# Is it the responsibility of a married couple to have children?



## dog8food

If both partners decide not to have children, is it Biblical?
What if only one of the partners doesn't want children? Who wins?


----------



## earl40

I guess it would depend on the reason. Though I can not recall ever hearing any any good reason not to have children.


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> Though I can not recall ever hearing any any good reason not to have children.



I can see where it might be appropriate in rare cases of certain known genetic defects. 



dog8food said:


> What if only one of the partners doesn't want children?



Not enough information given. 

If it didn't come out until after the marriage, it would sound like poor pre-marital counseling or lack of due diligence before marriage. (Or willful fraud in inducing the marriage.) If the party that wants children knew before the marriage that the other didn't, and married anyway, then they need to live with the consequences of his or her choices. And if the issue comes up before the marriage, then perhaps the wedding should be called off. 

And, of course, there are other possible scenarios. Are we talking about an academic discussion, or something that a person should take to their elders?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I believe it would be sinful for two people to marry with the intention of never having children. Procreation is an essential part of a biblical marriage. Are there those who cannot have children for no fault of there own? Of course, but this is not a desirable condition for the Christian couple to be in. 

How many kids one has is a question that I would be much less dogmatic about. But for two reproductively healthy adults to marry with the express intention of never having any children demonstrates an erroneous idea of marriage and the family and very possibly a sinful attitude toward children. 

One may object by saying, "Well, not everyone is cut out to be parents." I whole heartedly agree! But those are people I would encourage to remain single.



> Marriage was ordained... for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed. WCF 24.2


----------



## SolaScriptura

If able, yes.


----------



## earl40

Edward said:


> I can see where it might be appropriate in rare cases of certain known genetic defects.



I agree I just have never heard of such.


----------



## earl40

SolaScriptura said:


> If able, yes.



If unable the question is moot.


----------



## Christusregnat

dog8food said:


> If both partners decide not to have children, is it Biblical?



Such a decision is most decidedly contrary to the command of God in Scripture, and the law of nature, which requires that procreative beings attempt to procreate. If both partners decide not to have children, they are immitating unnatural lust rather than biblical marriage.




dog8food said:


> What if only one of the partners doesn't want children? Who wins?



God's command to be fruitful and multiply should reign over either party's wants and supposed needs. Duty is ours, and it is what we are responsible to do.


----------



## Curt

My wife asked that of Dr. Schaeffer about 37 years ago. He said (short version), "that would be limiting the creativity of God, wouldn't it?"


----------



## Miss Marple

It seems to me if you say that it is sinful to deliberately have NO children, then whatever reasons you give for that position could be used against limiting, to any degree, the number of children you have.

Examples:

1. Paul and Mary decide they don't want children because they have to move around a lot, and it would be too hard on themselves and any children to do that. "Sin." Paul and Mary decide to stop at 3 children because they have to move around a lot, and it is hard on themselves and the children. "Not sin."

2. Paul and Mary decide they don't want children because Paul's income follows such a boom/bust cycle they have a very difficult time achieving economic stability. They both think Mary should be a stay at home wife. "Sin." Paul and Mary decide to stop at 2 children for the same reason: "Not sin."

3. Paul and Mary decide they don't want children because they minister together in North Korea, and it is so dangerous. "Sin." Paul and Mary decide to stop after their first child, as they become aware that the child is very vulnerable to many dangers there, and also make them far more vulnerable and unable to make bold decisions for witnessing opportunities. "Not sin."

I am not commenting for or against the thread's question, but opining that an argument for no children seems equivalent to me to an argument for limiting children.


----------



## jwithnell

> My wife asked that of Dr. Schaeffer about 37 years ago. He said (short version), "that would be limiting the creativity of God, wouldn't it?"


I absolutely love this!


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

earl40 said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> If able, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If unable the question is moot.
Click to expand...


I've heard people argue that sterile people should remain single due to their sterility. I think this is crazy (are they going to test them all? Do they believe in abstinence after menopause?)


----------



## Caroline

I think there is space for a marriage that is more about companionship. I have known elderly people to marry, primarily for companionship and to care for one another. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. When God created woman, He commented that it was not good for man to be alone. 

I have known many marriages that were very blessed even without children, and I don't think they should have been counseled not to marry if they were not able to bear children. In regard to actually choosing not to have children, I think that is in the realm of Stuff That Is None of My Business. If there are circumstances that make it inadvisable, or if there are psychological barriers, or whatever, then I think those things should be discussed in counseling, but I don't think we should make hasty generalizations.

PS One thing to consider in this: not everyone is gifted to be single. In some cases, if someone doesn't marry, then it is a real question who will care for that person. For example, a girl raised in foster care who suffers from schizophrenia (a case I actually know). She should probably never have children because of the meds she has to be on and her psychological problems. If, however, someone is willing to marry her and care for her, her prognosis is much better than if she is simply set out on her own in life. I would never counsel someone like her that she is required to remain single. I would rather that she had some family than no family. It is probably the difference between being reasonably stable and loved vs being homeless and insane.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Caroline,

No one in this thread has argued that people who are unable to bear children (i.e. the elderly, infirm or infertile) should not marry. Companionship is a big part of marriage that no one is disputing. The question more surrounds those who have no impediment to conceiving or raising kids but for whatever reason, just don't wont them.


----------



## Caroline

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Caroline,
> 
> No one in this thread has argued that people who are unable to bear children (i.e. the elderly, infirm or infertile) should not marry. Companionship is a big part of marriage that no one is disputing. The question more surrounds those who have no impediment to conceiving or raising kids but for whatever reason, just don't wont them.



My argument would be that we cannot have it both ways. If procreation is an absolutely essential part of marriage so that people should not marry if they do not plan to have children, then the same would apply to elderly and infertile couples. The presence of elderly and infertile couples demonstrates that people can be just as married without children as with them. The presence or absence of children does not make or break a marriage. 

But I would also add that I think it would be exceedingly rare for people to "just not want" children. People may believe that they would be poor parents for one reason or another, may have financial concerns, etc. These things are counseling matters. I think patience is warranted. If a woman says, "I don't want children," I just don't think the immediate answer is, "Then you shouldn't get married." The response should be, "Well, discuss that with your counselor in premarital counseling." And the counselor can ask WHY she doesn't want children and discuss the matter thoroughly, consider her maturity and readiness for marriage, etc. She may have her reasons, but it really isn't anyone's business to have to explain it to everyone around her. It is possible that she is not yet ready for marriage, and that can be discussed.

But it simply is a fact that marriage tends to stabilize unstable people. Not everyone is gifted to be alone. Some people just can't pull themselves together to think about much of anything (including children) until after they have been married for a while. We may like that or not like it, but it is still true. I know a LOT of women that had moderate psychological problems while they were trying to live alone or with their parents (not all parents are nice people). Sometimes a good husband is the best thing that can happen to someone. in regard to people's plans when they get married, though, people are usually young and don't really know what they want in life when they get married. For the most part, everyone should mind their own business and leave newlyweds to make their own decisions under the guidance of their pastor and elders.... and the pastor and elders should consider all angles of it, not just the immediate desire for children or lack thereof.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Carolyn,

I believe you may be creating a false dichotomy with an overly simplistic notion of marriage. Either (1) kids are essential in every marriage or you can't get married or (2) their not, and whether you have any is irrelevant. 

Procreation is an essential aspect of the biblical understanding of marriage. This is clear from Scripture and upheld by our confessions of faith. Having children within the bonds of marriage is the normative pattern. But this doesn't mean that there aren't obvious exceptions to this rule (as already mentioned). However, for one to view marriage as having no necessary connection to procreation is to essentially redefine it in a way foreign to Scripture.

And by the way, it is all too common these days for couples (even professing Christian couples) to opt-out of having kids because they are more concerned with their careers or because kids would 'cramp their style.'


----------



## Mushroom

Motivations vary, and are the primary concern of the individuals and those set over them to whom they are accountable. Holy Spirit through Paul said it is better to remain unmarried, but for those who could not contain themselves it is better to marry than to burn. There is no mention of a requirement of procreation. To assert otherwise is to go beyond scripture and bind men's consciences with commandments and doctrines of men.


----------



## Caroline

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Carolyn,
> 
> I believe you may be creating a false dichotomy with an overly simplistic notion of marriage. Either (1) kids are essential in every marriage or you can't get married or (2) their not, and whether you have any is irrelevant.
> 
> Procreation is an essential aspect of the biblical understanding of marriage. This is clear from Scripture and upheld by our confessions of faith. Having children within the bonds of marriage is the normative pattern. But this doesn't mean that there aren't obvious exceptions to this rule (as already mentioned). However, for one to view marriage as having no necessary connection to procreation is to essentially redefine it in a way foreign to Scripture.
> 
> And by the way, it is all too common these days for couples (even professing Christian couples) to opt-out of having kids because they are more concerned with their careers or because kids would 'cramp their style.'



I believe you are misunderstanding me if you think my view is simplistic. I actually believe YOUR view is simplistic. It assumes that everyone has their ducks in a row when they get married, whereas, in fact, a lot of people don't. Sure, all things being ideal, a young man and young woman should plan for children. BUT I think life is not ideal, and people have all kinds of difficulties. It's not that children are unimportant at all. (I have children, and I can't imagine life without them.) But children are not everything either. I think the expectation that they ARE everything puts an undue burden on people who cannot have children or (for medical or other reasons) should not have children--as if they are missing the whole point of marriage. There is no doubt that children are a blessing, and people should be taught to view children as a blessing. But there are other blessings. 

One has to find the middle road here. For one thing, don't leap to the conclusions about the reasons. I knew one couple that everyone was always asking when the baby was coming, and I learned later that the wife had reacted to marriage by discovering a severe phobia to marital relations. She was in counseling, the marriage was in trouble... and people were asking her husband why he didn't have kids yet. He didn't want to throw his wife under the bus by explaining to every curious soul in the church, and so most people just assumed they were too career oriented. Also, I think we have to take into consideration the fact that a lot of people get married when they still are mixed up a lot. Not everyone grew up in an ideal household. Not everyone is ready to dive into adult responsibility. I've heard a lot of Christians say that people should not get married until they are fully ready, etc, but then a lot of people would just get more and more mixed up. Loneliness usually does not improve people. 

I know that a lot is said about the divorce rate, but I guess my experience has never validated it much. I've known many people that were a few French fries short of a Happy Meal when they got married, and they really pulled themselves together after a few years of married life and grew into responsible people. I have known three people who proclaimed they never wanted to have children but changed their minds within a year of getting married and now have families. I only know one case of divorce that resulted from total selfishness, and in that case, the selfish one actually DID want children because babies are cute. I don't think she would have been a responsible mother at all, and it was a mercy she did not have any kids.

People are odd. That's all there is to it. But people who have a spouse are usually less odd than they otherwise would be. The reason God gave for making a wife for Adam was that it wasn't good for him to be alone. And I think that still stands as the primary purpose of marriage.


----------



## irresistible_grace

"Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward."
- God


----------



## BarryR

If God offers us blessing, would we be foolish to say no to it? 

I came across this and loved it (paraphrasing from memory); I have heard many men that wanted more, and of no man that wanted less. Let God be true - children are a blessing from the Lord.


----------



## Caroline

irresistible_grace said:


> "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward."
> - God



I think everyone here agrees with this. Children are to be viewed as precious and we thank God for them. But God gives many rewards, and children are not the only rewards He gives.

I myself would like to have been blessed with ten children. My health broke down severely in my third pregnancy, and I think it would be irresponsible to have more, since I must care for the ones I already have, and they do better when their mother is alive. So there are reasons when reluctantly, people may decide they cannot accept more blessing. Or perhaps because they are silly creatures, they may think they don't want it, but they realize better later. Like I said, there are all kinds of people and all kinds of reasons. Patience is a good thing, and it is better to be charitable to those around us.


----------



## earl40

Brad said:


> Motivations vary, and are the primary concern of the individuals and those set over them to whom they are accountable. Holy Spirit through Paul said it is better to remain unmarried, but for those who could not contain themselves it is better to marry than to burn. There is no mention of a requirement of procreation. To assert otherwise is to go beyond scripture and bind men's consciences with commandments and doctrines of men.



The Holy Spirit through Moses said in Genesis "Be fruitful and multiply".


----------



## joejohnston3

Well, my wife and I when we first got married were of the mind set that we determine when we would have children. After much scripture study and prayer along with many great books to back it up we have moved to the "God chooses our fertility and blesses us with what He know we can handle.". It is a liberating and wonderful feeling now for us and we are thankful for God's blessing in our lives.


----------



## Cymro

You write a lot of sense Caroline and certainly your counselling
in the matter has wisdom. Where there are problems your thoughts 
should be taken into consideration, but all things being equal I don't
think any Christian couple should determine at the outset whether they
should have children. You get married and children come. When I got
married I earned 6 pounds, and my dear wife 8 pounds, and within 14 months our first boy was born. ( and he weighed 6 pounds!). We did not think of planning for any of our children, they just arrived.
Procreation is a biblical necessity, and of course companionship is vital, and 
your point of the elderly needing that is valid, but for a healthy young couple
to negotiate whether or not to have children is to me,unhealthy. Finance,
careers, opportune time are very secondary considerations. If God blesses 
with fertility who are we to refuse the blessing.
One other point to consider is the proliferation of same sex marriages, who
biologically cannot have children. Who then keeps the human species going?
And as a paedobaptist I believe that God perpetuates the Church in all generations
through covenant children. That is His normal and ordinary means of building His
Church.
"Thy wife shall as a fruitful vine
by thy house' sides be found;
Thy children like to olive-plants
about thy table round.
Thou shalt Jerus'lem's good behold
whilst thou on earth dost dwell.
Thou shalt thy children's children see,
and peace upon Israel.


----------



## DeniseM

Caroline said:


> I myself would like to have been blessed with ten children. My health broke down severely in my third pregnancy, and I think it would be irresponsible to have more, since I must care for the ones I already have, and they do better when their mother is alive. So there are reasons when reluctantly, people may decide they cannot accept more blessing.


Dear Caroline, I am truly sorry that you experience such struggles with your health. I have health problems of my own that can make motherhood an extraordinary challenge, so I know somewhat of what you're dealing with. Many times when I have had an infant in my arms I have been tempted to question God's command to be fruitful and multiply because I just didn't know that I could make it through another pregnancy or handle the late nights with another baby.

The Lord hasn't seen fit yet to remove the health issues, but he has shown me remarkable grace to overcome. I'm happy to say that I'm now pregnant with our seventh child! I feel awful. The morning sickness is one more trial to overcome. But, the Lord has blessed our family beyond measure! He has shown me what a blessing children really are. When I'm feeling particularly run down, my covenant children step right up to the plate and in large measure take care of me. The Lord is so gracious to those that cling to his promises in child like faith, even when we can't see how a blessing can possibly come out of our circumstances. Those who neglect to take hold of his promises because of infirmities in themselves, have no idea what abundant blessings they are really missing out on! I'm glad that we have trusted the Lord with the planning of our family and wish that more couples would do the same. Not because it's what's best in my opinion, but because I know that what the Lord says is right is truly what is best for all of us.


----------



## kvanlaan

Well, must chime in on this one. We began the route of most in N America these days: no money, so no children. We were 20 and 23 at the time, students, and off to China for a 4 month (ha!- it turned into 12 years) term, so it would be, among other things, inconvenient and 'dangerous'. My wife experienced the horrible ups and downs of hormone issues on the Pill and then someone gave us a copy of Above Rubies (an outfit run by a NZ transplant to the US named Nancy Campbell). There was an article there (don't recall which one now) which I seem to remember started us down the path to "not my will, but Thy will". We stayed on this path (bumpily) through 6 c-sections and 6 adoptions. Finally, our OB (very supportive of large families) told us that Elizabeth was his record, he had never performed a 6th C-section on anyone, and her uterus looked rather fragile, and to please tie the tubes, since he would not do any more on her. We took his advice, and when our youngest, John Patrick, weans off, we will be finished with infants in the house until grandchildren arrive (D.V.). I don't think we regret it, but I feel like I've lost a lot of credibility in the 'quiverfull' (for lack of a better term) department since we took a doctor's advice when our convictions lay elsewhere. Was it a lack of faith? Selfishness on my part? Not sure. Elizabeth had two or three pregnancies which were very scary and in which I was hunting for her life insurance documents before we went to the hospital. Not fun. Was I tested and failed? Possibly. But watching my wife nearly lose her life a few times was simply too much for me. If she had been able to bear children naturally, we would likely still be going. As it is, we are done. But it is not the number of children that make one 'quiverfull', it is simply the belief that 1 - God opens and closes the womb, providing that spark of life; it is not merely a mechanical process and 2 - that it is not up to me, He will give as He sees fit. I know childless couples who are 'quiverfull' in belief. It has been a blessing, and though we've rarely had 'enough' money to justify it financially, we are blessed beyond measure with those we do have, and are thankful for the opportunity to follow Him in this conviction. I don't think it is our choice; when we look at OT instances regarding this topic and 1 Cor 7 (among others), I don't think we can get away from it. There have been plenty of times when 'we don't have the money' and 'it is not advisable at this time' but we did not listen to those voices and were instead given what we were supposed to get. It has been difficult, trying, and an incredible blessing. Providence.


----------



## Edward

When there is a significant likelihood that a pregnancy may end in death, we shouldn't ignore the teaching of the Larger Catechism on the Sixth Commandment: "Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any"


----------



## ChristianTrader

Edward said:


> When there is a significant likelihood that a pregnancy may end in death, we shouldn't ignore the teaching of the Larger Catechism on the Sixth Commandment: "Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any"



Putting aside what one means by the term significant, let us imagine an earlier period of time when various forms of birth control were not available. Would the proper solution to be to tell the husband and wife to stop having sex because a pregnancy could result?

CT


----------



## earl40

ChristianTrader said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> When there is a significant likelihood that a pregnancy may end in death, we shouldn't ignore the teaching of the Larger Catechism on the Sixth Commandment: "Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Putting aside what one means by the term significant, let us imagine an earlier period of time when various forms of birth control were not available. Would the proper solution to be to tell the husband and wife to stop having sex because a pregnancy could result?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Good point. This could be looked at from 2 directions. If we look at it from Edwards POV, with medical technology and medical knowledge in mind, that death will occur _every_ time to the mother if she becomes pregnant and with that certain condition one could argue the 6th. Though I will add I am still waiting for any example of such condition that would indeed kill the mother _every_ time she gets pregnant and thus I think the 6th does not apply here. The same could be said from your POV in that can you tell me where in "earlier times" where pregnancy resulted in death of the mother _every_ time?


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> Good point. This could be looked at from 2 directions. If we look at it from Edwards POV, with medical technology and medical knowledge in mind, that death will occur every time to the mother if she becomes pregnant and with that certain condition one could argue the 6th. Though I will add I am still waiting for any example of such condition that would indeed kill the mother every time she gets pregnant and thus I think the 6th does not apply here. The same could be said from your POV in that can you tell me where in "earlier times" where pregnancy resulted in death of the mother every time?



I'm not sure that you've fairly characterized either Mr. Godwin's nor my position. 

I'd use a 'reckless disregard' standard. It would probably be a misdemeanor under Georgia law: "(b) A person who causes bodily harm to or endangers the bodily safety of another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation is guilty of a misdemeanor."


----------



## earl40

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point. This could be looked at from 2 directions. If we look at it from Edwards POV, with medical technology and medical knowledge in mind, that death will occur every time to the mother if she becomes pregnant and with that certain condition one could argue the 6th. Though I will add I am still waiting for any example of such condition that would indeed kill the mother every time she gets pregnant and thus I think the 6th does not apply here. The same could be said from your POV in that can you tell me where in "earlier times" where pregnancy resulted in death of the mother every time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that you've fairly characterized either Mr. Godwin's nor my position.
> 
> I'd use a 'reckless disregard' standard. It would probably be a misdemeanor under Georgia law: "(b) A person who causes bodily harm to or endangers the bodily safety of another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation is guilty of a misdemeanor."
Click to expand...


I was using you example of the 6th, not Georgia law. My main question is what medical condition would be considered so dangerous to say the death of the mother will ensue if she gets pregnant? I am not asking what may ensue but what will ensue. Also to have any law in Georgia that says a mother may not have a child because it may cause harm to her is a law I would disobey. Just saying...of course I am a man.


----------



## Mushroom

It may have been that the 70 souls over whom Abraham had charge would have survived the famine in the land, but using his consecrated intellect, he determined that seeking aid in Egypt to be a wise course of action with the the information he had at hand. Was he 'not trusting God' in doing so?

There is nowhere to be found in the decalogue a command to have children, let alone as many as possible regardless of risk, inclination, or ability to provide. For those who are so inclined, able to provide, and for whom health is not a consideration, more power to them. For those of differing circumstances, other avenues in life are not prohibited in scripture. And yes, in the past if there were hindrances as mentioned above, abstinence of the act that causes fertilization by mutual consent would be the course to take. Today there are other means. It behooves a Christian to determine which of those means, if any, does not result in the death of a person, and use that means. 

At least those are my views on the matter, for what that's worth.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Brad said:


> It may have been that the 70 souls over whom Abraham had charge would have survived the famine in the land, but using his consecrated intellect, he determined that seeking aid in Egypt to be a wise course of action with the the information he had at hand. Was he 'not trusting God' in doing so?
> 
> There is nowhere to be found in the decalogue a command to have children, let alone as many as possible regardless of risk, inclination, or ability to provide. For those who are so inclined, able to provide, and for whom health is not a consideration, more power to them. For those of differing circumstances, other avenues in life are not prohibited in scripture. And yes, in the past if there were hindrances as mentioned above, abstinence of the act that causes fertilization by mutual consent would be the course to take. Today there are other means. It behooves a Christian to determine which of those means, if any, does not result in the death of a person, and use that means.
> 
> At least those are my views on the matter, for what that's worth.



I phrased my question in the way that I did for a reason. What reasons/circumstances does the Bible give for married folks to not have sex?

CT


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> I was using you example of the 6th, not Georgia law.



The Georgia law comports with my understanding of the Westminster standard on this. 



earl40 said:


> death of the mother will ensue



You seem to be trying to read it to say '"Whatsoever else causes the destruction of the life of any' rather than the broader "Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any". 



earl40 said:


> I am not asking what may ensue but what will ensue.



And I would suggest that that is the wrong question. 



earl40 said:


> Also to have any law in Georgia that says a mother may not have a child because it may cause harm to her



And finally, I would suggest that that is not a fair reading of the law. I would refer you to the phrase 'of another person'.


----------



## Pergamum

Genesis 1:28:


> 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.



Genesis 9:7:


> And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.



Psalm 127:3:


> See, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.




We seem generally commanded to be fruitful and multiple.

Likewise, a barren womb seems to be a bad thing, whereas children are a blessing.

Questions:
(1) Can we decide that the earth has already been filled and that we have already multiplied enough such that we have now (already) achieved God's command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth?

(2) If a barren womb is considered a curse in the Scriptures, can we take measures upon ourselves to make our wombs barren and not able to bear children without also bringing a curse upon us?

(3) Can families who already have many children say, "I've played my role in being fruitful...I've done my part." Or is there a positive command to have as many as possible, barring other factors. And what are those other factors (physical health, mental well-being, marital happiness).

(4) Singleness also seems a blessing to those called to it. How can both fruitful quiver-full families as well as single persons with no children both be blessings? Does it depend on one's calling? And if it depends on one's calling, can a family be "called" only to have 2 children? One can choose to be married or not....but once you are married are you then obligated to reproduce to be Scriptural? 
(5) Wasn't the sin of Onan mainly about the refusal to preserve a geneological line and not just about "wasting" sperm?

Now several scenarios:
(1) - I have a friend (a missionary friend) whose wife is not very "domestic" and they have several children and seem to be very fertile. however, she has stressed about her kids and doesn't seem to find fulfillment always in raising them. They decided to get sterilized and reasoned that it was for "health" reasons (meaning health of the mind). If sterilization seems a little drastic how about birth control for a woman with 8 children who is highly stressed? Must she learn how not to be stressed? Or can she take actions to prevent more responsibilities to be placed upon shoulders incapable of handling more? 
(2) I know folks who live in crowded Asian cities where the cost of living is expensive. When is monetary concerns a reason for limiting children? Being poor on an American farm is much different than being poor in a crowded apartment complex in Taiwan.


----------



## kvanlaan

Pergs: 1 - no, 2 - I don't know that it is considered a 'curse' per se, merely that God opens and closes the womb 3 - no, but here is the fork in the road (to me): if you believe that it is a mechanical act, then it is much easier to have peace with point 3. Otherwise, if it is God providing the spark of life, I don't know how we can say no to more children, since it is God's hand allowing that life, and we can attempt to procreate as much as we want but will not be successful unless God wills it to happen. I don't think that it is a mechanical act. 4 - same answer for married couples. 5 - yes, it was his disobedience to God, not specifically wasting seed (In my humble opinion).

II (1) - offhand, without more details, I would say that the answer to peace was with the father's level of involvement (2) - We were in a crowded (11 million) city in China and our number of children was an incredible witness simply because of our situation. Oddly, we make multiples now of what we made in China, but I don't know that we have any more free cash flow than we did there. We were poor. We made $1250/month. We lived well. God provided.


----------



## ClayPot

One thing that hasn't been brought up in this thread (to my memory) is that fact that the church was essentially universally opposed to birth control until the 1930s. While that doesn't guarantee that this is the Biblical view, it is certainly a consideration one should make when arguing for birth control. The same reasons for using birth control now were reasons back 200 years ago, yet the church almost universally opposed the practice. It wasn't until the pill became legal that the church largely became indifferent to whether people used birth control. As a historical note, it is not surprising that the "sexual revolution" and popularity of p0rnography (think Playboy) exploded--suddenly it was possible to engage in sexual acts without worrying about the natural result of children. Sexuality divorced from the possibility of children warps our view of sexuality. And no, I'm not saying infertile couples shouldn't engage in sexuality or anything silly like that. I'm simply saying that when people seek sexual pleasure while artificially seeking to restrain the conception of children, it dramatically alters their view of the sexual act.


----------



## Caroline

There is a certain level of absurdity to this discussion. Can we say no to the spark of life God provides? Well, I suppose my answer is to that question is another question: Aren't we all Calvinists? Do you really think we can frustrate God's plan to the extent that He is incapable of creating more people? Can't God raise children for Abraham from rocks? I doubt He would be seriously deterred by birth control if He were bent on the purpose of giving someone another child. After all, He gave one to Mary, and she was a virgin. 

But to take this argument down to a more practical level (please, let's have no more nonsense about refusing to allow God to create life) the circumstances in which we find ourselves are the providence of God. He expects us to be wise stewards of what He has given us.

I would be a little cautious with the assumption that having more kids and crowding them places or expecting them to rise to the challenge of caring for a sick or dying mother is a good idea. I have known that to be the case in several situations, and I have known some deeply embittered and/or psychologically damaged children to result from it. My mother had fifteen brothers and sisters. The oldest two are what I would characterize as "broken." The oldest (my aunt) especially suffered from bulimia, anorexia, panic attacks, etc. She had to care for all her brothers and sisters, often while her mother was ill. She has never really recovered from playing "mom" since the age of six. When she was ten, she pulled the body of her little brother out of a drainage ditch after he drowned while she was trying to babysit six children and lost track of him. She would go into hysterics in her early teens about how she needed to learn to drive so that she could get the younger children to the hospital. She nearly starved herself to death with her obsession to save food for the other children (the family was often short on food).

I was the oldest daughter in a family of nine, and I babysat kids since I was six also. I always say I never got to be a child, because I was always taking care of other children and my mother (who suffered serious bouts of postpartum depression, among other things). I can't tell you how often I wished she'd stop having kids, so I could get some sleep at night. Even as much as I loved my siblings, I was exhausted all the time. I always had at least one baby on my arm, while I was trying to do homework, and I was often up at night taking care of sick kids, and then teachers wondered why I was dozing off in class. I was troubled by my mother's increasing insanity as she spoke to angels and said we were all going to have our heads cut off.

So as someone who has seen the other side of this, let me spell it out plainly: The Bible forbids vexing your children. Children are vexed by their parents having a lack of common sense. Children are vexed by mothers who knowingly put themselves in serious danger psychologically or physically. Children are vexed by having too many expectations put on them at too young an age. Children are vexed by parents who put their own responsibilities onto the children and expect the children to pick up the slack or deal with an awful situation that does not need to happen. Adults should not use Scripture to avoid their own responsibilities. As a parent, your responsibility is to be a parent. When you are not a parent and your kid has to clean up after you, this is not so much "God working things out" as it is you dropping the ball. 

'm not suggesting this applies to anyone in particular on this thread, but just a general common sense idea: If you are mentally ill, then work on that before you consider having more kids. Your kids need you to be sane. If your marriage is broken down and you are on the verge of divorce, work on that before you have more kids. If your finances are such that having another child would put you in serious debt, then work on your finances before having more children. Consider the needs of the children you already have. The command to be fruitful is a great commandment, but like all commandments (except the one to love your God), it is qualified and balanced with other commandments. Just as we would not tell someone to go out and sell all he has and give the money to the poor in every situation, we shouldn't tell someone to be fruitful and multiply always no matter what. 

If the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves, then our nearest neighbors are our children, and love requires that we treat them as we would want others to treat us--not expecting them to be tiny adults or to manage our problems for us. I hope this is not too harsh, but I think it needs to be said. Lots of kids does not necessarily equal a happy well-adjusted family. To this day, both my mother and my grandmother think they were heroes for raising huge numbers of children. Many of their children have a totally different perspective. We remember how dirty we always were because no one bathed us, and we remember how we had to beg food from the neighbors. I remember my brother cracking his skull from his forehead to his ear when he fell off a construction scaffold, and my mother leaving him on the couch because she was too out of it herself to take him to the hospital until he finally started vomiting enough that she worried he would ruin the couch. 

I'm not suggesting that anyone on this thread is that crazy. But there are times to encourage people to have kids, and there are times to say, "Look, until you can take better care of the kids you have, maybe you should take some measures to avoid having more." The world is an odd place, and to think that everyone is able to have and raise huge numbers of children is patently absurd. So minimally, think hard about how it will affect your other children if you are too sick to take care of them for nine months. Think how it would affect them if you died. And don't provoke your children to wrath.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

A friend of mine made me look at this discussion in this manner: Obviously, being reformed, our epistemology is based upon God's Holy Word. Bearing this in mind, a number of postulates come into play in this discussion, some of which include: 

1) Children are a blessing (This is revealed in God's Holy Word)
2) God opens the womb (Revealed)
3) God closes the womb (Revealed)
4) We are to have children (Revealed)
5) A quiver full is a good amount (Revealed)
6) Children are a heritage from the Lord (Revealed)
7) A closed womb is often a reproach (Revealed)
8) It is lawful at certain times and for certain reasons to limit or otherwise prevent the number of children we have (Not revealed)

So we need to ask the very simple question, which of these does not belong? It is fairly obvious. Anyone in favor of preventing or limiting the number of children would have to provide Scriptural evidence for it, but that would contradict nearly every other propositional truth about children and childbearing in Scripture. This is a very general way of looking at it, but I think it's helpful to look at the big picture first and then establish the details.


----------



## kvanlaan

I'm sorry, but the idea that any of this is 'absurd' is patently so. As raised previously, the church was in universal opposition to birth control prior to the Lambeth Conference (not just the Romans, but Protestants too!) The downward spiral since has been nearly apocalyptic. I think Joshua hit the nail on the head solidly. We are now conforming our faith to the spirit of the age in this facet, and not the other way around.



> So as someone who has seen the other side of this, let me spell it out plainly: The Bible forbids vexing your children. Children are vexed by their parents having a lack of common sense. Children are vexed by mothers who knowingly put themselves in serious danger psychologically or physically. Children are vexed by having too many expectations put on them at too young an age. Children are vexed by parents who put their own responsibilities onto the children and expect the children to pick up the slack or deal with an awful situation that does not need to happen. Adults should not use Scripture to avoid their own responsibilities. As a parent, your responsibility is to be a parent. When you are not a parent and your kid has to clean up after you, this is not so much "God working things out" as it is you dropping the ball.



I can't disagree with this more strenuously, your personal experience notwithstanding, and my sincere empathy goes out to you. 



> There is a certain level of absurdity to this discussion. Can we say no to the spark of life God provides? Well, I suppose my answer is to that question is another question: Aren't we all Calvinists? Do you really think we can frustrate God's plan to the extent that He is incapable of creating more people? Can't God raise children for Abraham from rocks? I doubt He would be seriously deterred by birth control if He were bent on the purpose of giving someone another child. After all, He gave one to Mary, and she was a virgin.



We can't frustrate God's plans, but we can certainly seek after our own desires in spite of what He has laid out as good and noble and profitable (and not just in the respect of this particular issue, but in almost any!) It is amazing how adept we are at justifying our own desires because of our own perspectives, in any situation. I am as guilty of this as anyone else, but I can't put this one aside as I can so many others because it is so clear. I do not vex my children, but I do expect more of them than most parents would. I expect more than video-game playing wads of flab in the basement for my boys and more than vanity-obsessed harridans at the mall for my girls. I am training young men with a strong work ethic and young women who will know how to mother a child, and both of them with a godly demeanor and a love for Christ. This is a gift, not a burden, but I assure you that in the eyes of the world, we are far too hard on them. And that's just fine with me.

PS - Leah, I think it is indeed just that simple.


----------



## Caroline

I should qualify my own statements by noting that I am not accusing anyone in particular of vexing their children. If you are able to have many and care for them all, then good. My best friends have nine children, and I love them very much. They take very good care of their children, and all of their children are well cared for. I think what is absurd is a suggestion that EVERYONE ought to be encouraged to do so no matter what. It simply is a fact that some people have bigger problems (like mental illness or dangerous physical problems). If they really cannot look after more kids, then I think it should be okay for them to stop without people suggesting that they are disobedient to God.

As far as Scriptural proof, I don't know how to make it more plain than I did in my previous post: Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath. Love your neighbor as yourself. And seek after wisdom. Those are all things spoken by the Holy Spirit. If someone is risking the health and well-being of their children to continue having one child after another when they cannot care for them, then that provokes children to wrath. This is not mere personal experience. The Bible says to consider how you treat your children and to do for others as you would have them do for you.

PS I will add, however, that I think all parents do well to seriously consider whether they are obeying the commandment not to vex their children. My grandmother and my mother never thought they vexed their children either. In fact, to this day, neither of them can abide the suggestion that they did anything wrong in their whole parenting careers. My mother teaches parenting classes (or did last I heard, but I haven't heard from her in years). It is easy to be defensive about these things. But I think personal experience DOES prove that just because parents think everything is fine because no one has died yet (or brush off a death as an accident), doesn't mean that everything really is okay. It is good to ask ourselves often where it concerns our children whether we are gentle toward them and considerate of their youth and weakness and whether we are treating them as we would want someone to treat us. Sometimes this means recognizing our own frailties (mentally, physically, financially, etc) and denying ourselves, even perhaps the opportunity of having more children.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Caroline said:


> As far as Scriptural proof, I don't know how to make it more plain than I did in my previous post: Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath. Love your neighbor as yourself. And seek after wisdom. Those are all things spoken by the Holy Spirit. If someone is risking the health and well-being of their children to continue having one child after another when they cannot care for them, then that provokes children to wrath. This is not mere personal experience. The Bible says to consider how you treat your children and to do for others as you would have them do for you.



Caroline,

I have skimmed through your posts but wanted to just respond to this. It seems that what you are implying, though you may not like to say it like this, is that for parents to conceive another child when they are struggling in either their eyes or someone's eyes to already care for the children they do have, is sinful in that it provokes the children already born to wrath. The problem is see with this is mainly that it is God who creates that life in the womb and not the husband and wife. To say that the conception is in itself sinful in this situation is to put the sin on God, not the couple. 

Also, Ephesians 6:4 doesn't really have to do with conception or what children think about their parents' life decisions. A child may be "provoked" to wrath by the father choosing to move to a different state or just a different city - The children will lose their friends and familiarity, etc. So does that violate God's law for the husband to move if his children are opposed to it? I would say no, not at all. The children have a duty to submit to their parents' decisions in so far as they do not violate the Law of God. So in order for Ephesians 6:4 to be actual Scriptural proof, you would first have to prove that conception of a child in marriage someway violates God's law therefore the children are justified in being provoked or upset by it. As already noted, this idea contradicts a number of propositional truths in Scripture about childbearing and children. Rather, I think that verse is teaching that fathers ought to raise their children in a Christian worldview with compassionate instruction in accordance with God's law, which all sides in this discussion undoubtedly agree with.


----------



## Miss Marple

I generally agree with you, Caroline.

I do believe that if prevention of conception were in and of itself a sin, it would be so listed in scripture. So many sins are lined out. I dare say I never even would have thought of some of the sins if they were not in there. If it were, in and of itself, a sin, I think it would be lined out.

That said, prevention of conception is often a symptom of something that is a sin, like lack of faith, selfishness, idolatry of this or that, etc.

So if a pet sin is influencing you to do your best to avoid conception, then of course that pet sin must be confronted.

But if your motivation to prevent conception is NOT a sinful motivation, then, I think it is stretching it to say contraception is a sin.

In Caroline's mother's (and particularly father's) case, just responding to what is lined out here, it seems to me a father would say: "My wife suffers from (revealed and actual) postpartum depression. She's not AFRAID that she MIGHT - she actually does. She is incapable of taking proper care of the children we have. This is revealed! Not a fear that she might not be able to take care of them. She actually is not. My six year old should not, except in the most extreme emergency, be utilized as a babysitter. Thus, I have decided to prevent conception for now, until the REVEALED situation actually improves."

I do believe that would have been the right and responsible thing for this father to do.

Also, as to the argument that God opens and closes the womb, of course He does, and birth control is only so effective. If God wants you to conceive, you will, even if you are using birth control.


----------



## Caroline

> I have skimmed through your posts but wanted to just respond to this. It seems that what you are implying, though you may not like to say it like this, is that for parents to conceive another child when they are struggling in either their eyes or someone's eyes to already care for the children they do have, is sinful in that it provokes the children already born to wrath. The problem is see with this is mainly that it is God who creates that life in the womb and not the husband and wife. To say that the conception is in itself sinful in this situation is to put the sin on God, not the couple.
> 
> Also, Ephesians 6:4 doesn't really have to do with conception or what children think about their parents' life decisions. A child may be "provoked" to wrath by the father choosing to move to a different state or just a different city - The children will lose their friends and familiarity, etc. So does that violate God's law for the husband to move if his children are opposed to it? I would say no, not at all. The children have a duty to submit to their parents' decisions in so far as they do not violate the Law of God. So in order for Ephesians 6:4 to be actual Scriptural proof, you would first have to prove that conception of a child in marriage someway violates God's law therefore the children are justified in being provoked or upset by it. As already noted, this idea contradicts a number of propositional truths in Scripture about childbearing and children. Rather, I think that verse is teaching that fathers ought to raise their children in a Christian worldview with compassionate instruction in accordance with God's law, which all sides in this discussion undoubtedly agree with.



This discussion is rather amusing to me in that it is clearly carried on by people who are rather insulated from much of life. Children submitting about a parent's choice to move is not at all equal to asking a child to submit to a mother's decision to go into postpartum depression that renders her completely insane and dangerous, or a mother's decision to have another child when she knows it will make her so ill as to be bedridden and force her 10-year-old into a role of caring for five younger children. Children CAN be genuinely vexed in a way that goes far beyond mere childish disappointment. Ephesians 6:4 applies to life in general. It is not restricted to those things convenient to us. Simply because a parent WANTS to have 10 kids does not make it okay to set aside the Biblical commandment to avoid provoking children to wrath and to love others as ourselves, and to be good stewards and seek wisdom. 

There are many things people can do that are not in themselves sinful, and yet can be sinful in the sense of being foolish and unloving. It is not in itself sinful to take a vacation, but if you take a vacation and spend all the rent money and end up homeless on the street, that is foolish and unloving. And if you did so and your children were vexed by your decision, then they are right, even if it is a parental decision. God provides the lovely beaches in the Caribbean, but He expects wisdom in our use of them. It is so for many aspects of life and parenting.

PS I add (because I worry about some feeling that I am judging too harshly)... if there are circumstances beyond your control or something unexpected, I think that is entirely different. If someone becomes ill while pregnant or develops postpartum psychosis unexpectedly, then we just deal with the trials of life as they come. But that is like other aspects of life also. If I get robbed and lose all my money, that is sad. If I lose all my money gambling, that is foolish. Children should be taught to deal with tragedies, but even children know the difference between tragedy and stupidity better than parents think they do.


----------



## Pergamum

> This discussion is rather amusing to me in that it is clearly carried on by people who are rather insulated from much of life.



?


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Caroline said:


> This discussion is rather amusing to me in that it is clearly carried on by people who are rather insulated from much of life. Children submitting about a parent's choice to move is not at all equal to asking a child to submit to a mother's decision to go into postpartum depression that renders her completely insane and dangerous, or a mother's decision to have another child when she knows it will make her so ill as to be bedridden and force her 10-year-old into a role of caring for five younger children. Children CAN be genuinely vexed in a way that goes far beyond mere childish disappointment. Ephesians 6:4 applies to life in general. It is not restricted to those things convenient to us. Simply because a parent WANTS to have 10 kids does not make it okay to set aside the Biblical commandment to avoid provoking children to wrath and to love others as ourselves, and to be good stewards and seek wisdom.
> 
> There are many things people can do that are not in themselves sinful, and yet can be sinful in the sense of being foolish and unloving. It is not in itself sinful to take a vacation, but if you take a vacation and spend all the rent money and end up homeless on the street, that is foolish and unloving. And if you did so and your children were vexed by your decision, then they are right, even if it is a parental decision. God provides the lovely beaches in the Caribbean, but He expects wisdom in our use of them. It is so for many aspects of life and parenting.



Caroline, 

I will not deny that I honestly haven't had a lot of trying life experiences. I may not have all the wisdom and counsel for every individual struggle in this situation. However, this does not mean I cannot know the principles laid out in God's Word. There are a lot of situations which may make it very difficult to have children, I understand that. But difficulty at obeying God's commands does not make disobedience justified. So in order to establish whether these difficulties - whether they be health or financial - are legitimate reasons not to have children, we must first establish the biblical principles about childbearing and children. After the principle is established, then individual situations can be looked at but not before. We must exegete the meaning of Scripture first before trying to put our own interpretations in Scripture that meet our individual circumstances (eisegesis).

That said, I'd like to give another hypothetical situation. Let's say a woman became so depressed because she had a few children and was a widow and she decided to stop committing fornication. The lack of physical satisfaction left her depressed. Let's say her depression provoked her children to wrath. Would she be violating God's law because her children were provoked? No, because the children were provoked out of her obeying God's law (though the depression in and of itself could be sinful). The question again always comes back to is that thing which is hypothetically provoking the children to wrath a violation of God's law or in accordance with it? This is the principle I am trying to get back to. If the children are vexed over something that is not sinful, then they are being sinful in themselves (and even if vexed over something that is sinful, they have to respect their parents in the way they react). 

(Actually, I don't think this verse justifies children being provoked by their parents, necessarily. It is really teaching parents to bring their children up in wisdom and understanding in God's law and not needlessly provoking them. If children are provoked, they still need to honor their parents.)

Furthermore, I would ask, Who is the steward of conception? I know of husbands and wives who want to have more kids and can even afford them, but are unable to have more children. I know of husbands and wives who have been on birth control and not wanted more children but still got them. I agree that parents are stewards over the children that God blesses and gives to them, but how can a husband and wife bless themselves with conceiving a child? They can't. Only God can create life. Clearly, parents are not meant to, nor can they, steward the conception of children. So to compare conceiving a child (which they Bible portrays as a blessing and gift of God) in certain situations as carelessly spending a ton of money on a vacation is not an accurate comparison. Money is a gift God has given us to steward. Children are a gift God has given us to steward. But the creation of life is for God alone, we are not, nor can we, possibly steward that.


----------



## Miss Marple

I understand Caroline's "insulated" point - she is saying that it seems like an insulated point of view, to assume that when she mentions vexing of children she means some stress like an unwanted move.

Caroline outlined some vexing that is spiritually, physically, and psychologically harmful. It can be truly deadly. It is not comparable to having to move.


----------



## Caroline

Pergamum said:


> This discussion is rather amusing to me in that it is clearly carried on by people who are rather insulated from much of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


I think being in Reformed circles sometimes has an insulating effect. I find it interesting when people seem unable to imagine a scenario in which parental decisions are not wise and appropriate, etc--comparing decisions about moving to postpartum psychosis. In a way, it's a good thing. I call it "Reformed allergies." There is a theory that allergies develop when people are in such a sterilized environment that their system starts to overreact to small things, like dust. Reformed people also have a sort of sterilized environment. I grew up in a cult with a mother who I was pretty sure was going to kill me, and I still wouldn't be entirely surprised if that's the way I found my way to glory. I know that the assumption that parents are always good is common in Reformed circles, and for the most part, it is even true, and that is why it is so commonly accepted. I just have a whole other perspective. It's like how Reformed people always assume also that church leadership is wise and well-intentioned, and they always suggest taking problems to the elders. That is actually good advice in most cases in Reformed churches. But that certainly is not the case in every church, especially in Oneness Pentecostalism, etc. 

Reformed allergies. I like them. It means I'm in a good place that has relatively few problems compared to the outside world.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Caroline. Yes, I see your point about "Reformed Allergies" and agree with your example:



> It's like how Reformed people always assume also that church leadership is wise and well-intentioned, and they always suggest taking problems to the elders. That is actually good advice in most cases in Reformed churches. But that certainly is not the case in every church, especially in Oneness Pentecostalism, etc.



So it sounds like you would affirm that children and child-rearing are blessings, but that other factors also weigh in and may over-ride the general command to be fruitful and multiply (sickness, illness, stresses, dangers). Thus, we are not always commanded to be as fruitful as possible. Is that correct?


----------



## kvanlaan

> I think being in Reformed circles sometimes has an insulating effect. I find it interesting when people seem unable to imagine a scenario in which parental decisions are not wise and appropriate, etc--comparing decisions about moving to postpartum psychosis. In a way, it's a good thing. I call it "Reformed allergies." There is a theory that allergies develop when people are in such a sterilized environment that their system starts to overreact to small things, like dust. Reformed people also have a sort of sterilized environment. I grew up in a cult with a mother who I was pretty sure was going to kill me, and I still wouldn't be entirely surprised if that's the way I found my way to glory. I know that the assumption that parents are always good is common in Reformed circles, and for the most part, it is even true, and that is why it is so commonly accepted. I just have a whole other perspective. It's like how Reformed people always assume also that church leadership is wise and well-intentioned, and they always suggest taking problems to the elders. That is actually good advice in most cases in Reformed churches. But that certainly is not the case in every church, especially in Oneness Pentecostalism, etc.
> 
> Reformed allergies. I like them. It means I'm in a good place that has relatively few problems compared to the outside world.



Fair enough, but then we are talking about being completely outside the church if we are talking about a 'cult'. Take most biblical precepts within those confines and they will be twisted beyond recognition and made into something horrendous. For those of us who have had trying times, I can still say that they don't change the truth of scripture, no matter how many exceptions I may catalogue. Personal experience does not alter scriptural truths, it merely reinforces the reason they're there as an objective third party. Thus experiences you cite have little to do with the biblical application of the texts referenced by Leah. The Christian Church IS well-intentioned, the elders are there for that reason. And if that is not the case, then I am not sure we are talking about a 'church', other than technically, since it may likewise have a building and a pastor.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Miss Marple said:


> I understand Caroline's "insulated" point - she is saying that it seems like an insulated point of view, to assume that when she mentions vexing of children she means some stress like an unwanted move.
> 
> Caroline outlined some vexing that is spiritually, physically, and psychologically harmful. It can be truly deadly. It is not comparable to having to move.



To be fair, the example I brought up with moving was not meant to parallel the "harm" brought to the child, but rather meant to show that we must first develop whether or not the parents choice (whatever it is that causes the vexing) was sinful. If a non-sinful act vexes the child, then it is not the parent's fault - they are doing their duty. Ephesians 6:4 exegetically is not even speaking of whether or not parents should have children - that's assumed. It's speaking of raising the children you do have with graceful, biblical instruction. Both sides of this discussion agree with this. So, my point was, in order for this verse to be helpful, you would have to prove that Scripturally it is possible for the act of conception between a husband and wife can in certain situations be someway sinful. This verse cannot prove that; you have to presuppose it to be true in order to even interpret the verse in that way.


----------



## DeniseM

Caroline,
For the record, nothing even comparable to what you've described about your family is remotely happening in our house. My children are thrilled that we are having a new baby! My point was that we don't decide how convenient it would be for us to obey God's commands and take him up on his promises. We see the clear teachings of scripture and trust the Lord with the outcome. You were the one to point out that we are all Calvinists. What could be more Calvinistic than relying on God in humble submission to his revealed will. 

As regards the mother's physical life, I have a particular interest in that question since I will be having my seventh c-section when this baby is delivered, Lord willing. Up to this point, the doctor has given us the o.k. to have more children as I seem to be physically holding up well in that respect. However, if the doctor were to tell me at some point that my womb had become so fragile that becoming pregnant again would greatly endanger my life and likely lead to the death of the conceived child, I would need to consider God's command to preserve life and not endanger myself or my child in that way. I think that Kevin and his wife made a wise decision. They obeyed God's command to create life and they obeyed his command to preserve life. Humble submission to God's clearly revealed will is what is the point here. 

We can come up with a million off the wall scenario, and they really aren't all that helpful in the end. Our personal experience don't dictate the truth for other people. The original question was, "Is it the responsibility of a married couple to have children?" and according to scripture, the answer is a clear Yes.


----------



## irresistible_grace

With everything that has been posted in this thread... I still struggle with the ORIGINAL POST

Is it "biblical" for a married Confessional Christian couple to "choose" to have NO children?

That sounds like Onanism to me. That is, wanting the joy of sexual intercourse while PREVENTING the conception of any covenant children. Last time I checked, Onan dropped dead! That doesn't sound like it has God's seal of approval to me.

But, it sounds like it is being argued that if God wanted Tamar to get pregnant, God could have given Tamar a child without Onan. So, why did God see fit to kill Onan? Onan was PREVENTING conception while enjoying sexual gratification. 

Is there another example of contraception in Scripture that has a positive outcome? I know of none.

I know that the fruit of the womb is a blessing that should not be willfully PREVENTED, at least from the outset. I struggle to see how a Confessional Christan can argue from Scripture that it is "biblical" for Christians to CHOOSE to NEVER have ANY covenant children (because of personal preference).


----------



## Pergamum

Jess, 

I think the sin of Onan was more than that. It had to do with the continuance of a family line. The sin of Onan was more than spilling seed on the ground, but included disrespect for the Levirate marriage arrangement and disrespect for his dead brother (or maybe a desire not to bear another heir and thus not split any inheritance). I think invoking Onan only works so far.

In some cases, I can understand how a principle of safeguarding life can be used to willingly prevent contraception (female reproductive conditions which could prove dangerous, etc). In those cases, a couple could enjoy sex even while trying to prevent reproduction, all without sin. While I think it would normally be sin for a married couple to choose NOT to have children, perhaps we could add the word "healthy" to strengthen your position. I don't think the rule is absolute.


----------



## py3ak

Denise, first of all, congratulations! The growth of your family is a great cause for joy, and it is impossible not to be glad for a child who will have the advantage of being included in conventicle reenactments from birth.

Second, I think you may be misinterpreting Caroline a bit, since you are coming at it from different angles. Her scenarios are _not_ off the wall - they're exactly what she lived through; and she is not alone in that. Indeed, I think if anything she's too optimistic that such situations are rare in Reformed circles. 

Look at it like this. You are ready to consider that there are situations where the command to _preserve_ life could be incompatible with the responsibility to be fruitful and multiply. So when answering the original question "Is it the responsibility of a married couple to have children" you do say yes, but admit that there could be exceptions. If we don't mention those exceptions, we run the risk of saying too much. I believe Caroline's point (with which I agree) is twofold:
1. That it isn't our business to decide whether someone else is sinning if they believe they are in one of those exceptional situations. 
2. That it is the part of wisdom to acknowledge those exceptional situations, instead of providing blanket encouragement to everyone married to become pregnant as often as they can. Especially when posting online, we have to be careful and measured in what we say. Given that it is the internet, the probability that someone unstable is reading our words is so high as to be practically a certainty. Relying on God in humble submission is Calvinistic; so is realizing that "every particular duty is not to be done at all times" (WLC 99); so is speaking a word in season.

It warms my heart to see people so sincerely committed to having and loving children; in the midst of a culture that truly loves death in many ways, the affirmation of life in procreation is precious. In contrast to the constant complaining about children one often finds in the world, the consideration of them as blessings from the Lord is as refreshing as cold water on a hot day. But we must also remember that men of this world can be full of children (Psalm 17:4). What we, as Christians are here for, whether single, married, childless, or replete with children, is to be satisfied when we awake with the likeness of the Lord. A child is a blessing from God, but is not a proof of God's favor; nor is their absence a sign of his displeasure.


----------



## Mushroom

irresistible_grace said:


> But, it sounds like it is being argued that if God wanted Tamar to get pregnant, God could have given Tamar a child without Onan. So, why did God see fit to kill Onan? Onan was PREVENTING conception while enjoying sexual gratification.


Was it simply that, or was it because he was being duplicitous, not refusing his father's command openly, but defying it surreptitiously? Can we derive law from such an unclear passage?

Rain is a great blessing upon a parched land, but not so much where the ground is already saturated. God gave us no control over the rain, but He did give us control over whether we procreate or not, and the ability to use wisdom in that control. Motivations are what determine the sinfulness of actions not expressly forbidden, not the action itself.


----------



## Mushroom

py3ak said:


> Given that it is the internet, the probability that someone unstable is reading our words is so high as to be practically a certainty.


My presence on the thread removes the 'practically' from the assertion, thank you. It behooves a man to recognize his own frailties...


----------



## irresistible_grace

Brad said:


> Rain is a great blessing upon a parched land, but not so much where the ground is already saturated. God gave us no control over the rain, but He did give us control over whether we procreate or not, and the ability to use wisdom in that control. Motivations are what determine the sinfulness of actions not expressly forbidden, not the action itself.



The ORIGINAL POST seems more like parched land than saturated. If they are CHOOSING to NEVER have children. Which is why I said, "at least from the outset" ... Contraception after you have children (saturated land) is different than because you choice to never have them at all (parched land).


----------



## DeniseM

py3ak said:


> Her scenarios are not off the wall


Ruben, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on this point. I don't honestly believe that within biblical families(those that would be worried about their biblical duties in the first place) that this isn't totally off the wall. I'm also not even remotely convinced that the number of children that were involved in this scenario had anything to due with the situation. Because someone will be an irresponsible parent isn't justification to open the floodgates for all manner of possibilities that might, in man's esteem, be cause to disobey God's creation mandate. I'm sorry to have obviously offended you. I do believe however that you have put several words in my mouth with your reply.



py3ak said:


> 1. That it isn't our business to decide whether someone else is sinning if they believe they are in one of those exceptional situations.


 Where did I assert this?




py3ak said:


> A child is a blessing from God, but is not a proof of God's favor; nor is their absence a sign of his displeasure.


Again, where did say this?

As has been said already, Let God be true, but every man a liar. I can't make decisions for my family based on what has happened in Caroline's family. I can feel sympathy for her. But, my decisions have to be based upon what God says in his word. If I can't trust God, who gave the command, it would be the height of folly to believe that I could trust the opinion of a mere created being.


----------



## py3ak

Denise,

I think the misconception is that _only_ Biblical families are worried about such things. The reality is far otherwise: many people have consciences that are very sensitive, and at the same time, ill-informed. For instance, a devout Catholic might be unregenerate, and still feel deeply constrained on this matter.

You haven't offended me in the slightest, and I certainly didn't mean to put words in your mouth - I was simply stating my understanding of Caroline's point, not claiming that those were positions you held. If you took anything I said as trying to prevent you from trusting God, I'm afraid I can't have been very clear. I suppose it might be impertinent, since it doesn't have anything to do with me, but I actually feel proud of your faith and of the children you have. All I'm saying is that in presenting this duty, like any duty, if we are speaking to a general audience it is important to acknowledge the appropriate qualifications. Even though it's on the Puritan Board, the audience is not exclusively made up of healthy Puritans.


----------



## he beholds

Certainly and always, some things are sinful. 

Killing a baby? Sinful. ALWAYS. 
Defrauding your husband or wife? Sinful. ALWAYS. (I am not saying that refraining at anytime is sinful, but _defrauding_ is.) 
Selfishness--Sinful. 
Love of Money--Sinful.
Not trusting the Lord--Sinful. 
Disobeying the Lord--Sinful.

And there are many more sins that could add to the decision or practice of not having children. If a couple is sinning a couple is sinning. Is the not having children the sin? It seems we cannot prove that from scripture. But is the _reason_ a couple is not having children a sinful one? Or are the specific actions that are preventing a child sinful? If so, they are sinning. We all know that sin is a heart matter. The couple needs to see if it is sin in their heart that makes them not want children. 

I would say, though, that I cannot imagine a scenario, even the sad one that Caroline mentions with the negligent mother, where the making and then the having the babies is the sin. I think the sin was elsewhere. Maybe the father sinned by not getting the mother help. Or maybe from the church who didn't step in and help. Maybe _some_ of the sin was in the selfish hearts of the children, which we all know is possible for children to have! 

Maybe the parents DID sin, but I just cannot believe that the intimacy that makes babies was a sin and I KNOW that the conception of babies wasn't a sin, as that is of the Lord. And I know that the not aborting the conceived babies wasn't a sin. So I just cannot see the how the new babies were at all a sin. 
Like this↓


Boosterseat_91 said:


> So, my point was, in order for this verse to be helpful, you would have to prove that Scripturally it is possible for the act of conception between a husband and wife can in certain situations be someway sinful. This verse cannot prove that; you have to presuppose it to be true in order to even interpret the verse in that way.



I have had multiple c/s like a few others mentioned. If I try to _not_ get pregnant in a non-sinful manner (I'm not aborting babies or using birth control that is aborting babies, I'm not defrauding my husband, etc.) hopefully I am not sinning. But were I to get pregnant, and were that pregnancy to cause my death, that definitely wouldn't be a sin, either. Yes, the world might think it wrong that my remaining children lost their mother and might blame me or my husband. But having children is not really about doing it responsibly. Married people are commanded to have sex. Sex sometimes makes babies. We are NEVER told to prevent that so I don't think it can be argued that prevention is more proper than having more babies. So even if a married couple has babies under trying circumstances, it's not a responsibility issue. Might those circumstances bring the people to sin? Yes. I might be so overwhelmed that I sin and run away or something. But it wasn't the new baby that was the sin. It was the running away me. 

This life is the Lord's. What pleases him most? I think that is the question that the couple who is debating having children must ask.


----------



## Mushroom

irresistible_grace said:


> The ORIGINAL POST seems more like parched land than saturated. If they are CHOOSING to NEVER have children. Which is why I said, "at least from the outset" ... Contraception after you have children (saturated land) is different than because you choice to never have them at all (parched land).


You're assuming that 'saturated land' can only equate with already having children. But it could also equate with prohibitive physical or mental health issues, financial instability, genetic proclivities, or a host of other things that could play a part in a couple's decision to pursue child-bearing.


----------



## DeniseM

py3ak said:


> Denise,
> 
> I think the misconception is that _only_ Biblical families are worried about such things. The reality is far otherwise: many people have consciences that are very sensitive, and at the same time, ill-informed. For instance, a devout Catholic might be unregenerate, and still feel deeply constrained on this matter.
> 
> You haven't offended me in the slightest, and I certainly didn't mean to put words in your mouth - I was simply stating my understanding of Caroline's point, not claiming that those were positions you held. If you took anything I said as trying to prevent you from trusting God, I'm afraid I can't have been very clear. I suppose it might be impertinent, since it doesn't have anything to do with me, but I actually feel proud of your faith and of the children you have. All I'm saying is that in presenting this duty, like any duty, if we are speaking to a general audience it is important to acknowledge the appropriate qualifications. Even though it's on the Puritan Board, the audience is not exclusively made up of healthy Puritans.


Ruben, thank you for clarifying your meaning for me. At first glance, I did think that your statements were assertions of what I believed. I hope I wasn't unkind in my response to you. I understand what you are saying about taking care to watch our speech on a public forum. I have been known to be a person of strong convictions, for better or for worse.


----------



## py3ak

DeniseM said:


> Ruben, thank you for clarifying your meaning for me. At first glance, I did think that your statements were assertions of what I believed. I hope I wasn't unkind in my response to you. I understand what you are saying about taking care to watch our speech on a public forum. I have been known to be a person of strong convictions, for better or for worse.



I know you too well to think you'd be unkind! Although the strong convictions part is coming as quite a surprise.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Miss Marple said:


> I generally agree with you, Caroline.
> 
> I do believe that if prevention of conception were in and of itself a sin, it would be so listed in scripture. So many sins are lined out. I dare say I never even would have thought of some of the sins if they were not in there. If it were, in and of itself, a sin, I think it would be lined out.
> 
> That said, prevention of conception is often a symptom of something that is a sin, like lack of faith, selfishness, idolatry of this or that, etc.
> 
> So if a pet sin is influencing you to do your best to avoid conception, then of course that pet sin must be confronted.
> 
> But if your motivation to prevent conception is NOT a sinful motivation, then, I think it is stretching it to say contraception is a sin.
> 
> In Caroline's mother's (and particularly father's) case, just responding to what is lined out here, it seems to me a father would say: "My wife suffers from (revealed and actual) postpartum depression. She's not AFRAID that she MIGHT - she actually does. She is incapable of taking proper care of the children we have. This is revealed! Not a fear that she might not be able to take care of them. She actually is not. My six year old should not, except in the most extreme emergency, be utilized as a babysitter. Thus, I have decided to prevent conception for now, until the REVEALED situation actually improves."
> 
> I do believe that would have been the right and responsible thing for this father to do.
> 
> Also, as to the argument that God opens and closes the womb, of course He does, and birth control is only so effective. If God wants you to conceive, you will, even if you are using birth control.



Hello,

I am wondering, do you believe that in order for something to be a sin it must be explicitly named in Scripture as a sin? If this is what you are implying, I find it difficult to believe. For just an easy example, I would ask why are we required to believe everything that God says? No where does Scripture say "Thou must believe everything that God says." Rather, we know that God cannot lie, that He is perfect, that He is the only true and living God so by implication to not believe God is accusing Him of lying and thus taking Him off His throne. It is by implication that we are required to believe all that the Bible teaches. Give another example, the Bible says no where that property tax is unlawful, but we can indeed establish that property tax is theft based upon the teaching of God's Word - it's implied in the 6th commandment (stealing implies there is such a thing as ownership). Likewise, we need to see what God's teaching is on children and childbearing in order to define sin in these areas. If an act disagrees with the teaching of God, then it is sin whether by implication or explication.

In order to do this, I've previously listed out the Scriptural postulates about childbearing. The idea that it is lawful at certain times to prevent the conception of children does not fit with the teaching of Scripture. I've seen many people try to reconcile them by saying similar things to your last sentence. The problem with that idea is this: Who is the steward of the womb? Is it God or man? The argument from those in favor of birth control have to argue that it is man and therefore it is unwise at times or even sinful to conceive a child in certain situations (financial/health problems are mainly argued). But, to say that God opens and closes the womb is to say that God is the steward of the womb. You can't reconcile this teaching with human manipulation and prevention. Either God is the steward of life and conception and we should not try to control it or man is the steward and we can manipulate it all we like. 

This is why I would use the same implication (that God is the steward of life) to argue against things like cloning and some of those abhorrent genetic manipulations. Just because we can mess with something, doesn't mean we should. God is the steward of life and we are to make the best of what He grants to us.


----------



## Mushroom

God is the steward over harvests. They may be bountiful or not, according to His plan, but if the farmer doesn't sow seed, there is no harvest. Now, one would normally expect that the farmer would want to sow seed. Why own a farm field if you're not going to plant it. But maybe the farmer is ill, and the effort to sow and harvest would be beyond his ability; or perhaps he has plans to take a year's sabbatical to study ag science, and won't have time; or what if there's a war on and he doesn't want to risk being exposed in his field to enemy fire or possibly have the harvest fall into enemy hands; or it may be that a wicked magistrate is planning on confiscating the fruit of his labors, and he doesn't want to enrich the tyrant. Are any of those motivations sin?

Bountiful harvests are considered blessings from the Lord in scripture. Is it always sin to refrain from plowing and sowing in pursuit of that blessing?

Now it might be sin if his motivation were simple sloth, or he'd rather party it up rather than work, or he's trying to decrease the value of the land for dishonest reasons. And that points up the fact that the same outward actions can either be righteous or sinful dependent upon the motive behind it. But it is not always sin to decline the possibility of a blessing.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Brad said:


> Rain is a great blessing upon a parched land, but not so much where the ground is already saturated. God gave us no control over the rain, but He did give us control over whether we procreate or not, and the ability to use wisdom in that control. Motivations are what determine the sinfulness of actions not expressly forbidden, not the action itself.



This is an interesting example, Brad. I know it wasn't directed to me, but I hope you don't mind me commenting on it. I would disagree with this in that we are not given control over procreation. It is only God who can open and close the womb and only God who can create life. This is admitted when someone says whether or not a couple uses birth control doesn't matter - if God wants them to have a child, they'll have a child. So we can do whatever we want to do in order to procreate or not procreate, but God is the only One who can actually "create" life. The same goes with the weather. God is the only One who can control the weather. He is the "steward" of these things, so to speak. Just as we do the best we can to deal with excessive or too little rainfall, we do the best we can to deal with the children God gives us. We don't try to take over those aspects of His sovereignty, rather, we do everything lawful to do the best with what God gives us. Obviously, there are many individual situations that need to be considered in this, but we can't deal with the situations until we have the correct principle. I believe this is the principle laid out in Scripture.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Brad said:


> God is the steward over harvests. They may be bountiful or not, according to His plan, but if the farmer doesn't sow seed, there is no harvest. Now, one would normally expect that the farmer would want to sow seed. Why own a farm field if you're not going to plant it. But maybe the farmer is ill, and the effort to sow and harvest would be beyond his ability; or perhaps he has plans to take a year's sabbatical to study ag science, and won't have time; or what if there's a war on and he doesn't want to risk being exposed in his field to enemy fire or possibly have the harvest fall into enemy hands; or it may be that a wicked magistrate is planning on confiscating the fruit of his labors, and he doesn't want to enrich the tyrant. Are any of those motivations sin?
> 
> Bountiful harvests are considered blessings from the Lord in scripture. Is it always sin to refrain from plowing and sowing in pursuit of that blessing?
> 
> Now it might be sin if his motivation were simple sloth, or he'd rather party it up rather than work, or he's trying to decrease the value of the land for dishonest reasons. And that points up the fact that the same outward actions can either be righteous or sinful dependent upon the motive behind it. But it is not always sin to decline the possibility of a blessing.



If this is being compared to the means we are given to "control" procreation, I would say it could only be applied to whether or not one gets married - because that is they only type of "control" one has over it. If one is married, one is required to give due benevolence and has ultimately no control over the creation of life; only God can create life. But this is a different issue since the OP is dealing with married couples.


----------



## Mushroom

Boosterseat_91 said:


> If this is being compared to the means we are given to "control" procreation, I would say it could only be applied to whether or not one gets married - because that is they only type of "control" one has over it. If one is married, one is required to give due benevolence and has ultimately no control over the creation of life; only God can create life. But this is a different issue since the OP is dealing with married couples.


If a married couple mutually agree to abstain from sexual relations that could result in pregnancy, that represents control that can only be overruled by a rather dramatic form of Divine intervention, only recorded once in history. It's common among men to create hard and fast rules that comport with our own particular worldviews, but I would refer you to the verse from Isaiah 8 in my signature below if you're interested in my view on such matters. If it ain't clear in the Word (by direct reference or inferred through good and necessary consequence), it just ain't clear, and I don't think we can bind other men's consciences with our own personal scruples.


----------



## irresistible_grace

Brad said:


> You're assuming that 'saturated land' can only equate with already having children. But it could also equate with prohibitive physical or mental health issues, financial instability, genetic proclivities, or a host of other things that could play a part in a couple's decision to pursue child-bearing.



The original post asked if it is biblical if a married couple DECIDES to NEVER have children.
I responded with the Word of God, "children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward."

The original post says nothing about "prohibitive physical or mental health issues, financial instability, genetic proclivities" or any other hypothetical "motivations" behind the decision to NEVER have children.
You made the comparison between children and rain. 
And, I did not assume that saturated land can "only" equate with already having children. 
However, I did assume that if rain is a blessing & children are a blessing, then by rain you meant children.
And, if parched land is the absence of rain then by parched land you meant absence of children.
Since the original post did not mention "prohibitive physical or mental health issues, financial instability, genetic proclivities, or a host of other thing," I did not assume that is what you meant by saturated ground.

The ORIGINAL POST asked if it is biblical to DECIDE to NEVER have children ... that sounds "parched" to me.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Brad said:


> If a married couple mutually agree to abstain from sexual relations that could result in pregnancy, that represents control that can only be overruled by a rather dramatic form of Divine intervention, only recorded once in history. It's common among men to create hard and fast rules that comport with our own particular worldviews, but I would refer you to the verse from Isaiah 8 in my signature below if you're interested in my view on such matters. If it ain't clear in the Word (by direct reference or inferred through good and necessary consequence), it just ain't clear, and I don't think we can bind other men's consciences with our own personal scruples.



Brad, please be careful throwing around the whole "binding one another's conscience." We are simply discussing this matter of Scripture, I don't believe anyone has bound anyone's conscience as it is defined by the Westminster Standards. Of course both positions have implications/explications that make the opposing position sinful in some way. This is the same with any discussion, but it is not the same thing as saying "You're in sin. You need to repent." I think this has been a gracious and good discussion.

That stated, I think the principle that God is the giver of life and the biblical teachings about children and childbearing show, at least in general, we should not try to control conception - that is a good and necessary consequence from Scripture, as I've tried to prove. Really, to say that childbearing is a matter indifferent to Scripture all together is like a long stretch. Does God really have nothing to say about that which society and therefore the church and all things are absolutely dependent upon? Is God indifferent to whether we reproduce or not? Certainly not. God has commanded it and given us the principles we need to do it in a biblical manner. Again, I have been trying to develop the biblical principle here which is necessary to deal with individual situations. I'm not trying to dismiss individual circumstances with a "hard and fast rule" but instead trying to see by what standard we can judge those individual situations. The person who says that the use of birth control or other prevention is completely indifferent has done the same thing; only I don't believe they are accepting an unbiblical principle at that point.

I believe the Bible does allow for times of agreed abstinence for prayer and fasting as taught in 1 Corinthians 7:5. This is clearly not a regular occurrence since even that verse recognizes the temptation that comes along with prolonged abstinence. Still, this verse comports well with the idea that God is steward over life. God has given us commands and principles to know how to govern childbearing and reproduction and this is one of them.


----------



## py3ak

Brad said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that it is the internet, the probability that someone unstable is reading our words is so high as to be practically a certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> My presence on the thread removes the 'practically' from the assertion, thank you. It behooves a man to recognize his own frailties...
Click to expand...


That made me giggle.


----------



## Mushroom

py3ak said:


> That made me giggle.


Making you giggle makes me happy, brother.


irresistible_grace said:


> The original post says nothing about "prohibitive physical or mental health issues, financial instability, genetic proclivities" or any other hypothetical "motivations" behind the decision to NEVER have children.


So then, if these things weren't mentioned, why would we assume that the decision was based on purely selfish reasons, which also was not mentioned? I think the discussion centers around IF it is appropriate to make that decision for WHAT reasons. That's what I was addressing.


irresistible_grace said:


> You made the comparison between children and rain.
> And, I did not assume that saturated land can "only" equate with already having children.
> However, I did assume that if rain is a blessing & children are a blessing, then by rain you meant children.
> And, if parched land is the absence of rain then by parched land you meant absence of children.


Parched and saturated land could mean a number of things, and I understand you're assuming the reference had to do with the lack or abundance of children. I only wanted to point out that the saturated land could also correlate to other problems that could arise from certain couples having children at all that could be as dangerous as a flood. Not trying to be argumentative.


irresistible_grace said:


> The ORIGINAL POST asked if it is biblical to DECIDE to NEVER have children ... that sounds "parched" to me.


It is possible that such a decision could be taken for reasons that are not sinful, which has been my point.


Boosterseat_91 said:


> Brad, please be careful throwing around the whole "binding one another's conscience."


Please note the 'we' in the referenced quote. I was not directing it at any one person, just making a general statement. But it would seem there are only 2 possible answers to the OP, 'yes' or 'no'. One of those does bind the consciences of others.


Boosterseat_91 said:


> That stated, I think the principle that God is the giver of life and the biblical teachings about children and childbearing show, at least in general, we should not try to control conception - that is a good and necessary consequence from Scripture, as I've tried to prove.


OK, but I don't think you've succeeded in proving that. He's the giver of bountiful harvests, but it's not always sin to avoid having one.


Boosterseat_91 said:


> Really, to say that childbearing is a matter indifferent to Scripture all together is like a long stretch. Does God really have nothing to say about that which society and therefore the church and all things are absolutely dependent upon? Is God indifferent to whether we reproduce or not?


I haven't noticed anyone asserting this.


Boosterseat_91 said:


> I believe the Bible does allow for times of agreed abstinence for prayer and fasting as taught in 1 Corinthians 7:5. This is clearly not a regular occurrence since even that verse recognizes the temptation that comes along with prolonged abstinence.


Abstinence from relations that could result in pregnancy does not require abstinence from all marital relations.


> Still, this verse comports well with the idea that God is steward over life. God has given us commands and principles to know how to govern childbearing and reproduction and this is one of them.


This verse does not address reproduction, it addresses marital relations. It seems there is a presupposition made here that anything to do with marital sex is necessarily reproductive in nature. That seems to be a large part of the considerations. I hold that the subjects are not so necessarily united. If that were the case, then permanently infertile couples would never be able to lawfully enjoy marital relations if they were aware of the fact. That just doesn't make sense to me. I believe it can be enjoyed without reproduction being an intent or possible outcome, and done so in ways that in fact would prevent reproduction, and that to do so is not sin in and of itself. Just my take on the issue, anyone who so desires is entirely free to disagree.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

> Please note the 'we' in the referenced quote. I was not directing it at any one person, just making a general statement. But it would seem there are only 2 possible answers to the OP, 'yes' or 'no'. One of those does bind the consciences of others.



Every truth claim binds a person's conscience since it is implied that it ought to be believed. So if we are to define binding a person's conscience in a general way then both positions bind the consciences of others.



> OK, but I don't think you've succeeded in proving that. He's the giver of bountiful harvests, but it's not always sin to avoid having one.



I don't think this analogy works for a few reasons. (1) Harvests are not universal like childbearing is. I'm not a farmer and harvest nothing; does that mean I "avoid" harvests? Or do only farmers, whose job it is to harvest, "avoid" harvests? A harvest is one means among many to make income and provide subsistence for one's family. There is no alternative to childbearing, however. To avoid childbearing is to have the family die out. To avoid harvesting is only devastating if that is your means of subsistence, which it is not for many people. Harvesting is a choice; childbearing is a command. (2) The harvest and crops are something a farmer is a steward of. He must till the soil, plant the seeds, water the crops, etc. We can control aspects of a harvest, we cannot control aspects of the creation of life. A husband and wife could do that by refusing to give due benevolence to one another (in other words refusing the means by which God creates life), but this would be sinful. Sex was created by God to procreate. God commands husbands and wives to have sex so where does the idea come from that man can prevent God's purpose in sex?



> This verse does not address reproduction, it addresses marital relations. It seems there is a presupposition made here that anything to do with marital sex is necessarily reproductive in nature. That seems to be a large part of the considerations. I hold that the subjects are not so necessarily united. If that were the case, then permanently infertile couples would never be able to lawfully enjoy marital relations if they were aware of the fact. That just doesn't make sense to me. I believe it can be enjoyed without reproduction being an intent or possible outcome, and done so in ways that in fact would prevent reproduction, and that to do so is not sin in and of itself. Just my take on the issue, anyone who so desires is entirely free to disagree.



I entirely disagree with the idea that sex is purely for procreation excluding personal pleasure. But don't you think it is hard to deny that marital sex is reproductive in nature? Because it is! Until nature has run its course and our bodies are past that age. Then it is in nature for it not to be reproductive. This seems fairly obvious. Sex makes babies until our bodies get too old to handle it. If couples are infertile, then they still ought to enjoy all the marital pleasures. These things are not human prevention in the sovereignty of God which is what I believe Scripture speaks against. God gives life; we don't have the right to kill anyone unless God says so (ie when the Bible says the death penalty, just wars, self-defense, etc). God is the giver of life and therefore He dictates when it should be given or taken away. Our job is to obey His commandments and let Him do as He sees fit.


----------



## Caroline

Pergamum said:


> Thanks Caroline. Yes, I see your point about "Reformed Allergies" and agree with your example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like how Reformed people always assume also that church leadership is wise and well-intentioned, and they always suggest taking problems to the elders. That is actually good advice in most cases in Reformed churches. But that certainly is not the case in every church, especially in Oneness Pentecostalism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it sounds like you would affirm that children and child-rearing are blessings, but that other factors also weigh in and may over-ride the general command to be fruitful and multiply (sickness, illness, stresses, dangers). Thus, we are not always commanded to be as fruitful as possible. Is that correct?
Click to expand...


Yes, absolutely. I think a real danger in Reformed churches is that they lose the sense of their own sinful natures. It actually disturbs me a bit when people instantly jump to say, "Well, that only happens in cults and does not apply to us," or "We would never do that." Even though I think there is LESS likelihood in Reformed churches, there are sinners everywhere. People tend to try to make sweeping rules based on utterly ideal circumstances. I think every parent does well to ask themselves on major decisions how these things affect their children and whether something else ought to be done. There is a knee-jerk reaction like, "Why should we bother with what the children think? Their job is to submit to their godly parents." Our job is to submit to God (who is far more perfect than any human parents), and yet He is tender with us and remembers our frailty. We should try to mirror that by doing likewise. Not only in having more children, but in other situations (even small things like moving), we ought to think of how it might trouble our children and whether our desires are selfish or whether we are truly acting in the best interests of our children. The best guard against tyranny is a good understanding of our own temptations to be self-centered and self-aggrandizing.

To put this another way, if you ask my mother or my grandmother, they would tell you that they had biblical families, that the children were always excited about new babies, and that there was no trouble. People tend to see things the way they want to see it. No church hangs out a sign saying, "We are a cult and we have an abusive pastor." No parent wakes up in the morning and says, "I'm going to vex and embitter my children today." Sin is subtle. People think, "Well, I am not feeling well today, and people should deal with my temper," or "I am the one God has placed over these people and they should submit to me." Furthermore, sin has various levels of severity, and the less severe is still sin, even if it is less serious than, for example, what occurred in my household as a child. We ALL vex our children. The question is just how much and whether we repent and apologize to them and endeavor to treat them kindly. And that requires a recognition of our sinful nature. There is no one more likely to vex their children than someone who thinks they can do no wrong and that all their decisions are good ones that their kids just have to accept as they would an edict from God.

I have actually advised one Reformed person not to have children. It was a woman who had already left her husband twice and was planning to leave him again. Amid the enormous marital conflicts, she decided she preferred to exit the marriage with a baby. I advised her that pouring children into a mess does not improve the mess, and that she needed to repent of her plans to leave her husband before she took up the thought of having his baby (an extremely selfish plan, since she planned to try to gain full custody of the child by making false allegations against her husband in divorce court). Sometimes there are just bigger priorities than having more kids, even in Reformed marriages. Sin is everywhere.

And on the internet, as Ruben noted, there are any number of unstable people and we should be hesitant about throwing out advice without knowing all the facts.

This is not to say that people who have children are always abusing them or that people with large families are always leaning too much on their kids. But I think it does not hurt to sometimes ask ourselves whether we can improve. And if anyone is thinking of having another child KNOWING that it is going to put a severe hardship on their children, they should take warning from my experiences. Kids have long memories.

But in general, children are a great blessing. I have three lovely children, and my best friends have nine. When managed well, large families are beautiful. But when they are unstable and chaotic, adding more children to the mix does not improve the situation.

PS Edited to add (since I always second-guess myself): Again, I would never say categorically that trouble that comes of a pregnancy will ruin a family. In fact, with my third pregnancy, I became so ill that I have never fully recovered, and I was wheelchair bound for over a year. My oldest daughter is always very cautious and refuses to say out loud that it was the pregnancy that caused my health crisis, because she worries that her little sister will overhear and feel guilty for the hardship caused. She has determined that the little one should never bear the burden of knowing how much her birth cost us. We agree that we should always say nothing except, "You are a beautiful gift to us, dear child." But at the same time, I'm with several on this thread already who noted the sixth commandment. I would not compel my oldest daughter to pay that cost again (helping to care for an extremely sick mother and a small baby), even if she dealt with it in grace and meekness.


----------



## Mushroom

Boosterseat_91 said:


> childbearing is a command


I don't believe that can be established as applicable to each and every human. It was a creation mandate to humanity as a whole.


----------



## MarieP

earl40 said:


> I agree I just have never heard of such.



Huntington's Disease might be one- my uncle's first wife (before he married my blood-relative aunt) died from it, and 2 of the 3 children from that marriage have it. There is a 50/50 chance of each child getting it, and the onset gets earlier and the symptoms worse with each generation. It usually hits around the age of 40, there is a rapid decline, and the person is not expected to live except for more than 20 years after. It causes uncontrollable muscle movement, difficulty swallowing, and severely impaired mental judgment.

But this is a rare case. And there's always adoption! And of course, there are no "mistakes" brought into the world by God. 

"But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring"- Malachi 2:15


----------



## Miss Marple

Hi,

"I am wondering, do you believe that in order for something to be a sin it must be explicitly named in Scripture as a sin." No, but I think the principle must be at least stated. For example the Bible claims sanctions against those who fail to put a fence around their roof, to prevent people from falling off. So similarly I think it would be a sin to have any known deathly hazard in your house and not safeguard visitors against it. I don't think it just applies to a roof guard. Similarly, we are forbidden to so much as look at another person, to lust after them. So what about a photograph and not the live person? The principle remains.

But I do not see a principle, anywhere in Scripture, that forbids conception. Children are a blessing, yes, but so is food, then again we don't eat all day. I am not being sarcastic. God sends many things that are blessings, that in excess amounts could be harmful. I see that principle. We are told to enjoy our wine, but not to get drunk. We are told to enjoy our food, but not to be gluttons. We are told to work hard, but also to rest. We are told to mourn and to rejoice. Etc.

God is indeed the steward of life. We are not to kill people, except in certain ok'd circumstances such as just war or self defense. So abortion, or any other method of killing people, is a sin outside of those parameters.

But we are not forbidden to prevent conception. We are indeed told to be fruitful and multiply, but that does not mean, necessarily, to avoid birth control completely. It does not even mean just to have children, otherwise the unmarried or infertile wouldn't be able to obey this mandate.

I stick by my original point: the reasons for preventing conception may be sin, but the actual prevention isn't.

Analogies: my reasons for not eating may be sin, but not eating in and of itself is not necessarily a sin. My reasons for sleeping may be a sin, but sleeping isn't necessarily a sin. My reasons for taking medication may be a sin, but taking medication isn't necessarily a sin. Etc.


----------



## Miss Marple

Hi again,

"Who is the steward of the womb? Is it God or man?"

God is sovereign over all things. But I don't think using contraception, for non-sinful reasons, denies His sovereignty.

He is sovereign over my body. But I can decide whether the skip lunch or not today. It is not sin, as long as the reason behind it is not sinful.

One might take your argument and say, God is sovereign over my hair (indeed He is, and there are some things I think would be actually sinful to do with my hair), so I can't cut it. He grows it to the length He wants. There is truth in that statement, but, it's not normally a sin for me to cut, color, or style my hair.

God is sovereign over my flocks and herds. But I may choose to breed more goats, or change the breed of sheep, or switch vets, or sell half my farm and cut down. If not done for sinful reasons, this is not sin.

Why not? Because God has given me the stewardship over my flocks and herds. As long as I'm not sinning with them.

God has given stewardship of husbands and wives and wives to husbands, biblically:

"The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." 1st Cor 7:4. I realize this doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, but as long as sin is avoided, God gives stewardship to the one and the other.

I do agree that childbearing and rearing is an obvious, normative part of marriage, and is part of the creation mandate (although not all of it.) But I don't think childbearing or rearing is the primary purpose of marriage.

I think there are two main purposes to marriage: 1) somehow and mysteriously we mirror the image of Christ and His church; and 2) it was not good for man to be alone.


----------



## ClayPot

Brad said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> childbearing is a command
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that can be established as applicable to each and every human. It was a creation mandate to humanity as a whole.
Click to expand...


Brad, I can't be sure of your specific views of the Sabbath, but isn't the fact that the Sabbath is a creation mandate a common argument for why the Sabbath still applying today? If so, it seems the same argument holds for the command to be fruitful and multiply.


----------



## ClayPot

Miss Marple said:


> I think there are two main purposes to marriage: 1) somehow and mysteriously we mirror the image of Christ and His church; and 2) it was not good for man to be alone.



I think you have to include procreation of children here. 1. There is no reason for God to command Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply otherwise. 2. The church has almost universally held that the procreation of children was part of marriage (only recently has this been denied, and the main argument for this seems to be dismissing the verses about procreation!)


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Brad said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> childbearing is a command
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that can be established as applicable to each and every human. It was a creation mandate to humanity as a whole.
Click to expand...


Adam by himself was not suited to carry out the dominion mandate, no. But that's why God instituted marriage. Before the fall, infertility and disease did not exist so every marriage would have resulted in children. After the fall, every marriage normally results in children. Disease and such which make some couples unable to have children does not nullify the purpose of marriage in dominion. There is no evidence of "Be fruitful and multiply" ever being abrogated in Scripture. This is obviously not the sole purpose of marriage, but it is one purpose none the less.


----------



## earl40

he beholds said:


> I would say, though, that I cannot imagine a scenario, even the sad one that Caroline mentions with the negligent mother, where the making and then the having the babies is the sin. I think the sin was elsewhere. Maybe the father sinned by not getting the mother help. Or maybe from the church who didn't step in and help. Maybe _some_ of the sin was in the selfish hearts of the children, which we all know is possible for children to have!
> .



This is a point that undermines all arguements In my most humble opinion against not having a child The Lord may give. Having "tons" of babies is not the sin.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Miss Marple said:


> Hi,
> 
> "I am wondering, do you believe that in order for something to be a sin it must be explicitly named in Scripture as a sin." No, but I think the principle must be at least stated. For example the Bible claims sanctions against those who fail to put a fence around their roof, to prevent people from falling off. So similarly I think it would be a sin to have any known deathly hazard in your house and not safeguard visitors against it. I don't think it just applies to a roof guard. Similarly, we are forbidden to so much as look at another person, to lust after them. So what about a photograph and not the live person? The principle remains.



I agree, the principles behind laws in Scripture still apply though they may have a different application.



> But I do not see a principle, anywhere in Scripture, that forbids contraception. Children are a blessing, yes, but so is food, then again we don't eat all day. I am not being sarcastic. God sends many things that are blessings, that in excess amounts could be harmful. I see that principle. We are told to enjoy our wine, but not to get drunk. We are told to enjoy our food, but not to be gluttons. We are told to work hard, but also to rest. We are told to mourn and to rejoice. Etc.



If God says "Do this" then by implication the opposite is forbidden, correct? Children are not just a blessing; they are the foundation of the church, state, and business. Without people reproducing, all of society dies. The thing is - being a glutton is clearly condemned in Scripture. The amount of "excess" of food may be unique to each person (depending on size, age, gender, etc) but it should be easily recognizable to that person. How do you define "excess" of children from Scripture? The Bible says God opens and closes the womb. Therefore, if you have too many children, then God gave you too many children! I think you can see the absurdity of that. Unlike food and drink which is a part of our dominion which we must use wisely; the conceiving of life in the womb is solely God's doing so if it is ever a mistake, then you would have to say it was God's "mistake," the words of which I even hate to type. 



> God is indeed the steward of life. We are not to kill people, except in certain ok'd circumstances such as just war or self defense. So abortion, or any other method of killing people, is a sin outside of those parameters.
> 
> But we are not forbidden to prevent conception. We are indeed told to be fruitful and multiply, but that does not mean, necessarily, to avoid birth control completely. It does not even mean just to have children, otherwise the unmarried or infertile wouldn't be able to obey this mandate.
> 
> I stick by my original point: the reasons for preventing conception may be sin, but the actual prevention isn't.
> 
> Analogies: my reasons for not eating may be sin, but not eating in and of itself is not necessarily a sin. My reasons for sleeping may be a sin, but sleeping isn't necessarily a sin. My reasons for taking medication may be a sin, but taking medication isn't necessarily a sin. Etc.



The moral law of God is based upon God's character. He is the living God and all life proceeds from Him. When God creates a life, we can only end rightly it when God's Word says we can. God gives life and God takes life away. By this same principle then, how can we justify trying to control when life is given? Conception is not the same thing as sleeping or eating. We eat and sleep at our own discretion based upon our schedules or how hungry we feel, etc. We govern those things. Can we govern conception? The answer is obviously no. This is not the only principle in Scripture that contraception would go against. I will list these again, see if you can find which one doesn't fit:

1) Children are a blessing (This is revealed in God's Holy Word)
2) God opens the womb (Revealed)
3) God closes the womb (Revealed)
4) We are to have children (Revealed)
5) A quiver full is a good amount (Revealed)
6) Children are a heritage from the Lord (Revealed)
7) A closed womb is often a reproach (Revealed)
8) It is lawful at certain times and for certain reasons to limit or otherwise prevent the number of children we have (Not revealed)


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Miss Marple said:


> Hi again,
> 
> "Who is the steward of the womb? Is it God or man?"
> 
> God is sovereign over all things. But I don't think using contraception, for non-sinful reasons, denies His sovereignty.
> 
> He is sovereign over my body. But I can decide whether the skip lunch or not today. It is not sin, as long as the reason behind it is not sinful.
> 
> One might take your argument and say, God is sovereign over my hair (indeed He is, and there are some things I think would be actually sinful to do with my hair), so I can't cut it. He grows it to the length He wants. There is truth in that statement, but, it's not normally a sin for me to cut, color, or style my hair.
> 
> God is sovereign over my flocks and herds. But I may choose to breed more goats, or change the breed of sheep, or switch vets, or sell half my farm and cut down. If not done for sinful reasons, this is not sin.
> 
> Why not? Because God has given me the stewardship over my flocks and herds. As long as I'm not sinning with them.
> 
> God has given stewardship of husbands and wives and wives to husbands, biblically:
> 
> "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." 1st Cor 7:4. I realize this doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, but as long as sin is avoided, God gives stewardship to the one and the other.
> 
> I do agree that childbearing and rearing is an obvious, normative part of marriage, and is part of the creation mandate (although not all of it.) But I don't think childbearing or rearing is the primary purpose of marriage.
> 
> I think there are two main purposes to marriage: 1) somehow and mysteriously we mirror the image of Christ and His church; and 2) it was not good for man to be alone.



You did not directly answer my question, though you brought up many things of which I would agree that man is the steward over. Is man then the steward over the womb? Does man open and close the womb? This clearly cannot be the case. Is man the steward of the weather or is God? Clearly God is because God controls the weather. Man does not try to control the weather, indeed he cannot. We do the best with what God gives us. Likewise, man does not (or should not, rather) try to control conception because indeed, he cannot. We do the best with what God gives us.

And I would agree with Joshua F that dominionship and companionship are the two purposes in marriage. But yes, dominionship does involve more than just having children. It includes raising those children as unto the Lord for _godly_ dominion.


----------



## Miss Marple

jpfrench81 said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are two main purposes to marriage: 1) somehow and mysteriously we mirror the image of Christ and His church; and 2) it was not good for man to be alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have to include procreation of children here. 1. There is no reason for God to command Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply otherwise. 2. The church has almost universally held that the procreation of children was part of marriage (only recently has this been denied, and the main argument for this seems to be dismissing the verses about procreation!)
Click to expand...


If I need to include it, then there is no compelling reason for infertile people to marry. Whether they are genetically or due to injury or due to age, infertile, why would they marry?


----------



## Miss Marple

"If God says "Do this" then by implication the opposite is forbidden, correct?"

Yes, and He does say, "Be fruitful and multiply."

Perhaps where we disagree is on that mandate - what does it mean? Does it only mean, or mainly mean, have children? I don't think so. I think childbearing/rearing is included, but that it means much more.


----------



## Miss Marple

"Is man then the steward over the womb?"

I think so, in the same sense that we are stewards over our own body in general.

But all within God's parameters, of course, I am sure we both understand. I am steward over my hands, but I can't use them kill somebody, etc.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Miss Marple said:


> jpfrench81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are two main purposes to marriage: 1) somehow and mysteriously we mirror the image of Christ and His church; and 2) it was not good for man to be alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have to include procreation of children here. 1. There is no reason for God to command Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply otherwise. 2. The church has almost universally held that the procreation of children was part of marriage (only recently has this been denied, and the main argument for this seems to be dismissing the verses about procreation!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I need to include it, then there is no compelling reason for infertile people to marry. Whether they are genetically or due to injury or due to age, infertile, why would they marry?
Click to expand...


Procreation is a very important part of marriage. If the fall hadn't occurred every marriage would have resulted in children. Disease and infertility do not negate this purpose in marriage. However, marriage is more than just procreation and for this reason, those who are infertile can marry and likely would want to adopt children. 



> "If God says "Do this" then by implication the opposite is forbidden, correct?"
> 
> Yes, and He does say, "Be fruitful and multiply."
> 
> Perhaps where we disagree is on that mandate - what does it mean? Does it only mean, or mainly mean, have children? I don't think so. I think childbearing/rearing is included, but that it means much more.



Oh yes, I've already stated that I agree it means more than just bearing children. We must raise godly children to take dominion over the earth. Christians ought to think about future generations. The dominion mandate is to have and raise Godly children. If this is the command, then the burden of proof is on those in favor of contraception to show where the Bible would allow it. I've only seen one verse in this discussion used to attempt to prove the use of birth control (Eph. 6:4) but using this verse in that way doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



> "Is man then the steward over the womb?"
> 
> I think so, in the same sense that we are stewards over our own body in general.
> 
> But all within God's parameters, of course, I am sure we both understand. I am steward over my hands, but I can't use them kill somebody, etc.



Yes, women ought to take care of their bodies, including their womb. But what my question was asking, which is clear from the question I asked immediately following this one, was can man open and close the womb? The answer Scripture gives is no, that's God's job since He is the only One who can create life. We use our hands, the weather, and the children God gives us within His parameters, yes. But we cannot create hands or the weather or children. The stewardship of those things comes when God grants them to us; we don't try and grant them to or keep them from ourselves, indeed we cannot control that anyways.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Miss Marple said:


> jpfrench81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are two main purposes to marriage: 1) somehow and mysteriously we mirror the image of Christ and His church; and 2) it was not good for man to be alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have to include procreation of children here. 1. There is no reason for God to command Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply otherwise. 2. The church has almost universally held that the procreation of children was part of marriage (only recently has this been denied, and the main argument for this seems to be dismissing the verses about procreation!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I need to include it, then there is no compelling reason for infertile people to marry. Whether they are genetically or due to injury or due to age, infertile, why would they marry?
Click to expand...


You seem to be making an argument analogy to saying that one should not say that a main purpose of having legs is for transportation because then those whose legs are defective cannot be said to have legs anymore. They are still legs and still serve various purposes. In the same way, infertile couples, due to either age or other situations can be married and should get married for various reasons.

CT


----------



## JoannaV

Of course God is sovereign over conception. But that does not mean that man has nothing to do with it. There are all kinds of things we do that may decrease fertility, and also all kinds of things we can do to increase fertility. Some women wean their babies early in an attempt to regain their fertility. Some couples make a special effort to have intercourse when the woman is aware that she is at a fertile time of the month. Other couples, having discovered that the husband has low sperm count, may at fertile times ensure they only have sex every other day *not* every day so as to increase the chance of conception.


----------



## ClayPot

Miss Marple said:


> jpfrench81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are two main purposes to marriage: 1) somehow and mysteriously we mirror the image of Christ and His church; and 2) it was not good for man to be alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have to include procreation of children here. 1. There is no reason for God to command Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply otherwise. 2. The church has almost universally held that the procreation of children was part of marriage (only recently has this been denied, and the main argument for this seems to be dismissing the verses about procreation!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I need to include it, then there is no compelling reason for infertile people to marry. Whether they are genetically or due to injury or due to age, infertile, why would they marry?
Click to expand...


Because of the reasons your mentioned of course. There is also a clear difference between God sovereignly deciding that a couple cannot fulfill that purpose for marriage and intentionally avoiding it.


----------



## Mushroom

So, may I ask if the use of a cesarean section is an illegitimate means whereby to birth children, seeing it is a man-created manipulation of the ordained process of birthing children? If it is a good and necessary consequence of scripture that interference in that process is not stewardship but sin, that we must only engage in marital relations when the possibility of pregnancy result, then doesn't that procedure fit that bill? If death or injury is a common result of child-bearing, why isn't it required that we risk that as well? In fact, why isn't it required that all Christian women give birth at home with at most mid-wives to assist, come what may, since that is the only biblical model we have to follow?


----------



## Miss Marple

"You seem to be making an argument analogy to saying that one should not say that a main purpose of having legs is for transportation because then those whose legs are defective cannot be said to have legs anymore."

I don't think you quite see my point, but you are close. I am not always as clear as I'd like to be.

I don't think that the leg analogy would work, because a person does not choose to have legs or not. They don't choose whether to be fertile or not. But we do choose whether to use birth control or not, and that is what is being discussed on this thread.


----------



## Miss Marple

"I asked immediately following this one, was can man open and close the womb?"

I think so, in the sense that we can open and close our mouths; same idea.

Is it not God who sustains us, who feeds us, who gives us each day or daily bread? Of course, and He maintains our digestive system and etc., so we can live, and even makes food usually very enjoyable.

Yet, we decide whether to eat and what to eat at any given time, and without sin, unless done for a sinful reason.


----------



## Miss Marple

"Oh yes, I've already stated that I agree it means more than just bearing children. We must raise godly children to take dominion over the earth. Christians ought to think about future generations. The dominion mandate is to have and raise Godly children"

Oh dear, I don't think we much agree here. You see, the single or infertile and so on could never keep this command if that were the case.

I think being fruitful and multiplying means evangelizing, doing good works, admonishing one another, being praiseful and prayerful, working with our hands, working to see that God's will is exalted and sustained in our churches and families and communities - and that someone can be fruitful and multiply without ever having a child.


----------



## Miss Marple

' If the fall hadn't occurred every marriage would have resulted in children"

You may be entirely correct about this, but I don't know if there is a biblical basis for that statement.

I am afraid I may seem antagonistic about people having as many children as possible. I am not. I just wince to think that brothers and sisters who, for nonsinful reasons, do not have children, or do not have a lot of children. I don't want them to feel they are in some way sinning.


----------



## irresistible_grace

I do not recall the OP asking if it was a sin to "decide" to "never" have children... It asked if it is "biblical."
There may be cases where it is not "sinful." However, I cannot see how one could argue that it is "biblical" for a married couple to "decide" to "never" have children. Especially because very the next question was what if one spouse wants children and the other doesn't, "Who wins?" ... This doesn't sound like health is a concern or any of the hypothetical motivations given to justify contraption (or Onanism).

Please show me from Scripture that "deciding" to "never" have children is "biblical."


----------



## ChristianTrader

Miss Marple said:


> "You seem to be making an argument analogy to saying that one should not say that a main purpose of having legs is for transportation because then those whose legs are defective cannot be said to have legs anymore."
> 
> I don't think you quite see my point, but you are close. I am not always as clear as I'd like to be.
> 
> I don't think that the leg analogy would work, because a person does not choose to have legs or not. They don't choose whether to be fertile or not. But we do choose whether to use birth control or not, and that is what is being discussed on this thread.



But remember the place where I jumped in the discussion was what is the purpose of marriage. You objected to the addition of procreation being part of the purpose of marriage because then why should infertile couples get married. Such in no way follows because a couple is defective in some fashion that they would not be really married or that there is no reason for them to marry and engage in sexual activity. The question of whether or not to use birth control can only be answered after one first determines the final cause of marriage.

CT


----------



## irresistible_grace

Is Scripture silent on "whether to use birth control or not?"
NO - children are a heritage, the fruit of the womb a reward, blessed is the man whose quiver is full...

Birth control, if anything, is an exception to the rule. There may be factors that make it less dishonorable to take it upon ourselves to close the womb (like health issues) but barrenness is never looked upon favorable in Scripture & to pretend that it is an honorable thing to "decide" to be without children when one is perfectly capable of having children is beyond me.

Is it the responsibility of NON married couples to have children?
NO - It is the responsibility of married couples to have children or at least desire to have children (even if GOD sees fit to withhold this blessing)


----------



## kvanlaan

In reading through the rest of this thread, I still find it interesting that no one has picked up the historical argument, in all likelihood since it is so compelling against contraception. We can wax eloquent for post after post about the creeping liberalism in the church even in the 1800s and the effects that it had on once-clear and mandated practices, about the death of orthodoxy in places like Harvard, the once-brilliant seminary. Exclusive psalmody, head covering, etc. are easily quoted in their ecclesiastical historical contexts to show the rising influence of worldliness in the church and a moving away from biblical ordinances.

But we don't like to touch the church teachings on birth control, because we've gone so far in the other direction that a return to them is too bumpy a road. Prior to 1930 at the Lambeth Conference, you would be hard-pressed to find a church, Roman or Protestant, willing to contravene any sentiment against birth control. Birth control was the province of sailors and prostitutes and Christians didn't do that sort of thing. Not so much the advent of the Pill, but instead its general acceptance in society, both secular and Christian (One hundred repetitions three nights a week for four years, .... Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth) seems to have almost killed off the last vestiges of opposition to contraception. Find me a place where the Roman church is not ridiculed for its historical stance on the matter - it is almost universal. We worry so much about the world polluting the church for the most part, but this issue, for some reason, is beyond the Pale. And I cannot find the source for the rise of birth control anywhere within the body of Christ - can we honestly doubt that it is a secular incursion?


----------



## irresistible_grace

kvanlaan said:


> In reading through the rest of this thread, I still find it interesting that no one has picked up the historical argument, in all likelihood since it is so compelling against contraception. We can wax eloquent for post after post about the creeping liberalism in the church even in the 1800s and the effects that it had on once-clear and mandated practices, about the death of orthodoxy in places like Harvard, the once-brilliant seminary. Exclusive psalmody, head covering, etc. are easily quoted in their ecclesiastical historical contexts to show the rising influence of worldliness in the church and a moving away from biblical ordinances.
> 
> But we don't like to touch the church teachings on birth control, because we've gone so far in the other direction that a return to them is too bumpy a road. Prior to 1930 at the Lambeth Conference, you would be hard-pressed to find a church, Roman or Protestant, willing to contravene any sentiment against birth control. Birth control was the province of sailors and prostitutes and Christians didn't do that sort of thing. Not so much the advent of the Pill, but instead its general acceptance in society, both secular and Christian (One hundred repetitions three nights a week for four years, .... Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth) seems to have almost killed off the last vestiges of opposition to contraception. Find me a place where the Roman church is not ridiculed for its historical stance on the matter - it is almost universal. We worry so much about the world polluting the church for the most part, but this issue, for some reason, is beyond the Pale. And I cannot find the source for the rise of birth control anywhere within the body of Christ - can we honestly doubt that it is a secular incursion?



I am interested in learning more about when Confessional Christians stopped opposing contraception & started to embrace it to the point that 100 post into a thread about whether or not it is "biblical" to "decide" to "never" have children we are more concerned about offending those who don't have [or in the case of the OP don't want] any children than we are about what Scripture teaches about children.

I also found it interesting that in 1920 at the Lambeth Conference they said


> We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers – physical, moral and religious – thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children...



And, even in 1930 they stressed "abstinence" NOT medicinal contraception as birth control.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Brad said:


> So, may I ask if the use of a cesarean section is an illegitimate means whereby to birth children, seeing it is a man-created manipulation of the ordained process of birthing children? If it is a good and necessary consequence of scripture that interference in that process is not stewardship but sin, that we must only engage in marital relations when the possibility of pregnancy result, then doesn't that procedure fit that bill? If death or injury is a common result of child-bearing, why isn't it required that we risk that as well? In fact, why isn't it required that all Christian women give birth at home with at most mid-wives to assist, come what may, since that is the only biblical model we have to follow?



My answer would be absolutely not (though most C-sections done in hospitals today are not necessary, that's another story; there are times when a c-section is necessary to save the life of the mother, child, or both). Again, this is in no way trying to take over the aspect of God's sovereignty which is the creation of life. The life is already there and we are to do our best to preserve and steward the life once it is there. A c-section is intended to preserve the life that God has already created. This is far different from trying to prevent God's work of giving life.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Miss Marple said:


> "I asked immediately following this one, was can man open and close the womb?"
> 
> I think so, in the sense that we can open and close our mouths; same idea.



So man decides when to conceive and when to not conceive a child? Could the Egyptians whom's womb God closed because of Abraham's wife decide "eh, we're gonna conceive a child now and God can't do anything about it?" So now man can create life? 



> Is it not God who sustains us, who feeds us, who gives us each day or daily bread? Of course, and He maintains our digestive system and etc., so we can live, and even makes food usually very enjoyable.
> 
> Yet, we decide whether to eat and what to eat at any given time, and without sin, unless done for a sinful reason.



Yes, God does sustain us. We are stewards in what God gives us because we work for food, choose what to eat, etc. But when's the last time any man ever helped God create a life in the womb?


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Miss Marple said:


> "Oh yes, I've already stated that I agree it means more than just bearing children. We must raise godly children to take dominion over the earth. Christians ought to think about future generations. The dominion mandate is to have and raise Godly children"
> 
> Oh dear, I don't think we much agree here. You see, the single or infertile and so on could never keep this command if that were the case.
> 
> I think being fruitful and multiplying means evangelizing, doing good works, admonishing one another, being praiseful and prayerful, working with our hands, working to see that God's will is exalted and sustained in our churches and families and communities - and that someone can be fruitful and multiply without ever having a child.



But you are leaving out the most important part of the dominion mandate. 

@

If you want to leave out childbearing and raising, then you would have to show where in Scripture this command is abrogated, which there is no evidence of. Raising children for a Christian is not meant for selfish purpose. It's meant to raise a godly seed! You are implicitly rejecting this idea when you reject the idea that childbearing is the main means of fulfilling the dominion mandate. "For a society to ignore a creation ordinance or a creational reality and base laws on rare exceptions that are abnormal and caused by the fall is unscriptural and irrational." We can see from Scripture that for those barren couples "it should result in prayer, contentment and possibly adoption." Again, companionship is another purpose of marriage and it is fine for those that are barren to marry for companionship.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Miss Marple said:


> ' If the fall hadn't occurred every marriage would have resulted in children"
> 
> You may be entirely correct about this, but I don't know if there is a biblical basis for that statement.
> 
> I am afraid I may seem antagonistic about people having as many children as possible. I am not. I just wince to think that brothers and sisters who, for nonsinful reasons, do not have children, or do not have a lot of children. I don't want them to feel they are in some way sinning.



The point of saying one should not use birth control is not to say "You have to have a baby every year or you're in sin!" Not at all. God provides children in His own timing and for His own purposes. My sister tried to have her second child for about 4 years before she finally had one. While I certainly believe the ideal is big families according to Scripture, this is not a hard and fast rule. Some people will never use birth control but still have a small family. The point is _not_ that you must have a big family or be in sin. The point is since God opens and closes the womb, and we do not, we should not try to prevent what God clearly states is His job alone. We should instead trust Him and let Him bless us with children as He sees fit.


----------



## THE W

Brad said:


> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it sounds like it is being argued that if God wanted Tamar to get pregnant, God could have given Tamar a child without Onan. So, why did God see fit to kill Onan? Onan was PREVENTING conception while enjoying sexual gratification.
> 
> 
> 
> Was it simply that, or was it because he was being duplicitous, not refusing his father's command openly, but defying it surreptitiously? Can we derive law from such an unclear passage?
> 
> Rain is a great blessing upon a parched land, but not so much where the ground is already saturated. God gave us no control over the rain, but He did give us control over whether we procreate or not, and the ability to use wisdom in that control. Motivations are what determine the sinfulness of actions not expressly forbidden, not the action itself.
Click to expand...


i've heard contraceptives referred to as "rain coats"

but i digress..


i see the scriptures being clear on the command of having children(malachi 2:15). but there is no implied or inferred command that when we get married we must have children ASAP and AMAP.

on the point of onanism, onan didnt pull out because he wanted to avoid having children, he did what he did because he knew the child that would come about would not be his own and so he disrespected his dead brother in not doing what needed to be done in maintaining the family line. onan wanted children, he just didnt want to be a surrogate father for child that wouldnt be his.

on the point of God opening and closing the womb, God opened the wombs of barren women in order to fulfill his promises of maintaining certain family lines and also as a sign and a wonder in letting people know that He is The LORD. he closed wombs of totally fertile women as a way of excommunication from them being his chosen people and not maintaining their family line. nowhere in scripture is it implied or inferred that being barren was sinful but rather a punishment for sin. it was indeed a curse in that God wanted to mainatain the family line of his chosen people and being barren meant you didnt participate in that and were cut off from God, unless he had mercy on you and opened your womb.

children are absolutely a blessing and no one here would disagree with that. however, i believe that God would want us to be good stewards of the children he allows us to procreate. im a single person myself who for a long time did not want to have anything to do with the institution of parenthood until i was shown in scripture that we are in fact required to bare Godly offspring as it is the reason God instituted marriage along with companionship.

im not going to marry anyone until i have a job that will allow me to provide for a wife AND a child. the bible doesnt tell me we would have to have children right away, but i need to plan for it.

using psalms 127 to tell someone that they're sinning if they dont have as many children as they possibly can despite the abject inability to do so economically and health-wise is an abuse of that scripture and extremely dangerous. all psalms 127:3-5 says is that those who have many children are blessed. it does not imply or infer that those who have 1 or 2 children are not blessed and neither does any other passage in scripture. also, a women who would bare only one child cannot be considered barren.

the covenant marriage is commanded to bare godly offspring and obviously the one who bares many of these offspring is considered much more blessed than those who would have few. the point is, they're both blessed.


----------



## Pergamum

> the bible doesn't tell me we would have to have children right away



Where in the bible does it tell us that we can control such a thing?

Also...



> ...inability to do so economically



How poor must you be before you have children?


----------



## Boosterseat_91

I don't know of any other command given in Scripture where people say "Yes, God tells us to do this but he doesn't tell us when so it's ok if we put it off for however long that we want to or stop obeying it [how else do you say that???] whenever we see fit." My parents taught me from a very young age that delayed obedience is disobedience. I'm not saying you have to get married as soon as physically possible; when dealing with single people it's a slightly different issue. But, the command is enjoined upon married couples, I'm pretty sure no one denies that (at least in reformed circles). When is it ever ok to choose when we will and when we won't obey them? It's not our duty to create life - that's God's duty. It's simply our duty to obey Him.


----------



## THE W

The only thing scripture says regarding children is that we are to bare Godly offspring and that children are a blessing. Time and amount can't be derived from what scripture has to say. 

If you can't provide food clothing and shelter for you and your family than having children or having more children would be irresponsible and reckless. You actually have to be able to provide for the family you have.


----------



## Miss Marple

Leah,

God did say "Be fruitful and multiply."

He did not say, "Begin at the start of your marriage, and continue until physically impossible no matter what the circumstance, to conceive children." Although some may truly believe that the creation mandate and other scriptures come together to mean just that.

We are debating here what the purpose(s) of marriage are, what being fruitful means, what multiply means, and whether there is any discretion expected by God on our part, or if we are to not impede conception in any way.

But no one on the thread is trying to encourage the delaying of obedience. Heaven forbid. I am questioning the interpretation of God's command that some are taking. 

Let us consider some other commands:

"Go thou, and do likewise." Shall we all sell all of our goods and give them to the poor?

"Do not fail to entertain strangers." Shall we bring them in off the street, take in hitchhikers?

"Love one another." Shall we play out all the possible connotations there?

"Give to him that asks of you." Shall we give our paycheck to our heroin addicted brother if he asks for it?

I think most here would say no. We try to apply all of Scripture to understand Scripture. 

We are told for instance, that if a man will not provide for his household, let him be anathema. Strong, strong admonition. So shall a man who is unemployed and has no livable wage coming in try to conceive another child? I don't mean to be silly. There are some who would say, "yes." They would say it is a matter of faith, and he and his wife should continue to avoid birth control, trusting that God will provide.

If a child IS conceived, I would take the position that he should not be aborted, no matter what the financial/housing/health/ situation in a family is. Murder it not a solution to impossible circumstances. That much I find clear. The use of birth control in these circumstances I do not find to be so clear. I am not willing to say it is wrong to use (barrier type) birth control if financial/housing/health situations of a serious nature are happening.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> I don't know of any other command given in Scripture where people say "Yes, God tells us to do this but he doesn't tell us when so it's ok if we put it off for however long that we want to or stop obeying it [how else do you say that???] whenever we see fit." My parents taught me from a very young age that delayed obedience is disobedience. I'm not saying you have to get married as soon as physically possible; when dealing with single people it's a slightly different issue. But, the command is enjoined upon married couples, I'm pretty sure no one denies that (at least in reformed circles). When is it ever ok to choose when we will and when we won't obey them? It's not our duty to create life - that's God's duty. It's simply our duty to obey Him.



it depends on why they're holding off. is it for financial reasons, health reasons, or is it because they dont want to despite being financially capable enough and healthy enough to have children. if the latter than i agree they are being disobedient. if the former, than they are being good stewards of the family God desires to give them in making sure they are in a position to properly care for their children and that they'll actually have a mommy who's alive and healthy enough to carry out the duties of a wife and mother.

ADD: allow me to clarify what i mean by financial reasons so no one gets confused.

im not talking about the person who says that if they have another child they wont be able to afford to retire as early as they wanted or wont be able to buy that new summer home or that sailboat, etc. that is a selfish reason to not bare children.

im talking about the person who's will have another kid and be in danger of not being able to afford to pay the bills and end up having their utilites cut off, or being evicted from their home, or having to have the wife go out and work where she cant be home with the children as she ought.

why would you disrespect the blessing of a child by bring a child into the world you cant take care of?


----------



## Vladimir

Dear brethren,

I may be saying something basic here, but when we want to tackle an issue and the Bible does not explicitly say "Thou shalt have 37 children", we must look for concepts and principles in it and apply them to the question at hand.

With your permission, I will quote a part of a message from pastor Voddie Baucham that has been a great blessing to me, and I hope that it may help you see things in another perspective:



> Let me tell you something. There are some of us in the room that need to repent because of our attitude toward children and because of what we have said to people communicating our attitude and not the biblical attitude toward children. Some of us need to get on our faces before a holy God because we have mocked being fruitful. I have heard pastors from pulpit, from the pulpit talk about their children like they despise the number of children that God has given them. I heard a pastor from the pulpit talk about their third children being named Miny. “Yeah, Eeny, Meeny and Miny because we ain’t having no more.”
> 
> That is a mockery before almighty God. Children are a gift of the Lord. The fruit of the womb is a reward. Our attitude from here is why a lot of people out there aren’t having enough kids. It starts with us. And it all goes back to prosperity. The poorest nations in the world see children as a blessing. The richest nation in the world, we talk about children in terms of how many we can afford. God help us. We are dying one generation at a time because we refuse to receive the gift that God wants to bring through the womb.
> 
> Our attitudes. God says, “You want to continue to be my people? You do two things. Number one, you gladly receive these blessings that I give you called children. And, number two, you disciple them in your homes so that they don’t look like the culture around them.” The minute you stop receiving the gift of God through the womb and the minute you stop discipling them in your home, they begin to look like the culture and the community of God begins to vanish before your eyes. Two Christian families in this generation to get one generation into the next. I believe that is a plague on us. It is amazing. We always talk about how we want more souls in the kingdom. If we were honest, here is what we would say. “We want more souls in the kingdom, as long as we don’t have to birth them, raise them and feed them.”



The message is called "The Centrality of the Home". You can find the whole transcript here: The Centrality of the Home... ~ Voddie Baucham (transcript) - Sermon Index


----------



## ClayPot

THE W said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any other command given in Scripture where people say "Yes, God tells us to do this but he doesn't tell us when so it's ok if we put it off for however long that we want to or stop obeying it [how else do you say that???] whenever we see fit." My parents taught me from a very young age that delayed obedience is disobedience. I'm not saying you have to get married as soon as physically possible; when dealing with single people it's a slightly different issue. But, the command is enjoined upon married couples, I'm pretty sure no one denies that (at least in reformed circles). When is it ever ok to choose when we will and when we won't obey them? It's not our duty to create life - that's God's duty. It's simply our duty to obey Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it depends on why they're holding off. is it for financial reasons, health reasons, or is it because they dont want to despite being financially capable enough and healthy enough to have children. if the latter than i agree they are being disobedient. if the former, than they are being good stewards of the family God desires to give them in making sure they are in a position to properly care for their children and that they'll actually have a mommy who's alive and healthy enough to carry out the duties of a wife and mother.
> 
> ADD: allow me to clarify what i mean by financial reasons so no one gets confused.
> 
> im not talking about the person who says that if they have another child they wont be able to afford to retire as early as they wanted or wont be able to buy that new summer home or that sailboat, etc. that is a selfish reason to not bare children.
> 
> im talking about the person who's will have another kid and be in danger of not being able to afford to pay the bills and end up having their utilites cut off, or being evicted from their home, or having to have the wife go out and work where she cant be home with the children as she ought.
> 
> why would you disrespect the blessing of a child by bring a child into the world you cant take care of?
Click to expand...


Wade, suppose I grant you that argument. Now suppose my wife and I become very poor, and we decide it is not wise to have children. We use contraception consistently and according to directions, but lo and behold, she gets pregnant! Would we be in sin to keep the child? Or were we presumptive to assume we couldn't afford another child? Or perhaps another option? How would you counsel such a couple from the Bible?


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any other command given in Scripture where people say "Yes, God tells us to do this but he doesn't tell us when so it's ok if we put it off for however long that we want to or stop obeying it [how else do you say that???] whenever we see fit." My parents taught me from a very young age that delayed obedience is disobedience. I'm not saying you have to get married as soon as physically possible; when dealing with single people it's a slightly different issue. But, the command is enjoined upon married couples, I'm pretty sure no one denies that (at least in reformed circles). When is it ever ok to choose when we will and when we won't obey them? It's not our duty to create life - that's God's duty. It's simply our duty to obey Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it depends on why they're holding off. is it for financial reasons, health reasons, or is it because they dont want to despite being financially capable enough and healthy enough to have children. if the latter than i agree they are being disobedient. if the former, than they are being good stewards of the family God desires to give them in making sure they are in a position to properly care for their children and that they'll actually have a mommy who's alive and healthy enough to carry out the duties of a wife and mother.
> 
> ADD: allow me to clarify what i mean by financial reasons so no one gets confused.
> 
> im not talking about the person who says that if they have another child they wont be able to afford to retire as early as they wanted or wont be able to buy that new summer home or that sailboat, etc. that is a selfish reason to not bare children.
> 
> im talking about the person who's will have another kid and be in danger of not being able to afford to pay the bills and end up having their utilites cut off, or being evicted from their home, or having to have the wife go out and work where she cant be home with the children as she ought.
> 
> why would you disrespect the blessing of a child by bring a child into the world you cant take care of?
Click to expand...


I am presupposing that the conception of a child (aka the giving of life) is an aspect of God's sovereignty and not man's stewardship. Man gives us children and then we do the best we can with and for them; that's when they enter into the realm of man's stewardship. But again, no one has yet to provide Scriptural evidence that conceiving a child can ever be sinful - or even sinful"ish" like irresponsible or something. In fact, conception is always associated as God's work not man's - HE opens and closes the womb, etc.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> The only thing scripture says regarding children is that we are to bare Godly offspring and that children are a blessing. Time and amount can't be derived from what scripture has to say.
> 
> If you can't provide food clothing and shelter for you and your family than having children or having more children would be irresponsible and reckless. You actually have to be able to provide for the family you have.



According to Scripture, God gives children, not man. So you would have to say God irresponsibly gave a child to that couple - not the couple themselves.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Miss Marple said:


> Leah,
> 
> God did say "Be fruitful and multiply."
> 
> He did not say, "Begin at the start of your marriage, and continue until physically impossible no matter what the circumstance, to conceive children." Although some may truly believe that the creation mandate and other scriptures come together to mean just that.
> 
> We are debating here what the purpose(s) of marriage are, what being fruitful means, what multiply means, and whether there is any discretion expected by God on our part, or if we are to not impede conception in any way.
> 
> But no one on the thread is trying to encourage the delaying of obedience. Heaven forbid. I am questioning the interpretation of God's command that some are taking.
> 
> Let us consider some other commands:
> 
> "Go thou, and do likewise." Shall we all sell all of our goods and give them to the poor?
> 
> "Do not fail to entertain strangers." Shall we bring them in off the street, take in hitchhikers?
> 
> "Love one another." Shall we play out all the possible connotations there?
> 
> "Give to him that asks of you." Shall we give our paycheck to our heroin addicted brother if he asks for it?
> 
> I think most here would say no. We try to apply all of Scripture to understand Scripture.
> 
> We are told for instance, that if a man will not provide for his household, let him be anathema. Strong, strong admonition. So shall a man who is unemployed and has no livable wage coming in try to conceive another child? I don't mean to be silly. There are some who would say, "yes." They would say it is a matter of faith, and he and his wife should continue to avoid birth control, trusting that God will provide.
> 
> If a child IS conceived, I would take the position that he should not be aborted, no matter what the financial/housing/health/ situation in a family is. Murder it not a solution to impossible circumstances. That much I find clear. The use of birth control in these circumstances I do not find to be so clear. I am not willing to say it is wrong to use (barrier type) birth control if financial/housing/health situations of a serious nature are happening.



You're correct that each command needs to be interpreted correctly since the examples you give are clearly misusing the commands. However, "be fruitful and multiply" is hard to mis-interpret; unless you have other unbibilcal presuppositions hindering it. I've also considered several other biblical principles about childbearing and all of them are the opposite principles that would lead one to use birth control. The "all of Scripture" understanding here all oppose the principles that could lead one to use birth control. The biggest principle in Scripture that seems to be missed is that fact that God grants/gives the conception of the child so how can we ever call the man and his wife "irresponsible" for something God did?


----------



## a mere housewife

Dear Leah (I have not interacted with you before so first things first, hello ,

God has given two adorable little ones to a neighbor and his girlfriend, out of wedlock. Before that she was given by God her first child, conceived when her stepfather sexually abused her as a teenager. Did God make mistakes in giving these children? Does that mean the circumstances under which they were conceived are fine?

Please, please understand: I am by no means comparing any situation within marriage with these situations. My point is quite simply that just because the matter of conception is in the hands of God does not put it entirely out of the realm of other considerations in our keeping of the moral law.

I pray God will bless you for living out your convictions before Him. While representing that your own conscience is bound by these considerations, I think it would be more in keeping with the law of love and the need to bear true witness of our neighbors to acknowledge that other peoples' consciences are equally bound by for instance, the command 'thou shalt not kill' -- as well as the command 'thou shalt not commit adultery'; and the whole picture of prudent love and respect and care for the lives already given by the Lord that the law forms. 

Please forgive me if I've spoken clumsily: I don't plan to argue any of these points. All the best.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

a mere housewife said:


> Dear Leah (I have not interacted with you before so first things first, hello ,
> 
> God has given two adorable little ones to a neighbor and his girlfriend, out of wedlock. Before that she was given by God her first child, conceived when her stepfather sexually abused her as a teenager. Did God make mistakes in giving these children? Does that mean the circumstances under which they were conceived are fine?
> 
> Please, please understand: I am by no means comparing any situation within marriage with these situations. My point is quite simply that just because the matter of conception is in the hands of God does not put it entirely out of the realm of other considerations in our keeping of the moral law.
> 
> I pray God will bless you for living out your convictions before Him. While representing that your own conscience is bound by these considerations, I think it would be more in keeping with the law of love and the need to bear true witness of our neighbors to acknowledge that other peoples' consciences are equally bound by for instance, the command 'thou shalt not kill' -- as well as the command 'thou shalt not commit adultery'; and the whole picture of prudent love and respect and care for the lives already given by the Lord that the law forms.
> 
> Please forgive me if I've spoken clumsily: I don't plan to argue any of these points. All the best.



Hello! No, that wasn't clumsy at all, in fact, I really appreciate that perspective! =)

Certainly, those were sinful situations, as you said. God ordained marriage between a godly man and godly women for the bearing of children and raising them in godly dominion. The unmarried state is definitely not the time to be bearing children, which is easily proven from the moral law. But that said, is there anytime that we can prove from Scripture where in the married state, it is not the time to have children? I would agree that the 6th commandment needs to be heavily considered when the life of the mother is at risk, but that's the only situation where the conception of a child may actually kill someone else. Our reformed fathers' understanding was that the use of birth control is actually a violation of the 6th commandment. I'm not saying that's the correct understanding simply because they said it; they are obviously imperfect people. But, when we look at the principles about childbearing in Scripture (God opens and closes the womb, a closed womb is seen as a reproach, children are a blessing, etc. I've listed these 2x in this thread) and look at the principles that drive the use of birth control, are they not directly opposed to each other (ie. man opens and closes the womb, a closed womb is often a wise choice, children can be a huge burden and not a blessing in some situations, etc.)?

Perhaps, I am far less inclined to accept the idea that financial struggles are justification for birth control due to my upbringing. My father has 12 children and we were always struggling - I mean serious struggles. But we never went hungry or were in need. I wouldn't trade my upbringing for any other upbringing in the world - even if I could have had rich parents with few children that could have gotten me everything that I wanted. The standard of living is just far to high in the United States. Most people in other countries have far less than the poorest do here and yet they keep having children and don't starve to death because of it! I'm not saying it isn't hard and that there aren't a lot of situations to consider. But can't we agree that the overall principles in Scripture are against birth control?


----------



## a mere housewife

No doubt a lot of our views are influenced by our upbringing; what a wonderful upbringing to be influenced by. 

But that is exactly, for many reasons already mentioned and gone round with (that the creation mandate should not override everything in the moral law except the prohibition of adultery; that many OT emphases need to be placed in context rather than simply transplanted without any nuance into the life of the church), what we can't agree on! Yet we can agree, and rejoice in agreeing, that our Lord is to be obeyed in all He commands, that He is a good and gentle master who blesses those who serve Him​, who teaches us to place an immense and self sacrificing value on the created life of others; that to Him we each stand or fall, and that we stand, for He upholds us. And we can agree that though we will never serve Him perfectly while we are here, we ought all always to be seeking to understand and obey more fully.

It's nice to meet you, Leah.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

a mere housewife said:


> No doubt a lot of our views are influenced by our upbringing; what a wonderful upbringing to be influenced by.
> 
> But that is exactly, for many reasons already mentioned and gone round with (that the creation mandate should not override everything in the moral law except the prohibition of adultery; that many OT emphases need to be placed in context rather than simply transplanted without any nuance into the life of the church), what we can't agree on! Yet we can agree, and rejoice in agreeing, that our Lord is to be obeyed in all He commands, that He is a good and gentle master who blesses those who serve Him​, who teaches us to place an immense and self sacrificing value on the created life of others; that to Him we each stand or fall, and that we stand, for He upholds us. And we can agree that though we will never serve Him perfectly while we are here, we ought all always to be seeking to understand and obey more fully.
> 
> It's nice to meet you, Leah.



It is a tricky subject to try and harmonize some of God's commands, though they are never contradicting in any way, simply because of our weaknesses as humans. Our understanding of the law and the law itself are obviously two different things. I would deny that the creation mandate overrides anything in the moral law - they are completely in harmony. Obeying the moral law in our families, churches, and civil magistrates is in fact the only way to fulfill the dominion mandate. But so far I've not seen anyone try and justify birth control based upon the idea that it would cause the couple to disobey the moral law. If this were the case, then there would obviously be some cases in which birth control is not only justified, but sinful to neglect! Those types of situations are much more difficult to assess (like if the life of the mother was said to be in danger) but struggling with finances in no way violates the law of God unless that struggling is caused by selfishness or some other sin on the part of the parents (probably mostly the father). In this way, I think it is actually quite difficult to take a stance of "liberty" regarding this topic. If things like financial struggles justify birth control because it causes the parents to disobey the moral law, then there's no such thing as liberty not to use it; they would be required to use it in order to uphold the moral law. So saying that our use of birth control needs to be based upon the moral law actually throws out many, many (if not all) arguments in favor of birth control. I certainly do not have it figured all out, don't get me wrong - the fall definitely complicated matters, lol. But generally speaking, all Christians should be opposed to birth control because the principles behind birth control clearly contradict the principles behind childbearing in Scripture.

I hope that I understood your points correctly and it is indeed nice to meet you too!


----------



## THE W

Vladimir said:


> Dear brethren,
> 
> I may be saying something basic here, but when we want to tackle an issue and the Bible does not explicitly say "Thou shalt have 37 children", we must look for concepts and principles in it and apply them to the question at hand.
> 
> With your permission, I will quote a part of a message from pastor Voddie Baucham that has been a great blessing to me, and I hope that it may help you see things in another perspective:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something. There are some of us in the room that need to repent because of our attitude toward children and because of what we have said to people communicating our attitude and not the biblical attitude toward children. Some of us need to get on our faces before a holy God because we have mocked being fruitful. I have heard pastors from pulpit, from the pulpit talk about their children like they despise the number of children that God has given them. I heard a pastor from the pulpit talk about their third children being named Miny. “Yeah, Eeny, Meeny and Miny because we ain’t having no more.”
> 
> That is a mockery before almighty God. Children are a gift of the Lord. The fruit of the womb is a reward. Our attitude from here is why a lot of people out there aren’t having enough kids. It starts with us. And it all goes back to prosperity. The poorest nations in the world see children as a blessing. The richest nation in the world, we talk about children in terms of how many we can afford. God help us. We are dying one generation at a time because we refuse to receive the gift that God wants to bring through the womb.
> 
> Our attitudes. God says, “You want to continue to be my people? You do two things. Number one, you gladly receive these blessings that I give you called children. And, number two, you disciple them in your homes so that they don’t look like the culture around them.” The minute you stop receiving the gift of God through the womb and the minute you stop discipling them in your home, they begin to look like the culture and the community of God begins to vanish before your eyes. Two Christian families in this generation to get one generation into the next. I believe that is a plague on us. It is amazing. We always talk about how we want more souls in the kingdom. If we were honest, here is what we would say. “We want more souls in the kingdom, as long as we don’t have to birth them, raise them and feed them.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The message is called "The Centrality of the Home". You can find the whole transcript here: The Centrality of the Home... ~ Voddie Baucham (transcript) - Sermon Index
Click to expand...

a few things,

we would need to find out the circumstances and reason for why that pastor doesnt want "Mo".

i REALLY like voddie baucham but this just goes to show that we all have blind spots. 

voddie's comment about people in poor countries seeing children as a blessing again presupposes that people who dont want to have as many children as humanly possible despite legit reasons to not have more than they have does not view children as a blessing. when he comments about the rich nation what is he talking about? abortion? those who refuse to have any children at all despite being able to in every way? 

when he says its because they cant afford it what is he talking about? cant afford to have children while being able to afford their basic needs or cant afford it and be able to get that new car, or a bigger house, or save for retirement, etc? this would need to be clarified.

and then his last comment about wanting to grow the kingdom as long as i dont have to birth them, raise them, and feed them turns his argument for AMAP childbearing into a non-sequitor and assumes that having children is the only way to grow the kingdom of God. should we no longer witness to the lost now? is raising one God loving, God fearing, saving faith having child not enough to satisfy the command to bear Godly offspring?


----------



## THE W

jpfrench81 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any other command given in Scripture where people say "Yes, God tells us to do this but he doesn't tell us when so it's ok if we put it off for however long that we want to or stop obeying it [how else do you say that???] whenever we see fit." My parents taught me from a very young age that delayed obedience is disobedience. I'm not saying you have to get married as soon as physically possible; when dealing with single people it's a slightly different issue. But, the command is enjoined upon married couples, I'm pretty sure no one denies that (at least in reformed circles). When is it ever ok to choose when we will and when we won't obey them? It's not our duty to create life - that's God's duty. It's simply our duty to obey Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it depends on why they're holding off. is it for financial reasons, health reasons, or is it because they dont want to despite being financially capable enough and healthy enough to have children. if the latter than i agree they are being disobedient. if the former, than they are being good stewards of the family God desires to give them in making sure they are in a position to properly care for their children and that they'll actually have a mommy who's alive and healthy enough to carry out the duties of a wife and mother.
> 
> ADD: allow me to clarify what i mean by financial reasons so no one gets confused.
> 
> im not talking about the person who says that if they have another child they wont be able to afford to retire as early as they wanted or wont be able to buy that new summer home or that sailboat, etc. that is a selfish reason to not bare children.
> 
> im talking about the person who's will have another kid and be in danger of not being able to afford to pay the bills and end up having their utilites cut off, or being evicted from their home, or having to have the wife go out and work where she cant be home with the children as she ought.
> 
> why would you disrespect the blessing of a child by bring a child into the world you cant take care of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wade, suppose I grant you that argument. Now suppose my wife and I become very poor, and we decide it is not wise to have children. We use contraception consistently and according to directions, but lo and behold, she gets pregnant! Would we be in sin to keep the child? Or were we presumptive to assume we couldn't afford another child? Or perhaps another option? How would you counsel such a couple from the Bible?
Click to expand...


adoption..


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any other command given in Scripture where people say "Yes, God tells us to do this but he doesn't tell us when so it's ok if we put it off for however long that we want to or stop obeying it [how else do you say that???] whenever we see fit." My parents taught me from a very young age that delayed obedience is disobedience. I'm not saying you have to get married as soon as physically possible; when dealing with single people it's a slightly different issue. But, the command is enjoined upon married couples, I'm pretty sure no one denies that (at least in reformed circles). When is it ever ok to choose when we will and when we won't obey them? It's not our duty to create life - that's God's duty. It's simply our duty to obey Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it depends on why they're holding off. is it for financial reasons, health reasons, or is it because they dont want to despite being financially capable enough and healthy enough to have children. if the latter than i agree they are being disobedient. if the former, than they are being good stewards of the family God desires to give them in making sure they are in a position to properly care for their children and that they'll actually have a mommy who's alive and healthy enough to carry out the duties of a wife and mother.
> 
> ADD: allow me to clarify what i mean by financial reasons so no one gets confused.
> 
> im not talking about the person who says that if they have another child they wont be able to afford to retire as early as they wanted or wont be able to buy that new summer home or that sailboat, etc. that is a selfish reason to not bare children.
> 
> im talking about the person who's will have another kid and be in danger of not being able to afford to pay the bills and end up having their utilites cut off, or being evicted from their home, or having to have the wife go out and work where she cant be home with the children as she ought.
> 
> why would you disrespect the blessing of a child by bring a child into the world you cant take care of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am presupposing that the conception of a child (aka the giving of life) is an aspect of God's sovereignty and not man's stewardship. Man gives us children and then we do the best we can with and for them; that's when they enter into the realm of man's stewardship. But again, no one has yet to provide Scriptural evidence that conceiving a child can ever be sinful - or even sinful"ish" like irresponsible or something. In fact, conception is always associated as God's work not man's - HE opens and closes the womb, etc.
Click to expand...






Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing scripture says regarding children is that we are to bare Godly offspring and that children are a blessing. Time and amount can't be derived from what scripture has to say.
> 
> If you can't provide food clothing and shelter for you and your family than having children or having more children would be irresponsible and reckless. You actually have to be able to provide for the family you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Scripture, God gives children, not man. So you would have to say God irresponsibly gave a child to that couple - not the couple themselves.
Click to expand...


i'll say this as politely as i can,

the presupposition that is submitted here is inaccurate. the only time God gave someone a child directly is when Mary had Jesus. what God gave us is the ABILITY to have children by providing us the ABILITY to procreate by allowing us to be fertile. what we do with that ABILITY is the stewardship im referring to. if a married couple never has intercourse, they're not having any kids, i dont care how much God wants them to have kids, unless God wants to do another miraculous conception like He did with Mary for Jesus. now, that couple would be in violation of Gods command to have children by not exercising their God given ABILITY to procreate, but thats my whole point and the answer to the original question of this thread.

psalms 127 cannot be used to command AMAP(as many as possible) childbearing. all it says is that children are a blessing and a reward which no one disagrees with. however, not everyone is in position to partake in that blessing, or, partake in more of that blessing.

and nowhere did i say that having a kid is sinful. what i've been saying throughout this thread is people who flat out dont have the ability financially to care for a child shouldnt and women shouldnt have children at the eminent risk of their life and health.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> i'll say this as politely as i can,
> 
> the presupposition that is submitted here is inaccurate. the only time God gave someone a child directly is when Mary had Jesus. what God gave us is the ABILITY to have children by providing us the ABILITY to procreate by allowing us to be fertile. what we do with that ABILITY is the stewardship im referring to. if a married couple never has intercourse, they're not having any kids, i dont care how much God wants them to have kids, unless God wants to do another miraculous conception like He did with Mary for Jesus. now, that couple would be in violation of Gods command to have children by not exercising their God given ABILITY to procreate, but thats my whole point and the answer to the original question of this thread.
> 
> psalms 127 cannot be used to command AMAP(as many as possible) childbearing. all it says is that children are a blessing and a reward which no one disagrees with. however, not everyone is in position to partake in that blessing, or, partake in more of that blessing.
> 
> and nowhere did i say that having a kid is sinful. what i've been saying throughout this thread is people who flat out dont have the ability financially to care for a child shouldnt and women shouldnt have children at the eminent risk of their life and health.



You are probably the most consistent person in favor of birth control that I've seen yet because you explicitly deny the principle that God opens and closes the womb (though it is biblical). It's true that he did not use the normal means to grant Mary Jesus, but just because He makes use of means does not deny Him as the only life giver. It's not even the biological unification (or however you want to say that, lol) of the sperm and egg that creates life. God creates life by giving a soul, without which there is no life. God also governs this means. It's not to be done outside of marriage, it's not to be done on a woman's period, etc. I would say it's even not to be done if say a man has an STD that could potentially fatally harm his wife or something. On the other hand, if a married couple were to not have sex, that would be sinful. Sex is required to consummate the marriage. Couples may have different amounts of sex based upon how busy they are, if they're sick or tired, etc. etc. which is fine but to not have sex at all in marriage is sinful. God commands us to be fruitful and multiply. Even in this fallen world if we are unable to multiply, sex is designed for our pleasure and mutual edification. So yes, we govern our ability and that should be according to God's law. But to stop having sex for say financial reasons is unbiblical. The next logical step, therefore, is that to try and govern our own wombs while having sex (aka birth control - I'm going to close my own womb) is also unbiblical. God opens and closes the womb.

I didn't even mention Psalm 127 but that gives another principle which birth control seems to deny. One presupposition behind birth control is that there are times when a child is not a blessing, but a burden or even a curse. This clearly contradicts the Biblical principle that children are a blessing.

The life and health of the woman is one thing, that needs to be harmonized with the 6th commandment. But I don't buy the financial argument. If a man and wife are doing all lawful things to provide for their families, then they're not violating God's law. This is hard to talk about because it's so general. My point about the "sinfulness" of having a child is that you would have to prove that struggling with finances in some way violates God's law in order to prove that birth control is justified in that time. At least, I believe that is the only way to harmonize God's command to be fruitful and multiply as well as the governing of things like sex and childbearing by God's law.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any other command given in Scripture where people say "Yes, God tells us to do this but he doesn't tell us when so it's ok if we put it off for however long that we want to or stop obeying it [how else do you say that???] whenever we see fit." My parents taught me from a very young age that delayed obedience is disobedience. I'm not saying you have to get married as soon as physically possible; when dealing with single people it's a slightly different issue. But, the command is enjoined upon married couples, I'm pretty sure no one denies that (at least in reformed circles). When is it ever ok to choose when we will and when we won't obey them? It's not our duty to create life - that's God's duty. It's simply our duty to obey Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it depends on why they're holding off. is it for financial reasons, health reasons, or is it because they dont want to despite being financially capable enough and healthy enough to have children. if the latter than i agree they are being disobedient. if the former, than they are being good stewards of the family God desires to give them in making sure they are in a position to properly care for their children and that they'll actually have a mommy who's alive and healthy enough to carry out the duties of a wife and mother.
> 
> ADD: allow me to clarify what i mean by financial reasons so no one gets confused.
> 
> im not talking about the person who says that if they have another child they wont be able to afford to retire as early as they wanted or wont be able to buy that new summer home or that sailboat, etc. that is a selfish reason to not bare children.
> 
> im talking about the person who's will have another kid and be in danger of not being able to afford to pay the bills and end up having their utilites cut off, or being evicted from their home, or having to have the wife go out and work where she cant be home with the children as she ought.
> 
> why would you disrespect the blessing of a child by bring a child into the world you cant take care of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am presupposing that the conception of a child (aka the giving of life) is an aspect of God's sovereignty and not man's stewardship. Man gives us children and then we do the best we can with and for them; that's when they enter into the realm of man's stewardship. But again, no one has yet to provide Scriptural evidence that conceiving a child can ever be sinful - or even sinful"ish" like irresponsible or something. In fact, conception is always associated as God's work not man's - HE opens and closes the womb, etc.
Click to expand...




Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing scripture says regarding children is that we are to bare Godly offspring and that children are a blessing. Time and amount can't be derived from what scripture has to say.
> 
> If you can't provide food clothing and shelter for you and your family than having children or having more children would be irresponsible and reckless. You actually have to be able to provide for the family you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Scripture, God gives children, not man. So you would have to say God irresponsibly gave a child to that couple - not the couple themselves.
Click to expand...




Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'll say this as politely as i can,
> 
> the presupposition that is submitted here is inaccurate. the only time God gave someone a child directly is when Mary had Jesus. what God gave us is the ABILITY to have children by providing us the ABILITY to procreate by allowing us to be fertile. what we do with that ABILITY is the stewardship im referring to. if a married couple never has intercourse, they're not having any kids, i dont care how much God wants them to have kids, unless God wants to do another miraculous conception like He did with Mary for Jesus. now, that couple would be in violation of Gods command to have children by not exercising their God given ABILITY to procreate, but thats my whole point and the answer to the original question of this thread.
> 
> psalms 127 cannot be used to command AMAP(as many as possible) childbearing. all it says is that children are a blessing and a reward which no one disagrees with. however, not everyone is in position to partake in that blessing, or, partake in more of that blessing.
> 
> and nowhere did i say that having a kid is sinful. what i've been saying throughout this thread is people who flat out dont have the ability financially to care for a child shouldnt and women shouldnt have children at the eminent risk of their life and health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are probably the most consistent person in favor of birth control that I've seen yet because you explicitly deny the principle that God opens and closes the womb (though it is biblical). It's true that he did not use the normal means to grant Mary Jesus, but just because He makes use of means does not deny Him as the only life giver. It's not even the biological unification (or however you want to say that, lol) of the sperm and egg that creates life. God creates life by giving a soul, without which there is no life. God also governs this means. It's not to be done outside of marriage, it's not to be done on a woman's period, etc. I would say it's even not to be done if say a man has an STD that could potentially fatally harm his wife or something. On the other hand, if a married couple were to not have sex, that would be sinful. Sex is required to consummate the marriage. Couples may have different amounts of sex based upon how busy they are, if they're sick or tired, etc. etc. which is fine but to not have sex at all in marriage is sinful. God commands us to be fruitful and multiply. Even in this fallen world if we are unable to multiply, sex is designed for our pleasure and mutual edification. So yes, we govern our ability and that should be according to God's law. But to stop having sex for say financial reasons is unbiblical. The next logical step, therefore, is that to try and govern our own wombs while having sex (aka birth control - I'm going to close my own womb) is also unbiblical. God opens and closes the womb.
> 
> I didn't even mention Psalm 127 but that gives another principle which birth control seems to deny. One presupposition behind birth control is that there are times when a child is not a blessing, but a burden or even a curse. This clearly contradicts the Biblical principle that children are a blessing.
> 
> The life and health of the woman is one thing, that needs to be harmonized with the 6th commandment. But I don't buy the financial argument. If a man and wife are doing all lawful things to provide for their families, then they're not violating God's law. This is hard to talk about because it's so general. My point about the "sinfulness" of having a child is that you would have to prove that struggling with finances in some way violates God's law in order to prove that birth control is justified in that time. At least, I believe that is the only way to harmonize God's command to be fruitful and multiply as well as the governing of things like sex and childbearing by God's law.
Click to expand...


i never denied God's ability to open and close the womb. i kindly ask that you not continue to attribute such a statement to me.

if God closes the womb, you're not gonna have babies no matter what you do. however, if God opens the womb but the couple doesnt have sex, they arent having any babies unless God performs a miracle. not having sex being a sin is irrelevant to the point.

have you ever encountered a situation where someone gave birth to a child without a soul? maybe you're referring to stillbirths and miscarriages. i dont claim we can control that either. we cant even control whether a women becomes pregnant or not. people who have been trying to have a baby for years with no success can attest to that. still doesnt erase the fact that no intercourse = no babies...outside of divine intervention.

when we talk about sex, what are we referring to? do we believe that sex begins and ends with intercourse? i would disagree with that. we would be telling unmarried people that its okay to do foreplay as long as there is no intercourse you're not being sexually immoral. sexual activity begins long before intercourse, which is the only sexual activity that leads to babies. sex is physical connection and intimacy. there are ways to express this outside of intercourse.

actually you did mentioned psalms 127. numbers 5 and 6 in your list of revealed things in the bible comes from psalms 127. you just didnt give the references for your sources. 

you also bring yourself to a contradiction in saying that its okay to avoid pregnancy if it will put the women's life in jeopardy. from what you have said, they should not use contraceptives and just keep going knowing that God will, as you say, "control the womb" to where He wont allow this poor women to get pregnant because God knows it will kill her. or maybe its God's will for her to die? or maybe we should trust that she will survive despite all indications and recommendation from the doctor that she will not? if you're gonna maintain your position than you need to be consistent. you say such an action would harmonize with the 6th commandment but this is besides the point. the point is the couple exercised the stewardship they had in the ability to partake in procreation granted to them by God to save the women's life. how in that situation would having a child not be a burden, or a curse, or, in light of the 6th commandment, even a sin?

the financial situation is the same. in a case where having a child or having more children would put someone in a situation where they could not provide for their families basic needs of food , clothing, and shelter, it would be in good stewardship of your God given ability to procreate to abstain from having any more children and participating in sexual activity that would lead to such a thing(remember, sex doesnt begin and end with intercourse). at least until they are in a situation where they could provide for the basic needs of their family.

but ultimately, there has not been shown any biblical exegesis that commands AMAP childbearing regardless the circumstances.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> i never denied God's ability to open and close the womb. i kindly ask that you not continue to attribute such a statement to me.



With all due respect, yes you did deny that. You said God directly creating a child (in other words he neglected the means of sex in the case of Mary) as the only time that fit into my presupposition which was that God opens and closes the womb. You denied that presupposition explicitly.



> if God closes the womb, you're not gonna have babies no matter what you do. however, if God opens the womb but the couple doesnt have sex, they arent having any babies unless God performs a miracle. not having sex being a sin is irrelevant to the point.



Actually, it's not irrelevant at all that neglecting sex is sinful. It is irrelevant that not having sex = no babies. God is sovereign and if you don't have sex and therefore don't have babies, it's God's decreed will that you don't have babies at that time, though as mentioned it violates his revealed will in the case we were talking about and is therefore sinful. This is an example then of man sinning in his stewardship of sex. There not gonna have babies until God causes them to repent over their sins. However, giving an example of a sinful way to not have babies does not help the case for birth control at all. Man cannot steward the creation of life and he must steward sex in the way God has commanded. Which, btw, God's moral commandments and the dominion mandate are in harmony with one another. 



> have you ever encountered a situation where someone gave birth to a child without a soul? maybe you're referring to stillbirths and miscarriages. i dont claim we can control that either. we cant even control whether a women becomes pregnant or not. people who have been trying to have a baby for years with no success can attest to that. still doesnt erase the fact that no intercourse = no babies...outside of divine intervention.



My point wasn't that a baby could be born without a soul. My point was that no babies are conceived without souls, souls = life, God is the only one who can create and give souls/life, therefore God is the steward over conception and man is not.



> when we talk about sex, what are we referring to? do we believe that sex begins and ends with intercourse? i would disagree with that. we would be telling unmarried people that its okay to do foreplay as long as there is no intercourse you're not being sexually immoral. sexual activity begins long before intercourse, which is the only sexual activity that leads to babies. sex is physical connection and intimacy. there are ways to express this outside of intercourse.



I don't know what your point is here. I agree. 



> you also bring yourself to a contradiction in saying that its okay to avoid pregnancy if it will put the women's life in jeopardy. from what you have said, they should not use contraceptives and just keep going knowing that God will, as you say, "control the womb" to where He wont allow this poor women to get pregnant because God knows it will kill her. or maybe its God's will for her to die? or maybe we should trust that she will survive despite all indications and recommendation from the doctor that she will not? if you're gonna maintain your position than you need to be consistent. you say such an action would harmonize with the 6th commandment but this is besides the point. the point is the couple exercised the stewardship they had in the ability to partake in procreation granted to them by God to save the women's life. how in that situation would having a child not be a burden, or a curse, or, in light of the 6th commandment, even a sin?



Actually, I've been very careful to avoid saying that it's ok to use birth control in that case. Reread my posts more carefully and you will see I don't admit that. I do admit that it is one more worthy of discussion and certainly a more difficult one. My point is that is a difficult situation. What I know that I know however, is that the use of birth control is an excuse today and not built off of biblical exegesis. Honestly, I can't bring myself to admit that birth control could ever save a woman's life. Doctors can only guess at this. It may avoid possible situations where a woman's life could be threatened but we can't know for sure. But I know that in those situations that the life of the mother would take priority in that case - doctors would try to save both but if it came down to one can be saved or both die, I believe the life of the woman would take priority. This is a very emotional issue which I'm wanting to avoid until we can get the biblical principle about birth control laid out and develop and understanding from that.



> the financial situation is the same. in a case where having a child or having more children would put someone in a situation where they could not provide for their families basic needs of food , clothing, and shelter, it would be in good stewardship of your God given ability to procreate to abstain from having any more children and participating in sexual activity that would lead to such a thing(remember, sex doesnt begin and end with intercourse). at least until they are in a situation where they could provide for the basic needs of their family.
> 
> but ultimately, there has not been shown any biblical exegesis that commands AMAP childbearing regardless the circumstances.



You're looking at this the absolute wrong way. The command is there to have children. This is a difficult task undeniably. But the burden of proof is therefore on those who say it is ok at times to purposefully prevent the conception of children and therefore ok to take an exception to this command. The Biblical principles undeniably are the opposite of the principles that support birth control. If my parents had followed your guidelines, some of my brothers and sisters or myself would not have been born. Yet, regardless of how much we thought we would, we never starved. It's not up to us to steward the conception of children. If you are going to be consistent, you would say they would abstain from having sex - that's how they "control" conception and govern the ability to have children. But I don't think anyone would seriously agree with this view and it would be sinful for the couple to do this since financial struggles in no way violate God's law. Having sex out of marriage would violate God's law and so we should govern our ability to have children and not do that. but to not have sex regularly with your wife because you don't want another child because of finances is sinful because there's no commandment violated by having sex when struggling with finances.


----------



## DeniseM

THE W said:


> but ultimately, there has not been shown any biblical exegesis that commands AMAP childbearing regardless the circumstances.



You keep using the phrase, 'as many as possible' as if you are trying to contradict someone that is arguing for that position. Could you please cite who exactly has advocated for the practice of having as many children as is possible and where. If such an argument exists in this thread, then I must have missed it.

I believe that the underlying principles of Leah's argument have to do with simple obedience to God, trusting the outcome to him. It has to do with having a childlike faith that believes in our Father's promises and principles even when our circumstances seem less than ideal. If we shouldn't have children because our finances are less than perfect, then someone really ought to have rebuked George Mueller for having faith that God would provide for the whole host of orphans that he took under his care, when he didn't have the advanced financial means to support them.


----------



## Miss Marple

"f we shouldn't have children because our finances are less than perfect, then someone really ought to have rebuked George Mueller for having faith that God would provide for the whole host of orphans that he took under his care, when he didn't have the advanced financial means to support them. "

I disagree with this analogy because the orphans in question were already created and in need of care. No one here is arguing that we should eliminate children already conceived.


----------



## DeniseM

Miss Marple said:


> "f we shouldn't have children because our finances are less than perfect, then someone really ought to have rebuked George Mueller for having faith that God would provide for the whole host of orphans that he took under his care, when he didn't have the advanced financial means to support them. "
> I disagree with this analogy because the orphans in question were already created and in need of care. No one here is arguing that we should eliminate children already conceived.



I see your point, but I do think that the analogy does fit, because George Mueller was the one that stepped up and cared for these children. The Lord laid upon his heart to care for the fatherless, and even though he didn't have the personal means to care for them, he trusted God to provide. There are countless stories of other missionaries that could be related to have stepped out in similar fashion, trusting God with the outcome, that could be related here also. The principle is the same. God gives a precept in his word, and those that take him at that word are faithfully cared for. 

As Vladimir pointed out, the idea that it takes a certain amount of money in the bank before we can be held accountable for the rearing of children is an invention of the more affluent nations.


----------



## THE W

> With all due respect, yes you did deny that. You said God directly creating a child (in other words he neglected the means of sex in the case of Mary) as the only time that fit into my presupposition which was that God opens and closes the womb. You denied that presupposition explicitly.



now you're losing all the original points. never did i deny Gods ability in opening and closing the womb, i denied you're understanding of this in you saying "using contraceptives = taking God's place in closing the womb yourself". that understanding, which you claim, is inaccurate.



> Actually, it's not irrelevant at all that neglecting sex is sinful. It is irrelevant that not having sex = no babies. God is sovereign and if you don't have sex and therefore don't have babies, it's God's decreed will that you don't have babies at that time, though as mentioned it violates his revealed will in the case we were talking about and is therefore sinful. This is an example then of man sinning in his stewardship of sex. There not gonna have babies until God causes them to repent over their sins. However, giving an example of a sinful way to not have babies does not help the case for birth control at all. Man cannot steward the creation of life and he must steward sex in the way God has commanded. Which, btw, God's moral commandments and the dominion mandate are in harmony with one another.



the fact that its sin IS irrelevant because

1. i never argued that it wasnt a sin so to belabor the point is to debate something no one is debating
2. it has nothing to do with the point im actually trying to make in that while God controls fertility, he has given us the right to have discretion in how many children we should have according to our ability to take care of them without ending up on the street digging out of the garbage or getting someone killed. 

im actually willing to concede the ASAP argument. we are called to bare Godly offspring and a man should not seek a wife until he is able to financially and spiritually care for a wife AND children.




> My point wasn't that a baby could be born without a soul. My point was that no babies are conceived without souls, souls = life, God is the only one who can create and give souls/life, therefore God is the steward over conception and man is not.



so then you are talking about stillborns and miscarriages which i plainly said we have no control over that or even whether a women becomes pregnant EVEN IF we are absolutely aiming for pregnancy. again, you're not dealing with my point here.



> I don't know what your point is here. I agree.



here, i am speaking to your point on how refusing to have sex at all is sinful in that we are commanded to consummate the marriage. since you seem to agree with my point here, you understand that there can be sex that consummates the marriage that doesnt lead to pregnancy. though if you are able to care for more children, you should have them and i have not denied this once in this thread.




Boosterseat_91 said:


> Actually, I've been very careful to avoid saying that it's ok to use birth control in that case. Reread my posts more carefully and you will see I don't admit that. I do admit that it is one more worthy of discussion and certainly a more difficult one. My point is that is a difficult situation. What I know that I know however, is that the use of birth control is an excuse today and not built off of biblical exegesis. Honestly, I can't bring myself to admit that birth control could ever save a woman's life. Doctors can only guess at this. It may avoid possible situations where a woman's life could be threatened but we can't know for sure. But I know that in those situations that the life of the mother would take priority in that case - doctors would try to save both but if it came down to one can be saved or both die, I believe the life of the woman would take priority. This is a very emotional issue which I'm wanting to avoid until we can get the biblical principle about birth control laid out and develop and understanding from that.



actually you took the scenerio further than i intended. im not talking about a situation where the couple have already gotten pregnant despite KNOWING it could kill the women. im talking about knowing that another baby would kill the women and so deciding not to have any more children by not getting pregnant again. for you to be consistent you would have to tell this couple to keep going and...well...may the Lord be with them.




Boosterseat_91 said:


> You're looking at this the absolute wrong way. The command is there to have children. This is a difficult task undeniably. But the burden of proof is therefore on those who say it is ok at times to purposefully prevent the conception of children and therefore ok to take an exception to this command. The Biblical principles undeniably are the opposite of the principles that support birth control. If my parents had followed your guidelines, some of my brothers and sisters or myself would not have been born. Yet, regardless of how much we thought we would, we never starved. It's not up to us to steward the conception of children. If you are going to be consistent, you would say they would abstain from having sex - that's how they "control" conception and govern the ability to have children. But I don't think anyone would seriously agree with this view and it would be sinful for the couple to do this since financial struggles in no way violate God's law. Having sex out of marriage would violate God's law and so we should govern our ability to have children and not do that. but to not have sex regularly with your wife because you don't want another child because of finances is sinful because there's no commandment violated by having sex when struggling with finances.



a couple that has two children and raises them up in the Word of God and they grow up to be born again believers and lovers of God have fully fulfilled the requirement to be fruitful and multiply and also to bare Godly offspring. now i will, again, agree that if they were financially able to have more they should have. 

dont know what your situation was growing up and "even though we thought we would, we never starved" doesnt tell me anything. most kids are just greedy and think they should have more than they need, same for parents. not saying you were like that. i actually am being consistent in my view which is why i made the point about intercourse not being the end all be all of sexual activity. couples can absolutely participate in sex just not in the way of intercourse. you have also made another error in saying that not having sex controls conception. it does not. it only controls fertilization. anything after that is up to God.

while having financial stuggles doesnt violate God's law, does not being able to feed clothe and provide a place to live for the kids you have all while seeking to have more kids you wont be able to feed clothe and provide shelter for not violate the law in that you are not a good steward of the gifts God gives you? "financial struggles" and "not being able to provide for your family at all" are two totally different things. many people have seasons where money is tight. in the same way that a single person who cant provide for a family shouldnt start one a married person who is barely staying afloat with the family he has shouldnt seek to expand it.


----------



## THE W

DeniseM said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> 
> "f we shouldn't have children because our finances are less than perfect, then someone really ought to have rebuked George Mueller for having faith that God would provide for the whole host of orphans that he took under his care, when he didn't have the advanced financial means to support them. "
> I disagree with this analogy because the orphans in question were already created and in need of care. No one here is arguing that we should eliminate children already conceived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point, but I do think that the analogy does fit, because George Mueller was the one that stepped up and cared for these children. The Lord laid upon his heart to care for the fatherless, and even though he didn't have the personal means to care for them, he trusted God to provide. There are countless stories of other missionaries that could be related to have stepped out in similar fashion, trusting God with the outcome, that could be related here also. The principle is the same. God gives a precept in his word, and those that take him at that word are faithfully cared for.
> 
> As Vladimir pointed out, the idea that it takes a certain amount of money in the bank before we can be held accountable for the rearing of children is an invention of the more affluent nations.
Click to expand...


if the Lord laid it upon meuller's heart to care for those orphans than God will provide the means to care for those orphans. in the same way if God laid it upon someone's heart to have 20 kids than God will provide the means for that person to have 20 kids. difference here being is that these are God giving people specific commands to do things. i havent been called to have 20 kids and nowhere in Scripture am i commanded to have that many kids.

again, having "less than perfect finances" is a far cry from being behind on all your bills and being one check away from eviction but having another kid who wont have a place to stay, or food to eat, or clothes to wear. why you guys continue to avoid this illustration and caricature it another way i dont know.

as far as those affluent nations, as i've pointed out multiple times here, they are worried about there retirement, the summer home, being able to go to the club and party or sit around the house and watch sports all day etc., not whether they're gonna have to beg for food on the street next month.


----------



## DeniseM

THE W said:


> not whether they're gonna have to beg for food on the street next month.



Psalm 37:25 
I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

Matthew 6:25-27
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?


----------



## irresistible_grace

DeniseM said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> not whether they're gonna have to beg for food on the street next month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 37:25
> I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
> 
> Matthew 6:25-27
> Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
Click to expand...


----------



## Miss Marple

Jess,

I think you are taking Jesus' admonitions to us not to worry, to take no thought, etc., too far.

We are not called, as Christians, to worry. But we are called to good stewardship, not to defraud anybody, and men are called anathema if they do not provide for themselves and their households.

We must keep all of these things in mind as we plan our lives. 

I realize God can and does overcome our plans as He sees fit. That is his secret will. But we must follow his revealed will.

What is God's revealed will? That is what is at hand. If a young married man who is the sole provider for his family has, for example, been notified that he will be conscripted next month, my personal opinion is that he should use birth control until his conscription date. Sure, God can and could intervene. The war could end, the wife could get an inheritance, I don't know. But all he knows is what good and ordinary providence reveals - that he is suddenly going to be unable to provide for his wife and kids for two years, and is in unusual danger of being injured or killed. So, he uses birth control for the month? I don't see that as a sin, or not trusting. I see that as a man doing the best he can to provide for his wife and children in the fear of God. I see it as a faithful decision.


----------



## THE W

DeniseM said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> not whether they're gonna have to beg for food on the street next month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 37:25
> I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
> 
> Matthew 6:25-27
> Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
Click to expand...


Don't see how psalms 37 applies to the discussion unless you're trying to argue what you said nobody was arguing in a previous post of yours about AMAP childbearing which you and others have indeed been advocating.

Matthew 6 is the promise of provision for those who are in the will of God who fall on hard times, not those purposely putting themselves in bad situations expecting God to bail them out.

Having a child you cant take care of is purposely putting yourself. and others, in a bad situation.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> while having financial stuggles doesnt violate God's law, does not being able to feed clothe and provide a place to live for the kids you have all while seeking to have more kids you wont be able to feed clothe and provide shelter for not violate the law in that you are not a good steward of the gifts God gives you? "financial struggles" and "not being able to provide for your family at all" are two totally different things. many people have seasons where money is tight. in the same way that a single person who cant provide for a family shouldnt start one a married person who is barely staying afloat with the family he has shouldnt seek to expand it.



It seems that we are just talking past each other at most points because you say I'm not understanding what you're saying and from what I just read, you are definitely not understanding what I'm saying. I just want to deal with this. If a family is doing all lawful means to provide for his family and still failing, then no he is not sinning even if he cannot provide for his family at all. In a godly nation, the church or his family would be able to help him at this point. If he cannot provide for his family at all because he is lazy and refuses to work or spends all his money on himself or something like that, then he is in clear violation of God's commandments.

Also, when you brought up that my personal situation growing up didn't tell you anything is exactly my point with any financial situation. Saying we are gonna starve if we have more kids doesn't tell me anything. No financial situation can objectively be proven to show that having more children will equal starvation. Honestly, Scripture in general denies this (though of course there are exceptions for those in persecuted nations or matyrs, etc). Even then, I don't think pragmatism is a valid objection to disobeying the command of God.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

The main disagreement here that keeps coming up again and again is that those in favor of birth control put the act of conception in the sphere of man's stewardship whereas those opposed place it in the realm of God's sovereignty. The means through which man conceives a child is sex and though we do govern this in our marriages, it is to be governed by God's law. We are not to deny our spouses due benevolence and 1 Corinthians 7:5 clearly implies that we tempt one another to sin when we do this. 

So (1) God designed sex in a way that we would desire it a lot and as the means to make babies and (2) God gives us laws to govern our passions by. Because we desire sex so much and it is necessary in marriage for us to avoid temptation, no one denies that we should not abstain from sex simply to avoid having children. But to say that we can have sex with one purpose of God in mind but purposefully avoid the other is to mock God's design in sex. He obviously designed our bodies in a way too that when we age, there comes a point where we will no longer bear children and can enjoy sex just for the pleasure. But there's a big difference by us naturally coming to that point by God's design and us trying to make ourselves that way to the direct opposition of God's design.

God has not given it to man to determine when he will have children and how many he will have. This goes both ways - I want a large family but may not get one. Other people want small families but may not get one. The biblical ideal is undeniably large families, but it doesn't mean one is more or less spiritual depending upon how many children he has. If it's not up to us to determine how many children we will have, then why is it up to us to act on that determination by using birth control? Birth control is an attempt by man to close the womb - But God's Word says that he opens and closes the womb. I think these principles are strong and sufficient enough to show that birth control is against God's revealed will.


----------



## DeniseM

Wade,
You can continue the discussion of fruitfulness vs. financial stewardship with others here if you wish, but as for me, I'm going to drop out of this discussion and go tend to my olive-plants.

_____________________________________

Blessed is each one that fears the Lord, and walketh in his ways;
For of thy labor thou shalt eat, and happy be always.
Thy wife shall as a fruitful vine by thy house' sides be found:
Thy children like to olive-plants about thy table round.

Behold the man that fears the Lord, thus blessed shall he be.
The Lord shall our of Zion give his blessing unto thee:
Thou shalt Jerus'lems good behold whilst thou on earth dost dwell.
Thou shalt thy children's children see, and peace on Israel.

I love to hear the Scots sing this Psalm.


----------



## a mere housewife

Denise, hooray for your priority on those little olive plants ; you are a beautiful example as always.

I wanted to say briefly, that I find the appeal to church history as un-nuanced as the appeal to OT themes: for instance, Augustine has some very strong statements to make about 'birth control' -- he also comes across very strongly about sexual relations, since the fall, being a sort of necessary evil for childbirth, which would be better done away with in a couple's relations entirely: he encouraged people to try to live as brother and sister (which works out to a form of birth control) considering this devotion to the Lord the best state: in other words, he did not see the creation mandate overriding every other consideration within the spiritual life of a couple's marriage. And this view gets a lot of traction in church history.

There have also been many advances in medicine in recent years. The death rate in childbirth and for children was staggering until more recent times. Part of this has been an increased ability to predict risk, and means to protect a women from further pregnancies. I do not think the child should be a zero factor in this equation. The idea that we can take the mother's life into consideration but refuse to consider the risk and impact on the children (as in the case of a clinically insane mother, or a mother who becomes ill enough to be unable to care well for her little ones) is personally repugnant to me. 

I have no wish argue this issue, nor to bind anyone else's conscience in this matter; circumstances differ widely and people ought to seek pastoral care rather than taking their advice in such critical issues from any of us here; perhaps happily, I expect these discussions do very little to change anyone's mind. I think the Lord does give people different providential and spiritual direction in differing circumstances. I personally am deeply grateful that my beloved mother stopped with five, when she was told that her health and possibly her life was in danger. I consider it a means the Lord used to give me one of the richest (and most needful) blessings of my life.

May God bless each of us as we strive to obey His law.


----------



## py3ak

_Fertilissima Regina
L'una, e l'altra diverrà,
Ed il nonno una dozzina
Di nepoti abbraccierà._


----------

