Contraception

[Tree of Life]

I'm a little surprised to learn that the church as a whole had such a unified voice on this issue up until the 20th century. It appears to me - and I would be happy to be proven wrong - that churches of all denominations condemned the use of contraception from the first century through the nineteenth. I would think that there would be a bit more diversity on this issue throughout the history of the church. (See edit below for further details)**.

Personally, I believe that Christian parents are free to make their own decisions concerning contraception so long as they're not totally closing the door on having children. To be clear, I think it is wrong for a married couple to absolutely refuse to have children. But I don't think it's wrong for a married couple to seek to limit the amount of children they have by using contraception. Along with this, I don't think that sex acts must always be done in such a way that pregnancy is a possible result.

To define contraception, it would include everything from the pill and condoms to vasectomies and coitus interuptus. Apparently the "rhythm method" (natural family planning) is not considered to be contraceptive.

I totally understand if you have a personal conscience issue on contraception. But I don't think that the Biblical data is strong enough to forbid contraception for everyone. Furthermore, I think that churches which do unilaterally forbid contraception (RCC and others) go too far and are infringing upon the God-given liberty of their members.

What's your view?

** Edit - I haven't found any positive evidence to suggest that any denomination before the 20th century took an official position on contraception. It may very well be misleading to say that all denoms universally condemned contraception before the 20th century. If you've got evidence to show that denoms before the 20th century did, in fact, condemn contraception, please provide it. **

 

[bcbsr]

I'm a little surprised to learn that the church as a whole had such a unified voice on this issue up until the 20th century. It appears to me - and I would be happy to be proven wrong - that churches of all denominations condemned the use of contraception from the first century through the nineteenth. I would think that there would be a bit more diversity on this issue throughout the history of the church.

Personally, I believe that Christian parents are free to make their own decisions concerning contraception so long as they're not totally closing the door on having children. To be clear, I think it is wrong for a married couple to absolutely refuse to have children. But I don't think it's wrong for a married couple to seek to limit the amount of children they have by using contraception. Along with this, I don't think that sex acts must always be done in such a way that pregnancy is a possible result.

To define contraception, it would include everything from the pill and condoms to vasectomies and "pulling out" (hope that's not too crass - don't know a better way to put it). Apparently the "rhythm method" (natural family planning) is not considered to be contraceptive.

I totally understand if you have a personal conscience issue on contraception. But I don't think that the Biblical data is strong enough to forbid contraception for everyone. Furthermore, I think that churches which do unilaterally forbid contraception (RCC and others) go too far and are infringing upon the God-given liberty of their members.

What's your view?

If you look up Mortal Sins in Wikipediea apparently even today the Catholic Church views contraception as a mortal sin. Which I think it means it's straight to hell, rather than making up for it in purgatory. A major issue over this developed recently in Brazil which is largely Catholic regarding the Zika virus.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why would you think, why do you think, that there would be more diversity on this issue throughout the history of the church ?

What or who , if you know, influenced you in this issue ?

I'm a little surprised to learn that the church as a whole had such a unified voice on this issue up until the 20th century. It appears to me - and I would be happy to be proven wrong - that churches of all denominations condemned the use of contraception from the first century through the nineteenth. I would think that there would be a bit more diversity on this issue throughout the history of the church.

 

[1 John 4:1]

"To be clear, I think it is wrong for a married couple to absolutely refuse to have children. But I don't think it's wrong for a married couple to seek to limit the amount of children they have by using contraception."

I know a couple who is getting married, one has celiac disease the other had trouble with skin cancer at a very young age. They are not having children because they don't want to risk bringing someone into the world that has to deal with the same hereditary problems they've had. Would you say that's wrong in that case as well?

I'm curious where you find contraception in the Bible. The case of Onan only shows that God would enforce the law of a levirate marriage (if it is a levirate marriage) to bring up children in the name of the dead husband.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why would you think, why do you think, that there would be more diversity on this issue throughout the history of the church ?

What or who , if you know, influenced you in this issue ?

It's surprising to me because the Bible is not very clear on this issue.

 

[Tree of Life]

I know a couple who is getting married, one has celiac disease the other had trouble with skin cancer at a very young age. They are not having children because they don't want to risk bringing someone into the world that has to deal with the same hereditary problems they've had. Would you say that's wrong in that case as well?

Yes.

I'm curious where you find contraception in the Bible. The case of Onan only shows that God would enforce the law of a levirate marriage (if it is a levirate marriage) to bring up children in the name of the dead husband.

I don't believe the Bible mentions contraception.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's surprising to me because the Bible is not very clear on this issue.

This is true, as it also is not very clear to multitudes today.

In the past, it was very clear to the Ekklesia, all the disciples immersed in Jesus' Name and born again by the will of the Father in heaven, called and chosen by Him for Himself and for His Purpose.

Today, it is still very clear to the Ekklesia, all the disciples immersed in Jesus' Name and born again by the will of the Father in heaven, called and chosen by Him for Himself and for His Purpose.

Today, it is not clear to multitudes for many different reasons, all of which Yahweh is ready for, if they are willing (as always must be true) , to instruct all who come to Him, to teach them how to live, as many as are called according to His Purpose, who love Him and are called by His Name.

 

[Tree of Life]

This is true, as it also is not very clear to multitudes today.

In the past, it was very clear to the Ekklesia, all the disciples immersed in Jesus' Name and born again by the will of the Father in heaven, called and chosen by Him for Himself and for His Purpose.

Today, it is still very clear to the Ekklesia, all the disciples immersed in Jesus' Name and born again by the will of the Father in heaven, called and chosen by Him for Himself and for His Purpose.

Today, it is not clear to multitudes for many different reasons, all of which Yahweh is ready for, if they are willing (as always must be true) , to instruct all who come to Him, to teach them how to live, as many as are called according to His Purpose, who love Him and are called by His Name.

What do you think that the Bible says about contraception?

 

[Tree of Life]

If you look up Mortal Sins in Wikipediea apparently even today the Catholic Church views contraception as a mortal sin. Which I think it means it's straight to hell, rather than making up for it in purgatory. A major issue over this developed recently in Brazil which is largely Catholic regarding the Zika virus.

There is some irony to a group of celibate men telling married people how they're allowed to have sex. Papal tyranny!

 

[Dave-W]

Today, it is still very clear to the Ekklesia, all the disciples immersed in Jesus' Name and born again by the will of the Father in heaven, called and chosen by Him for Himself and for His Purpose.

What is so clear? Chapter and verse please.

I find it interesting that the one book of the bible which is a celebration of marital sex says NOTHING about procreation. Song of Solomon.

 

[1 John 4:1]

Yes.

I don't believe the Bible mentions contraception.

Then where do you get the idea that every couple is supposed to try to have at least one child?

 

[hedrick]

There are several reasons, good and bad, for the historical position.

Good reason: contraception was often dangerous to the woman, and typically mandated by the man. In the early church opposition to contraception and abortion was a position in favor of the good of women.

Bad reason: Augustine, and many other early Christians, viewed sex as at least morally suspect. It could only be justified by the need for procreation. Even when sex was used for that purpose, many Christians still considered it "lust." There's plenty of good evidence for this negative position on sex, though today people try to downplay it. So why have sex if you don't want children? The answer was assumed to be that people wanted sexual pleasure on its own. That is, they were moved by lust, which is sin. The same analysis led to masturbation being considered wrong. Because it wasn't justified by procreation, it was simply lust.

Traditional Catholic ethics also has the concept of natural law. Things are viewed as having been created by God for specific purposes. Even if sex isn't lust, it's obvious natural purpose (in this traditional analysis) is procreation. To do an act while denying its purpose is rejecting God's will.

More recently, as the "sexual revolution" started, contraception was colored by the fact that it was commonly used by unmarried people to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Today even traditional Christians will tell you that sex has two purposes: procreation and promoting the relationship between husband and wife. You'd think would mean that even when procreation was for some reason undesirable, sex could be justified by the other purpose. However tradition is strong and hard to change. And the analysis based on natural law is still alive and well. The official Catholic analysis (which is also held by some Protestants) is still that contraception, masturbation, and gay sex, all reject the God-given purpose for sex.

 

[Dave-W]

Then where do you get the idea that every couple is supposed to try to have at least one child?

"Be fruitful and multiply." It's a command.

 

[Tree of Life]

Then where do you get the idea that every couple is supposed to try to have at least one child?

Genesis 1:28.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm a little surprised to learn that the church as a whole had such a unified voice on this issue up until the 20th century. It appears to me - and I would be happy to be proven wrong - that churches of all denominations condemned the use of contraception from the first century through the nineteenth.

What do you think that the Bible says about contraception?

For here and now, the simplest best answer is I agree with God and with all His people who agreed with God and with His Word "from the first century through the nineteenth"

(if it did happen (and it seems right and correct) as you posted in the OP).

 

[Tree of Life]

For here and now, the simplest best answer is I agree with God and with all His people who agreed with God and with His Word "from the first century through the nineteenth"

(if it did happen (and it seems right and correct) as you posted in the OP).

I'm not so sure that the church had a universal view on the issue. It's possible.

Where does God say that contraception is wrong?

 

[Tree of Life]

There are several reasons, good and bad, for the historical position.

Good reason: contraception was often dangerous to the woman, and typically mandated by the man. In the early church opposition to contraception and abortion was a position in favor of the good of women.

Bad reason: Augustine, and many other early Christians, viewed sex as at least morally suspect. It could only be justified by the need for procreation. Even when sex was used for that purpose, many Christians still considered it "lust." There's plenty of good evidence for this negative position on sex, though today people try to downplay it. So why have sex if you don't want children? The answer was assumed to be that people wanted sexual pleasure on its own. That is, they were moved by lust, which is sin. The same analysis led to masturbation being considered wrong. Because it wasn't justified by procreation, it was simply lust.

Traditional Catholic ethics also has the concept of natural law. Things are viewed as having been created by God for specific purposes. Even if sex isn't lust, it's obvious natural purpose (in this traditional analysis) is procreation. To do an act while denying its purpose is rejecting God's will.

More recently, as the "sexual revolution" started, contraception was colored by the fact that it was commonly used by unmarried people to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Today even traditional Christians will tell you that sex has two purposes: procreation and promoting the relationship between husband and wife. You'd think would mean that even when procreation was for some reason undesirable, sex could be justified by the other purpose. However tradition is strong and hard to change. And the analysis based on natural law is still alive and well. The official Catholic analysis (which is also held by some Protestants) is still that contraception, masturbation, and gay sex, all reject the God-given purpose for sex.

Interesting historical info. For the record - I believe that basically all forms of monogamous sexual activity between two spouses in the context of a loving marriage is okay. I don't believe that solo masturbation is biblically acceptable.

 

[1 John 4:1]

Genesis 1:28.

If that command is for every individual then wouldn't that contradict what Paul said about it being ok to be single and wouldn't that also mean that you would have to have more than 2 children since anything less is not increasing the population? (having only one child would decrease the population)

 

[Tree of Life]

If that command is for every individual then wouldn't that contradict what Paul said about it being ok to be single and wouldn't that also mean that you would have to have more than 2 children since anything less is not increasing the population? (having only one child would decrease the population)

No. This command is qualified by Paul's permission and encouragement to remain single. Single people are not commanded to have children. Yet they should still "be fruitful" and "multiply" themselves by investing in others (mentoring, discipling, etc).

I don't believe that this command tells us exactly how many children to have, but I believe that it rules out refusing to have children unless the circumstances are very special. For the case that you've mentioned, I don't think that their concerns are warranted enough.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I rather think that the Ekklesia of Yahweh, His children,
it never ever even entered their heart.

Like so many other sinful ways, it (sin, wickedness in high places, and throughout mankind) has escalated as in the days of Noah, as in sodom and gomorrah....
so much so that it requires a miracle (for real) to learn the truth from Jesus.
When He does this miracle, there is peace, joy and righteousness with salvation in Jesus,
instead of the sin, confusion and wickednesses of the world -
no mixture.
When there is mixture, it is like a fly in a bottle of perfume - it spoils the whole bottle.
It is like a dark (selfish) eye - the whole body is full of darkness.

Thus, it is not one or two little things, as if to be picked apart and analyzed and studied, no (not the way of men, as it does not produce righteousness)....

But rather as Jesus always said "you must be like an infant to see the kingdom of God" (the ways of God, His Word, His understanding)
and "The heavenly Father reveals everything (yes everything) concerning salvation to little children (as Jesus Says and describes) , and hides it from the educated... "

Note that in this last century or 2, as "knowledge increased" outside of and opposed to Jesus , also wickednesses increased and grew more wicked. Sin is not even considered "bad" today, let alone realizing that the God we serve according to His Word
requires a total life change .....

So it is not just one thing, nor even one area, that people have departed from the faith... So Much is Involved , yet simple also, by faith as God's Children, we seek His Word and His Kingdom, and to be free from all sin, from all the evils of society, every day.... trust the Father - be surprised ! (how much He sets us free from) .....

I'm not so sure that the church had a universal view on the issue. It's possible.

Where does God say that contraception is wrong?

 

[1 John 4:1]

No. This command is qualified by Paul's permission and encouragement to remain single. Single people are not commanded to have children. Yet they should still "be fruitful" and "multiply" themselves by investing in others (mentoring, discipling, etc).

I don't believe that this command tells us exactly how many children to have, but I believe that it rules out refusing to have children unless the circumstances are very special. For the case that you've mentioned, I don't think that their concerns are warranted enough.

It says "fill the earth" that is impossible if everyone only has one child. I guess I see the command as being given to Adam. It would be kind of silly if it was ok for Adam to only have one child or not to reproduce as long as he remained single or else Paul had to come along thousands of years later to change the command to allow for single people. That's just my thoughts. Interesting discussion though.