# Are Children Always a Blessing?



## ClayPot

Regardless of how many children you have, if you have another, should that be considered a blessing from God? If so, then why would we prevent it?

Disclaimer: 1. I would answer yes to the first question. 2. I am unsure about what I would say about the second one.

This is a more specific followup to the question in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/preventing-natural-blessing-65324/. I feel that the vagueness of my question in the previous thread is a little confusing, so I decided to be very specific.


----------



## Skyler

Joshua: See Rev. Buchanan's post in the thread you mentioned. I think his point about foster children is valid.


----------



## he beholds

I think we may not_ feel_ blessed by a child, and we may not gratefully accept God's blessings, but I cannot imagine that to be given a child is anything but. I cannot see God cursing someone with a child. I also imagine that _not_ being given a child is _also_ a blessing, though again, one may not feel blessed by that.

---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------

Oh. the second part: 
I think one would prevent it because he would not feel blessed and he would choose to not seek that specific blessing. Most genuine Christians (hopefully) would still welcome a child and see it as a blessing, even had they not wished for that particular blessing. Most true Christians are not aborting their unwanted blessings, right? So although one may wish to avoid having children, it is still likely that if God gave them one, they'd treat it as a blessing, amidst the fear and other feelings presented with the child. Or so I hope.


----------



## Mike Southerland

1. Yes.
2. We should not prevent it.

Unfortunately most Christians *are* aborting their children through chemical birth control. More more information on that topic see Randy Alcorn's book on Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortion?

After seven largely problem free pregnancies and births, the Lord has determined to take us through the trial of four miscarriages in a row. If I were ever to give a good reason for your question #2, it would be that we would prevent conception in order to save us the pain of losing another child. However, if I were to answer that way then it would be my flesh attempting to override God's will. Through this trial I've come to view each of these precious children as an eternal soul that I will meet someday. I also have learned to trust this area of our life to God's will. When I was younger the challenge was trusting Him to give us all He wanted. The challenge now is being open to have Him take all He wants, all the while crying out to Him, that if it is His will, to spare our unborn child.

Currently not expecting...


----------



## SolaScriptura

I don't like the way the question is phrased. By using the term "children" we reference only a small period in the life of a person, and it incidentally is a period that we decent folk think of in endearing, cute and emotionally laden terms.

To ask the question properly, we simply need to rephrase it to view things more big picture: Are PEOPLE always a blessing?


----------



## ClayPot

Mike Southerland said:


> 1. Yes.
> 2. We should not prevent it.
> 
> Unfortunately most Christians *are* aborting their children through chemical birth control. More more information on that topic see Randy Alcorn's book on Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortion?
> 
> After seven largely problem free pregnancies and births, the Lord has determined to take us through the trial of four miscarriages in a row. If I were ever to give a good reason for your question #2, it would be that we would prevent conception in order to save us the pain of losing another child. However, if I were to answer that way then it would be my flesh attempting to override God's will. Through this trial I've come to view each of these precious children as an eternal soul that I will meet someday. I also have learned to trust this area of our life to God's will. When I was younger the challenge was trusting Him to give us all He wanted. The challenge now is being open to have Him take all He wants, all the while crying out to Him, that if it is His will, to spare our unborn child.
> 
> Currently not expecting...


 
Thanks for your honesty, and I'm sorry for your losses. My wife have never used chemical forms of birth control because of the abortifacent aspect of it.

---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> I don't like the way the question is phrased. By using the term "children" we reference only a small period in the life of a person, and it incidentally is a period that we decent folk think of in endearing, cute and emotionally laden terms.
> 
> To ask the question properly, we simply need to rephrase it to view things more big picture: Are PEOPLE always a blessing?


 
I appreciate your thoughts Ben, though in this case, I must disagree with you. My question is motivated by the birth control issue, so I'm not sure the revision would be helpful.


----------



## JennyG

You can't read the Bible and not see children as "the heritage and gift of the Lord" as the marriage service says. 
However, it was ordained that Eve should bring them forth "in sorrow", so it's not surprising if at the point of receiving the blessing, the experience is not always uniformly positive even for those that fear the Lord. It may be only when they've passed through the various traumas that some parents are able to see the blessing whole for what it is.
But - if you'll excuse the Reductio ad Hitlerum, - was *he* a blessing?


----------



## SolaScriptura

jpfrench81 said:


> My question is motivated by the birth control issue, so I'm not sure the revision would be helpful.



Given that a new person - and not just a child - is at stake, I think it is most important to consider the big picture.


----------



## Grace Alone

SolaScriptura said:


> jpfrench81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is motivated by the birth control issue, so I'm not sure the revision would be helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that a new person - and not just a child - is at stake, I think it is most important to consider the big picture.
Click to expand...

 
Okay, I am going to take a leap here. I don't think anyone is "at stake". All the people/babies/children ordained to be conceived will be conceived. I don't think we can thwart God's plans by trying to avoid pregnancy. 

But yes, the Bible says children are a blessing from the Lord and I believe that to be true. But I am also not against using the brains we have been given to determine that we may have circumstances that might cause us to avoid too frequent or additional pregnancies.


----------



## JennyG

Ben's right about that. people can be very blinkered in their grasp of a situation. I recall bringing home to the kids a part of what abortion means by pointing out "I could have prevented *you* from existing. I would never have know who it was I had killed - but God would have, and it would have been you."

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 PM ----------




Grace Alone said:


> Okay, I am going to take a leap here. I don't think anyone is "at stake". All the people/babies/children ordained to be conceived will be conceived. I don't think we can thwart God's plans by trying to avoid pregnancy.



yes, that's quite a thought - I see that what I said about abortion (I know that's not the issue here) just may not apply if it 's really a case of preventing conception ,rather than very early killing of what has been conceived.


----------



## Grace Alone

I was referring to Joshua's point about avoiding pregnancy, not aborting a child that is conceived...just to be clear. Abstaining from sex during the fertile time does not destroy a life.


----------



## ClayPot

Grace Alone said:


> But yes, the Bible says children are a blessing from the Lord and I believe that to be true. But I am also not against using the brains we have been given to determine that we may have circumstances that might cause us to avoid too frequent or additional pregnancies.


 
Janis,

Could you provide some of the circumstances where it would be wise to avoid too frequent or additional pregnancies? (Outside of the mother dying if she were going to give birth to another child? Thanks.)

---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------




JennyG said:


> Ben's right about that. people can be very blinkered in their grasp of a situation. I recall bringing home to the kids a part of what abortion means by pointing out "I could have prevented *you* from existing. I would never have know who it was I had killed - but God would have, and it would have been you."
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I am going to take a leap here. I don't think anyone is "at stake". All the people/babies/children ordained to be conceived will be conceived. I don't think we can thwart God's plans by trying to avoid pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, that's quite a thought - I see that what I said about abortion (I know that's not the issue here) just may not apply if it 's really a case of preventing conception ,rather than very early killing of what has been conceived.
Click to expand...

 
What does "blinkered" mean? I apologize for being an ignorant American.


----------



## Grace Alone

Well, I can give a couple of examples. Let's recall a most horrible case of the Christian mother who was mentally ill after giving birth and drowned all 5 of her children. They had sought treatment for her severe depression and psychosis or whatever it was previously and her husband had been told that it was dangerous for her to have more children. I think that might have been good advice to heed. Other occasions might be when the mother has a serious illness such as cancer and would have to cease treatment if she became pregnant. I have known of such a case. All of these were God's will because they happened, obviously. However, I think if the mother is depressed and having difficulty caring for the children, the husband should use wisdom about her becoming pregnant again at that point. Another instance is when there are multiple children and one or more are handicapped and require an exceptional amount of care. They might want to postpone having more children. Another instance is when the husband loses his job, etc., and is having trouble supporting the family he already has.

I absolutely agree that many or most people choose to avoid pregnancy for the wrong reasons. But I do think there are valid reasons as well. And the Lord can always overrule men's plans anyway!


----------



## ClayPot

Grace Alone said:


> I absolutely agree that many or most people choose to avoid pregnancy for the wrong reasons. But I do think there are valid reasons as well. And the Lord can always overrule men's plans anyway!


 
Thanks for the clarification. And here's where the real quandry comes (at least for me). We often use the most extreme circumstances to justify a viewpoint when those are not the circumstances typically used to engage in such behavior (and this isn't directed at your post Janis). e.g., I had a colleague who was strongly supportive of abortion. I was able to contend against her arguments using some techniques learned from Stand to Reason's Making Abortion Unthinkable video. So of course she brought up the rape, incest, mother's life argument. I told her that I would happily vote for a law that made abortion illegal, except in those circumstances. I asked her if she would also agree to that law, and she said that she wouldn't. The reason is because those were not really the reasons she would want to have an abortion. It would be for convenience. 

Christians who argue for the permissibility of birth control may use extreme examples to argue their viewpoint, but in practice the reasons are typically convenience. Should birth control use (among Christians specifically) be an extremely small minority? Proportionally, there are very few people who would fall in the extreme circumstances described above. Is birth control permissible if I'm just tired of sleepless nights from an infant? Or if I'm tired of potty training? Or if I feel cramped in my house and would like a little more space? If I'm comfortable with my present lifestyle and don't want that to change? I would really like to hear an argument for these cases since those are really the common reason people stop having kids (at least from what I've seen).


----------



## Peairtach

Was Absalom a blessing?

Maybe, but he became a curse.

The Q of birth control was dealt with heavily on a thread a few months back and has no doubt been done on many threads, since it's one of those things which Reformed people don't agree on in all respects.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f32/contraception-sin-onan-55597/

http://www.puritanboard.com/google.php?cx=partner-pub-7433483551


----------



## ClayPot

Richard Tallach said:


> The Q of birth control was dealt with heavily on a thread a few months back and has no doubt been done on many threads, since it's one of those things which Reformed people don't agree on in all respects.


 
I think I may have started the last one too!  The questions just keep abounding and it is a very important topic.


----------



## Peairtach

They often involve the mysterious figure of Onan the Barbarian.

From Strong's:



> 209 'Ownan o-nawn' a variation of 207; strong; Onan, a son of Judah:--Onan.
> 
> 207 'Ownow o-no' or (shortened) ;Onow {o-no'}; prolonged from 202; strong; Ono, a place in Palestine:--Ono.


----------



## Grace Alone

I will agree that conservative reformed people disagree on this. Our very conservative elder in his 70's will tell you that after his wife had 4 babies, he decided their quiver was full. He believed that she had all she could manage well...taking good care of the kids and glorifying God in the process. I would have to come down on the side of Christian liberty in this area as opposed to abortion which is extremely clear.


----------



## lynnie

I am in a church with over two dozen kids adopted from mostly foreign countries. While some of them happened because of infertility issues, many of them happened because people chose to adopt instead of have another biological baby (or have the sort of medical procedures that might help them conceive). My pastor has four adopted kids and his sister is forty years younger; his parents had her as a foster girl and adopted her! Its kind of funny the way this smiley 13 year old black girl tells a new kid that the pastor is her brother and they give her the usual "yeah right" reaction, and she drags him over to prove it.

Anyway, once you start to read about the awful situation with foreign orphans, I don't know why anybody would want to have another one of their own if they already have some, instead of rescuing a child. One of my friends had two biological boys and then adopted two girls.

We had four boys and with the last two I threw sugar over into my urine. Just that put me in the 75% chance bracket of ending up with type 2 diabetes ( I exercise and eat right so right now my blood sugar is good) . I was scared to have another and be a diabetic, several of my relatives are. Eventually we adopted a Romanian girl who is sheer delight, and when I think of how most of them get out at age 18 with zero job prospects and nowhere to go and many end up in brothels, I thank God He saw fit to stop me from having more kids of my womb.

This is a subject that isn't clear and it is easy to get legalistic about. But when I see people stopping having babies and instead adopting, I think it is great. Nothing wrong with having plenty of your own of course, but at least think about it.


----------



## TimV

Adoption is a matter of choice. Birth is not. You can't just decide to make a baby.

The fruit of the womb is His reward, not however many trophies you can buy. Adopting and using birth control is a sign of decadence and perversion rather than spirituality.


----------



## Skyler

jpfrench81 said:


> What does "blinkered" mean? I apologize for being an ignorant American.



A reference to "blinkers" or "blinders" on a horse, I think.


----------



## Dwimble

TimV said:


> Adopting and using birth control is a sign of decadence and perversion rather than spirituality.


Wow. Just, wow. I've never claimed that our decision to adopt our first daughter a few years ago and our second within the next few weeks was a sign of "spirituality." But to call us and all those like us decadent and perverted is about as wrong-headed and hurtful as it gets. Do you know our hearts or the hearts of anyone else like us? Incredible.


----------



## he beholds

TimV said:


> Adoption is a matter of choice. Birth is not. You can't just decide to make a baby.
> 
> The fruit of the womb is His reward, not however many trophies you can buy. Adopting and using birth control is a sign of decadence and perversion rather than spirituality.


 
I think I get what you are saying, but it may have come out wrong. Adopting a sign of decadence and perversion? Not so much. Perhaps somewhere, sometimes, but I doubt that's the rule. I also doubt that's what you really meant?


----------



## Grace Alone

Tim, your comments are pretty unreal to me. I hope you will rethink such comments.

Lynnie, we had two biological children and adopted an orphan from China. I praise God that he blessed us in this way! Adoption is a beautiful image of God's adoption of us, and that is exactly what our pastor preached about on the day she was baptized. God gathers His children in many ways and adoption of orphans by Christians is a beautiful way.

"27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27


----------



## TimV

Adoption while taking birth control. The fruit of the womb is His reward. So you stop your womb from bearing because it's either easier or more holy to adopt. I don't get it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The question on the poll is rather vague. Are children always a blessing to a parent? I would say they can be rather burdensome and a heart breaker. But as the question truly seems to pertain the sacredness of life, I would say all life is sacred.


----------



## earl40

All things work for good to those that love God. All things are a curse that die in unbelief. Now that is the big picture.


----------



## Dwimble

TimV said:


> Adoption while taking birth control. The fruit of the womb is His reward. So you stop your womb from bearing because it's either easier or more holy to adopt. I don't get it.


You're right, you don't get it. You pigeon-hole all those adopting who concurrently use birth control into your narrow criteria of believing it is either "easier" to adopt (which is utterly laughable) or "more holy," in addition to your original "decadent" and "perverted" statement. You know nothing about their hearts or motives, what method of birth-control they are using, why they are using it, why exactly they wish to adopt, and so on. The statements are almost farcical, and again potentially hurtful.

In any case, this topic is far afield from the purpose of the thread, so I'll pass on any further comments about it.


----------



## Hebrew Student

TimV,

Look at Psalm 127 again:

הנה נחלת יהוה בנים שכר פרי הבטן

Notice, there is no definite article before שכר. The fruit of the womb is _*a*_ reward. That is, it is only one possible reward from God. God rewards all those that follow him and serve him, but in different ways. God rewards all forms of service to him [adoption, missionary service, or any other means of service], but to demand that he always do it this way is something that is totally unfounded in this text.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## TimV

Thanks, Adam, but that doesn't exclude your wife having kids.


----------



## kvanlaan

> You're right, you don't get it. You pigeon-hole all those adopting who concurrently use birth control into your narrow criteria of believing it is either "easier" to adopt (which is utterly laughable) or "more holy," in addition to your original "decadent" and "perverted" statement. You know nothing about their hearts or motives, what method of birth-control they are using, why they are using it, why exactly they wish to adopt, and so on. The statements are almost farcical, and again potentially hurtful.
> 
> In any case, this topic is far afield from the purpose of the thread, so I'll pass on any further comments about it.



I'm sorry, but I don't see Tim's statements as so far-fetched when applied to North American Christianity in general (and I *DO* 'get' it). 

We sit there and snipe at each other with exceptions, when the rule tends to be that children are seen as something to regulate, for the first time in millenia. What about pre-pill? The only reason we are having this conversation is because the means exist now to control what was previously unbound. Yes, women died in childbirth with alarming regularity. Yes, there are cases now and previously where women were simply overwrought and killed their children (but this looks more to me like a disfunction in the Body of Christ rather than an issue of too many children). Yes, there are cases of rape and incest where keeping a child seems illogical and almost cruel (but never, never does any crime, no matter how heinous, justify murder). 

I think that adopting and using birth control is an odd combination. We did it, for fear that Elizabeth would get pregnant during the adoption and thereby void the process. But again, it is a bizarre exception - that's what most of this thread seems to be composed of.

EDIT: I think what I'm reading here is that we deny God's blessing of our own womb and then seek another somewhere else, that is the contradiction that he's trying to deal with, as I understand it. We have adopted a few times, and never did I think of them as 'trophies' to be 'bought'. But I do understand the sentiment, as it seems that in some parts of the US, adopting a Chinese orphan is almost 'hip', and thus that charge could be applied to some. Saying that all chidlren adopted while on birth control are merely people exercising a material want and thus perverse, is, I think, a statement taken too far (though again, it may be applicable in some cases).



> I will agree that conservative reformed people disagree on this. Our very conservative elder in his 70's will tell you that after his wife had 4 babies, he decided their quiver was full. He believed that she had all she could manage well...taking good care of the kids and glorifying God in the process



This is a fine opinion but the question is, is it his decision to make?


----------



## Montanablue

TimV said:


> The fruit of the womb is His reward, not however many trophies you can buy. Adopting and using birth control is a sign of decadence and perversion rather than spirituality.



I cannot believe you think this. One of my siblings is adopted and he is definite not a "trophy" that we bought, but a wonderful blessing that God put into our family. I actually don't think I can respond further...I am incredibly disappointed.


----------



## Grace Alone

Kevin, yes, I think it is his decision just as it was your decision to temporarily avoid pregnancy during your adoption. How many Christian women who started having babies in their 20's are still having babies well into their 40's? Not many. Most Christian couples make some decisions regarding either the timing or number of children that they ultimately have. I'm not saying that all the reasons are as valid as others, but as I said before, you can't prevent having a child that God has ordained. We may think we are in control of this area, but we most certainly are not!


----------



## Hunn

I voted yes, assuming we are talking about believers here. 

As to the second question, I'll risk the shock that I'm sure some of you will have and say that we can avoid having more kids (obviously barring any abortive measures) because we don't want any more. I am also assuming that Christian couples are not avoiding children all together because children are a blessing from the Lord to married couples. But at the same time, as someone else has pointed out in this thread, they are not the only blessings God gives. I see no command in scripture to never avoid having children. We should be thankful for the blessings that God gives us in our children, but I think saying that all of us should continue to have children until it is impossible is taking it too far. 

We should examine out hearts as to why we want to stop having children. I have three kids. We are currently preventing, and will most likely, barring God's intervention, be done. My reasons are that I want to homeschool my children and give them the best education possible. Also, I want to be able to spend as much time as possible with my kids (and my wife) and have the time to teach them about the Lord. We are all in different circumstances. Having 10 kids in our society is a lot different than having 10 kids in pre-modern rural societies.

I'll gladly rethink my views if anybody wants to show me from scripture why I shouldn't prevent kids (other than that children are a blessing from the Lord). I agree and am very thankful for my kids.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Kevin, yes, I think it is his decision just as it was your decision to temporarily avoid pregnancy during your adoption. How many Christian women who started having babies in their 20's are still having babies well into their 40's? Not many. Most Christian couples make some decisions regarding either the timing or number of children that they ultimately have. I'm not saying that all the reasons are as valid as others, but as I said before, you can't prevent having a child that God has ordained. We may think we are in control of this area, but we most certainly are not!



But I think this decision was made on the basis of fear, and not of trust, and the fact that most people make decisions on their fertility does not make it right (far too often the earthly manifestation of our Christian walk comes from what we see in our congregations, not what we see in scripture). Part of the reason that the church is in the state it is in today is that too many women in their 20's decided that they didn't want children past their girl and boy, and so at 24 they were all done with childbirth. No, we can't prevent a child that God has ordained, but why do we test Him in the process? I don't go shooting apples off the heads of my children just to prove that God will protect them either.


----------



## Hebrew Student

TimV,



> Thanks, Adam, but that doesn't exclude your wife having kids.



Nor was it meant to. It was meant to point out that children being called a "reward" does not necessarily mean that a couple *must* have biological children if they can. God rewards his servants in the ways he sees fit, not in the ways we think he ought to.

I also thought that PuritanCovenanter's distinction was good. The question is quite vague, and what is meant by "children are a blessing" does need some clarification.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Edward

TimV said:


> The fruit of the womb is His reward, not however many trophies you can buy.



That's offensive, ascribing some pretty base motives to those who adopt.


----------



## kvanlaan

> My reasons are that I want to homeschool my children and give them the best education possible. Also, I want to be able to spend as much time as possible with my kids (and my wife) and have the time to teach them about the Lord. We are all in different circumstances. Having 10 kids in our society is a lot different than having 10 kids in pre-modern rural societies.



While I can't give you chapter and verse on why you should most certainly not use birth control, I can say that your reasons given resonate with the effects of modern culture on us. There's always time to teach one or ten or twenty about the Lord, no matter how many. They all sit around the dinner table and all have ears. Sure, sometimes devotions will take an hour and a half, but how is that a bad thing? My wife homeschools our children. Now where is the argument???


----------



## TimV

How many kids have you got, Edward?


----------



## Hunn

kvanlaan said:


> My reasons are that I want to homeschool my children and give them the best education possible. Also, I want to be able to spend as much time as possible with my kids (and my wife) and have the time to teach them about the Lord. We are all in different circumstances. Having 10 kids in our society is a lot different than having 10 kids in pre-modern rural societies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I can't give you chapter and verse on why you should most certainly not use birth control, I can say that your reasons given resonate with the effects of modern culture on us. There's always time to teach one or ten or twenty about the Lord, no matter how many. They all sit around the dinner table and all have ears. Sure, sometimes devotions will take an hour and a half, but how is that a bad thing? My wife homeschools our children. Now where is the argument???
Click to expand...

 
As I said before, we are all in different circumstances. I just don't think it is necessary to assume that we should all have 11 kids (which I see that you have). It is wonderful that your wife is able to homeschool all of them. I am not in any way saying that it is impossible to teach a bunch of kids about the Lord. All I'm saying is that it seems to be a matter of liberty, seeing as there is no command. How does it reflect modern culture to want to have a lot of time to educate my children in the Lord and serve and romance my wife? I have to say, I wish the culture had such goals.


----------



## kvanlaan

But that's just it, it is indeed about circumstances, and choices, and general geography, etc. But we don't make those choices in a vacuum, we look to God's Word, and that's where I think that our modern culture has created so much white noise in the form of entertainment and general distractions that the gentle voice of the Holy Spirit gets lost in the din. In Canada I have a decent job and get government money just for having these children (and it is a large sum every month) BUT when we lived in China, we did the same on a third of the money. 



> How does it reflect modern culture to want to have a lot of time to educate my children in the Lord and serve and romance my wife?



These two examples are neither reflections of the culture nor relevant to having many children. But I can say that having more children leaves less time for past-times and distractions and I spend almost all my home time with my wife and children (except for my PB addiction, the monkey on my back!)


----------



## Grace Alone

Tim, you have a right to your opinion but you have made offensive posts and insulted several people here tonight.


----------



## Hunn

kvanlaan said:


> But that's just it, it is indeed about circumstances, and choices, and general geography, etc. But we don't make those choices in a vacuum, we look to God's Word, and that's where I think that our modern culture has created so much white noise in the form of entertainment and general distractions that the gentle voice of the Holy Spirit gets lost in the din. In Canada I have a decent job and get government money just for having these children (and it is a large sum every month) BUT when we lived in China, we did the same on a third of the money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it reflect modern culture to want to have a lot of time to educate my children in the Lord and serve and romance my wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These two examples are neither reflections of the culture nor relevant to having many children. But I can say that having more children leaves less time for past-times and distractions and I spend almost all my home time with my wife and children (except for my PB addiction, the monkey on my back!)
Click to expand...

 
When we look to God's word, I'm not seeing where it is commanded that we shouldn't prevent having children if we so desire. Assuming I grant your point that I'm being influenced by the culture (which I don't  ), is that necessarily a bad thing if I have searched my heart (wretched thing that it is) and believe without a guilty conscience that I am doing it for reasons that are not sinful. Circumstances do matter. We all have different careers, financial situations, etc. We shouldn't impose a command on everyone.

As a side note, since having my kids all my past times are gone as well and that is only with 3! I can't imagine having 11. Perhaps I would be able to talk the military into paying me more.


----------



## LawrenceU

I don't see Tim saying that all adoption is 'trophy buying'. I do see him saying that it is really strange to prevent pregnancy in a marriage and then adopt children instead. I have seen this done simply because the woman didn't want a post pregnancy physique more than once. I have seen it for a whole bunch of reasons. It just seems counter to the normal way that God intended for marriage. Molly and I only have one child. It causes us great pain that we have not been able to conceive any others. We have sought to adopt several times and every time the door slams shut. It seems maddening to me for a husband and wife not to have their own natural children if it medically possible.


----------



## Grimmson

jpfrench81 said:


> Regardless of how many children you have, if you have another, should that be considered a blessing from God? If so, then why would we prevent it?
> 
> Disclaimer: 1. I would answer yes to the first question. 2. I am unsure about what I would say about the second one.
> 
> This is a more specific followup to the question in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/preventing-natural-blessing-65324/. I feel that the vagueness of my question in the previous thread is a little confusing, so I decided to be very specific.


 
Should children be considered a blessing from God? Yes, but there are two issues that should be considered. The first is whether or not having as many natural children is wise when considering resources at hand (time, money, other commitments to outside parties and to your local church and so on). Is it appropriate for a husband to purposely conceive with his wife if he is not managing the resources properly that he has already or is in current economic difficulty whereby he cannot provide properly for his own family? If a man cannot provide for his family then he is worse then a nonbeliever (see 1 Timothy 5:8). Therefore he needs to be balanced and excise wisdom in regards to his already established commitments to his wife, current children, and to the church that he is a member of. Just to say that the Lord will provide has many times been an excuse for laziness for denying means to God’s end and laziness in accepting personal responsibility for judgments/ decisions made. Notice that I am nowhere accepting or permitting the issue of abortion, but instead to try to exercise wisdom prior to the conceiving of human life in the womb. The second issue that I have noticed in large families is that the begetting of large amount of children can turn into a form of idolatry. Whereby the husband and wife may start to look down upon married couples with three or less children. The quality of your family is then seen in proportion to how many kids one has and the desire to have more raises that status. Children in such a state are not in practical terms seen as a blessing, even though the family may confess that they are, but instead objects that they want more of. In a sense controlling God, by forcing his hand by having more children purposely, assuming the family recognizes biological means and actions of what they are doing. If a couple wants more children I would recommend adoption, because these are children who are already have been conceived and equally need to hear the Gospel and can receive much in the way of blessing when being brought up in a Christian home. If any man would condemn such couple for doing so then he has established that only biological children of a couple is a blessing and not adoptive children that need a home. You are purposely specifying who and who is not a blessing from the Lord; therefore communicating that not all children are a blessing. It is God who brings blessings and curses, to strive to receive the blessings from God can turn God into Vending machine of blessings, whereby if you do this that and the other you will receive mechanically a certain blessing as a response. The issue isn’t receiving the blessing, but instead striving after the blessing instead of waiting on the Lord to give blessing in his own time, reminding me of Abraham and Ishmael. Our goal or purpose of believes is not to strive for blessing but to our Lord alone. We are to serve God with all our heart, all our mind, with all our body. Therefore we should not strive after temporal possessions and should instead try to practice godly wisdom; to try to practice godly wisdom is serving God and is moving away from the lustful desires of the flesh. This is not to say that sex with your spouse is wrong, but instead how one does so in wisdom should be considered as long as actual human life is preserved, not a theoretical potential life that may emerge (present vs. potential). 

On the issue of conception, as a side and related issue, see the three sections of this post, where Adam, myself, and others contributed:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f32/contraception-bible-61208/


----------



## Andres

Hunn said:


> My reasons are that I want to homeschool my children and give them the best education possible. Also, I want to be able to spend as much time as possible with my kids (and my wife) and have the time to teach them about the Lord.



At what number of kids can the parent no longer homeschool? And how many kids before one no longer has time to teach them about the Lord?

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 AM ----------




LawrenceU said:


> I don't see Tim saying that all adoption is 'trophy buying'. I do see him saying that it is really strange to prevent pregnancy in a marriage and then adopt children instead. I have seen this done simply because the woman didn't want a post pregnancy physique more than once. I have seen it for a whole bunch of reasons. It just seems counter to the normal way that God intended for marriage. Molly and I only have one child. It causes us great pain that we have not been able to conceive any others. We have sought to adopt several times and every time the door slams shut. It seems maddening to me for a husband and wife not to have their own natural children if it medically possible.



 I have seen many people bash Tim and his comments (which most people took completely out of context), but I have yet to see anyone offer a counter to them. What is the reason that a woman would seek to adopt when she is capable of having children naturally?

---------- Post added at 03:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 AM ----------

I think the real question that comes into play here is not "should people have more children" but rather, "why wouldn't Christian parents want to have more children"? 

When the second question is asked, the answer generally has to do with the family seeing the addition of another child as a burden. They will make some excuse up about finances, when in reality they simply don't want to give up their luxuries. Or they simply don't want to be burdened with the phyical care of another little one. I'm sure every parent on here will attest babies are hard work, but how many people are just too lazy (selfish) to do this hard work. I can think of one valid reason why a woman would specifically prevent pregnancy and that is for health reasons, of both mom and potential child. If there is another valid reason someone can point me too I will of course stand corrected.


----------



## Grimmson

Andres said:


> Hunn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reasons are that I want to homeschool my children and give them the best education possible. Also, I want to be able to spend as much time as possible with my kids (and my wife) and have the time to teach them about the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what number of kids can the parent no longer homeschool? And how many kids before one no longer has time to teach them about the Lord?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Tim saying that all adoption is 'trophy buying'. I do see him saying that it is really strange to prevent pregnancy in a marriage and then adopt children instead. I have seen this done simply because the woman didn't want a post pregnancy physique more than once. I have seen it for a whole bunch of reasons. It just seems counter to the normal way that God intended for marriage. Molly and I only have one child. It causes us great pain that we have not been able to conceive any others. We have sought to adopt several times and every time the door slams shut. It seems maddening to me for a husband and wife not to have their own natural children if it medically possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen many people bash Tim and his comments (which most people took completely out of context), but I have yet to see anyone offer a counter to them. What is the reason that a woman would seek to adopt when she is capable of having children naturally?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 AM ----------
> 
> I think the real question that comes into play here is not "should people have more children" but rather, "why wouldn't Christian parents want to have more children"?
> 
> When the second question is asked, the answer generally has to do with the family seeing the addition of another child as a burden. They will make some excuse up about finances, when in reality they simply don't want to give up their luxuries. Or they simply don't want to be burdened with the phyical care of another little one. I'm sure every parent on here will attest babies are hard work, but how many people are just too lazy (selfish) to do this hard work. I can think of one valid reason why a woman would specifically prevent pregnancy and that is for health reasons, of both mom and potential child. If there is another valid reason someone can point me too I will of course stand corrected.
Click to expand...

 
The reason is simple. Even though a woman can bare a child, such a child is categorically a potential child. There are children right now who need a home, and I cannot think of a better home then a Christian home that communicates the Gospel. These children that can be adopted are not potential children because they have already been born and need a stable environment to be cared for. Many children if they been through an adoptive service for years have plenty of psychological and social problems (hard work equal if not greater then with infants), so it is not like taking care of such children is necessarily a walk in the park. These children need as much love as children that would potentially be born in a Christian home. We should have a concern for the orphans and not necessarily cast them aside because we can bare our own children. A couple adopting in love as a great example of the care and mercy of our Triune God. Why should a couple desire to adopt instead of just begetting their own children, to show the love of our mighty, wonderful, merciful, and kind God. It should not be done to that a woman could keep her figure or fear of labor, but instead reflect the fruits of the Holy Spirit. If a couple desires to adopt rather then have then go through the natural process themselves, which is fine with me considering how great the need is for more Christian parents to adopt. To ignore the adoption process and to only have only natural children could be a form of lifting up their seed or potential seed higher then one that does not come from their flesh that already has been born. Adoptive children should be equal in status with a parent’s natural born child with respect to love and status as a child in the family. I would not condemn a couple that desired to adopt if they wanted kids, now I would find it odd if they didn’t have a child first to spark that desire to begin with. There are many things I find odd in the world, that however does not necessarily make it wrong. We should offer any kind of support and prayer we can to such couples. The support includes any promise that given by the church to help with the nurture and education of a child born with a married couple given also to adoptive children.


----------



## ChristianTrader

I usually do not like the way the preventing pregnancy/blessings question is phrased. I first think of the question of what is the chief end of man? According to Westminster: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. To speak absolutely against non abortive birth control, one has to say that the only way a married couple can answer the question of how to fulfill their chief end is "to attempt to conceive, birth, and to raise another child". To go from a blessings to one's "Highest Good" is a wide chasm, that I have yet to see many even attempt to bridge.

CT


----------



## Hunn

Andres said:


> Hunn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reasons are that I want to homeschool my children and give them the best education possible. Also, I want to be able to spend as much time as possible with my kids (and my wife) and have the time to teach them about the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what number of kids can the parent no longer homeschool? And how many kids before one no longer has time to teach them about the Lord?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Tim saying that all adoption is 'trophy buying'. I do see him saying that it is really strange to prevent pregnancy in a marriage and then adopt children instead. I have seen this done simply because the woman didn't want a post pregnancy physique more than once. I have seen it for a whole bunch of reasons. It just seems counter to the normal way that God intended for marriage. Molly and I only have one child. It causes us great pain that we have not been able to conceive any others. We have sought to adopt several times and every time the door slams shut. It seems maddening to me for a husband and wife not to have their own natural children if it medically possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen many people bash Tim and his comments (which most people took completely out of context), but I have yet to see anyone offer a counter to them. What is the reason that a woman would seek to adopt when she is capable of having children naturally?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 AM ----------
> 
> I think the real question that comes into play here is not "should people have more children" but rather, "why wouldn't Christian parents want to have more children"?
> 
> When the second question is asked, the answer generally has to do with the family seeing the addition of another child as a burden. They will make some excuse up about finances, when in reality they simply don't want to give up their luxuries. Or they simply don't want to be burdened with the phyical care of another little one. I'm sure every parent on here will attest babies are hard work, but how many people are just too lazy (selfish) to do this hard work. I can think of one valid reason why a woman would specifically prevent pregnancy and that is for health reasons, of both mom and potential child. If there is another valid reason someone can point me too I will of course stand corrected.
Click to expand...

 
I would say that depends on the circumstances of the parent homeschooling. You could potentially homeschool as many kids as possible, but I think I could provide a better education for 3 kids than I could for 15.

To ask you a question, "why would people want to have as many kids as possible when there is no command to do so"? I am at a loss as to why there is even a need to say that people are making excuses about finances or being selfish when they don't desire to fulfill the man-made command to procreate indefinitely. Are you honestly saying that women should continue to have children until it is humanly impossible. Should we all have a child every year for our entire 20's and 30's and live off of the welfare roles? If so, why? And who actually does that? Doesn't everybody eventually decide that it is enough? What is the difference in making that decision at three kids instead of at 14, rather than arbitrarily deciding that large families are somehow more holy.


----------



## Grace Alone

LawrenceU said:


> I don't see Tim saying that all adoption is 'trophy buying'. I do see him saying that it is really strange to prevent pregnancy in a marriage and then adopt children instead. I have seen this done simply because the woman didn't want a post pregnancy physique more than once. I have seen it for a whole bunch of reasons. It just seems counter to the normal way that God intended for marriage. Molly and I only have one child. It causes us great pain that we have not been able to conceive any others. We have sought to adopt several times and every time the door slams shut. It seems maddening to me for a husband and wife not to have their own natural children if it medically possible.



Lawrence, all the people I know who have adopted are Christians, and many, like us, already had biological children when they adopted. 100% of them, as well as those who have posted here, I believe did it out of a love for the Lord and with an earnest and sincere desire to serve Him. He says that religion that is PURE and FAULTLESS is to care for orphans, and we took that verse to heart!!! Our kids were already 10 and 13 when we adopted at age 40 and people thought we were nuts!!! We did it to serve God and NOT because we just wanted more kids!!! That is the reason some of us on this thread are absolutely incredulous that some of these statements against adoption are being made. I can possibly see making those kinds of comments in regard to unbelievers (like wanting to adopt so it wouldn't mess up her figure???!!!!), but I am astounded that Christian brothers would make accusations like that on a conservative Christian board toward other Bible-believing Christians.

I know many Christians who have adopted, and there are hundreds of thousands of babies and young children sitting in orphanages around the world at this moment if you really want to adopt. I'll be happy to connect you with a Christian adoption agency or two, if you seriously want to adopt. I will tell you that I believe sometimes the Lord shuts that door of pregnancy so we will seek the path of adoption. We adore our daughter who is adopted and love her absolutely as much as the others born to us...it is equally a miracle and a great blessing!!!

---------- Post added at 08:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 AM ----------

And I should add, we believe there are elect children out there in orphanages, and adoption is one way the Lord brings those children into Christian homes so they will hear the gospel and learn of Him. We prayed for an elect child, as strange as that may sound!


----------



## Pergamum

Jesus said about Judas that it would have been better had he NEVER been born. Was Judas thus a blessing to his parents?


----------



## ClayPot

Grimmson said:


> The second issue that I have noticed in large families is that the begetting of large amount of children can turn into a form of idolatry.



David,

Thanks for your post and points. One thing I will add as a comment in addition is that I have often gotten the sense that some people in the church also idolize the ability to use birth control. When my wife and I have mentioned to people that we are studying the permissibility of contraception (when people ask if we're studying something or what we're learning), people become strongly defensive, aggressive, and mocking. We are not challenging them on their beliefs, just describing our own current journey, but their response to me seems very telling.

---------- Post added at 07:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Jesus said about Judas that it would have been better had he NEVER been born. Was Judas thus a blessing to his parents?


 
Perg, I'm not sure if that verse has anything to do with the (intent of the original) question. Certainly, the verse is Biblical, but the point is that because Judas is going to be punished eternally in hell, it would have been better to have never been born than to experience the eternal torment that awaits him. The verse isn't a comment on family planning.


----------



## LawrenceU

Grace Alone said:


> I know many Christians who have adopted, and there are hundreds of thousands of babies and young children sitting in orphanages around the world at this moment if you really want to adopt. I'll be happy to connect you with a Christian adoption agency or two, if you seriously want to adopt.



I'll shoot you a PM.

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ----------




Andres said:


> At what number of kids can the parent no longer homeschool? And how many kids before one no longer has time to teach them about the Lord?



Actually most in most larger families the parents have more time for discipleship and education. I personally know lots of families with more than nine children. Those moms have a lot better daily schedule than moms with three children.


----------



## ClayPot

Hunn said:


> Are you honestly saying that women should continue to have children until it is humanly impossible. Should we all have a child every year for our entire 20's and 30's and live off of the welfare roles?


 
Nick, some people do think this (and not necessarily me, but I have read quite a bit from the quiver full movement). Arguing from that viewpoint, since the Lord is the one who opens and closes the womb, there does not need to be a worry about having too many children, not being able to educate them adequately, provide for them, etc. If the Lord opens a woman's womb to conceive for a child, then he will provide a way for that family to care for the child appropriately, otherwise he would not leave be leaving them a way of escape from not sinning. Also, some time the command to be fruitful and multiply as an implicit command to multiply until the Lord takes that ability away. Of course the response might be then that we should do everything we can to conceive as many children as possible (to actively try to multiply) instead of just seeing how long the Lord will continue to bless us with children. 

One thing I do have to correct you on is your understanding of biology and fertility. Most people are not going to have 14 children, even if they stopped using birth control altogether. A woman's fertility begins to decrease at age 27. A huge percentage of couples struggle with infertility. Breast feeding is typically an effective form of natural birth control for at least six months after a child is born. With the age that most people get married being pushed back further and further, it becomes increasingly unlikely that a couple will have a large family of 10 or more. Is is possible? Sometimes, yes. But very unlikely. The exception doesn't justify the rule.

Additionally, regarding the welfare comment. 1. How many large families are on the "roles of welfare" as you put it? (Also, I don't consider octomom a good example since she is a non-Christian who is unmarried and intentionally sought to be inseminated with a large number of children to garner media attention). I know of none personally, but perhaps you do. The large families I know of have been blessed by God with enough to provide for their family without going on welfare. 2. Even if a family were on welfare, why would that be immoral? If taking help from the state to help provide for your family is wrong, then none of us should take tax deductions and tax credits since I'm assuming that pretty much everyone subsequently uses the money to support their family. I suppose if they used that savings to support others, then it would be okay, but I doubt that is your practice (though I am certainly willing to be corrected). Both of these points fail to support argumentation for using birth control.


----------



## satz

jpfrench81 said:


> Regardless of how many children you have, if you have another, should that be considered a blessing from God? If so, then why would we prevent it?
> 
> Disclaimer: 1. I would answer yes to the first question. 2. I am unsure about what I would say about the second one.
> 
> This is a more specific followup to the question in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/preventing-natural-blessing-65324/. I feel that the vagueness of my question in the previous thread is a little confusing, so I decided to be very specific.



I think the two questions can be answered very similarly to the way 1 Corinthians 7 looks at marriage. Is a marriage (in the Lord) always a blessing? I believe the passage would say yes. Are there good reasons why a christian many not, at certain times, want to get married? Yes, there are.

So I think in a way the two questions are phrased in away that is slightly unfair. You do not need to believe a child is not a blessing (or worst still a curse) to not wish to have another at this time.

And 1 Corinthians 7 gives two possible reasons a christian may want to considering forgoing marriage (for now): because of present distress (v26) and to avoid excessive carefulness in life (v32). By implication these are equally valid reasons to not want another child (at the moment), as childbirth is impossible without marriage. So it does not require a life threatening situation before a christian couple may wish to use contraception.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!

I was thinking. I don't think that one can make parallels to modern culture, and then somehow say that something is wrong just because there are parallels to modern culture. We have to keep in mind that God has given common grace to all men, and thus, although they will never have a mind that is totally free from sin, they are at least able to discern some truth.

For example, I thought that ChristianTrader made a very good point when he said that the chief end of man is to glorify God [1 Corinthians 10:31]. I believe that it is an act of common grace that the world recognizes that there are things more important than family and children. That is *not* to say that family and children are unimportant, just that there are things in this life that are more important than family and children. The issue is *what* the world believes is more important than marriage and children [their materialism, their comfort, their selfishness, etc.]. To the Christian whose chief end is to glorify God, the glory of God is placed as more important than family and children.

Thus, whether or not we have children is not really the issue. The issue is whether or not we glorify God in the way we are living our lives, and whether we are serving God or ourselves in how we live.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Rich Koster

I have been married 26 years. We have no children of our own. We have no adopted children. I have been hammered by some people (not on this forum) that we must adopt, but I have never been compelled in my spirit by their zeal. After reading this thread, my mind is really troubled by some of the stuff said.......WOW. I know I get opinionated at times, but WOW.


----------



## Hebrew Student

jpfrench81,



> Nick, some people do think this (and not necessarily me, but I have read quite a bit from the quiver full movement). Arguing from that viewpoint, since the Lord is the one who opens and closes the womb, there does not need to be a worry about having too many children, not being able to educate them adequately, provide for them, etc. If the Lord opens a woman's womb to conceive for a child, then he will provide a way for that family to care for the child appropriately, otherwise he would not leave be leaving them a way of escape from not sinning. Also, some time the command to be fruitful and multiply as an implicit command to multiply until the Lord takes that ability away. Of course the response might be then that we should do everything we can to conceive as many children as possible (to actively try to multiply) instead of just seeing how long the Lord will continue to bless us with children.



Yes, I have run into these ideas many times. It is true that it is God who opens and closes the womb, but, just as with every act of providence, God uses means. There are even certain foods and environments that can cause people to become infertile. The fact that God uses these things as well as contraception should not concern us too much. In fact, how many couples have gotten pregnant while using birth control? God can open the womb at any time he wants, even if you use birth control.

The question is sorta like asking why it is we should evangelize if God has already predestined who is going to be saved. The simple answer is that God uses means. In the same way, why should we be careful to control the number of children we have when God is the one who opens and closes the womb? Because God uses means [birth control] to close the womb.

Also, I would ask that you go back and look at the command "Be Fruitful and Multiply" again. That interpretation is absolutely impossible to sustain. The very next phrase says, "fill the earth." If you take "be fruitful and multiply" to be a command that an individual couple must obey, then you cannot say that they must obey it until that ability is taken away, since the phrase "fill the earth" would mean that this couple has to keep having children until they have twenty trillion children so that they fill the earth.

This is actually a passage [Genesis 1:26-28] where I think the New NIV does a very good job in translating:



> Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
> So God created mankind in his own image,
> in the image of God he created them;
> male and female he created them.
> God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”



The NIV I believe accurately translates אדם here as "mankind," since it is the antecedent of plural suffixes and verbal forms. Thus, it is probably being used in a collective sense. When אדם is used as a collective noun, it generally takes on the meaning "mankind." Thus, it is *mankind,* not an individual couple, who is commanded to "Be fruitful and multiply."

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Wannabee

While I realize that the focus is on birth itself, and the opportunity afforded in the fruit God provides, there is much more to this than the birth of a child. The words "children are a blessing" are not found in Scripture. The womb is blessed. We see where men are blessed with many children. Much of this has to do with the fact that many hands make light work... or more productive work. And, more importantly, children are a blessing in so far as they bless their parents. We make a terrible mistake in assuming that children are inherent blessings in simply being born. No, they're a heritage. They're an opportunity. For someone who loves Christ this means they are a blessing because they are someone we can pass down a godly heritage and legacy to and through. But a rebellious child is not a blessing. Obedient children are a blessing. Disobedient children are a curse.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.​
May our children truly be a blessing to us and all who know them.




Proverbs 30:11-17

There is a generation that curses its father, 
And does not bless its mother. 
There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes, 
Yet is not washed from its filthiness. 
There is a generation—oh, how lofty are their eyes! 
And their eyelids are lifted up. 
There is a generation whose teeth are like swords, 
And whose fangs are like knives, 
To devour the poor from off the earth, 
And the needy from among men. 
The leech has two daughters— 
Give and Give! 
There are three things that are never satisfied, 
Four never say, “Enough!”: 
The grave, 
The barren womb, 
The earth that is not satisfied with water— 
And the fire never says, “Enough!” 
The eye that mocks his father, 
And scorns obedience to his mother, 
The ravens of the valley will pick it out, 
And the young eagles will eat it. ​


----------



## ClayPot

Hebrew Student said:


> Also, I would ask that you go back and look at the command "Be Fruitful and Multiply" again. That interpretation is absolutely impossible to sustain.


 
Thanks for your thoughts Adam. I agree that it is a difficult interpretation to sustain because I believe it proves more than most quiver full people would like to admit.


----------



## kvanlaan

Just to answer the _reductio ad Hitlerum_ - yes, he was a blessing to his mother. For the first while, anyway. He had four other siblings die in infancy.

Again, we would not be having this conversation 100 years ago, and it has nothing to do with home-grown farm labourers. We can make up excuses 'til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that most of these arguments (or the seeds thereof, anyway) come from the culture of the day. Look to the correspondence of faithful Christians in the past 2000 years and I doubt very much that you will find much mention of this. 

Let's look at Noah: he was how old when the Flood came: 600 years old. He had three boys in six centuries of attempts. And we're worried that we're going to end up with too many children?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rich Koster said:


> I have been married 26 years. We have no children of our own. We have no adopted children. I have been hammered by some people (not on this forum) that we must adopt, but I have never been compelled in my spirit by their zeal. After reading this thread, my mind is really troubled by some of the stuff said.......WOW. I know I get opinionated at times, but WOW.



I have friends who have never had children. They even wanted to adopt but were prohibited providentially. They wanted children. I have friends who have adopted. I think it is a terrible thing to judge the providence of God in and absolute manner by declaring someone cursed or blessed based upon what the Lord has done. 

St. Paul didn't have any physical children as far as I know. But he has a whole world filled with his spiritual children. 

I love the movie Goodbye Mr. Chips. It is a movie about an old school teacher who never had children but raised a generation of young men. 

T'was a pitty he never had any children.. But he did... Thousands of them. 

[video=youtube;9Lau_ROXbog]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lau_ROXbog[/video]


----------



## kvanlaan

Amen. Ol' Mr Chips never even got to the fertility issue - the Lord simply never sent him a wife. There's no doubt that the Lord can use the gifts that He gives us for His service, even when it is not the 'norm'. We should always utilize the gifts we're given. Like fertility...right?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I corrected it.. He did marry but his wife passed and he never had any children.... I love this movie.

BTW, My fertility was used. LOL.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> Jesus said about Judas that it would have been better had he NEVER been born. Was Judas thus a blessing to his parents?



Was Judas used to glorify God?


----------



## Montanablue

Rich Koster said:


> I have been married 26 years. We have no children of our own. We have no adopted children. I have been hammered by some people (not on this forum) that we must adopt, but I have never been compelled in my spirit by their zeal. After reading this thread, my mind is really troubled by some of the stuff said.......WOW. I know I get opinionated at times, but WOW.


 
I can't be sure what exactly was distressing to you, but I hope you don't think that any of the pro-adoption people here judge those families that don't adopt. I am so incredibly glad that my family went that route and my adopted brother is a blessing to all of us - BUT adoption is a huge undertaking and its not for every family. Some families really _shouldn't_ adopt and some families that would like to have been providentially hindered. I know I've been a strong advocate for adoption on this board in the past and I hope I've never given the impression that I think adoption is a "holier" choice.


----------



## Rich Koster

Montanablue said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been married 26 years. We have no children of our own. We have no adopted children. I have been hammered by some people (not on this forum) that we must adopt, but I have never been compelled in my spirit by their zeal. After reading this thread, my mind is really troubled by some of the stuff said.......WOW. I know I get opinionated at times, but WOW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't be sure what exactly was distressing to you, but I hope you don't think that any of the pro-adoption people here judge those families that don't adopt. I am so incredibly glad that my family went that route and my adopted brother is a blessing to all of us - BUT adoption is a huge undertaking and its not for every family. Some families really _shouldn't_ adopt and some families that would like to have been providentially hindered. I know I've been a strong advocate for adoption on this board in the past and I hope I've never given the impression that I think adoption is a "holier" choice.
Click to expand...


No. In my humble opinion some of the posts were uncharitable. I thought I was tough in the P&G forum


----------



## Hunn

kvanlaan said:


> Just to answer the _reductio ad Hitlerum_ - yes, he was a blessing to his mother. For the first while, anyway. He had four other siblings die in infancy.
> 
> Again, we would not be having this conversation 100 years ago, and it has nothing to do with home-grown farm labourers. We can make up excuses 'til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that most of these arguments (or the seeds thereof, anyway) come from the culture of the day. Look to the correspondence of faithful Christians in the past 2000 years and I doubt very much that you will find much mention of this.
> 
> Let's look at Noah: he was how old when the Flood came: 600 years old. He had three boys in six centuries of attempts. And we're worried that we're going to end up with too many children?


 
You can also look to the history of the church and find christians avoiding marriage and family all together in order to pursue God without hindrances. If Paul regarded it better not to marry, I wonder if sometimes it could be better to not have many children.

The question isn't whether we are preventing children because of culture (which you haven't really explained); the question is whether it is a sin to prevent children. If it isn't then I think this really doesn't need to be debated. 

After all this discussion, I'm still failing to see biblically why we SHOULD avoid birth control. Should we mandate upon Christians a complete avoidance of all forms of birth control, even natural forms? Help me understand where you are coming from.

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------




jpfrench81 said:


> Hunn said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I do have to correct you on is your understanding of biology and fertility. Most people are not going to have 14 children, even if they stopped using birth control altogether. A woman's fertility begins to decrease at age 27. A huge percentage of couples struggle with infertility. Breast feeding is typically an effective form of natural birth control for at least six months after a child is born. With the age that most people get married being pushed back further and further, it becomes increasingly unlikely that a couple will have a large family of 10 or more. Is is possible? Sometimes, yes. But very unlikely. The exception doesn't justify the rule.
> 
> Additionally, regarding the welfare comment. 1. How many large families are on the "roles of welfare" as you put it? (Also, I don't consider octomom a good example since she is a non-Christian who is unmarried and intentionally sought to be inseminated with a large number of children to garner media attention). I know of none personally, but perhaps you do. The large families I know of have been blessed by God with enough to provide for their family without going on welfare. 2. Even if a family were on welfare, why would that be immoral? If taking help from the state to help provide for your family is wrong, then none of us should take tax deductions and tax credits since I'm assuming that pretty much everyone subsequently uses the money to support their family. I suppose if they used that savings to support others, then it would be okay, but I doubt that is your practice (though I am certainly willing to be corrected). Both of these points fail to support argumentation for using birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am wondering whether you would lay it upon the conscience of a young twenty year old couple that it is wrong to use any means of birth control. Whether most families would end up with large amounts of children is really irrelevant.
> 
> Regarding the welfare comment, that is an entirely different topic, and I haven't really made an attempt to think through whether it is ethical. I do think there is a difference between welfare and tax credits though. Paying less in taxes from your earnings is different than receiving money that you did not earn to begin with. Again, different topic, and I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...


----------



## he beholds

Hunn said:


> I do think there is a difference between welfare and tax credits though. Paying less in taxes from your earnings is different than receiving money that you did not earn to begin with. Again, different topic, and I'll leave it at that.



But some receive MORE than they pay in taxes. And they keep it. But they never earned it. So while I wouldn't set up a government that spread the wealth around like that, I'd certainly accept anything the gov't wants to give me. Maybe there are others more principled than I am, but I see no ethical reason to turn down what the law allows. If you aren't lying or cheating and this is what your gov't offers, take it. 

OK, tangent over : )


----------



## ClayPot

Hunn said:


> I am wondering whether you would lay it upon the conscience of a young twenty year old couple that it is wrong to use any means of birth control. Whether most families would end up with large amounts of children is really irrelevant.



Nick,

Just to be clear, I haven't laid such a burden for any couple. I am still studying through the issue. I agree with you that the number of children a person has is irrelevant to whether birth control is permissible. My response was to your statement, "Should we all have a child every year for our entire 20's and 30's and live off of the welfare roles?" My point was that the concern is biologically unlikely and a poor argument for why birth control is permissible.


----------



## Edward

TimV said:


> How many kids have you got, Edward?



One - adopted.


----------



## TimV

So, how do you find my posts despicable? Did you prevent your wife from having her own kids? If so, I would call you the insensitive lout. If not, then what's your problem with what I've said? I'm honestly curious.


----------



## JoyFullMom

Fertility decreases at 27? HA! I have six children (and no, I'm not *quiverfull* and YES, they are a BLESSING), my first was born at age 25, my second at age 30 and then so on until my last son was born two days after my 40th birthday. So....yeah. LOL!


----------



## Grimmson

The issue regarding welfare should be a concern with Christians, especially when considering the involvement of the government in the homes. The purpose of government is not to care for children nor should we want them to. The sole responsibility of care is given by God in the family structure, or sphere if you like. The primary provider must be the man as head of the household. If he cannot provide for his family in the manner that he needs to, food or otherwise then he is acting in a sinful manner based on 1 Timothy 5:8. Therefore making this issue also an issue of church discipline if the man is acting against the mandate purposely without wisdom. 

Welfare is different then a tax credit. Tax credits are given to everyone based on meeting the proactive criteria for receiving the tax credit. A few examples are such as updating your exhaust system of your car or placing solar panels up. Everyone who has children receives the tax credit for children, but the question is whether or not it is moral for a government to give tax money to a group that has not earned it? Is it the role of government to be so involved in a person’s life that they provide, and not the parents alone, support for raising children? I cannot speak for everyone here but that is a scary thought, particularly when strings may be attached. Such strings being attached can quickly turn into a knot and take away rights of parents as government grows in our homes. Strings such as social worker visits to the home to check how your raising the children, mandatory health checks, and checking of individual educational standards. The law allows some to receive welfare support, however this does not make the law lawful. I am using lawful in two sense, the first as a derivative coming from the law of God as instituted from God to government, such as natural law. The second sense is whether or not it is a good law for the common good, which is what government was set up to maintain; such as protection of citizens from invading armies, murder, theft, assault, and so on. Abortion laws allowing for abortions is a perfect example of a unlawful law. Now if welfare is for children then how is that bad? Simple, there is a deliberate shift and taking away of responsibility that would be given to the parents by God. The government would be more involved in the lives of the children; whereby they are turned more into investments of property for the government to be controlled mentally or physically instead under the care of parents. The government then starts to take the legacy of blessing that would have been the parents, for the government starts to turn into the parent. The money that is spent is the tax money of the people. It is money that we must all pay by April 15. We are not generally speaking in covenant of raising the children of people we do not even personally know, so why should are money be used for such? I think it would be better if money were to be given to such folks that something is in place whereby they must earn the money from the government. It would be a better use of tax payers money. If that money cannot be earned because the husband or father is already working a couple of jobs and still cannot provide then one must admit there is something wrong with that picture, not only physically but also spiritually because the father should also be providing religious instruction as well (at least in the Christian context). And within the Christian context I think it is not the State responsibility, but instead the church responsibility to take care of our own. We have given as a church the ministry of care to the state. I would much rather have my ties and offerings go to poor family in need then have the state give taxes that I pay to someone raising children through the state. The reason why I prefer the church more involved is because to some degree, especially if one is Presbyterian with the covenant children language and baptismal promise employed, we are in covenant with helping with the spiritual development of the children which should not be divorced form the physical and mental needs of children that our in our churches. These children are just as much a blessing on the church as they can be to parents. 

I have known of Christian parents that were on welfare with a large number of children and I will leave it at that though.

I am going to stay away from the issue of contraception since I have already written my opinion on the issue with the link provided at an earlier post in this thread. 

Many of you know here that I use to be a public high school, and for a time middle school, math teacher. Sometimes, from personal experience of teaching kids, parents are not qualified to teach their child reading, math, and/or science. They can fall behind the standards of education required by the state at the fault of parents. So if one is going to homeschool their children they need some level of wisdom on how many of their children could they manage to teach productively and if they could provide to bring resources in to fill in the missing gaps in their children education. Therefore to give as a standard rule that large families provide more time with discipleship and education could be a bit misleading at least based on my own experience. There are other factors to consider such as what the father does for a living, how much he makes financially, his cultural and religious background, and the current level of education of the parents. 

I think that deals with the issues that I saw in the thread so far, with the exception from Tim below. 

Disclaimer: If anyone was offended, such was not my intent. I am in no way against large families or homeschooling.

Personal thought: I do think that prior to the process of siring children wisdom in considering what resources one has for the sake of any future children. 

Major issue to consider:


TimV said:


> So, how do you find my posts despicable? Did you prevent your wife from having her own kids? If so, I would call you the insensitive lout. If not, then what's your problem with what I've said? I'm honestly curious.


 
Are you saying that the adoptive child should not be considered his wife’s child as well, that is the interperation I recieved from your last post? Do you hold Tim that adoptive children are inferior to children born into a family? Would you not accept that adoptive children are as equal the husband and the wife as natural children are? Besides that point that any natural children that are born are not just her's but also belongs to her husband as well equally?


----------



## TimV

Kicken' butt, Polly!


----------



## kvanlaan

> You can also look to the history of the church and find christians avoiding marriage and family all together in order to pursue God without hindrances. If Paul regarded it better not to marry, I wonder if sometimes it could be better to not have many children.



This is a red herring. If they are unmarried, this is not an issue. If they are married, then 1 Cor 7 (among other things) comes into play.



> The question isn't whether we are preventing children because of culture (which you haven't really explained); the question is whether it is a sin to prevent children. If it isn't then I think this really doesn't need to be debated.



What I am saying is that there are so many practical arguments against having as many children as God will allow. So many. And none of them really hold water in view of scripture or the historical church practises. They are modern contrivances, mostly come about since the ability to regulate fertility has been made a reality. I do think it is wrong to prevent children, especially when it is about convenience. I am less convicted when we are talking about physical issues that make it dangerous (for example, if a woman is pregnant with her 12th child, the previous 11 having been C-sections and medical professionals have raised several serious red flags about her imminant death if she is made pregnant again). However, I am fairly certain that this waffling on my part is due to a lack of faith more than its correctness. Thing is, I can steal a train full of gold, I can hijack a vehicle for gain, I can kidnap and ransom at will, but no matter how many times I lay with my wife, I cannot produce a human without God's spark of life (while in all the other examples, I may not succeed in my attempts to do those things, but the attempt itself is sin as well). Backing this are a several Bible verses that speak to the blessing that children are and the heritage and legacy they are and how the Lord opens and closes the womb. Are there any verses which specifically say "you may not use birth control?" No. First, because looking at the way scripture points to it being a blessing, it takes some hoop-jumping to get to the point where we can make a scriptural case for not allowing God's sovereignty to regin over our reproductivity (and in a way where we would not say 'well, then we don't need hospitals, God will take care of me and heal me' since you'd be hard pressed to find a verse that describes a car wreck as a blessing). Secondly, it only recently has become an issue. I see it as the next step in the narcissism our culture feeds us - my convenience trumping what God has laid out Biblically. But we are so far off track on this that going back to the alternative (where everyone was not so long ago) seems like a radical departure from what we practise as the norm, even in the church!



> After all this discussion, I'm still failing to see biblically why we SHOULD avoid birth control. Should we mandate upon Christians a complete avoidance of all forms of birth control, even natural forms? Help me understand where you are coming from.



This I have a hard time with, but again, more because of my preconcieved notions (because of what I've grown up with) than because of what scripture says. Children are a blessing. God opens and closes the womb. God knows what is best for me better than I. Husband and wife are not to defraud one another of their marital 'company'. I don't see much room in there for birth control. We are not rabbits, able to produce litter upon litter of children. God does not grant that fertility to many - in fact He grants it to very, very few. But those He does, are generally also built with the physical means to handle it. While my wife was not granted the physical ability to deliver easily, we have been provided with first class health care. And a good job. And a good-sized house. And money enough to feed them all. I don't see the Lord providing this many children without a means to care for them. And, furthermore, it is a calling to adopt, it is not a 'Christian thing to do'. We are also to spread the gospel, but we are not all called to live in the deepest jungle to bring the Word to the lost there. Some are, and they are called to it The rest of us witness where we are. But when it comes to birthing children, it is a natural consequence of marriage (and where it is not, He makes that plain).


----------



## TimV

> Are you saying that the adoptive child should not be considered his wife’s child as well, that is the interperation I recieved from your last post? Do you hold Tim that adoptive children are inferior to children born into a family? Would you not accept that adoptive children are as equal the husband and the wife as natural children are? Besides that point that any natural children that are born are not just her's but also belongs to her husband as well equally?



Yawn. No. It's not that difficult. Read Lawrence's post if you haven't already.


----------



## ClayPot

JoyFullMom said:


> Fertility decreases at 27? HA! I have six children (and no, I'm not *quiverfull* and YES, they are a BLESSING), my first was born at age 25, my second at age 30 and then so on until my last son was born two days after my 40th birthday. So....yeah. LOL!


 
Congratulations! Of course, decreasing fertility doesn't mean that you aren't still fertile. Michelle Duggar would be a good example of that! An interesting book with a lot of facts about fertility is Start Your Family by Steve and Candice Watters. It's mostly a book about encouraging people to start their family sooner rather than later. My wife and I learned a lot.


----------



## AThornquist

Wannabee said:


> While I realize that the focus is on birth itself, and the opportunity afforded in the fruit God provides, there is much more to this than the birth of a child. The words "children are a blessing" are not found in Scripture. The womb is blessed. We see where men are blessed with many children. Much of this has to do with the fact that many hands make light work... or more productive work. And, more importantly, children are a blessing in so far as they bless their parents. We make a terrible mistake in assuming that children are inherent blessings in simply being born. No, they're a heritage. They're an opportunity. For someone who loves Christ this means they are a blessing because they are someone we can pass down a godly heritage and legacy to and through. But a rebellious child is not a blessing. Obedient children are a blessing. Disobedient children are a curse.
> 
> Deuteronomy 21:18-21
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.​
> May our children truly be a blessing to us and all who know them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proverbs 30:11-17
> 
> There is a generation that curses its father,
> And does not bless its mother.
> There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes,
> Yet is not washed from its filthiness.
> There is a generation—oh, how lofty are their eyes!
> And their eyelids are lifted up.
> There is a generation whose teeth are like swords,
> And whose fangs are like knives,
> To devour the poor from off the earth,
> And the needy from among men.
> The leech has two daughters—
> Give and Give!
> There are three things that are never satisfied,
> Four never say, “Enough!”:
> The grave,
> The barren womb,
> The earth that is not satisfied with water—
> And the fire never says, “Enough!”
> The eye that mocks his father,
> And scorns obedience to his mother,
> The ravens of the valley will pick it out,
> And the young eagles will eat it. ​


----------



## JennyG

kvanlaan said:


> Just to answer the _reductio ad Hitlerum_ - yes, he was a blessing to his mother. For the first while, anyway. He had four other siblings die in infancy.
> 
> Again, we would not be having this conversation 100 years ago, and it has nothing to do with home-grown farm labourers. We can make up excuses 'til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that most of these arguments (or the seeds thereof, anyway) come from the culture of the day. Look to the correspondence of faithful Christians in the past 2000 years and I doubt very much that you will find much mention of this.
> 
> Let's look at Noah: he was how old when the Flood came: 600 years old. He had three boys in six centuries of attempts. And we're worried that we're going to end up with too many children?


thank you, Kevin, the reductio was mine and when I stopped to think, I was seriously puzzled about it. Richard added the example of Absalom too.
I suppose it's all in what makes a "blessing", and whether you allow hindsight to confuse an issue that would have been perfectly simple, humanly speaking, at the time of his arrival in the world.
Do we know for sure those three were Noah's _only_ ones? I'm not really attacking the point you made, i'm just interested


----------



## calgal

A few points and I will shut my infertile mouth 
1. Calvin had no living children, Machen never married. Neither did Jesus or the Apostles. Hmmmmm.
2.OTOH on the fertile side of things I know quite a few federal and state prisoners who have multiple kiddies (with multiple partners: I am not being gender specific here for a reason). 
3. Bill Gothard is a never married man who lived with his mommy. Bill Gothard hates adoption and encourages fertility at any cost. 
4. Anna the Priestess was one of the first people God showed the Baby Jesus to (in fact she was waiting for Him). Anna was not a mommy and she worked as a temple priestess (gasp!)
5. Family can be (and all too often is) an idol. 
6.The last time i heard the words "families can be together forever, through heavenly father's plan" was when I was LDS. And family idolators are so very very familiar, they might as well be wearing garments and calling Thomas S Monson a Prophet. 
7. Jesus did say He came to tear families apart


----------



## kvanlaan

> 1. Calvin had no living children, Machen never married. Neither did Jesus or the Apostles. Hmmmmm.


And the point is?? Calvin did not practise birth control, and was very much against it in every and any form. Some of the apostles were actually married (Peter was married for certain, and I found this on a Catholic website: "Early writings of the Church suggest that all the apostles were married when chosen by Jesus except John. However, from the Bible we only know of the marriage of Peter (there is mention of his mother-in-law)." Machen, since he was not married, is not relevant. I would say this discussion does not apply to those who serve the Lord as a singleton.


> 2.OTOH on the fertile side of things I know quite a few federal and state prisoners who have multiple kiddies (with multiple partners: I am not being gender specific here for a reason).


I know of a couple of serial killers who were single. They were not believers.


> 3. Bill Gothard is a never married man who lived with his mommy. Bill Gothard hates adoption and encourages fertility at any cost.


And who here loves Bill Gothard?


> 4. Anna the Priestess was one of the first people God showed the Baby Jesus to (in fact she was waiting for Him). Anna was not a mommy and she worked as a temple priestess (gasp!)


But I can pretty much guarantee that she did not use birth control.


> 5. Family can be (and all too often is) an idol.


True enough - that is stand alone sin. The ability to play golf well is not a sin. Making it an idol is. Golf is not sinning, the person who has elevated it is.


> 6.The last time i heard the words "families can be together forever, through heavenly father's plan" was when I was LDS. And family idolators are so very very familiar, they might as well be wearing garments and calling Thomas S Monson a Prophet.


Then, again, they are in sin. But it is their theology at issue, not them having lots of kids.


> 7. Jesus did say He came to tear families apart


Huh?

---------- Post added at 01:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 AM ----------




> Do we know for sure those three were Noah's only ones? I'm not really attacking the point you made, i'm just interested



Jenny, since it says that "And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood." I am assuming that those were the only ones. They mention Noah's wife, and sons' wives, but there's no mention of daughters. Or maybe he had more sons and daughters that were wicked and left to drown (though I think that's unlikely).


----------



## lynnie

_14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. _

God has a family, by adoption. Jesus is the only begotten son.

I would venture to say that a case could be made that adoption is a more godlike and blessed way to have children than by natural means, and certainly it is at least equal in blessing to natural means.

Spend a day reading up on street children and the plight of foreign orphans. There are probably links if you google Randy Alcorn, Piper, etc. One thing we can be sure we are commanded to do, is to go and make disciples. No debate on that one. I can't think of a better way to make disciples of the lost than to bring a cast off child into your home.


----------



## kvanlaan

But I think making adoption more 'holy' than by birth is also not right. These children are not a ministry or an outreach project, they are my flesh and blood as I am Christ's flesh and blood. I never want people to think that we did a 'good' thing by adopting - it is a calling, a very specific and special calling. A missionary in the field is no more holy than you are, it is that he was called to that place.


----------



## LawrenceU

calgal said:


> Anna the Priestess



Surely you meant 'prophetess', otherwise that is some rather creative exegesis to make here a Priestess.


----------



## TimV

To those I have offended, please be aware that I am very pro adoption. I thought that was clear. Evidently it was not. My comments were purely addressed to the very modern practice of preventing babies and adopting. And even in those cases I can see reasons, like when the woman's health is in danger.

I'm sorry that my posts came across harshly.


----------



## he beholds

lynnie said:


> _14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. _
> 
> God has a family, by adoption. Jesus is the only begotten son.
> 
> I would venture to say that a case could be made that adoption is a more godlike and blessed way to have children than by natural means, and certainly it is at least equal in blessing to natural means.
> 
> Spend a day reading up on street children and the plight of foreign orphans. There are probably links if you google Randy Alcorn, Piper, etc. One thing we can be sure we are commanded to do, is to go and make disciples. No debate on that one. I can't think of a better way to make disciples of the lost than to bring a cast off child into your home.


 
I have absolutely no issue with adopting, and I would love to adopt someday. BUT, I think the natural way to make disciples (birth them) is _at least_ equal to adopting, if we are really going to try to hash out what's the best way to make disciples. (Which I really don't want to do.)
I really think adoption is great and it is a God-designed means to grow families. And I think that there is no discrepancy between your natural-born children and your adopted ones, especially in the eyes of God. But being someone who is slightly persecuted (in the very lightest sense of the word) for having small children very close in age, and who understands that there are people who think it is wrong for us to have children when there are so many who already need parents, I have to take issue with the thought that it is more godlike to adopt than to birth children. I cannot imagine a world where it is wrong to have children. And so I cannot imagine a world where it is less-right to do so. 
We may not understand/agree upon birth control, but we can all agree that it is _completely_ right for a husband a wife to have $ex. And there is NEVER a commandment or even advice for husbands and wives to prevent the natural consequence of that $ex. So it is impossible that, as a rule, it be better for husbands and wives to not get pregnant, regardless of adoption capabilities. 
I think adoption is godly. I think birthing babies is godly. I don't think the two have anything to do with each other, as a rule. Sure, as we've seen here, there are cases where they overlap--some prevent pregnancy to adopt and some don't adopt because they are in the midst of birthing babies (hi, there), but as far as holiness goes, the two are not in competition and aren't even related. They are both god-glorifying in and of themselves--not because of what it means regarding the other.


----------



## Dwimble

kvanlaan said:


> These children are not a ministry or an outreach project, they are my flesh and blood as I am Christ's flesh and blood. I never want people to think that we did a 'good' thing by adopting - it is a calling, a very specific and special calling. A missionary in the field is no more holy than you are, it is that he was called to that place.


I wasn't going to comment again on this topic, but since it has continued I'll chime in here to add my agreement to much of what you said. MANY people have told us what a "great thing" we did by adopting our first child and again by adopting our second child (which will be completed in about a month). We've never really seen it quite like that. They are our children and nothing more. Adoption is simply the way God has added to our family. From our perspective it is essentially the same as having them by birth.

We never viewed them as some sort of ministry or something unusual for us to do. Neither did we view them as some sort of "calling." When the time came that we desired to have children we immediately chose to adopt. There was never even a consideration of anything else. My wife has never had the slightest desire to "birth" children...it is just something that is not in her. Similarly, I've never felt any desire or need to pass on my seed or live on through my children. My child is my child regardless of whether or not she shares any DNA with me. The need or desire to have biological children is a concept and desire kind of foreign to me. It simply doesn't matter to me or my wife. We had the desire for children, the financial means to become parents to a child who desparately needed some, and therefore we prayerfully considered the adoption location and method to use and then did so.

Our second adoption has been essentially the same story, except that this child has some special physical needs. We desired to have another child and therefore adopted again, but thought it would be good this time to have a child who might be in more serious and immediate need due to her special challenges, which other parents might have a more difficult time dealing with. Again, we had the desire, financial means, and the disposition to deal with the issues and accept and love the child completely. From our perspective it is as normal as can be and we can't imagine feeling any differently.

Intellectually I can see that, yes, God has called us to adopt and sovereignly chosen to give us children this way, and we feel priviledged every day that he has done so. However, we never "felt" called or viewed it specifically as a calling. It has always seemed so normal to us. In the same way that the typical person desires to have biological children we have always desired to adopt children.


----------



## Montanablue

he beholds said:


> think adoption is godly. I think birthing babies is godly. I don't think the two have anything to do with each other, as a rule. Sure, as we've seen here, there are cases where they overlap--some prevent pregnancy to adopt and some don't adopt because they are in the midst of birthing babies (hi, there), but as far as holiness goes, the two are not in competition and aren't even related. They are both god-glorifying in and of themselves--not because of what it means regarding the other.



Agreed - you said it so well!


----------



## Edward

kvanlaan said:


> 7. Jesus did say He came to tear families apart
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...

Matthew 10:34-39 would be my guess as to the reference.


----------



## Grace Alone

Montanablue said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> think adoption is godly. I think birthing babies is godly. I don't think the two have anything to do with each other, as a rule. Sure, as we've seen here, there are cases where they overlap--some prevent pregnancy to adopt and some don't adopt because they are in the midst of birthing babies (hi, there), but as far as holiness goes, the two are not in competition and aren't even related. They are both god-glorifying in and of themselves--not because of what it means regarding the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed - you said it so well!
Click to expand...


I agree as well! God has ordained who our children are and how they arrive before the foundation of the world! And His ways are perfect!


----------



## TimV

> And there is NEVER a commandment or even advice for husbands and wives to prevent the natural consequence of that $ex. So it is impossible that, as a rule, it be better for husbands and wives to not get pregnant, regardless of adoption capabilities.



Exactly. Why is that difficult, or even controversial among Reformed folk?


----------



## kvanlaan

> Matthew 10:34-39 would be my guess as to the reference.



Oh I know the reference, but I am at a loss to understand the relevance. Should we then have no children, or not even marry, so Christ won't tear the family apart?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Prov 10:1 - A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother.
Prov 17:25 - A foolish son is a grief to his father and bitterness to her who bore him.
Prov 19:13 - A foolish son is ruin to his father, and a wife’s quarreling is a continual dripping of rain.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I don't believe the argument has been made in this thread, but I've heard it before... The argument from Ps 127:4-5 and the pious sounding question "How could you not want as many arrows in your quiver as possible?"

But I can assure you, it is entirely possible to go into battle so weighed down with ammo that the good thing becomes a handicap.


----------



## TimV

But Ben, aren't women in your analogy the wagon train? (and all the women here say *WHY IS TIM STILL SINGLE?* )


----------



## Wannabee

Wannabee found many posts helpful, but still doesn't have a button.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I wasn't going to comment again on this topic, but since it has continued I'll chime in here to add my agreement to much of what you said. MANY people have told us what a "great thing" we did by adopting our first child and again by adopting our second child (which will be completed in about a month). We've never really seen it quite like that. They are our children and nothing more. Adoption is simply the way God has added to our family. From our perspective it is essentially the same as having them by birth.
> 
> We never viewed them as some sort of ministry or something unusual for us to do. Neither did we view them as some sort of "calling." When the time came that we desired to have children we immediately chose to adopt. There was never even a consideration of anything else. My wife has never had the slightest desire to "birth" children...it is just something that is not in her. Similarly, I've never felt any desire or need to pass on my seed or live on through my children. My child is my child regardless of whether or not she shares any DNA with me. The need or desire to have biological children is a concept and desire kind of foreign to me. It simply doesn't matter to me or my wife. We had the desire for children, the financial means to become parents to a child who desparately needed some, and therefore we prayerfully considered the adoption location and method to use and then did so.
> 
> Our second adoption has been essentially the same story, except that this child has some special physical needs. We desired to have another child and therefore adopted again, but thought it would be good this time to have a child who might be in more serious and immediate need due to her special challenges, which other parents might have a more difficult time dealing with. Again, we had the desire, financial means, and the disposition to deal with the issues and accept and love the child completely. From our perspective it is as normal as can be and we can't imagine feeling any differently.
> 
> Intellectually I can see that, yes, God has called us to adopt and sovereignly chosen to give us children this way, and we feel priviledged every day that he has done so. However, we never "felt" called or viewed it specifically as a calling. It has always seemed so normal to us. In the same way that the typical person desires to have biological children we have always desired to adopt children.



But then my question to you is this: who put that desire in your heart? It was the Lord. If it was just a personal 'choice' it is likewise of the Lord's leading, if it is something that was prayerfully considered (which I have no doubt it was). I am not talking about a road-to-Damascus experience in a 'calling', I am just talking about the Lord's leading. Some children grow up simply knowing they will be missionaries, others do have the 'experience' later in life. But however you come to it, it is a calling nonetheless, and it does take a certain 'something' different to adopt - I know many good godly folks who simply could not do it, they're just not wired that way. They're no better and no worse, they're just not 'called' to it.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

I think having children is a blessing from God to any parents in that they can better (though not fully) grasp the dreadfulness of God's sending His own blessed child in the midst of raving wolves. Not that I can comprehend this myself, since I'm not a parent (yet). Nevertheless, I believe there is great blessedness in parency, when accompanied with a high view of God.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Lynnie*


> I would venture to say that a case could be made that adoption is a more godlike and blessed way to have children than by natural means, and certainly it is at least equal in blessing to natural means.



The whole human race is God's natural family, it's just that each one of us is estranged by our sinful nature and have aligned ourselves with the Serpent's family, and any that are brought back into God's family are so by adoption.



> Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God. (Luke 3:38, KJV)





> For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. (Acts 17:28-29)





> Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.(John 8:44)



I think if it was always wrong to use contraception we'd expect something saying that. 

As it is it must be down to *sanctified common sense*.

Maybe we could have a thread on sanctified common sense.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Prov 10:1 - A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother.
> Prov 17:25 - A foolish son is a grief to his father and bitterness to her who bore him.
> Prov 19:13 - A foolish son is ruin to his father, and a wife’s quarreling is a continual dripping of rain.



Nonetheless, a child is always a blessing - the examples above are not apparent at birth. I don't think anyone ever looks at their newborn and says "uh-oh, this one is a vessel of wrath!"



> I think if it was always wrong to use contraception we'd expect something saying that.
> As it is it must be down to sanctified common sense.
> Maybe we could have a thread on sanctified common sense.



If abortion was always wrong, you think there'd be something saying that. Sometimes, there's a fine line between murder and justifiable homicide.



> Prior to the 1930s all Christian denominations were united in their firm rejection of contraceptives. The Lambeth Conference of the Church of England (1930) marks the first departure from this unanimous prohibition, by advocating the use of artificial contraception when abstinence was deemed impracticable. The Federal Council of Churches (1931) equally adopted a policy of conservative advocation for artificial birth control methods. Most major Protestant traditions followed suit, and by 1961, the National Council of Churches declared a liberal policy on contraceptive use, subject to mutual consent between couples. (From "Contraception and Religion, a Short History")



So the wisdom of two millenia of church practise can be tossed on the secular developments of 80 years. That's an odd flag to rally around...


----------



## he beholds

So I thought of an instance where a barrier method would have to be appropriate. If one spouse contracted HIV, surely they'd want to use some sort of protection in order to continue in their marital relationship without risking infecting the other partner. That barrier would likely prevent childbirth. 
I don't see how that could be sin. Though, of course, this whole scenario would be a result of sin (even if the one who got HIV got it innocently, ie: transfusion or something), so it is hardly the anecdotal scenario to base a moral imperative on. BUT, it leads me to think that perhaps it is really the heart in question and not the method used. Which I'm sure is obvious and what everyone else had been thinking, but it just dawned on me. 

I know I've posted a link before to a procreation---reproduction timeline. If any of you have seen it, you might remember that the catastrophic change that comes out of changing your view of things from that of procreating to reproducing is the commodity-like status that children become. We have decided to obtain or not obtain children at whatever means necessary, often separating $ex from childbirth. So on the one end of the spectrum we have people who do cut off the possibility of $ex making babies (permanent or surgical BC or abortion), and on the other end we forgo sex to have babies (ie: artificial insemination). Except for abortion, I don't think even those things in and of themselves are sinful, if the heart is right. If I were likely to die if I had another baby, then I'd likely be able to make a pretty guilt-free decision (though that would be made with a lot of sadness and is again the result of death-causing sin) to have some kind of permanent procedure done. But if I wanted to have $ex with out consequences just for kicks, it would likely come from a sinning heart. 
And if a couple were infertile and wanted a baby and used science to help them, that may certainly be God-honoring (if the means themselves are not sinful). But that is different from someone who decides to not need a husband to have a baby.


----------



## kvanlaan

I think I can actually agree with that. And I remember the chart - it is very good.


----------



## Peairtach

> If abortion was always wrong, you think there'd be something saying that. Sometimes, there's a fine line between murder and justifiable homicide.



We know abortion is wrong because, among other things, we are not to kill unless in certain prescribed circumstances.

No-one is killed with proper contraception.


----------



## kvanlaan

> We know abortion is wrong because, among other things, we are not to kill unless in certain prescribed circumstances.



True, so then there are times when abortion is OK, right? If the circumstances are such that it is advisable?


----------



## TimV

kvanlaan said:


> True, so then there are times when abortion is OK, right? If the circumstances are such that it is advisable?



Most conservative churches allow it under very limited circumstances. My denomination for instance.


----------



## kvanlaan

Thing is, the arguments become a collection of extreme exceptions when what we are talking about is a general rule. Jessi gave a perfect example of when to use contraception, I can't fault it. But these are exceptions, and we can exception things away all day...


----------



## TimV

Yes, I agree they're exceptions. But the fact that there are exceptions imply that degree of exceptions need to be viewed through the lens of Christian liberty, and I think we agree on that. In general, people able to, should have lots of kids.


----------



## Peairtach

> True, so then there are times when abortion is OK, right? If the circumstances are such that it is advisable?



I don't know if there should be any exceptions regarding allowing abortion, but the point is that we start with a clear biblical injunction against taking human life unlawfully. 

There is no such injunction on contraception to start off with, so it's a different case.


----------



## kvanlaan

There's no mention of contraception at all, only of the fruit of the womb. We're not Lutherans; silence does not equal permisson.


----------



## satz

Marriage is a blessing, but there are good reasons to forgo it (1 Cor 7).
Wine is a blessing, but we do not require everyone to drink it. 
Money can be a blessing (Pr 22:4), but there reasons not to want too much (Pr 30:8)

A new child is always a blessing, but that does not settle the contraception question at all.


----------



## MW

kvanlaan said:


> Thing is, the arguments become a collection of extreme exceptions when what we are talking about is a general rule.


 
I don't see any basis for allowing these as exceptions. If contracting a virus is a problem then complete abstinence is the only effective means for preventing it. Concerning abortion, it defies the concept of parenthood to suppose that the life of the weaker should be sacrificed for the life of the stronger; parenthood teaches the opposite.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Marriage is a blessing, but there are good reasons to forgo it (1 Cor 7).
> Wine is a blessing, but we do not require everyone to drink it.
> Money can be a blessing (Pr 22:4), but there reasons not to want too much (Pr 30:8)



The big difference being in all this is that for your examples, there are admonitions for the singleton (ie, plainly saying that marriage is not a requirement), there are admonitions against drunkenness, and there are ordinances against serving Mammon. Nowhere do we see (whether we look at Patriarchs, Prophets, or NT) anyone limiting family size in a positive light. Support for the use of contraceptions just isn't there. It all boils down to how far you want to stretch the concept of Christian liberty applying to this, especially in light of all the references to: #1 God opening and closing the womb (you can have all the fun you want, but God makes it a baby) and #2 children as a blessing. It is just that simple.



> I don't see any basis for allowing these as exceptions. If contracting a virus is a problem then complete abstinence is the only effective means for preventing it. Concerning abortion, it defies the concept of parenthood to suppose that the life of the weaker should be sacrificed for the life of the stronger; parenthood teaches the opposite.



Fair enough. I see Jessi's exception (again, an unusual situation) where you are stopping the spread of death in a marriage situation (otherwise, what happens to 1 Cor 7?) as being legit. I personally don't see how abortion could ever be justified, but maybe that's just me (as for the post above, I had no idea the OPC allowed it - maybe I'm missing something...)


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> The big difference being in all this is that for your examples, there are admonitions for the singleton (ie, plainly saying that marriage is not a requirement), there are admonitions against drunkenness, and there are ordinances against serving Mammon.



Although 1 Cor 7 deals primarily with marriage, the principles are boarder than that. One of the reasons given to consider avoiding marriage is that it is good to avoid carefulness in your life (v32), so that you can serve the Lord better. 
And Paul extends the reasoning not just to marriage, but to weeping, rejoicing, buying/selling and using the world (v30-31). So it is not a principle that is limited to marriage, but one of general application.

I don't see that its much of a stretch to conclude that it may be proper, at some times, to use contraception so you have more time (i.e. less care) with which to address the duties God has already given you, like spouse, your existing children, church, etc.



> Nowhere do we see (whether we look at Patriarchs, Prophets, or NT) anyone limiting family size in a positive light. Support for the use of contraceptions just isn't there.



Why do we need explicit support for contraception if there is no explicit condemnation? The principle to be gained from 1 Cor 7 is that just because a thing is a blessing does not mean that it is always for the best in your life at the particular moment. And Paul is talking about marriage, without which childbirth is impossible.


----------



## TimV

The OPC's position paper is similar to many if not most conservative denominations in that it's permitted when the health of the mother is in danger.


----------



## kvanlaan

Mark, one thing that you are carefully tiptoe-ing around is that again, this is an _invented_ option, based on changing secular cultural mores, not on scripture. Why do we seem to be addressing this issue in a false vacuum of sola scriptura when it is only in the last 80 years that the 'church' has seen this as an option????? The fact that it is now more the norm gives no weight to the argument except to show how far we've fallen. It is the entrance of secular culture into the church that has gotten us to this point, not some more perfect hermeneutic or a hidden message from God that the church has been missing for the last 2000 years. People whip out Calvin like gunslingers in everything else we discuss, why aren't they doing it now? Because it was clear as day to him that it was wrong.

Yes, Paul is talking about marriage. If you go down that path, childbirth is inevitable given 1 Cor 7, or not inevitable given God's closing of the womb. Our monkeying with it doesn't enter into it. Give me even one example where contraception is shown in the Bible in a positive light. Please.


----------



## he beholds

armourbearer said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is, the arguments become a collection of extreme exceptions when what we are talking about is a general rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any basis for allowing these as exceptions. If contracting a virus is a problem then complete abstinence is the only effective means for preventing it. Concerning abortion, it defies the concept of parenthood to suppose that the life of the weaker should be sacrificed for the life of the stronger; parenthood teaches the opposite.
Click to expand...

 
Well, abstinence is used by some couples as birth control and is also not to be common in a marriage--and that is explicit in Scripture. So, I have to disagree-if a couple can use protection to avoid the virus, or even likely avoid the virus, I imagine that the marital expression of love is still a good thing. 
I honestly don't know the chances for infection, but I think they're pretty low if care is used.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> Mark, one thing that you are carefully tiptoe-ing around is that again, this is an _invented_ option, based on changing secular cultural mores, not on scripture. Why do we seem to be addressing this issue in a false vacuum of sola scriptura when it is only in the last 80 years that the 'church' has seen this as an option????? The fact that it is now more the norm gives no weight to the argument except to show how far we've fallen. It is the entrance of secular culture into the church that has gotten us to this point, not some more perfect hermeneutic or a hidden message from God that the church has been missing for the last 2000 years. People whip out Calvin like gunslingers in everything else we discuss, why aren't they doing it now? Because it was clear as day to him that it was wrong.



Kevin, how is your passage above any different from any number of denominations or teachers who appeal to history or tradition against the bible? Its just distracting from the issue to keep raising this. If the matter is so obvious, why not quote bible verses or arguments instead of relying on history? 



> Yes, Paul is talking about marriage. If you go down that path, childbirth is inevitable given 1 Cor 7, or not inevitable given God's closing of the womb. Our monkeying with it doesn't enter into it.


 
Which verse in 1 Cor 7 says that childbirth is inevitable (or not)? Where do you get that from?

Which verse says that our monkeying (or actions) don't enter into childbirth?

You haven't addressed my point at all, which was that the passage says that even though marriage is a blessing, it is not wrong to refuse it at certain times. Why is childbirth different?



> Give me even one example where contraception is shown in the Bible in a positive light. Please.



Why would I need to, unless there was some verse, or principle in the bible that spoke against it? I tried to show from 1 Cor 7 that just because something is a blessing does not mean it is wrong to control it, and you have not addressed that.

You mentioned the fact that God opens and closes the womb, but God is sovereign over everything. He opens and closes the skies for rain to fall, or not to fall. Where does the bible say childbirth is a special category we are not to attempt to control?


----------



## kvanlaan

> Mark, one thing that you are carefully tiptoe-ing around is that again, this is an invented option, based on changing secular cultural mores, not on scripture. Why do we seem to be addressing this issue in a false vacuum of sola scriptura when it is only in the last 80 years that the 'church' has seen this as an option????? The fact that it is now more the norm gives no weight to the argument except to show how far we've fallen. It is the entrance of secular culture into the church that has gotten us to this point, not some more perfect hermeneutic or a hidden message from God that the church has been missing for the last 2000 years. People whip out Calvin like gunslingers in everything else we discuss, why aren't they doing it now? Because it was clear as day to him that it was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, how is your passage above any different from any number of denominations or teachers who appeal to history or tradition against the bible? Its just distracting from the issue to keep raising this. If the matter is so obvious, why not quote bible verses or arguments instead of relying on history?
Click to expand...


Why do we then have confessions? Why do we have any articles of faith? Because instead of saying that this verse means this or that to me, we all agree that the Biblical passages pertaining to XYZ (whatever that may be, whether it be baptism or the Sabbath or whatever) are to be interpreted as per these confessions or as per these (perhaps not exactly, but at least we're all pretty much on the same page because of this). Along this line of thought, we regularly quote Calvin or other Reformation luminaries when it applies to issues on which they agree with us (like I'm doing now). It is because there are no specific verses that say 'thou shalt not use contraception' that one can even question this standing. I can list, as I have in other threads, the overwhelming evidence that children are a blessing from God, etc. etc. etc. and the complete and utter dearth of references to any sort of contraception ever being practised, and you will say that that you therefore have the right to choose, an argument from silence. That is the reason that I bring the stand of the church into it... When things are not crystal clear, I can say, hey, how have orthodox believers for the past 2000 years seen this issue? The answer _*is*_ crystal clear.

---------- Post added at 12:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 AM ----------




> Yes, Paul is talking about marriage. If you go down that path, childbirth is inevitable given 1 Cor 7, or not inevitable given God's closing of the womb. Our monkeying with it doesn't enter into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which verse in 1 Cor 7 says that childbirth is inevitable (or not)? Where do you get that from?
> 
> Which verse says that our monkeying (or actions) don't enter into childbirth?
> 
> You haven't addressed my point at all, which was that the passage says that even though marriage is a blessing, it is not wrong to refuse it at certain times. Why is childbirth different?
Click to expand...


Childbirth is an inevitable consequence of marital relations, if so deigned by God, which are to not be suspended, save for concentration on prayer and fasting. If no child results, it is likewise God's hand at work. 



> You haven't addressed my point at all, which was that the passage says that even though marriage is a blessing, it is not wrong to refuse it at certain times. Why is childbirth different?



I _have_ addressed this completely, in an earlier post. It is very simple: there are specific passages dealing with both entering into it and with not entering into it. There is no such completeness with the issue of childbirth; in fact, it is exceptionally one sided.


----------



## he beholds

kvanlaan said:


> Childbirth is an inevitable consequence of marital relations, if so deigned by God, which are to not be suspended, save for concentration on prayer and fasting. If no child results, it is likewise God's hand at work.



Bravo! I was trying to articulate this same very thought, but couldn't seem to, so deleted my efforts without posting. Glad to read what I think is a definitely true statement.


----------



## JennyG

he beholds said:


> I know I've posted a link before to a procreation---reproduction timeline.


I'd be interested to see that


----------



## he beholds

JennyG said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I've posted a link before to a procreation---reproduction timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be interested to see that
Click to expand...

 
PM'd you♥


----------



## Peairtach

The aim of biblical ethics is to be as biblical rather than be as conservative as possible or as liberal as possible.

Conservative positions would be 

(a) The Bible/natural law teaches that birth control should never be used under any circumstances.

(b) More conservative - the Bible/natural law teaches that married couples should try to have as many children as possible.

Liberal positions would be 

(a)Contraception can be used by married couples to avoid having any children or to have as few as desired for fashionable reasons or any reason.

(b) Married couples should try to have no or as few children as they feel like having even if only because it's fashionable to have 0,1,2 or 3.


----------



## brianlve

Yes, always!


----------



## MW

he beholds said:


> I imagine that the marital expression of love is still a good thing.


 
It has already been confessed that contracting the virus is an evil. It is not an expression of love to expose another to what is evil and harmful for them.

Concerning the marital expression of love -- God did not make sexual relations pleasurable in themselves; He made procreation of His image to be pleasurable. It is not merely physical, but spiritual also. If a couple does not take pleasure in seeing their union result in the fullest fruit of their "coming together" then the marital expression of love is lacking an important development for which God created it.


----------



## he beholds

armourbearer said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine that the marital expression of love is still a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has already been confessed that contracting the virus is an evil. It is not an expression of love to expose another to what is evil and harmful for them.
> 
> Concerning the marital expression of love --* God did not make sexual relations pleasurable in themselves;* He made procreation of His image to be pleasurable. It is not merely physical, but spiritual also. If a couple does not take pleasure in seeing their union result in the fullest fruit of their "coming together" then the marital expression of love is lacking an important development for which God created it.
Click to expand...


I definitely disagree here. I actually think the closeness of being one is superior to procreation.


----------



## MW

he beholds said:


> I definitely disagree here. I actually think the closeness of being one is superior to procreation.


 
Honesty is commendable, but the sentiment expressed is idolatry. Any benefit from such closeness is a blessing from God; a blessing from being close to the image of God in that person; a blessing which encourages the propagating of the same image as a fruit of that closeness. To sever the spiritual element is to serve the creature in the place of the Creator.


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> Any benefit from such closeness is a blessing from God; a blessing from being close to the image of God in that person; a blessing which encourages the propagating of the same image as a fruit of that closeness. To sever the spiritual element is to serve the creature in the place of the Creator.



Rev Winzer,

What bible passages support this position?


----------



## MW

satz said:


> What bible passages support this position?


 
It is not a matter of Bible passages; it is the worldview of the Bible from beginning to end. It is the creationist worldview -- that our ethics are receptive rather than creative. We accept the world as God has created it, our lives as God has determined them, and our morals as God has revealed them. But if you need a specific text which sums up the creationist worldview I would point you to Romans 1:18-32. The need to distort and interfere with the natural order is ascribed to a perversion of the Creator-creature distinction and relation. Verses 26-27 emphasise the "natural use." If humans have the power to create their own world, to determine their own lives, to invent their own morality, then Romans 1 is false and we have no reason to place such emphasis on the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## TimV

armourbearer said:


> Concerning the marital expression of love -- God did not make sexual relations pleasurable in themselves; He made procreation of His image to be pleasurable.



If she's 2 months pregnant and you're still just as desirous of her and take just as much pleasure in her even though you know it won't make another baby, how would that fit in?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> If she's 2 months pregnant and you're still just as desirous of her and take just as much pleasure in her even though you know it won't make another baby, how would that fit in?


 
It should be even more passionate because she is bearing your children and is deserving of even more of yourself. Of course, I'm depending on a biblical view of complacent love when I say such things. Love that begins as appreciation, develops into admiration, and is completed with adoration. And not merely love for some God-alienated object, but loved precisely because of the God-likeness which is evident in the person.


----------



## TimV

Very nice, Pastor. Thanks much.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

I am going to say no. I make less than $2,000 a month (post tax). I am crunching numbers now and when I get married, if I am not making anymore money, things are going to be tight. If I were to add a child there is no way I could make ends meet. If I were to have multiple children things would absolutely fall to pieces. I have had conversations with my (hopefully) future wife and we have decided on 3-4 children at most. I grew up in a family with a large number of children and, while I can't imagine life without them, I think it is totally legitimate to not want a large family.


----------



## JML

Unashamed 116 said:


> I am going to say no. I make less than $2,000 a month (post tax). I am crunching numbers now and when I get married, if I am not making anymore money, things are going to be tight. If I were to add a child there is no way I could make ends meet. If I were to have multiple children things would absolutely fall to pieces. I have had conversations with my (hopefully) future wife and we have decided on 3-4 children at most. I grew up in a family with a large number of children and, while I can't imagine life without them, I think it is totally legitimate to not want a large family.



I'm not saying that you are wrong as I don't know your exact situation...but what I will say is that it is possible. I make $1800 per month post tax and have a mortgage. My wife is a stay at home mom so we live completely on my income. We are expecting our second child in a couple of months. We are both frugal people and don't even have to live check to check. We usually have money left over each month. The Lord is gracious when we seek to raise a godly heritage unto Him. He has always provided for us. My two cents (not a rule for anybody): I would rather give up a lot of the lawful enjoyments in the world in order to raise the children that the Lord has and may bless us with. Once again, I don't know your situation and I am not saying that you are wrong. All I am saying is that the Lord is gracious and we somehow always are provided for in our needs.


----------



## MW

On income management, there are three points worth considering. First, Faithful in few, entrusted with much. It is a fact that God entrusts us with small things while we are dealing with small things, and then increases our stewardship as we show that we are truly serving Him with what we are given. Secondly, sowing and reaping is proportionate. It is remarkable how God gives a little for doing little and gives much for doing much. Thirdly, one cannot appraise the cost of feeding a family per capita. A little truly does go a long way when you make value based lifestyle choices which invest in souls. And buying in bulk always lessens the bill per capita. All which adds up to a very big question -- whose economics?


----------



## TimV

Yes, every time I had a kid my income went up. To me it's a no brainer. What a small thing to trust if one is a Calvinist of all people.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> You haven't addressed my point at all, which was that the passage says that even though marriage is a blessing, it is not wrong to refuse it at certain times. Why is childbirth different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I _have_ addressed this completely, in an earlier post. It is very simple: there are specific passages dealing with both entering into it and with not entering into it. There is no such completeness with the issue of childbirth; in fact, it is exceptionally one sided.
Click to expand...


Kevin,

That’s not quite true, which is what I have been trying to show. 

1 Corinthians 7 deals with entering into and not entering into marriage. But the principles it sets out, the reasons for making a decision not to enter into marriage, are applicable not only to marriage, but to other areas of life as well. Verses 30-31 mention other things (weeping, joy, business, using the world) as well. 

And the principle is, that we need or may limit things in our lives to avoid excessive carefulness (v32). This principle applies to marriage (which is a great blessing) and is not limited only to marriage, as verses 30-31 show.

So why doesn’t it apply to childbirth? 

Regarding the stand of church history, I have to admit the evidence is as you say it is. Do you know of any answer to my question above?


----------



## MW

satz said:


> And the principle is, that we need or may limit things in our lives to avoid excessive carefulness (v32). This principle applies to marriage (which is a great blessing) and is not limited only to marriage, as verses 30-31 show.


 
The principle the apostle lays down is that to avoid carefulness and divided interests it is better not to marry, especially in the present distress. If avoiding the married state is the only way to relieve oneself of its burdens it is obvious that entering into the married state obliges one to all its burdens.


----------



## he beholds

armourbearer said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely disagree here. I actually think the closeness of being one is superior to procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honesty is commendable, but the sentiment expressed is idolatry. Any benefit from such closeness is a blessing from God; a blessing from being close to the image of God in that person; a blessing which encourages the propagating of the same image as a fruit of that closeness. To sever the spiritual element is to serve the creature in the place of the Creator.
Click to expand...

 
Wait a minute...how did you come to the conclusion that the closeness of man and woman knowing each other is a severance of the spiritual element? That is EXACTLY the opposite of what I think it is. That oneness is the primary reason for marriage, the oneness _is_ the spiritual element. Creating children is not the spiritual element. There are married people without children, do they not have the spiritual element?????????? Creating children is wonderful. And I am open to life, as it were. But, I don't think that validates or spiritualizes my marriage. 

Why do you call my "sentiment" idolatry? I know that the closeness is a blessing from God. Children are also a blessing from God. So is it idolatrous to consider that the primary reason for marriage? If not, why not? I really don't understand how you could conclude that closeness is idolatry. 
Are marriages not designed to mirror our relationship with God and the closeness of that? 

I think I'm just sick of idolatry being claimed without backing it up. I really hear this all too often. I think that is the first target for many. And this is yet another case where I don't get the connection. So maybe I need a lesson on idolatry.

---------- Post added at 10:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------




TimV said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the marital expression of love -- God did not make sexual relations pleasurable in themselves; He made procreation of His image to be pleasurable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If she's 2 months pregnant and you're still just as desirous of her and take just as much pleasure in her even though you know it won't make another baby, how would that fit in?
Click to expand...

 
Or if she's infertile? And not just that you suspect it, so there's always hope for a baby, but you know it because some illness removed her ovaries when she was 14? Or he's infertile.


----------



## kvanlaan

Mark, what Pastor Winzer said.



> If she's 2 months pregnant and you're still just as desirous of her and take just as much pleasure in her even though you know it won't make another baby, how would that fit in?
> 
> 
> 
> Or if she's infertile? And not just that you suspect it, so there's always hope for a baby, but you know it because some illness removed her ovaries when she was 14? Or he's infertile.
Click to expand...


But wouldn't you still fall under the 'obligations' of the married state, as per the marital relations in 1 Cor 7:5?


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> The principle the apostle lays down is that to avoid carefulness and divided interests it is better not to marry, especially in the present distress. If avoiding the married state is the only way to relieve oneself of its burdens it is obvious that entering into the married state obliges one to all its burdens.



Rev Winzer,

I do not see how that follows. 

1 Corinthians 7:29-31 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

Paul specifically says that even those who are married are not to let their marriage and its duties so overwhelm them that they become too distracted from serving the Lord. The same applies to those with circumstances that cause them to weep or rejoice, to business activities and to our other activities in the world. Being married involves entering into commitments, duties and burdens that will take up one's time and energy. But it is a choice to not let those things overwhelm you.


----------



## he beholds

kvanlaan said:


> If she's 2 months pregnant and you're still just as desirous of her and take just as much pleasure in her even though you know it won't make another baby, how would that fit in?
> 
> 
> 
> Or if she's infertile? And not just that you suspect it, so there's always hope for a baby, but you know it because some illness removed her ovaries when she was 14? Or he's infertile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But wouldn't you still fall under the 'obligations' of the married state, as per the marital relations in 1 Cor 7:5?
Click to expand...

 
Yes, but I argue that this would still be spiritual and that the husband-wife obligations are to bring closeness to a couple, regardless of childbearing occurring or being able to occur.


----------



## kvanlaan

Boy Josh, you could have saved us all a lot of trouble by putting that at post #2 instead of post #143.


----------



## MW

he beholds said:


> Wait a minute...how did you come to the conclusion that the closeness of man and woman knowing each other is a severance of the spiritual element?



Because true closeness and union require love of the divine image in that person. It cannot consist with a despising of the divine image which is evident in the refusal to procreate it as a fruit of closeness to the divine image.



he beholds said:


> Or if she's infertile? And not just that you suspect it, so there's always hope for a baby, but you know it because some illness removed her ovaries when she was 14? Or he's infertile.


 
Infertility causes grief precisely because genuine love cannot develop into its ultimate expression. Grief, by definition, is a sense of pain for the loss of something valued, and therefore contrary to pleasure.


----------



## MW

satz said:


> Paul specifically says that even those who are married are not to let their marriage and its duties so overwhelm them that they become too distracted from serving the Lord.


 
That is not what he says at all. He says the opposite. Vv. 27, 28 "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. *Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.*" Again, vv. 34, 35, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: *but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.* And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."

It is obvious that living "as though they had none" does not give liberty to omit the burdens of married life because Paul has specifically stated that married people are not to defraud one another except for brief periods of exclusive spiritual exercise.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Yes, but I argue that this would still be spiritual and that the husband-wife obligations are to bring closeness to a couple, regardless of childbearing occurring or being able to occur.



That's just it - there's no difference in the mechanics of marital relations, it is just that no child occurs. It is not a results-based issue, it is an attitude-of-the-heart issue.

Rev. Winzer makes me dance like Snoopy.


----------



## Peairtach

> That's just it - there's no difference in the mechanics of marital relations, it is just that no child occurs. It is not a results-based issue, it is an attitude of the heart issue.



But the married couple know that no child will result and yet have relations. If the proper intention of having relations is always to try to have children, or possibly have children, and any other intention is unnatural, then their behaviour is unnatural.


----------



## ChristianTrader

kvanlaan said:


> Yes, but I argue that this would still be spiritual and that the husband-wife obligations are to bring closeness to a couple, regardless of childbearing occurring or being able to occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it - there's no difference in the mechanics of marital relations, it is just that no child occurs. It is not a results-based issue, it is an attitude-of-the-heart issue.
> 
> Rev. Winzer makes me dance like Snoopy.
Click to expand...


If the point is closeness, then the argument becomes birth control (of any sort) inherently limits the closeness of the couple. I am not saying an argument of this sort cannot be made, but I do not think I have seen it.

CT


----------



## MW

Richard Tallach said:


> That's just it - there's no difference in the mechanics of marital relations, it is just that no child occurs. It is not a results-based issue, it is an attitude of the heart issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the married couple know that no child will result and yet have relations. If the proper intention of having relations is always to try to have children, or possibly have children, and any other intention is unnatural, then their behaviour is unnatural.
Click to expand...

 
That's correct, which is why it is not a matter of simply heart-attitude (nothing ever is). It is a matter of creation mentality and morality. It is a matter of thinking completely in accord with the entire mechanism that God has made. It is obviously possible to pull an engine apart and to describe its various parts and functions; but it is not possible to run the engine while it is in pieces. We must have some understanding of all the parts functioning together. And in God's order, bearing children as a fruit of sexual union is an integral part of the mechanism of creation, of reflecting the image of God.

Now, God can overrule His own creation and make a couple happy even while they are childless. He does this by making spiritual blessings take the place of marital blessings. But a couple cannot overrule God's order and still expect the same happiness. Providence is God's business; obedience is man's. Happiness is what God promises as a consequence of following Him, Psalm 1. To overrule God's way and to seek happiness is the very form of idolatry into which our first parents were seduced by the serpent. And if the soul has fallen into the idoaltry of seeking happiness apart from God's ways that soul cannot look to God to make up the loss of marital blessings with spiritual blessings.


----------



## TimV

Very nice again, Pastor. And it accounts for those who are prevented from having kids through no fault of their own.


----------



## he beholds

What about the menopausal couple? They aren't supposed to grieve every time they act married, are they? 

Perhaps this is a male thing, this idea that a couple cannot truly be fulfilled when the possibility of seed planting does not occur--but I do not think it is a biblical thing. And I, again, am and have been open to life.


----------



## MW

he beholds said:


> Perhaps this is a male thing


 
Possibly; the future child is considered to have a real identity in the male's loins, Hebrews 7:10. But females should recognise their part as meet helpers in the process. That probably sounds so contrary to the pro-choice mentality of today which makes it all about the woman's body and maybe, just maybe, she might allow the husband to say this is "our pregnancy."


----------



## Hebrew Student

Amourbearer,



> It is not a matter of Bible passages; it is the worldview of the Bible from beginning to end. It is the creationist worldview -- that our ethics are receptive rather than creative. We accept the world as God has created it, our lives as God has determined them, and our morals as God has revealed them. But if you need a specific text which sums up the creationist worldview I would point you to Romans 1:18-32. The need to distort and interfere with the natural order is ascribed to a perversion of the Creator-creature distinction and relation. Verses 26-27 emphasise the "natural use." If humans have the power to create their own world, to determine their own lives, to invent their own morality, then Romans 1 is false and we have no reason to place such emphasis on the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ.



Actually, it does matter about Bible passages, because the Bible must interpret the creation account. We are creationists, but we interpret the creation account in a *Biblical* manner. For example, it would be silly to suggest that people should run around naked, or that we need to move over to the middle east, and work in a garden in southern Iraq. What is norminative in the creation account needs to be born out and interpreted by the scriptures themselves, and thus, the image of God needs to be interpreted by the scriptures.

In Romans 1, Paul is specifically addressing something the Bible addresses many times, and that is that God created male and female to go together, and thus, only those two genders can go together. This an interpretation of the creation account that is given elsewhere, even in the law [Leviticus 18:22; 20:13]. In this case, the Bible is interpreting the creation account. However, you will find no text of scripture that interprets the creation account in the way you do. Again, the creation account must be interpreted, and we must allow scripture to interpret it.

Not only that, but it is really simplistic to say that the Christian worldview is simply about creation and natural processes. It is also about dominion. We stop the natural process of the growing of trees to cut them down and use them for houses. We stop the natural processes of the growing of plants in order to eat them for food. What if we stopped the natural processes of having children in order to better serve God in some other way, such as helping at an orphanage, or working at a homeless shelter?

Not only that, sin is a reality. I don't think that can be brushed off as "a problem," as the reality is that we all have major "problems" so long as we live in this fallen world. A woman that has medical problems, and could die if she ever conceived is reason enough given the fall. Men who have never heard the gospel need to be told the gospel, and men who are going into gospel ministry need to be trained. All of this produces many tasks, and many areas of service that the church needs.

Combine all of these things with the fact that, as part of the Christian worldview, we are finite. We cannot do all of the things I just mentioned above. We have our limits. In fact, the book of Proverbs speaks of this:

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

God created honey to be good and desirable. Yet, we have to know our limits, otherwise we will get sick and vomit. That is why I say, it is way too simplistic to say that we believe in creation, and that God has created certain things to function in certain ways. He has, but we need to interpret the creation account in the way that the Bible does, and, within the Christian worldview, we are also called to take dominion of that creation, in a sin filled world, with all our limitations in order to serve God.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## TimV

> We stop the natural process of the growing of trees to cut them down and use them for houses. We stop the natural processes of the growing of plants in order to eat them for food.



Some important points, but just to throw things out there from a farmer's perspective, we plant more trees than we can harvest and we grow more plants than we can eat. There's a natural drive involved.


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> In Romans 1, Paul is specifically addressing something the Bible addresses many times, and that is that God created male and female to go together, and thus, only those two genders can go together.



"Genders" is modern feminist terminology. This is what I meant about referring to specific Bible passages without accepting the biblical worldview. Pehaps you might read and think about the terms you use before you throw the discussion into further confusion.

As for the contentions in the rest of your post, I have answered them in a previous thread. Again, your association of human biology with the lower creation over which man is to reflect the image of God and exercise dominion is unbiblical presupposition.


----------



## satz

[/COLOR]


armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul specifically says that even those who are married are not to let their marriage and its duties so overwhelm them that they become too distracted from serving the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what he says at all. He says the opposite. Vv. 27, 28 "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. *Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.*" Again, vv. 34, 35, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: *but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.* And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."
> 
> It is obvious that living "as though they had none" does not give liberty to omit the burdens of married life because Paul has specifically stated that married people are not to defraud one another except for brief periods of exclusive spiritual exercise.
Click to expand...

 
Rev Winzer,

In your view, what then does "living as though they had none" mean?

Entering into marriage definitely puts certain obligations and duties upon a person, which will inevitability take up his time and energy. That is, to my understanding, what v28, 34 and 35 are saying.

That does not mean a person should not take steps to ensure those obligations and burdens do not become overbearing, which is what v29-31 say. 

To take the example of business (or buying as per v30), a man is obligated to spend a certain amount of his time in the world earning a living. But he can and should make sure to limit the time and effort he expends in that direction to ensure he has enough time left over for the other duties God has given him. And the same applies to marriage and family. A man is able, by this passage, to make decisions so that he does not take on more family obligations than is proper for him, to ensure his life is not overwhelmed with carefulness (v32).


----------



## MW

satz said:


> That does not mean a person should not take steps to ensure those obligations and burdens do not become overbearing, which is what v29-31 say.


 
Those verses say nothing about burdens or duties. The exhortation relative to the phrase "the time is short" places lawful liberties in the light of eternity. Things that are lawful and free in themselves are to be used or disused in the knowledge that all such things will soon pass away and give way to an higher order. If anything it is a commendation to use marriage for the kingdom of God, which would include what the Confession of Faith states concerning raising up seed for the church, seeing as children of believers are holy, v. 14.


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> Hebrew Student said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Romans 1, Paul is specifically addressing something the Bible addresses many times, and that is that God created male and female to go together, and thus, only those two genders can go together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Genders" is modern feminist terminology. This is what I meant about referring to specific Bible passages without accepting the biblical worldview. Pehaps you might read and think about the terms you use before you throw the discussion into further confusion.
> 
> As for the contentions in the rest of your post, I have answered them in a previous thread. Again, your association of human biology with the lower creation over which man is to reflect the image of God and exercise dominion is unbiblical presupposition.
Click to expand...


Could you briefly explain again how the human body is different from the lower creation (or point me to the relevant thread)?

Through the discussion on the biblical worldview you have described, you have not referenced any bible passages. Save for Romans 1, and as Adam noted, that passage specifically states what God considers against the "natural use", and the sin in question there has nothing to do with contraception. 

What exactly is this biblical worldview? If it is biblical, surely it can be seen from the bible, and from specific passages.


----------



## MW

satz said:


> Could you briefly explain again how the human body is different from the lower creation (or point me to the relevant thread)?



Please do a search on Mark Driscoll and contraception for the relevant thread.

The human body partakes of the image of God, is fallen under sin, and is redeemed by Christ. See 1 Corinthians 6. The body of believers shall be fashioned like to Christ's resurrection body. See 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3. By means of presenting the body as a living sacrifice to God Christians offer reasonable service. See Romans 12. It is clear from such a view that human biology is created to serve God and exercise dominion over the lower creation. It is not itself under that dominion. Human personality is a union of body and soul. That is why death (severing soul and body) is considered so destructive of humanity.



satz said:


> Through the discussion on the biblical worldview you have described, you have not referenced any bible passages. Save for Romans 1, and as Adam noted, that passage specifically states what God considers against the "natural use", and the sin in question there has nothing to do with contraception.
> 
> What exactly is this biblical worldview? If it is biblical, surely it can be seen from the bible, and from specific passages.


 
On Romans 1, it is impossible to confine "natural use" simply to "gender" or cultural conditioning of male and female roles (the feminist definition of their own term). It is the biology itself which determines their sexuality. If so, human biology is considered natural or normal for ethics. If so, the creation of another being in the same image as man is part and parcel of the "natural use."

On the biblical worldview, I explained what I meant -- it is creationist. Man inherits his environment; it doesn't create itself, and he doesn't create it. If the natural or normal order is something inherited it is not something man has the prerogative to change.


----------



## Hebrew Student

TimV,

Actually, I agree with you on two levels. First, there is no guarantee that, if you use contraception, you will not get pregnant. God always gets to choose how you are going to serve him, and sometimes, you might believe he is leading you to serve him elsewhere, and he gives you a child. Also, my position is that the command "Be Fruitful and Multiply" is a covenant command. The Hebrew terms פָּרָה and רָבָה occur repeatedly in covenant contexts, and hence, I would say that the command is given to the covenant community. That is, just as every covenant community must have elders and deacons, every covenant community must have people who are about the task of having and raising covenant children. Hence, yes, there is going to be a natural overflow, yes. And that is exactly the way God intended it.

Armourbearer,



> On Romans 1, it is impossible to confine "natural use" simply to "gender" or cultural conditioning of male and female roles (the feminist definition of their own term). It is the biology itself which determines their sexuality. If so, human biology is considered natural or normal for ethics. If so, the creation of another being in the same image as man is part and parcel of the "natural use."



Apparently, Albert Mohler must also be a feminist, as he uses the term gender in the way I just did:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2006/10/18/gender-confusion-in-the-kindergarten/]

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; When the Gender Line Isn’t Clear?

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; Designer Babies — Gender Selection Experiment at Baylor College of Medicine

And for good measure, why not just search the entire website:

AlbertMohler.com

Apparently, according to your logic, Albert Mohler is using feminist language?????? Should Albert Mohler "think about the terms he uses" before writing something else?

How in the world you got this, I don't know. I sure do hope that, when you get into the pulpit, you don't interpret the Bible as badly as you are interpreting my words! My context had nothing to do with cultural conditioning. Gender is used in both the biological sense as well as the cultural conditioning sense. I was exegeting Romans 1, and that is the context in which I used the word "gender." My point was that the context was the "natural function" _in the context of male and female_. You are correct that we are talking about Biology in Romans 1. However, it is in the context of a particular Biological issue, namely, that of which biological genders are to have sexual relations with which. To rip that out of its context, and make it apply to the product of sexual relations is total eisegesis, and has no warrant from this text, or any other text in scripture.

Also, I have just repeated my position to TimV. I don't mind reposting arguments I have already made, out of respect for those who disagree with me, and out of the consideration that they may never have heard what I have to say.

Also, I would like to see where in the Bible you get the idea that Biology is norminative for ethics. Indeed, Biology is the argument that the public schools use to give children condoms. Biology can be used to support any kind of perverse behavior. That is why we need the Bible to interpret what is appropriate Biologically and what is not. As I said, the creation account can be turned into a mish mash of ridiculous moral commandments given this logic if we don't have the scriptures to interpret the significance of the creation account for ethics.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## MW

Hebrew Student said:


> I sure do hope that, when you get into the pulpit, you don't interpret the Bible as badly as you are interpreting my words! My context had nothing to do with cultural conditioning. Gender is used in both the biological sense as well as the cultural conditioning sense. I was exegeting Romans 1, and that is the context in which I used the word "gender." My point was that the context was the "natural function" _in the context of male and female_. You are correct that we are talking about Biology in Romans 1. However, it is in the context of a particular Biological issue, namely, that of which biological genders are to have sexual relations with which. To rip that out of its context, and make it apply to the product of sexual relations is total eisegesis, and has no warrant from this text, or any other text in scripture.


 
To begin with, I interpret the Bible before I get into the pulpit. It is amazing what a little reflection before speaking can accomplish. Further, the Bible doesn't change or err; you repeatedly resort to all kinds of arguments to prove a point without any care for the consequences of the arguments you are adopting. FYI, the feminist lobby uses Rom. 1 in precisely the same way you were doing before you offered this rather muddled explanation. It strips it from its creational and normative context. How do you suppose it is eisegesis to maintain a sine qua non? If you accept the sine qua non why are you arguing against it? If natural use refers to human sexuality then it is impossible to divorce biological reproduction from that sexuality. Or do you think man somehow developed his reproductive ability after he was created with sexuality? Why don't you go away and think about it, frame something like a reasonable response, and then come back and discuss the matter without making personal questions of a minister's preaching ability.


----------



## satz

Rev Winzer and Kevin,

Thank you for your time and explanations.


----------

