# Contraception and the Sin of Onan



## steadfast7

What's everyone's view on contraception?

In my debates with a highly traditional guy, I've learned that modern evangelicalism in very recent years has gone against the grain of the traditional Christian position in all ages and denominations, including the ancient church and the reformers. It is also argued that the evangelical permissiveness has led to its widespread use which has had and will have disastrous results for society.

Both Luther and Calvin spoke vehemently against it as a monstrous thing. Is this an area where we humbly break from the Reformers, or are most people here still in line with their position?

thoughts?

thanks


----------



## Christusregnat

This is going to get ugly.


I do not think that anyone under normal circumstances who is married should prevent conception. There are three sorts of "contraceptives": 1. Those that seek to prevent conception while allowing the deed to be done, 2. Abstention (obviously no deed done) whether periodic, accidental or permanent, and 3. Those that seek to trick the body into preventing ovulation, but do also prevent implantation of a conceived child (such as IUD, the pill, etc.) when ovulation isn't prevented. The chuch, historically, has allowed for #2 under certain circumstances. Indeed, biblical teaching would seem to require a period of abstention after childbirth for the healing of the woman's body. #1 is what Augustine referred to as making your wife a whore. #3 can be murder (whether with knowledge by the parties using it or without their knowledge).

In the final analysis, married Christians who don't want to reproduce, and do what they can to fill the earth are out of tune with Scripture on this point. I don't recall any passages that encourage Christians to prevent family size etc. I recall many passages that encourage fruitfulness. A quiver is 13 (see Psalm 127).

Cheers,


----------



## kvanlaan

> Both Luther and Calvin spoke vehemently against it as a monstrous thing.



It is indeed monstrous.

How Christians can use abortifacients is beyond me (the pill). Latex prophylactics may be a grey area to some, but I just don't have the wherewithall to wrap my head around those arguments.

Why on earth do we as Christians have the capacity to comfortably stake our eternal salvation on the Lord, but need to attempt to declare our own sovereignty over the womb? Simply mind bending, I just don't follow.

It is not about churning out as many children as you can. It is about being a submissive instrument in the hands of the Lord. He will give as He sees fit.


----------



## kevin.carroll

I agree with you guys in substance, but Onan is an extremely week exegetical peg to hang that doctrine on.


----------



## LawrenceU

I agree as well, but Onan was doing something completely different. There are plenty more arguments that are clear.


----------



## Romans922




----------



## Christusregnat

kevin.carroll said:


> I agree with you guys in substance, but Onan is an extremely week exegetical peg to hang that doctrine on.



This is a point to consider. However, I don't think that was the sum and substance of either Calvin, or Luther, or Augustine, or Chrysostom, or anyone else's arguments.

Cheers,

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 01:31:36 EST-----



Romans922 said:


>



Rev. Barnes,

Those worms sure know how to multiply!!!!


----------



## Montanablue

I think its a blessing.

And that is all I will say about that. 

Edit: I should clarify that I'm not talking about the pill or any other method that would cause the death of an already conceived child.


----------



## Awenwonder

kvanlaan said:


> Both Luther and Calvin spoke vehemently against it as a monstrous thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is indeed monstrous.
> 
> How Christians can use abortifacients is beyond me (the pill). Latex prophylactics may be a grey area to some, but I just don't have the wherewithall to wrap my head around those arguments.
> 
> Why on earth do we as Christians have the capacity to comfortably stake our eternal salvation on the Lord, but need to attempt to declare our own sovereignty over the womb? Simply mind bending, I just don't follow.
> 
> It is not about churning out as many children as you can. It is about being a submissive instrument in the hands of the Lord. He will give as he sees fit.
Click to expand...


Amen, Brother! The inconsistency really says that the individual just has not thought it through or they do not believe in the sovereignty of God to begin with. This is where a solid biblical worldview makes all the difference!


----------



## Romans922

Christusregnat said:


> kevin.carroll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you guys in substance, but Onan is an extremely week exegetical peg to hang that doctrine on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a point to consider. However, I don't think that was the sum and substance of either Calvin, or Luther, or Augustine, or Chrysostom, or anyone else's arguments.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -----Added 11/18/2009 at 01:31:36 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rev. Barnes,
> 
> Those worms sure know how to multiply!!!!
Click to expand...


Yeah, I guess they did that on their own... I'm not touching this topic with a 100 ft pole.


----------



## Christusregnat

Romans922 said:


> Yeah, I guess they did that on their own... I'm not touching this topic with a 100 ft pole.



Too late!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

I'm all for non-abortifacient contraception. We are to have physical and spiritual children, but "being fruitful" does not equate to having as many children as you can all the time.


----------



## kvanlaan

Pastor Barnes, you have an opinion. We want to know it. Come on now, what's the worst that can happen??


----------



## steadfast7

kevin.carroll said:


> I agree with you guys in substance, but Onan is an extremely week exegetical peg to hang that doctrine on.



Yes, exegetically there is very little warrant against contraception per se.
Natural law is basically the authority that most appeal to, but how far can this take us?

Scripturally, can we find solid argument? "be fruitful and multiply" is the only verse that's often given, but it's not without its problems, like, 

1. would celibacy be wrong, then?
2. does this verse mean have as many children as possible?

I guess this thread can get a little explosive, I'm beginning to realize. let's stay close to scripture and i'm sure we'll be ok.

peace.


----------



## Romans922

Fine: (i'm only taking the bait because I'm young, if I were wiser, I would not even watch)...

Part 1: I'm against all abortifacient contraception (the different parts indicate I have a greater view than this one). 

Abortifacient contraception would include: pill, morning after pill, etc. (anything that will kill a zygote or by some research someone has thought that it kills a zygote). I'm also against the pill because it is very dangerous to the female body/health.


----------



## kvanlaan

> We are to have physical and spiritual children, but "being fruitful" does not equate to having as many children as you can all the time.



But who are we to decide??? Noah was without contraception, correct? He had how many children?

"Having as many children as you can all the time" - how do *we* have children? Does He not open and close the womb?


----------



## tlharvey7

please excuse my frankness here... and let me know if it is inappropriate
my wife and i have used condoms. after 2 kids we decided it was enough.
i now have 4 kids regardless of our choice... God will make a way!


----------



## he beholds

steadfast7 said:


> kevin.carroll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you guys in substance, but Onan is an extremely week exegetical peg to hang that doctrine on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exegetically there is very little warrant against contraception per se.
> Natural law is basically the authority that most appeal to, but how far can this take us?
> 
> Scripturally, can we find solid argument? "be fruitful and multiply" is the only verse that's often given, but it's not without its problems, like,
> 
> 1. would celibacy be wrong, then?
> 2. does this verse mean have as many children as possible?
> 
> I guess this thread can get a little explosive, I'm beginning to realize. let's stay close to scripture and i'm sure we'll be ok.
> 
> peace.
Click to expand...


To answer one of your Q's:
1) Would celibacy be wrong--yes, if you are married; the rest of Scripture can speak to that.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Fine: (i'm only taking the bait because I'm young, if I were wiser, I would not even watch)...
> 
> Part 1: I'm against all abortifacient contraception (the different parts indicate I have a greater view than this one).
> 
> Abortifacient contraception would include: pill, morning after pill, etc. (anything that will kill a zygote or by some research someone has thought that it kills a zygote). I'm also against the pill because it is very dangerous to the female body/health.



Tut, tut, Dominee. That's only half an answer...


----------



## steadfast7

I meant that "be fruitful and multiply" could be interpreted that getting married was against God's will, which of course is too much.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

kvanlaan said:


> We are to have physical and spiritual children, but "being fruitful" does not equate to having as many children as you can all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But who are we to decide??? Noah was without contraception, correct? He had how many children?
Click to expand...


Who are you to decide to do anything in life? If you make that argument against contraception you can make it for many life decisions.

In the Bible, God tells us to have children, but he doesn't tell me how many or when to have them. He tell me to marry, but He doesn't tell me who or when or how to propose. He tells me to work but He doesn't tell me what career. Christians should humbly and prayerfully submit to God for their childbearing - when they feel He wants them to have children, they should do away with the contraception...


----------



## Albatross

ColdSilverMoon said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are to have physical and spiritual children, but "being fruitful" does not equate to having as many children as you can all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But who are we to decide??? Noah was without contraception, correct? He had how many children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you to decide to do anything in life? If you make that argument against contraception you can make it for many life decisions.
> 
> In the Bible, God tells us to have children, but he doesn't tell me how many or when to have them. He tell me to marry, but He doesn't tell me who or when or how to propose. He tells me to work but He doesn't tell me what career. Christians should humbly and prayerfully submit to God for their childbearing - when they feel He wants them to have children, they should do away with the contraception...
Click to expand...


Agreed. And what is the difference between deciding that "fruitful" can have a limit and deciding that it shouldn't? Both are decisions.


----------



## steadfast7

Hey, don't forget my other question: the fact that a permissive attitude about contraception puts us out of sync with all of historic Christianity (unless this wasn't a universally held position).

anyone feel uncomfortable about that?


----------



## Christusregnat

steadfast7 said:


> Hey, don't forget my other question: the fact that a permissive attitude about contraception puts us out of sync with all of historic Christianity (unless this wasn't a universally held position).
> 
> anyone feel uncomfortable about that?



This is a bigger problem than can be addressed in such a thread. We are rootless, and therefore doomed.


----------



## Nate

Christusregnat said:


> A quiver is 13 (see Psalm 127).
> 
> Cheers,



Was this in jest? If not, could you expand on this? It seems that if we are to have a quiver full, and a quiver is 13, then 13 is the limit.

Also, kevin.caroll and LaweranceU both indicated that there are more passages than "be fruitful and multiply" and "blessed is the man whose quiver is full". Can you guys elaborate. I've become interested in this topic as well recently.


----------



## Soonerborn

Before I make a comment, I will state that my wife and I a few years ago decided not to proactively use any contraception. We now have 4 children! I say that to let you know where I am coming from. 

A key issue for me was struggling with my faith in what God would provide should he choose to bless us with multiple children. 

For example, I am a CPA, so I am very conscious of our budget (too conscious if you ask my wife ). So in my finite head a few years ago, I decided we could "afford" 2 kids and no more. You have all seen the statistics on how much a child costs over the course of 18 years. The numbers are staggering. So me, with my finite CPA brain, added X + Y and determined no more kids could be supported. 

However, I started struggling with the nature of this faith. Agreed, God gives us common sense and wisdom to plan our lives. However, I really felt like I was not trusting in what God could provide for me. Rather I was trusting in my own strength and not His. I only saw what was possible under our current circumstance and in this narrow view I was not looking to God, but rather trusting in myself. 

I can say that God has opened so many doors for us over the last few years and he is providing for our family in an excess way. From a world's perspective, the cost of raising a child for 18 years, (not counting college), is $249,000 per child
Cost of Raising Kids Table: Family & College - MSN Money, so my 4 kids will cost me nearly $1,000,000 over 18 years according to the world. Then you have college. 

Using my CPA brain, these number don't add up. We can't "afford" to have 4 or more kids. But God has and will provide for us. It may not be according to our wants and wishes, but it will be according to His.


----------



## Christusregnat

NateLanning said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> A quiver is 13 (see Psalm 127).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this in jest? If not, could you expand on this? It seems that if we are to have a quiver full, and a quiver is 13, then 13 is the limit.
> 
> Also, kevin.caroll and LaweranceU both indicated that there are more passages than "be fruitful and multiply" and "blessed is the man whose quiver is full". Can you guys elaborate. I've become interested in this topic as well recently.
Click to expand...


I believe that the reference to a quiver full is somewhere around 12 or 13 children. Of course, when a warrior goes into battle, he's going to die with only 2.1 arrows. 13 is not a limit, or a requirement: it is a goal to aim for (pun intended). God wants the world filled with a holy seed; this is the point of "be fruitful and multiply" and the commission to exercise dominion and subdue the creation under us. The world will be filled with wickedness if we do not multiply a godly seed in it. This is exactly what has happened to the dead faith of Europe. Islam will overtake Europe by having children. Why? Because Christians were taught a birth control mentality. By the way, the Eugenics crowd recognized that they had to win the birth control battle before they would win the abortion battle. It is a similar mindset, and an identical line of reasoning, although the methods differ widely.

If we recognize the purpose of God to bring all nations under the dominion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that God has promised to be God to us and our children after us, then it would be foolishness to not shoot for a quiver full of arrows to defeat God's enemies.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

> In the Bible, God tells us to have children, but he doesn't tell me how many or when to have them. He tell me to marry, but He doesn't tell me who or when or how to propose. He tells me to work but He doesn't tell me what career. Christians should humbly and prayerfully submit to God for their childbearing - when they feel He wants them to have children, they should do away with the contraception...



Scripture tells us that children are a blessing. Scripture tells we married folks that we are to give ourselves one to another freely (stopping only to devote ourselves to prayer and fasting). Scripture tells us that He opens and closes the womb.

How exactly, in this context, do you feel that you influence when you have children, assuming a healthy sexual relationship between you and your spouse? A coming together of husband and wife is fruitful because of *His* hand, not because of the biological union of sperm and egg.


----------



## Andres

I will throw in my  from a personal perspective...
My beautiful wife and I were married last May. Before the honeymoon drew near, I had honestly never given much thought to contraception and/or how it works. Obviously being a single man committed to abstinence, I really had no need. Of course, as my then fiancee and I began planning for our future together, naturally this issue came about. After much research, we both realized that the pill does allow for a very early form of conception to take place in some cases. Some may argue there are cases when conception wouldn’t take place, but we refused to take that risk. Also, as Rev Barnes pointed out, the pill alters the woman’s hormones and does some really crazy things with her body, which we were definitely not comfortable with. Many of the other form of contraception are not 100%, so that left us with an option of the “natural method”. Here is some information on it at these links:
Garden of Fertility
Taking Charge of Your Fertility 

I do not see how the natural method would go against scripture, but then again after continuing to prayerfully consider our options with children, we were convicted that the best option for us would be to trust God in His sovereignty to decide whether or not or when we have children. We truly believe that His timing with children will be perfect, including how many we have. Also, we fully believe that God will provide for our family regardless of how many kids we are blessed with. What it all boils down to is I cannot think of one reason why I should try to limit/control when or how many children my wife and I have. For example, some people say they want to wait on kids so that they can spend more time alone. Isn’t this selfish? Some say they cannot afford X number of kids. Do we not trust the Lord to provide? Some do not want kids so they can finish school or have a career. Is it right to place our own desires above what God would have for us? 
To sum up, I don’t know that I can definitively say this is how every Christian couple should decide, although I will agree with others and say that the pill is abortive and should be avoided completely. I would however urge anyone who asked my opinion that the best method would be to prayerfully trust our gracious God because when has He ever been wrong or let us down?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

kvanlaan said:


> In the Bible, God tells us to have children, but he doesn't tell me how many or when to have them. He tell me to marry, but He doesn't tell me who or when or how to propose. He tells me to work but He doesn't tell me what career. Christians should humbly and prayerfully submit to God for their childbearing - when they feel He wants them to have children, they should do away with the contraception...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture tells us that children are a blessing. Scripture tells we married folks that we are to give ourselves one to another freely (stopping only to devote ourselves to prayer and fasting). Scripture tells us that He opens and closes the womb.
> 
> How exactly, in this context, do you feel that you influence when you have children, assuming a healthy sexual relationship between you and your spouse? A coming together of husband and wife is fruitful because of *His* hand, not because of the biological union of sperm and egg.
Click to expand...


I whole-heartedly with your last sentence - but it fundamentally undermines your position. If we will have children when God wills, then no contraception will stand in the way. So what's the harm in using it, unless you believe God's plans can be thwarted?

Children are a blessing - so why does that preclude contraception? 

Giving to each other freely sexually is wonderful - but that passage is in reference to sexual gratification, not childbearing. 

God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?


----------



## Romans922

Part 2: The use of all contraceptives for the purpose of not having kids ever is sin.


----------



## nasa30

ColdSilverMoon said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Bible, God tells us to have children, but he doesn't tell me how many or when to have them. He tell me to marry, but He doesn't tell me who or when or how to propose. He tells me to work but He doesn't tell me what career. Christians should humbly and prayerfully submit to God for their childbearing - when they feel He wants them to have children, they should do away with the contraception...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture tells us that children are a blessing. Scripture tells we married folks that we are to give ourselves one to another freely (stopping only to devote ourselves to prayer and fasting). Scripture tells us that He opens and closes the womb.
> 
> How exactly, in this context, do you feel that you influence when you have children, assuming a healthy sexual relationship between you and your spouse? A coming together of husband and wife is fruitful because of *His* hand, not because of the biological union of sperm and egg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I whole-heartedly with your last sentence - but it fundamentally undermines your position. If we will have children when God wills, then no contraception will stand in the way. So what's the harm in using it, unless you believe God's plans can be thwarted?
> 
> Children are a blessing - so why does that preclude contraception?
> 
> Giving to each other freely sexually is wonderful - but that passage is in reference to sexual gratification, not childbearing.
> 
> God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?
Click to expand...

 
I do believe that we will have all the children that God wills us to have. I also think that me trying to have a say in when shows that I do not fully trust God in His timing.


----------



## he beholds

I've actually tried to share this before, but I could never figure out how to create it in the right format on google docs. I think I finally have!!
Here is a timeline showing the shift in view from "procreation" to "reproduction."

Please, if something gives you offense, read the notes beneath the timeline first! 
Procreation Vs. Reproduction


----------



## kvanlaan

> I whole-heartedly with your last sentence - but it fundamentally undermines your position. If we will have children when God wills, then no contraception will stand in the way. So what's the harm in using it, unless you believe God's plans can be thwarted?



The harm is "I have a better idea," and declaring one's own sovereignty in this arena. Scripture says: do this. So we do. We don't create a reproductive 'false fire' in the bedroom because we have 'a better idea'.



> Children are a blessing - so why does that preclude contraception?



That particular reference does not, but does specifically denote that children are a blessing.

If God said: I will bless you with $1million dollars a year for the next ten years, who would say no? But when he says: I will bless you with one child a year for the next ten years, we run as fast as we can. And this in light of scripture showing us that children are a blessing, while money can bring problems.



> Giving to each other freely sexually is wonderful - but that passage is in reference to sexual gratification, not childbearing.



That may be, but what is the natural consequence of this abundance of sexual activity?



> God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?



Is that what He used in Scripture? No. It is His hand directly.


----------



## Nate

kvanlaan said:


> God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what He used in Scripture? No. It is His hand directly.
Click to expand...


This is the part that I think I may misunderstand. Are you saying here that God uses natural processes to open and close the womb, or is this perhaps an example of God overriding "natural" events to open and close wombs?

For example, do you believe that if God decrees that my wife and I are not to have children for the next 2 years, that God will have predestined something like my sperm to have motor defects over the next 48 months, or do you believe that there would be no natural explanation for for our inability to become pregnant, but that it is purely outside the realm of the ordinary? Phrases like yours above usually leave me feeling like you believe the latter - can you weigh in?


----------



## Albatross

kvanlaan said:


> God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what He used in Scripture? No. It is His hand directly.
Click to expand...


When the Bible talks about God as the one who heals all your diseases it does not mention he used Tylenol. Should we avoid it?


----------



## Nate

Albatross said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what He used in Scripture? No. It is His hand directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Bible talks about God as the one who heals all your diseases it does not mention he used Tylenol. Should we avoid it?
Click to expand...


Why can't I state things as simply as this? This is what I was getting at.


----------



## Christusregnat

Albatross said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what He used in Scripture? No. It is His hand directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Bible talks about God as the one who heals all your diseases it does not mention he used Tylenol. Should we avoid it?
Click to expand...


If God heals our diseases, and we use Tylenol, then presumably we are using the means appointed to His desired end.

If God opens the womb, and we use our marriages to fill our quiver, then we are using the means appointed to His desired end.

If God opens the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are not using the means appointed to His desired end.

It appears that your argument refutes itself.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Nate

Christusregnat said:


> Albatross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what He used in Scripture? No. It is His hand directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Bible talks about God as the one who heals all your diseases it does not mention he used Tylenol. Should we avoid it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If God heals our diseases, and we use Tylenol, then presumably we are using the means appointed to His desired end.
> 
> If God opens the womb, and we use our marriages to fill our quiver, then we are using the means appointed to His desired end.
> 
> If God opens the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are not using the means appointed to His desired end.
> 
> It appears that your argument refutes itself.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Again, this assumes 12 or 13 = 1 filled quiver for every individual couple. If this can be definitively shown, I think a lot of the arguments for contraception will go away.


----------



## Prufrock

But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."

Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an _over_-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few? It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to _prevent_ pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."


----------



## Albatross

Christusregnat said:


> If God opens the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are not using the means appointed to His desired end.



Does an open womb necessitate a full quiver?


----------



## TimV

Just as a technical point, God opens and shuts the wombs of goats and sheep as well, and there are probably a hundred places in Scripture where it says that. But no successful, serious farmer ever lets his livestock breed naturally. You wait until a certain age, and even after give certain amounts of time between for the female to recover.

We stopped after 7 after doctor's advice, the last couple pregnancies having gone progressively worse, with long periods of convalescence after the last couple. I always wanted 12!

As to whether it was sin or not, it probably was in one way or another, since we all sin dozens of times every day. But the question is one of "sin for every person at every in every era of history".

You can say so if you want, but for me, it would be arrogance to take a different stand then pretty much all the Reformed churches in the world. I just am not bright enough or knowledgeable enough to even imagine I have some sort of special revelation or understanding that would leave my conscience free to be so dogmatic.

You can have the basic premise that kids are good, kids are a reward, God wants you to have kids, a woman is sanctified in childbirth, couples are generally foolish to wait, etc... and at the same time hold that in some cases preventing a pregnancy is also acceptable, and perhaps even best.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an over-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? *Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few?*



This, to me, is the key.



> It seems that *when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible*, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to prevent pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and only a few children "to show for it."



That's why we never should.


----------



## Christusregnat

Albatross said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God opens the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are not using the means appointed to His desired end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does an open womb necessitate a full quiver?
Click to expand...


No, as I stated earlier, that is a goal to shoot for, not a requirement or a limit. 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

> You can say so if you want, but for me, it would be arrogance to take a different stand then pretty much all the Reformed churches in the world.



Can you clarify this for me?


----------



## Christusregnat

> It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to prevent pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and only a few children "to show for it."



This is an abuse of a biblical truth, rather than the truth itself. When we say the goal is thus and such, and we say that there are good faith and bad faith attempts to reach the blessed state, that does not mean there is any shame to a good faith attempt. They are blessed as well. But they are cursed who make bad faith or no faith attempts.

A man may be cursed with five children, who wanted fewer, but received more.

A woman may be blessed with one, who wanted more, but received fewer. 

The second case wanted to be blessed and enriched with children, the first wanted his way, and didn't get it. The first has cause for shame; the second has cause of rejoicing.

Cheers,

Adam

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 03:40:58 EST-----



kvanlaan said:


> You can say so if you want, but for me, it would be arrogance to take a different stand then pretty much all the Reformed churches in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify this for me?
Click to expand...


Is it not more arrogance to reject the well-nigh uniform teaching of fathers, scholastics and reformers for a few thousand years? Not to mention patriarchs, prophets and kings?


----------



## kvanlaan

> For example, do you believe that if God decrees that my wife and I are not to have children for the next 2 years, that God will have predestined something like my sperm to have motor defects over the next 48 months, or do you believe that there would be no natural explanation for for our inability to become pregnant, but that it is purely outside the realm of the ordinary? Phrases like yours above usually leave me feeling like you believe the latter - can you weigh in?



This is pretty much what I think, but that he will perhaps use the first or the second, or even that when your wife is ovulating, that you are busy, tired, or 'have a headache' that night. I just can't buy that God will leave it up to me to decide, and set the terms and conditions.

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 03:44:25 EST-----



> Is it not more arrogance to reject the well-nigh uniform teaching of fathers, scholastics and reformers for a few thousand years? Not to mention patriarchs, prophets and kings?



Yes, but with regards to what, specifically? (I'm honestly not trying to be dense; really!)

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 03:51:54 EST-----



> When the Bible talks about God as the one who heals all your diseases it does not mention he used Tylenol. Should we avoid it?



I was actually afraid of this when I wrote that 'He used His hand directly'. Please don't misconstrue my meaning.

What I am actually talking about is that we are stopping a natural occurrance in this case, that in freely giving one to the other, we would conceive as a natural consequence, should God ordain that a child will result from this union. In using contraception, we are contravening this.

In speaking of the opening and closing of the womb, I think of Rachel and Leah, for instance. In other instances, we also see opening and closing of the womb, and don't see any external force acting upon it besides His hand.


----------



## Christusregnat

kvanlaan said:


> Is it not more arrogance to reject the well-nigh uniform teaching of fathers, scholastics and reformers for a few thousand years? Not to mention patriarchs, prophets and kings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but with regards to what, specifically? (I'm honestly not trying to be dense; really!)
Click to expand...


Augustine stated that a man who uses contraception with his wife is committing adultery. Contraception and abortion are virtually the same, according to Calvin and Luther. The desire not to create life and the desire to take life are viewed as the identical desire in the lion's share of theologians throughout time. This used to be the case in America, until the rise of modern eugenics.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Osage Bluestem

I think that the bible is clear that sex is pleasureable and that it is good to have it to satisfy the urge.

I think that Onan practiced coitus interruptus because he didn't want to give his brother a child not because he just didn't want to take the chance on another kid he couldn't afford... God killed him because he was dishonoring his brother's wife and his brother, by just using her for sex when he was supposed to be performing the duty of a kinsman.

So, if one is having sex with their spouse I believe it is ok to take measures to not concieve, provided they are safe and don't hurt or kill anyone. Any abortive substance is not good, neither is any substance that harms the health. Safe use of contraception is not explicitly or even implicitly condemned in the bible.

As far as spousal affection is concerned I think the sky is pretty much the limit. Song of Solomon has some very explicit sexual acts in it that God obviously approves of in spousal relations or they wouldn't be in there in the context that they are. 

God made sex for two reasons, pleasure and conception. Obviously, he alloted much more time to pleasure or the world would have been overpopulated ages ago. God made sex plesurable for a very good reason. We should thank him for it.


----------



## Soonerborn

Wouldn't the motives for using contraception be a very important question to discern for someone struggling with this issue?

I often speak to those who propose that all Christians have the liberty to use contraception. Yet, when we talk, the underlying theme is not liberty, but a "fear" of not being able to provide for their family, or not having the quality of lifestyle which they deserve because of their children. The focus becomes their desires, and not God's. Idolatry become prevalent, grounded in their pursuits, and not God's. 


To be consistent, having as many kids as you can, could become idolatry also. I have seen those who are always striving to have more kids, all the while they are not content with what God has given them. The quest becomes to have more, more,more and happiness and joy is predicated on more children - and not on God himself. 

I think when answering this question, people need to be careful to examine their motives in arriving at an answer.


----------



## Poimen

Christusregnat said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not more arrogance to reject the well-nigh uniform teaching of fathers, scholastics and reformers for a few thousand years? Not to mention patriarchs, prophets and kings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but with regards to what, specifically? (I'm honestly not trying to be dense; really!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Augustine stated that a man who uses contraception with his wife is committing adultery. Contraception and abortion are virtually the same, according to Calvin and Luther. The desire not to create life and the desire to take life are viewed as the identical desire in the lion's share of theologians throughout time. This used to be the case in America, until the rise of modern eugenics.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Adam:

Could you provide us some quotes and references for the underlined portions of the post above? Thank you.


----------



## TimV

kvanlaan said:


> You can say so if you want, but for me, it would be arrogance to take a different stand then pretty much all the Reformed churches in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify this for me?
Click to expand...


Pretty much all the conservative confessional Reformed churches take strong stands on Justification, the Trinity, Election, Inerrancy etc.. but reading through denominational position papers I'm not sure how you could claim any sort of ecclesiastical authority behind the no birth control for any reason mentality.


----------



## Romans922

Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...

Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

TimV said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can say so if you want, but for me, it would be arrogance to take a different stand then pretty much all the Reformed churches in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify this for me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much all the conservative confessional Reformed churches take strong stands on Justification, the Trinity, Election, Inerrancy etc.. but reading through denominational position papers I'm not sure how you could claim any sort of ecclesiastical authority behind the no birth control for any reason mentality.
Click to expand...


Only the Church of Rome.

Here is Pope Pius VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae that reaffirmed the Vatican's absolute ban on birth control in the turbulent 1960's when many liberal catholics were calling for a change from Rome.

Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 04:43:09 EST-----



Romans922 said:


> Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...
> 
> Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.



We agree with Augustine on predestination and election. But there are many things we disagree with him on. He was still a papist in the Church of Rome for instance.


----------



## Romans922

DD2009 said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify this for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much all the conservative confessional Reformed churches take strong stands on Justification, the Trinity, Election, Inerrancy etc.. but reading through denominational position papers I'm not sure how you could claim any sort of ecclesiastical authority behind the no birth control for any reason mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the Church of Rome.
> 
> Here is Pope Pius VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae that reaffirmed the Vatican's absolute ban on birth control in the turbulent 1960's when many liberal catholics were calling for a change from Rome.
> 
> Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968
> 
> -----Added 11/18/2009 at 04:43:09 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...
> 
> Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree with Augustine on predestination and election. But there are many things we disagree with him on. He was still a papist in the Church of Rome for instance.
Click to expand...


He was a papist? I didn't know that.... Where is the proof on that?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Romans922 said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much all the conservative confessional Reformed churches take strong stands on Justification, the Trinity, Election, Inerrancy etc.. but reading through denominational position papers I'm not sure how you could claim any sort of ecclesiastical authority behind the no birth control for any reason mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Church of Rome.
> 
> Here is Pope Pius VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae that reaffirmed the Vatican's absolute ban on birth control in the turbulent 1960's when many liberal catholics were calling for a change from Rome.
> 
> Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968
> 
> -----Added 11/18/2009 at 04:43:09 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...
> 
> Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree with Augustine on predestination and election. But there are many things we disagree with him on. He was still a papist in the Church of Rome for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was a papist? I didn't know that.... Where is the proof on that?
Click to expand...


Well, the papists certainly are proud of him if he wasn't one...that would sure be odd...

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Augustine of Hippo


----------



## Romans922

Of course they are... Was the Catholic Church pagan in the 4-5th centuries? Did they have popes? I don't think that had started yet, and if it had it was just a bishop (nothing like what you see in a pope today). The Catholic Church in Augustine's time was not heretical. It was THE VISIBLE CHURCH. 

Seems like you need to study church history a little more or at least understand that all pre-1000AD Catholics aren't all that bad...

Are you going to call all of the Church Fathers 'papists'? Anselm, Thomas Aquinas? (They are praised by RC).


----------



## Frank Brito.

*#1 is what Augustine referred to as making your wife a whore. *

With all due respect...

Augustine said many bizarre things in terms of sexuality...

Sexuality is not only for having kids... As a matter of fact, the logic of I Corinthians 7 implies that marriage is mainly to satisfy sexual desire...


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!

I am not at all against contraception. I believe the exegetical arguments against contraception to be extremely reductionistic. I don't even see anywhere in the text of scripture where a couple must have children.

That being said, I do think that 1 Corinthians 10:31 needs to be brought into this:



> *1 Corinthians 10:31* Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.



I think the reason why people have reacted the way that they have is because they see people using contraception for ungodly, selfish purposes. Rather than using contraception as a way to serve God in other areas, people use it to serve themselves. This is, indeed, a problem. However, I don't think the problem is the contraception; it is the way the contraception is used.

From the books that I have read, historically, the idea that contraception is wrong comes from a gnostic background. In gnosticism, the physical is evil, and the spiritual is good. The gnostics believed that sexual relations were evil simply because they were carnal. Christian authors tried to defend sexual relations by arguing that they are necessary for procreation. However, they never gave up the dualistic ideas. Sexual relations were sometimes called a "necessary evil." What happens if you take away the necessary part from the necessary evil? You get evil.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## he beholds

Prufrock said:


> But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."
> 
> Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an _over_-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? *Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few?* It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to _prevent_ pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."



I am not settled on the matter, so you can also take what *I* say with a grain of salt, but aren't "normal" marital relations the very thing that would be used by God to make babies? 
Also, I do believe that some people having many children can cause pride in the "quiverful" family, or shame in the barren (or less children) family. Or it can also cause joy in the QF family and sadness in the barren family. Or it can cause sadness in the QF family, and joy in the barren family. And any other combination of any other emotions. But our response to this is to love. The family with many children should love, and not judge or esteem itself above, the family with fewer children. The family with fewer children should love, and not be embittered against, the family with many children. 
I think what you are speaking of is the result of sin in the hearts of the people involved, and not the necessary reaction to either scenario. Many people have one child and consider their quiver full and fully blessed. And those who don't can pray to God for his help to recognize the ways that he _has_ blessed them. On the contrary, those with many children may not feel blessed, as they may be always striving for more and focused on what they don't have or they may be weary from having so many children, etc. They too can pray and ask God for his help to see all that he has given as a blessing. 




Romans922 said:


> Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...
> 
> Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.


Curious, why not NFP or RM, if others?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Romans922 said:


> Of course they are... Was the Catholic Church pagan in the 4-5th centuries? Did they have popes? I don't think that had started yet, and if it had it was just a bishop (nothing like what you see in a pope today). The Catholic Church in Augustine's time was not heretical. It was THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
> 
> Seems like you need to study church history a little more or at least understand that all pre-1000AD Catholics aren't all that bad...
> 
> Are you going to call all of the Church Fathers 'papists'? Anselm, Thomas Aquinas? (They are praised by RC).



To the best of my knowledge they believed in 7 sacraments, sacerdotal grace of holy orders, praying to the saints, and that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter and was the Vicar of Christ over the Church universal....so I probably would call them papists. I think the Church of Rome was corrupt almost from the beginning and truely advanced it's corruption under the Emperor Constantine.

I have these books at home in regards to views of the ECFs. It seems most of them were very diverse and very Catholic.

Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 Volumes: William A. Jurgens: 9780814610251: Christianbook.com


----------



## MLCOPE2

This may not fall into this argument but I think that it provides a unique perspective. 

(I apologize in advance if this is too revealing, but I will proceed anyway)

My wife recently found out (about six months ago) that she had a blood clot in one of her ovaries. She was advised by her hematologist that if she were to get pregnant before it dissolved that she ran a serious risk of dislodging it and sending it either to her heart or brain. Both of which could result in serious ailment including stroke, heart attack, or death. She was placed on blood thinners and pain relievers (as it caused tremendous pain at times) and ordered to rest as much as possible.

Now, having said that, my question is this: Should we have not taken every precaution (which we did in limiting our marital activity and using prophylactics) or should we have run the risk of not taking said precautions and allowed whatever would have been?

It also would seem to me that some issues of stewardship should be considered when dealing with this matter!


----------



## kvanlaan

> It also would seem to me that some issues of stewardship should be considered when dealing with this matter!



In what way?


----------



## Prufrock

he beholds said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."
> 
> Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an _over_-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? *Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few?* It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to _prevent_ pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not settled on the matter, so you can also take what *I* say with a grain of salt, but aren't "normal" marital relations the very thing that would be used by God to make babies?
> Also, I do believe that some people having many children can cause pride in the "quiverful" family, or shame in the barren (or less children) family. Or it can also cause joy in the QF family and sadness in the barren family. Or it can cause sadness in the QF family, and joy in the barren family. And any other combination of any other emotions. But our response to this is to love. The family with many children should love, and not judge or esteem itself above, the family with fewer children. The family with fewer children should love, and not be embittered against, the family with many children.
> I think what you are speaking of is the result of sin in the hearts of the people involved, and not the necessary reaction to either scenario. Many people have one child and consider their quiver full and fully blessed. And those who don't can pray to God for his help to recognize the ways that he _has_ blessed them. On the contrary, those with many children may not feel blessed, as they may be always striving for more and focused on what they don't have or they may be weary from having so many children, etc. They too can pray and ask God for his help to see all that he has given as a blessing.
Click to expand...


Jessi, unless I am misreading you, I believe we may have a misunderstanding. The point of my post was that I'm not sure the "strive after as many kids as you can have" mentality is right: rather, I was suggesting that it may simply be better to just have normal, sexual relations (without birth control). And in doing so, even if it is only one child granted by the grace of God (or 20), we may all still find ourselves blessed by the LORD. In other words, I don't think birth control is good; but I'm not necessarily sold that our goal should be to have as many kids as we can, either: rather simply to "be married," so to speak, and let come what children will come.

My point about the feelings of inferiority and shame was that if we have the mentality that we're supposed to be having as many kids as we can, then those couples who are simply regularly having sex (still without birth control), but not intentionally trying (through careful timing, etc.) to have kids have the potential to be looked down upon.

[Note, however, that this is *not* to say in anyway that I think endeavoring to have children through whatever method is wrong at all! For those who have had difficulty having children and accordingly have a deep desire for the same, they can surely be out there using whatever prudent methods and means are at their disposal to aid in the process!]


----------



## Grillsy

Romans922 said:


> Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...
> 
> Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.



What would be your argument against using NFP or Rhythm Method?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Christusregnat said:


> Albatross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what He used in Scripture? No. It is His hand directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Bible talks about God as the one who heals all your diseases it does not mention he used Tylenol. Should we avoid it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If God heals our diseases, and we use Tylenol, then presumably we are using the means appointed to His desired end.
> 
> If God opens the womb, and we use our marriages to fill our quiver, then we are using the means appointed to His desired end.
> 
> *If God opens the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are not using the means appointed to His desired end.*
> 
> It appears that your argument refutes itself.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Conversely, if God closes the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are using the means appointed to his desired end. 

It cuts both ways.


----------



## MLCOPE2

kvanlaan said:


> It also would seem to me that some issues of stewardship should be considered when dealing with this matter!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
Click to expand...


Certainly my wife's health is more important than the possibility of conception. I have a responsibility to care for all that has been entrusted to me as a steward of God. Therefore taking precautions to prevent potential harm would fall under being a good steward, In my humble opinion.

Similarly, if we are to be wholly in the hands of God in this matter, child rearing (and negate our God given ability to think, reason, and make sound biblical decisions as stewards) should we also avoid taking necessary precautions when driving, i.e. not wearing our seat-belts, reading while driving, talking on our cell phone's; or not taking precautions in our everyday environments, like looking before we cross a busy street (or any for that matter), learning to swim before jumping into a deep pool, etc.? After all we are in the hands of a sovereign God and if it is our time then it is our time. It seems that we have no problems making these types of decisions daily but deny any possibility that God in his infinite wisdom could possibly allow us to make decisions regarding our famiy's size.

Side Note: Don't get me wrong, I have six children and would love any God gives me above and beyond that, but that doesn't mean that I can't make a prayerful, reasoned decision as a steward of my family to stop where I am and focus on my responsibility to raise the children that I do have in the care and instruction of the Lord.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Prufrock said:


> *But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."*
> 
> Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an _over_-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few? It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to _prevent_ pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."



Actually, in the case of both Sarah and Hannah God's closing of their wombs could be considered a blessing: both needed barrenness for their spiritual maturity. Sarah needed the development of faith, while Hannah needed to wait until her heart was willing to have a child for God, not for herself. Note that Hannah was "no longer sad" _before_ she became pregnant, not after. The blessing was the assurance of God's presence and resting in Him, not the temporal blessing of a child...


----------



## Daniel Haley

There are many syndromes out there that doctor's prescribe "the pill" for. One case would be Yasmin (the pill) for PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome).

Is this sin? Should the woman just deal with the hormonal imbalances, weight gains, and increased risk of cervical cancer?

An observational study of Yasmin in the management... [J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2004] - PubMed result


----------



## Andres

Daniel Haley said:


> There are many syndromes out there that doctor's prescribe "the pill" for. One case would be Yasmin (the pill) for PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome).
> 
> Is this sin? Should the woman just deal with the hormonal imbalances, weight gains, and increased risk of cervical cancer?
> 
> An observational study of Yasmin in the management... [J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2004] - PubMed result



what did women do before Yasmin?


----------



## au5t1n

On the whole, contraceptives have done massive damage to our society. They have certainly done much more harm than good.

One situation where I don't think it's wrong to use them is when the wife has a medical condition such that she would likely die from another pregnancy.

Edit: It should be understood that abortifacients are not in view in the above exception.


----------



## Prufrock

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."*
> 
> Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an _over_-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few? It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to _prevent_ pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, in the case of both Sarah and Hannah God's closing of their wombs could be considered a blessing: both needed barrenness for their spiritual maturity. Sarah needed the development of faith, while Hannah needed to wait until her heart was willing to have a child for God, not for herself. Note that Hannah was "no longer sad" _before_ she became pregnant, not after. The blessing was the assurance of God's presence and resting in Him, not the temporal blessing of a child...
Click to expand...


This is true, but such secret counsels and purposes of God are hidden from us, and we cannot base any of our actions upon them. Even though (of course!) these are different classes and sorts of events, we could just as easily say, "God purposed for Paul to persecute and destroy the church for a time, that his grace might be more grandly seen!" This is, in fact, true. But it is also irrelevant to the manner in which we are supposed conduct ourselves. Paul was never *supposed* to persecute the church. So likewise, we could say, that God did close Sarah's womb for a time for his own purposes: but this in no way implies that we should say, "Maybe he has purposes to close my womb for a time, and so I will help and use birth control." The closing of the womb is simply never presented in scripture as a blessing _in itself_; and we can only base our actions upon what has been revealed -- not upon the hidden counsels and purposes of the Almighty. [And neither Sarah nor Hannah were trying to not have kids!]


----------



## kvanlaan

> Certainly my wife's health is more important than the possibility of conception. I have a responsibility to care for all that has been entrusted to me as a steward of God. Therefore taking precautions to prevent potential harm would fall under being a good steward, In my humble opinion.



And if the Lord knows that conception will harm her, He will ensure that your wife does not conceive. (And I think He does know!) Nowhere does scripture tell us to cross the street without looking but it does tell us that man and wife are to love one another freely.

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 06:28:18 EST-----

Good things will happen!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Prufrock said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."*
> 
> Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an _over_-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few? It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to _prevent_ pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, in the case of both Sarah and Hannah God's closing of their wombs could be considered a blessing: both needed barrenness for their spiritual maturity. Sarah needed the development of faith, while Hannah needed to wait until her heart was willing to have a child for God, not for herself. Note that Hannah was "no longer sad" _before_ she became pregnant, not after. The blessing was the assurance of God's presence and resting in Him, not the temporal blessing of a child...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true, but such secret counsels and purposes of God are hidden from us, and we cannot base any of our actions upon them. Even though (of course!) these are different classes and sorts of events, we could just as easily say, "God purposed for Paul to persecute and destroy the church for a time, that his grace might be more grandly seen!" This is, in fact, true. But it is also irrelevant to the manner in which we are supposed conduct ourselves. Paul was never *supposed* to persecute the church. So likewise, we could say, that God did close Sarah's womb for a time for his own purposes: but this in no way implies that we should say, *"Maybe he has purposes to close my womb for a time, and so I will help and use birth control."* The closing of the womb is simply never presented in scripture as a blessing _in itself_; and we can only base our actions upon what has been revealed -- not upon the hidden counsels and purposes of the Almighty. [And neither Sarah nor Hannah were trying to not have kids!]
Click to expand...


I disagree with this - as I said in an earlier post, we make decisions like this all the time. Why is it any different with children?

And we also have to remember the historical context of the Old Testament. In that time, childbearing was crucial to every culture and every family - thus everyone wanted as many children as possible. That's no longer the case today. From a economic and cultural perspective, NOT having children is often a blessing today. 

I do believe we should be fruitful and multiply - I just don't think we can make the argument from silence that because God never "blesses" a woman by closing her womb it means birth control is sinful. I don't think that's a leap we can make...


----------



## Hebrew Student

ColdSilverMoon,



> Conversely, if God closes the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are using the means appointed to his desired end.



That does seem to be the key issue. In all of the texts which say that God opens and closes the womb, does it ever say that he must always do so apart from human means?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Christusregnat

Hebrew Student said:


> From the books that I have read, historically, the idea that contraception is wrong comes from a gnostic background.



You may want to start reading some new books. Gnostics would be against having sex and having children; they are _*both *_fleshly.


----------



## MLCOPE2

kvanlaan said:


> Certainly my wife's health is more important than the possibility of conception. I have a responsibility to care for all that has been entrusted to me as a steward of God. Therefore taking precautions to prevent potential harm would fall under being a good steward, In my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Lord knows that conception will harm her, He will ensure that your wife does not conceive. (And I think He does know!) Nowhere does scripture tell us to cross the street without looking but it does tell us that man and wife are to love one another freely.
> 
> -----Added 11/18/2009 at 06:28:18 EST-----
> 
> Good things will happen!
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that you, or anyone else for that matter, are qualified to say that God _would_ prevent that from happening. What if it were God's will for her to get pregnant and die as a result to bring about a greater good? (Praise God that that didn't happen!) Who are we to say what is in the mind of God or what he will use to bring about his will in our lives and the lives of all of his children?

Certainly God could have prevented it, and did for that matter, but it is very dangerous to say that He would have. That is somewhat akin to jumping off of a cliff and saying God _will_ save me as opposed to God _could_ save me _if_ it is according to His will. 

P.S. Don't jump off of a cliff!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, in the case of both Sarah and Hannah God's closing of their wombs could be considered a blessing: both needed barrenness for their spiritual maturity. Sarah needed the development of faith, while Hannah needed to wait until her heart was willing to have a child for God, not for herself. Note that Hannah was "no longer sad" _before_ she became pregnant, not after. The blessing was the assurance of God's presence and resting in Him, not the temporal blessing of a child...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true, but such secret counsels and purposes of God are hidden from us, and we cannot base any of our actions upon them. Even though (of course!) these are different classes and sorts of events, we could just as easily say, "God purposed for Paul to persecute and destroy the church for a time, that his grace might be more grandly seen!" This is, in fact, true. But it is also irrelevant to the manner in which we are supposed conduct ourselves. Paul was never *supposed* to persecute the church. So likewise, we could say, that God did close Sarah's womb for a time for his own purposes: but this in no way implies that we should say, *"Maybe he has purposes to close my womb for a time, and so I will help and use birth control."* The closing of the womb is simply never presented in scripture as a blessing _in itself_; and we can only base our actions upon what has been revealed -- not upon the hidden counsels and purposes of the Almighty. [And neither Sarah nor Hannah were trying to not have kids!]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...And we also have to remember the historical context of the Old Testament. In that time, childbearing was crucial to every culture and every family - thus everyone wanted as many children as possible. That's no longer the case today. *From a economic and cultural perspective, NOT having children is often a blessing today...*
Click to expand...


I think the crux of this discussion is whether or not the cultural change you have highlighted is a biblical one or not and whether we should bow to what the culture considers a blessing.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Christusregnat,



> You may want to start reading some new books. Gnostics would be against having sex and having children; they are both fleshly.



Christusregnat, you are knocking down a strawman. What I said is that this position came out of Christian polemics against the gnostics because they shared elements of their neoplatonic dualism [expecially with regards to sexuality]. I agree, they were inconsistent to argue in this fashion. They should have gotten rid of the dualism, instead of getting rid of the contraception.

God Bless,
Adam

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 07:10:52 EST-----

Prufrock,



> Even though (of course!) these are different classes and sorts of events, we could just as easily say, "God purposed for Paul to persecute and destroy the church for a time, that his grace might be more grandly seen!" This is, in fact, true. But it is also irrelevant to the manner in which we are supposed conduct ourselves.



However, it seems like that is exactly his point. Whether or not something is a blessing is something that is irrelevant to behavior. Even things that we think, from our perspective as bad, can, in fact, be a blessing. His point is that it is irrational to argue:

1. x is a blessing.
2. Therefore, it is immoral to willfully decide not to have x.

That is a non sequitor.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Edward

Soonerborn said:


> From a world's perspective, the cost of raising a child for 18 years, (not counting college), is $249,000 per child
> Cost of Raising Kids Table: Family & College - MSN Money, so my 4 kids will cost me nearly $1,000,000 over 18 years according to the world. Then you have college.
> 
> Using my CPA brain, these number don't add up. We can't "afford" to have 4 or more kids. But God has and will provide for us. It may not be according to our wants and wishes, but it will be according to His.



You didn't take into account the economies of scale. There are certain costs associated with having a child. Many of those costs can be amortized over additional children. So the average cost per child should decline as the number of children increases.

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 07:31:59 EST-----



kvanlaan said:


> And if the Lord knows that conception will harm her, He will ensure that your wife does not conceive.



That's poor logic and worse theology.


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> Even things that we think, from our perspective as bad, can, in fact, be a blessing.



This is incorrect. Bad things are overruled by God and made a blessing. They are not a blessing in themselves. It is libertine to argue, Let us do evil that good may come. It is biblical and reformed to teach, Obedience is our business while Providence is God's business. To obey is better than sacrifice.


----------



## Romans922

Grillsy said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...
> 
> Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would be your argument against using NFP or Rhythm Method?
Click to expand...


I am against all methods which would refrain from marriage bed. 


I believe the both agreeing for a time not to be together and pray lest they be tempted...is not for methods of birth control, and is very dangerous to do it, hence the praying part. I advise against all non-marriage bed methods. Except on rare occasions.


----------



## Hebrew Student

armourbearer,



> This is incorrect. Bad things are overruled by God and made a blessing. They are not a blessing in themselves. It is libertine to argue, Let us do evil that good may come. It is biblical and reformed to teach, Obedience is our business while Providence is God's business. To obey is better than sacrifice.



I wasn't trying to argue that we should just do evil. The only thing I need for the argument is that they are, in some sense, a blessing, even if God overrules them to make them such. If they are a blessing then, according to this logic, because God makes the evil a blessing, it is wrong for us to avoid evil.

The problem is with the logic: 

blessing=you cannot willfully avoid having them.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> If they are a blessing then, according to this logic, because God makes the evil a blessing, it is wrong for us to avoid evil.



God makes the death of Christ a blessing. Wicked hands crucified and killed Him. On the reasoning being offered in this thread, the wicked hands should not have avoided doing the evil they did. This is a libertine error which fails to distinguish human responsibility and divine sovereignty.


----------



## Daniel Haley

Andres said:


> Daniel Haley said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many syndromes out there that doctor's prescribe "the pill" for. One case would be Yasmin (the pill) for PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome).
> 
> Is this sin? Should the woman just deal with the hormonal imbalances, weight gains, and increased risk of cervical cancer?
> 
> An observational study of Yasmin in the management... [J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2004] - PubMed result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did women do before Yasmin?
Click to expand...


Androgen-blocking (anti-androgen) medications can be used to treat several PCOS symptoms, including excess or unwanted hair growth and, to a limited degree, acne and scalp hair loss. Spironolactone, flutamide, finasteride and cyproterone acetate (which is not available in the United States) can help to relieve the symptoms of excessive facial and bodily hair, as well as thinning hair on the scalp and acne. These medications can be taken along with oral contraceptives. Note that although there is extensive worldwide experience with their use in PCOS, none of these medications have been approved for use in the treatment for PCOS by the FDA.

Insulin-sensitizing medications used to treat adult-onset diabetes are useful for many women with PCOS. While these medications have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specifically for the treatment of PCOS, they seem to improve the regularity of menstrual cycles by lowering insulin levels. Metformin is the most commonly used drug, but doctors should prescribe it with caution. There is not enough research at this time to recommend this drug for all women with PCOS.

Birth control pills, or oral contraceptives, contain female hormones that help to regulate menstrual cycles. Contraceptives also help to lower levels of androgens, reducing abnormal hair growth and improving acne.


----------



## Hebrew Student

armourbearer,



> God makes the death of Christ a blessing. Wicked hands crucified and killed Him. On the reasoning being offered in this thread, the wicked hands should not have avoided doing the evil they did. This is a libertine error which fails to distinguish human responsibility and divine sovereignty.



Exactly. To argue that a blessing can never be refused is to argue that we must receive [or give, for that matter] every evil so that God can turn every evil into a blessing, because those blessings cannot be rejected. Such is absurd.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Peairtach

I think the use of "contraception" that destroys new life is clearly wrong.

Those couples that avoid having any children without good reason are also going against part of God's will for marriage.

There seems to be no injunction against all contraception in Scripture, as there is against theft, murder or Sabbath-breaking. If it was such an issue, why is there not?

If someone is in favour of natural methods of contraception, I don't see why they should be against artificial methods, as the purpose is the same: to stop or reduce the likelihood of conception. The RC Church takes this contradictory position, in its tradition of adding to Scripture.

Those married Christian couples who are fit and healthy and fertile should not feel bound by current societal norms respecting family size. Others may believe that it would be unwise for them to have a larger family.

"All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient." (I Cor. 6:12)

It is God who gives or witholds blessing from the farmer when he plants his crops, but God still uses the secondary means of the Christian farmer's sanctified common sense in planning what he is to sow and how he is to do it.


----------



## kvanlaan

> And we also have to remember the historical context of the Old Testament. In that time, childbearing was crucial to every culture and every family - thus everyone wanted as many children as possible. That's no longer the case today. From a economic and cultural perspective, NOT having children is often a blessing today.



That is part of the cancer that has infected the church today. Couching it in these terms shows just how far it has gone. Whose context are you using in this particular argument to define a 'blessing'?



> I'm not sure that you, or anyone else for that matter, are qualified to say that God would prevent that from happening. What if it were God's will for her to get pregnant and die as a result to bring about a greater good? (Praise God that that didn't happen!) Who are we to say what is in the mind of God or what he will use to bring about his will in our lives and the lives of all of his children?



If He does not, then such is His will for His people. Amen. Don't waste it.

(See Piper's quote on cancer in an earlier thread - sorry, can't find it, but here is a link to the quote: Don't Waste Your Cancer :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library )



> And if the Lord knows that conception will harm her, He will ensure that your wife does not conceive.
> 
> 
> 
> That's poor logic and worse theology.
Click to expand...


Please expand on your position. That's quite a statement to make.


----------



## kvanlaan

I know that my above post seems like a harsh post, but I feel uniquely qualified to make it. I have seen my wife's life be threatened by her pregnancy, but have seen God's hand in saving her and providing for her each time. Obey His word and the blessings will come, in one form or another.


----------



## Peairtach

I think what is wise should be followed here.

It's not always wise to follow the standards of our age and limit our family to 3, 2, 1, or none.

But it's not always (never?) wise/sanctified common sense for a couple, to try to have as many children as possible.


----------



## py3ak

Let's bring an end to this one. If this is a burning personal matter for you, please speak with your elders.


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> Exactly. To argue that a blessing can never be refused is to argue that we must receive [or give, for that matter] every evil so that God can turn every evil into a blessing, because those blessings cannot be rejected. Such is absurd.



This is a very confused statement and fails to distinguish things that differ.


----------

