# Contraception and the Bible



## ClayPot

My wife and I are working though the issue of "family planning" together. We have two wonderful children and plan to have more. The question is whether it is Biblically permissible to use contraception to (attempt to) control the timing of births. Up until this time we have used natural family planning and barrier methods, but we would like to consider the issue again. A few questions:

1. Do you have any recommendations to further study this topic?
2. Do you think contraception is permitted by God? Why?
3. If contraception is permitted, what grounds are permitted for usage (illness, finances, etc.)?
4. If contraception is permitted, what methods are permitted? Obviously not abortifacients, but are barrier methods allowed?


----------



## jason d

For further study I would suggest the following... (yes, I know he is controversial to some, but he does an excellent job on this issue, very fair, thoughtful, and balanced):

Mars Hill Church | Religion Saves | Birth Control


----------



## MW

jason d said:


> For further study I would suggest the following... (yes, I know he is controversial to some, but he does an excellent job on this issue, very fair, thoughtful, and balanced):
> 
> Mars Hill Church | Religion Saves | Birth Control


 
The so-called "truths" (I think they are numbered 7 and 8), place the human body together with the lower creation under man's dominion and stewardship. The Bible, on the other hand, refers to the human body as an integral part of man and essential to his ability to exercise dominion. It is precisely at this point that much modern discussion of the subject departs from biblical truth.


----------



## earl40

I would take a cue from what the universal church thought of birth control before these times. In other words, birth control was not generally accepted.


----------



## ClayPot

A Common line of support for not using birth control is

Children are a blessing so we should let God bless us without trying to dictate how much blessing we get.

Desiring God has a response at Does the Bible permit birth control? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library which I thought was pretty good. An example: having crops to farm as a farmer is a blessing but a farmer doesn't necessarily try to farm as much land as possible--he farms as much as he thinks he can. 

What do you think of this response?


----------



## Peairtach

If birth control is so immoral, why is there not one injunction against it in Scripture?

We do have injunctions against taking human life, which cover forms of "contraception" which destroy life.

One of the purposes of sexual relations is to "know" ones wife. This is often treated in the Scriptures in isolation to the purpose of procreation.

The anti-contraception lobby would contend that it is sinful to know one's wife if your intention is not always to try for a baby at the same time.

This would make it immoral for Christian married couples who knew that they were incapable of having children, e.g. after the menopause, from having this "knowledge" of each other, which is presented in Scripture as something important even although it doesn't lead to pregnancy. 

Being in favour of responsible use of contraception does not mean that you also believe that Christian married couples should follow the modern practice of only trying for 2 or 3 babies at the most.

Most of the opposition to contraception can be traced back to Medieval and Roman Catholic natural law theory, and a desire that Covenant families should be bigger.

As I've already said you can believe from Scripture that proper use of contraception is good and acceptable, and yet believe that many Christians are following modern fashions, which they generally shouldn't necessarily, by having families of 1, 2 or 3.

If you believe in "natural contraception" there is no reason why you should oppose "synthetic contraception". No doubt this specious distinction is something to do with natural law theory too.


----------



## ClayPot

Richard Tallach said:


> If birth control is so immoral, why is there not one injunction against it in Scripture?
> 
> We do have injunctions against taking human life, which cover forms of "contraception" which destroy life.


 
This is a good point. The "coitus interruptus" form of contraception was obviously available to mankind since creation. But neither it or any other kinds of birth control are specifically forbidden. This doesn't necessarily win the whole debate, but it is a good point.

For those who oppose contraceptives, what is your response to this point? I look forward to your thoughts.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I have seen instances where begetting as many offspring as naturally possible became a source of spiritual pride. I've seen large families become a burden on the church and community because they cannot provide for themselves. But they keep pumping out babies talking about "full quivers" and saying "God will provide." The agrarian days where one needed to raise his own farm hands is gone.


----------



## earl40

Richard Tallach said:


> If birth control is so immoral, why is there not one injunction against it in Scripture?


 
We do have the command to be fruitful and multiply though. I love how the word multiply is used and not add.


----------



## Romans922

I can't believe no one has brought up Genesis 38 yet, "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also."


----------



## ReformedChristian

I prefer to take the role of the early church fathers on this issue. To me birth control is the same as a regular abortion only it's done orally.


----------



## Jack K

Romans922 said:


> I can't believe no one has brought up Genesis 38 yet, "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also."


I think that's because regardless of one's position on birth control, the passage about Onan leads to weak arguments at best. His purpose is described as a selfish desire not to want any of his resources to go toward the benefit of his brother's name and family line. This seems to be why God considered his act wicked, and that's a somewhat different issue than the one we face with modern birth control. It may have similar overtones (are we limiting family size so as to protect our wealth-enjoying lifestyle?) but it isn't the same.

I suppose it's possible to argue that this passage suggests all birth control is wicked, even if one's purpose has nothing to do with Onan's purpose. But it'd make at least as good sense to argue that this passage suggests the covenant family understood and practiced "natural" birth control, usually without incurring any wrath of God. Actually, both arguments sound flimsy to me. Onan's sin was selfishness, and birth conrtol is merely how he carried it out.

So this passage shouldn't lead to a blanket rule about birth control. I'm not saying such a rule doesn't exist, but it isn't in this particular passage. What I get from this passage is a reminder that all of life, including how I practice sexual relations, must be motivated by godly desires rather than selfish ones.


----------



## ClayPot

Romans922 said:


> I can't believe no one has brought up Genesis 38 yet, "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also."


 
My guess is because people tend not to think that this passage is about contraception and more about Onan's attempt to flee from his familial responsibility of producing offspring for his brother.

---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------




ReformedChristian said:


> I prefer to take the role of the early church fathers on this issue. To me birth control is the same as a regular abortion only it's done orally.


 
If you're talking about the pill as an abortifacient, you'll get no argument from me (see the original post). However, this doesn't address the issue of barrier methods like the condom.


----------



## FenderPriest

You might like to check out Start Your Family: Inspiration for Having Babies by Steve and Candice Watters.


----------



## Romans922

Actually Jack and Joshua, I have seen a few times on the PB where that argument is used against all contraceptives.


----------



## Peairtach

It would have to be against all contraception because it was a natural form of contraception.

Elsewhere, where it talks about release of seed by the male (Leviticus 5:16-18) it doesn't indicate anything sinful in these instances, because no sacrifice was required. And it says nothing about _how_ the seed was released in this passage, i.e. you would think that contraception would be addressed in Leviticus if it was a sin, when emissions of seed are addressed.

I think the Onan passage is very weak against contraception because of what has been said.

Stronger is the fact that the Bible clearly views carnal knowledge _qua_ canal knowledge as something very significant, whether or not there is conception and whether or not a baby results, by extolling it within marriage, and by hedging it about with numerous injunctions. Often there is no mention of babies. Apparently carnal knowledge is a good in itself for a married couple whether or not they can have a baby or whether or not they wish to have as many babies as possible. In other instances e.g. adultery or rape, it is sinful, whether or not there is conception/a baby.

The anti-contraception lobby obviously believe that Christian couples should want and try for as many babies as they can, and that this is God's will. If they are persuaded of this from Scripture, that's fine for them, but do they have a weak or a strong conscience on this subject (Romans 14).


----------



## MW

Richard Tallach said:


> If birth control is so immoral, why is there not one injunction against it in Scripture?


 
First, birth control and contraception are two different things. According to the Bible abstinence is permitted in certain contexts. That amounts to birth control.

Secondly, the use of specific procedures to prevent conception requires the adoption of a philosophy which is contrary to the Bible. As noted, the human body is equated to the life of the lower creation as something which is to be regulated in stewardship. Then sexual relations are reinterpreted as if they possess some unitive benefit apart from being fruitful and multiplying, thus ignoring what the Bible specifically calls "blessing."

Thirdly, to move the discussion beyond questions of "immorality," which are only going to muddy the waters, a more positive approach would ask what the Bible sets forth as an ideal. An open view of children as God's heritage accords with the whole biblical scheme in both its creation and new creation teaching. Temporal family life is always regarded as being enriched by the multitude of offspring. As far as the redeemed family of God is concerned, the statement of our Elder Brother sums up the positive biblical teaching: "Behold I and the children which God hath given me."


----------



## Jack K

Romans922 said:


> Actually Jack and Joshua, I have seen a few times on the PB where that argument is used against all contraceptives.


I'm sure. But that doesn't necessarily make it a strong argument.

Since I've dived in this far, I'll go ahead and respond to Joshua's original questions. I think contraception is nowhere given a blanket prohibition in Scripture, and is therefore permitted in appropriate circumstances. But like many things permitted, it is not necessarily wise for a man of God.

A few random thoughts...

--First of all, contraception as way to safely engage in extramarital sex without the consequence of pregnancy is clearly wrong and huge problem in our society.

--Within marriage, contraception can lead to a cheapening of sex if it tends to turn a couple's sex life into something where the mindset becomes only about physical gratification. Making babies deepens sexual intimacy and is a godly part of married life, and it ought not to be kept out of the picture lightly.

--As I stated earlier, contraception can be motivated by selfishness or by a control-based pursuit of the "American Dream." We think our lives will be better or easier with fewer kids, so we try to control the number of children not out of necessity or prudence but rather for our comfort and convenience. We foolishly think the fewer people we have to share our life with, the better we'll be.

--Or we foolishly imagine that when the time comes that we _do_ want kids, it'll be easy to have them. But that might not be the case, and we shouldn't wait too long to start trying. I know many couples who desperately want more kids (or any) and can't have them, but few who're sorry they had so many. How many people, on their death beds, say they wish they'd had fewer kids? Children are, indeed, a great gift from God.

--I do not see a meaningful difference between "coitus interruptus" and barrier methods. The pill has health considerations and messes with natural biology and so makes me more wary.

My own story is that my wife and I married late in our 30s and so wanted to have kids pretty quickly. Still, we practiced contraception for the first year of our marriage out of a desire to enjoy a year of married life without the complications of pregnancy or children. In retrospect, I wonder if we were being selfish, controlling and unwise. Then after having two kids, we went back to contraception thinking that at our age it was prudent to stop. I feel better about the motives behind that decision.


----------



## Romans922

Jack, I am not disagreeing you necessarily. But this is your line of argument: Contraception is not prohibited and is therefore permitted. This line of reasoning is contrary to Scripture and seems more Lutheran than anything.

The principle of Scripture is rather, "You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." In other words, Scripture's principle is: If it is commanded you shall do it, if it is not commanded than you shall not do it.


----------



## satz

Romans922 said:


> In other words, Scripture's principle is: If it is commanded you shall do it, if it is not commanded than you shall not do it.


 
But what then is the scriptural command that prohibits contraception? 

If it is to be fruitful and multiply, how does that gel with the fact that the bible acknowledges that some will remain single, and even exhorts that there are certain benefits to singleness? 

Also, if a couple were to use contraception for the first year or two after their marriage, any maybe in certain years after that, but at the end of their lives had a very large family with many children, how have they not fulfilled the command to be fruitful and multiply?


----------



## earl40

What would be antithetical to be fruitful and multiply? Could it be practice contraception?

In other words, to practice contraception would be to do what is the exact opposite of what God commands.


----------



## Jack K

Romans922 said:


> Jack, I am not disagreeing you necessarily. But this is your line of argument: Contraception is not prohibited and is therefore permitted. This line of reasoning is contrary to Scripture and seems more Lutheran than anything.
> 
> The principle of Scripture is rather, "You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." In other words, Scripture's principle is: If it is commanded you shall do it, if it is not commanded than you shall not do it.


You're right that my "it's not prohibited so therefore it's permitted" comment needs fleshing out. Clearly that's not the way to think about every sphere of life. The verse you quoted applies to how we worship, and for that we take an "only do what's expressly allowed" approach. But I think you'd agree that I may, say, drive a car even though the Bible doesn't expressly allow it or even anticipate motorized transportation.

What about modern contraceptive methods? They're also not anticipated. In fact, I might argue much of the Bible doesn't even anticipate a society where people might _want_ to limit the number of their children. So there's no clear command either way. In such cases, we look at the totality of Scriptural principles and we apply godly wisdom. That's probably a better way to say what I was getting at. In the absence of a direct command we're free to apply wisdom (which may vary based on individual circumstance and motive). This is not the same as free to do anything we want. Nor does it mean individual choice. Forums like this one help us determine together what is godly wisdom.

That's how I get to the point of saying I think contraception is permitted in appropriate circumstances. It's NOT the same as saying it's permitted if you want to do it.

As for the "be fruitful and multiply" command... That's a pretty strong bit of wisdom arguing against contraception. It speaks to a basic, God-ordained purpose of man. But let's not forget that it's given in the garden with Adam and Eve and then again at the re-beginning with Noah. The purpose is to fill and subdue the earth. One could argue that's been done. Seeing as this command doesn't reappear at Sinai or in the New Testament (where singleness is actually encouraged in spots), I don't think we have clear command for our day.


----------



## Hebrew Student

jpfrench81,

I agree that the main problem with anticontraception arguments is that they are exegetically weak. 

For example, take the phrase "Be Fruitful and Multiply." If you look at it in its context, you get the following:

Genesis 1:26-28 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let _*them*_ rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created _*them*_. 28 God blessed _*them*_; and God said to _*them*_, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Notice how the plural form "them" is used to refer back to "man" ['adam]. When the Hebrew term _'adam_ is the antecedent of plural suffixes, it generally functions as a collective noun, meaning something like "mankind." Hence, when the text says "male and female he created _*them*_. God blessed _*them*_ and said to _*them*_," the "them" that is being commanded to "Be fruitful and multiply" is not an individual couple. There is virtually no reason for separating the "them"s here. Hence, it is not every individual man who is commanded to "Be fruitful and multiply," but the human race as a species.

To illustrate what I am saying, let us say that I am a science teacher, and I divide the class into groups, and tell one group of six children that I want them to make a model rocket. So, two people go out and buy all of the materials, another two students draw up the plan for the model rocket, and the other two students take the rocket, and build it. Now, let us say that they bring it back into class with all of their receipts and plans, and I give them an A on the project. Would it be acceptable for one of the kids to complain with, "You gave them a command to build a model rocket. I only see one model rocket. There should be six model rockets. You need to give everyone but one person an F." I would very politely take that child asside and tell him that I have that command to the entire group, and not to every individual in the group.

However, it gets worse when you look at the context. Consider the next phrase "fill the earth." If "Be fruitful and multiply" is a command that every individual married couple must obey, then by what reasoning does anyone suggest that "fill the earth" is not a command that every individual married couple must obey? Hence, not only are couples commanded to have children, but, apparently, they are also commanded to have seven trillion of them so that they "fill the earth." According to this logic, and couple that has twenty children has sinned; the text commands them to have seven trillion so that they "fill the earth." If you take "Be fruitful and multiply" in this way, there is no logical reason to take "fill the earth" in this way.

However, if the commandement is given to the human race, and not to individuals, the entire text makes sense. It is the human race as a whole that is to be about having children. It is the human race that is to "fill the earth."

In fact, this command is repeated in Genesis 9:1, and it specifically directed towards *Noah* and his sons. However, if you read Genesis 10:1, you find that Noah only had three sons _that he already had before the flood, and the giving of this command_. Did Noah disobey this command? Genesis 10 seems to say that the command was fulfilled, as it talks about the filling of the earth. It seems far more likely that this command was, again, meant for the human race, and not for individuals.

As far as the story of Onan, we also need to remember that this line of Judah and Tamar is the elect line [Matthew 1:2-5]. This is the line out of which came David and Jesus, on top of the fact that he is being selfish, and bringing cultural disgrace on Tamar. Hence, he is way out of line here, and it has nothing to do with contraception.

Also, the idea that children are a blessing needs to be taken in context with all of the wisdom literature. I have presented this argument before, but I believe this text [and others like it] hold the key:

Proverbs 25:16 Have you found honey? Eat only what you need, That you not have it in excess and vomit it.

Now, obviously, this is not just talking about honey; it is talking about all excesses of God's blessings. Yes, children are blessings, as are other things. However, God expects us to be good stewards of the blessings he gives by taking "only what we need." Otherwise, we will have them in excess, and vomit them. The wisdom literature presents the enjoyment of the blessings of God, but within the context of liminality. Hence, we cannot just go around grabbing anything that we see that is a blessing; we have to consider "what we need," and do all of this in the context of liminality.

Also, as far as the church history arguments go, there are plenty of material that shows that, as far as church history goes, the idea that contraception is wrong developed over time. I would recommend the book by Dr. John T. Noonan, Jr. called _Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists_. He goes through the patristic writers, and demonstrates exactly how the teaching developed over time from the original source documents.

Also, it really is odd to see these kinds of arguments from the early church. Normally, when the Roman Catholic Church comes to us with things from the early church that have no scriptural support, we reject them as binding upon the contience of believers. However, I have to ask why we are using Roman Catholic arguments here, when there is no scriptural prohibition against contraception?

Now, as far as works on this subject, I do think that Mark Driscoll and John Piper have probably done the best work in this area, and their stuff has already been linked. I think it really boils down to whether you are convinced of the scriptural arguments as a protestant. I believe that they are very weak. However, don't take my word for it. Go to a library, and crack open a commentary, read some of the ANE backgrounds of these texts, and evaluate what you read. Ultimately, the issue is whether it is consistent with scripture or not.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Peairtach

It is also odd to see the regulative principle of worship being applied to things like contraception. 

It is quite appropriate to apply this in the case of worship, where we need God's approval for what we bring before Him in worship.

It is quite wrong for this principle to be applied erroneously and simplistically to things like contraception and even the role of the civil magistrate, as I've heard of some trying to do.

If contraception is morally wrong - I agree that even although it is lawful, it is not always expedient - it is strange that it is not dealt with in Leviticus 5, which treats emissions in a purely ceremonial way -under the touch not, taste not, handle not rules, which the Apostle says were passing away.

There are also rules about having relations with menstruating women, but nothing about contraception, e.g. _coitus interruptus_, at all.

It's not inherently sinful, but may be sinfully or unwisely used. But many people prefer a simple rule. A similar thing happens with alcohol and other areas of ethics, even in Reformed circles.


----------



## MW

I do not think the regulative principle applies here. It applies to faith and worship. A normative principle applies to all of life. WCF 20:2. But we are looking for norms to regulate vocational life, that is, how the Christian is to serve God in the world, even in the unredeemed world. As such we are not free to adopt any philosophy of life to draw it into the service of God. We are bound to the biblical philosophy of life and vocation. The question reduces itself to a simple matter of discerning whether the biblical philosophy of life and vocation allows for contraception.

For myself, I am yet to see any argument which maintains the affirmative while remaining true to biblical values. The "philosophy of death" promotes its ideals in numerous ways. What do we hear in favour of contraception? The body is like the lower creation; sexual relations are an end in themselves; human life is equated to the fruits of the earth and honey; many children are a burden on the church. These all spell death to the philosophy of life which the Bible teaches. God has set before us the way of blessing and cursing, the way of life and death. God's covenant people are called to choose life.

What are the norms of the biblical view of human vocation and life? If we look at creational norms, there is not doubt that children are regarded as the fruit of sexual relations. If we look at fallen norms, we see the curses of God allow for the continued function of the procreational norm. If we look at redemption norms, child-bearing functions significantly in relation to salvation -- both in the history of salvation leading up to the birth of the Messiah, the Prince of Life, and in personal salvation from a life of world-seeking. Grace does not destroy nature, it restores it; this is a fundamental reformed principle. Deliberately destroying the "gift" of procreating the image of God is not a restoration of nature but a mutilation of it. Choose life!


----------



## Peairtach

I think a Christian couple that use legitimate contraception wisely and expediently and do not follow the crowd in having 1,2 or 3 children, but try for, and/or have, 7 or 8 are in the spirit of what you say, Matthew, and in the spirit of the Scriptures.


----------



## MW

Richard Tallach said:


> I think a Christian couple that use legitimate contraception wisely and expediently and do not follow the crowd in having 1,2 or 3 children, but try for, and/or have, 7 or 8 are in the spirit of what you say, Matthew, and in the spirit of the Scriptures.


 
Richard, in the spirit of Philippians 3:15-16, I think we should continue to press towards perfection together, live up to the understanding we have attained, and look to the Lord for further light as we progress towards the mark. I hope our firm advocacy of personal convictions does not hinder the strong degree of unity we share in the faith.


----------



## Peairtach

Amen to that, dear brother.


----------



## Kevin

ReformedChristian said:


> I prefer to take the role of the early church fathers on this issue. To me birth control is the same as a regular abortion only it's done orally.


 
The fathers taught much that was wrong on the subject of sx, this is only one example.

The citation of the creation order to "multiply" as has been made in this thread suffers from a fatal flaw, in my opinion. The fall is cited by God as having a specific effect on the female reproductive system. So however God intends it to work, we don't observe it in our world today.


----------



## christianhope

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

I've always understood this verse to mean that women ought to continue in the role that God has placed them, which the bearing of children signifies, the pain of it having been part of the curse the woman received upon the fall in the Garden of Eden which this verse is making reference to. To have relations with the deliberate intention of not bearing children smacks of a method for evading the curse of God which He justly placed upon the woman. 

Perhaps there could be some sort of act of mercy in very rare cases, like a medical condition perhaps, which would warrant non-abortive/natural contraceptives. 

I mean no offense, it's a very personal issue to be sure, though my conscience is convinced by the Word of God that He speaks to it.


----------



## kvanlaan

> An example: having crops to farm as a farmer is a blessing but a farmer doesn't necessarily try to farm as much land as possible--he farms as much as he thinks he can.



And where in scripture is the farmer commanded to farm all his land and not defraud his fields of seed? Nowhere. And where is man commanded to know his wife and not defraud her of him nor vice versa? In 1 Cor 7.



> The anti-contraception lobby would contend that it is sinful to know one's wife if your intention is not always to try for a baby at the same time.



I think you mistake their meaning (though I don't mean to speak for all of them). They contend that it is sinful to derail the natural effects of knowing one's wife, not that you must try to procreate at all times. Motive is the key.


----------



## ClayPot

kvanlaan said:


> An example: having crops to farm as a farmer is a blessing but a farmer doesn't necessarily try to farm as much land as possible--he farms as much as he thinks he can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where in scripture is the farmer commanded to farm all his land and not defraud his fields of seed? Nowhere. And where is man commanded to know his wife and not defraud her of him nor vice versa? In 1 Cor 7.
Click to expand...


From this I assume you think that being intimate with your wife while using contraception is defrauding her. Defraud means "to deprive of something by deception or fraud". I'm having difficulty seeing why this would be defrauding my wife. Would you please go into a little more detail? I appreciate your response.


----------



## kvanlaan

And that's where it gets dicey and Rev Winzer's line of thinking takes the cake (I don't have the IQ or Biblical knowledge to take it all the way through). Also, I don't know that the Bible sees it as depriving one's wife by "deception or fraud" in its use of "Defraud ye not one the other". The question (to me) is this: if the Lord opens and closes the womb (Abraham and Sarah) and children are a blessing and heritage from the Lord (Psalms), who are we to attempt to reject it out of convenience? The argument becomes more complicated when medical issues are brought into it (for some) but I cannot fathom blessings from the Lord being rejected by His people.



> Psalm 127:3-5 ESV
> 
> Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.
> 
> 
> Psalm 127:3 ESV
> 
> Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.
> 
> 
> Psalm 139:13-16 ESV
> 
> For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
> 
> John 16:21 ESV
> 
> When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 7:14 ESV
> 
> You shall be blessed above all peoples. There shall not be male or female barren among you or among your livestock.
> 
> 
> Isaiah 54:13 ESV
> 
> All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children.
> 
> Genesis 30:1 ESV
> 
> When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister. She said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!”
> 
> 
> 
> Isaiah 8:18 ESV
> 
> Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.
> 
> 
> 1 Timothy 5:14 ESV
> 
> So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.
> 
> James 1:17 ESV
> 
> Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
> 
> Psalm 128:1-6 ESV
> 
> A Song of Ascents. Blessed is everyone who fears the Lord, who walks in his ways! You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord. The Lord bless you from Zion! May you see the prosperity of Jerusalem all the days of your life! ...
> 
> 
> Psalm 127:1-5 ESV
> 
> A Song of Ascents. Of Solomon. Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain. It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest, eating the bread of anxious toil; for he gives to his beloved sleep. Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.



This is no easy topic, especially in cases where children are desired, but are not borne. That's all the more reason why I cannot fathom the idea of rejecting them.


----------



## satz

1 Corinthians 7:25-26 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

1 Corinthians 7:32-33 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

The bible gives two reasons why a man who can control his sexual desires might want to consider giving up marriage, because of present distress in his life (v26), and to avoid carefulness in his life (v32). Marriage is certainly a blessing but there are biblically valid practical reasons for a man to consider forgoing it, or postponing it. 

If this applies to marriage, there is no reason why it would not apply to child birth, which is impossible without marriage. Paul said that it is easier to live a godly life when you have less concerns in your life, and he was talking about getting married, not about business activities or hobbies. In the same manner, it can be perfectly legitimate in some circumstances for a couple to decide that it is for the best for their marriage, their lives and for the children they already have for them to use contraception for a time, if the arrival of a new child now would be difficult. That does not mean the modern idea of stop at 1 or 2 is legitimate, but there is an acceptable place for christians to use contraception as part of living a godly life.


----------



## kvanlaan

> If this applies to marriage, there is no reason why it would not apply to child birth, which is impossible without marriage.



But while there is a reason for applying it to marriage, there is _no_ reason for applying it to marital relations, in fact, there is a prohibition against it (1Cor7). So to apply it to childbirth is quite a stretch, since where is there anywhere in Scripture that men regulate the product of their sexual activity and it is seen as righteous by God?


----------



## au5t1n

Kauffeld said:


> 1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
> 
> I've always understood this verse to mean that women ought to continue in the role that God has placed them, which the bearing of children signifies, the pain of it having been part of the curse the woman received upon the fall in the Garden of Eden which this verse is making reference to. To have relations with the deliberate intention of not bearing children smacks of a method for evading the curse of God which He justly placed upon the woman.
> 
> Perhaps there could be some sort of act of mercy in very rare cases, like a medical condition perhaps, which would warrant non-abortive/natural contraceptives.
> 
> I mean no offense, it's a very personal issue to be sure, though my conscience is convinced by the Word of God that He speaks to it.


 
I think the same way as you on this, but I wanted to point out that the antecedent of "she" in the above verse is "the woman," i.e. Eve mentioned in the previous verse. Eve will be saved through childbearing, if "they" (her daughters) continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. In other words, Eve's act of bringing sin into the world will be "vindicated" in a manner of speaking by the actions of her godly daughters.

It drives me insane when some translations put "women" here instead of "she." Sorry,  a little bit.


----------



## Peairtach

I'd say that without a specific "letter" on this subject from Scripture, we are left to the overall "spirit" of Scripture to guide us.

Those who are opposed to contraception in all cases are saying that it can never be expedient for Christians or others to use contraception of any kind, but that it is always wrong.

It seems more than strange, if this is the case, that there is no injunction against contraception.

It looks like one of those areas where Reformed Christians will have to agree to differ, and respect each others conscientiously held views on it _a la_ Romans 14.


----------



## bug

I have watched this debate with fascination, my thanks to you all. 

Can I just ask those who oppose any form contraception on the basis of the function of intimate relationships being to be blessed with children, does that suggest that once the wife can no longer bear children we should no longer enjoy this form of intimacy? Or what about those who cannot have children? To my mind the account of the creation of woman was to be a suitable companion for man, and that is fullfilled in marriage. It would seem Elkanah knew Hannah could not have children yet they still shared this intamacy. Do we not fullfill this companionship aspect by initimate regardless of procreation?

To my mind, initmacy is blessed by God by giving children, however God does provide quite natural methods of contraception himself. A woman can only fall pregnant at a certain time in her cycle and the Lactational Amenorrhea Method of contraception is nearly as effective as condoms for 6 months after pregancy (depending upon the women). So unless we are only intimate with our wives at certain times in her cycle, and unless we stop her breast feeding we are therefore sinning is that right? Or is it only man made forms of contraception that should be avoided? 

These are genuine questions for I am willing to be persuaded by the evidence.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> If this applies to marriage, there is no reason why it would not apply to child birth, which is impossible without marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But while there is a reason for applying it to marriage, there is _no_ reason for applying it to marital relations, in fact, there is a prohibition against it (1Cor7). So to apply it to childbirth is quite a stretch, since where is there anywhere in Scripture that men regulate the product of their sexual activity and it is seen as righteous by God?
Click to expand...


The principle is that it is legitimate to forgo something that God calls a blessing - marriage - when there is distress in your life, or if it would cause excessive carefulness in your life. It is a board principle that applies to many areas of life (1 Cor 7:26-32).

There is no reason why this principle does not apply to childbearing, which, like marriage, can cause additional stress and care in a christian's life. I never said anything about regulating marital relations... What 1 Cor 7 is talking about is making sure both husband and wife are sexually fulfilled so they cannot be tempted to fornication. That has nothing to do with the practice of contraception...


----------



## christianhope

Jonathon,



> Can I just ask those who oppose any form contraception on the basis of the function of intimate relationships being to be blessed with children, does that suggest that once the wife can no longer bear children we should no longer enjoy this form of intimacy?



No, we are commanded not to defraud one another, regardless of whether or not God chooses to open the womb and provide someone with children: 

1Cor 7:5
(5) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.




> Or what about those who cannot have children?



That is up to God whether or not a woman is barren. It certainly is not a sin if the woman by some medical reason, by no fault of her own cannot have children. Marriage was instituted not only for procreation, but also for the rendering of 'due benevolence' to promote chastity, and avoid fornication. (1 Cor 7:2,3) 

I suppose to define the issue, contraception of any kind, willfully used with the intent to prevent children is sinful, unless under the bounds of an act of mercy. (defined more thoroughly below)



> To my mind the account of the creation of woman was to be a suitable companion for man, and that is fullfilled in marriage. It would seem Elkanah knew Hannah could not have children yet they still shared this intamacy. Do we not fullfill this companionship aspect by initimate regardless of procreation?



Yes you are correct in my opinion.



> To my mind, initmacy is blessed by God by giving children, however God does provide quite natural methods of contraception himself. A woman can only fall pregnant at a certain time in her cycle and the Lactational Amenorrhea Method of contraception is nearly as effective as condoms for 6 months after pregancy (depending upon the women). So unless we are only intimate with our wives at certain times in her cycle, and unless we stop her breast feeding we are therefore sinning is that right? Or is it only man made forms of contraception that should be avoided?



In my mind, I have to say the breastfeeding method of contraception is permissible, but you have to check your motives. Am I breastfeeding the child to avoid God's curse (for the woman) or am I breastfeeding the child because I want the child to be healthier? If I sincerely believed my child would be the healthier for it, I think this would be similar to a act of mercy, and thereby permissible. If I just wanted to not have any other children, I lean towards the idea that such an attitude is rooted in a sinful perspective and should therefore be avoided.

Man made forms of contraceptive are wrong in my opinion, unless somehow used within the bounds of mercy. i.e. a medical condition. Not sure how that would look.


----------



## earl40

Richard Tallach said:


> It looks like one of those areas where Reformed Christians will have to agree to differ, and respect each others conscientiously held views on it _a la_ Romans 14.



Of course this is usually cited by those that are ok with birth control.....


I think this would be a better verse In my most humble opinion. 

1 Peter 4:8 

8Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.


----------



## Peairtach

> Am I breastfeeding the child to avoid God's curse (for the woman)



If you're bringing the subject of the Curse into it, Man is encouraged to use legitimate means to relieve the Curse. This is what the march of medical science is about; God revealing to Man means to relieve the Curse.

I wouldn't have thought about contraception as a means of relieving the Curse, but a means to wisely (or unwisely) procreate. But there is nothing sinful, and everything to be commended, in seeking to relieve the Curse, and that can't be used as an ethical argument against contraception or anything else.

God and the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are very much behind the relieving of the Curse by medicine and other means.

Are you saying that the pains of childbirth are not only part of the Curse, but also the fact that some wives become pregnant so frequently without some kind of birth control is part of the Curse?



---------- Post added at 12:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 AM ----------




earl40 said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like one of those areas where Reformed Christians will have to agree to differ, and respect each others conscientiously held views on it _a la_ Romans 14.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course this is usually cited by those that are ok with birth control.....
> 
> 
> I think this would be a better verse In my most humble opinion.
> 
> 1 Peter 4:8
> 
> 8Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
Click to expand...


It's also said by those who are against birth control. Brothers can't see eye to eye on everything.

I say all these things on birth control as someone unmarried. I don't know if that disqualifies me, like the Pope?


----------



## kvanlaan

> I say all these things on birth control as someone unmarried. I don't know if that disqualifies me, like the Pope?



Depends. If you'll agree with me, no problem.

Otherwise, disqualified!


----------



## christianhope

> If you're bringing the subject of the Curse into it, Man is encouraged to use legitimate means to relieve the Curse. This is what the march of medical science is about; God revealing to Man means to relieve the Curse.
> 
> I wouldn't have thought about contraception as a means of relieving the Curse, but a means to wisely (or unwisely) procreate. But there is nothing sinful, and everything to be commended, in seeking to relieve the Curse, and that can't be used as an ethical argument against contraception or anything else.
> 
> God and the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are very much behind the relieving of the Curse by medicine and other means.



Richard, you make a interesting point, although I am having a hard time distinguishing between man's advancement to lessen the amount of sweat upon his brow to earn his food (lessening of the curse), and the womans using birth control to 'wisely' pro-create. I just don't see in scripture any inference, command, or example providing liberty to purposely prevent the conception of children. I would distinguish it from other legitimate lessening' of the curse. God has been kind to man in providing him medical advancement, although I do not perceive this gives man the liberty to thwart one of the ends of marriage as taught throughout scripture. Thoughts?



> Are you saying that the pains of childbirth are not only part of the Curse, but also the fact that some wives become pregnant so frequently without some kind of birth control is part of the Curse?



I believe the pains of childbirth are part of the curse. Therefore, for a woman to purposefully prevent conception to avoid the pains of childbearing is sin. I also don't buy into the idea that we should perform family planning via contraceptives. The scripture repeatedly shows that children are a blessing from the Lord, (PS127) the fruit of the womb is a reward, a fruitful wife is the blessing to the man that fears the Lord (PS128), and that the Lord is the opener and closer of the womb... Why should I desire to inhibit God's revealed working in this manner? To purposely prevent the birth of children for means other than an act of mercy is sin. I don't mean to offend you or any of my brother or sisters in the Lord, but my conscience is convinced by the Word of God.


----------



## Peairtach

Kauffeld said:


> If you're bringing the subject of the Curse into it, Man is encouraged to use legitimate means to relieve the Curse. This is what the march of medical science is about; God revealing to Man means to relieve the Curse.
> 
> I wouldn't have thought about contraception as a means of relieving the Curse, but a means to wisely (or unwisely) procreate. But there is nothing sinful, and everything to be commended, in seeking to relieve the Curse, and that can't be used as an ethical argument against contraception or anything else.
> 
> God and the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are very much behind the relieving of the Curse by medicine and other means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, you make a interesting point, although I am having a hard time distinguishing between man's advancement to lessen the amount of sweat upon his brow to earn his food (lessening of the curse), and the womans using birth control to 'wisely' pro-create. I just don't see in scripture any inference, command, or example providing liberty to purposely prevent the conception of children. I would distinguish it from other legitimate lessening' of the curse. God has been kind to man in providing him medical advancement, although I do not perceive this gives man the liberty to thwart one of the ends of marriage as taught throughout scripture. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the pains of childbirth are not only part of the Curse, but also the fact that some wives become pregnant so frequently without some kind of birth control is part of the Curse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the pains of childbirth are part of the curse. Therefore, for a woman to purposefully prevent conception to avoid the pains of childbearing is sin. I also don't buy into the idea that we should perform family planning via contraceptives. The scripture repeatedly shows that children are a blessing from the Lord, (PS127) the fruit of the womb is a reward, a fruitful wife is the blessing to the man that fears the Lord (PS128), and that the Lord is the opener and closer of the womb... Why should I desire to inhibit God's revealed working in this manner? To purposely prevent the birth of children for means other than an act of mercy is sin. I don't mean to offend you or any of my brother or sisters in the Lord, but my conscience is convinced by the Word of God.
Click to expand...


As far as I am aware it cannot be taken from Genesis 3:16 that part of the Curse on the woman was not only that she have pain in childbearing, but also that the married Man and Woman would have less control over their fertility.

It is clear from Scripture that man is allowed to relieve the Curse by legitimate means, and that would include the pains of childbirth, disease, thorns and thistles, etc, etc.

A married couple avoiding having children merely because of the expected pains of childbirth would not be right.

But expedient use of legitimate forms of contraception in the procreation process is not condemned in Scripture.

We must follow the "spirit" of Scripture, not the spirit of the world. Children are a blessing to a married couple, but does that mean that the Bible teaches that they should try for all they possibly can? 

I don't see that in Scripture, but we must agree to differ.

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------





> God has been kind to man in providing him medical advancement, although I do not perceive this gives man the liberty to thwart one of the ends of marriage as taught throughout scripture. Thoughts?



If a Christian man has a family of e.g. seven or eight children, he has obeyed God's command to be fruitful and multiply distributively far more than a single Christian man, and yet the Lord isn't against some Christian men being single.

I don't see such a Christian or non-Christian man "thwarting the ends of marriage" unless you believe that the Bible teaches that married couples should try for as many children as possible, and the only purpose of congugal relations in marriage is having children, and that fellowship isn't a purpose in itself.


----------



## kvanlaan

> We must follow the "spirit" of Scripture, not the spirit of the world. Children are a blessing to a married couple, _but does that mean that the Bible teaches that they should try for all they possibly can?_



And here's where I think we see a major fork in the road in philosophy. No one is saying (least of all me, ironically) that you should "try" for as many as you can. But what I am saying, shouting, willing to be incredibly unpopular and seen as weird for is this: since God provides that spark of life, let Him give as He sees fit - He will limit it to what you can handle. I can sleep with my wife 100 times fruitlessly "trying" for a child, and unless the Lord specifically blesses that particular 101st union, there will be no child; biology professors and the bulk of medical science notwithstanding. I hold this as a firm and steadfast conviction. As He opened and closed the wombs of Abimelech's house, He does the same for my wife and for every other woman on the face of this planet. He is sovereign over even this.


----------



## Peairtach

But God uses secondary means in His sovereign purposes. _Pro_creation in any context is itself a secondary means whereby God sovereignly produces the human beings He wants on the Earth.

So the Q still boils down to whether expedient use of certain types of contraception within marriage is acceptable in God's preceptive will or does Scripture teach that He want each act of conjugal relations to be open to allowing for a child in fertile couples.

God's _decretive_ will even includes sin, in the sense that He has sovereignly decreed everything that happens. 


The question is a preceptive one. Is it always wrong to use contraception, bearing in mind that the Sixth Commandment is not breached, that everything that happens is in God's sovereignty, and there is no injunction against contraception.

I don't think it's weird to hold the view on this that contraception is always wrong. We must hold to what we believe that Scripture is saying and show respect for our brothers and sisters views _a la_ Romans 14.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> And here's where I think we see a major fork in the road in philosophy. No one is saying (least of all me, ironically) that you should "try" for as many as you can. But what I am saying, shouting, willing to be incredibly unpopular and seen as weird for is this: since God provides that spark of life, let Him give as He sees fit - He will limit it to what you can handle. I can sleep with my wife 100 times fruitlessly "trying" for a child, and unless the Lord specifically blesses that particular 101st union, there will be no child; biology professors and the bulk of medical science notwithstanding. I hold this as a firm and steadfast conviction. As He opened and closed the wombs of Abimelech's house, He does the same for my wife and for every other woman on the face of this planet. He is sovereign over even this.


 
Kevin,

Where does God say that he demands complete sovereignty over the womb? God is sovereign over everything in the world, but we use means to alter many of them for our good. Where does the bible state that childbirth is in a special category?


----------



## Peairtach

satz said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's where I think we see a major fork in the road in philosophy. No one is saying (least of all me, ironically) that you should "try" for as many as you can. But what I am saying, shouting, willing to be incredibly unpopular and seen as weird for is this: since God provides that spark of life, let Him give as He sees fit - He will limit it to what you can handle. I can sleep with my wife 100 times fruitlessly "trying" for a child, and unless the Lord specifically blesses that particular 101st union, there will be no child; biology professors and the bulk of medical science notwithstanding. I hold this as a firm and steadfast conviction. As He opened and closed the wombs of Abimelech's house, He does the same for my wife and for every other woman on the face of this planet. He is sovereign over even this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> Where does God say that he demands complete sovereignty over the womb? God is sovereign over everything in the world, but we use means to alter many of them for our good. Where does the bible state that childbirth is in a special category?
Click to expand...


I think there is a confusion here between God's preceptive will (commands) and His decretive will (sovereignty). His sovereignty cannot be overthrown, but the question of contraception comes into God's commands, does He permit it or not.

E.g. is God's sovereignty in procreation overthrown when an engaged couple delay their marriage for a few months. Is God's sovereignty in procreation overthrown when a m,arried couple use contraception? No. Because all these things - whether they are right or wrong were intended in God's sovereignty and decretive will.

Everything that happens, good or evil, is in God's sovereignty. 

The question is whether contraception is always evil.

It attempts to frustrate one of the purposes of relations i.e. procreation. It doesn't attempt to frustrate God's sovereignty which can't be frustrated.

But the Bible teaches that there is more than one purpose for relations, therefore if the married couple _distributively_ give place for the purpose of having children in their relations with each other they are yet fulfilling the command to be fruitful and multiply which was first given to Adam and Noah. They are not denying this important purpose of marriage to raise seed, holy seed in the case of Christians. 

They are also fulfilling the command to have relations and "know" each other, just not always attempting procreation at the same time.


----------



## kvanlaan

One more little stab at the beast before I must be off to bed: I think this thread is beginning to show a mindset that often befalls our Lord's Day observance threads. Some say, 'take joy in that the Lord has given you this day of rest', as per Isaiah 58:12, 13



> If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it].



Then others will counter with: '...but if I want to do XYZ and it does not conflict with Scripture specifically, then that is within the bounds of my Christian liberty.' And then we battle it out from there. But it is the attitude that gets my goat, not the specifics so much. Take JOY in what the Lord has laid out in Scripture in this matter, and seek to be that living sacrifice seven days of the week, while taking rest as He has commanded and allowed.

I see the same thing here with contraception. Instead of taking joy in the blessings that will come of a marriage free of this contrary attitude, we ask how far we can go in the other direction without ticking God off, and staying within the bounds of Scripture, so far as we think we are correctly exegeting the verses in question. Why not just take joy in His promises? Ask instead where the motivation comes from to put the brakes on what God has promised - that is extremely germane to the discussion. Is it the world's view of what a family/life should be? Is it a personal foible that is leading your thinking this way? A desire to justify a personal opinion? Is it simply a desire for a deeper understanding of Scripture? Is it a lack of exposure to a proper family life or overexposure to a bad one? Is it medical concerns for the mother? This is a huge factor in the discussion.

I am not trying to besmirch anyone's posts/characters that are opposed to my own in this thread. But as I hold my newborn child, I ask myself how it is that anyone could read Scripture, hold their newborn, and not see this as anything but the finger of God in their life. I simply can't fathom it. To me, it is as Israel asking God to stop the manna and quail because we've had quite enough of that entree, thank you very much. It is God's special blessing to us. Enjoy it and thank Him for it. Full stop.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> Some say, 'take joy in that the Lord has given you this day of rest', as per Isaiah 58:12, 13….
> Then others will counter with: '...but if I want to do XYZ and it does not conflict with Scripture specifically, then that is within the bounds of my Christian liberty.' And then we battle it out from there. But it is the attitude that gets my goat, not the specifics so much.
> 
> Take JOY in what the Lord has laid out in Scripture in this matter, and seek to be that living sacrifice seven days of the week, while taking rest as He has commanded and allowed.
> I see the same thing here with contraception. Instead of taking joy in the blessings that will come of a marriage free of this contrary attitude, we ask how far we can go in the other direction without ticking God off, and staying within the bounds of Scripture, so far as we think we are correctly exegeting the verses in question. Why not just take joy in His promises?



Kevin, I understand where you are coming from, but you are not being fair with the issue. You are starting with the assumption that contraception is wrong and reasoning from there. But _*if*_ something truly does not, in God’s sight, conflict with the scriptures, there is nothing wrong with a Christian choosing to do that. You have certain strong convictions and by asking “Why not just take joy in His promises?” you are effectively saying “why not just be like me?”… But if God’s revealed will in his bible does allow for some latitude in this area, there is no reason to question the fact that someone has made a different choice. 

With respect to your example on the Lord’s Day, the bible also says that mercy is greater than sacrifice, and that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Jesus Christ did not just ask his disciples to take joy in the Sabbath when they were hungry walking through the fields of corn. Neither did he ask the man whose ox went into a ditch on the Sabbath or the people he healed on the Sabbath to just take joy in the Sabbath and wait another day. There is room to ask what does the full revelation of God’s word say on a subject. It is not always impious to not automatically accept the most conservative choice as being the only acceptable option for Christians.



> Ask instead where the motivation comes from to put the brakes on what God has promised - that is extremely germane to the discussion. Is it the world's view of what a family/life should be? Is it a personal foible that is leading your thinking this way? A desire to justify a personal opinion? Is it simply a desire for a deeper understanding of Scripture? Is it a lack of exposure to a proper family life or overexposure to a bad one?



The bible also says that we are not to tempt God, and presume upon his promises. I quoted from 1 Cor 7 where God, through Paul states that even something as good as marriage can bring trouble and care into your life and because of that you need to at least consider before making the choice. He _didn’t_ say, just go ahead, I will definitely take care of you. Someone might want to spend more time with his wife (Eph 5:25, Deut 24:5) , to be able to focus time on the children he already has (Eph 6:4), or even consider whether he is able to provide for the children he already has (Pr 13:22). All these, and others, are biblically valid reasons to at least consider if it is for the best for his family to use contraception for a time. You may not agree with such reasoning, but you cannot biblically condemn it. 


As a note, I want to say that I understand this is an area where we are all exposed to much worldliness in our thinking. I can accept that I may have been influenced much by the world’s thoughts. But the topic of the thread is what does the Bible say about contraception, and at this moment in time I believe the bible teaches that God has left it a matter of christian liberty. As with any liberty, it can be abused and a lot of what you raised in your post is very relevant to consider when an individual Christian makes a decision on this matter for his family. But if we just ask what the bible teaches, I have not seen any convincing biblical reasoning or argument that would condemn all usage of birth control.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Kevin, I understand where you are coming from, but you are not being fair with the issue. You are starting with the assumption that contraception is wrong and reasoning from there. But _*if*_ something truly does not, in God’s sight, conflict with the scriptures, there is nothing wrong with a Christian choosing to do that. You have certain strong convictions and by asking “Why not just take joy in His promises?” you are effectively saying “why not just be like me?”… But if God’s revealed will in his bible does allow for some latitude in this area, there is no reason to question the fact that someone has made a different choice.



Actually, I am not starting from the position that all contraception is wrong. I am starting from the assumption that the Lord calls children a blessing. I am starting from the assumption that God in no way ordains a means of regulating childbearing. I am starting from the position that children are repeatedly shown as a legacy and a heritage (AND such that one who has many children has a HUGE responsibilities - they are not Tiddlywinks, they are vessels to be filled with the Lord's teaching. If someone sees them as mere collectibles, they are in grave error.) 

We DO see parts in Scripture that discuss both sides of marriage. We DO NOT see this with children (Matthew 24, Luke 21 are, In my humble opinion, irrelevant in this case; adding them to the discussion is to pull them _way_ out of context - and I don't see anything else that comes close.) Thus I cannot see the connection between the similarity of regulating marriage and childbearing (as someone mentioned above) as anything other than an artificial one.



> “Why not just take joy in His promises?” you are effectively saying “why not just be like me?”…



Sorry, that doesn't wash. I am starting from what Scripture says, not from my own position. Your arguments are trying to bolster a negative position, (some may argue it is one that is adiaphora,) but which Scripture does not speak to in the positive in any way, while it is full of positive verses to having children.



> With respect to your example on the Lord’s Day, the bible also says that mercy is greater than sacrifice, and that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Jesus Christ did not just ask his disciples to take joy in the Sabbath when they were hungry walking through the fields of corn. Neither did he ask the man whose ox went into a ditch on the Sabbath or the people he healed on the Sabbath to just take joy in the Sabbath and wait another day. There is room to ask what does the full revelation of God’s word say on a subject. It is not always impious to not automatically accept the most conservative choice as being the only acceptable option for Christians.



Agreed. The Sabbath is appropriate for works of mercy and service, that is plain and simple. But again, it is to do God's will, not to do my own. Christ made provision for His disciples both physically and spiritually, that was within His purview as Saviour and Lord, and we see this same dual principle again in James 2. Thus I cannot understand these examples being quoted above - they are clear and I am in no way arguing against them; they fall well within Isaiah 58's directives.


----------



## Dwimble

kvanlaan said:


> ...To me, it is as Israel asking God to stop the manna and quail because we've had quite enough of that entree, thank you very much. It is God's special blessing to us. Enjoy it and thank Him for it. Full stop.


Yes, they certainly didn't ask Him to stop giving it, but when God gave them manna they complained that it wasn't enough and that they should have meat, too. God graciously gave them that as well. Further many tried to gather more than they needed and it rotted, except for the one day per week when they were permitted to gather more.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, so I'm not offering an opinion, but the argument you made could easily be used by those on the other side of the debate. Namely, some tried to get as much of that blessing as they could and were rebuked for it.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I don't really have a dog in this hunt, so I'm not offering an opinion, but the argument you made could easily be used by those on the other side of the debate. Namely, some tried to get as much of that blessing as they could and were rebuked for it.



But again, it comes down to the specific nature of this blessing. I can scoop manna all day long, against God's law, pile it up in my tent, and it will rot. But to lay with my wife 100, 1000, or 10,000 times (and do so very much _in tune_ with God's law), there will be no spark of life unless God decrees it, no matter that the mechanics of the act are biologically sound and 'should' produce a child. I cannot 'sinfully' try for all I can, because 1 Cor 7 speaks quite clearly to that - there is no sin in laying with my wife, in fact I am commanded to do so. 

The Bible talks about quivers full of sons, it does not talk about stockpiles of manna, in fact, as you said, it specifically warns against it. So I don't see how it is in the same category.

As I see it, it really comes down to whether or not one believes that God opens and closes the womb or whether one believes that it is merely an act of mechanical biology. Are Rachel and the house of Abimilech and Hannah simply Biblical miracles that are no longer applicable or relevant today or does God exercise His sovereignty in that way even now?


----------



## Hebrew Student

Kvanlaan,



> We DO see parts in Scripture that discuss both sides of marriage. We DO NOT see this with children (Matthew 24, Luke 21 are, In my humble opinion, irrelevant in this case; adding them to the discussion is to pull them way out of context - and I don't see anything else that comes close.) Thus I cannot see the connection between the similarity of regulating marriage and childbearing (as someone mentioned above) as anything other than an artificial one.



I have seen this several times when we discuss this topic. In other words, unless the specific term “children” or its synonyms are used, you won’t believe that it applies to children. You said something similar the last time I spoke to you. We were discussing Proverbs 25:16, and you said that text refers to gluttony. You seem to have this view of language that is common amongst evangelicals [including quiverfull folks], that can be summed up with:

A=B

In other words, words and phrases have meaning in the sense that they are equated with things in the real world. Hence, you want to equate 1 Corinthians 7 with marriage, and you want to equate Proverbs 25:16 with gluttony.

The problems with this approach are manifold. First of all, it ignores that individual terms themselves have both sense as well as reference. For example, we can speak of the phrase “NBA champions” as the sense, and the reference for that sense is “The Los Angeles Lakers.” However, in a matter of a week, that could entirely change, and then, the referent would be the “Boston Celtics.” In other words, there can be a sense behind certain references that could be applied to more than one object.

However, even this is way too simplistic, as there are different kinds of senses to a word. I have been reading a book on semantics by Kate Kearns, and she goes through and shows how complex even this is. For example, consider the word “bird.” Most people would consider its sense to be a small feathered animal which sings beautifully and flies. Yet there are all kinds of birds that don’t fly, and don’t sing beautifully [ostrich, penguin, etc.]. These kinds of concepts are called prototypes, where the sense of something is determined by prototypical conceptions most people have of something.

However, there is also something called “family resemblances.” Family resemblances are senses that will have nothing common to all, but a number of features will occur in clusters. Wittgenstein’s classic definition is the word “game.” While there are some games that share no features with other games, if you look at certain clusters of games, you will see that they do share some traits.

Then, of course, you also have senses of words in which all things _are_ held in common. These are self-explanatory. The point of the whole discussion to show how simplistic you are being when you talk about A=B, Proverbs 25:16=gluttony, and 1 Corinthians 7=marriage. You are leaving out one whole aspect of meaning that is very important.

However, even if we want to talk about reference, even there I would say that A=B is way too simplistic. Consider the word “blue.” What does the word “blue” refer to? Does it refer to “turquoise,” “sky blue,” or “ocean blue?” The answer is “yes” to all three. Blue is what is called a “vague predicate.” For example, Kate Kearns talks in her book about a stick you could make with one end blue gradually adding more red until you get purple in the middle of the stick, and then gradually taking away blue so that you get red on the other end of the stick. The question that we must ask is “where does blue end and purple begin?” Also, “Where does purple end, and red begin?” or even “Where does blue end and red begin?” All of these things are questions that illustrate the reference of a vague predicate. Another question that is often asked in this vein is, “How many people have to leave before a crowd ceases to be a crowd?”

However, even if we leave out vague predicates, you are still left with the fact that meaning and reference are not related to the real world alone. Consider these two sentences:

1.	Adam is not blue.
2.	Adam is not purple.

Now, what if Adam is white? In that case, it would make both of these true. However, do they both mean the same thing? Hardly. The way to solve this problem is to speak of *possible* worlds, and to say that sentence #1 is true in any possible scenario in which Adam’s color is anything other than blue, and sentence #2 is true in any possible scenario in which Adam’s color is anything other than purple. Hence, we have distinguished the two in meaning, but it is not just on the basis of reference in the real world, but in possible worlds as well. This goes for all meaning. The statement “Adam is typing this post” has its meaning in common with all possible scenarios in which Adam is typing this post.

In other words, even reference is a topic that is way more complicated than just finding a reference such as “marriage” or “gluttony” in the real world, and saying “That is what it means.”

However, it gets worse, as even in the way we use our language, we are not necessarily referential. What does the word “the” refer to? When you walk down the aisle during your wedding and say “I do,” to your wife, what are you referring to? As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out, language has many uses, and reference is only one of its uses. One has got to understand how language operates in a community, or, as he put it, what language “game” each community is playing *before* one can truly understand the meaning of a text.

You might be saying that all of this is well and good, but how does it play out in real life? Consider Isaiah 7:14. The referent of this sign is clearly given to king Ahaz as a sign to him of his victory. Yet, the New Testament applies this to Christ in Matthew 1:23. This is a case where the referents are multiple. The reason this is the case is because of the development of the “child” motif in chapters 7-9. This keeps on reoccurring, and ultimately culminates with the great words of Isaiah 9:6 which talk about a child born to us who will have no end to the increase of his kingdom. Yet, although this sign is given to king Ahaz, and these grand promises are expected, in Chapter 10, you find that all of those expectations are crushed by the Assyrian army coming and taking away the kingship.

The point of these building of expectations and the crushing of these expectations almost screams the message, “This is impossible with man.” These great promises can never be totally fulfilled in a mere man, because mere men will always fall prey to sin. That is why these promises were only able to be fulfilled by God himself taking on human flesh, and why these texts can legitimately be applied to Christ. Hence, these texts are not just referential, they are _poly_referential!

Now, what does all of this have to do with contraception and children as a blessing? You keep on looking for a passage which specifically mentions children , and talks about moderation in the birthing of children from us. I would contend that such an expectation of us is irrational given the information about language I have just provided. I have presented Proverbs 25:16-17, 27-28 as proof that the conception of a blessing includes moderation. Satz has presented 1 Corinthians 7. There are many other passages we could point to where the Bible specifically speaks of things that are good, and yet, encourages moderation in our reception of them. It is abundantly clear that the Bible is presenting the “sense” of blessing as including moderation. Yet, here, you have complained that there is no specific referent given to children in this vein. The whole point of this post is that there doesn’t need to be. The way the Bible is constructing the *sense* of the word “blessing” is that blessings are something that must be received in moderation. To expect the Bible to give us an exhaustive list of all blessings and apply this conception to them is absurd. Should we look at Proverbs 25:16 and say that, since honey is the particular reference, that we can overindulge in cherry pie? No, the Bible does not have to [and, indeed, it would be impossible to] mention every blessing by name. The Bible gives us the sense of “blessing,” what kind of sense the sense of “blessing” is, and thus, we can reason about the Biblical conception of a blessing as it applies to children.

However, you are specifically saying that children are an exception to this sense of a “blessing” that the Bible presents when it says that blessings must be enjoyed in moderation. Your job would then be to prove _from the text of scripture itself_ that children are an exception to this concept. I would argue that scripture never says this about children. Satz and I have pointed out that, throughout all of scripture, blessings and moderation go hand in hand. You are positing an exception to that in children. We are simply asking for proof of this from the text of scripture.

Kvanlaan, this is what I meant when I said that the scholarly world considers the exegesis of quiverfull advocates to be reductionistic. I did not mean it to be an insult; I meant that the ignoring of the kinds of features of language that I have presented here in this post, as well as several others, are commonplace in quiverfull. Their exegesis, in most cases, does reduce down to A=B, and yet, we never use our language in this fashion. I did not mean it as an insult, but only that those of us who study Biblical interpretation on a regular basis are constantly thinking of these things when we interpret a text, and, myself and many scholars would say that many of these things are not considered when you read Nancy Campbell, Mary Pride, James and Stacy McDonald, the Botkin family, etc., as most of them are not trained in this area. I am not saying that this makes everything they say wrong, but it will tend to lead to reductionism in terms of how you view language. That is what concerns me.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

Um, no.

I am not dense, I am not so intellectually crippled that I cannot grasp your meaning (in that words have meaning and you can't differentiate between blessings like I am). But there is a difference, as has been made clear in the last several posts. Please engage these arguments, instead of merely saying that my 'pals' are too reductionistic to engage on a 'scholarly' level.

Also, I do not lean on Mary Pride et al for my proofs; they are not theologians and everyone has an opinion (even if they do agree with me - though I don't discount them out of hand either). Instead, I am more apt to take the opinion of Calvin and the Synod of Dordt (and am happy to email as many orthodox theologians of today as you'd like, starting with Beeke and going down the list) who take the same task. Also, please find me support from a theologian or orthodox church for your opinion dated before 1900. Reply with that, and engage them as well, if you would. It would appear that the entire scholarly world has overlooked a few theological works of note.


----------



## MamaArcher

For resources that agree with the no contraception belief see the following.

Be Fruitful and Multiply by Nancy Campbell
The Bible and Birth Control by Charles Provan


----------



## Hebrew Student

Kvanlaan,



> Um, no.
> 
> I am not dense, I am not so intellectually crippled that I cannot grasp your meaning (in that words have meaning and you can't differentiate between blessings like I am). But there is a difference, as has been made clear in the last several posts. Please engage these arguments, instead of merely saying that my 'pals' are too reductionistic to engage on a 'scholarly' level.



First of all, I *never* just said that these arguments are reductionistic. I *proved* it by showing that the methodology you are using does not capture how language works. Also, I never said that you could not differentiate. I pointed out, though, that sense and reference are used when we understand the meaning of terms like "blessing" [no matter how diverse the reference is], and that we should understand blessings in the context of the "sense" of a blessing. One of the aspects of the sense of the term "blessing" we are discussing is moderation. You would like to make an exception for children. I only think it is logical to ask you to prove that this is an exception from scripture. 

Also, kvanlaan, my whole post was a response to the argument you are presenting, namely, that you can write off Proverbs 25 and 1 Corinthians 7 because of their reference, not even stopping to consider if they are building a certain sense.



> Also, I do not lean on Mary Pride et al for my proofs; they are not theologians and everyone has an opinion (even if they do agree with me - though I don't discount them out of hand either).



Nor did I ever say that you did. My point was that I can see in their writings the same kind of mistake that you have made in talking to Satz and myself. My point is that you and all of those people mentioned are dependent upon the same kind of reductionistic view of language _because they use it in their writings as well_.



> Instead, I am more apt to take the opinion of Calvin and the Synod of Dordt (and am happy to email as many orthodox theologians of today as you'd like, starting with Beeke and going down the list) who take the same task.



And I will take the opinion of the scriptures. We are protestants, and we should be deriving our views from scripture, not from history.



> Also, please find me support from a theologian or orthodox church for your opinion dated before 1900. Reply with that, and engage them as well, if you would. It would appear that the entire scholarly world has overlooked a few theological works of note.



There is an entire dissertation that does this by John Noonan called Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists. Noonan shows by references to the Talmud that the Jews used contraception, and also shows references to Christians using contraception, and points out that it was largly the controversy of Platonic philosophy that brought these things into existence.

In fact, in the video by Mark Driscoll that was posted earlier in this thread, he refutes this argument as well.

Hence, I *have* engaged the arguments you have presented. When I said you are reductionistic, I went and proved it using the language you and I use every day. I am concerned that, when I argue against you scripturally, you refer to theologians and confessions. I cited scholars, only to show that my concerns are pretty well rounded amongst those of us who study this for a living. We are protestants, and we believe that scripture is the standard. As I said, if the Catholic Church came and showed us all of these historical theologians and figures who believed in some form of maryolatry, we would quickly say that there is no support for that in scripture. I am deeply concerned that we do not do the same thing when it comes to this issue.

I am not trying to be pejorative. I am trying to argue this on the basis of the text of scripture. We need to be careful that no tradition is bound upon the hearts of Christians that is not found in the text of scripture. That is my concern.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Grimmson

kvanlaan said:


> As I see it, it really comes down to whether or not one believes that God opens and closes the womb or whether one believes that it is merely an act of mechanical biology. Are Rachel and the house of Abimilech and Hannah simply Biblical miracles that are no longer applicable or relevant today or does God exercise His sovereignty in that way even now?


 
Even though God is sovereign, that should not be used as an excuse in regards to the use of wisdom. God is sovereign over all, including child birth, but that does not mean people should be irresponsible in the begetting of children. There is a mechanicalistic process for the begetting of children and that should be considered in the debate. Why cannot we say that God both opens and closes wombs and at the same time it is a mechanical process? There are many teenage wombs that could mechanically be considered open, but does that mean they should have children? Of course we would say no in the case that they are not married. Lot’s daughters’ womb was open and they recognized the mechanicalistic process of sex for the production of children. We should not use the sovereignty of God as an excuse to not to practice wisdom, but instead recognize God’s ordained means for a given end, such as the case with the proclamation of the Gospel. We all seen people use the sovereignity of God as a reason for themselves to not practice wisdom for whatever reason. If a father cannot provide for his children and the church cannot support him, and I have seen this in more then more church, then what are we to do? Call CPS? To beget a child only have the child taken away because not all the child’s needs are being meet? I think it is proper to recognize a difference in the laying down with a wife to satisfy her needs and to do so for the conceiving of children. We should not make sex within a marriage relationship to have the final purpose of begetting of children; if such is the case then I think that would create unnecessary tension in the martial relationship due to the unfillment of a partner by not having sex and the process of martial sex to be sinful; which was actually Augustine’s position, see the Good of Marriage. Notice that this is only the case if the begetting of children is not in mind. Therefore, since a husband is required to satisfy the needs of his wife, and if the husband cannot afford another few mouths to feed, then wisdom may dictate a means in which the seed of the man and the egg never meet. Not to blindly use the sovereignty of God as an excuse, because we are created as rational beings in the image of God and commanded to use wisdom; which is a reflection of that image. 

Personally, I think children should be looked at as a gift of God and the fruit of a committed martial union. We risk the danger I think of losing the appreciation of children when we expect large families. We, thank God, no longer live in an age of a high infancy mortality rate. If we expect women and bind to their conscience to have a large amount of children and do not assist these women, then we are bring them to a state of sin if we do not assist them. It is not like an olden days, where there a farm we can send the children out to work and help out in to provide for the needs of the entire family. We live in a different context, an individualistic context, with little help from family and neighbors, if any at all. I say if you want to be fruitful and multiply, learn to preach and teach the gospel and not to go beyond your means in relation to child care.

---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------




Hebrew Student said:


> And I will take the opinion of the scriptures. We are protestants, and we should be deriving our views from scripture, not from history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, please find me support from a theologian or orthodox church for your opinion dated before 1900. Reply with that, and engage them as well, if you would. It would appear that the entire scholarly world has overlooked a few theological works of note.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an entire dissertation that does this by John Noonan called Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists. Noonan shows by references to the Talmud that the Jews used contraception, and also shows references to Christians using contraception, and points out that it was largly the controversy of Platonic philosophy that brought these things into existence.
> 
> In fact, in the video by Mark Driscoll that was posted earlier in this thread, he refutes this argument as well.
> 
> Hence, I *have* engaged the arguments you have presented. When I said you are reductionistic, I went and proved it using the language you and I use every day. I am concerned that, when I argue against you scripturally, you refer to theologians and confessions. I cited scholars, only to show that my concerns are pretty well rounded amongst those of us who study this for a living. We are protestants, and we believe that scripture is the standard. As I said, if the Catholic Church came and showed us all of these historical theologians and figures who believed in some form of maryolatry, we would quickly say that there is no support for that in scripture. I am deeply concerned that we do not do the same thing when it comes to this issue.
> 
> I am not trying to be pejorative. I am trying to argue this on the basis of the text of scripture. We need to be careful that no tradition is bound upon the hearts of Christians that is not found in the text of scripture. That is my concern.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam
Click to expand...

 
There a big difference talking from maryology/"maryolatry" and contraception. We do not want to ignore, as Protestants, the exercise of wise teachings and use of wisdom of our Fathers in the faith. They read the scriptures, just as we do today. It is not like the scriptures suddenly disappeared as can be seen from Chrysostom to Aquinas. Did some of them have an interpretation different from us? No doubt, but we would be a fool to ignore what the great teachers of the faith said. Let us not compare contraception to non-biblical traditional thoughts of Mary, such as the conceived immaculate/ perpetual virginity/ prayers to Mary/ assumed bodily into heaven. It is a comparison of apples to spinach. You thought I say oranges didn’t you?


----------



## Hebrew Student

Grimmson,



> There a big difference talking from maryology/"maryolatry" and contraception. We do not want to ignore, as Protestants, the exercise of wise teachings and use of wisdom of our Fathers in the faith. They read the scriptures, just as we do today. It is not like the scriptures suddenly disappeared as can be seen from Chrysostom to Aquinas. Did some of them have an interpretation different from us? No doubt, but we would be a fool to ignore what the great teachers of the faith said. Let us not compare contraception to non-biblical traditional thoughts of Mary, such as the conceived immaculate/ perpetual virginity/ prayers to Mary/ assumed bodily into heaven. It is a comparison of apples to spinach. You thought I say oranges didn’t you?



I agree that we shouldn't *ignore* what the great teachers of the faith say. I am not ignoring them. I am testing their arguments against what scripture says.

The reason I think it is parallel to Maryolatry is not because I think that it is equally grave to pray to Mary, and to look at the patristic writers rather than the scriptures; I am simply pointing out that we rejected Maryolatry for the same reason that I believe we should reject the binding of anti-contraception on the people of God: it cannot be found in scripture.

Also, while it is true that the patristic writers read the scriptures [and, again, I think Noonan has done a good job in showing that anti-contraception teaching developed over time], still we have to understand that the people of God do grow in our knowledge. Chomskian syntax was unknown to the patristic writers, as were the modern day fields of semantics and pragmatics. Also, a whole lot of research is being done right now on the relationship between all of the major divisions of linguistics. In terms of extrabiblical material, most of the Northwest Semitic inscriptions had yet to be found, no one knew of the material Akkadian, Sumerian, Ugaritic, or Egyptian Hieroglyphics. I believe that God has given us this knowledge so that we can use it to better understand his word, not *ignoring* what people in the past have said, but *correcting* what people in the past have said. We should seek to use all the tools God has given us to become more and more accurate in our understanding of scripture

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Grimmson

Hebrew Student said:


> Grimmson,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There a big difference talking from maryology/"maryolatry" and contraception. We do not want to ignore, as Protestants, the exercise of wise teachings and use of wisdom of our Fathers in the faith. They read the scriptures, just as we do today. It is not like the scriptures suddenly disappeared as can be seen from Chrysostom to Aquinas. Did some of them have an interpretation different from us? No doubt, but we would be a fool to ignore what the great teachers of the faith said. Let us not compare contraception to non-biblical traditional thoughts of Mary, such as the conceived immaculate/ perpetual virginity/ prayers to Mary/ assumed bodily into heaven. It is a comparison of apples to spinach. You thought I say oranges didn’t you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we shouldn't *ignore* what the great teachers of the faith say. I am not ignoring them. I am testing their arguments against what scripture says.
> 
> The reason I think it is parallel to Maryolatry is not because I think that it is equally grave to pray to Mary, and to look at the patristic writers rather than the scriptures; I am simply pointing out that we rejected Maryolatry for the same reason that I believe we should reject the binding of anti-contraception on the people of God: it cannot be found in scripture.
> 
> Also, while it is true that the patristic writers read the scriptures [and, again, I think Noonan has done a good job in showing that anti-contraception teaching developed over time], still we have to understand that the people of God do grow in our knowledge. Chomskian syntax was unknown to the patristic writers, as were the modern day fields of semantics and pragmatics. Also, a whole lot of research is being done right now on the relationship between all of the major divisions of linguistics. In terms of extrabiblical material, most of the Northwest Semitic inscriptions had yet to be found, no one knew of the material Akkadian, Sumerian, Ugaritic, or Egyptian Hieroglyphics. I believe that God has given us this knowledge so that we can use it to better understand his word, not *ignoring* what people in the past have said, but *correcting* what people in the past have said. We should seek to use all the tools God has given us to become more and more accurate in our understanding of scripture
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam
Click to expand...

 
I don’t know if my last post pointed it out clearly, but I am not anti-contraception. And I am not rejecting the use of scripture, but that we should examine carefully the Fathers teachings in light of scripture. This would include their hermeutical use of scripture and application there of. I do not think contraception should, nor do I think it is wise, to be a preached conscience binding topic, for the reasons I gave in a earlier post.

And I think Adam would basically be in agreement with me. If I am wrong Adam then correct me.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Grimmson,

No, we are in agreement. I was just clarifying my position, so that people did not think that I just write off anything that is old.

One of the hardest things I have found about threads on an internet forum and weblogs is that it is so easy for people to misunderstand the tone, motivation, and attitude with which you are saying things. I guess it is just part of the medium.

Also, I appricate your point that we should not reject something just because it is old. We should be able to interact with both old material and new material.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

> First of all, I *never* just said that these arguments are reductionistic. I *proved* it by showing that the methodology you are using does not capture how language works. Also, I never said that you could not differentiate. I pointed out, though, that sense and reference are used when we understand the meaning of terms like "blessing" [no matter how diverse the reference is], and that we should understand blessings in the context of the "sense" of a blessing. One of the aspects of the sense of the term "blessing" we are discussing is moderation. You would like to make an exception for children. I only think it is logical to ask you to prove that this is an exception from scripture.



Adam, I'm afraid we are speaking past each other. I find this thread incredibly disheartening, but will come back tomorrow if my time permits and persevere because it is just that important.

Also, not making any judgment calls here, but I am curious as to how many of those who are _for_ contraception are parents. Just curious.

Interesting, from one of the PB's own:

http://newcreationperson.wordpress.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about/what-does-the-bible-say-about-birth-control/

And another (non-PB, but interesting):

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/birth_control.shtml


----------



## satz

Thanks for your reply, Kevin. For brevity’s sake, I will try to limit the discussion to the core issue(s).



kvanlaan said:


> Actually, I am not starting from the position that all contraception is wrong. I am starting from the assumption that the Lord calls children a blessing. I am starting from the assumption that God in no way ordains a means of regulating childbearing. I am starting from the position that children are repeatedly shown as a legacy and a heritage (AND such that one who has many children has a HUGE responsibilities - they are not Tiddlywinks, they are vessels to be filled with the Lord's teaching. If someone sees them as mere collectibles, they are in grave error.)



Again, the fact that the Lord calls children a blessing does not automatically mean it is wrong to not desire children, or more children, at certain times in your life. In your post you jumped from the truth of children being a blessing to it being wrong for Christians even to ask what was God’s opinion on the use of contraception for a time. There is no obvious link between the two, and that was why I said you appeared to have started with your conclusion. 



> We DO see parts in Scripture that discuss both sides of marriage. We DO NOT see this with children …. Thus I cannot see the connection between the similarity of regulating marriage and childbearing (as someone mentioned above) as anything other than an artificial one.



We don’t need specific verses because the principle is that just because something is a blessing, it does not mean it is wrong to limit that thing in your life, or forgo it for a season, if that blessing would bring excessive care into your life (1 Cor 7:32). Paul applies the principle to marriage, grieving, rejoicing, business, and our general activities in the world (1 Cor 7:29-31) - so it is a general principle that applies to all things. There is no need for a specific verse mentioning children. 

To try to sumarise…

1. The bible says children, and large families are blessings. We both agree on this.

2. The bible never says it is wrong to limit the number of children you have.

3. The bible gives examples of when it is not just allowable but prudent to limit certain blessing in your life for a time, for example with marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. 

4. There is nothing to differentiate children from marriage. The principle is still the same, namely that there are times when it is appropriate to limit or restrict even things that God calls blessings in our lives. 

Which of the above would you disagree with? And with what scriptural support?




> Also, not making any judgment calls here, but I am curious as to how many of those who are for contraception are parents. Just curious.



I’m not a parent.


----------



## Peairtach

The case of Onan teaches that contraception was known about among the Covenant people, but when we come to Exodus-Deuteronomy there is no injunction against it and no mention of it, which would indicate permission, because it would be a sin which the Covenant people would be tempted into.

The case of Onan teaches us that contraception should be used wisely, but not that it is forbidden in all circumstances. We don't want to take away from God's Word, but neither do we want to add rules that aren't there.

Paradoxically, Onan was using it to avoid his Levirate responsibilities, which marrying of one's dead brother's wife is disapproved of by many (all?) the Reformed today.

Contraception shouldn't be used as a cop out from having a family (Covenant family) if you are married and there are no valid reasons for not having a family.

Various strange sexual sins are dealt with in Scripture more than contraception.

*Quote from Kevin*


> Adam, I'm afraid we are speaking past each other. I find this thread incredibly disheartening, but will come back tomorrow if my time permits and persevere because it is just that important.



I don't think you should be disheartened. Given the Scriptural data, this thread is about as right as it stands. Maybe it is a subject that is more important to you than it is in the pages of God's Word.

I think we agree that Christians couples should question if they are following the world in having 1,2 or 3 kids, but since this is a very personal matter, and people can be infertile, etc, it is difficult and unwise for a third party to judge what is going on.


----------



## kvanlaan

Mark, thank you for your response, let me try to respond fully to these points here.

1. The bible says children, and large families are blessings. We both agree on this.

Yes, agreed. But to bring it to its fullness, we must say that the fact that one has a large family is a direct blessing from the Lord. It is He that opens and closes the womb, it is not my actions that precipitate the birth. Without His hand, there is no conception.

2. The bible never says it is wrong to limit the number of children you have.

True, but contraception in most of its modern manifestations is just that, a modern phenomenon. Until the Lambeth Conference (1930), when the Anglican church began to allow contraception, non-Catholic Christian churches were united in rejecting birth control. Is it possible that they were all wrong, and simply did not understand Scripture for 1900 years? Possible, but not likely. A quote from them (dated 1908):



> 'the Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare.'



This sounds like an amoral argument (they don't quote scripture, though I assume that is what is backing it), so it doesn't carry much weight, but it does show some historical perspective.



3. The bible gives examples of when it is not just allowable but prudent to limit certain blessing in your life for a time, for example with marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. 

But marriage is very clearly presented as a choice and something to be thought over before entering into. Conjugal relations are actually commanded and not to be refrained from, save for prayer or fasting. So yes, I would agree that there are times when it is prudent to limit marriage, but there are specific injunctions against limiting relations with one's wife. While it is silent on specific means of birth control, most manifestations of prophylactics are fairly modern in any case.

4. There is nothing to differentiate children from marriage. The principle is still the same, namely that there are times when it is appropriate to limit or restrict even things that God calls blessings in our lives. 

There is something. An ordinance not to defraud one another in the marriage bed. Advice to think well on it before entering into marriage. Once inside the bounds of marriage, there is a specific injunction to continue relations unless you are devoting yourself to fasting or praying.



> We don’t need specific verses because the principle is that just because something is a blessing, it does not mean it is wrong to limit that thing in your life, or forgo it for a season, if that blessing would bring excessive care into your life (1 Cor 7:32). Paul applies the principle to marriage, grieving, rejoicing, business, and our general activities in the world (1 Cor 7:29-31) - so it is a general principle that applies to all things. There is no need for a specific verse mentioning children.



And yet we see that we are specifically NOT to limit conjugal relations within marriage, so there are arguments against that principle within the very same chapter.


----------



## christianhope

> To try to sumarise… Which of the above would you disagree with? And with what scriptural support?
> 
> 1. The bible says children, and large families are blessings. We both agree on this.



Correct, Psalm 127, 128 and many examples in scripture prove this to be the case.



> 2. The bible never says it is wrong to limit the number of children you have.



The bible also never says it's wrong to cut oneself. Rather, it is a logical deduction from the sixth commandment "Thou shalt not kill" So is the case with children, it's a logical inference from the dominion charter command to be fruitful and multiply, the scriptural blessings concerning children as our heritage, along with God's promise to call out a people for Himself from the seed of His people, and examples in scripture given concerning God's working His sovereignty over the womb, as in the case of Hannah, Sarah, Leah, Rachel, and in the shutting of the wombs of Abimelech. (Gen 20:18)



> 3. The bible gives examples of when it is not just allowable but prudent to limit certain blessing in your life for a time, for example with marriage in 1 Corinthians 7.



I agree, abstinence is a legitimate form of birth control during times of prayer and fasting. Though obviously the intent is not to prevent children, but to seek the aid and wisdom of the Lord. The very fact that Paul afterward commands that couples 'come together again' strongly implies that children are to be expected. The analogia fide demands this, for example, children are a blessing, a heritage, and a reward, therefore relations spoken of in the NT comes with the implication that children will be born from that union. There is good inference in scripture that children are to be expected. Why does the scripture teach that we should baptize our children except that God *expects* His people to have a seed for Him to bless with regeneration? (not infallibly of course, but by His good timing and pleasure, God has promised Himself a people from the seed of His people, saying to Abraham that from "His seed" all the nations of the earth shall be blessed?) Note, this is also applicable to Baptists as well, who although deny infants baptism, yet still believe that God will have a people for Himself primary from the seed (children) of His people. 



> 4. There is nothing to differentiate children from marriage. The principle is still the same, namely that there are times when it is appropriate to limit or restrict even things that God calls blessings in our lives.



Such instances though are very rare instances, like prayer and fasting. For example, God has provided me with food which is a blessing, yet, I would only abstain from it under circumstances of great need. How can this principle teach us that I should therefore prevent my having children on a continual basis? Something that God has commanded and ordained to be one of the very purposes of marriage? Truly, if people don't want to have children, they shouldn't get married, being it subverts one of God's appointed ends for marriage. 

I find it quite convenient that the conclusions of 'scholarship' in this area just so happen to fit the ends of the conclusions of the world in this area, i.e. a desire to have no children or very few, in order for men and women to enjoy their lives apart from such parental responsibilities. (doesn't this seem selfish?) 

Christians are so few in this world, how sad it is to see those who profess a degree of reformed christianity / puritanism, yet who seek to limit the propagation of the doctrines they profess to love by limiting the souls they could thereby inculcate these nearly forgotten teachings to. Truly what is the benefit? There is such a wonderful potential in children, brothers and sisters are they not a blessing?

Finances are a terrible excuse to limit the number of children one may have. You can do a lot with a little by shopping at thrift stores, second hand books, bulk food and a garden. So, I'd say, even if you find the biblical evidence unconvincing, (though I find it quite overwhelming) there is still a large practical benefit for the kingdom of God as a whole in having a large family and raising them up to influence the hearts and minds of the next generation. 

My thoughts, I do not desire to offend, though I state this matter strongly.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Kvanlaan,



> 2. The bible never says it is wrong to limit the number of children you have.
> 
> True, but contraception in most of its modern manifestations is just that, a modern phenomenon. Until the Lambeth Conference (1930), when the Anglican church began to allow contraception, non-Catholic Christian churches were united in rejecting birth control. Is it possible that they were all wrong, and simply did not understand Scripture for 1900 years?



As I said, Mark Driscoll and John Noonan have both refuted this. It is just simply false. Noonan cites examples from the early church as well as the Talmud to show that contraception was used by Jews and Christians long before 1930. While it is true that Catholic and Non-Catholic Christians eventually came to believe that the use of birth control is sinful, even into the age of the Puritans, both Driscoll and Noonan demonstrate that this position developed over time.

Also, I would ask what the point is of asking how many people who are pro contraception have children. I would point out that both Mark Driscoll and John Piper have children, and they have been very critical of your position. In fact, in the video posted earlier in the thread, Mark Driscoll said that he has five children, and he and his wife had one miscarriage. And yet, I agree with what he had to say on this issue [with the exception of his exegesis of Genesis 1:28]. This shows that the scriptures don't suddenly change in their meaning once you have children. The meaning of scripture is constant.

Kauffeld,



> The bible also never says it's wrong to cut oneself. Rather, it is a logical deduction from the sixth commandment "Thou shalt not kill"



Actually, Deuteronomy 14:1 has been traditionally seen as a prohibition of cutting oneself because of its association with paganism.



> So is the case with children, it's a logical inference from the dominion charter command to be fruitful and multiply,



I agree that we can talk about how the law is applied, but we must apply the law as the scriptures apply the law. For example, "Be fruitful and multiply" is not a command to individuals humans; it is a command to the human race. I provided and exegesis of this text earlier in the thread.



> the scriptural blessings concerning children as our heritage,



Again, however, we must understand the *Biblical* conception of a blessing.



> along with God's promise to call out a people for Himself from the seed of His people,



Again, speaking to a group, not individuals.



> and examples in scripture given concerning God's working His sovereignty over the womb, as in the case of Hannah, Sarah, Leah, Rachel, and in the shutting of the wombs of Abimelech. (Gen 20:18)



I like what Mark Driscoll said. Are we really suggesting that God is up in heaven saying, "I wanted to give that couple a baby, but that latex makes me totally impotent to do my will!" Also, how many children have been born even while the parents used birth control? If God wants to give someone a baby, he can do it, and no birth control will stop him.

God uses means to accomplish his ends. He can ordain that someone use birth control in order to shut the womb, just has he ordains that someone preach the gospel so that the elect are saved.



> I agree, abstinence is a legitimate form of birth control during times of prayer and fasting. Though obviously the intent is not to prevent children, but to seek the aid and wisdom of the Lord.



I don't think he was talking about relations in marriage. I think he was referring to the fact that marriage is a blessing, and yet, Paul specifically says that it is good, in view of the present distress, that people not marry.



> The analogia fide demands this, for example, children are a blessing, a heritage, and a reward, therefore relations spoken of in the NT comes with the implication that children will be born from that union. There is good inference in scripture that children are to be expected. Why does the scripture teach that we should baptize our children except that God *expects* His people to have a seed for Him to bless with regeneration? (not infallibly of course, but by His good timing and pleasure, God has promised Himself a people from the seed of His people, saying to Abraham that from "His seed" all the nations of the earth shall be blessed?) Note, this is also applicable to Baptists as well, who although deny infants baptism, yet still believe that God will have a people for Himself primary from the seed (children) of His people.



Again, the command is given to a group [the covenant community] and not to everyone in the group. I would put it this way. Just as every church must have elders and deacons, every church must also have people who are about the task of having and raising covenant children. The command to the church to have elders does not mean that everyone in the church is commanded to be an elder. Likewise, the command to the church to produce children does not mean that everyone in the church is commanded to produce children.



> Such instances though are very rare instances, like prayer and fasting. For example, God has provided me with food which is a blessing, yet, I would only abstain from it under circumstances of great need. How can this principle teach us that I should therefore prevent my having children on a continual basis? Something that God has commanded and ordained to be one of the very purposes of marriage? Truly, if people don't want to have children, they shouldn't get married, being it subverts one of God's appointed ends for marriage.



Actually, there are many reasons you might abstain from food. Let us say you have just ate a large thanksgiving dinner, and you are stuffed to the brim. Now, the left over spagetti in the fridge is a blessing. However, would you say that you *must* eat the spagetti in that instance because it is a blessing? In fact, this gets to the principle I have quoted over and over again from the book of Proverbs:



> Proverbs 25:16 Have you found honey? Eat only what you need, That you not have it in excess and vomit it.



What we are arguing is that, in all of these principles that have been raised, the issue is moderation, and that the Biblical conception of a blessing includes moderation.



> I find it quite convenient that the conclusions of 'scholarship' in this area just so happen to fit the ends of the conclusions of the world in this area, i.e. a desire to have no children or very few, in order for men and women to enjoy their lives apart from such parental responsibilities. (doesn't this seem selfish?)



This is a non-sequitor. How about, "I desire to have no children or few because I believe God is calling me to serve him in some way other than having children." Again, I would recommend that everyone agreeing with this listen to Mark Driscoll's sermon on this topic. He points out that there can be things that are morally neutral, and be used for good or evil. The example he uses is high definition video equipment. Pastors like John Piper, John MacArthur, etc. can use it to bring the gospel, while the p0rnography industry can use it for p0rnography. It is the same thing with contraception. You can use contraception for selfish reasons, or in service to God.



> Christians are so few in this world, how sad it is to see those who profess a degree of reformed christianity / puritanism, yet who seek to limit the propagation of the doctrines they profess to love by limiting the souls they could thereby inculcate these nearly forgotten teachings to. Truly what is the benefit? There is such a wonderful potential in children, brothers and sisters are they not a blessing?



Who said we have to limit it? Are you saying that I cannot help with the raising and training of children in my own covenant community? Are you saying that I cannot teach them to other people around me who are not children? I would tell the whole world about God's truth if I could. That is hardly a limitation!!!!!! 

The benifit of all of this is to serve Christ in the way he has called us, and not to bind to the contience of God's people things that are not found in his word. As the scriptures teach, God calls people to serve him in different ways. People who serve God by having and raising covenant children need to be working together with those who serve him in other ways, not trying to bind their calling to the contience of others. We are a body, and we need to work together.



> Finances are a terrible excuse to limit the number of children one may have. You can do a lot with a little by shopping at thrift stores, second hand books, bulk food and a garden.



I don't agree. Eventually there is a limit, even if you shop at the places you mention. Again, the issue is moderation. You can vomit things up financially, friendship-wise, as well as digestively [Proverbs 25:16-17].



> So, I'd say, even if you find the biblical evidence unconvincing, (though I find it quite overwhelming) there is still a large practical benefit for the kingdom of God as a whole in having a large family and raising them up to influence the hearts and minds of the next generation.



I can agree with this statement. You are correct that having a large family is a very good, and very rewarding way to serve God. I would even go so far as to say that people serving God in this way are greatly needed today, but not as something required.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

> Also, I would ask what the point is of asking how many people who are pro contraception have children.



I said I was curious, and not making any judgment calls. Is that a problem? 

Adam, you keep returning to the honey. It is an incongruent argument. As I said, I can take the honey in violation of God's law and eat until I vomit (not unlike the stockpiling of manna as previously mentioned). But as I likewise said, I cannot sinfully "overindulge" in children. It is not a simple semen/egg confluence that sparks life, it is God (or at least that is what I believe, perhaps you don't agree). Please tell me, do you or do you not believe that God opens and closes the womb even today, in each woman, around the world, every day? Let's just clarify things a minute. If you do not, then we will continue to spin endlessly down this pathway of bizarre hermeneutics.


----------



## christianhope

Psa 29:9 The voice of the LORD maketh the hinds to calve... 

Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God...



> Who said we have to limit it? Are you saying that I cannot help with the raising and training of children in my own covenant community? Are you saying that I cannot teach them to other people around me who are not children?



Adam, obviously no, I have no intentions on saying anyone cannot teach another person's children. But we have to realistic here, no one will deny that "the father" is commanded to raise and teach his children, not friends in the covenant community. If you have children, or ever do, you will be of a greater influence in their life than any other male teacher. 100x over. The father has such a fantastic opportunity to train and influence, it's an amazing responsibility and privilage. 



> I can agree with this statement. You are correct that having a large family is a very good, and very rewarding way to serve God. I would even go so far as to say that people serving God in this way are greatly needed today, but not as something required.



Glad we can agree on this last point. It's encouraging to hear. It's not my intent to offend. 


Lastly, I'd agree with Kevin, ultimately we believe that God is sovereign over the womb and therefore we should not feel the need to seek to limit the order that He has placed among us. If I say contraceptives are lawful, am I not implying God is not sovereign over this? (reference verses above) For myself, I find this implication unavoidable.


----------



## Grimmson

I am not a parent either, and I like taking care of children. I do see them as a blessing from God. My main problem with the debate here is that the strict anti-contraception argument does not deal with the required wisdom of child provision. We are talking about human beings here that need to be cared for. Control of conception is not to necessarily take God out of the picture, but can be an exercise of wisdom to not go beyond one’s means. We live in a world of limited resources and time. It is not a lack of faith to limit one family on the precious care of raising a child; which you have to feed, change their diapers, and educate. It is keeping in mind the means that God has ordained for men to take care of his family. We as men have to work and in some cases so do the wives so that the rent, utilities, car bills, student loans, and other bills are paid. If you already have four children and such bills which are common today, will the church help you financially with the fifth child? They are a blessing, but realistically no. So what if the man forced to work 2 and a half jobs and still needs money. What kind of image of the church do we show when their on welfare. This is more then just a hypothetical situation; there are people in our churches that are having enough of a struggle caring for the needs of their children and need help. I saw it High School and as Middle/High School teacher in low income areas, where the family population was bigger the what the man could provide for. It is a realistic and practical problem and I like to see you use the sovereignty argument over the advice of wisdom. “You might as well do whatever you want because its all in the sovereignty of God.” And of course you wouldn’t say that, Sovereignty never gives you a license to act against wisdom. 

Also we should be careful with the be fruitful and multiply argument, whereby we try to drive or force single people to marriage. And binding on their conscience to reproduce. The be fruitful and multiply is not directed towards every individual, because it is not a sin for people to not get married. In the case of married couples, God does not always bless people with children. Are we to say that couples are under sin if they are not multiplying by the grace of God, if they are not blessed with children. We need to be careful with this argument, because of its sore affect to even those that are trying to have a family, but have not yet. I think Adam view of this argument is correct. And if people in the church are so concerned about being fruitful and multiple they need to learn how to proclaim the gospel, which I would say is more important then the focus of future children that will be born in Adam and thus have that original sin. And if the church is truly that concerned about the next generation then they need to start teaching these current generations. And do not tell me we are as a whole when the majority of upcoming pastors entering into seminary cannot pass a basic bible exam. A large portion of our children cannot even quote the Lord’s prayer or the Decalogue. 

If we bind something to a family’s conscience then we should be obligated to assist in any manner to that family, whereby care of that family does not fall into sin; for if such happens then we as the church have sinned; including the pastor that should be undershepherding the folk of God. 

We may be in one of the most prosperous nations in the world, but that does not mean that everyone in this nation is prosperous. You will find it common to see low-income families with large families, many of them on welfare. Now granting in many cases there are various sins at play at times. It is not wise for such families to continue to grow if the wellbeing of their current children is not being taken care of. In fact, if they are not then they are taken away by CPS and the parents can be thrown in jail; which is not a good testimony of Christ by the fact the child not cared for or by going to jail. So in these type cases contraception could be wisely used. Here is a case where our theology matters in the lives of individual people, where the rubber hits the road.

In the case where a couple can care for a family of three or four children, that is financially stable and the couple is mature then there may be sin at work for not having a family. But I will not place such a judgment on them because in my option scripture is not clear on banning contraception. 



Hebrew Student said:


> Who said we have to limit it? Are you saying that I cannot help with the raising and training of children in my own covenant community? Are you saying that I cannot teach them to other people around me who are not children? I would tell the whole world about God's truth if I could. That is hardly a limitation!!!!!!



I would say that we as a church should help with the raising and training. I know in some infant baptisms I have seen that the church gives in oath of promise to assist the parents in the training of the child. Now realistically that oath is not carried through in my opinion as evident with children’s’ lack of knowledge. 



kvanlaan said:


> As I said, I can take the honey in violation of God's law and eat until I vomit (not unlike the stockpiling of manna as previously mentioned). But as I likewise said, I cannot sinfully "overindulge" in children.



You can overindulge with having children if you cannot provide for them. And if you are willfully have more children then you can provide for that should be a case for church discipline. 



Kauffeld said:


> The father has such a fantastic opportunity to train and influence, it's an amazing responsibility and privilage.



You cannot teach or train children if they have been taken away from you because you cannot provide for their physical needs. 

Because of the limits of the world, wisdom must be exercised. And I think Adam honey argument is spot on.


----------



## kvanlaan

> You can overindulge with having children if you cannot provide for them. And if you are willfully have more children then you can provide for that should be a case for church discipline.



OK, then you do not believe that God opens and closes the womb. That's fine. I just want to know where everyone stands. If you do not believe in that way, we will continue to talk past each other and that is not at all profitable, but I do urge you to change your stance.

Also, if I were you I would moderate the tone of giving brothers over to church discipline because they are following scripture. If they are otherwise irresponsible, and thus unable to provide for their young, that's one thing (and in reality has little to do with the number of children and everything to do with simple irresponsible behaviour.) But if they are good stewards of what financial resources they have, then they deserve no censure, but aid from their brethren.



> Also we should be careful with the be fruitful and multiply argument, whereby we try to drive or force single people to marriage. And binding on their conscience to reproduce. The be fruitful and multiply is not directed towards every individual, because it is not a sin for people to not get married.



Agreed, and Scripture makes that very clear - there are no arguments to the contrary with respect to marriage.



> In the case of married couples, God does not always bless people with children. Are we to say that couples are under sin if they are not multiplying by the grace of God, if they are not blessed with children.



NO! That is ridiculous. This is not an argument, it is mere rabble rousing. Please discontinue this line of discussion, it is a hurtful thing.



> And if people in the church are so concerned about being fruitful and multiple they need to learn how to proclaim the gospel, which I would say is more important then the focus of future children that will be born in Adam and thus have that original sin. And if the church is truly that concerned about the next generation then they need to start teaching these current generations. And do not tell me we are as a whole when the majority of upcoming pastors entering into seminary cannot pass a basic bible exam. A large portion of our children cannot even quote the Lord’s prayer or the Decalogue.



And we are. The father of a large family knows better than most what a weighty matter is before him. As for poorly trained children, if you can show me that the majority of those pastors who cannot pass a bible exam came from large families and the majority of those children who are ignorant of the Ten Commandments came from large families, then continue in your argument. Otherwise, it is just so much noise and bluster.


----------



## Grimmson

kvanlaan said:


> OK, then you do not believe that God opens and closes the womb.



That is silly, because I do. You can see that in my first posting on this issue. 



kvanlaan said:


> If you do not believe in that way, we will continue to talk past each other and that is not at all profitable, but I do urge you to change your stance.



I do not think we are talking past each other. There a clear disagreement present. I recognize that God is sovereign over the womb and at the same time see the biological mechanical process of conceiving a child. God is sovereign over everything, but he has means to his ends. We must recognize those means and need be practice wisdom. We are not hypercalvinists here. Would we not practice wisdom when giving the gospel to a broken man compared to prideful man? I hope you would. 

I will not change my stance because it is not clear in scripture and I have seen the affects children being raised and taken away from parents because they could not be provided for by the parents.



kvanlaan said:


> Also, if I were you I would moderate the tone of giving brothers over to church discipline because they are following scripture. If they are otherwise irresponsible, and thus unable to provide for their young, that's one thing (and in reality has little to do with the number of children and everything to do with simple irresponsible behavior.) But if they are good stewards of what financial resources they have, then they deserve no censure, but aid from their brethren.




I would say the begetting of children you cannot provide for is irresponsible. You are not using the resources God has entrusted to you wisely. It is not being a good steward to raise up a family you cannot provide for. And in regards to church help, they should be given for the sake of the children. The problem is most of our churches are limited in resources as well. There should be a real concern if a parent purposely begotten a series of children that they could not provide for. Wisdom dictates something should be done. 



kvanlaan said:


> The father of a large family knows better than most what a weighty matter is before him. As for poorly trained children, if you can show me that the majority of those pastors who cannot pass a bible exam came from large families and the majority of those children who are ignorant of the Ten Commandments came from large families, then continue in your argument. Otherwise, it is just so much noise and bluster.



It is fantastic that you actually teach your children, but not all fathers do; regardless if it is a small family or a large family. 

My point about incoming seminary students was not an issue regarding those coming from large families, but the reality that as a whole of children growing up in the church, they are not passing basic bible exams. I am not distinguishing from large or small families. The fact our children are not being taught should be a real concern regardless of the size of the family and the reality is that it is not being done as a whole. So please do not see it as noise and bluster. And this line of thought going against the main line and point of the tread so let us try to stay on subject then responding to my rants. I confess am big on Christian education and discipleship and what I see as a lack there of is a pet peeve of mine. The reason why I said what I said is our concern for the future generation and that it is that spiritual knowledge that is our legacy ultimately and how the kingdom of God multiplies in faith. Those who are born of flesh are flesh.

I wonder if Earl knew it was going to be that controversial of a thread.


----------



## christianhope

> I would say the begetting of children you cannot provide for is irresponsible. You are not using the resources God has entrusted to you wisely.



First I would ask if the christian who is in such financial straits is managing his budget well before this excuse should even be considered. For example, does this christian have extravagant cell phone bills, cable TV, the newest car(s), expensive hobbies/habits, the latest brand name clothes and/or a larger house than what they need. If none of the above, then that sure is a excellent example of what you're trying to prove, but in my whole life I've never heard of such a thing, nor do I believe it even exists. If such a case did exist, I believe that would constitute a great cause to destroy the faith of other believers who trust in such a generous, merciful and good God as the LORD who would never let one of His own go hungry, nor cause them to be forced to give up their children to the state! Take David's experience for example:

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




> You cannot teach or train children if they have been taken away from you because you cannot provide for their physical needs.



Please provide me with an example of a biblical, faithful man who was failed by the Lord. 



> Wisdom dictates something should be done.



Yes, I agree, prayer, fasting, selling of unneeded things, possibly relocating or rearranging family circumstances and the budget can go a long way. Perhaps I should shop at thrift stores, stop buying junk food and eating out. Family responsibility should come before other pleasures, luxuries, and comforts of life. I must agree with Kevin, the fault lies on parental irresponsibility, not on God's ordained provision for a person. 



> I do not think we are talking past each other. There a clear disagreement present. I recognize that God is sovereign over the womb and at the same time see the biological mechanical process of conceiving a child. God is sovereign over everything, but he has means to his ends.



Yes, God is sovereign but that does not give us the right to use means He has not appointed such as contraception. In my mind and the majority of christians throughout history this view of contraception has been inconsistent with biblical teaching. I find it strange how people argue the popular opinion (Driscoll, Piper, Macarthur) today as if finally we've come to a level of understanding above that or our ancestors. Well, I agree with Calvin, Luther, and the Puritans. ;-)

Also, consider, can not God bless me with a better job as well? Truly, is prayer and fasting just out of the picture in regard to something as weighty as a child? The Lord tests our faith in many ways, children are a wonderful means towards this end. 

Psa 34:10
(10) The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the LORD shall not want any good thing.


----------



## Peairtach

I would say that it should be left to godly wisdom. Scripture does not go as far as to say it is always wrong, maybe because it isn't always wrong. Even you, yourself have indicated that, in cases of "mercy" you would approve of its use.

If you hold that contraception is allowed in cases of mercy, then you believe that contraception is not wrong in itself, and therefore is something that can be used with discretion. We may agree that at present it often isn't being used with discretion, and therefore there are more mico-families.

We are arguing about the principle of its use at all. I would say that it is adding a legalistic fence to say that Scripture teaches that in principle it is always sinful to use contraception.

The Reformers didn't get everything right, coming from the background they did. See e.g. Dabney on Calvin's view of the Sabbath.


----------



## kvanlaan

Josh, I've hit thanks 47 times but it only gives you one. Sorry.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Kvanlaan,



> Adam, you keep returning to the honey. It is an incongruent argument. As I said, I can take the honey in violation of God's law and eat until I vomit (not unlike the stockpiling of manna as previously mentioned). But as I likewise said, I cannot sinfully "overindulge" in children.



As Grimmson has already pointed out, you certainly can "overindulge" in children by having so many that you cannot afford them, or if it affects your wife's health, or prevents you from doing a particular ministry that God has called you to, or in instances of recovery from rape, etc.

Also, if you think it only refers to honey, then why is the next verse parallel?:

Proverbs 25:16: dәbaš māșāʼtā ʼᵉkōl dayyekā *pen-tiśbāʻennû* wahᵃqe’tô

Proverbs 25:17 hōqar raglәkā mibbȇt rēʻekā *pen-yiśbāʻekā* ûśәnē’ekā

Why do you have this _pen-śabaʻ_ construction in both sentences? Also, why is the -_ekā_ ending on _dayyekā_ then repeated in almost every word in verse 17 [_raglәkā_, _pen-yiśbāʻekā_, _ûśәnē’ekā_]? The point is that there are real structural and phonological connections between verse 16 and verse 17. However, verse 17 reads:

Proverbs 25:17 Let your foot rarely be in your neighbor's house, Or he will become weary of you and hate you.

Notice how the principle of the honey is now taken and applied to friendship. As I mentioned, it gets worse as we continue to the end of the chapter where this shows up again:

Proverbs 25:27 It is not good to eat much honey, Nor is it glory to search out one's own glory.

Proverbs 25:28 Like a city that is broken into and without walls Is a man who has no control over his spirit.

HALOT, the standard Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon for the Hebrew Bible gives the gloss "impediment, "limitation" under which is the word "control." It is self-control in the sense of being able to set limits for yourself, and not just take as much as will come. Hence, far from having arrows like a warrior when you have no limits on children, you are like a city broken in without walls! You have to keep things in balance.




> It is not a simple semen/egg confluence that sparks life, it is God (or at least that is what I believe, perhaps you don't agree). Please tell me, do you or do you not believe that God opens and closes the womb even today, in each woman, around the world, every day? Let's just clarify things a minute. If you do not, then we will continue to spin endlessly down this pathway of bizarre hermeneutics.



I would say that God's granting of blessings [in the case of children, the opening and closing of the womb] _is the case for everything we have_. Look at the very passage you like to use to prove that children are a blessing:



> Psalm 127:1-2
> 
> _*Unless the LORD builds the house*_, They labor in vain who build it;
> 
> _*Unless the LORD guards the city*_, The watchman keeps awake in vain.
> 
> 2 _*It is vain for you*_ to rise up early, To retire late, To eat the bread of painful labors; _*For He gives*_ to His beloved even in his _*sleep*_.
> 
> 3 Behold, children are a _*gift of the LORD*_, The fruit of the womb is a reward.



Notice how the same granting that is found in the following verse "children are an inheritance _from_ the Lord" is also found in the verses that immediately precede it. Yet this says that any blessing that we have, the building of a house, the guarding of a city, and even the very sleep we get each night is something the Lord must grant _in the same sense as God opening and closing the womb_.

In other words, the womb is not unique in this regard. In fact, it is something that is common to all blessings. It would be irrational to say that, since the Lord gives and witholds sleep, I therefore cannot prevent sleep in order to get my homework done, because it is *God* who grants and witholds sleep, and if I prevented sleep to get my homework done, I would be taking over something over which God is sovereign. If you try to make a distinction here, you are caught with the fact that the granting of sleep and the granting of children in the womb are spoken of _in exactly the same context_ in Psalm 127. If Psalm 127 uses them in the same way, it is arbitrary to break them up.

Of course, it is not just children and sleep, there is a whole list there: the building of a house, the guarding of a city, as well as the granting of sleep. God must grant the opening of the womb, all the things mentioned here, and, by implication from the Psalm itself, any blessing we receive [including honey and friendship]. So, yes, God opens and closes the womb, _and grants every single blessing that we have in exactly the same sense_.

The key here is the use of means. God grants sleep, opens and closes the womb, etc. by using means. In the case of sleep, it is the act of laying down in bed, and relaxing. In the case of the womb, it could be any number of things [as there are also natural factors to fertility], but I would say that God uses contraception as a means to close the womb in the same way that he used the preaching of the gospel to bring me to salvation. 

The reason why God opens and closes the womb even when we use contraception is that God has a choice. He can either use the contraception to close the womb, or choose to keep the womb open. You can use contraception, and still have many children because God has ordained that the contraception does not work on you. That, however, remains God's decision. We can only do our best to be obedient to his commands to moderation, and trust him that he knows what he is doing when he gives us what he gives us. 

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## earl40

I have a simple question that may have a simple answer.

If one believes God opens and closes the womb why practice birth control?


----------



## Hebrew Student

earl40,



> I have a simple question that may have a simple answer.
> 
> If one believes God opens and closes the womb why practice birth control?



I addressed this in my last post. The simple answer is because one can also believe, as the Bible teaches, that God uses means to accomplish his goals. Thus, God uses contraception as a means to close the womb.

We are not fatalists here. We don't believe that God ordains ends [the womb being closed or open] without also ordaining the means.

God Bless,
Adam

Addendum:

I just there is another thing that runs against this "God opens and closes the womb" argument. We have found that there are natural causes to a woman being infertile. It is a documented medical fact that certain natural things in the world around us can cause infertility. According to this logic, that must refute the idea that God opens and closes the womb, since it is not God but things in nature that cause infertility! 

The easy way out of this problem is to say that God uses means to open and close the womb. Thus, both can be true. However, if you do that, you have to acknowledge that contraception can also be a means that God can use to open and close the womb.


----------



## Peairtach

earl40 said:


> I have a simple question that may have a simple answer.
> 
> If one believes God opens and closes the womb why practice birth control?



You're mixing up God's sovereignty i.e. his decretive will with His preceptive will.

God sovereignly providing children is part of His decretive will, which cannot be thwarted by contraception or anything else that happens. All that happens including whether you or I have children or not, is in God's sovereign will.

The questions of whether or not to have relations with someone, or who with, or getting married or not, or whether contraception is ever permissable, which all can lead to God sovereignly providing babies or not, are all questions of biblical ethics, God's preceptive will.

If God sovereignly wants you to have a particular child you cannot thwart His will. You will be anti-contraception, you will not use it, or it will fail. You will marry a particular woman at a particular time and have that sovereignly ordained child. If God doesn't want a particular child to be born He can stop that too.

Because God sovereignly ordains good and evil, doesn't teach us that we should do evil. Because God sovereignly opens and closes the womb, doesn't teach us whether we should get married or not, when we should get married, who we should get married to, and how often a couple should have relations.

God's decretive will doesn't tell us how He wants us to behave, but His preceptive will i.e. His commands and teachings in Scripture.


----------



## earl40

Hebrew Student said:


> earl40,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a simple question that may have a simple answer.
> 
> If one believes God opens and closes the womb why practice birth control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed this in my last post. The simple answer is because one can also believe, as the Bible teaches, that God uses means to accomplish his goals. Thus, God uses contraception as a means to close the womb.
> 
> We are not fatalists here. We don't believe that God ordains ends [the womb being closed or open] without also ordaining the means.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam
> 
> Addendum:
> 
> I just there is another thing that runs against this "God opens and closes the womb" argument. We have found that there are natural causes to a woman being infertile. It is a documented medical fact that certain natural things in the world around us can cause infertility. According to this logic, that must refute the idea that God opens and closes the womb, since it is not God but things in nature that cause infertility!
> 
> The easy way out of this problem is to say that God uses means to open and close the womb. Thus, both can be true. However, if you do that, you have to acknowledge that contraception can also be a means that God can use to open and close the womb.
Click to expand...


Thanx. Now I agree God uses means to accomplish His will. But I do assume you do understand God also uses secondary sinful causes to cause things that do or don't come to pass. Which of course you do, so I will let 1 Peter 4:8 rule here.

---------- Post added at 07:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> God's decretive will doesn't tell us how He wants us to behave, but His preceptive will i.e. His commands and teachings in Scripture.



I assume we differ on what "Be fruitful and multiply" means to us today means. Also I have been reading on what Calvin has said concerning the Onan passage along with Augustine and Luther and you are not in the same company on that issue or in their opinion of birth control.


----------



## Hebrew Student

earl40,



> Thanx. Now I agree God uses means to accomplish His will. But I do assume you do understand God also uses secondary sinful causes to cause things that do or don't come to pass. Which of course you do, so I will let 1 Peter 4:8 rule here.



Yes, I agree that God can use sinful means to accomplish his purposes. That is why I think we need to go back to scripture to discuss whether or not it is sinful to use contraception.

Also, I think that both sides would do well to understand 1 Peter 4:8. The other side believes we are wrong by saying we can use contraception, and we believe the other side is wrong because we believe they are adding commands to scripture. Whoever is right, we should remember that we are all part of the body of Christ, and we are to love each other, no matter which side of this issue we come down on.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## earl40

Hebrew Student said:


> earl40,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanx. Now I agree God uses means to accomplish His will. But I do assume you do understand God also uses secondary sinful causes to cause things that do or don't come to pass. Which of course you do, so I will let 1 Peter 4:8 rule here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree that God can use sinful means to accomplish his purposes. That is why I think we need to go back to scripture to discuss whether or not it is sinful to use contraception.
> 
> Also, I think that both sides would do well to understand 1 Peter 4:8. The other side believes we are wrong by saying we can use contraception, and we believe the other side is wrong because we believe they are adding commands to scripture. Whoever is right, we should remember that we are all part of the body of Christ, and we are to love each other, no matter which side of this issue we come down on.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam
Click to expand...

 
Good points because we are discussing if this is an area of conscience or definite sin. Peter describes if it is sin to be fore bearing and Romans speaks of matters of conscience. We all would do well to maybe side on the side of the early church fathers and reformers on what they understood from scripture, knowing that they had a much less "chance" of being persuaded by our materialistic culture of today. What I find interesting is that people who generally have large families think "why would you want to limit" and people who generally have small ones think "are you crazy to have so many kids". The caveate is that the ones who have large families are more blessed than the smaller ones though exceptions can be seen now and then.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Earl40,



> We all would do well to maybe side on the side of the early church fathers and reformers on what they understood from scripture, knowing that they had a much less "chance" of being persuaded by our materialistic culture of today.



I would say that this is a double edged sword. The reformers were coming out of their culture as well. In fact, a book that I have cited [and I am going to need to get my own copy so I don't have to keep borrowing it from the library] is John Noonan's work on contraception. He says that the late middle ages/early reformational teaching on contraception was largely driven by Stocicism. This is the tradition that the reformers inherited.

That is why I would say that it is much better to study the culture of the time period out of which the Bible came, and also study linguistics to understand how language works. You then compare what the scripture says against is own background and culture, and let it build its own worldview. Yes, we can look at the writings of the reformers to get ideas, but I think that, since the standard is scripture, we should be seeking what it says first.



> What I find interesting is that people who generally have large families think "why would you want to limit" and people who generally have small ones think "are you crazy to have so many kids". The caveate is that the ones who have large families are more blessed than the smaller ones though exceptions can be seen now and then.



There are some things in this I can agree with and some with which I would differ. It is certainly true that people do not understand that having a large family is a good and legitimate way of serving God, and does bring about great rewards. Yes, people are surprised to learn that [unfortunately]. 

However, I think that there is a balance. We have to follow God's calling, and whether that is to a small family, a large family, or service without children, we must be seeking to serve God in all things. We should not be doing things for selfish reasons, but to serve God in all that we do. Then, we will have the blessing of God and just as great a reward because we are being obedient to his calling.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## christianhope

> Richard:
> I would say that it should be left to godly wisdom. Scripture does not go as far as to say it is always wrong, maybe because it isn't always wrong. Even you, yourself have indicated that, in cases of "mercy" you would approve of its use.



Abstinence would be the best form of contraception (mercy) in the case of the wife being sick, or somehow unable to perform conjugal duties. Breastfeeding a child also inhibits pregnancy, and can be performed for a few years if desired for the benefit of the new child. (mercy) (both methods are not contraception in the normal sense, and I don't think it's right to have the attitude of "I don't want a child")

All other forms of contraception are sinful and should not be used. Even in such cases as an extended illness, or the wife having cancer. If pregnancy is truly so undesirable in such a case, then it would be better to abstain completely anyway for safety's sake. (Birth control isn't 100% effective)



> Adam:
> even the very sleep we get each night is something the Lord must grant in the same sense as God opening and closing the womb.
> 
> In other words, the womb is not unique in this regard. In fact, it is something that is common to all blessings.



Suppose I came into your house and took your newborn child, the child weighs seven pounds, so, in the child's place I leave seven pounds of honey. Both are blessings, so, therefore I have not robbed you, rather I have only traded you one legitimate blessing for another legitimate blessing. Now, of course this case is ridiculous, any good parent would never trade their child for an equal weight of honey. Yet that is the logical fallacy in your argument. Children are priceless, and God has made known that He desires a physical godly seed among His people:

Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one?* That he might seek a godly seed.* Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 

The idea that we can view children as a blessing like honey, or food, or sleep, and therefore have the liberty to dispense with them as we wish through contraception, under the guise of 'stewardship' is a complete and total fallacy in logic and discernment of what the bible teaches. I am a steward over my money, and health, but I do not have the power to give or take life, that comes only from God. For me to take that liberty upon myself is presumption against God in the highest degree. It's as if I am seeking to play God's part in the role of function He has created for the woman. Truly, it is a wicked thing to do so. 

Consider what we would do if our Lord Jesus Christ thought the same as those who felt contraception was legitimate. Instead of "Behold I and the children which God hath given me" we would have, "Behold I and some of the children which God hath given me, because I removed the rest because I didn't want them."


----------



## Hebrew Student

Kauffeld,



> Second, I'd like to give an example concerning the comparison to children as blessings and honey as a blessing. Suppose I came into your house and took your newborn child, the child weighs seven pounds, so, in the child's place I leave seven pounds of honey. Both are blessings, so, therefore I have not robbed you, rather I have only traded you one legitimate blessing for another of equal value.



Kauffeld, this is not a good example at all. Even if someone took my house, and left seven pounds of honey, I am going to be upset. The commandment "Thou shall not steal" or the commandments against kidnapping are not negated when someone leaves something else that is a blessing in its place. The issue in that case would be private property [in my illustration] and kidnapping, and _not_ the idea of something as a blessing. Private property and kidnapping are not negated when other blessings are presented in their place.



> Now, of course this case is ridiculous, any good parent would never trade their child for an equal weight of honey. Yet that is the logical fallacy in your argument.



No, it is ignoring what the Bible teaches about about the commandment to raise your children in the training and admonition of the Lord [not give them away for something else]. You act as though, once you establish that God grants to us all blessings, that, somehow, that then negates all of the rest of God's commands such as the commands against kidnapping and raising the child that God has given you. It doesn't. My point was that one cannot say that the necessity of God granting is a unique property of the blessing of children. As Psalm 127 says, it is the property of all blessings.

Also, you neglected that I was exegeting Psalm 127. It is Psalm 127 that says that God must grant any blessing we have including sleep and honey _in the same context as the granting of children_ [the opening and closing of the womb]. Thus, if you say you cannot prevent the conception of children because God must grant them, then the argument proves too much, in that it proves that you cannot stop the aquisition of any blessing, since God must grant all blessings. 



> Children are priceless, and God has made known that He desires a physical godly seed among His people:
> 
> Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.



Children are priceless, but that has nothing to do with moderation. Friendship is also priceless [Proverbs 25:17], and yet, we are called to moderation in our friendships as well.

Also, I have often said that Malachi 2:15 should not be used to prove anything other than that there is a Malachi 2:15. The text is notoriously obscure. Since we are talking about the reformers so much, John Calvin summarizes my position on this well:



> There is in this verse some obscurity, and hence it has been that no interpreter has come to the meaning of the Prophet. [CCEL edition]



In fact, Calvin's conclusions are quite different from your own:



> He then draws this conclusion, Therefore, watch ye over your spirit; that is, “Take heed lest any should deceive the wife of his covenant.” After having shown how perversely they violated the marriage vow who *rushed into polygamy*, he here counsels and exhorts them; and this is the best mode of teaching, to show first what is right and lawful, and then to add exhortations. The Prophet then endeavored first to convince the Jews that they were guilty of a nefarious crime: for otherwise his exhortation would not have been received, as they would have always a ready objection, “It is lawful for us to do so, for we follow the example of our father Abraham; and further, this has been permitted for a long time, and God would have never suffered it, were it wrong, to prevail for so many ages among the people: it hence follows, that thou condemnest what is lawful.” It was necessary, in the first place, to remove all these false pretences: then follows the exhortation in its proper order, Watch over your spirit; for he speaks of what has been, as it were, sufficiently proved. [ibid.]



Calvin argues that this passage is a prohibition of polygamy. That is quite different from what you said. The exegetical issues that are found in this text are manifold. While we can come to some conclusions, it is, by far, not certain.

Here is the text:

wәlōʾ-ʾechād ʻāśȃ ûšәʾār rûach lô ûmȃ hāʾechād mәbaqqēš zeraʻ ʾᵉlōhîm wәnišmartem bәrûchᵃkem ûbәʾēšet nәʻûreykā ʾal-yibgōd

The ambiguity begins with the first phrase. The question is whether the lōʾ negates the noun ʾechād or the verb ʻāśȃ. Should the text read "not one" or "...has not done?" Also, is the noun ʾechād the subject or the object. Should it read "not one has done so," "did he [the Lord?] not make one?," or "did the one [God?] not make [them]?" All of these translations are possible.

Second, how does the waw conjunction in the phrase ûšәʾār rûach lô relate to the previous clause? The waw conjunction usally means "and," but it can also mean "or, but, that is, etc." One could take it as a simple conjunction "and there was a remenant of spirit to him [the Lord?, the one?, nobody?]. It could also be taken, as is tradition, as an epexegetical [that is] clause: "that is, who had a remainant of spirit to him." However, what is it further explaining? It depends upon how you take the first clause. Also, what is the šәʾār rûach? How does the theology of the šәʾār [remainant] relate to this text, expecially in the context of a judgment oracle? This is, imparticular, why many Jewish commentators will read Abraham here as the one who is being talked about.

The next phrase, ûmȃ hāʾechād mәbaqqēš zeraʻ ʾᵉlōhîm, only gives is more grief. The first, less likely possibility is that, the hāʾechād [one] is the second half of the question "and why one?" The reason is because mȃ does not typically mean "why?" but "what?" However, if you take one as the subject of the first clause "did he not make one" one could argue contextually that this is correct. Again, you have to deal with the ambiguities of the first clause, though. The other option is to take this clause as having a gapped ʻāśȃ from the previous clause "and what was that one doing while seeking Godly seed." The other option is to see this all as one sentence with the participle mәbaqqēš as the verb "and what was the one [God?] seeking?" However, even this "was" is tenative, since the participle could have any time significance attached to it "what *is* the one God seeking" or "what *was* the one God seeking?"

Then, of course, we have the difficulty of interpreting the phrase zeraʻ ʾᵉlōhîm. While it is true that the term zeraʻ can refer to infants, we are dealing in the context of a judgment oracle [vrs.1-14], the breaking of a covenant [v.14], the idea of a remainant [v.15] and dealing treacherously with your wife through the breaking of the covenant [vrs. 14-15]. This would suggest that the "God seed" would not refer to the having of babies, but, rather, _to the fact that they are called to be the Godly seed, and not to treat their wives treachoriously_. In other words, a paraphrase would be something like, "God seeks a Godly seed, not a seed that deals treacherously with the wife of their youth." This fits the context of the whole passage better, and the context of verse 14 better.

Either way, because of the ambiguities in this text, it should not be used to prove anything. In fact, major English translations are all over the map:

NASB "But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. 

NIV Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.

KJV And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

NKJV But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.

ESV Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.

Again, it always amazed me that people cited this text to prove anything other than that it exists. The reformers, the Jews, and even all modern day interpretations cannot seem to agree with one another. There have been some commentators [and I don't think this is correct] who have argued that the text as we have it is so badly corrupted that we need conjectual emmendation!



> The idea that we can view children as a blessing like honey, or food, or sleep, and therefore have the liberty to dispense with them as we wish through contraception, under the guise of 'stewardship' is a complete and total fallacy in logic and discernment of what the bible teaches.



I would argue that in this statement there are some built in assumptions with which I cannot agree. First of all, contraception does not "dispense" with anything. Before conception, children do not exist! How can you "dispense" with something that doesn't exist? This is why many people have pointed out that, for quiverfull people to continue to use this argument, they will eventually have to believe in the Mormon concept of preexistence of the human soul. If children do not exist, then there is nothing to dispense of.



> I am a steward over my money, and health, but I do not have the power to give or take life, that comes only from God. For me to take that liberty upon myself is presumption against God in the highest degree. It's as if I am seeking to play God's part in the role of function He has created for the woman. Truly, it is a wicked thing to do so.



And, when you use contraception, you are neither giving nor taking life _because life does not yet exist_. Not only that, there is _nothing_ in the text of scripture that says that the role of every woman is to bear children. To add these commands to the word of God is equally as wicked as anything you could have ever imagined us doing in this discussion. God's word is sufficient as it is. It does not need the addition of these extra commands.



> Consider what we would do if our Lord Jesus Christ thought the same as those who felt contraception was legitimate. Instead of "Behold I and the children which God hath given me" we would have, "Behold I and some of the children which God hath given me, because I removed the rest because I didn't want them."



Of course, such reasoning is fallacious because, again, _the children don't exist before conception_. Given this logic, God must have to create an infinite number of children because he cannot say that he doesn't want children. Thus, God will continue to create children for all of eternity. Such is simply irrational.

Again, you are neglecting the force of what we are saying. We are dealing with the word of God here. Anyone who adds commandments to the word of God, as if the word of God were not sufficient in and of itself, is greatly insulting his word. The pharasees would likewise add their traditions to the text of scripture, because they thought that God's word was insufficient. If you want to read Jesus' stern rebuke of them, then read Matthew 15. We cannot go about adding these traditions of men to the text of scripture. When we do, we put our words into God's mouth, and we gag the mouth of God.

Again, I think you will agree, we do have to say all of this in the spirit of 1 Peter 4:8 knowing that, whoever is right, God is a merciful God, and we are to love one another, even when we disagree.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## MamaArcher

I just want to throw something in here.

It is mentioned several times that if you cannot afford children then you should not have that many. In our case we have seen the Lord provide abundantly for us AFTER we stopped trying to control how many children we would have. When we had 3,4,5...we would have fallen into that category of being in dire financial straights and we did do something surgical to end our childbearing. We continued to struggle. When we were convicted to have the reversal surgery people (mostly Christian) thought we were insane. The Lord has provided for us abundantly!! More than we could have ever asked or imagined! I believe it was due to our obedience.

Also, a lot of the financial difficulty isn't always because of the number of children it is often because people were not living financially the way they should be. Example: instant gratification, debt, wants verses needs, etc. I know this one from experience.

As far as unruly children...we do have a responsibility to teach and to train our children. Just because one does not follow through on those responsibilities does not necessarily mean they have too many children it means that they are living in disobedience to teach and to train their children.

Just my 2 cents -- the reasons given in several instances in this discussion are not necessarily from having too many children and using wisdom concerning that but in using wisdom in other areas of life.


----------



## Hebrew Student

MamaArcher,



> It is mentioned several times that if you cannot afford children then you should not have that many. In our case we have seen the Lord provide abundantly for us AFTER we stopped trying to control how many children we would have. When we had 3,4,5...we would have fallen into that category of being in dire financial straights and we did do something surgical to end our childbearing. We continued to struggle. When we were convicted to have the reversal surgery people (mostly Christian) thought we were insane. The Lord has provided for us abundantly!! More than we could have ever asked or imagined! I believe it was due to our obedience.



Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was because of your "obedience." It can be a matter of contience. If you are doing something against your contience, whether the Bible actually teaches it or not, then it is wrong, simply because it shows a heart that is not willing to believe God wherever he leads. However, none of this means that the prohibition is actually taught in scripture.

Also, I have heard many stories of criminals who have had children, and God has provided and protected that child from the criminal until he was caught. In other words, it could be that God, in his grace, was providing in order to protect the children from the errors of the parents.

Also, there are many other people who are abundantly rich, and have a small number of children. Why is it they are experiencing the blessing of God, and you were not? Could they not say that it is because of their obedience in exercising moderation? Also, there are some quiverfull families that are dirt poor. Are they experiencing God's curse, just as you were when you limited the amount of children you had?

This is why personal stories have little weight, because they have to be interpreted. That is why, I would argue, that we need to go back to the text of scripture to really see what is going on here.



> Also, a lot of the financial difficulty isn't always because of the number of children it is often because people were not living financially the way they should be. Example: instant gratification, debt, wants verses needs, etc. I know this one from experience.



I can agree with that. Still, I would argue, there is an amount where you "have enough of it, and vomit it up [financially]" [Proverbs 25:16].

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

> Also, there are some quiverfull families that are dirt poor. Are they experiencing God's curse, just as you were when you limited the amount of children you had?



Wealth is as much a responsibility as a blessing - not unlike children in some ways! A large family will make you realize just where your earthly wealth lies. There is no curse in material poverty; some of the most devout in the faith are some of the poorest in the world (and yet they are happy!) Are they then being punished by God? No, they are blessed beyond measure because they see where their true wealth lies.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> Wealth is as much a responsibility as a blessing. A large family will make you realize just where your earthly wealth lies. There is no curse in material poverty; some of the most devout in the faith are some of the poorest in the world (and yet they are happy!) Are they then being punished by God? No, they are blessed beyond measure because they see where their true wealth lies.



I agree, which is why I don't think you can use the financial success or failure of a family as an indication of whether they are being obedient to God. We must go back to the text of scripture.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## christianhope

> Kauffeld, this is not a good example at all. Even if someone took my house, and left seven pounds of honey, I am going to be upset. The commandment "Thou shall not steal" or the commandments against kidnapping are not negated when someone leaves something else that is a blessing in its place.




Adam, my point is, that honey, sleep or friendship cannot be used in the place of children (or the 'hoped for offspring'), they are not similar types of blessings. Your argument re-interprets children (the hoped for offspring) as if they were somehow similar to elements of the worldly creation, which they are not, they are separate in that we are God's special creation made in His image. 



> No, it is ignoring what the Bible teaches about about the commandment to raise your children in the training and admonition of the Lord



That's not true Adam, you equate the 'hoped for offspring' to be on the same level as what one chooses to do with local farm animals, or property, or such things as sleep, honey, friendship etc. etc... I have no qualms about raising children in the training of the Lord, but the point is your re-interpretation of what children are, or the 'hoped for offspring' is.

The philosophy you take on this point is simply not scriptural. Take a natural argument for example, say everyone used birth control, the world population would eventually die off. Ultimately the philosophy behind the use of contraception is that of death, not of life. This element of contraception is not in accordance with anything in scripture, it is simply a foreign element to the bible and should not be used. It is contrary to the general themes of scripture.



> Also, you neglected that I was exegeting Psalm 127. It is Psalm 127 that says that God must grant any blessing we have including sleep and honey in the same context as the granting of children [the opening and closing of the womb]. Thus, if you say you cannot prevent the conception of children because God must grant them, then the argument proves too much, in that it proves that you cannot stop the acquisition of any blessing, since God must grant all blessings.



This is where we differ Adam, you re-interpret children to be part of the lower creation. My argument does not prove too much, you're just misunderstanding PS127. The exegesis that would state sleep and honey, the keeping of a city, and children are all the same type of sovereign blessings from God without distinction is incorrect. The first two verses are obviously an emphasis on God's sovereign power and influence over all of life and man's need for His favor, but verse three distinguishes a break in the context referring to children as a heritage, and reward, for those who trust and believe in this mighty and powerful God in verses 1 and 2. Your exegesis ignores this change and blankets the whole distinction made. 

Psa 127:1 A Song of degrees for Solomon. Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. 
Psa 127:2 It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep. 
Psa 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 

Ultimately, the re-interpretation you perform upon man's dominion of the creation of man, i.e. via birth control, you are attributing to man a aspect of God's dominion alone. That's where I disagree with you. I don't think God has given man the right to determine whether or not they have children. Secondary causes doesn't fit the bill, it's a overthrowing of the order God has placed in the world by creation. Who is man to overthrow it? Children are not 'blessings' in the sense of honey, or anything else. Consider do you 'cause' children to be born? Then what gives you the right to 'cause' them NOT to be born? (Not infallibly, though in a plain and practical sense this is true - I do not agree with secondary causes in this instance)



> Also, I have often said that Malachi 2:15 should not be used to prove anything other than that there is a Malachi 2:15. The text is notoriously obscure.



Regarding Malachi 2:15, I will not say the scripture is 'too obscure for it to be understandable' and Calvin didn't say that either, he said 'some obscurity' referencing the difficulty of the text - further, every translation I read of that verse still speaks of the seeking of a godly offspring, whether attributed to God or man, it still goes back to God and is obviously pleasing to Him, implying our required obedience regardless. Just because Calvin references the fact that the verse is speaking of the iniquity of the priests by running into polygamy doesn't mean that God doesn't desire a godly offspring, or that man shouldn't desire a godly offspring. The implication is clearly there either way. The priests were robbing God of that godly offspring. 



> I would argue that in this statement there are some built in assumptions with which I cannot agree. First of all, contraception does not "dispense" with anything. Before conception, children do not exist! How can you "dispense" with something that doesn't exist? This is why many people have pointed out that, for quiverfull people to continue to use this argument, they will eventually have to believe in the Mormon concept of preexistence of the human soul.



Contraception often 'dispenses' with the 'hoped for offspring.' The accusation of the 'preexistence of the human soul' is not helpful to this discussion. We are dealing with what are the areas of man's responsibility under God, not ontological concepts which will only muddy the waters for everyone. Contraception in a very plain sense, 'dispenses' with the 'hoped for offspring.' I use the more exact term to keep from being misunderstood. My apologies. 

I don't know about these quiverfull people, but I do know that if christians follow your argument, they will all have smaller families and less children to be raised in the 'training and admonition' of the Lord. Which to me, is a sadder and more practical result. I hope that all who read our back and forth arguments, though they may disagree with the anti-contraception position, would still seek to have a large family and raise them according to God's Word. I also want to say it is not my intent to offend you Adam or anyone else. I certainly acknowledge you as my brother in Christ though we differ on this issue.

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------

Consider that God made Adam the 'keeper of the garden' not the keeper of the fruit of Eve's womb in the sense of determining whether to allow or withhold her from having children. i.e. contraception.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Kauffeld,



> Adam, my point is, that honey, sleep or friendship cannot be used in the place of children (or the 'hoped for offspring'), they are not similar types of blessings. Your argument re-interprets children (the hoped for offspring) as if they were somehow similar to elements of the worldly creation, which they are not, they are separate in that we are God's special creation made in His image.



I would say that there is similarity, and yet, there is also distinction. However, if you want to use that as part of your argument, you would have to show me where the Bible ever links the unique aspect of children to the idea that they are an exception to the call to moderation in Proverbs 25?



> That's not true Adam, you equate the 'hoped for offspring' to be on the same level as what one chooses to do with local farm animals, or property, or such things as sleep, honey, friendship etc. etc... I have no qualms about raising children in the training of the Lord, but the point is your re-interpretation of what children are, or the 'hoped for offspring' is.



On the same level in what sense? In the sense of them being blessings that God must grant, yes. Psalm 127 clearly teaches that. However, that has nothing to do with the idea that children are created in the image of God [friends are also created in the image of God, though]. However, if you want to use that distinction, you have to show where in the Bible the uniqueness of children is ever the basis of an overthrowing of the call to moderation in Proverbs 25.



> The philosophy you take on this point is simply not scriptural. Take a natural argument for example, say everyone used birth control, the world population would eventually die off. Ultimately the philosophy behind the use of contraception is that of death, not of life. This element of contraception is not in accordance with anything in scripture, it is simply a foreign element to the bible and should not be used. It is contrary to the general themes of scripture.



Which, of course, is a strawman. What you are saying would only be true if *everyone* used birth control. However, as I have already stated, that is not what I believe. My position is somewhere between these two extremes. I believe that, just as every covenant community is commanded to have elders and deacons, every covenant community must have people who are about this ministry of having and raising covenant children.

This is another reason why I said that I believe your position is imbalanced. It is either "everyone uses contraception" or "no one uses contraception." As I said, I would say that the truth is somewhere inbetween. I would say that it is all going to depend upon your calling, that is, whether God has called you to this particular ministry. Yes, if no one serves God as an elder or a deacon, then church government will die. However, if there is a shortage of elders and deacons in the church, we do not go around adding a command to scripture for people to be elders and deacons by saying that not being an elder or a deacon is distructive to church government! We point out that there is a need in this area, and we ask for people to volunteer to serve in this area.



> This is where we differ Adam, you re-interpret children to be part of the lower creation. My argument does not prove too much, you're just misunderstanding PS127. The exegesis that would state sleep and honey, the keeping of a city, and children are all the same type of sovereign blessings from God without distinction is incorrect. The first two verses are obviously an emphasis on God's sovereign power and influence over all of life and man's need for His favor, but verse three distinguishes a break in the context referring to children as a heritage, and reward, for those who trust and believe in this mighty and powerful God in verses 1 and 2. Your exegesis ignores this change and blankets the whole distinction made.
> 
> Psa 127:1 A Song of degrees for Solomon. Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.
> Psa 127:2 It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.
> Psa 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.



Again, this is a strawman. Saying that all of these blessings are the same a particular sense, does not mean they are the same in every sense. They are all the same _in the sense that God must grant them_. However, there are certainly distinctions in terms of the dignity of human beings. I *never* said that, because God must grant every blessing, that, therefore, all blessings are exactly the same blessings, and there are therefore no distinctions. That is a total strawman. However, again, if you want to use this in your argument, you have to show where the Bible says that their uniqueness implies an exception to the call for moderation in Proverbs 25.



> Ultimately, the re-interpretation you perform upon man's dominion of the creation of man, i.e. via birth control, you are attributing to man a aspect of God's dominion alone. That's where I disagree with you. I don't think God has given man the right to determine whether or not they have children. Secondary causes doesn't fit the bill, it's a overthrowing of the order God has placed in the world by creation. Who is man to overthrow it? Children are not 'blessings' in the sense of honey, or anything else. Consider do you 'cause' children to be born? Then what gives you the right to 'cause' them NOT to be born? (Not infallibly, though in a plain and practical sense this is true - I do not agree with secondary causes in this instance)



Why won't second causes cut it? That is mere pontification. The fact of the matter is that we *do* have second causes even in the birth of a child. We have sexual relations, do we not? Is that not a secondary cause that God uses to bring children into this world? You might say, "But it is not always successful." I say, "Neither is birth control in the prevention of the birth of children." The point is that sexual relations, birthcontrol, etc. are all secondary causes God can use to open or close the womb.

Also, as Mark Driscoll said in the video earlier in this thread, God is not up in heaven saying, "Oh man, latex! I wanted to give this couple children, but my whole dominion has been totally thwarted by latex!" Who would want to worship a God whose sovereign will and dominion can be thwarted by contraception? I would argue that this is totally antithetical to Calvinism. God can give you a child when you use birth control or don't use birth control, and God can close the womb when you use birth control, and even when you do not use birth control. Thus, in what sense is man in dominon of this at all?

Also, you say this is overthrowing an order set up in creation, and it is none of man's buisness. Again, without proof from Genesis 1 and 2, this is more pontification. Can you show us this from the creation story? Can you go back to Genesis 1 and 2 in the story of creation and show us where God said that it is none of our buisness to use birth control as a second cause to control the birth of a children? That is complete and total eisegesis.

Again, Kauffeld, I am seeing strawmen, eisegesis, and assumptions that are just not found in the Biblical text. I have to ask, because of this, who really has the unbiblical philosophy here? Biblical philosophy is based in the exegesis of the Biblical text. However, whenever we turn to the Biblical text, I get strawmen, eisegesis and assumptions that are not proven from the text.



> Regarding Malachi 2:15, I will not say the scripture is 'too obscure for it to be understandable' and Calvin didn't say that either, he said 'some obscurity' referencing the difficulty of the text - further, every translation I read of that verse still speaks of the seeking of a godly offspring, whether attributed to God or man, it still goes back to God and is obviously pleasing to Him, implying our required obedience regardless. Just because Calvin references the fact that the verse is speaking of the iniquity of the priests by running into polygamy doesn't mean that God doesn't desire a godly offspring, or that man shouldn't desire a godly offspring. The implication is clearly there either way. The priests were robbing God of that godly offspring.



He said that it was obscure, _but he then went on to say that no one to that point had come up with the meaning of the prophet_! That is more than just obscure. When you say that no one before you is probably correct, that is saying something! He acknowledged that it was _that_ obscure from the very beginning. Secondly, he came to a conclusion completely opposite of you, namely, that the Godly offspring had to do with offspring from your wife, and not offspring from polygamous relationships.

Also, as I stated, to talk about "Godly seed" in the sense of children, I argued, totally violates the context of the passage. The context of the passage is about the violation of the covenant [v.14] in which a person deals treacherously with their wife [v.15], all in the context of the remainant [v.15]. That suggests that the "Godly seed" are not referring to infants, but what the people who are dealing treacherously with their wives are supposed to be. Again, to paraphrase the end of Malachi 2:15, "When you deal treacherously with your wife and break your covenant with her, you are not behaving like the Godly seed I am seeking, and have called you to be."

Also, I would point out that, while we are making headway in understanding this passage, almost every Hebraist I know of who has worked on this text will tell you that nothing is really certain about this text. Even the "seeking of Godly offspring" is subject to interpretation as to the subject, the timing of the participle, and even the meaning of "Godly seed." How you take the clauses around the phrase will affect all of these things. 

Again, if you have solved all of these issues beyond a shadow of a doubt, [even the issue of the meaning of "seeking Godly offspring] you are doing way better than those of us who do this for a living! I don't mean that as an insult, only to tell you what I have seen in the literature with regards to this text, and the possibilities seem endless at times. I have my own position on how I can solve these difficulties, but I am not certain. In fact, I read one commentator who said that this is one of the hardest texts in the entire Hebrew Bible. My point is that these issues must be argued from the text, and not just have a bare citation of the text, because it is obscure.



> Contraception often 'dispenses' with the 'hoped for offspring.' The accusation of the 'preexistence of the human soul' is not helpful to this discussion. We are dealing with what are the areas of man's responsibility under God, not ontological concepts which will only muddy the waters for everyone. Contraception in a very plain sense, 'dispenses' with the 'hoped for offspring.' I use the more exact term to keep from being misunderstood. My apologies.



That's fine. However, I would argue that "hoped for offspring" makes all the difference in the world. In this conception, the children only exist in a possible world, not in the actual world. The reason why it is wrong to dispose of children who exist in the actual world is because they have actually been created in the image of God, and actually have been given to people in the real world. However, hypothetical children haven't even been created, and haven't been given to anyone. You cannot morally equate things in the possible world with things in the actual world.

Consider this. Let us say that there are boys who are playing cops and robbers, and they don't have any props, so they just pretend that they are stealing money from a pretend bank. Now, would it be correct to say that, because the boys are stealing pretend money that, therefore, the state police should come in and arrest the boys who are playing the robbers? I mean, even if you say that you would never let your children play a game like that because it encourages theft, you still would have to admit that they should not be thrown in prision for breaking the law against theft! The reason is because things that exist in possible worlds are not morally equivalent to things that exist in the actual world.

In the same way, I would agree with what you are saying, but only after the children actually exist. Yes, we cannot just discard children that exist _in the actual world_. However, possible worlds are morally distinct.



> I don't know about these quiverfull people, but I do know that if christians follow your argument, they will all have smaller families and less children to be raised in the 'training and admonition' of the Lord. Which to me, is a sadder and more practical result. I hope that all who read our back and forth arguments, though they may disagree with the anti-contraception position, would still seek to have a large family and raise them according to God's Word.



I guess that is going to have to be a difference between us. I would argue that the goal is not to maximize the size of our families, but to do the work that God has given us to do, whether that includes having large families, having smaller families, or, even, having no family. The issue, for me anyone, is being obedient to his calling on your life, and living in service to God, of which having a small amount of children, a large amount of children, etc. is a part. All of these are legitimate ways of serving God, and areas of service that are necessary to the church. However, the foundation of what you do should always be to serve God in all that you do [1 Corinthians 10:31], and obey his commandments. If heeding God's calling means smaller families for some people, or no families for some people then I am all for it. That being said, I must reiterate that the area of having and raising covenant children is something for which workers are greatly needed, and I think people should consider if God is calling them to work in this field.



> I also want to say it is not my intent to offend you Adam or anyone else. I certainly acknowledge you as my brother in Christ though we differ on this issue.



I would say "ditto." I am not someone who believes in watering down the truth so as not to offend people! We both believe each other is wrong, and there is nothing wrong with saying it! I am sure we probably do have a lot in common [the doctrines of grace, homeschooling, etc.] on which we would defend one another. I too do not mean anything I write to be offensive, only to interact about what the scriptures say on this issue.

God Bless,
Adam

---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

Oops, didn't see your addition:



> Consider that God made Adam the 'keeper of the garden' not the keeper of the fruit of Eve's womb in the sense of determining whether to allow or withhold her from having children. i.e. contraception.



That argument proves too much, though. Even if you are using "dominion" in the context of contraception [which I think is a category error, since contraception is neither necessary nor sufficient to have or not have children], God also put Adam in charge of the garden, and not the fossil fuels beneath it. Since fossil fuels are likewise not mentioned in this text, are we to assume that we are not to use fossil fuels? There is much that Adam was to have dominion over that was not the garden itself. I don't think that the text is giving us the *extent* of the dominion, as much as it is establishing one area in which God wanted Adam to exercise dominion.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## christianhope

> I would say that there is similarity, and yet, there is also distinction. However, if you want to use that as part of your argument, you would have to show me where the Bible ever links the unique aspect of children to the idea that they are an exception to the call to moderation in Proverbs 25?



Adam, our presuppositions are just different. I don't believe the call to moderation has anything to do with how many children a person has. Honey is not a child. The distinction lies simply in the creation of God and it does not have to be specifically pointed out. It should be an obvious aspect of natural law that we are different and should not be managed or moderated in terms of whether or not life is given. I do not think this should be so hard to understand or accept and I believe the general theme of scripture supports my view via God's opening and closing of the womb, children are a blessing, if God is sovereign then why use birth control? etc. etc...

I have said what I have said, people will make up their own minds and in the end we will all stand before God to give an account of our lives. For myself, I am not convinced, I see birth control as a influence of the world and a conforming to it in this area. I don't trust the modern exegesis that supposedly leads to the views you propose, neither do I trust Piper, Macarthur, or Driscoll on this issue. It's all too new for me and I cannot judge the case well enough due to my own lack of knowledge to be able to satisfy my conscience. 

Thank you for the hearty debate, it's been heated at times but has helped me to see some of my own weaknesses and also has helped me in refining my views in this area of life. It's too bad there could not be a reconciliation in views on this area. 

May the Lord bless you, I don't think I'll be posting anymore on this thread.


----------



## kvanlaan

Sorry, but ditto to Josh. I cannot continue to argue against this odd hermeneutic; it is simply too disheartening, and the clinical sterility of it is disturbing to me. It may be all the rage in "the literature" today, but among dead theologians of the 'old' Calvinism, I find little support for this frame of mind or this worldview. This discussion simply would not be happening among Reformed Christians 400 years ago, and I too see this as simple worldly infiltration of the Body. Pinning the 'proper' view of this issue on the likes of Driscoll and Piper in view of all the material that contradicts them in Reformed theology and writings is to me a very myopic view of all that our Reformed heritage has bequeathed to us. 

Adam, honey is not a child. A child is God-breathed life into a form of dust, and I cannot think of an equal among His blessings, save salvation. I truly hope that some day you will see this. Academia may have a lot to offer, but ivory towers are a very real danger.

May God bless you in your studies.


----------



## satz

I should apologise to Kevin and Josh that I did not manage to get around to answering their responses to my earlier post.

Josh, I know you have bowed out of the thread, but I would like to comment on something you said. 



Kauffeld said:


> Abstinence would be the best form of contraception (mercy) in the case of the wife being sick, or somehow unable to perform conjugal duties. Breastfeeding a child also inhibits pregnancy, and can be performed for a few years if desired for the benefit of the new child. (mercy) (both methods are not contraception in the normal sense, and I don't think it's right to have the attitude of "I don't want a child")
> 
> All other forms of contraception are sinful and should not be used. Even in such cases as an extended illness, or the wife having cancer. If pregnancy is truly so undesirable in such a case, then it would be better to abstain completely anyway for safety's sake. (Birth control isn't 100% effective)



I am appreciative for the graceful way you have put across your position in this thread, despite having strong feelings, but the second paragraph is still an incredibly unmerciful position to take. 

I (currently) believe that the bible teaches that a couple may use birth control for certain circumstances, for example, to concentrate on growing as a couple in their first year of marriage (the principle, at least, is thought in Deut 24:5), or if they are finding difficult coping with their life situation and do not believe they can handle another child at this time. You and Kevin disagree, and while I don’t (at the moment), believe you have proven your point from the bible, I can still understand where you are coming from.

However, I find it hard to imagine there is any bible justification for the position that you cannot use contraception even in severe cases such as one of the spouses having a serious illness like cancer, to use the example you gave. It would be justifiable according to the bible in the same way it was justifiable for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath (instead of waiting just one more day, despite the fact that none of the illness he healed were immediately life threatening) or for his disciples to pick corn when they were hungry. Mercy is more important than sacrifice, and even if you believe that the fact that the bible’s teaching on children being a blessing implies that contraception is wrong, you should still chose the merciful position of allowing a couple to practice contraception in a very trying time in their lives, without forcing them to forgo sexual relations, instead of sticking to the "strict" position, when there is not even an explicit command against contraception.

Later you said;


> For myself, I am not convinced, I see birth control as a influence of the world and a conforming to it in this area. I don't trust the modern exegesis that supposedly leads to the views you propose, neither do I trust Piper, Macarthur, or Driscoll on this issue. It's all too new for me and I cannot judge the case well enough due to my own lack of knowledge to be able to satisfy my conscience.


If the issue is that you cannot justify birth control, and don’t trust the reasoning of its proponents, instead of you being 100% rock certain that it is sin in the eyes of God, you should, on the principle in Matt 12:7, that mercy is better than sacrifice, allow for couples to use contraception in the extreme cases like that you have cited.


----------



## earl40

Kauffeld said:


> Adam, our presuppositions are just different. I don't believe the call to moderation has anything to do with how many children a person has. Honey is not a child.



Just thinking one can limit or moderate the number of children one has or may want to prevent from conceiving is just manifestly wrong if one believes all children are a gift of God. The presuppositions are either #1 One trusts God in Him giving the number of children gets. Or #2 One attempts to prevent (successfully I will add as seen in the dwindling of the number of children in Christian families) the number of crowns or rewards one will receive in heaven. Because Christians do suffer lose in Heaven which derive from sinful actions as being discussed in this topic.


----------



## christianhope

Mark, thank you for your kind comments. A few things you mentioned:



> but the second paragraph is still an incredibly unmerciful position to take.



Sometimes the Lord calls us to forgo relations in His providence. It shouldn't be conceived as unmerciful. If the wife is truly so sick and should not be pregnant, abstinence will always be a better method anyway. I mean, just think, what if you used birth control and then she still got pregnant? So, the medical mercy question just doesn't make much sense to me. Just think Mark how many christians in the past made do under such situations when the entire church was united against birth control? So I am not propounding anything new. 



> If the issue is that you cannot justify birth control, and don’t trust the reasoning of its proponents, instead of you being 100% rock certain that it is sin in the eyes of God, you should, on the principle in Matt 12:7, that mercy is better than sacrifice, allow for couples to use contraception in the extreme cases like that you have cited.



Obviously Mark, I am just a man and cannot make anyone do anything. All I'm doing is stating my conviction of what I believe is based upon God's Word. It's a hard topic, and I held a position of mercy for medical reasons just like you stated when I began writing in on this thread, so, it was only after I spoke with a few godly friends and thought more about this topic that I have come to the conclusions that I have. I mean, really, how many people really think of those 'what if' situations unless they are brought up or come up in daily life? So, my convictions have developed a bit here. 



> I (currently) believe that the bible teaches that a couple may use birth control for certain circumstances, for example, to concentrate on growing as a couple in their first year of marriage (the principle, at least, is thought in Deut 24:5



I would say on an exegetical basis the text is talking about a man going off to war or not taking part in a business that would keep him from his wife. Having a child would not inhibit a man being with his wife for the first year in any manner, so I do not see how this would apply. It's simply the same principle held by the conception proponent position, that somehow children or 'the hoped for offspring' are dispensable options similar to other worldly elements like honey, sleep, property, and therefore fall under moderation principles. I just don't accept that. There is a distinction that we should not cross. For myself I think the Bible plainly infers that position through logical deduction based upon God's special creation of man in His image, natural law, and the bible's general statements and themes regarding the seed of believers, children are a blessing, God's sovereignty etc. That's my conviction, and I do 100% believe it is sin to do otherwise. So I disagree with the idea you presented here and believe it to be a sinful thing to do, obedience is better than sacrifice. (1 Sam 15:22)


----------



## kvanlaan

> If the wife is truly so sick and should not be pregnant, abstinence will always be a better method anyway.



If my wife was that sick, I would likely be deep in prayer and fasting anyway...


----------



## Peairtach

> Originally Posted by Kauffeld
> Abstinence would be the best form of contraception (mercy) in the case of the wife being sick, or somehow unable to perform conjugal duties. Breastfeeding a child also inhibits pregnancy, and can be performed for a few years if desired for the benefit of the new child. (mercy) (both methods are not contraception in the normal sense, and I don't think it's right to have the attitude of "I don't want a child")
> 
> All other forms of contraception are sinful and should not be used. Even in such cases as an extended illness, or the wife having cancer. If pregnancy is truly so undesirable in such a case, then it would be better to abstain completely anyway for safety's sake. (Birth control isn't 100% effective)



Are these natural law arguments or biblical arguments. You seem to be justifying a form of contraception _if_ it's a particular form, while if it was another form it would be unacceptable. 

How much were Calvin, Luther and Augustine affected by natural law in this area?

Your basically saying that if your wife is sick and you don't want her to conceive, you should abstain. But if you use e.g. a condom with the exact same motivation, you are committing a sin. Where do you get this from in the Scriptures?


----------

