# Looking for wise advice on Birth Control and inlaws



## jjraby

My wife and I are struggling with Birth Control. She has been on the pill, but we have since stopped. Mainly because of the Abortifacient aspect of it. The main question is. How do i deal with my inlaws when and if my wife become pregnant. I know to tell them to Trust God and things like that. and how do i address the "you can't afford children" argument. I am looking for some wise advice on dealing with my in-laws basically in the event that my wife becomes pregnant? They may just be excited if she does, but from what i have heard, they will not be too happy. I know I am the husband, and the decision is mine. but i would really like the support of my inlaws if it is possible to get it. Which it may not be.


----------



## Andres

This is going to sound harsh, but it's really none of their business. Any family that can't be happy for you and your wife upon finding out you're going to have a beautiful baby has issues. Because we're recently married, people ask my wife and I all the time if we are "thinking about having kids" anytime soon or how many kids we "plan" on having. We always tell them that we are completely trusting the Lord to bless us with children in His perfect timing. This includes however many He decides. Sadly, many people have a big problem with this, but it's there problem, not mine.


----------



## White Knight

Ditto to the above. Also worth noting, the only way to not have kids is to not have sex. So, when I am approached with that question, my answer is quick and easy. As to the old money question, politely ask how much money is enough. Anybody with children will know they have lost the discussion instantly. 
Believe me, lack of finances aren't new to me, but I'm really conservative anyway, so I don't see problems with no money. I have all I need and then some. I have one child with another one on the way come late May. Everyone around me asked and or told the same stuff. After I responded to them, half of them have a greater respect for God, the other half....
Children aren't a burden either, usually the people that are concerned about having children, have that in the back of their mind. Not all people by any means, but that is what I faced mostly. 
Lastly, take delight in doing what God purposed you to do.


----------



## jjraby

thanks to the above. I agree, i just need some reassurance from other Christians it seems that a lot of Christians are divided on the birth control issue. and my in laws are Christians, they are just misguided on their view of children. In my ethics class, he said, :The wealthier a society is, the less they think they can afford children." The baby boomer generation's view on Children has been perverted, and it spilled into Christian circles. Its a shame that i have to convince Christians that children are a blessing.


----------



## Montanablue

My mother's approach to anyone who asked questions about our family's reproductive choices was a wide-eyed and scandalized "Pardon me?" This generally gets the message across that this is no one's business but the family's.


----------



## Tim

You are to be commended for your decision regarding the abortifacient aspect of the pill. Many people are probably unaware of this content of the pill. Everyone should tell their young married friends about this.


----------



## jason d

I think one thing for them to understand your theology and conviction behind this. I understand that this is a very touchy subject, so I would probably direct them to listen to a message (that way someone else is saying all the hard stuff) and then discuss it afterwards.

Love him or hate him the best discussion I have heard on this issue is via Mark Driscoll: Mars Hill Church | Religion Saves | Birth Control


----------



## sastark

Jeremy, first, as it has already been said, it's none of their business. Second, you will never be able to "afford" children. There will always be bills to pay and other expenses. But, then again, I don't view children as a line item on a budget. I view them as an inheritance from the Lord. It sound like you and your wife may be newly married (?) and if so, I can tell you that you will have other issues with your in-laws. It really is part of the process of establishing your marriage. I have a great relationship with my in-laws, but there have been times when my wife and I have had to set limits and that has ruffled their feathers. Just remember: 1. It is your family, not there's and 2. Even though you are married, you are still under the command to Honor your father and your mother, though the way of honoring them may have changed from when you were under their authority.

Lastly, good for you and your wife for getting off the pill!


----------



## Tripel

Being one on the liberal end of the PB spectrum, I fall into the camp of exercising responsibility regarding child birth. Even though children are more than "a line item on a budget", they ARE expensive. Yes, they are a blessing, but that doesn't cancel out the fact that they cost money. It takes more than love to raise a child. 

That said, babies happen. And it's glorious. If you get pregnant, I seriously doubt your in-laws are going to get upset with you, though they may think it is bad timing. Even though you are the head of your family, your in-laws have reason to be interested in your financial well-being. They want for their grandchildren to be provided for, and naturally so. If a baby comes at a time they don't think is appropriate, you can assure them you are taking the steps necessary to provide for the new child. It may not be the standard of living your in-laws would prefer, but you will have your needs met.


----------



## jjraby

Tripel said:


> Being one on the liberal end of the PB spectrum, I fall into the camp of exercising responsibility regarding child birth. Even though children are more than "a line item on a budget", they ARE expensive. Yes, they are a blessing, but that doesn't cancel out the fact that they cost money. It takes more than love to raise a child.
> 
> That said, babies happen. And it's glorious. If you get pregnant, I seriously doubt your in-laws are going to get upset with you, though they may think it is bad timing. Even though you are the head of your family, your in-laws have reason to be interested in your financial well-being. They want for their grandchildren to be provided for, and naturally so. If a baby comes at a time they don't think is appropriate, you can assure them you are taking the steps necessary to provide for the new child. It may not be the standard of living your in-laws would prefer, but you will have your needs met.


 
well how would that be done without violations of God's commands and trying to take control of the future of our lives? Children arn't a luxury to be had when the time is right, and they arn't something that we buy to enhance our lives. I agree with alot of what you said, but how do you walk the line of trying to take control of your life, and being dependent on God?


----------



## raekwon

jjraby said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being one on the liberal end of the PB spectrum, I fall into the camp of exercising responsibility regarding child birth. Even though children are more than "a line item on a budget", they ARE expensive. Yes, they are a blessing, but that doesn't cancel out the fact that they cost money. It takes more than love to raise a child.
> 
> That said, babies happen. And it's glorious. If you get pregnant, I seriously doubt your in-laws are going to get upset with you, though they may think it is bad timing. Even though you are the head of your family, your in-laws have reason to be interested in your financial well-being. They want for their grandchildren to be provided for, and naturally so. If a baby comes at a time they don't think is appropriate, you can assure them you are taking the steps necessary to provide for the new child. It may not be the standard of living your in-laws would prefer, but you will have your needs met.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well how would that be done without violations of God's commands and trying to take control of the future of our lives? Children arn't a luxury to be had when the time is right, and they arn't something that we buy to enhance our lives. I agree with alot of what you said, but how do you walk the line of trying to take control of your life, and being dependent on God?
Click to expand...

 
Do you lock your doors at night or put on your seatbelt when you drive?


----------



## Tripel

jjraby said:


> how do you walk the line of trying to take control of your life, and being dependent on God?


 
We make decisions and take steps each day towards certain ends. Sometimes it goes according to our plan, and sometimes not, but it always goes according to God's plan.
Is a single man taking "control of his life" if he makes a conscious effort to find a woman to date and marry? What if he chooses to avoid those kinds of relationships because he doesn't feel ready to be a husband? Is he more "dependent on God" if he just sits back to see whether or not God sends a woman his way? 

Just because we enter into various pursuits doesn't mean we lost our dependence upon God. 



> Children arn't a luxury to be had when the time is right, and they arn't something that we buy to enhance our lives.



Neither is a spouse, but that doesn't mean I can't choose when or when not to pursue one. 

And what about adoption? Are you suggesting it would be a violation of God's command if a couple were to plan an adoption around when the "time is right"? Surely you would allow that it is acceptable for a couple to put some thought into when or if they should adopt. I'd say that a couple can do the same regards to child birth. It doesn't mean that it will work out exactly as you want it, but it also doesn't mean that wanting it a certain way is wrong. It becomes a problem when we think our way is better than God's way.


----------



## jjraby

raekwon said:


> jjraby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being one on the liberal end of the PB spectrum, I fall into the camp of exercising responsibility regarding child birth. Even though children are more than "a line item on a budget", they ARE expensive. Yes, they are a blessing, but that doesn't cancel out the fact that they cost money. It takes more than love to raise a child.
> 
> That said, babies happen. And it's glorious. If you get pregnant, I seriously doubt your in-laws are going to get upset with you, though they may think it is bad timing. Even though you are the head of your family, your in-laws have reason to be interested in your financial well-being. They want for their grandchildren to be provided for, and naturally so. If a baby comes at a time they don't think is appropriate, you can assure them you are taking the steps necessary to provide for the new child. It may not be the standard of living your in-laws would prefer, but you will have your needs met.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well how would that be done without violations of God's commands and trying to take control of the future of our lives? Children arn't a luxury to be had when the time is right, and they arn't something that we buy to enhance our lives. I agree with alot of what you said, but how do you walk the line of trying to take control of your life, and being dependent on God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you lock your doors at night or put on your seatbelt when you drive?
Click to expand...

 
Yes, But that is to protect my wife and myself from harm, not to prevent a blessing until we deem ourselves ready to receive it.

---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------




Tripel said:


> jjraby said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you walk the line of trying to take control of your life, and being dependent on God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We make decisions and take steps each day towards certain ends. Sometimes it goes according to our plan, and sometimes not, but it always goes according to God's plan.
> Is a single man taking "control of his life" if he makes a conscious effort to find a woman to date and marry? What if he chooses to avoid those kinds of relationships because he doesn't feel ready to be a husband? Is he more "dependent on God" if he just sits back to see whether or not God sends a woman his way?
> 
> Just because we enter into various pursuits doesn't mean we lost our dependence upon God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children arn't a luxury to be had when the time is right, and they arn't something that we buy to enhance our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is a spouse, but that doesn't mean I can't choose when or when not to pursue one.
> 
> And what about adoption? Are you suggesting it would be a violation of God's command if a couple were to plan an adoption around when the "time is right"? Surely you would allow that it is acceptable for a couple to put some thought into when or if they should adopt. I'd say that a couple can do the same regards to child birth. It doesn't mean that it will work out exactly as you want it, but it also doesn't mean that wanting it a certain way is wrong. It becomes a problem when we think our way is better than God's way.
Click to expand...

 
Well, adoption i think is somewhat a different thing where you are taking responsibility of a child already in existence, or soon to be.

anyway, how would i go about using birth control in a Godly way? the pill is not an option, due to the abortion aspect. condoms? that seems to be add an impersonal barrier to the communal aspect of sex. I don't know, it is something that i am struggling with. should or shouldn't we? and if we should, then how?


----------



## MRC

Tim said:


> You are to be commended for your decision regarding the abortifacient aspect of the pill. Many people are probably unaware of this content of the pill. Everyone should tell their young married friends about this.


 
My understanding with oral contraception is that it prevents the release of an egg into the uterus. The lining of the uterus still swells, as it "thinks" it has an egg, but with no egg conception is impossible (and therefore not a violation of God's law). The usual menstral cycle still results. I have always understood that pills that have an abortifacient are called the "morning after pill".

I looked into this when my wife used oral contraception for our first year of marriage, so I know this was the case with the type of oral contraception she was on - I assumed this was true of all oral contraceptives. If I am mistaken can you provide a link to contrary information on an abortifacient in oral contraception?


----------



## Kiffin

MRC said:


> My understanding with oral contraception is that it prevents the release of an egg into the uterus. The lining of the uterus still swells, as it "thinks" it has an egg, but with no egg conception is impossible (and therefore not a violation of God's law). The usual menstral cycle still results. I have always understood that pills that have an abortifacient are called the "morning after pill".
> 
> I looked into this when my wife used oral contraception for our first year of marriage, so I know this was the case with the type of oral contraception she was on - I assumed this was true of all oral contraceptives. If I am mistaken can you provide a link to contrary information on an abortifacient in oral contraception?



This is my understanding as well. I need some input, considering that I'll be married in Ocober.


----------



## White Knight

You are convinced that the pill is wrong because of Abortifacient. You are concerned that condemns add an impersonal barrier to the communal aspect of sex. What are you struggling with? Sounds like your mind is made up. The tension between trusting God and being reckless with trusting God and being a dictator is always there. 
Your wife is on your side. Take joy.


----------



## SRoper

The pill and other hormonal contraceptives thin the lining of the uterus. It is theorized that this would reduce the chance of implantation if a break-through ovulation were to occur (and they do occur--you can still get pregnant on the pill). It is unknown whether this is actually the case, and if so, what the magnitude of the increased risk is. My wife and I have decided that the risk isn't worth it as there are plenty of other viable alternatives such as natural family planning, condoms, and diaphragms.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

Ditto. None of their business. When I had my third someone at work asked me if I was Mormon. With my forth, I was told many other ridiculous things I'm not going to put down. But it really only bothered me when I began to notice dissent my in-laws. My question was, "Well, which one would you get rid of." Really, brother...God will take care of you. His intent is not that you will have a baby then have you finances fall apart. You may have to learn how to work harder, or spent money only on things which matter. But, that's all a part of being conformed to the image of Christ. And meanwhile you get to raise another in the Lord. Which is evangelism.


----------



## Andres

raekwon said:


> jjraby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being one on the liberal end of the PB spectrum, I fall into the camp of exercising responsibility regarding child birth. Even though children are more than "a line item on a budget", they ARE expensive. Yes, they are a blessing, but that doesn't cancel out the fact that they cost money. It takes more than love to raise a child.
> 
> That said, babies happen. And it's glorious. If you get pregnant, I seriously doubt your in-laws are going to get upset with you, though they may think it is bad timing. Even though you are the head of your family, your in-laws have reason to be interested in your financial well-being. They want for their grandchildren to be provided for, and naturally so. If a baby comes at a time they don't think is appropriate, you can assure them you are taking the steps necessary to provide for the new child. It may not be the standard of living your in-laws would prefer, but you will have your needs met.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well how would that be done without violations of God's commands and trying to take control of the future of our lives? Children arn't a luxury to be had when the time is right, and they arn't something that we buy to enhance our lives. I agree with alot of what you said, but how do you walk the line of trying to take control of your life, and being dependent on God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you lock your doors at night or put on your seatbelt when you drive?
Click to expand...

 
Rae, I do both the above, but if God told me specifically in His Word that having intruders break into my home or me flying through my windshield during crashes was a blessing from Him, then I would immediately stop. My point is that your examples have unfavorable consequences that we want to avoid at all costs. Having children is a blessing from God and always good (Psalm 127:3-5).


----------



## Tripel

jjraby said:


> anyway, how would i go about using birth control in a Godly way? the pill is not an option, due to the abortion aspect. condoms? that seems to be add an impersonal barrier to the communal aspect of sex. I don't know, it is something that i am struggling with. should or shouldn't we? and if we should, then how?


 
I don't want to talk you into something your conscience is geared against, but if you are looking for a birth control alternative, try the diaphragm.


----------



## MRC

SRoper said:


> The pill and other hormonal contraceptives thin the lining of the uterus. It is theorized that this would reduce the chance of implantation if a break-through ovulation were to occur (and they do occur--you can still get pregnant on the pill). It is unknown whether this is actually the case, and if so, what the magnitude of the increased risk is. My wife and I have decided that the risk isn't worth it as there are plenty of other viable alternatives such as natural family planning, condoms, and diaphragms.


 
Fair enough - thanks.


----------



## Kevin

Keep in mind that human body is fallen, including the reproductive system. Especially the reproductive system.

The "just trust God to send us all the blessings possible" is an attitude that has some serious flaws in it, in my opinion. That is a subject for an other thread, however.

If you are covinced in your own mind, AND your wife agrees then I don't see your issue. The first post answered the OP perfectly.


----------



## lynnie

As a wife ( four kids) I really appreciated my husbands willingness to use condoms, despite the fact that normally speaking it would be preferable for him to not use them. And they worked fine for us.

Randy Alcorn of Eternal Perspectives Ministry has a quite a bit about the pill keeping fertilized eggs from implanting, if you want to try to search his site.


----------



## raekwon

jjraby said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you lock your doors at night or put on your seatbelt when you drive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, But that is to protect my wife and myself from harm, not to prevent a blessing until we deem ourselves ready to receive it.
Click to expand...




Tripel said:


> Rae, I do both the above, but if God told me specifically in His Word that having intruders break into my home or me flying through my windshield during crashes was a blessing from Him, then I would immediately stop.



My point is this, guys: the use of birth control doesn't necessarily mean that you're somehow not trusting God or wresting control of your life from his hands, no more than locking your door or wearing a seatbelt is.

If God wants to bless you and your wife to have a baby -- guess what? He's gonna bless you with a baby, regardless of the means in which you try to stop that from happening. That doesn't mean that taking measures to prevent it if the time doesn't seem wise is wrong. In fact, perhaps those are the secondary means by which God is bringing his timing to fruition. Who knows?


----------



## christiana

After I had my first three in 11 months my mother in law began to make suggestions. I chose to just let her talk as I figured that was none of their concern. Then I had three more and listened to both suggestions and remarks from others which I chose to ignore but never discuss. At that time such conversations were considered in very poor taste, different from today when most anything at all is discussed. My husband was a pharmacist and would have never allowed me to take birth control pills and this was when they were first being prescribed. Our Lord is so excellent at what He does and can be trusted to provide for all of our needs and we must be so grateful and thankful!! He is faithful! Responding like Kathleen's mom was and is a good thing! Private things should be kept private within marriage!


----------



## Montanablue

christiana said:


> After I had my first three in 11 months my mother in law began to make suggestions. I chose to just let her talk as I figured that was none of their concern. Then I had three more and listened to both suggestions and remarks from others which I chose to ignore but never discuss. At that time such conversations were considered in very poor taste, different from today when most anything at all is discussed. My husband was a pharmacist and would have never allowed me to take birth control pills and this was when they were first being prescribed. Our Lord is so excellent at what He does and can be trusted to provide for all of our needs and we must be so grateful and thankful!! He is faithful! Responding like Kathleen's mom was and is a good thing! Private things should be kept private within marriage!


 
It never fails to astound me how people think its perfectly appropriate to comment on one's reproductive system - whether its to tell you to have more kids, to stop having kids, or to get married soon or you'll be too old to have kids. Appalling, really.


----------



## Tripel

Montanablue said:


> It never fails to astound me how people think its perfectly appropriate to comment on one's reproductive system - whether its to tell you to have more kids, to stop having kids, or to get married soon or you'll be too old to have kids. Appalling, really.


 
Those comments are appalling. One thing I don't mind being asked is if we plan on having more children. But to be asked to stop having kids or to hurry up and get married? That's too much.


----------



## Peairtach

The Christian farmer trusts in God and also plans what and when and where he will sow.

If it's true/you believe the pill is abortifacient, there are other forms of contraception in God's providence that aren't abortifacient.

There are injunctions in Scripture against taking human life, but none against contraception itself. If it is so immoral why is it not condemned in Scripture?

Also, sexual relations between man and wife are presented in Scripture as having other purposes apart from having children. How is this right if all contraception is wrong? I'm not aware of any baby being mentioned in the Song of Solomon for instance.


----------



## Berean

Montanablue said:


> It never fails to astound me how people think its perfectly appropriate to comment on one's reproductive system - whether its to tell you to have more kids, to stop having kids, or to get married soon or you'll be too old to have kids. Appalling, really.


 
Or, how you should properly raise those kids (because they know best). And after all, they're just trying to be helpful.


----------



## Montanablue

Tripel said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> It never fails to astound me how people think its perfectly appropriate to comment on one's reproductive system - whether its to tell you to have more kids, to stop having kids, or to get married soon or you'll be too old to have kids. Appalling, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those comments are appalling. One thing I don't mind being asked is if we plan on having more children. But to be asked to stop having kids or to hurry up and get married? That's too much.
Click to expand...

 
The asking isn't so much an issue as the telling. Its one thing to say, "Do you think you'll have more?" and quite another to say "Well, I certainly hope you'll be having more than 2! Two doesn't half fill a quiver!"


----------



## Tripel

Montanablue said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> It never fails to astound me how people think its perfectly appropriate to comment on one's reproductive system - whether its to tell you to have more kids, to stop having kids, or to get married soon or you'll be too old to have kids. Appalling, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those comments are appalling. One thing I don't mind being asked is if we plan on having more children. But to be asked to stop having kids or to hurry up and get married? That's too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The asking isn't so much an issue as the telling. Its one thing to say, "Do you think you'll have more?" and quite another to say "Well, I certainly hope you'll be having more than 2! Two doesn't half fill a quiver!"
Click to expand...

 
Ha. Yeah, that comment would bother me. I've got two, and I feel like my quiver is rather full!


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Keep in mind that human body is fallen, including the reproductive system. Especially the reproductive system.



Why especially the reporductive system.



> The "just trust God to send us all the blessings possible" is an attitude that has some serious flaws in it, in my opinion. That is a subject for an other thread, however



What are the serious flaws in trusting God to take care of my family? Is there scripture to back this up?


----------



## SarahM

Montanablue said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> It never fails to astound me how people think its perfectly appropriate to comment on one's reproductive system - whether its to tell you to have more kids, to stop having kids, or to get married soon or you'll be too old to have kids. Appalling, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those comments are appalling. One thing I don't mind being asked is if we plan on having more children. But to be asked to stop having kids or to hurry up and get married? That's too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The asking isn't so much an issue as the telling. Its one thing to say, "Do you think you'll have more?" and quite another to say "Well, I certainly hope you'll be having more than 2! Two doesn't half fill a quiver!"
Click to expand...


My brother has four boys and I have people asking me, "Are they going to have more?" or "Do they want more?" Well, how should I know! I don't know why people ask me that question. I don't think it's anyone's business. I have my own assumption, but I am not going to tell.

Also, to have people say, "only two kids! Why not more?" to some couples is not very kind. I know some couples who have gone through a lot just to get those two children. I would like to have a big family, but then again, I don't know if that's what God wants. As in all things, it's good just to hold it loosely.


----------



## Jaymin Allen

jjraby said:


> well how would that be done without violations of God's commands and trying to take control of the future of our lives? Children arn't a luxury to be had when the time is right, and they arn't something that we buy to enhance our lives. I agree with alot of what you said, but how do you walk the line of trying to take control of your life, and being dependent on God?


 
Hey Jeremy, 

Typically, I am not the largest endorser of John Piper articles-- however I found this article to be exceedingly helpful. The tenets explored are:

1. Is birth control consistent with the truth that children are a gift from the Lord? 
2. Shouldn't we let God determine the size of our family? 
3. Should natural family planning be preferred to artificial conception? 

Does the Bible permit birth control? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## Andres

Richard Tallach said:


> The Christian farmer trusts in God and also plans what and when and where he will sow.
> 
> If it's true/you believe the pill is abortifacient, there are other forms of contraception in God's providence that aren't abortifacient.
> 
> There are injunctions in Scripture against taking human life, but none against contraception itself. If it is so immoral why is it not condemned in Scripture?
> 
> Also, sexual relations between man and wife are presented in Scripture as having other purposes apart from having children. How is this right if all contraception is wrong? I'm not aware of any baby being mentioned in the Song of Solomon for instance.


 
Richard, why do you presume that every act of intimacy leads to pregnancy? There are other factors that must be at play in order for the woman to get pregnant, such as ovulation must be occuring.


----------



## brianeschen

One thing that I wish I would have kept in mind early in our marriage . . . though you may disagree with your in-laws, remember that they are concerned for your best. On your part, don't let this drive a wedge between you.


----------



## Micah

jason d said:


> I think one thing for them to understand your theology and conviction behind this. I understand that this is a very touchy subject, so I would probably direct them to listen to a message (that way someone else is saying all the hard stuff) and then discuss it afterwards.
> 
> Love him or hate him the best discussion I have heard on this issue is via Mark Driscoll: Mars Hill Church | Religion Saves | Birth Control


 
Just listened to this. 

Wow! Regardless of your opinion of Mark Driscoll, this is the absolute best handling of birth control I've EVER heard.

Thank you so much for sharing this brother.


----------



## calgal

Is there a medical reason they are concerned or a family history of medical issues?


----------



## jwithnell

As long as there's no medical problem, I'd say there's no "good" time to have a baby -- you don't have enough money; your wife is making great money and doesn't want to quit. You're too young. You're too old. You don't have a big enough house, etc., etc., etc. Unless you are destitute, you'll find a way to deal with the expenses of having children. I can think of nothing more exciting than hearing my kids speak God's name and see his love to a thousand generations. As for your inlaws? Forgetaboutit!


----------



## jjraby

thanks for all the posts


----------



## Momofmany

> View Post
> My understanding with oral contraception is that it prevents the release of an egg into the uterus. The lining of the uterus still swells, as it "thinks" it has an egg, but with no egg conception is impossible (and therefore not a violation of God's law). The usual menstral cycle still results. I have always understood that pills that have an abortifacient are called the "morning after pill".
> 
> I looked into this when my wife used oral contraception for our first year of marriage, so I know this was the case with the type of oral contraception she was on - I assumed this was true of all oral contraceptives. If I am mistaken can you provide a link to contrary information on an abortifacient in oral contraception?



The morning after pill is simply a strong dose of birth control pills, and is completely different from RU-486. However while almost all Christians would agree that RU486, which is designed to be a chemical abortifacient, there is less consensus on regular hormonal birth control. The idea is that the pill has three mechanisms for "preventing" pregnancy, but only two of them are actually preventative. It even says this on the packaging for the pill- the third mechanism is by stopping already fertilized embryos (human life) from implanting in the uterus. This, in my opinion, is an abortion. The issue is that no one knows how often this actually happens. Most doctors say it's probably rare, in the 2-5% region, because the other two mechanisms work so well. But a 2-5% of abortion is totally unacceptable to me, and so I would not take the pill.


----------



## Andres

Momofmany said:


> View Post
> My understanding with oral contraception is that it prevents the release of an egg into the uterus. The lining of the uterus still swells, as it "thinks" it has an egg, but with no egg conception is impossible (and therefore not a violation of God's law). The usual menstral cycle still results. I have always understood that pills that have an abortifacient are called the "morning after pill".
> 
> I looked into this when my wife used oral contraception for our first year of marriage, so I know this was the case with the type of oral contraception she was on - I assumed this was true of all oral contraceptives. If I am mistaken can you provide a link to contrary information on an abortifacient in oral contraception?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The morning after pill is simply a strong dose of birth control pills, and is completely different from RU-486. However while almost all Christians would agree that RU486, which is designed to be a chemical abortifacient, there is less consensus on regular hormonal birth control. The idea is that the pill has three mechanisms for "preventing" pregnancy, but only two of them are actually preventative. It even says this on the packaging for the pill- the third mechanism is by stopping already fertilized embryos (human life) from implanting in the uterus. This, in my opinion, is an abortion. The issue is that no one knows how often this actually happens. Most doctors say it's probably rare, in the 2-5% region, because the other two mechanisms work so well. But a 2-5% of abortion is totally unacceptable to me, and so I would not take the pill.
Click to expand...

 
Sadie, this is exactly the reason my wife and I have deemed the pill unacceptable.


----------



## christiana

These safety concerns are the main reason I never took the pill. The pill must be viewed with caution and concern about the side effects.

Birth Control Pill Safety Concerns


----------



## YXU

Richard Tallach said:


> The Christian farmer trusts in God and also plans what and when and where he will sow.
> 
> If it's true/you believe the pill is abortifacient, there are other forms of contraception in God's providence that aren't abortifacient.
> 
> There are injunctions in Scripture against taking human life, but none against contraception itself. If it is so immoral why is it not condemned in Scripture?
> 
> Also, sexual relations between man and wife are presented in Scripture as having other purposes apart from having children. How is this right if all contraception is wrong? I'm not aware of any baby being mentioned in the Song of Solomon for instance.



It is not explicitely stated in the scripture however, the ordinance of marriage itself is sufficient enough. It is between a man and a women, for their mutual benefit, to raise seeds and to prevent fornication as the confession states. The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure, the pleasure is to promote the raising of seeds. The ordiance is broken in a degree if the married couple only try to seek pleasure and physical relief from lust apart of raising seeds. This natrual order of marriage should also be the main reason against abortion. 

On the other hand, the style of the Bible also shows that it is implicit over such issue. The Bible can talk openly about violence, bloody murder and war, but it is not so over this issue. This is another reason, while it is not explicitely mentioned in the Bible.


----------



## Momofmany

> The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure, the pleasure is to promote the raising of seeds.


I don't agree with this. I think it's clear throughout the Bible that marital intimacy is for both children and pleasure and oneness. If you believe intercourse without the possibility of conception is wrong, then any sex after menopause or at the wrong time of cycle would be wrong, too.


----------



## Peairtach

Andres said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian farmer trusts in God and also plans what and when and where he will sow.
> 
> If it's true/you believe the pill is abortifacient, there are other forms of contraception in God's providence that aren't abortifacient.
> 
> There are injunctions in Scripture against taking human life, but none against contraception itself. If it is so immoral why is it not condemned in Scripture?
> 
> Also, sexual relations between man and wife are presented in Scripture as having other purposes apart from having children. How is this right if all contraception is wrong? I'm not aware of any baby being mentioned in the Song of Solomon for instance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, why do you presume that every act of intimacy leads to pregnancy? There are other factors that must be at play in order for the woman to get pregnant, such as ovulation must be occuring.
Click to expand...


I don't. In Scripture other purposes for relations are presented apart from pregnancy.

The couple don't have to intend to become pregnant in order for relations to be moral. Under the view of those who are against contraception the couple have to intend to get pregnant while having relations, otherwise they are somehow being immoral.

*XYU*


> The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure, the pleasure is to promote the raising of seeds. The ordiance is broken in a degree if the married couple only try to seek pleasure and physical relief from lust apart of raising seeds


.

What about infertile couples? Should they have no (be forbidden) relations?

The Bible indicates that this relation is a special kind of "knowledge"


----------



## TimV

> The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure, the pleasure is to promote the raising of seeds.



That's the problem of interpreting the Song of Songs using the Redemptive Historical or Dispensational Baptist schools of thought ;-)


----------



## Peairtach

............whether or not the couple intend to have a baby or not, or have a baby or not, one of the purposes of relations is a special kind of knowledge that is for the married couple only.

If there wasn't this carnal/bodily "knowledge" associated with sexual relations, irespective of conception, why does Scripture put all these fences around them to maintain their sanctity?


----------



## JML

YXU said:


> The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure, the pleasure is to promote the raising of seeds.



*1 Corinthians 7:9*
"but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."


It seems to me that Paul is exhorting them to relieve this "burning with passion" by the marriage bed.


----------



## T.A.G.

Momofmany said:


> View Post
> My understanding with oral contraception is that it prevents the release of an egg into the uterus. The lining of the uterus still swells, as it "thinks" it has an egg, but with no egg conception is impossible (and therefore not a violation of God's law). The usual menstral cycle still results. I have always understood that pills that have an abortifacient are called the "morning after pill".
> 
> I looked into this when my wife used oral contraception for our first year of marriage, so I know this was the case with the type of oral contraception she was on - I assumed this was true of all oral contraceptives. If I am mistaken can you provide a link to contrary information on an abortifacient in oral contraception?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The morning after pill is simply a strong dose of birth control pills, and is completely different from RU-486. However while almost all Christians would agree that RU486, which is designed to be a chemical abortifacient, there is less consensus on regular hormonal birth control. The idea is that the pill has three mechanisms for "preventing" pregnancy, but only two of them are actually preventative. It even says this on the packaging for the pill- the third mechanism is by stopping already fertilized embryos (human life) from implanting in the uterus. This, in my opinion, is an abortion. The issue is that no one knows how often this actually happens. Most doctors say it's probably rare, in the 2-5% region, because the other two mechanisms work so well. But a 2-5% of abortion is totally unacceptable to me, and so I would not take the pill.
Click to expand...

 
How sure are you that this is true? I am looking up Loestrin and cant find that but now you have me worried!


----------



## kvanlaan

> My wife and I are struggling with Birth Control. She has been on the pill, but we have since stopped. Mainly because of the Abortifacient aspect of it. The main question is. How do i deal with my inlaws when and if my wife become pregnant. I know to tell them to Trust God and things like that. and how do i address the "you can't afford children" argument. I am looking for some wise advice on dealing with my in-laws basically in the event that my wife becomes pregnant? They may just be excited if she does, but from what i have heard, they will not be too happy. I know I am the husband, and the decision is mine. but i would really like the support of my inlaws if it is possible to get it. Which it may not be.



Don't back down, but don't go out of your way to be offensive (some do!) Children are a blessing from the Lord, and He open and closes the womb. You understand that. Give them your theological reasoning for it. Then let that sink in. Then leave it - let them start something, but you don't have to. Answer in love. You can afford the children. You can always afford the children. Do you have the shoulders to train them? If you have the children, that is a great responsibility. You will find yourself spending a whole lot of time in prayer that you wouldn't otherwise (and at odd times, too). You will clean up a lot of vomit, urine, and fecal matter. You will spend hours and hours on explaining Scripture and Catechism to your children. You will have indescribable pain and indescribable joy. 

Go forth in faith.


----------



## Andres

T.A.G. said:


> Momofmany said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View Post
> My understanding with oral contraception is that it prevents the release of an egg into the uterus. The lining of the uterus still swells, as it "thinks" it has an egg, but with no egg conception is impossible (and therefore not a violation of God's law). The usual menstral cycle still results. I have always understood that pills that have an abortifacient are called the "morning after pill".
> 
> I looked into this when my wife used oral contraception for our first year of marriage, so I know this was the case with the type of oral contraception she was on - I assumed this was true of all oral contraceptives. If I am mistaken can you provide a link to contrary information on an abortifacient in oral contraception?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The morning after pill is simply a strong dose of birth control pills, and is completely different from RU-486. However while almost all Christians would agree that RU486, which is designed to be a chemical abortifacient, there is less consensus on regular hormonal birth control. The idea is that the pill has three mechanisms for "preventing" pregnancy, but only two of them are actually preventative. It even says this on the packaging for the pill- the third mechanism is by stopping already fertilized embryos (human life) from implanting in the uterus. This, in my opinion, is an abortion. The issue is that no one knows how often this actually happens. Most doctors say it's probably rare, in the 2-5% region, because the other two mechanisms work so well. But a 2-5% of abortion is totally unacceptable to me, and so I would not take the pill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How sure are you that this is true? I am looking up Loestrin and cant find that but now you have me worried!
Click to expand...

 
Tyler, sorry I don't have a link or anything to support the above, but it is exactly what the physician's assist told my wife and I when we explored contraceptives. The PA wasn't trying to encourage/discourage us from the pill, she was just giving us facts (according to her) on how they work. Needless to say, while unintentional, she most certainly discouraged us.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Don't back down, but don't go out of your way to be offensive (some do!) Children are a blessing from the Lord, and He open and closes the womb. You understand that. Give them your theological reasoning for it. Then let that sink in. Then leave it - let them start something, but you don't have to. Answer in love. You can afford the children. You can always afford the children. Do you have the shoulders to train them? If you have the children, that is a great responsibility. You will find yourself spending a whole lot of time in prayer that you wouldn't otherwise (and at odd times, too). You will clean up a lot of vomit, urine, and fecal matter. You will spend hours and hours on explaining Scripture and Catechism to your children. You will have indescribable pain and indescribable joy.
> 
> Go forth in faith.



Well stated brother.


----------



## SolaScriptura

jjraby said:


> My wife and I are struggling with Birth Control. She has been on the pill, but we have since stopped. Mainly because of the Abortifacient aspect of it. The main question is. How do i deal with my inlaws when and if my wife become pregnant. I know to tell them to Trust God and things like that. and how do i address the "you can't afford children" argument. I am looking for some wise advice on dealing with my in-laws basically in the event that my wife becomes pregnant? They may just be excited if she does, but from what i have heard, they will not be too happy. I know I am the husband, and the decision is mine. but i would really like the support of my inlaws if it is possible to get it. Which it may not be.


 
Jeremy - you are wise to want their support. Contrary to what has been said above, what you and your wife do ISN'T "none of their business." Or to restate, your wife's parents (and your parents) don't stop being concerned about you just because you get married, and they certainly don't stop from giving guidance and counsel (or criticism!) when they perceive you are activing foolishly. Given that Scripture spells out duties and responsibilities for grandparents, I'd say that contrary to what some here evidently think, they have a legitimate place for voicing their concerns to you about their future grandchildren. 

You'll get many opinions about the legitimacy of any form of birth control, and I make no bones about it - it is folly to argue that just because something is a "good gift and a blessing" that it automatically implies there isn't a place for wisdom and being prudent about when we obtain it. Perhaps you two are quite poor and both of you are working just to keep your heads above water... $10 for a pack of condoms sounds to me like a good shortterm investment! Or maybe you two are doing better than you think and you've bought into the sinful line that you've got to be "established" in your career and able to give your kids "the best" before you think of having them... if that's the case, then repent! Having kids, and raising them, costs far less than people would have you believe. 

Regarding your inlaws and their reaction to your wife getting pregnant... something tells me that they might initially say "why now!" but then they'll quickly get over it. But don't disregard them as if they don't matter one bit and that they'd better just bow before you, the almighty husband of their daughter, and beg for the ability to see her or your kids or have a place in their lives.


----------



## YXU

John Lanier said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure, the pleasure is to promote the raising of seeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 Corinthians 7:9*
> "but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Paul is exhorting them to relieve this "burning with passion" by the marriage bed.
Click to expand...


The prevention of fornication is indeed the purpose of marriage. However, it is a totally different thing to prevent fornication while destroying the hope of raising seeds which is another purpose of marriage.

---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------




> The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure, the pleasure is to promote the raising of seeds. The ordiance is broken in a degree if the married couple only try to seek pleasure and physical relief from lust apart of raising seeds


.

What about infertile couples? Should they have no (be forbidden) relations?

The Bible indicates that this relation is a special kind of "knowledge"[/QUOTE]


I know of some Christians who reject the State mandated one-child-policy, and some surgical procedures were forced on the mother at the delivery of their second child by the doctor, making them infertile. However, not having the physical ability to raise seeds and to destroy the hope and possibility of raising seeds is a totally different thing.


----------



## Andres

YXU said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure, the pleasure is to promote the raising of seeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 Corinthians 7:9*
> "but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Paul is exhorting them to relieve this "burning with passion" by the marriage bed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prevention of fornication is indeed the purpose of marriage. However, it is a totally different thing to prevent fornication while destroying the hope of raising seeds which is another purpose of marriage.
Click to expand...



No, the prevention of fornication is only _one _purpose of marriage. Douglas Wilson's book _Reforming Marriage_ states: "The Bible sets forth three basic earthly reasons for marriage. They are, in turn, the need for helpful companionship, the need for godly offspring, and the avoidance of sexual immorality."

I know Wilson misses the mark on some things, but I believe he hits it here.


----------



## he beholds

I think many of us hear comments from family. My grandma, who had _four children plus a miscarriage in five years_ (so far, I'm behind her) told me that _I_ look Catholic. I just laugh and say, "I know." And when people ask how many children I want, I just say, "I'm not sure but I hope we'll have another." Or if they ask do I know how I made those babies, I just laugh it off. You may feel singularly persecuted for listening to your conscience, but you are not alone and I think it is an easy enough scoffing to evade, being the personal nature of the topic. People don't want to get _too_ involved in your bedroom, thankfully. 

On a more mature note, I have heard of someone saying to her mother, "Would you deny me this blessing?" and the mother's own conscience must have been grieved at that, for she shared the testimony with other scoffers. I think parents and family are also selfishly thinking about their own image, and they are embarrassed by association. I let my family think we are the crazy ones in the family, and that gives them an out. 




I created this procreation vs. reproduction timeline from a talk that was very helpful to me. 
(None of the ideas are mine.)


----------



## Peairtach

*XYU*


> I know of some Christians who reject the State mandated one-child-policy, and some surgical procedures were forced on the mother at the delivery of their second child by the doctor, making them infertile. However, not having the physical ability to raise seeds and to destroy the hope and possibility of raising seeds is a totally different thing.



It's not for the state to decide how many children a couple should have.

You said that the purpose of procreation should never be separated from sexual relations i.e. the couple is immoral if they are not trying for a baby every time they have sexual relations. 

I don't find this in the Bible, and those who for physical reasons can't have a baby - and know that - must be immoral when they have sexual relations purely to know one another. Do you think that this bodily knowledge is important enough that it should be independently followed when the couple can't have children? This contradicts your argument.


----------



## Hebrew Student

jjraby,



> My wife and I are struggling with Birth Control. She has been on the pill, but we have since stopped. Mainly because of the Abortifacient aspect of it. The main question is. How do i deal with my inlaws when and if my wife become pregnant. I know to tell them to Trust God and things like that. and how do i address the "you can't afford children" argument. I am looking for some wise advice on dealing with my in-laws basically in the event that my wife becomes pregnant? They may just be excited if she does, but from what i have heard, they will not be too happy. I know I am the husband, and the decision is mine. but i would really like the support of my inlaws if it is possible to get it. Which it may not be.



First of all, I think that it is wonderful that you are stopping this particular contraceptive because it can be an abortifacient. God's command to not murder must become first and foremost.

Second, there are other options for birth control which you can look into.

Thirdly, I do think there needs to be concern for not having children apart from your budget, and while it is true that children are a blessing, the wisdom literature always talks about the enjoyment of God's many blessings [one of which are children] within the confines of liminality. However, I don't think that would apply in your context. The passage I like to use to show this is Proverbs 25:16, and I think it will lay out the differences:

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

This text is, indeed, talking about blessings, and it is doing so by pointing out that one cannot be open to just accepting anything simply because it is a blessing. Otherwise, to continue the analogy with children, you will get sick, and vomit financially or in terms of health problems. One has to know what one's "need" is, that is, how much one can take. That concept is all over the wisdom literature.

However, here is why I don't think it applies in this instance. There is no Biblical command that you are breaking by not eating more honey in the above text. The issue, in your instance, is that, by taking the pill, you are doing the wrong thing [taking an abortifacient pill] for the right reason [a desire to exercise liminality]. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still doing the wrong thing. Even though our motives might be pure, we still cannot blatantly break one of God's commands. 

Imagine the child who is tired of his friend being bullied, so he steals his parents handgun, and, when the bully starts punching the daylights out of his friend, he takes out the handgun, and shoots the bully dead. While the child was right to want to stop the bullying of his friend, the way he went about it was totally immoral. In the same way, the desire to exercise liminality is good, but not if you do so by murdering an innocent child.

Hence, I would tell your inlaws that, because you are a Christian, you could not use a pill in good contience that violates God's command against murder. Further tell them that God has promised that if we are faithful in obedience to him, then he will be faithful to us. If you get pregnant as a result of having to switch your birth control, then know that you did it out of obedience to God, and he will take care of those who are faithful to him.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Idelette

raekwon said:


> Do you lock your doors at night or put on your seatbelt when you drive?



You know, I was thinking about this statement and it is actually quite ironic, because it supports the view of not using bc pills. Scripture makes it very clear, especially in the commandments, that God considers life to be a good and precious thing. This would be the positive aspect of the sixth commandment. Not only are we to not murder, but we are also to do all things to promote and protect life. So it would be consistent for those that hold life dearly to do these things. It is actually inconsistent for those that use seat belts and lock their doors and yet have no problem using bc pills. Because, ultimately they are placing more value on their own life, but not on the potential life that they prevent from coming. Just some food for thought.....


----------



## Hebrew Student

Yvonne,



> Not only are we to not murder, but we are also to do all things to promote and protect life.



As I understand you, you are using the term "promote" in the sense of "generate" or "allow to come into existence." However, isn't the issue of murder when life already exists? How can you murder a "potential life" when murder, by definition, is the taking of life that already exists, and is not potential? I can understand how a positive aspect of this commandment might be to *preserve* life, because that would presuppose that the life already exists.

The issue with this commandment seems to be that God is only one who can give and take life, and hence, we must preserve it until he decides to take it, and not try to take it ourselves.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Brian Withnell

jjraby said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being one on the liberal end of the PB spectrum, I fall into the camp of exercising responsibility regarding child birth. Even though children are more than "a line item on a budget", they ARE expensive. Yes, they are a blessing, but that doesn't cancel out the fact that they cost money. It takes more than love to raise a child.
> 
> That said, babies happen. And it's glorious. If you get pregnant, I seriously doubt your in-laws are going to get upset with you, though they may think it is bad timing. Even though you are the head of your family, your in-laws have reason to be interested in your financial well-being. They want for their grandchildren to be provided for, and naturally so. If a baby comes at a time they don't think is appropriate, you can assure them you are taking the steps necessary to provide for the new child. It may not be the standard of living your in-laws would prefer, but you will have your needs met.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well how would that be done without violations of God's commands and trying to take control of the future of our lives? Children arn't a luxury to be had when the time is right, and they arn't something that we buy to enhance our lives. I agree with alot of what you said, but how do you walk the line of trying to take control of your life, and being dependent on God?
Click to expand...

 
One thing I'd like to add to the discussion. If I live in a dangerous area, I am not going to do nothing to protect my family from what is happening around them in addition to "trusting the Lord" ... "praise the Lord, and keep your powder dry" is trusting God, but also knowing that we have responsibility. There is no lack of "trusting the Lord" on the part of those that in addition to trusting God do what they can to plan their future. Pro 30:25 praises the ant for preparing its food in summer (while not planning for the winter explicitly, it is the clear meaning). Planning ahead does not contradict or even conflict with "... but the Lord directs his steps" but rather dovetails with it. We plan, trusting the Lord to bless the results of our plans, or to bless us in the thwarting of them. That we trust the Lord to be sovereign in all things means not that we do not plan, but that while we plan to do what we can with the light of his word as we strive to understand it and live by its principles, he will superintend all things to carry out whatsoever he has ordained, and that it will be used for the good of them that love him.


----------



## Idelette

Hebrew Student said:


> Yvonne,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are we to not murder, but we are also to do all things to promote and protect life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand you, you are using the term "promote" in the sense of "generate" or "allow to come into existence." However, isn't the issue of murder when life already exists? How can you murder a "potential life" when murder, by definition, is the taking of life that already exists, and is not potential? I can understand how a positive aspect of this commandment might be to *preserve* life, because that would presuppose that the life already exists.
> 
> The issue with this commandment seems to be that God is only one who can give and take life, and hence, we must preserve it until he decides to take it, and not try to take it ourselves.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam
Click to expand...

 
Hi Adam,

Actually, I was referring more to the positive and negative aspects of the law (not specifically murder itself.) Each commandment not only has a negative aspect but it also implies a positive action as well. So, not only are we to not profane the Lord's Day but we are to keep it holy. Not only are we to not bear false witness against our neighbor but we are to uphold their good name before others etc. And as for the sixth commandment, we see that we are to not only avoid murder but actually promote life.


----------



## YXU

Richard Tallach said:


> *XYU*
> 
> 
> 
> I know of some Christians who reject the State mandated one-child-policy, and some surgical procedures were forced on the mother at the delivery of their second child by the doctor, making them infertile. However, not having the physical ability to raise seeds and to destroy the hope and possibility of raising seeds is a totally different thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for the state to decide how many children a couple should have.
> 
> You said that the purpose of procreation should never be separated from sexual relations i.e. the couple is immoral if they are not trying for a baby every time they have sexual relations.
> 
> I don't find this in the Bible, and those who for physical reasons can't have a baby - and know that - must be immoral when they have sexual relations purely to know one another. Do you think that this bodily knowledge is important enough that it should be independently followed when the couple can't have children? This contradicts your argument.
Click to expand...


I did not say that it is immoral for those who cannot have children to have relationship with each other, you misread what I said. It is absolutely ok for them to have relation, for they did nothing on their part to destroy the hope of raising future children.

The argument is not the actual result of having children, since no man is in control but God, it is whether a man destroys his hope of having future children that matters, for it is against nature to have relationship with our wives and then by some means to destroy the hope of having children. If you deny this, then how do you argue against self pollution?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

jjraby said:


> My wife and I are struggling with Birth Control. She has been on the pill, but we have since stopped. Mainly because of the Abortifacient aspect of it. The main question is. How do i deal with my inlaws when and if my wife become pregnant. I know to tell them to Trust God and things like that. and how do i address the "you can't afford children" argument. I am looking for some wise advice on dealing with my in-laws basically in the event that my wife becomes pregnant? They may just be excited if she does, but from what i have heard, they will not be too happy. I know I am the husband, and the decision is mine. but i would really like the support of my inlaws if it is possible to get it. Which it may not be.


 
Theirs is the decision, not yours. And that decision is whether or not they want to apart of their children's and grandchildren's lives. Speak the truth in love, and then trust that God will be faithful in the circumstances that follow.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Yvonne,



> Hi Adam,





> Actually, I was referring more to the positive and negative aspects of the law (not specifically murder itself.) Each commandment not only has a negative aspect but it also implies a positive action as well. So, not only are we to not profane the Lord's Day but we are to keep it holy. Not only are we to not bear false witness against our neighbor but we are to uphold their good name before others etc. And as for the sixth commandment, we see that we are to not only avoid murder but actually promote life.



I guess what I am questioning is whether understanding "promoting life" as a positive aspect of this law is correct. As I understand it, when we discuss the positive aspects of the law, we must relate them to the negative aspects. What I am saying is that the law seems to be referring to an instance in which existing life is taken, and thus, we must understand the law to be referring to existing life. Thus, the positive aspect would seem to refer to the preservation of life, rather than the promotion of life. In fact, for what it's worth, the confessions seem to agree:

WLC 1:135 What are the duties required in the sixth commandment? A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to *preserve the life of ourselves(1) and others*(2) by resisting all thoughts and purposes,(3) subduing all passions,(4) and avoiding all occasions,(5) temptations,(6) and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;(7) by just defence thereof against violence,(8) patient bearing of the hand of God,(9) quietness of mind,(10) cheerfulness of spirit;(11) a sober use of meat,(12) drink,(13) physick,(14) sleep,(15) labour,(16) and recreations;(17) by charitable thoughts,(18) love,(19) compassion,(20) meekness, gentleness,(21) kindness; peaceable,(22) mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;(23) forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;(24) comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.(25)

WSC 1:68 What is required in the sixth commandment? A. The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavours *to preserve our own life*,(1) and the life of others.(2)

As I said, the issue really seems to be how, if promoting life is one of the positive aspects of the commandment, how then the positive and negative aspects of the commandment would be related. When we say that the preservation of life is one of the positive aspects, the unifying issue between the two is the idea that God is the only one who has the right to take life. Thus, we must seek to preserve life [positively] as well as not murder [negatively]. 

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Peairtach

*XYU*


> The argument is not the actual result of having children, since no man is in control but God, it is whether a man destroys his hope of having future children that matters, for it is against nature to have relationship with our wives and then by some means to destroy the hope of having children. If you deny this, then how do you argue against self pollution?



The only way to deliberately "destroy the hope of having children" is to damage your reproductive system in that way that it never works properly again. 

Anyone married who does this without having children (even one child) is not seeking to raise a godly (or ungodly) seed, which goes against God's Word unless they have a very special reason.

God uses secondary and human means in giving children. E.g. he may close someone's womb but use a doctor to open it. Contraception in itself is never condemned in the Bible as it could have been if it was immoral in itself. Lust and certain taking of human life are condemned. 

The Bible talks about many things and this could easily have been dealt with in the Torah or Paul's Epistles.

There is more than one purpose for sexual relations presented in the Scripture as there is more than one purose for eating and drinking presented in Scripture. 


"Self-pollution" - what is it? Desire for someone you are not married to is lust and is sin.


----------



## Momofmany

T.A.G. said:


> Momofmany said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View Post
> My understanding with oral contraception is that it prevents the release of an egg into the uterus. The lining of the uterus still swells, as it "thinks" it has an egg, but with no egg conception is impossible (and therefore not a violation of God's law). The usual menstral cycle still results. I have always understood that pills that have an abortifacient are called the "morning after pill".
> 
> I looked into this when my wife used oral contraception for our first year of marriage, so I know this was the case with the type of oral contraception she was on - I assumed this was true of all oral contraceptives. If I am mistaken can you provide a link to contrary information on an abortifacient in oral contraception?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The morning after pill is simply a strong dose of birth control pills, and is completely different from RU-486. However while almost all Christians would agree that RU486, which is designed to be a chemical abortifacient, there is less consensus on regular hormonal birth control. The idea is that the pill has three mechanisms for "preventing" pregnancy, but only two of them are actually preventative. It even says this on the packaging for the pill- the third mechanism is by stopping already fertilized embryos (human life) from implanting in the uterus. This, in my opinion, is an abortion. The issue is that no one knows how often this actually happens. Most doctors say it's probably rare, in the 2-5% region, because the other two mechanisms work so well. But a 2-5% of abortion is totally unacceptable to me, and so I would not take the pill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How sure are you that this is true? I am looking up Loestrin and cant find that but now you have me worried!
Click to expand...

 
Look up Randy Alcorn and Birth Control. He's very exhaustive. I asked my (non Christian) ob, and two other OBs and they all confirmed it.


----------



## kvanlaan

> This text is, indeed, talking about blessings, and it is doing so by pointing out that one cannot be open to just accepting anything simply because it is a blessing. Otherwise, to continue the analogy with children, you will get sick, and vomit financially or in terms of health problems. One has to know what one's "need" is, that is, how much one can take. That concept is all over the wisdom literature.



I don't buy it. I think the difference here is the concept of how children come to be. Your example makes it a mechanical matter of fact, and removes God's hand from it, to a large extent. I would say that instead, it is an instance of God opening and closing the womb as He sees fit, and the mechanics of conception are but a small part of it. Thus while Subject A must indeed lie with his wife in order to conceive, that physical coming together is of little consequence if the Lord does not bless it with conception (and He *MUST* in order for it to happen, it is not mere biology separate from God's hand).

The honey example is simply an issue of gluttony. I stretch forth my hand, take it to my mouth, and I vomit after 2-3 kilos of it. Thus I don't see how it could be applicable in this instance in that (unless you want to get really nit picky) God's hand is not a specific part of you getting too much honey. As I read your example, God stops at the bedroom door and it is basically up to the strength of our swimmers to see whether or not the wife gets pregnant... But if it is not a miracle with God's specific blessing attached to it, then how are we any different from animals?


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> I don't buy it. I think the difference here is the concept of how children come to be. Your example makes it a mechanical matter of fact, and removes God's hand from it, to a large extent. I would say that instead, it is an instance of God opening and closing the womb as He sees fit, and the mechanics of conception are but a small part of it. Thus while Subject A must indeed lie with his wife in order to conceive, that physical coming together is of little consequence if the Lord does not bless it with conception (and He MUST in order for it to happen, it is not mere biology separate from God's hand).



If you think this is in text, could you please show us where in Proverbs 25 the author makes whether or not God must grant the blessing crutial to his argument?

Secondly, I don't think the distinction works here. You can go out to find honey, _but God will control the amount that you find_. Hence, the argument still works. God is the one who grants *all* blessings, including a large amount of honey. The Bible says that every good and perfect gift comes from above, and that includes honey [James 1:17]. The question is whether you should receive those blessings that God grants if you are already full of honey [i.e., other blessings of God].



> The honey example is simply an issue of gluttony. I stretch forth my hand, take it to my mouth, and I vomit after 2-3 kilos of it. Thus I don't see how it could be applicable in this instance in that (unless you want to get really nit picky) God's hand is not a specific part of you getting too much honey. As I read your example, God stops at the bedroom door and it is basically up to the strength of our swimmers to see whether or not the wife gets pregnant... But if it is not a miracle with God's specific blessing attached to it, then how are we any different from animals?



First of all, yes God's hand is a part of you getting too much honey, as it is God who causes you to find it in the first place! You wouldn't say that his providence is left out of something like that would you?

Not only that, but simply mentioning something like gluttony alone ignores the context of the passage, not only in terms of its immediate context, but also in terms of its context in the wisdom literature itself. It is not just about gluttony. Consider the following verse:

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

Now, the enboldened term is the exact same Hebrew expression that is found in verse 16 [_pen_+_saba'_]. Thus, this verse 16 is now taken and applied to friendship. The usage of terms such as "honey," "have enough of," and "vomit" throughout the wisdom literature as well as the ANE make the idea that we are simply referring to gluttony here impossible, as does the context of verse 17. Also, in the structure of the passage, you have to note that the last to verses of this chapter are highly relevant:

Proverbs 25:27-28 It is not good to eat much honey, Nor is it glory to search out one's own glory. 28 *Like a city that is broken into and without walls Is a man who has no control over his spirit.*

Now, what I find fasinating is that verse 28 clearly states that the issue involved in these passages is restraint and control, and nothing is mentioned of anything being granted by God! It is in the context of control over one's spirit, and whether or not it the blessings are given by God are never said to be crutial anywhere [of course, I would argue that there is no such thing as a blessing that is not granted by God]! To just simply say that you are going to receive God's blessings even when you will vomit them up makes you like a city broken in without walls.

In fact, that is why I like to use this verse in talking with quiverfull advocates, because quiverfull advocates will often quote Psalm 127:5 and talk about the not being ashamed when they speak to the enemies at the gate [which I think is erroniously applied to culture wars, when the context is most clearly law courts, as even John Calvin argued]. However, what is interesting is that, although Psalm 127:3 says that children are a blessing, Proverbs 25 says that overendulgence of any blessing such that it causes vomiting of any kind makes you a city without walls which is broken in, totally the opposite of Psalm 127:5!

The problem is that quiverfull is reductionistic. It sees the blessings of God, and it sees the goodness of children, but then, because of an "American excess" view of what a blessing is, they then say to go out and have as many children as possible with no concern as to "what they need" [Proverbs 25:16]. The truth is somewhere inbetween. Yes, children are a blessing, and yes, more people should seek to have children, as it is a need in the church right now. However, to do that in excess without considering, as the ant does in Proverbs 6:6-8, what he will need for the winter, is something that the wisdom literature says is folly, on more than one occasion.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Andres

Adam, what would you say about Proverbs 10:22 - "The blessing of the LORD makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it"?


----------



## kvanlaan

> Secondly, I don't think the distinction works here. You can go out to find honey, but God will control the amount that you find. Hence, the argument still works. God is the one who grants *all* blessings, including a large amount of honey. The Bible says that every good and perfect gift comes from above, and that includes honey [James 1:17]. *The question is whether you should receive those blessings that God grants if you are already full of honey [i.e., other blessings of God].*



So then we are looking to contradict this:


> 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.


, correct? I'd rather not, thank you. Thus I don't follow the logic; you can sleep with your wife all you want, but without God's specific blessing in the matter, you will not conceive. You really have very little to do with the conception of your child.

If God puts honey before you, it is within your power to not eat it. Nowhere does it say "defraud yourselves not of honey..." so I really don't see the correlation that you are trying to put together there.



> First of all, yes God's hand is a part of you getting too much honey, as it is God who causes you to find it in the first place! You wouldn't say that his providence is left out of something like that would you?



That's precisely what I mean about getting too nit-picky. We are a group of Calvinists here, and no one will deny the sovereignty and providence of God in all this.



> The problem is that quiverfull is reductionistic. It sees the blessings of God, and it sees the goodness of children, but then, because of an "American excess" view of what a blessing is, they then say to go out and have as many children as possible with no concern as to "what they need" [Proverbs 25:16]. The truth is somewhere inbetween. Yes, children are a blessing, and yes, more people should seek to have children, as it is a need in the church right now. However, to do that in excess without considering, as the ant does in Proverbs 6:6-8, what he will need for the winter, is something that the wisdom literature says is folly, on more than one occasion.



I'm afraid you put far too much of the power of conception in the hands of man with this argument. It is not an automatic thing, you see. "American excess" has no bearing on the argument whatsoever on the part of the child-bearer, as, again, without the hand of God, there will be no conception, regardless of the 'excess' you seem to place on the QF follower. Does 1Cor7 have no bearing at all?


----------



## he beholds

From Adam:


> The problem is that quiverfull is reductionistic. It sees the blessings of God, and it sees the goodness of children, but then, because of an "American excess" view of what a blessing is, they then say to go out and have as many children as possible with no concern as to "what they need" [Proverbs 25:16]. The truth is somewhere inbetween. Yes, children are a blessing, and yes, more people should seek to have children, as it is a need in the church right now. However, to do that in excess without considering, as the ant does in Proverbs 6:6-8, what he will need for the winter, is something that the wisdom literature says is folly, on more than one occasion.


So, before America, it would have been ok to have as many children as possible, since the main reason Americans want babies is b/c they are after excess? This is so contrary to any American seeking excess that I know of. Maybe you aren't an American so don't know this, but the excess that we are after is usually _prevented_ by the birth of multiple children. We like things and money in excess. Children ruin our things and take our money. The people who are open to having many children are actually usually _not_ the ones who are treating children like commodities or collectibles. 

And what about before birth control? Sure, now we can do both: obey Scripture and not defraud one another while using BC to not get pregnant. BUT there was a time before BC where obeying God and giving yourself freely to your spouse would have been accepting the possibility of making babies. SO then it was OK to have blessings in excess, but not now that science has stepped in to fix what was broken in God's word? 

I guess I'm saying that I don't think time or circumstance changes the meaning of God's word. God's word exhorting us to not defraud one another stood before BC. I think we can all agree that this meant at that time children, and lots of them, were to be very welcome in families. 
If this meant that then, why would it change now, just because we now have a more precise way of preventing child birth?

---------- Post added at 10:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 AM ----------

I also have to ask why we are even using Proverbs 6:6-8 to describe how many children we should have? What are the children in this analogy? 
The ant, or the man, needs to be diligent before the time of need (ie winter) comes. Regardless of the number of children, the ant/man needs to rise to the occasion. Winter will definitely come, so the ant _must_ prepare. Using this in regards to children is like saying, only let winter come when you are ready for it. Instead what it is saying is work hard always. If you have to feed three children, prepare for that. If you have to feed six, prepare for that. I don't see how someone can say I can only feed two children, so I better only have two. In summer, you can't control what winter will be like. If you have enough for two children, but have three, then this verse is telling you, if anything, then go gather more for that third. Rise to the occasion. 

If I just slaughtered Scripture, please correct me. I just don't see how this proverb speaks to this question, so I'm trying to make an argument against that. 




> Go to the ant, O sluggard;
> consider her ways, and be wise.
> Without having any chief,
> officer, or ruler,
> she prepares her bread in summer
> and gathers her food in harvest.
> How long will you lie there, O sluggard?
> When will you arise from your sleep?
> A little sleep, a little slumber,
> a little folding of the hands to rest,
> and poverty will come upon you like a robber,
> and want like an armed man.
> (Proverbs 6:6-11 ESV)


----------



## kvanlaan

Amen. Amen. Amen.


----------



## captivewill

Any time we completely sever the connection of sexual intimacy from reproduction we create an artificial situation which simply does not fit the assumptions the scriptures were addressing. Margaret Sanger has infiltrated the very fabric of our daily lives. We are infected at the level of our assumptions by HER influences. 
I don't know how you explain this to relatives but "they" are the ones with artificially evolved asssumptions while you have returned to the order of nature.
It seems to me that they are the ones who should explain.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Amen Jessica!


----------



## captivewill

I agree with MomofMany..at the same time there is considerable difference in the natural exceptions to conception and the many deliberately contrived and manipulated controls that we humans devise.
I dare say that any believer reading Margaret Sanger would perceive nothing but evil in her designs and plans which were quite sinister.


----------



## satz

jjraby said:


> My wife and I are struggling with Birth Control. She has been on the pill, but we have since stopped. Mainly because of the Abortifacient aspect of it. The main question is. How do i deal with my inlaws when and if my wife become pregnant. I know to tell them to Trust God and things like that. and how do i address the "you can't afford children" argument. I am looking for some wise advice on dealing with my in-laws basically in the event that my wife becomes pregnant? They may just be excited if she does, but from what i have heard, they will not be too happy. I know I am the husband, and the decision is mine. but i would really like the support of my inlaws if it is possible to get it. Which it may not be.


 
Some thoughts for your consideration...

I would echo what has been said above, this issue _is_ your in law's business, because as your inlaws, they are in a God ordained position that requires you honor them. I believe that biblically, you should strive to do your best to honor your inlaws, even if in this matter you may not obey them or please them. Its not very clear what the objections your inlaws may have, but if I were in your position, I would do my best to allay any fears my inlaws may have, and to let them know I respect and value their advice and opinions. I would be gracious in explaining why I differ from their views, and let them know that my trust in God is different from a airy-fairy assumption that "everything will be ok in the end". If their fears are financial, I would let them know I am doing my reasonable but absolute best to be able to provide comfortably for your wife and child, and that I am trusting in God to bless my efforts. 

I do think you should do everything in your power to obtain your inlaws' blessing or understanding, even if it means making an extra effort to honor or please them in other areas where you can. Even if your inlaws may not have the authority to dictate your actions in this area, it is, I believe, the christian thing to do to do whatever you can to continue to honor them.

Maybe Pr 25:15 may also be helpful in obtaining their support and understanding. 



> Pr 25:15 By long forbearing is a prince persuaded, and a soft tongue breaketh the bone.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Andres,



> Adam, what would you say about Proverbs 10:22 - "The blessing of the LORD makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it"?



I wouldn't say anything to the text, but I would say a whole lot to this translation. The issue has to do with the meaning of the Hebrew term _'tsm_, as well as the subject of _yasaph_. The subject here is assumed to be "The Lord." However, what if the subject were _'tsm_? _'tsm_ has a wide range of meanings. One of its meanings is something like "effort, strength" [c.f. Job 21:23]. Now, if that is the subject, then the text would read "The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and effort does not add anything to it." Michael Fox takes this interpretation in his commentary.

However, even if I were to agree with the translation above, it would be irrelevant, as we are not talking about blessings, but excesses of blessings.

kvanlaan,



> So then we are looking to contradict this:
> 
> 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.
> 
> , correct? I'd rather not, thank you. Thus I don't follow the logic; you can sleep with your wife all you want, but without God's specific blessing in the matter, you will not conceive. You really have very little to do with the conception of your child.
> 
> If God puts honey before you, it is within your power to not eat it. Nowhere does it say "defraud yourselves not of honey..." so I really don't see the correlation that you are trying to put together there.



The issue in this text is not contraception, but sexual relations. It is forbidding the deprivation of sexual relations. The answer that I would give is, use contraception, and you can keep both commands, the commands of Proverbs 25:16 and 1 Corinthians 7.



> I'm afraid you put far too much of the power of conception in the hands of man with this argument. It is not an automatic thing, you see. "American excess" has no bearing on the argument whatsoever on the part of the child-bearer, as, again, without the hand of God, there will be no conception, regardless of the 'excess' you seem to place on the QF follower. Does 1Cor7 have no bearing at all?



The problem is, without the hand of God, there is also no honey. Without the hand of God, there is no friendship. Unless you are going to argue that blessings can come without the hand of God, I don't see how this argument is relevant. Also, yes, I am going to be picky on this, because I am looking for consistency in what you are saying.

1 Corinthians 7 has bearing because contraception is the only way you will be able to obey both of these commands. That is why I think it is the most consistent with scripture [although others would use things like natural family planning which, I believe contradicts 1 Corinthians 7]. Either way, both 1 Corinthians 7 and Proverbs 25:16 must be obeyed.

He Beholds,



> So, before America, it would have been ok to have as many children as possible, since the main reason Americans want babies is b/c they are after excess? This is so contrary to any American seeking excess that I know of.



No, my point is that the quiverfull movement comes from the same thinking pattern as obesity, excesses in entertainment, and all the excesses we have as Americans. Quiverfull just adds an excess of children to the mix. However, it is based on the same concept as the excesses of obesity, entertainment, etc.



> Maybe you aren't an American so don't know this, but the excess that we are after is usually prevented by the birth of multiple children. We like things and money in excess. Children ruin our things and take our money. The people who are open to having many children are actually usually not the ones who are treating children like commodities or collectibles.



My point is that, in order to avoid these excesses you are talking about, you have created another excess, namely, an excess of children resulting in financial "vomiting" and "vomiting" in terms of health. Hence, I would say you have the same problem as the people who do not have children because they could no longer be rich. Too much money causes you to vomit "selfishness," to many children cause you to vomit financially and medically. 



> And what about before birth control? Sure, now we can do both: obey Scripture and not defraud one another while using BC to not get pregnant. BUT there was a time before BC where obeying God and giving yourself freely to your spouse would have been accepting the possibility of making babies. SO then it was OK to have blessings in excess, but not now that science has stepped in to fix what was broken in God's word?



First of all, birth control has existed for far longer than the 20th century. It may not have had the same form as it does today, but birth control goes clear back even to the ANE at least to 1550BC. Also, I should note that the context is not about someone who must sin in order to avoid taking the excess. Yes, if a person had no access to contraception, the excess would be unavoidable. In fact, such a situation would be parallel to the original post, since a person would have to sin to avoid it. However, there is no sin of contraception.



> I guess I'm saying that I don't think time or circumstance changes the meaning of God's word. God's word exhorting us to not defraud one another stood before BC. I think we can all agree that this meant at that time children, and lots of them, were to be very welcome in families.
> If this meant that then, why would it change now, just because we now have a more precise way of preventing child birth?



Nor do I think it changes the meaning of God's word. I would just question whether your history is correct. For example, you also have to deal with the fact that the idea that contraception is a sin was something that developed over time. Dr. John T. Noonan, Jr. in his magnum opus, “Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists.” (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.) writes the following on page 6:

[QUOTE[A closer examination of the teaching (on contraception) may show that it does not possess an abstract constancy and independence. It has developed…[/QUOTE]

In the rest of that book, he proves his case through many citations of Patristic writers, and shows that the idea that contraception was a sin was something that was unheard of in the early church, and was a reaction to many things, including the heresy of Gnosticism. Hence, I would say that your argument relies on a view of history that is entirely reductionistic.



> I also have to ask why we are even using Proverbs 6:6-8 to describe how many children we should have? What are the children in this analogy?
> The ant, or the man, needs to be diligent before the time of need (ie winter) comes. Regardless of the number of children, the ant/man needs to rise to the occasion. Winter will definitely come, so the ant must prepare. Using this in regards to children is like saying, only let winter come when you are ready for it.



There is nothing masculine that is in view here, first of all. The slothfulness of both men and women are condemned roundly in this passage, and there is nothing in the text that relates this to men. Secondly, the issue is not so much the children, but the ideas and attitudes that quiverfull advocates express. If you plan well for difficult times [i.e., are careful to choose whether or not you have children and the number of children wisely], you will be more likely to weather the winter than the person who says "I will just blindly accept however many children with which God gets me pregnant, and then, I will risk further financial difficulty, health problems for my wife, as well as the other problems that are sure to come in my life." In essence, the sluggard represents the quiverfull advocate, and the ant is the person who exercises moderation, because he is planning for the future.

Again, I would still ask for an exegesis of Proverbs 25:16. I have not gotten it. All I am getting is the idea that God must grant children, totally ignoring the idea that God must grant all blessings, and totally ignoring that nowhere does the author of Proverbs 25 make the granting of blessings crutial to his argument. If what Proverbs 25:16 says is true, then the concept of a blessing can contain moderation in receiving God's blessings, and thus, the argument that children are a blessing is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## au5t1n

Hebrew Student said:


> Andres,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, what would you say about Proverbs 10:22 - "The blessing of the LORD makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say anything to the text, but I would say a whole lot to this translation. The issue has to do with the meaning of the Hebrew term _'tsm_, as well as the subject of _yasaph_. The subject here is assumed to be "The Lord." However, what if the subject were _'tsm_? _'tsm_ has a wide range of meanings. One of its meanings is something like "effort, strength" [c.f. Job 21:23]. Now, if that is the subject, then the text would read "The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and effort does not add anything to it." Michael Fox takes this interpretation in his commentary.
Click to expand...

 
I just checked a bunch of translations and found the translation of this verse to be consistent. Based on what I know of linguistics (a good deal, in spite of Hebrew not being one of the languages I've delved into much), this indicates to me that the syntax of the sentence most likely indicates the subject--especially if Proverbs happens to be filled with similary structured statements, which seems likely to me given the nature of Proverbs.


----------



## kvanlaan

> The problem is, without the hand of God, there is also no honey. Without the hand of God, there is no friendship. Unless you are going to argue that blessings can come without the hand of God, I don't see how this argument is relevant. Also, yes, I am going to be picky on this, because I am looking for consistency in what you are saying.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7 has bearing because contraception is the only way you will be able to obey both of these commands. That is why I think it is the most consistent with scripture [although others would use things like natural family planning which, I believe contradicts 1 Corinthians 7]. Either way, both 1 Corinthians 7 and Proverbs 25:16 must be obeyed.



So prior to widely available contraception, people were in sin in having unbridled marital relations? Wow, that's thousands of years of wickedness that has finally been solved by Family Planning. Thank you Trojans!

The fact that this idea of 'too many blessings causing one to vomit' flies in the face of 1000+ years of church history to the contrary (where any child was a blessing) seems a bit of a stretch...



> The problem is, without the hand of God, there is also no honey. Without the hand of God, there is no friendship. Unless you are going to argue that blessings can come without the hand of God, I don't see how this argument is relevant. Also, yes, I am going to be picky on this, because I am looking for consistency in what you are saying.



Yes, but while I can sinfully steal honey from a pot, I cannot sinfully conceive against His will, so to speak.


----------



## Hebrew Student

austinww,

Hebrew poetry is notoriously ambiguious. Both translations are possible, and I cited Michael Fox's commentary as an example of someone who takes that view. As I recall, Murphy also takes this interpretation. I recall Waltke having a yet different understanding.

However, it is open for debate, and I am not dogmatic on my interpretation. That is why I addressed the possiblity that Andres' translation is correct.

God Bless,
Adam

---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

kvanlaan,



> So prior to widely available contraception, people were in sin in having unbridled marital relations? Wow, that's thousands of years of wickedness that has finally been solved by Family Planning. Thank you Trojans!



Kvanlaan, go back and reread what I wrote. I addressed that issue. In the event that one does not have access to contraception, one cannot avoid the excess without breaking God's commandments. There is no command that says, "thou shalt not refrain from eating honey," and hence, that is the context of the passage. That is why I said that the issue of a person who does not have access to contraception would be similar to the original post, because the only way the original poster can avoid the excess is by sinning, namely, by taking an abortifiacient pill. However, the situation you have brought up is exactly the same in that, the only way a person without contraception can avoid the excess is by sinning, namely, by avoiding sexual relations with their wife.

However, what happens when it is possible to avoid the excess, and still keep God's commands? That is the boat you are in, and thus, Proverbs 25:16 applies.

I guess the short answer is that, you have access, so why do you assume a parallel between their situation, and your situation?



> The fact that this idea of 'too many blessings causing one to vomit' flies in the face of 1000+ years of church history to the contrary (where any child was a blessing) seems a bit of a stretch...



Actually, I don't care what history says. If we are protestants, we should hold to Sola Scriptura. History can be helpful to give you exegetical ideas, and to see how commentators throughout the ages have handled the text, but it is not our ultimate authority. Scripture interpreting scripture is our ultimate authority. Also, even when we look at history, we find the historical ideas presented by Roman Catholics and quiverfull advocates to be entirely reductionistic, as I said in my last post.

Also, kvanlaan, if it is "a bit of a stretch," then why did my professor, Dr. Willem VanGemeren who is considered one of the top scholars of the wisdom literature, give me an A on a paper where I specifically exegeted that passage, and applied it to quiverfull? If it is a stretch, that wouldn't make sense.

The reality is that quiverfull is rejected by the vast majority of exegetical scholars for the very reasons I have laid out above. It has an entirely reductionistic view of scripture, that cannot make sense out of the complexities of the Biblical worldview, including blessing and moderation. While I appriciate the desire to see children as a blessing, I think we also need to go back to scripture in order to understand what the Biblical conception of a blessing is.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## he beholds

Hebrew Student said:


> The reality is that quiverfull is rejected by the vast majority of exegetical scholars for the very reasons I have laid out above. It has an entirely reductionistic view of scripture, that cannot make sense out of the complexities of the Biblical worldview, including blessing and moderation. While I appriciate the desire to see children as a blessing, I think we also need to go back to scripture in order to understand what the Biblical conception of a blessing is.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam


There is no way someone can argue, from Scripture, that you are _not allowed_ to have a lot of children. (edited b/c the rest was just immature and rude♥)


----------



## BlackCalvinist

YXU said:


> It is between a man and a women, for their mutual benefit, to raise seeds and to prevent fornication as the confession states. The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure, the pleasure is to promote the raising of seeds. The ordiance is broken in a degree if the married couple only try to seek pleasure and physical relief from lust apart of raising seeds. This natrual order of marriage should also be the main reason against abortion.


 
The entire book of Song of Solomon is about marital pleasure and never once mentions children.


----------



## Peairtach

According to this philosophy, a christian married couple should have sexual relations as often as they can, always try for a child, and continue having sexual relations until they are clapped out and die from heart attacks.

But if they know that they can't have children they shouldn't have sexual relations, since it is wrong to separate having sexual relations from having children.

The Bible never says that married couples are obligated to try for as many children as they can have. This is just to add to Scripture.

It's rooted in Roman Catholic natural law theory.

*XYU*


> The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure,




The Bible indicates that one of the purposes of sexual relations is "knowledge" of one's spouse. Therefore, it puts fences about that "knowledge" whether or not there is conception.

E.g. The Bible doesn't say adultery is wrong if it leads to pregnancy, but adultery is wrong whether or not it leads to pregnancy. 

The Bible protects this knowledge as something important _independent_ of having children.



> There is no way someone can argue, from Scripture, that you are not allowed to have a lot of children. I'm sorry but I believe that, you, your Dr. VanWhatsit, and your league of experts are attempting to put into Scripture something that is just not there.



*He beholds*
No-one's arguing that a couple can't or shouldn't have lots iof children, but that you cannot argue from Scripture that all contraception is always immoral.


God has already given Man a hand in conception by giving him a degree of choice over whether or not he marries, who he marries and when he has sexual relations with his wife. 

If he thinks any of these things do not accord with godly wisdom he may forbear as a wise and godly man.


----------



## he beholds

Richard Tallach said:


> According to this philosophy, a christian married couple should have sexual relations as often as they can, always try for a child, and continue having sexual relations until they are clapped out and die from heart attacks.
> 
> But if they know that they can't have children they shouldn't have sexual relations, since it is wrong to separate having sexual relations from having children.
> 
> The Bible never says that married couples are obligated to try for as many children as they can have. This is just to add to Scripture.
> 
> It's rooted in Roman Catholic natural law theory.
> 
> *XYU*
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible never indicates that this relation has an independant purpose of gaining physical pleasure,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible indicates that one of the purposes of sexual relations is "knowledge" of one's spouse. Therefore, it puts fences about that "knowledge" whether or not there is conception.
> 
> E.g. The Bible doesn't say adultery is wrong if it leads to pregnancy, but adultery is wrong whether or not it leads to pregnancy.
> 
> The Bible protects this knowledge as something important _independent_ of having children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way someone can argue, from Scripture, that you are not allowed to have a lot of children. I'm sorry but I believe that, you, your Dr. VanWhatsit, and your league of experts are attempting to put into Scripture something that is just not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He beholds*
> *No-one's arguing that a couple can't or shouldn't have lots iof children, but that you cannot argue from Scripture that all contraception is always immoral.*
> 
> 
> God has already given Man a hand in conception by giving him a degree of choice over whether or not he marries, who he marries and when he has sexual relations with his wife.
> 
> If he thinks any of these things do not accord with godly wisdom he may forbear as a wise and godly man.
Click to expand...

 
I'm sorry, then. I really thought he was saying that wanting many children/many blessings was a sin and based on greed, or American excess. I am not convinced that BC is immoral, so I have no argument with Adam or anyone else as long as he's really not saying that to have lots of kids, even as many kids as possible, is a sin. I cannot see that from Scripture.


----------



## Peairtach

I can't see how it would be a sin either, to have as many kids as possible. But it might not be wise, depending. 

It might be ungodly and immoral, and therefore unwise, for a married couple to avoid having any kids or have a small number.

"All things are lawful but not all things are expedient" - the Apostle Paul in Scripture.

There can be a wise and appropriate use of contraception by the wise Christian couple.

There can be an ungodly, immoral and unwise use of it.


----------



## Idelette

Hebrew Student said:


> I also have to ask why we are even using Proverbs 6:6-8 to describe how many children we should have? What are the children in this analogy?
> The ant, or the man, needs to be diligent before the time of need (ie winter) comes. Regardless of the number of children, the ant/man needs to rise to the occasion. Winter will definitely come, so the ant must prepare. Using this in regards to children is like saying, only let winter come when you are ready for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing masculine that is in view here, first of all. The slothfulness of both men and women are condemned roundly in this passage, and there is nothing in the text that relates this to men. Secondly, the issue is not so much the children, but the ideas and attitudes that quiverfull advocates express. If you plan well for difficult times [i.e., are careful to choose whether or not you have children and the number of children wisely], you will be more likely to weather the winter than the person who says "I will just blindly accept however many children with which God gets me pregnant, and then, I will risk further financial difficulty, health problems for my wife, as well as the other problems that are sure to come in my life." In essence, the sluggard represents the quiverfull advocate, and the ant is the person who exercises moderation, because he is planning for the future.
Click to expand...

 
Adam,

You have completely taken this passage out of context, and you are reading things into this text to fit your own views. This passage is teaching us that we are to be good stewards of what God entrusts into our care, not to determine what should or shouldn't be placed into our care as you are suggesting! The sluggard is the one that is not a good steward and takes for granted the things placed into his care. And for you to liken quiverful families to the sluggard I find appalling and offensive! To be quite frank, I know several qf families, and they are some of the most hard-working, zealous, frugal people that I have ever met! I think you should be careful to make generalizations about people simply because you do not agree with having many children. And to be quite honest, their vineyards are overflowing both spiritually and physically and I think it has a lot to do with their faithfulness!

You can do all the planning you want, you can distort as many passages as you'd like, you can opt not to get married, not to have any children at all, to save every penny.....and still be very poor! The Lord is Sovereign over all, and His purposes will stand!


----------



## kvanlaan

> Kvanlaan, go back and reread what I wrote. I addressed that issue. In the event that one does not have access to contraception, one cannot avoid the excess without breaking God's commandments. There is no command that says, "thou shalt not refrain from eating honey," and hence, that is the context of the passage. That is why I said that the issue of a person who does not have access to contraception would be similar to the original post, because the only way the original poster can avoid the excess is by sinning, namely, by taking an abortifiacient pill. However, the situation you have brought up is exactly the same in that, the only way a person without contraception can avoid the excess is by sinning, namely, by avoiding sexual relations with their wife.



"One cannot avoid the excess without breaking God's commandment" - this is, to me, still a complete rejection of the Biblical idea of children as a blessing from the Lord. I cannot argue against it because I cannot wrap my head around it as any sort of exegetical concept actually found in Scripture. While many on this board have differing ideas as to whether or not birth control is a sin (in its various forms) I don't think anyone has ever raised the idea that not using birth control is to commit an 'excess' of some sort in God's eyes.



> Actually, I don't care what history says. If we are protestants, we should hold to Sola Scriptura. History can be helpful to give you exegetical ideas, and to see how commentators throughout the ages have handled the text, but it is not our ultimate authority. Scripture interpreting scripture is our ultimate authority. Also, even when we look at history, we find the historical ideas presented by Roman Catholics and quiverfull advocates to be entirely reductionistic, as I said in my last post.



And while the idea of children as a blessing (ANY child, no matter how "excessive" the number may be) is regarded by most theologians worth their ink as just that, a blessing, you would rather that I take your opinion as truth rather than rest on the shoulders of the theological giants of the Reformation and of the Puritan movement. Sorry to disappoint, but I choose them.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

To be rude we gotta start out breeding the Muslims and the Atheists. Natural church growth is the best church growth.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> To be rude we gotta start out breeding the Muslims and the Atheists. Natural church growth is the best church growth.



I know this sounds crazy, but there is truth to this view. Actually, Christians and nonchristians are not having enough children to keep the American society. That is why we have so many of the labor problems we have in this society. China will be in for a big surprise in a few years when The one child can not support the two parents. Economically it just will not work. But, the church needs to not merely have more children, but they also need take back the home, since close to 80% of the children raised in the church leave the church.

SermonAudio.com - The Centrality of the Home in the Evangelism and Discipleship of the Next Generation


And furthermore, it should be us who desire to adopt the orphans which the world is rejecting.

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Adoption/


----------



## Hebrew Student

Yvonne,

Go back and reread the context of what I said. I said they are like the sluggard _in the way they do not plan for the future with respect to children_.

Finally, I still have yet to hear an exegesis of this text:

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

The point is, kvanlaan, not that children are not a blessing, but that quiverfull has an unbiblical concept of a blessing. The concept of a blessing must be derived from the Bible alone. There is everything in the wisdom literature to suggest the blessings need to be handled in liminality. It is not just Proverbs 25:16, and it is not just Proverbs 6; this concept is all over the wisdom literature. Hence, when you talk about anything as a blessing, this has got to figure in.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## au5t1n

Hebrew Student said:


> Yvonne,
> 
> Go back and reread the context of what I said. I said they are like the sluggard _in the way they do not plan for the future with respect to children_.
> 
> Finally, I still have yet to hear an exegesis of this text:
> 
> Proverbs 25:16 ave you found honey? Eat only what you need, That you not have it in excess and vomit it.
> 
> The point is, kvanlaan, not that children are not a blessing, but that quiverfull has an unbiblical concept of a blessing. The concept of a blessing must be derived from the Bible alone. There is everything in the wisdom literature to suggest the blessings need to be handled in liminality. It is not just Proverbs 25:16, and it is not just Proverbs 6; this concept is all over the wisdom literature. Hence, when you talk about anything as a blessing, this has got to figure in.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam


 
Every other blessing listed in the Wisdom literature is an inanimate object that is consumed by humans in some fashion. Children are human beings in the image of God. They do not just give a temporary benefit (like honey) -- they go on to have some impact on society, hopefully for the Lord. This, at the very least, places children in a different category from other blessings which are just consumed goods.


----------



## TexanRose

Hebrew Student said:


> Yvonne,
> 
> Go back and reread the context of what I said. I said they are like the sluggard _in the way they do not plan for the future with respect to children_.


 
I guess I don't see that "quiverfull" families are not planning for the future with respect to children. I know a lot of families who have decided to allow God to determine family size. They have all planned wisely for the future in a number of ways, for instance, by postponing marriage until the husband is in a position to support his wife and any children that might come along; by developing/honing the ability to live frugally; by choosing careers with the anticipation of possibly needing to support a large number of children; by obtaining ample life insurance and disability insurance plans so that the wife and kids will still be provided for in case of the husband's death or illness; etc. etc.

I don't know of one situation where a Christian husband has not been able to provide for his family _because_ he had a large number of children. Do you? I do know of a large family or two where the husband did not provide due to slothfulness or other circumstances, but in those cases, provision would have been an issue no matter what the size of the family. I think that generally speaking, if you allow God to determine family size, and trust that He will provide, He will. 

(Though I'm not advocating the other extreme, where Mom weans the baby super early so that she can hurry up and get pregnant again--I think we ought to trust God with our fertility even when he makes us wait.)


----------



## kvanlaan

> Go back and reread the context of what I said. I said they are like the sluggard in the way they do not plan for the future with respect to children.



Well, then that's easy enough, because the above is a false statement.



> I don't know of one situation where a Christian husband has not been able to provide for his family because he had a large number of children. Do you? I do know of a large family or two where the husband did not provide due to slothfulness or other circumstances, but in those cases, provision would have been an issue no matter what the size of the family. *I think that generally speaking, if you allow God to determine family size, and trust that He will provide, He will.*



And this is a true one.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

puritanpilgrim said:


> To be rude we gotta start out breeding the Muslims and the Atheists. Natural church growth is the best church growth.
> 
> 
> 
> I know this sounds crazy, but there is truth to this view. Actually, Christians and nonchristians are not having enough children to keep the American society. That is why we have so many of the labor problems we have in this society. China will be in for a big surprise in a few years when The one child can not support the two parents. Economically it just will not work.
Click to expand...


China's already feeling it in other areas:

NBC: China begins to face sex-ratio imbalance - World news- msnbc.com


----------



## he beholds

Hebrew Student said:


> Yvonne,
> 
> Go back and reread the context of what I said. I said they are like the sluggard _in the way they do not plan for the future with respect to children_.
> 
> *Finally, I still have yet to hear an exegesis of this text:*
> 
> *Proverbs 25:16 ave you found honey? Eat only what you need, That you not have it in excess and vomit it.*
> 
> The point is, kvanlaan, not that children are not a blessing, but that quiverfull has an unbiblical concept of a blessing. The concept of a blessing must be derived from the Bible alone. There is everything in the wisdom literature to suggest the blessings need to be handled in liminality. It is not just Proverbs 25:16, and it is not just Proverbs 6; this concept is all over the wisdom literature. Hence, when you talk about anything as a blessing, this has got to figure in.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam



I figured it out!!! 

Children, not being commodities, cannot be weighed by "need," since they are not things that we need. Rather they are "things" (if we must) that we are commanded to have in order to be fruitful and multiply. SNAP! There's some exegesis for you. 

I, being a woman who personally welcomes each and every child that the Lord has given me and hopes for more, realize that my children are not honey. I serve them more than they serve me. They are blessings in that they bring great blessing to my life, but they are not a blessing I need to seek out. The Lord gives them to me. Yes, I believe that the Lord also gives the blessing of children to those that don't desire them, to those that will kill them, and to those who "plan" each child. But not using BC is NOT seeking extra blessings. I am not having children because I collect them and hope to be blessed more than I should be (as w/your American excess and your vomiting honey pots), but because I do my wifely "duties" and some of those times lead to the creation of babies. Since I was a little rude in my first response I will address your earlier Q as to how your professor could give you an A. My answer: I don't know. I have gotten A's on papers when I haven't even _read_ the material assigned. Perhaps it was an A for effort. Or perhaps everyone got an A, or perhaps the man agreed with you. But he, like the saints in history whom you ask us to disregard in a Protestant fashion, is not Scripture. 

But there are so many verses that do say how wonderful children are. 
I do not think it is a blanket sin to use BC. But you do seem to say that it is one to not. I think you are wrong.


----------



## au5t1n

he beholds said:


> Since I was a little rude in my first response I will address your earlier Q as to how your professor could give you an A. My answer: I don't know. I have gotten A's on papers when I haven't even _read_ the material assigned. Perhaps it was an A for effort. Or perhaps everyone got an A, or perhaps the man agreed with you. But he, like the saints in history whom you ask us to disregard in a Protestant fashion, is not Scripture.


 
Another thing is that a good professor will not grade primarily on whether your conclusion is correct, but on whether your logic is communicated well and presented in an organized manner. If Adam is a good writer, that puts him above 90% of his class (no offense to them) right off the bat, regardless of whether his conclusion is valid. A paper that communicates the logic well and demonstrates an understanding of what the class covers (e.g. Hebrew) should earn more even with an incorrect conclusion than a poorly-written paper that just happens to have an accurate thesis.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Every other blessing listed in the Wisdom literature is an inanimate object that is consumed by humans in some fashion. Children are human beings in the image of God. They do not just give a temporary benefit (like honey) -- they go on to have some impact on society, hopefully for the Lord. This, at the very least, places children in a different category from other blessings which are just consumed goods.



A-MEN, brother!



> Children, not being commodities, cannot be weighed by "need," since they are not things that we need. Rather they are "things" (if we must) that we are commanded to have in order to be fruitful and multiply. SNAP! There's some exegesis for you.
> 
> I, being a woman who personally welcomes each and every child that the Lord has given me and hopes for more, realize that my children are not honey. I serve them more than they serve me. They are blessings in that they bring great blessing to my life, but they are not a blessing I need to seek out. The Lord gives them to me. Yes, I believe that the Lord also gives the blessing of children to those that don't desire them, to those that will kill them, and to those who "plan" each child. But not using BC is NOT seeking extra blessings. I am not having children because I collect them and hope to be blessed more than I should be (as w/your American excess and your vomiting honey pots), but because I do my wifely "duties" and some of those times lead to the creation of babies. Since I was a little rude in my first response I will address your earlier Q as to how your professor could give you an A. My answer: I don't know. I have gotten A's on papers when I haven't even read the material assigned. Perhaps it was an A for effort. Or perhaps everyone got an A, or perhaps the man agreed with you. But he, like the saints in history whom you ask us to disregard in a Protestant fashion, is not Scripture.
> 
> But there are so many verses that do say how wonderful children are.
> I do not think it is a blanket sin to use BC. But you do seem to say that it is one to not. I think you are wrong.



And A-MEN, sister!

(I'm suddenly feeling a little charismatic tonight!)


----------



## Zenas

Jeremy,

I have a feeling I know you. Tell Michelle I said "Hi." 

1. We thought my parents would be of the same mindset, and they kind of were. However, the fact that they have been able to meet and spend time with their grandson totally eclipsed that. It never really came back up past a few remarks my dad would make on a rare occasion. 

2. God will provide. We found out Phillip-Giles was coming and got a tax-return that paid his whole deductible. Birth paid for. My wife's health insurance covers him and my insurance will cover them both when I go full-time at work after the Bar exam. It all worked out perfectly. I couldn't have and didn't plan it myself. 

3. God's people will help. We got more clothing, diapers, and other baby paraphernalia from other people than we'll ever need. One thing that makes babies expensive is buying new stuff. Don't buy new stuff if you don't need to. If someone offers you hand-me downs that their child wore 2 years ago they're perfectly fine and free. Some folks turn their noses up at hand-me downs and end up paying a lot of money for new baby stuff that they outgrow in a month. We had so many outfits Phillip-Giles only wore some things once and then was too big for them. (He's a huge baby though.)

Re: being off birth control. I would highly recommend it. We know people who were on it for long periods of time and it's created fertility problems. That's anecdotal, but I wouldn't risk it on that alone. Getting pregnant isn't some super easy thing that just happens either. For some people, they look at each other and have a child. For many others, it's a lot harder. Being off the pill doesn't necessarily equal being pregnant.


----------



## Peairtach

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> To be rude we gotta start out breeding the Muslims and the Atheists. Natural church growth is the best church growth.



I agree. But saying that all birth control is wrong isn't the solution. Christians just have to realise that following the crowd and having two or - at the most, three - kids isn't necessarily God's revealed will for all or most families.


----------

