Contraception

[Tutorman]

The views of the ECFs are interesting. The only problem with them is that they're not biblical!

Why does everything have to be in the Bible

 

[Phil 1:21]

Why does everything have to be in the Bible

Keeps people from selling indulgences and whatnot.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why does everything have to be in the Bible

I don't believe that everything has to be in the Bible. There's plenty of truth which is not contained in Scripture.

But when it comes to knowing God, who He is, and what His will is for my life, I can only infallibly know these things through his own speech. God's speech is located in Holy Scripture. I simply won't accept what some theologian or church group says about God if it is not established by God's Holy Word.

 

[Tutorman]

Keeps people from selling indulgences and whatnot.

Actually it lets people make up things, even the Bible does not say that it is the foundation of truth but that the Church is. Furthermore the Bible even says that not everything is written therein and the Bible never says to go by itself alone.

 

[Tutorman]

God's speech is located in Holy Scripture. I simply won't accept what some theologian or church group says about God if it is not established by God's Holy Word.

Yet you accepted a Church and Theologians to tell you what books belong to the Bible

 

[Phil 1:21]

Actually it lets people make up things, even the Bible does not say that it is the foundation of truth but that the Church is. Furthermore the Bible even says that not everything is written therein and the Bible never says to go by itself alone.

Saying "Jesus did many other things" (John 21:25) is not the same as "make up whatever you want."

 

[Tutorman]

Saying "Jesus did many other things" (John 21:25) is not the same as "make up whatever you want."

Your right yet SS folks make up things all the time on their own authority

 

[Tree of Life]

Yet you accepted a Church and Theologians to tell you what books belong to the Bible

I don't accept Scripture because a church tells me that it's God's Word. I accept Scripture because it is the Word of God.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Your right yet SS folks make up things all the time on their own authority

Perhaps you could start a thread to discuss that.

 

[Tutorman]

I don't accept Scripture because a church tells me that it's God's Word. I accept Scripture because it is the Word of God.

Yet man put it together, by accepting the Bible as is you are accepting man's word that the Bible is to be as it is. So yes you have accepted the Bible you have because a Church (weather you realize or admit it or not, it is history) has told you in the form of 66 books the Bible is God's Word.

 

[Mountainmike]

The earliest church wrote the Bible. If later generations want to quibble about what it means that's up to them, but I'm content to take the interpretation of scripture form the people who wrote it, and not the contrivances of some people three hundred years later. That is the essence of Sola Scriptura. What Paul wrote was good enough. He was no idiot but could express himself effectively. The first person to read his works will always be less authoritative on the matter than the one who actually wrote it.

You follow your interpretation of what you think Paul meant, looking backwards 2000 years, without contemporary knowledge. And ignoring the faith handed down, or the authority Jesus conferred to the church to rule on law and doctrine.

The first church - those taught by apostles - tell you truth is found in the teaching of the succession bishops appointed by the apostles, who are those empowered to perform sacraments, with primacy at Rome.

Tradition - the faith handed down - was pretty much all there was for a couple of centuries, which is why scripture says the church is the foundation of truth - and paul himself tells you to stay true to what they taught by mouth as well as letter.

And what the earliest church said paul meant - those he taught - would surprise you, unless you are a catholic.

Why do you have so little faith in Jesus to keep his church on message? For 1500 years it believed in prolife, no abortion or contraception, and the root - the Catholic Church - the biggest still does.

Only latter day people prefer populist morals, and they have no reason to justify that.

 

[Athanasius377]

I would want to make a distinction between artificial contraception and natural contraception. I believe there is liberty when it comes to family planning so long as natural means are used. Where the issue becomes problematic is where artificial means are used such as barrier or chemical means are used. Furthermore, the only areana for sexual contact is marriage between one man and one woman for a lifetime for the openness of the conception of children. Marriages should be open to the propagation of children whenever possible. When the OP states there was a consensus in all of christianity I believe this is what he meant. The Roman church promotes Natural Family Planning which I would agree is the best based on scripture, though there is no command. I believe the wisdom of the church catholic should prevail here and avoid any artificial contraception and instead rely on natural means to limit when necessary family size. Pope Paul VI was largely prophetic in Humanae Vitae in his response to the use of artificial contraception. See @Mountainmike I don't always criticize the Roman church.

 

[concretecamper]

I would want to make a distinction between artificial contraception and natural contraception

The contraception mentality is what is disordered. Whether contraception is natural or artificaial is irrelevent.

 

[Athanasius377]

Whether contraception is natural or artificaial is irrelevent.

What do you mean by that? Did you read all my post?

 

[MartyF]

What's your view?

I don't think much is said about contraception being approved before the 20th century because there simply wasn't any effective contraception besides infanticide before then. Silphium going extinct prior to Christianity and condoms not being mass manufactured until the early 20th century.

So, the only form of birth control which was 95%+ effective was infanticide. You can see why every church opposed "birth control".

Marty

 

[Paidiske]

we learned that NFP is highly effective, probably more so than many forms of birth control

there are no side effects so am surprised more people do not use NFP

Until you're sick, or stress throws your cycle out, or you do a stint of night shift and your diurnal rhythm shifts, or you travel between time zones and your bodily rhythm is thrown out of whack... it's effective only within a very narrow range of circumstances. I'd never rely on it.

I think the key is wise discernment for each couple. There are different reasons for choosing to be open to pregnancy - or not - at any given time, and some of those reasons are good and some are not. Also, there are different ethical considerations in play for different methods of contraception. It's not something susceptible to a one-size-fits-all answer.

 

[Mountainmike]

Not entirely true.
There are vagina blocking materials and devices described in papyrus as early as 1500bc! - indeed acacia leaves are said to contain natural spermicides that are still in some products today,

I don't think much is said about contraception being approved before the 20th century because there simply wasn't any effective contraception besides infanticide before then. Silphium going extinct prior to Christianity and condoms not being mass manufactured until the early 20th century.

So, the only form of birth control which was 95%+ effective was infanticide. You can see why every church opposed "birth control".

Marty

 

[JCFantasy23]

... it's effective only within a very narrow range of circumstances. I'd never rely on it.

I think the key is wise discernment for each couple. There are different reasons for choosing to be open to pregnancy - or not - at any given time, and some of those reasons are good and some are not. Also, there are different ethical considerations in play for different methods of contraception. It's not something susceptible to a one-size-fits-all answer.

Completely agree on the natural method, too inconsistent and chancy for a lot of couples, myself included. It wouldn't work with my cycle and system.

People have been fruitful, the population has been filled.

 

[Mountainmike]

People have been fruitful, the population has been filled.

Again, not entirely true.

Some societies are growing. In the west contraception is too effective, along with decisions not to have children, and so a serious threat is the so called "demographic timebomb " where reproduction rates are too low in many countries to sustain working populations, leaving ever fewer youngsters to support an ever greater number and percentage of retired, costing ever more to keep healthy.

It cannot end well. The costs do not add up.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Again, not entirely true.

Some societies are growing. In the west contraception is too effective, along with decisions not to have children, and a serious threat is the so called "demographic timebomb " where reproduction rates are too low to sustain working populations, leaving ever fewer youngsters to support an ever greater percentage of retired, costing ever more to keep healthy.

It cannot end well. The costs do not add up.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'reproduction rates being too low to sustain working populations' - I know many areas already struggle with having too many unemployed people and not enough work options. And what do you mean by 'costing ever more to keep healthy?'

You are correct that having smaller families may affect having less to take care of the elderly in the future - however, this is an issue we already struggle with in US culture. We're not necessarily known for putting the needs of our elderly first in comparison to the certain countries. Unfortunate but true.