 children thuxs far, 3 of them are reversal babies. One thing I find interesting in the church today is that we are trying to subdue & have dominion upon the earth via evangelism mostly..but we are not doing things God's way..be fruitful and multiply and have dominion. Why is Islam such a strong force? Why do the mormons have such a strong hold? They are using biblical principles and they are coming closer to dominion of the earth than Christians are! Imagine if EVERY Christian lived in a manner that allowed God to bless them with as many children as He so chose to do and those children we raised to love the Lord their GOd with all of their heart mind soul strength..and raised their families as such, if we had a generatioanl vision..how different would the world look?


----------



## RamistThomist

Those commands are so in the Old Testament. We're under grace now.


----------



## KMK

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Lord is the one who opens the womb (and we know He is), does this mandate that to trust Him we must forsake our choice to cease physical childbearing, and to labor instead to bear spiritual children?
> 
> Will those who deny this blanket all who practice birth-control of some kind with the condemnation of sin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what many on the board assert.
Click to expand...


I hope you are not lumping me into that group. I stand by my post. It was a sin for me but I balk at calling it a sin for everyone. 

My point was to make sure that young men seek the Lord for direction in these matters. 

For those of you who favor birth control, tread carefully. Make it clear that you believe what you believe for Biblical reasons because there are plenty of our enemies out there shouting for birth control for evil reasons. When I was faced with this decision it was during a time when my 1 year old was near death in the hospital. No one even questioned whether I should have a vasectomy! Everyone from my church to my family said in not so many words, "Of course you don't want to have any more children! Are you crazy? Isn't 4 enough? Do you really want to go through this ordeal again?" I wish I had had even one Godly tell me to seek the Lord on my decision. I wish even one voice had pointed out that the Bible says that children are a *blessing* from the Lord.


----------



## polemic_turtle

LadyFlynt said:


> Yes, those voices can be deafening. Typically moms of many get to hear it regularly (*don't you know what causes that? Is this the last one? How are you going to afford another?...all very nosy and rude questions/comments...some go so far as to say we are sinning, where the bible calls it a blessing?!*)
> 
> Geoff, congratulations! When is she due?



You could try what one of our Christian friends did. When someone said "You know, they've discovered what causes that", she said "Yes, and I'm _gooood_ at it". ;-) It might quiet some people up.


----------



## RamistThomist

shackleton said:


> Or in reality is this more a command to help fulfill "Christian Deconstructionism" and Theonomy?"



In other words, theonomy was normative for most of Christendom. That's cool.


----------



## LadyFlynt

polemic_turtle said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, those voices can be deafening. Typically moms of many get to hear it regularly (*don't you know what causes that? Is this the last one? How are you going to afford another?...all very nosy and rude questions/comments...some go so far as to say we are sinning, where the bible calls it a blessing?!*)
> 
> Geoff, congratulations! When is she due?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could try what one of our Christian friends did. When someone said "You know, they've discovered what causes that", she said "Yes, and I'm _gooood_ at it". ;-) It might quiet some people up.
Click to expand...

See my response in the thread where Mangum announces his 5th child  One lady I know looked at the rude person very blankly and said, "Really? Could you explain it to me?" (blink, blink) It was an elderly woman that was rude and she just sputtered and walked off


----------



## shackleton

I don't mean this to be a smart-alek question but, what about people that are mentallly challenged. Non-christian health care people who take care of these people go out of their way to make sure these people do not get pregnant. Again, refer to the first line, why did not Christ as a man get married and have children if it was a covenant requirement in order to fulfill some sort of obedience. Again I am not trying to be blasphemous or contrary.


----------



## jbergsing

shackleton said:


> I don't mean this to be a smart-alek question but, what about people that are mentallly challenged. Non-christian health care people who take care of these people go out of their way to make sure these people do not get pregnant. Again, refer to the first line, why did not Christ as a man get married and have children if it was a covenant requirement in order to fulfill some sort of obedience. Again I am not trying to be blasphemous or contrary.


Every life God creates is of His divine will, regardless of man's desires or opinions. Should man decide to kill an unborn child because they are going to require more effort and resources is something that I believe will be addressed at judgment.


----------



## Ivan

shackleton said:


> why did not Christ as a man get married and have children if it was a covenant requirement in order to fulfill some sort of obedience.



Why do you think Christ didn't marry?


----------



## shackleton

Birth control is a whole area I did not expect this discussion to go. Using this logic, should not a woman go on having children until she drops over dead. If either the husband or the wife cannot get pregnant should they then institute a surrogate mother in their place as Abraham tried to do.


----------



## Ivan

shackleton said:


> Birth control is a whole area I did not expect this discussion to go. Using this logic, should not a woman go on having children until she drops over dead. If either the husband or the wife cannot get pregnant should they then institute a surrogate mother in their place as Abraham tried to do.



You're serious?


----------



## shackleton

Ivan said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control is a whole area I did not expect this discussion to go. Using this logic, should not a woman go on having children until she drops over dead. If either the husband or the wife cannot get pregnant should they then institute a surrogate mother in their place as Abraham tried to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious?
Click to expand...


I have the same question for the people on this board. I just found out about this when my pastor told me we were basically in sin for not having children and needed to seek counseling. He told me having children was a way to help sanctify the individual and he said "It's one of the ways Christians transform culture- godly offspring." This is a direct quote. That is why I wondered if it had more to do with a belief system that follows Theonomy, Christian Reconstructionism and Postmillennialism.


----------



## RamistThomist

shackleton said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control is a whole area I did not expect this discussion to go. Using this logic, should not a woman go on having children until she drops over dead. If either the husband or the wife cannot get pregnant should they then institute a surrogate mother in their place as Abraham tried to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the same question for the people on this board. I just found out about this when my pastor told me we were basically in sin for not having children and needed to seek counseling. He told me having children was a way to help sanctify the individual and he said "It's one of the ways Christians transform culture- godly offspring." This is a direct quote. That is why I wondered if it had more to do with a belief system that follows Theonomy, Christian Reconstructionism and Postmillennialism.
> 
> I am learning new things about reformed people everyday.
Click to expand...


Most of the people on here who argued for large families are neither postmill, theonomy, or CR. I happen to be theonomic and agree with much of your reasoning (except for the poisoning of the well)

Yes, many Christian Reconstructionists are naieve on this point, but that does not discredit the zeal for large families. Similarly, the secularists birth rate is declining at critical speeds (see Europe). While I am not postmil, if I were I would argue that Christians will win culturally simply by having only 1 or 2 kids: that would easily beat the secular rate.


----------



## ReformedWretch

I have much in my head to say about all this, but know better. )


----------



## LadyFlynt

Adam, I believe your quiver just keeps on expanding  You and your wife have MANY to call daughters.

No one is saying that those UNABLE to have children or only able to have so many children are in sin. God alone (should) determine that. It's when someone goes out of their way to destroy or damage what God has called good and say, "don't curse me with another" that their thinking is called into question. There are MANY MANY women out there with 6-10 children and they are not dropping like flies. If the mentally disabled were PROPERLY taken care of within the homes of their family, parents or extended...there would not be the concern mentioned above, at least not as great a one. I happen to have a stepaunt that has NEVER and will NEVER mentally be older than 12, she has been married twice and born three children. Her first child died because there was NO FAMILY around to assist. The second child I helped raise till he was adopted out and he is such a blessing to his family. The second marriage is to a man like herself. They have a child together and he has daughters. Because of the help of FAMILY they are able to function as a normal family unit. They work, own a home, FAMILY assists with the bank accounts and shopping, their son is brilliant and will one day take care of his parents. He will be a blessing to them in their old age. My youngest brother is like this as well and it is already determined that his older whole brother will take care of him after our mother is gone. I don't encourage, but I HAVE seen the positive in these situations. Simple-minded people have married, bore children, and survived like everyone else throughout history.


----------



## shackleton

Ignore my last comments I made them out of anger and frustration due to conflicts I have with this particular pastor. I appreciate the help I get from the Puritan Board.


----------



## kvanlaan

I would like to comment that back on page 1 those who are 'unfit' to be parents and who should therefore desist from having children for this reason are also usually 'unfit' for marriage. The addition of children to a marriage, I've found, helps you mature and removes selfishness. When it does not, that is a _big_ red flag. 

Also, Adam, I would _LOVE_ to hear what you have to say. Don't keep your light under a bushel, brother, there is too much value in especially your perspective. Adoptive parents take an extra step in the process that biological parents don't have to.

As for birth control, I don't know if this is too personal, but we struggle with this in a BIG way. My wife has only C-sections but we live in China. Thus far she has had three C-sections in less-than-first-world facilities and we fear having more here but simply can't find the scripture to support stopping. We have adopted and will continue to adopt (Habib, Bereket, Sentiyehu, and Dagem should be here before Spring of 2008) because we feel called to it, and would likely do so even if my wife was able to have children naturally.

There is a huge difference (huge) in being childless naturally and being childless for the sake of convenience or personal choice. If we are sticking to the idea that God opens and closes the womb, how dare we remove the womb by our own hand? I just don't get it.

We've had plenty of people (family, even) tell me it was time to _snip-snip_, and that it was dangerous for Elizabeth to continue in this fashion. If we trust him to open and close the womb, and that children are a blessing, will we not also trust that he will protect us in childbirth or take us as His will decrees?


----------



## Davidius

shackleton said:


> Birth control is a whole area I did not expect this discussion to go. Using this logic, should not a woman go on having children until she drops over dead. If either the husband or the wife cannot get pregnant should they then institute a surrogate mother in their place as Abraham tried to do.



Hey Erick,

I am newly Reformed, too, and was equally shocked at the logic used to ban any and all "family planning." The answer to your rhetorical question (the first one, at least...I don't think even those in the anti-BC crowd would support a surrogate mother. ) is "yes." I have met Reformed Christians who would let the wife die before getting her a tubal ligation. 

The arguments used by the anti-BC crowd sound good on the surface because of the way certain words, etc. are used. Those who don't have as many children as possible as quickly as possible are lumped in with the crowd which hates children and isn't having them at the moment because they think that they _in se_ are inconveniences. Arguments about God's sovereignty and the "blessing" line are thrown out as if the slippery slope and numerous contradictions were nowhere in sight (and if you point it out, of course it's _your_ logic that is faulty. But that's how it goes in any theological disagreement, right?). I've also noted that many people I've met who hold these ideas either a) got married late in life when it's time to start having as many as possible before fertility fades, b) married young and are husbands/have husbands who are already able to work in their career full-time and do not need extra education or c) aren't married yet.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> As for birth control, I don't know if this is too personal, but we struggle with this in a BIG way. My wife has only C-sections but we live in China. Thus far she has had three C-sections in less-than-first-world facilities and we fear having more here but simply can't find the scripture to support stopping. We have adopted and will continue to adopt (Habib, Bereket, Sentiyehu, and Dagem should be here before Spring of 2008) because we feel called to it, and would likely do so even if my wife was able to have children naturally.
> 
> There is a huge difference (huge) in being childless naturally and being childless for the sake of convenience or personal choice. If we are sticking to the idea that God opens and closes the womb, how dare we remove the womb by our own hand? I just don't get it.
> 
> We've had plenty of people (family, even) tell me it was time to _snip-snip_, and that it was dangerous for Elizabeth to continue in this fashion. If we trust him to open and close the womb, and that children are a blessing, will we not also trust that he will protect us in childbirth or take us as His will decrees?



Kevin,

Just some thoughts for your consideration;

IF we restrict our discussion to a situation where someone’s health or even life is in danger or possible danger, I would humbly submit we do not need a scripture to justify birth control because a) God never condemns it, b) God never commands procreation in a manner that would conflict with birth control use. I know some or many will disagree with b), but that is my position for the time being, as I tried to explain in my earlier post on this thread.

The fact that God opens and closes the womb does not, by itself preclude us from using wisdom and prudence in managing childbirth UNLESS God has also said he wants us to keep our hands off. I do not believe such a command is found in the bible. God opens and closes the sky for rain, but we dig ditches for drainage and carry umbrellas based on the weather forecast. God controls sickness and health, but we buy medical insurance and use doctors. God says in Psalm 127 (one of the Psalms that extols the blessing of children) that unless he builds the house or watches the city the builder/watchmen labour in vain. We trust him, but that does not mean we do not build/watch ourselves.

I believe it is no good simply saying ‘Trust God’. We must trust in a specific promise. God does expect us to use means to take care of ourselves. Again, it boils down to: Is procreation commanded/contraception condemned? If so, then we trust God to look after us whatever happens. But if not, we can and should use prudent medical means to guard against danger.

Please do not take offence, but since you volunteered information on your personal situation, I very, very humbly submit that it is not wisdom for a woman with a husband and five or more children depending on her to put her life at risk unless she has to. And if God has not condemned birth control, it is right, I believe, to use such means to avoid danger. When the devil invited Jesus Christ to test the promises of God by flinging himself from the top of the temple, the Lord declined because the obvious and wise thing to do would be to take the stairs. Likewise, if a woman is already pregnant and faced with substandard medical facilities we submit to God’s will and trust him. But before that, I see no sin at all in using BC to avoid getting into that situation.


----------



## kvanlaan

But see, the sickness and insurance arguments I see as being null and void since physical illness is not specifically referred to as a 'blessing from the Lord' (if they were, why would Christ have healed anyone? He would have sent them away unhealed and told them to enjoy their blessings!) Children are specifically referred to as a blessing. 

And we have specific instances of the Lord opening and closing the womb in scripture. Do we then say that this ability of God has passed away along with the ceremonial law? Is the spilling of seed no longer a sin? If it still is, condoms are out. The pill can be an abortifacient, so that would be out. What method of mechanical/chemical birth control does not run contrary to scripture in its working? Even abstinence runs contrary to specific Pauline injunctions. 

What's left????


----------



## RamistThomist

Mark wrote:


> The fact that God opens and closes the womb does not, by itself preclude us from using wisdom and prudence in managing childbirth UNLESS God has also said he wants us to keep our hands off. I do not believe such a command is found in the bible. God opens and closes the sky for rain, but we dig ditches for drainage and carry umbrellas based on the weather forecast. God controls sickness and health, but we buy medical insurance and use doctors. God says in Psalm 127 (one of the Psalms that extols the blessing of children) that unless he builds the house or watches the city the builder/watchmen labour in vain. We trust him, but that does not mean we do not build/watch ourselves.



Very well said. 

Kevin wrote:


> Is the spilling of seed no longer a sin? If it still is, condoms are out.



I believe this only applies--and I know many trees have died for the sake of the Onan passage--to Onan's refusal to take his brother's wife, not for ejaculating qua ejaculating. 

For if we apply this case in an absolute sense, we have some very embarrassing and needless guilt. Are nocturnal emissions sinful, since it is spilling seed? What if a man and wife sleep together and she is in her earliest stage of pregnancy, but no one knows it. That seed is wasted. Is that a sin? What if she is past menopause? What if--and forgive the blunt question but it illustrates the Onan principle to a dot--two newlyweds are in the heat of the moment and let's say because of newlywed passion, the seed spills before the consumation. Nothing wrong with that picture. But the seed is thus wasted. Is that sinful?

This isn't directed at you specifically, but I wanted to highlight that argument.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> But see, the sickness and insurance arguments I see as being null and void since physical illness is not specifically referred to as a 'blessing from the Lord' (if they were, why would Christ have healed anyone? He would have sent them away unhealed and told them to enjoy their blessings!) Children are specifically referred to as a blessing.



I dealt with the argument regarding blessing in my earlier post. Again, simply because something is described by a blessing does not mean we are in sin if we control it, UNLESS God specifically says so. I mentioned in my post that Paul says christians can abstain from marriage because of the _present distress _ (1 Cor 7) - because of the trouble and hassle marriage would bring in those turbulent times. Is marriage good and a blessing? Absolutely. Did Paul say we can abstain in times when it would bring trouble? Yup.



> And we have specific instances of the Lord opening and closing the womb in scripture. Do we then say that this ability of God has passed away along with the ceremonial law?



As I tried to explain, God's ability to control the womb is irrelevant to the lawfulness of BC. If God has condemned BC, it is out. If not, we can use it soberly even if he is in control of the womb. God is sovereignly in charge of every little thing that happens in the universe. That does not preclude us using means to control them if he has not condemned such means. 



> Is the spilling of seed no longer a sin? If it still is, condoms are out. The pill can be an abortifacient, so that would be out. What method of mechanical/chemical birth control does not run contrary to scripture in its working? Even abstinence runs contrary to specific Pauline injunctions.
> 
> What's left????



This could be a whole other thread, (and there have been some!) but I do not believe the spilling of seed was ever a sin, under any Testament. If you are referring to Onan, I do not believe there was any indication his spilling of seed was what brought God's judgment upon him, but rather his wicked hatred for his brother. While it is true that sin did not result in death under the Mosaic Law, God is not bound to the physical consequences he sets out in his law. All sins deserve eternal death in hell, and God is free to be stricter or more lenient (as with David) with the physical consequences if he so choses.

I also note that seed is 'spilled' rather regularly in a natural process, at least by unmarried people. Those who want to say that spilling seed is sin must prove that God has some special view of it that when discharged naturally in that fashion it can be spilled but otherwise it MUST enter into the woman. 

If there are any other verses that would support the idea that spilling seed is sin, I would be interested to see them.


----------



## Davidius

kvanlaan said:


> What's left????



Natural Family Planning (a.k.a Sympto-Thermal Method/Creighton Ovulational Method/Fertility Awareness Method), which involves neither barriers nor hormones and has been found to be 99%-100% effective when practiced correctly.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I mentioned in my post that Paul says christians can abstain from marriage because of the present distress (1 Cor 7) - because of the trouble and hassle marriage would bring in those turbulent times.



Sorry, could you please explain this one a little further, please? What specific verses do you use to come to this specific conclusion? 

Also, where exactly did you deal with the child as a blessing? Please quote (I'm a bit simple - I need it spelled out for me!)

As for the spilling of seed argument, does this then means the door is open to scripturally-sanctioned masturbation? Calvin called it murder...


----------



## Davidius

kvanlaan said:


> I mentioned in my post that Paul says christians can abstain from marriage because of the present distress (1 Cor 7) - because of the trouble and hassle marriage would bring in those turbulent times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, could you please explain this one a little further, please? What specific verses do you use to come to this specific conclusion?
> 
> Also, where exactly did you deal with the child as a blessing? Please quote (I'm a bit simple - I need it spelled out for me!)
> 
> As for the spilling of seed argument, does this then means the door is open to scripturally-sanctioned masturbation? Calvin called it murder...
Click to expand...


I don't see how the door would be open to "scripturally-sanctioned masturbation."

Educated people used to believe that all of the biological components necessary to create a human being were found in the seed. The woman was just an oven to bake the dough. Since they didn't have any idea what was really in the seed it's hard to know just what they thought was in there but it could probably compared what we would say the fertilized egg is, a complete being. It's easier to understand why the "spilling of seed" was seen as so evil when one understands that they basically thought that it contained a tiny person ready to grow in momma's tummy.

BTW, did you see my link about Natural Family Planning?


----------



## satz

This is from the earliest post I made in this thread. My basic point is that since Paul allowed christians to forgo marriage [a good thing] because of the 'present distress' 1 Cor 7:26, than to say children are a blessing does not automatically mean it is a sin to restrict childbirth. Note that all the statements I bolded are in reference to marriage. I do believe it is no sin to to forgo a blessing when it would avoid danger to do so.



> 1 Corinthians 7:26-32 I* suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. *Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. *Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.* But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. *But I would have you without carefulness.* He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
> 
> Paul told the Corinthians they might chose to forgo marriage either to concentrate on serving the Lord, or because of the present distress most probably persecution or other trouble that a married man or woman would find more difficult to cope with an a single person. Likewise, I believe that if the wife’s health is at stake, or the couple is having genuine difficulty in coping with their family situation, be it financial or in terms of child-training, they are justified in using non-abortive birth control. Again, Paul says he would have the Corinthians without carefulness – for it is easier to serve the Lord properly with less commitments than with more. I am sure, and I apologize, that many will react with anger at having such language applied to children, but the fact is that Paul here uses it in reference to marriage. I see no compromise in saying that it is easier to take care of your family properly when you have four children instead of eight. That certainly does not mean those families who want eight or more children are wrong in doing so, but we should not condemn those who many soberly and prayerfully decide they should make do with less.
> 
> Does the bible say children are a blessing and a good thing from the Lord? Absolutely. That, however, does not mean it is a sin to limit your number after sober consideration. Marriage is a very good thing, but I just showed above how a christian can, without sin, chose to forgo this good thing. Wine is a blessing from God, but we control its use and some may chose to forgo for various reasons. Rain is a blessing, but we dig ditches and use umbrellas and would not want an unlimited amount. Sunshine is a blessing, but we wear sunglasses, sunscreen and go indoors. Riches are often described as a blessing, and God often rewarded his saints with earthly wealth, yet wise men may pray against them (Pr 30:8-9).
> 
> From pass experience, many will declare it impious to compare children with those things. I will grant that it ‘feels’ like it might be so, but I have yet to see a biblical explanation for why. How is controlling childbirth different from controlling wine, rain, sunshine and wealth? And even if those examples are not convincing, I point again to the fact that Paul said marriage itself, without which childbirth is impossible, could be restricted due to difficult circumstances. My simple point is; all because God has said something is good, does not make limiting or controlling that thing a sin.
> 
> I am aware I am probably in the minority on this issue on this board. However, I would urge others to try to consider the issues without getting emotional. Arguing for the use of birth control by Christians in certain situations as I have done is not in any way supportive of abortion or women who forgo children to chase careers, anymore than arguing for moderate use of alcohol is promoting drunkenness, or arguing for gun ownership is promoting murder (wink wink at my American friends).






> As for the spilling of seed argument, does this then means the door is open to scripturally-sanctioned masturbation? Calvin called it murder...



I am aware of the strong reformed view regarding 'Onanism' as it is often called. With respect, I have not found the arguments against spilling seed convincing, and certainly do not think it is proved that such an act is equivalent to murder. 

As for masturbation, I assume in the majority of cases it would be condemned by Jesus' rule against lust in the sermon on the mount. Within a marriage, or 'thinking' about your spouse, I really don't know. 1 Cor 7's admonishment for couples not to deprive one another would seem to indicate sexual fulfillment could not be achieved by one spouse by themselves. Beyond that, I can't say.


----------



## satz

hmmm I keep double posting with people!


----------



## kvanlaan

> I don't see how the door would be open to "scripturally-sanctioned masturbation."



Well, if the spilling of seed is not a sin _per se_, it would then just be a matter of Christian liberty as to what you did with it, would you not? Hence, the idea of (convoluted) scripturally-sanctioned masturbation. 

As for nocturnal emissions, I would put that under an "Act of God" - the individual has no control over such things.



> Educated people used to believe that all of the biological components necessary to create a human being were found in the seed. The woman was just an oven to bake the dough. Since they didn't have any idea what was really in the seed it's hard to know just what they thought was in there but it could probably compared what we would say the fertilized egg is, a complete being. It's easier to understand why the "spilling of seed" was seen as so evil when one understands that they basically thought that it contained a tiny person ready to grow in momma's tummy.



So Calvin's ignorance and lack of biology classes was what lead him to his conclusion? Scripture had nothing to do with it? Forgive me, but that's too much of a stretch for me to mentally assimilate.

I looked at the Natural Planning site, and while it is not destructive, as the others are, it is still saying that *I* am in the driver's seat, not the Lord.


----------



## Davidius

kvanlaan said:


> So Calvin's ignorance and lack of biology classes was what lead him to his conclusion? Scripture had nothing to do with it? Forgive me, but that's too much of a stretch for me to mentally assimilate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's a stretch to understand that 1500 years of biology probably had something to do with it. I'm not saying Calvin didn't try to use scripture at all, just that it's not impossible for us to unconsciously influence our interpretation of scripture. Take the arguments of the people in this thread, for example. "Be fruitful and multiply" and "Children are a blessing" turns into "if your wife, who has had many children already, is going to die because of her next pregnancy, go ahead and say your last good-byes" and "it doesn't matter how many children you have, even if you have 'a lot' it's still a sin if you don't have them back to back."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at the Natural Planning site, and while it is not destructive, as the others are, it is still saying that *I* am in the driver's seat, not the Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that the work you do to acquire and manage blessings other than children says that you consider yourself to be in the driver's seat?
Click to expand...


----------



## kvanlaan

As for 'present distress', let's look at context. Paul died, it is thought, in the tenth or eleventh year of Nero - he is speaking, according to Poole, of a time in the near future when the church will experience serious hardship. 'Distress' would indicate persecution the likes of which 99.9% of this board have never seen, let alone experienced themselves. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, you refer to it as though he intended little more than inconvenience in these words. Roman oppression vs. "It's too much trouble/inconvenient."


----------



## kvanlaan

> Do you think that the work you do to acquire and manage blessings other than children says that you consider yourself to be in the driver's seat?



No, because "he that does not work shall not eat." I am compelled therefore to work and be a good steward of what I have been given - I see no contradiction.



> is going to die because of her next pregnancy



Says who? Who can say this with 100% certainty? Not possible (and we know many who have stood before medical experts and replied that the Lord will take them as they see fit. They've gone on to have many children since.)


----------



## Davidius

kvanlaan said:


> Roman oppression vs. "It's too much trouble/inconvenient."



This is the kind of unhelpful strawman argumentation I mentioned earlier.


----------



## Davidius

kvanlaan said:


> Do you think that the work you do to acquire and manage blessings other than children says that you consider yourself to be in the driver's seat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because "he that does not work shall not eat." I am compelled therefore to work and be a good steward of what I have been given - I see no contradiction.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean "work" so literally. Part of being a good steward of your food is not eating until you vomit.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Roman oppression vs. "It's too much trouble/inconvenient."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of unhelpful strawman argumentation I mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...


Rubbish - my point is that it is apples and oranges. It is not a strawman issue at all, it has to do with the accurate exegesis of scripture and nothing more.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I didn't mean "work" so literally. Part of being a good steward of your food is not eating until you vomit.



Yes, which is why there are injunctions against gluttony and greed. Where are the injunctions against procreation and the birthing of children in a marriage? There are none.

Also, the NFP site talk about breastfeeding as a natural system of birth control. _This_ I agree with as it is part of the natural rhythm of childrearing. The mother breastfeeds, is (usually) not fertile during this time, and it gives her body time to regenerate and heal itself. Part of God's plan.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> As for 'present distress', let's look at context. Paul died, it is thought, in the tenth or eleventh year of Nero - he is speaking, according to Poole, of a time in the near future when the church will experience serious hardship. 'Distress' would indicate persecution the likes of which 99.9% of this board have never seen, let alone experienced themselves. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, you refer to it as though he intended little more than inconvenience in these words. Roman oppression vs. "It's too much trouble/inconvenient."



I am not student of church history and I will confess to not believing it necessary to be one to understand the bible. If we look at it in context 'present' indicates to me something that was occuring at the time when Paul was writing. Looking at the book of 1 Corinthians, whatever was happening in Corinth, the christians there;

1) still had access to courts of law, since they were having lawsuits against one another (ch 6) 
2) Still were able to sit down in an idol temple to eat meat (ch8-10) 
3) Still could shop openly in the pagan meat-markets (ch 10) 
4) maintained good enough relations with the pagans that they were from time to time invited to eat dinner together (ch 10) 
5) still had enough luxury that some of them were able to turn the Lord's Supper into a drunken feast (ch 11)

In fact, in his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul while extorting them to give, describes them as being relatively rich (2 Cor 8:14) in comparison to other christians.

So while I do not know exactly what Paul was referring to when he said 'present distress' I do not believe persecution of holocaust type proportions in necessary to activate the principle.

In any case, I am not sure how the potential death of a woman in childbirth (which I believe was the context of our discussion) is considered an inconvinience.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> I looked at the Natural Planning site, and while it is not destructive, as the others are, it is still saying that *I* am in the driver's seat, not the Lord.



I think this is the crux of our disagreement; where exactly has the Lord said that he objects to us 'taking the wheel' in the matter of childbirth? God opens and closes the womb, but as I said, he is in control of every little detail that happens in the universe. Where has he said that he wants exclusive control over childbearing?


----------



## kvanlaan

Sorry, what I was replying to was your claim that it was OK to forego marriage because of troubled times, not the context of a mother dying in childbirth - two very separate issues. 

And the English use of 'present', as we use it now, is not what it used to be. If I said that "Mark will be along presently", it means that he will be along soon. When we look at the Greek, (and this is a commentary, I am no Greek scholar) it says _impending_. Thus I cannot accept your argument in post #65 - it is not in context.


----------



## kvanlaan

He wants exclusive control over _every_ facet of our lives - Kuyper said that upon His return, there will be one word on the lips of Christ: "MINE". Why is childbearing exempt?


----------



## MW

satz said:


> I think this is the crux of our disagreement; where exactly has the Lord said that he objects to us 'taking the wheel' in the matter of childbirth? God opens and closes the womb, but as I said, he is in control of every little detail that happens in the universe. Where has he said that he wants exclusive control over childbearing?



There are some things "nature" teaches, and which Scripture simply builds upon. Let's ask a related question: Where has God claimed exclusive control over the gender of children? Nowhere, He simply has that control in virtue of "nature," notwithstanding the attempt of modern medicine to wrest it from Him.

But let's move the debate up one level. Do the Scriptures regard the body of man as instrumental or essential to human personality? Essential. Hence the Christian doctrine of resurrection. If essential, it may not be treated as if it were something apart from us, and modified to suit our own good. The wholeness of the body itself is a part of the good we seek for ourselves.

Now, what are children, according to the biblical presentation? Seed. Seed is an extension of one's own personality, and thus the fruit of union between two persons. Children therefore are a natural extension of the marital bond and a part of that wholeness which the individual seeks from marriage. This is why, when God takes a person into covenant with Himself, He takes also his children, 1 Cor. 7:14. This being the case, the ability to have children cannot be regarded as open to modification in the quest to seek one's own good, because children themselves are the essential good of marriage.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> He wants exclusive control over _every_ facet of our lives - Kuyper said that upon His return, there will be one word on the lips of Christ: "MINE". Why is childbearing exempt?



Agreed. However giving him control does not equate to 'let go and let God'. We use means in many, many areas to change God's providence. I see no indication from the bible that childbearing is special, or that all BC methods are sinful.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> Sorry, what I was replying to was your claim that it was OK to forego marriage because of troubled times, not the context of a mother dying in childbirth - two very separate issues.
> 
> And the English use of 'present', as we use it now, is not what it used to be. If I said that "Mark will be along presently", it means that he will be along soon. When we look at the Greek, (and this is a commentary, I am no Greek scholar) it says _impending_. Thus I cannot accept your argument in post #65 - it is not in context.



That's fair enough - I guess. I can't say either way regarding the greek.

However, I do not believe that affects my argument too much. I don't believe the bible teaches that we need severe persecution to chose not to marry, or indeed, that I need to track down the date when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and then research what happened to the Corinthians soon after in order to understand the bible. I see no issue in taking 'present distress' simply as representing trouble. So yes, if I was struggling financially, I believe I would be perfectly within christian limits to chose to postpone marriage - unless I was 'burning' as Paul would say.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> Sorry, what I was replying to was your claim that it was OK to forego marriage because of troubled times, not the context of a mother dying in childbirth - two very separate issues.



Kevin,

Even if we understand 'present distress' as 'coming distress', would you accept my logic for the purposes of the severe situation above?

In your own personal situation would you feel you could (not will, just could) use birth control without sinning?


----------



## kvanlaan

> So yes, if I was struggling financially, I believe I would be perfectly within christian limits to chose to postpone marriage - unless I was 'burning' as Paul would say.



And would you apply the same to childbirth? I.e. "I can't afford it, so my wife and I will wait to have children until we can afford it."


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> Sorry, what I was replying to was your claim that it was OK to forego marriage because of troubled times, not the context of a mother dying in childbirth - two very separate issues.



Kevin,

Even if we understand 'present distress' as 'coming distress', would you accept my argument for the purposes of the severe situation above?

In your own personal situation would you feel you could (not will, just could) use birth control without sinning?


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> Sorry, what I was replying to was your claim that it was OK to forego marriage because of troubled times, not the context of a mother dying in childbirth - two very separate issues.



Kevin,

Even if we understand 'present distress' as 'coming distress', would you accept my argument for the purposes of the severe situation above?

In your own personal situation would you feel you could (not will, just could) use birth control without sinning?


----------



## kvanlaan

I will have to get back to you on this - time to pick my dad up from the airport! Cab is at the door...

But in brief - this is exactly the issue that we are struggling with and why I am so interested in this thread. Blessings, brother. More later.


----------



## Answerman

Actually my wife and I have always had the opposite kind of questions. We have always been curious why Christian don’t ask if it is wrong to want to have as many children as humanly possible. When our family reads the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we all seem to agree that they were trying to have as many children as possible even to the point of it sounding obsurd, so would we be wrong to want as many children as my wife and I could possible have? Should we be afraid that we could not afford more children? Should we be afraid of over populating the earth? Should we fear being accused of being Postmillenial Theonomic Christian Reconstructionists for having such thoughts?

Please don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t want to bind your conscience one way or another on this issue, but sometimes families that have as many children as they possibly can get slandered for their wanting to have more children, I have seen it. And in Germany, I have heard that having more than two children is considered taboo.

Here is one family that had their 17th child and I was elated to hear that they are wanting to keep on going.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20097968/

Am I wrong to feel elated and ecstatic for these people?

Is it a sin to want such a thing with all of the global warming and over population scares that we are constantly being warned about.

All I am trying to say, is be careful of buying into the worlds way of viewing things. I think we all know what China’s policy on this issue is and I would not want to have that same mentality pushed on us.


----------



## Answerman

Oh, and BTW, I am a postmillenial, theonomic Christian reconstructionist, but please don't hold that against me.


----------



## AV1611

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I have a friend whose wife recently had to have a tubal ligation. She would have died without the operation and left her husband to take care of four children alone. It's sad that there are some who would label her as being in sin.



I have not stated such a thing nor have I implied it. I would suggest you re-read my posts. 

As for issues raised by others in other posts I will reply when able.


----------



## Kevin

I am enjoying this tread. A lot of good debate is going on here. I would say that I fall more or less in line with Mark & Jacob, with a couple of caveats. 

First, all christian couples should be "pro-child". That is we should recognize that bearing children is part of the "essence" of the married state. Rev. Winzers reminder of this fact was timely. This will work itself out in our lives by being open to the idea of having children even if we "try" to plan/space them. An other way that this 'pro-child" idea works itself out in our lives is that we will have more kids. I don't think that everyone can or will have 17 but we will have (a lot) more then the 1 or 2 that are so common in our society.

Second, I believe that the non-thereaputic surgical alteration or removal of healthy tissue is a serious ethical issue. Many christians (and almost all non-christians) consider the issue of "tubals" & vasectomys only from the consideration of "birth controll". I think we need to back up and look at the bigger picture.

Third issue I believe needs to inform our view of this issue is the fall & reproduction. The effects of the fall on human reproduction are directly stated. How does this work out? Is the fact that we we can reproduce at the rate we do part of the curse? Is planning/spacing children an aspect of dominion? Is it (possibly) bringing order to chaos?

Fourth caveat, God callls us to raise Godly seed. He does not say he will count our children to see if we were faithful, he will judge by the result of how many of them follow him. Having 15 children that went to hell would be a curse, having one who served God all her life would be a great blessing.


----------



## shackleton

What if a woman chooses not to have children for what ever reason? We are assuming that she is married. Should the husband as the covenant head tell her she nneds to have them and that she is in sin for not having them?


----------



## satz

Just for information's sake I think I would agree with all your caveats, Kevin.


----------



## LadyFlynt

shackleton said:


> What if a woman chooses not to have children for what ever reason? We are assuming that she is married. Should the husband as the covenant head tell her she nneds to have them and that she is in sin for not having them?


That should've been something discussed BEFORE marriage. And in some cultures (Jewish for example) is considered a "dealbreaker".


----------



## shackleton

So, would choosing to not having children be a disqualification for an elder or pastor? If a couple is having a hard time getting pregnant, are fertility drugs, since this is technically altering your body and potentially trying to open the womb that God has closed, a viable option? If a couple can't have children, inorder to fulfill the biblical mandate, are they obligated to adopt?


----------



## Kevin

shackleton said:


> What if a woman chooses not to have children for what ever reason? We are assuming that she is married. Should the husband as the covenant head tell her she nneds to have them and that she is in sin for not having them?



Ladyflint is correct you should know this first.

BTW I have good friends who ended up divorced over this very issue. The wife prior to marriage said she wanted children "later", he agreed since thy were still in school. Long story short, later never came & they ended up divorced and she left the faith.

A husband should take in to account the shortcomings of his wife in all areas, and gently lead her to the truth, as he sees it. We all have areas that we hold "sub-scriptural" views we need grace to not make the area that we "understand" the most important issue of the faith. My advice to a husband in this situation would be to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Patiently, self-sacrificingly, and constently if he does this he will be surprised at how soon she is willing to submit to his leadership. Men who major on submission over love usually get neither.


----------



## Kevin

shackleton said:


> So, would choosing to not having children be a disqualification for an elder or pastor? If a couple is having a hard time getting pregnant, are fertility drugs, since this is technically altering your body and potentially trying to open the womb that God has closed, a viable option? If a couple can't have children, inorder to fulfill the biblical mandate, are they obligated to adopt?




Medical effort to repair a malfunctioning part of the body, are different in kind from medical efforts to alter a functioning part of the body.

As for the qualifications to be an elder in my opinion (!) IF the issue is voluntary bareness then it would be a disqualification. Not however childlessness qua childlessness. (my opinion)


----------



## ReformedWretch

> Men who major on submission over love usually get neither.



Sadly I know many men like this!



> My advice to a husband in this situation would be to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Patiently, self-sacrificingly, and constently if he does this he will be surprised at how soon she is willing to submit to his leadership.



I am living proof of this. My wife and I were evangelicals when we met and married and she wanted NONE of this submission stuff. She came around because I did exactly what you suggested here.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> Men who major on submission over love usually get neither.



This is sooo true. They also end up lacking in honesty in their marriage.


----------



## Calvibaptist

kvanlaan said:


> And the English use of 'present', as we use it now, is not what it used to be. If I said that "Mark will be along presently", it means that he will be along soon. When we look at the Greek, (and this is a commentary, I am no Greek scholar) it says _impending_. Thus I cannot accept your argument in post #65 - it is not in context.



Actually, the word "present" is a perfect active participle, and is often translated "be present, have come, be impending, arrived." Thayer's Lexicon shows that it was used in the phrase "the present war" by Aeschines to refer to a war that was currently taking place, not a war that was some obscure time in the future.


----------



## Calvibaptist

MamaArcher said:


> Any time we are called to give control over to GOd and we refuse it is sin, we are to be in submission to the Lord in ALL things. My hubby has had a vas. reversal, we have 8 children thuxs far, 3 of them are reversal babies.



I have not officially rendered an opinion on this thread yet, but I would like to point out a logical fallacy here. It has been stated that practicing birth control or having a vasectomy/tubal ligation is sin because it is God who opens/closes the womb and we should not take matters into our own hands. Therefore, we should not have that surgery that tries to take control out of God's hands to open/close the womb.

Then those same people that have made this argument talk about how they have had the reversal surgery. The logical fallacy is that this is once again taking matters into their own hands, in order to re-open the womb that is closed. They are not trusting in God to give them children in their present state, but trying surgery to help matters a bit. This is inconsistent.

I say this as one whose wife had her tubes tied and we have regretted the decision.


----------



## KMK

Calvibaptist said:


> Then those same people that have made this argument talk about how they have had the reversal surgery. The logical fallacy is that this is once again taking matters into their own hands, in order to re-open the womb that is closed. They are not trusting in God to give them children in their present state, but trying surgery to help matters a bit. This is inconsistent.



I tried to use this argument for months with my wife! She wasn't buying it. 

Honestly, my reversal was done as an act of repentance. Kind of like giving the money back after you have stolen it.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Ken, you accidentally attributed the quote to MamaArcher. Douglas, it's not a fallacy in that they feel they are "righting a wrong". We don't just let things stand in err; we try to correct them.


----------



## Calvibaptist

LadyFlynt said:


> Ken, you accidentally attributed the quote to MamaArcher. Douglas, it's not a fallacy in that they feel they are "righting a wrong". We don't just let things stand in err; we try to correct them.



Good point. My wife and I have considered having her tubes untied in order to allow us to have more children if God wills.


----------



## MamaArcher

Calvibaptist said:


> MamaArcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time we are called to give control over to GOd and we refuse it is sin, we are to be in submission to the Lord in ALL things. My hubby has had a vas. reversal, we have 8 children thuxs far, 3 of them are reversal babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not officially rendered an opinion on this thread yet, but I would like to point out a logical fallacy here. It has been stated that practicing birth control or having a vasectomy/tubal ligation is sin because it is God who opens/closes the womb and we should not take matters into our own hands. Therefore, we should not have that surgery that tries to take control out of God's hands to open/close the womb.
> 
> Then those same people that have made this argument talk about how they have had the reversal surgery. The logical fallacy is that this is once again taking matters into their own hands, in order to re-open the womb that is closed. They are not trusting in God to give them children in their present state, but trying surgery to help matters a bit. This is inconsistent.
> 
> I say this as one whose wife had her tubes tied and we have regretted the decision.
Click to expand...


In response to this, we do not feel as if we were taking this into our own hands to "re-open" my womb as you suggest. Yes, that is the perceived outcome but not the reasoning for the decision. If we were trying to control in that way, yes I would consider it still sin. We went through with the reversal as an act of repentance whether or not we had any further children was not our motivation. Yes, we wanted more but we were content and satisfied that we had repented and displayed our repentance in the actions we took, regardless of whether God would so choose to bless us again. We knew that the chances were small for us to have more children anyway, many who have reversals do not conceive. We were looking to be obedient to Christ in this manner.


----------



## SRoper

shackleton said:


> What if a woman chooses not to have children for what ever reason? We are assuming that she is married. Should the husband as the covenant head tell her she nneds to have them and that she is in sin for not having them?



I think that this situation would be the same as if one party refused to cohabit or have marital relations with the other. Having children is part of what marriage is for.


----------



## jbergsing

polemic_turtle said:


> You could try what one of our Christian friends did. When someone said "You know, they've discovered what causes that", she said "Yes, and I'm _gooood_ at it". ;-) It might quiet some people up.




Thanks Tyler! I will absolutely use this next I'm in that situation! I can see the disgusted look go to complete shock in .25 seconds!


----------



## Nse007

satz said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for birth control, I don't know if this is too personal, but we struggle with this in a BIG way. My wife has only C-sections but we live in China. Thus far she has had three C-sections in less-than-first-world facilities and we fear having more here but simply can't find the scripture to support stopping. We have adopted and will continue to adopt (Habib, Bereket, Sentiyehu, and Dagem should be here before Spring of 2008) because we feel called to it, and would likely do so even if my wife was able to have children naturally.
> 
> There is a huge difference (huge) in being childless naturally and being childless for the sake of convenience or personal choice. If we are sticking to the idea that God opens and closes the womb, how dare we remove the womb by our own hand? I just don't get it.
> 
> We've had plenty of people (family, even) tell me it was time to _snip-snip_, and that it was dangerous for Elizabeth to continue in this fashion. If we trust him to open and close the womb, and that children are a blessing, will we not also trust that he will protect us in childbirth or take us as His will decrees?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> Just some thoughts for your consideration;
> 
> IF we restrict our discussion to a situation where someone’s health or even life is in danger or possible danger, I would humbly submit we do not need a scripture to justify birth control because a) God never condemns it, b) God never commands procreation in a manner that would conflict with birth control use. I know some or many will disagree with b), but that is my position for the time being, as I tried to explain in my earlier post on this thread.
> 
> The fact that God opens and closes the womb does not, by itself preclude us from using wisdom and prudence in managing childbirth UNLESS God has also said he wants us to keep our hands off. I do not believe such a command is found in the bible. God opens and closes the sky for rain, but we dig ditches for drainage and carry umbrellas based on the weather forecast. God controls sickness and health, but we buy medical insurance and use doctors. God says in Psalm 127 (one of the Psalms that extols the blessing of children) that unless he builds the house or watches the city the builder/watchmen labour in vain. We trust him, but that does not mean we do not build/watch ourselves.
> 
> I believe it is no good simply saying ‘Trust God’. We must trust in a specific promise. God does expect us to use means to take care of ourselves. Again, it boils down to: Is procreation commanded/contraception condemned? If so, then we trust God to look after us whatever happens. But if not, we can and should use prudent medical means to guard against danger.
> 
> Please do not take offence, but since you volunteered information on your personal situation, I very, very humbly submit that it is not wisdom for a woman with a husband and five or more children depending on her to put her life at risk unless she has to. And if God has not condemned birth control, it is right, I believe, to use such means to avoid danger. When the devil invited Jesus Christ to test the promises of God by flinging himself from the top of the temple, the Lord declined because the obvious and wise thing to do would be to take the stairs. Likewise, if a woman is already pregnant and faced with substandard medical facilities we submit to God’s will and trust him. But before that, I see no sin at all in using BC to avoid getting into that situation.
Click to expand...


Andrew Myers has some good material on BC somewhere on the board. You would do well to look over it. Andrew is a consumate scholar on all things "reformed".


----------



## satz

Nse007 said:


> Andrew Myers has some good material on BC somewhere on the board. You would do well to look over it. Andrew is a consumate scholar on all things "reformed".



Actually I have looked over much ( I won't say all) of the reformed material re birth control and remain unconvinced. I admire and respect Andrew in many ways, but on this issue I disagree with him (and the vast majority of church history, I know).


----------



## shackleton

I don't agree with everything that was presented in this forum, but I was planning on getting a vasectomy next year to make it certain we would not have kids, I have now been convinced to not make not having a baby that certian. Either way now is not the time for us to have kids. If it really is up to God then it will be in his timing if at all.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> I will have to get back to you on this - time to pick my dad up from the airport! Cab is at the door...
> 
> But in brief - this is exactly the issue that we are struggling with and why I am so interested in this thread. Blessings, brother. More later.



Kevin,

For better or for worse, this thread seems to have died a natural death, but I thought I would offer one more argument regarding the use of birth control by Christians when the wife’s health is an issue. Yup, I think I have used this before on the board, but I think it is sometime since we had a contraception thread.

Proverbs 21:3 To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

To be fair, merciful and kind is better in the eyes of the Lord than blind adherence to ceremonial religion, even if God gave the ceremonies. In our context I maintain that to look out for the health of the wife, as well as the subsequent effects that any misfortune that might befall her would have on the rest of the family, is superior to blind adherence to the vague principles that comprise most of the reformed objections to birth control. 

Let me just say again at this point that I am discussing situations where the wife’s health or life might be at risk. Those who have read my posts know that I think the situations where a christian couple may righteously use birth control extend beyond that, but this post, let us restrict ourselves to that more ‘extreme context’.

Firstly, I maintain that there is no direct bible command against birth control, nor any command to procreate that is so binding that any use of birth control automatically constitutes sin against it. The principles of trusting God, valuing children and others used to oppose birth control are certainly very real, but to utilize them in an attempt to condemn birth control as sinful when someone’s health is threatened flies in the face of the wisdom of this proverb, I think.

In Matt 12, when Jesus’ disciples got hungry and picked grain to eat on the Sabbath and were condemned by the Pharisees, Jesus quoted to them the story of David in the Old Testament where he and his companions ate the shewbread meant only for the priests when they were hungry. And from there he tells the Pharisees that if they had understood what it means that God desires mercy and not sacrifice, they would not have condemned the guiltless. And it is this very story that the WCF uses as the proof text for allowing works of mercy or necessity on the Sabbath, for doing what is good and merciful toward men is better in the eyes of God that strict ceremonial Sabbath observance. 

Likewise, I humbly submit that when someone’s health is at stake, sober use of non-abortion causing contraceptives is wiser and more righteous and blind adherence to principles when God has never even said that those principles should be applied in such a way as to condemn contraceptives.

In two places the Lord Jesus argued from the fact that men would take care of their animals on the Sabbath to justify his healing on the Sabbath Day (Matt 12:11-12, Luke 13:10-17), for it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath (Matt 12:12). Likewise, to do good, (and protect someone’s health) is better than strict observance to the principles used to oppose birth control.

I will note again that there is no explicit condemnation of birth control in the bible, nor a command to procreate that is binding in the sense that it automatically rules out birth control. By contrast, the Sabbath law was exceeding explicit. Remember the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath and was stoned (Num 15:30-36)? However, Jesus still applied the principle of mercy to allow acts of necessity and mercy on the Sabbath Day. How much more should the principle apply in the area of birth control, where there is not even explicit commands from the Lord? 

If we apply the logic of those who oppose birth control in any and all situations (and I say noting that I respect many of them greatly) we would have to tell David, the disciples and those whom Jesus healed to respect the Sabbath rules and trust in God to take care of them. But that is not what they did, and the Lord approved their actions.

I noted above that the WCF uses the story in Matt 12 as its proof text for works of mercy and necessity. When the disciples actually ate the grains, or when David ate the shewbread, they did not have that scriptures to tell them it was legal. They knew it simply by applying the general principles of mercy thought in the OT itself (Mic 6:6-8, Hosea 6:6, Is 1:17). Thus, this answers the demand that is sometimes raised for a verse to justify the use of birth control. One is not needed, because the justification can be inferred from general principles. 


In the context of David’s story the Lord Jesus said ‘the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’ (Mark 2:23-28), by which he thought us the principle of intent. We may, I believe, just as readily conclude that God made marriage, sex and family for man, not the other way round. To risk someone’s health when the risk could be removed though the use of contraceptives is detrimental to the family which most anti-birth control advocates seek to promote. Yes, God sometimes tests our faith by bringing trials, but he also expects and allows us to use non-sinful means to avoid suffering. Paul thought much about suffering for Christ but he had no qualms about using his citizenship in the pagan Roman Empire to avoid a beating when he could. Likewise I have said already I see no sin in using something God as not explicitly condemned to avoid potential danger.

I further but humbly believe that even if one is undecided on the issue, based on this principle of mercy, if there is truly a real danger to someone’s health or life we should err on the side of mercy and do what must be done to remove the danger. Even if someone was disturbed in the conscience the assertions of Calvin and others regarding the wasting of seed by this principle of mercy I will, and I believe God will as well, prefer the life and health of a person over the protection of inanimate seed.


----------



## Craig

Spear Dane said:


> Those commands are so in the Old Testament. We're under grace now.


LOL! 

I've been on both sides of the issue...we prevented conception first of all, because we wanted to enjoy the first few years of marriage...then, after about 6 months of marriage, my wife had a blood clot...Our reasoning then was shaped by our doctors because they gave us dire warnings...well, after nearly 5 years I talked with our current Pastor. As a result, we stepped in FAITH to not prevent conception. I kid you not, we conceived after the 1st or 2nd time of not preventing...simply amazing. No complications. My wife does give herself a shot each day to prevent a blood clot, but that is simply being cautious, it may not even be necessary. We are now 5 months along.

Children are a blessing, and who are we to call God a liar? This isn't about a Christian's liberty, in my opinion: it is about living out God's Word (not that I'm amazing and a super Christian). We live in abject fear because we adopt the world's way of looking at children. Whether it's fear for health or fear of financial provision. If we have a faith to save, then that faith should not be compartmentalized for "spiritual things". We need to conceive in faith.


----------



## SRoper

Mark, you present a false dilemma in your consequentialist calculation as you neglected the options of abstinence or periodic abstinence. There are medical conditions that require the suspension of normal relations, and you need to explain why a medical condition that makes pregnancy dangerous is not another example of such a condition.


----------



## satz

SRoper said:


> Mark, you present a false dilemma in your consequentialist calculation as you neglected the options of abstinence or periodic abstinence. There are medical conditions that require the suspension of normal relations, and you need to explain why a medical condition that makes pregnancy dangerous is not another example of such a condition.



Scott,

I'am sorry, but I have difficulty understanding your question. Could you explain how the possibility of abstinence would affect my argument?


----------



## SRoper

You have presented the use of birth control as a viable alternative in the case where the woman's health may be in danger from pregnancy, but using birth control is not the only alternative available. The couple could abstain altogether. It seems to me that if Calvin was right that birth control is the moral equivalent of abortion then abstinence is a far better choice than birth control. This option would both protect the health of the woman and would not waste seed.


----------



## MW

SRoper said:


> You have presented the use of birth control as a viable alternative in the case where the woman's health may be in danger from pregnancy, but using birth control is not the only alternative available. The couple could abstain altogether. It seems to me that if Calvin was right that birth control is the moral equivalent of abortion then abstinence is a far better choice than birth control. This option would both protect the health of the woman and would not waste seed.



Well noted, Scott; perhaps you could put the word "better" before "protect" and it would make your point conclusive. If becoming pregnant presents medical dangers to the extent the couple feel they can't have children, why would they risk falling pregnant at all?


----------



## satz

SRoper said:


> You have presented the use of birth control as a viable alternative in the case where the woman's health may be in danger from pregnancy, but using birth control is not the only alternative available. The couple could abstain altogether. It seems to me that if Calvin was right that birth control is the moral equivalent of abortion then abstinence is a far better choice than birth control. This option would both protect the health of the woman and would not waste seed.



Ah okie... that makes it clear. Thanks.

This is a hard question for me to answer since, as I think I have made clear in previous post, I see nothing wrong per se with non-abortion causing birth control in the first place. So to me, there really is no dilemma as I think Calvin, and the many great men who agreed with him, were wrong. My last post was primarily written to answer the argument that birth control must be avoided because it is anti-children, anti-faith etc etc

That said, off the top of my head I would say that total abstinence is explicitly forbidden by 1 Cor 7, so that option is out. To me, that would leave us with either the 'rhythm' method, or to chose to follow the explicit command of 1 Cor 7 over the inferred condemnation of birth control. Off course, the latter option only works for me because I believe the inference is a bad one at best. 

In your last sentence you stated: 'This option would both protect the health of the woman and would not waste seed.' If we assume we have three 'things' in the balance: the health of a woman, a couple's sexual activity and the 'seed', I honestly cannot understand why we would chose to prioritize the preservation of seed over either of the other two. Both the other two have clear, explicit warrant in scripture. The importance of the third one comes only from indirect inferrences. Science has since shown us that lots and lots of seed is wasted even when a couple never practices contraception, either though natural emissions or even in intercourse when conception does not occur. Even when conception occurs, the vast majority of the 'seed' is actually wasted and not used. 

We do not use science to explain away God's commands, but regarding seed I cannot even see a command. The fact that Calvin believed is worth considering, but that does not make it true by itself. There is a time, I believe, to soberly and carefully say with Job 32:9 that 'Great men are not always wise'.


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> Well noted, Scott; perhaps you could put the word "better" before "protect" and it would make your point conclusive. If becoming pregnant presents medical dangers to the extent the couple feel they can't have children, why would they risk falling pregnant at all?



Rev Winzer,

I think I tried to answer this above, where I said that abstience as an option is out since it is explicitly forbidden, unlike b/c. Regarding the point of 'better protection', God does not expect us to cover every little base. We do our best and trust him for the details. We do not abandon driving to eliminate the risk of accidents, but we take reasonable care to maximize our safety. If a couple were to become pregnant inspite of whatever method they used, God has obviously shown his will, and in that new situation they would trust him to do what is best.


----------



## Larry Hughes

We are so deistic in our modern thinking we don’t even see it sometimes.

It is not a “logical” inconsistency when speaking of birth control as a sin since it is God who opens and closes the womb, then those who reverse it “are taking matters into their own hands”. Some of this does depend upon the method used though due to abortive components of some methods. But in general:

There are more things than one to consider here. You must realize that all legitimate offices such as doctor, husband, wife, child, fireman, etc…are the concrete manifestations of God’s Law. God’s Law is manifested in the offices we are called to, this is how we love our neighbor OR sin against the Law and not love our neighbor. The Law is not just some abstraction with no reality. That’s fundamental. Thus, God’s Law which is holy and good is so EVEN through unbelievers, yet it is not them but God working, thus the unbeliever will stand condemned trying to garner this work from God.

Secondly, C. Evert Koop as a medical doctor points out, in general concerning say surgery and the medical field, that though he like all doctors perform an act on the organs and flesh such as cutting or similar, he cannot cause that same flesh to heal or not heal, only God can do this. In affect the doctor is a “rough instrument” that holds the office or calling of healing, this is an office to love the neighbor, and thus he/she can perform the rough outward forms to save life (a doctor’s calling, not to kill life against his/her calling), but it is God who 1. Has set up and called the office through which He works by His Law, and 2. God who causes the cells to perform their mending. We REALLY are profitless servants at the end of the day. Cancer can be excised, but only God can continue life from there. Life is always in the hands of God. Yet, that is not to say that man cannot sin against his office, like Dr. Jack Kevorkian. A doctor is not to be a killer anymore than a fireman is to set fires, a policeman to rob, a mother to not be a mother, a father to not be a father, a wife and so forth.

Again, there are multiple things at work here.

Thus, a couple could rightly use all the God given technologies derived from the proper and authorized and legitimate callings of God to help them bear children, BUT again it is God’s Law that is working in and through those offices that set forth those technologies and God Who alone in the end still causes conception EVEN at that point. TO desire children is not only NOT against God’s Law but in perfect tune with it and assumed immediately in the Law itself everywhere. 

However, to cause birth control is NOT the calling of a husband and wife, it is illegitimate. Men can still sin against their callings, even in the offices as husband and wife. That is to try to control the situation and prevent God from being God. DON’T hear me wrong, I’m not on some high horse, we too practiced this for a while until Scripture captured this to Christ for us…and its NOT easy in our day and time, so much has been lost in the understanding of Scripture. If anything I’m a forgiven sinner talking to fellow forgiven sinners, call me worse if it makes you feel better I won’t deny it.

Some reformers in the past even called it preemptive murder. That sounds harsh but is not that hard if one ponders the good and Holy Law on the issue. All murder, either by the heart only or that which finally makes it to the hands for some, issues forth from some form of “another” getting in my way of life. E.g. We curse either with our lips for real or think it hard before suppressing it in our minds when some “jerk” cuts us off in traffic. THAT anger over that person issues forth from a murderous mind that starts in being “my own god for myself” and this “jerk” that just got in the way of my time and space point of life is interfering with my pursuit of life for me. So, I at a minimum wish him dead by this anger. The anger is an issuing forth of a desire for “that being” to be gone from my existence or murder. And that derives from me desiring to be my own god in violation of the first commandment. This is why all sin, open or false saintly ones, are a result of unbelief. A desire to not have children because my wife and I would prefer this or that style of life, even for a while, is fundamentally the same. If honest what we are really saying in sugar coated terms is, “a child would burden this life I think best for ME (being my own god) right now…therefore we won’t have one now (the preemptive murder) in thought, even though the deed is not happening.” One of the reasons we get so angry when we actually hear of this is the truth behind it. And again, I’m not a hypocrite here, but a sinner under grace, I’ve thought the same thing in our day and age.

Furthermore, child bearing was again sanctified in the incarnation of Christ Himself who at every point was made man from the very beginning, including the soul, and explicitly at conception. If there was ANYTHING of man that Christ did not become, then it was NOT redeemed, and there was NOT. In being incarnate at the very point of conception Christ sanctified of man conception, the baby in the womb, the nine month process, the mother and EVERY connection natural to child pregnancy, motherhood, fatherhood by Joseph being His earthly father, the birth process in all its naturalness…EVERYTHING. Christ need not to have married and have His own children, He already sanctified it in His own incarnation from conception forward. Christ literally fulfilled ALL righteousness. And it is further sanctified in that Christ is the God the Son of God the FATHER.

One of the most precious pastoral pieces of comfort Martin Luther gave a friend of his whose wife died in child birth shows us just how far removed from Scripture we have come in this late hour. Luther said it is right for a husband to mourn the loss of their dear spouse, but to not to mourn too much for this was God’s will. And to further take strong comfort by strong faith that she died in her specific glorious God given calling…doing the very WILL of God Himself. The picture here is this: We would rightly mourn a missionary we may personally know if they died for the faith, their calling, be it by persecution or just some general accident that may have happened in the process. Yet, we would be comforted by the fact that he/she died in their calling which was the will of God (we will see them again in glory). Then why not for the mother? Sure, no man would want this, it would destroy all my own strength to loose my wife this way (especially the way I'd hear it from even Christians if it happened, the hidden barbs against having children), but faith would bear one up under this suffering if one understood that it was her VERY calling that she died doing this. Like a wonderful soldier who dies in battle, very sad for the present lose, but wonderful that God had so called them to this and one will assuredly see them again in the kingdom of heaven.

Larry


----------



## MW

satz said:


> I think I tried to answer this above, where I said that abstience as an option is out since it is explicitly forbidden, unlike b/c.



I suppose the question being begged here is where abstinence is ruled out as an option. You refer to 1 Cor. 7, but Paul provides those instructions to those who are battling the issue of "uncleanness" not medical dangers. There is no prohibition to abstain in the case of physical weakness. Abstinence is a form of birth control, so it is unhelpful to make them separate things. When sexual relations are being discussed it is more correct to speak of contraception. Contraception belonged to the sphere of witchcraft in the old world, and is condemned as a work of the flesh in Gal. 5:20.


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> I suppose the question being begged here is where abstinence is ruled out as an option. You refer to 1 Cor. 7, but Paul provides those instructions to those who are battling the issue of "uncleanness" not medical dangers. There is no prohibition to abstain in the case of physical weakness. Abstinence is a form of birth control, so it is unhelpful to make them separate things.



I should have clarified myself and said I was referring to completely abstinence as a rule of marriage. I do agree that abstaining for a time is allowed in cases of physical weakness. I do think 1 Cor 7 would rule out complete abstinence within a marriage as sinful. 



> When sexual relations are being discussed it is more correct to speak of contraception. Contraception belonged to the sphere of witchcraft in the old world, and is condemned as a work of the flesh in Gal. 5:20



I don't see contraception, or indeed anything to do with sex in Galations 5:20. How do we tell from the bible, and not the old world, that contraception = witchcraft?


----------



## MW

satz said:


> I should have clarified myself and said I was referring to completely abstinence as a rule of marriage. I do agree that abstaining for a time is allowed in cases of physical weakness. I do think 1 Cor 7 would rule out complete abstinence within a marriage as sinful.



If you allow physical weakness to be a basis of abstinence, then perpetual physical weakness must be a basis for perpetual abstinence. Now if you allow medical problems to be a reason why a couple should not have children, it is clear that there is perpetual physical weakness, and the best way to avoid such dangers (if they are real and not merely a doctor's hypothetical) is perpetual abstinence.



satz said:


> I don't see contraception, or indeed anything to do with sex in Galations 5:20. How do we tell from the bible, and not the old world, that contraception = witchcraft?



A study of the biblical presentation of witchcraft can only reveal generals from which specifics can be deduced; but the study will be well worth the effort. Ancient magic was inherently manipulative. Greco-Roman magic had a specific utilitarian concern. Witchcraft seeks the distortion of the "phusis" or of the mind's conception of "phusis" for personal ends. As I noted in an earlier post, the Bible represents human biology as a good to be sought in itself, and not as an instrument to be manipulated for our good.


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> If you allow physical weakness to be a basis of abstinence, then perpetual physical weakness must be a basis for perpetual abstinence. Now if you allow medical problems to be a reason why a couple should not have children, it is clear that there is perpetual physical weakness, and the best way to avoid such dangers (if they are real and not merely a doctor's hypothetical) is perpetual abstinence.



Rev Winzer,

You ignored my point that perpetual abstinence is forbidden by the bible. That is why I do not believe the logic will flow in that direction. If there is a problem with a woman's body whereby pregnancy will harm her, the best way to avoid danger is to avoid pregnancy. If perpetual abstinence is condemned, the best course is though some form of contraception.




> A study of the biblical presentation of witchcraft can only reveal generals from which specifics can be deduced; but the study will be well worth the effort. Ancient magic was inherently manipulative. Greco-Roman magic had a specific utilitarian concern. Witchcraft seeks the distortion of the "phusis" or of the mind's conception of "phusis" for personal ends. As I noted in an earlier post, the Bible represents human biology as a good to be sought in itself, and not as an instrument to be manipulated for our good.



I had always thought the essence of witchcraft to be not in manipulation, but in unlawful supernatural power. Deut and Exodus speak of familiar spirits in the context of witchcraft, I believe. If we follow your definition, why are all science and medicine not condemned, since they too manipulate either the natural world or the body.


----------



## MW

satz said:


> You ignored my point that perpetual abstinence is forbidden by the bible. That is why I do not believe the logic will flow in that direction. If there is a problem with a woman's body whereby pregnancy will harm her, the best way to avoid danger is to avoid pregnancy. If perpetual abstinence is condemned, the best course is though some form of contraception.



Again, the question is being begged. You have allowed an exception in the apostle's prohibition in relation to physical weakness. If the physical weakness is perpetual, then the abstinence must be perpetual. Thus perpetual abstinence is possible within the apostle's prohibition. It is only by making the apostle's prohibition universal that you can establish your point; but you deny it to be universal.



satz said:


> I had always thought the essence of witchcraft to be not in manipulation, but in unlawful supernatural power. Deut and Exodus speak of familiar spirits in the context of witchcraft, I believe. If we follow your definition, why are all science and medicine not condemned, since they too manipulate either the natural world or the body.



Only God has supernatural power. Other powers might "counterfeit" this power, but they cannot reproduce it. Medicine should be restorative. When it confines itself to this definition it is within the bounds of preserving well-being.


----------



## satz

Actually, I think this thread has started to reach the going round in circles part, at least as far as my participation is concerned. 

So, I'am off (for now). Take care all!


Rev Winzer, 

Thank you for your interaction, but I suspect that even if we pursue this, no one's mind will be changed at the end of the day. I feel that I am done with his subject for a time being.


----------



## MW

satz said:


> Thank you for your interaction, but I suspect that even if we pursue this, no one's mind will be changed at the end of the day. I feel that I am done with his subject for a time being.



 Blessings!


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> A study of the biblical presentation of witchcraft can only reveal generals from which specifics can be deduced; but the study will be well worth the effort. Ancient magic was inherently manipulative. Greco-Roman magic had a specific utilitarian concern. Witchcraft seeks the distortion of the "phusis" or of the mind's conception of "phusis" for personal ends. As I noted in an earlier post, the Bible represents human biology as a good to be sought in itself, and not as an instrument to be manipulated for our good.



This is very interesting. Can you recommend a resource for witchcraft in the Bible, Rev Winzer?


----------

