Does the bible permit birth control?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I recently found out that my wife and I would be blessed with Twogun #4 in January.

I am convinced that this one will make all she can handle given her physical condition, talents, my frequent absences, our frequent moves, etc. I see no sense in giving her more than she can handle. I believe that it is my [u:cfe85c26e2]duty[/u:cfe85c26e2] as her head and leader to ensure as much as in my power that she is able to live a Godly life and be "Saved through childbearing." I further believe that God has allowed me to understand her frame, her abilities, and her situation so that it is clear to me that four is all she can handle and still bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I believe that God in His sovereign will gave me to her to make this decision because He has plans for her/us that are to our benefit. I believe that if I did not make this decision I could possibly be putting my wife in spiritual danger and my children as well.

Every decision we make is tainted by sin, seen through a dark glass, and poorly motivated. We can only say that certain decisions governed by clear commands or deductions of scripture are 100% right or 100% wrong. The decision to use or not use non-abortive birth control is not at all clearly regulated by scripture and as such we must govern the decision by the whole counsel of God applied to the situation which is then bathed in prayer trusting God to guide us despite our deceitful heart.
 
I don't know what to think about birth control, although I do feel that it is a much harder ground to defend it theologically than it is to refrain from using it. All I know is that my wife and I have been married for 3 1/2 years and have no kids, and I really wish we did!
 
Great thoughts being shared here, I've been edified from reading them all. I do though have another thought. Paul said in 1 Corithians 7 that we should marry because of fornication 1 Cor 7:2. In other words it is better to marry then to burn 1 Cor 7:9. Therefore could this mean that the main reason for marriage is for emotional satisfaction in fulfillment of bonding in the marriage relationship, rather than procreation? If so, does this have any bearing on this issue? i.e. does this or could this help form an argument for the use birth control since procreation is not the mean reason for marriage.?

VanVos
 
Sex is for recreation as well as procreation.

Birth control is fine. This is like asking if the Bible permits the use of asprin or sleeping pills. I guess if I have insomnia God must want me to be sleep deprived right ? ? Of course not.

John says Christ was not born by "the will of men" . . but by the will of God. Man has a will in procreation to attempt to reproduce, or not. And I am with Paul above. . no contraceptive will prevent God's will.
 
An additional complication is that most forms of birth contol are really abortificants, including the "pill" (a dirty little secret that the medical community will not advertise).

You must be VERY careful in choosing the method of birth control if you decide to go that route.
 
I have nothing to add either "yay" or "nay" to contraceptives.

But, my mother in law is pro life...works in healthcare, and the "pill" my wife was on wasn't abortive...in fact I am not sure if many really are. My wife described the pill as preventing her body from dropping an egg to be fertilized...so it is never even had the possibility of being fertilized.

There are some arguments that even so, that this pill, if it doesn't prevent the egg from dropping, it would then act as an abortive...from what I've gathered, there is no study to really support this.

Even when not using contraception, it is a proven fact that there are times the egg IS fertilized, but the woman's BODY rejects it, and the baby dies and is passed through.

I am pro life in EVERY situation...but I am having trouble with saying contraceptives are alright, or wrong. I think using them basically indefinitely is selfish...I do believe God wants His people to bear children, I am ready and willing to a dad if God so chooses. But we aren't going out of our way to have them now.

Also: there is a danger in using "the pill" in regards to the hormones involved. There is a possible side effect of having a propensity for blod clots...well, my wife knew it (I didn't), and my wife did get a blood clot. It was incredibly scary, but God is providential. My wife had a condition where there was a vein being "crushed" in her leg and it was preventing any bit of clot from traveling up to her heart or brain (ironically that also contributed to her getting the clot). Two attemps at angioplasty and two stints later, my wife is fine. We do not use the pill or any hormonal type of prevention any longer.

Health-wise, I recommend avoiding using the pill. There could also be long-term fertility issues also if one stays on it for a long period of time.
 
[color=darkblue:72888fe49d][b:72888fe49d]I was looking at the texts with the word "multiply" and aside from the "be fruitful and multiply" that God commanded to Adam and Eve and then again to Noah and his family after the flood, God says over and over in the old testament "I will multiply your seed...", Deut 28:63"And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you..., Ezekiel 37:26 "Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore." I got so many hits with my search and it was "I will multiply" over and over. Clearly it is God's domain to do the multiplying and we are but vessels of his sovereign will as usual. We cannot thwart his will.[/b:72888fe49d][/color:72888fe49d]
 
I will make this brief. Answer these questions according to the Scriptures:

1. Is God Sovereign? Yes.

2. Can His will be thwarted by men? No.

3. Is God actively involved in the conception and birth of every child (Does He knit them in the womb and even cause delivery)? Yes.

4. Is Birth Control then, at its root, an attempt by men and women to stop what only God can do? Yes.

5. Since we cannot stop God from giving blessings in the form of children, then is it acting in faith to try to stop conception? ?????

Let's face it, a child cannot and will not be conceived unless God so desires it. So what are you trying to prevent (no matter the method) if you use birth control? You are trying (whether consciously or not) to stop God! What a waste of energy, time, money, emotions, etc etc etc. Walk by faith. God is ever faithful, always full of mercy, and He can be trusted!

Phillip
 
Thanks pastorway . . my wife and I are extremely fertile . . so we will stop using birth control and have more than our current four children.

Can we count on financial support from your church since I barely make ends meet now and will not know what to do when five more children arrive ? ? ??

Also, will you provide life insurance in the case that she dies from complications in delivery ? ? Since the last child we had almost killed her ? ?

God wants us to use common sense and the scriptures. We know more about the body now. Using non-abortive, or hormone compromising birth control is sometimes prudent, and a blessing from God as well.

Should Christian couples have children if possible ? ? yes.

Should we risk our lives and be fooloish about the level of support we can provide our family ? ? no.

Has God given us a certain responsibility and freedom in when to have children and how many ? ? yes.
 
Ah, so we will take the control away from God because we know better! Okay, now I understand. God is not sovereign, He cannot provide for all my needs, He surely is wreckless with the health of my wife, He cannot be trusted to know what is best, I on the other hand know what is best and will therefore do what I can to prevent God from knitting a child in my wife's womb because that would be an irresponsble disaster........

Is that the logic of faith?

Just think, if Joseph had know that Rachel might die giving birth to Benjamin, he could have worked to prevent the pregnancy. Then there would have been no death for Rachel and no second son for her either. Then the tribe of Benjamin would have been non-existant and then Paul, a Benjamite, would not have been born and then we would have a very small New Testament.

Sounds logical to me. [i:633eb5fcf9]NOT[/i:633eb5fcf9]

I am not saying that these things are not HARD. But faith sees us through the hard things. Are you really approaching this from the perspective of trusting God to do what is best? Or is there fear, doubt, and maybe even selfishness and pride in this line of thought that we know better than God?

Phillip
 
Doesn't God sometimes provide through the use of means?

Should I walk off my roof, knowing that God is sovereign?
 
If you walk off your roof thinking God is sovereign then you can be sure He wanted you to break a leg.

Seriously, if only God can form a child in the womb, then what are we trying to prevent by attempting to stop conception?

Bottom line - we either trust God and enjoy each other as husband and wife. Or we trust our own judgment and work to try to stop God from forming a babe in the womb.

If we know that only God can make a baby and that when He does it is a blessing, then what are we trying to prevent? What is it we are afraid of?

Means or not, a baby is not conceived without the hand of God. So there is no accidental conception, no out of place baby, no baby that pushes us out of having our needs met, no baby that places on us more than we can bear, no baby that is a mistake, no baby that was the result of poor stewardship and bad planning.

Babies are blessings from the hand of God, but we rarely think of them as such. Instead we believe tat pregnancy is a medical condition to be avoided like cancer instead of a sign that God Himself has BLESSED us.

Phillip
 
Ok, but Phillip, explain to me how deciding not to have sex on a given day is different? If God is sovereign, wouldn't we have sex every day? Isn't the failure to do so an "avoidance" of blessing?
 
According to 1 Cor 7 a husband and wife are to render the affection due one another unless they agree to abstain for a period of time for prayer and fasting. Simply put, the Bible says not to deny your spouse sex when they want it!

Not having sex is a sure way to not get pregnant, but there are guidelines for this given right in this text. It is not just about making babies, but whatever the case (pleasure or procreation) we are not to put our wants and interests above that of our spouse!

Phillip
 
[quote:fdcff7c9d1="Paul manata"][quote:fdcff7c9d1="pastorway"]My comments and exegesis can be found here:

Birth Control I and Birth Control II and Birth Control III (on another forum)

The Scriptures prove without question that God causes conception and delivery. Only He can do this. If it is going to happen it is because He causes it. There are no accidents. So birth control is trying to prevent God from acting to bless us! WOW. We think we can or even should stop God from doing what only He can do? Really now, if trying to stop something that only God brings to pass is walking by faith, then perhaps the Arminians are right after all....we can tie God's hands behind His back! :no:

Phillip[/quote:fdcff7c9d1]

but if God planned for couple X to have a child then even birth control could not stop Him, right?

So, the child will still be born regardless.

Not saying you are wrong theologically, regarding birth control, just saying that it cannot thwart God's plans.

Paul[/quote:fdcff7c9d1]

Exactly this argument against using non-abortive contraception forms is invalid. God's will cannot be overthrown.
 
[quote:e714a8e440="fredtgreco"]An additional complication is that most forms of birth contol are really abortificants, including the "pill" (a dirty little secret that the medical community will not advertise).

You must be VERY careful in choosing the method of birth control if you decide to go that route.[/quote:e714a8e440]

Indeed.
 
Excellent points, Mark.

That helped me tremendously in regards to birth control. One must be sober minded about not using birth control. To use it could be mere selfishness...but in the other sense it is truly the most responsible approach...this is where the rubber meets the road. Maybe I should have phrased that differently.
 
I don't have much to add, but examples: I know several mothers who have had a child every one or two years until in one case her health was broken, and she spent months too sick to take care of her family-- and in another, she was told that the next baby would take her life, leaving all the other children motherless. At least one of them would not have considered birth control in the past, but both decided to use the means available to help them be good stewards of their health and mothers to their children, taking the natural situation into account, and knowing that God often uses our earthly "wisdom" as a means to accomplish His will-- knowing also that God can abridge our methods if they are not going to bring about His will (my littlest sister is living proof). In both cases, God has not given them more children, and their health has improved. I don't see that they have any less faith in God than when they weren't using birth control-- or that they had any less faith then.

The family I know with the most children, and the healthiest mom, practices natural birth control between each child, until the mother gets back to her pre-pregnancy weight. This way they are able to have more children, and she is able to care for them all.

Another family was told not to get pregnant again as the mother's life might be endangered, but decided not to practice birth control, and the mother is now pregnant with the second since then (though this may be the last, as the pregnancy is very problematic). In both cases, healthy and unhealthy mom, lots of children, their approach has been the means God has used to bring about His will (it can be God's will for people to have lots of children and health problems): even the fact that some people will read this thread and think "I wouldn't want my wife to get in that condition" can be a means of preserving your wife's good health whereas it may be God's will for someone else to be sick. (I'm not equating birth control with good health and lack of it with bad-- though I have to say that it often works out that way when women are very fertile.)

Conventional birth control can react very badly with some people, though. People are all different, and what doesn't affect someone else might affect you (though all of you appear to be men), or vice-versa. I would be very careful taking the regular form of it-- read all the information about ingredients and interactions, do a websearch and see if other women have had problems, call a fertility doctor and see if that kind of birth control can mess up your hormones, etc, as some can take away fertility long after you stop taking it-- this from a fertility doctor. Of course God is control of that, too-- but we ought to be wise stewards.

I would be interested to know if those who advocate not using any form of birth control would also disagree with attempts to become more fertile? We can't make God give us a child, certainly, any more than we can make Him not give us one.
 
Pursuing fertility usually involves correcting physical problems that are preventing pregnancy, ie. preventing the body from functioning normally. So pursuing the medical means to be able to have children is fine, as long as the couple does understand that only God gives children and they are pursing this by faith that He will provide a child if it is His will.

Here is where I see the difference between fertility treatment and birth control - using medicine/surgery to correct a problem is not the same as using medicine/surgery to prevent the body from functioning normally.

Phillip
 
Phillip

:banghead: It was a double standard in all those previous threads and it is a double standard now. You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to use trust in God as your hammer it strikes both birth control and fertility enhancement treatments. I mean I guess what you are saying is: God couldn't get past the physical problems Himself and so we must help Him through scientific means...... Conception is either something that we are to steward or it is something that we are to completely leave hands off. If we are to steward it then we may do so either positively or negatively as God leads while attempting to maintain Godly motives. By the way is there any other gift of God that he has told us to leave completely alone and not steward? I am trying to think of one and have not been able to.....

Chuck
 
so we should never use medicine at all to correct physical problems? Inability to get pregnant is often the symptom of a more serious problem.

I would not want a couple to try to be more fertile - ie. they can have children but want 5 at a time instead of just 1! But if there are health issues that prevent pregnancy what is wrong with correcting them? Even then, if it is not God's will, they will not get pregnant!

I must ask, is it an act of faith to use medicine to correct a problem? Yes it can be. Is it an act of faith to use medicine to disrupt normal function of the body? THAT is the question!!

Phillip
 
[quote:c49960687a]I must ask, is it an act of faith to use medicine to correct a problem? Yes it can be. Is it an act of faith to use medicine to disrupt normal function of the body? THAT is the question!! [/quote:c49960687a]

Pastorway,

I'm pretty much in favor of your view concerning this discussion. One thing I'd like to point out is that all synthetic pharmaceutical medicine disrupts the normal function of the body in some way or another. For example, cholesterol medicine is given to help control cholesterol levels but it does so by stopping the liver from making it. Eventually, it will destroy the liver. This is why they keep checking the liver every month or so. I'm not in favor of drugs at all except in emergency situations so I'm really not in favor of using them to mess up a woman's hormones so she can't conceive.
 
[quote:a598abfd9d]Is it an act of faith to use medicine to disrupt normal function of the body?[/quote:a598abfd9d]

Yes it can be!

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, F15 of His flesh and of His bones. 31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." F16 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

By faith we can attempt to nourish and cherish our wives physically and mentally by allowing them to be on birth control.

1 Pet 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them [wives] with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

By faith we can obey God and understand our wives abilities and limitations, which may lead to a decision to use birth control.

Eph 6:4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

By faith we may realize that continuing to have children will impinge upon our abilities to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and decide to use birth control for that reason.

Which commandment does the use of birth control break?

Chuck
 
How can your having children be a bad thing since only God can give them to you in the first place? Are any of His gifts BAD?

And why do you need a "commandment?" Is it not enough to understand that whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23) and that to try to tell God that you know better than He what is best for you and your wife is not an act of faith? We could of course site "Thou shalt not kill" for the use of chemical agents which prevent the attachment of a fertilized egg (which according to our doctor, they ALL do as a back up in the event of fertilization). In the event of conception, they abort the baby, murdering an unborn child. Is this even to be thought of as an act of faithful stewardship?

Stewards do not tell their master what is and is not good. They manage faithfully what He has given them. They do not decide what they are stewards over, the amount of the talents, so to speak. They take what He gives and use it to His glory.

If a child is a blessing and gift from the hand of God, is it ever too much to handle or a bad thing that He has given you? Every gift that comes from His hand is a good gift (James 1:17).

To use birth control seems to me to be an attempt to tell God that you know better than He, that you do not consider every child He gives a blessing and gift from His hand, and that you would rather trust medicine/science over His Word.

For anyone unsure of their stance on this matter - take it to the Word! And walk by faith, not sight.

All for now,
Phillip
 
It doesn't seem like the act of engaging in non-abortive birth control is a sin. The Bible doesn't seem to explicitly forbid actions that could prevent pregnancy (after all, staying single should definitely prevent pregnancy, but we aren't urged to get married as soon as possible.) What could be a sin is the attitude that prompts birth control. However, so long as a couple recognizes that another child would be a gift and is prepared to be blessed in that matter, it doesn't seem (to my very limited wisdom) that it would necessarily be a sin to engage in barrier/rhythm methods of birth control.

God's will cannot be thwarted, and if that is clearly understood and appreciated, then we are free to act in a way that seems to be good stewardship, good health management, etc., so long as it does not, under any circumstances, involve abortive techniques or any other sin. A couple that isn't sinning in their attitudes doesn't need to be plagued with guilt about whether or not they are thwarting God's will, because that is absolutely impossible. God can use human means to accomplish His will of not giving a couple more children, but He can always give them more, anyway, and if that is His will, He will do it. If the couple knows that would be a blessing and is prepared to be thankful, there doesn't seem to be any clear command against some types of birth control.

You have really good points, Pastor Way. In the past year or so, I have been convinced from a very sinful position of not wanting children at all to feeling quite certain that if I get married, I have no desire to do anything (sinful or not) to try to prevent such a blessing. Thanks for your affirmation of God's value on children. It is very helpful to me. HeidiZ, your thoughts are very interesting. I find myself agreeing with you.
 
I realize that this subject has been well debated, but I had come here to ask this very question. <smiles> I appreciate the links to the articles by Piper and others. I will read them.

I received an interesting email from my sister having to do with the Pill. While I won't go into all the details, apparently there are some common serious side-effects. But, the medical community (specifically her doctor) was convinced that the Pill wasn't the source. Anywho, she began researching the Pill and its effects. What she found disturbing is that, for the most part, Protestant theologians have little or no comment about birth control. But, the same arguments that can be used in support of abortion can also be used in support of birth control. As a simplification, abortion is birth control after the pregnancy.

The Protestant argues that they are "Pro-life" - that they do not support the killing of unborn children. And yet, consistantly taken, they are not "pro-life" with regards to conception. Only after conception has happened is it deemed valuable. The Catholic theologians have argued that a culture that accepts and supports birth control is a culture that is "Pro-death" in that it is aggressively pursuing avoiding life.

----------------------------------------------
From our church library I checked out a book by George
Grant called Grand Illusions: the Legacy of Planned
Parenthood. It's a fascinating book, and he claims to
have left out some of the more incendiary information
to protect himself from lawsuits. What he includes is
sufficiently shocking on its own. In addition to
sketching a brief biography of Margaret Sanger, he
explains the social forces, the media and legal
manipulations, and the outright duplicity that led to
Planned Parenthood's success in promoting abortion and
its little sister, artificial birth control. One of
the more interesting facts I learned from the book is
that Ms. Sanger used $2 million of her second
husband's money to fund research into the Pill. She
then lobbied aggressively to have it approved by the
FDA in a shorter time even than normal drug trials.
As you know, attempts to question the safety of the
Pill are stifled at birth or else the results of the
studies are downplayed. One of the curious things I
have discovered in the last few months is how few
women actually have a good experience with hormonal
birth control, either the Pill or the progesterone
shot. Yet the drug companies (and Planned Parenthood)
persist in portraying the Pill as the best possible
way for women to take charge of their bodies and their
fertility. As George Grant writes, the Pill is not a
medical, but rather a recreational drug. I hadn't
thought of it that way before. I've been doing a lot
of reading on fertility, etc. recently and most of
what's out there that doesn't promote the use of the
Pill is from the Catholics. Of course, most of those
critiques come from people who hold to the Church's
official position that all artificial contraception is
wrong. I have been searching for writings from
Protestant theologians and teachers addressing this
issue, but there seems to be very little material.
Interestingly, the most extensive treatment I have yet
found on the subject of the morality of birth control
from a Protestant perspective is in a book published
in 1970 by Norman Geisler about ethics.
Unfortunately, he argues that abortion can be morally
permissible under certain circumstances, when the
destruction of a potential human life is weighed
against harm to an actual human life (the mother's).
I was deeply disturbed by that phrasing (potential vs.
actual) and by his reasoning that seemed to introduce
a certain level of situational ethics into his
argument. Although he was careful to emphasize that
taking even a potential human life is grave and ought
not be done for any less than the most compelling
circumstances, I thought he was providing ammunition
for the pro-abortion camp by saying that there are
cases when abortion would be justifiable, although
only to the point of viability. (He was not
discussing what to do in the case of an ectopic
pregnancy, which obviously cannot be carried to term
and which will kill the mother if the embryo is not
removed. He was discussing cases of rape, incest, the
life of the mother, etc.). The discoveries about
fetal development which have come over the past 35
years indicate that although we don't know when a
fetus becomes "alive" in a strict sense, we know that
if the fetus is allowed to develop normally, he or she
will be born as a living human being. I have gotten
off on a rabbit track. Sorry about that. Anyway, the
Catholic position is that abortion is a great evil but
a culture that sanctions birth control is already a
culture of death. It is only a small step (according
to these commentators) from using artificial
contraception to prevent pregnancy to using abortion
as an after-the-fact birth control. After reading
Grant's book and some pro-abortion writings too, I'm
not sure I find that such a foreign assertion now.
But that leads to the question of family planning.
Are Christians really called to have a lot of
children? Or is there, as some Protestant authors I
have read believe, a responsibility to consider the
cost of a family and have the number of children that
a couple can afford. There is no clear consensus and
there are compelling arguments on both sides. This is
an issue with which Protestant pastors and teachers
seem reluctant to deal, probalby because of the
societal expectations that birth control is part of
life.

That was a long and rambling dissertation, although I
hope it was reasonably coherent. I apologize for the
length. These are the issues with which I'm wrestling
right now. Before I got involved in thinking about
this, the matter seemed simple, but the farther I get
into it, the less clearly defined the boundaries are
and the more I see that a couple's private decision
regarding their family planning can have wide
implications for society at large. There are pro-life
activists who believe you cannot really consider
yourself pro-life and support the use of any
artificial means of contraception. Yet there are
people on the other side who point out that the
ability to limit the size of our families allows us to
treasure and provide for the children we do have.
Perhaps that is simply a Western, consumer-driven
attitude. I haven't decided yet.

In my research on the Pill, I learned that the
pharmaceutical companies and Planned Parenthood have
powerful motivations for marketing the Pill
aggressively and for downplaying its side effects.
The most powerful reason is money, of course, since
the market for birth control runs into the billions.
What I find frustrating is that my doctors didn't warn
me about side effects and would not believe that my
symptoms might have been due to the synthetic
hormones. It is difficult to find a list of side
effects in plain English. The listed side effects in
the product insert that comes with the Pill are so
hidden in medical jargon that I had no idea what most
of them were. The insert also made a point of calling
the side effects "rare," "unusual," and "uncommon."
But as I have talked with other women who have used
it, I have learned that most of them have suffered
some sort of adverse effects. Some of them opt to
remain on the Pill because they like the convenience
or they believe other forms of contraception are too
difficult to practice or they are convinced they are
receiving health benefits from taking the Pill.

George Grant calls the Pill a "recreational drug" and
he does so because he claims that there are no medical
reasons for most of us to take it. Its only purpose
is to enable women to be sexually active without the
risk of pregnancy. Unfortunately, there are many
other risks to the drug that are not well known.

The Catholic Church and some Protestant pro-lifers
(such as Randy Alcorn) believe that the decision to
use contraception in itself comes from an attitude of
death. It divorces sex from procreation, rendering it
sterile rather than life-giving. They say that
engaging in sex without being open to the possibility
of conceiving a child is to render the act
purposeless. This is why the Catholic Church calls
such sexual activity lust, even if it is between a
married couple. I don't think I agree with that
assertion--it is too restrictive and does not have
Scriptural basis. But I think that the advocates of
this view have a very valid point, one often
overlooked by most Protestants--namely that a culture
that will not embrace children and that will not
accept responsibility for the consequences of sexual
activity is a culture that embraces death. We want
all the physical pleasure of sex without any of the
responsibility that comes with it. As Grant says, we
have redefined responsibility to mean using birth
control rather than being ready for the consequence of
conception.

---------------------------------------------

Is the Pill a "recreational drug"?
 
Phillip

[quote:b2277b091b]And why do you need a "commandment?" Is it not enough to understand that whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23) and that to try to tell God that you know better than He what is best for you and your wife is not an act of faith?[/quote:b2277b091b]

I am saying that all sin breaks one of the ten commandments. Which of the ten commandments does using birth control break?

I have already demonstrated that one can use birth control in faith as well as not use birth control in faith. BTW one can also faithlessly use or not use it as well.

Chuck
 
Chuck,

While I agree with you on the birth control issue, it is not true that all sin "breaks" the 10 commandments in a strict sense (although this is true in the broad sense, as follows).

Sin is of two sorts:
violating (breaking) God's law, transgressions of God's law - "doing what He forbids" and for any want of conformity to God's law - "not doing what God requires"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top